Talk:Hamas/Archive 18

Recent deletion of massive amounts of content
It has been pointed out that this happened. I'm posting this here so there can be more discussion about it.

Also, it seems odd to me that mention of terrorism is not included until the fifth paragraph, even though a number of nations (like the US) and international organizations (like the EU) consider either Hamas or parts of Hamas to be a terrorist organization.

Also, the sequence of sections after the lead have a weird order. One encounters huge sections about the etymology of Hamas (it means "zeal") and its organizational structure (apparently it has a 15-member Politburo) before encountering anything about what Hamas actually gets into the news for, i.e. terrorism and control of Gaza.

I think that the current structure (i.e. removal of the section on criticism and the order of the sections) could be considered to be downplaying certain aspects of this organization in a way not entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. OtterAM (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree insofar as their official designation as a FTO under the State Dept should be added to the lead, as long as the language is precise. As for why I moved the page, I should have probably discussed it here first but I think it was my second day in ARBPIA. It may have been a mistake. There were two reasons, 1)The article seems long enough that it is within guidelines to set up a spinoff. 2) At least some of the content was repeated in two sections (Rocket attacks is in the terrorism section, Al Aqsa TV is in the media section)...plainly, it was poorly organized. If any of the information that was moved to the new page has been left out of this article, such as Israel's position on human shields, that was unintentional on my part, and I would not object to its being restored. We could add a section on accusations of violations of International Law - as there have been allegations of this from NGOs - not only human shields, but I think also the use of children in war. I have a Law background and since it was my edit that caused the problem, I am happy to work with you to clean it up if you want. Seraphim System (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, and in a systemic violation of NPOV, most key articles on Israel are relatively encyclopedic, with strong limits on polemical intrusions. All articles dealing with Israel's adversaries, in particular with Palestinians, are stacked with every available news source or thematic development highlighting criticisms, negative aspects etc., and none past muster as NPOV. If you want an NPOV page on Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., no indulgence in lengthy overdocumentation of accusations should be tolerated on the main page: these should have (as in the Gaza wars articles) systematically split off into separate articles. As the author of the rewrite down to its charter, (shortly to be changed, nota bene) I stuck to outlining what the scholarly literature said about its history, name, institutional structure and functions. That is what is ignored in newspapers, and what encyclopedic articles do. There is no correlation between many of the charges extensively cited against Hamas, and the empirical record, on using human shields for example, and to clutter the main article with this is pure POV pushing, as it would be to clutter the IDF article with the equally widespread claims it targets civilians, children and uses people as shields. So when doing the article look at the Israel Defense Forces and use that as a model. It has none of the rampant POV attack mode results you get in this. Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally not acceptable, the article is now a whitewash. Especially as the massive removal was done without any discussion. Restoring. Drsmoo (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Restoring in the middle of a talk discussion would be a violation of the consensus clause. Seraphim System (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we'll wait to establish consensus, obviously your action was not acceptable. In response to Nishidani, I'd advise he read up on WP:Notaforum. I'll also remind him that (despite attempts to hide this information) Hamas is widely viewed as a terrorist organization. Drsmoo (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hamas is widely viewed as a terrorist organization. It is also widely viewed, not in the West, in other terms. We don't take sides, and editors should not be editing to make a case for one partner in the conflict. Compare Al-Qaeda, which has been far more devastating in global terms, and yet the article does not suffer from the POV point-scoring we get here in favour of its adversary. There have been no attempts to hide any information I am aware of. One thing editors should keep in mind is the powers of attention of the reader. All of these articles are unencyclopedic because they are tinkered with, by endless additions, without the editors glancing at them in terms of wiki's policy on how to write an encyclopedic article. It's far more devastating to get a succinct summary of the available evidence, from all perspectives. than to maul the readers' eye with a long stack of stuff that is repetitive, poorly written, and informed by only one consideration, POV-plastering to screw the perrceived enemy. To state the obvious is not to abuse WP:FORUM. It is to remind editors that we must produce succinct, analytic, neutral overviews, the more so the more controversial the topic. This has been done with the IDF, and many other articles on Israel. The model is ignored on most articles regarding Palestinian realities.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in my response to User:OtterAM, much of the material in the removed section is already covered in other sections. It is not a "whitewash" as you say. We are currently discussing whether and how certain material should be sourced and reintroduced into the article, in a way that is consistent with its structure. User:Nishidani raises valid concerns about sourcing, and one option we are considering is to improve the quality of sourcing. I think this is possible. You are welcome to join the discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about how to organize the article. If they're reliable sources they should stay in the article. Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be hard to believe, but this is not the only article I am working on - that said, I have zero interest in rewriting the entire article. After comparing the removed material with the current article, I am open to adding human shields back into the article. Here is my position: The main article for Human shields defines it as a political and military term, but it is currently widely in use in legal scholarship as a doctrine of law. I think it is a mistake to introduce further confusion about this. It should be cited first to the primary text of the law and so forth MOS:LAW. These accusations have greater significance then political bluster. Seraphim System (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are discussing the issue. My vote would be to largely put back the information, as I implied in my original comment. I'd be happy to help with this, if this is indeed how we decide to proceed. OtterAM (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I was definitely scolded for making a mess of things copy and pasting to a new page. There was some technical cleanup I still don't understand - needless to say I will leave the page moving to others from now on. I am not sure if copying and pasting back in, with the needed reorganization, would present a problem. Seraphim System (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I am open to expanding the currently existing media section, and adding a new section on international law/human shields which I would significantly rework and refimprove from the old version to focus on the ongoing scholarly discussion in law review. Seraphim System (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the text (although changed the order of the sections a bit) but made sure to leave the other changes that Seraphim System made after moving this section. In the next edit, I made some changes as proposed above to emphasize some of the more notable points about this topic. I also moved a misplaced subsection in the body of the article into another section. OtterAM (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not going to report it to ARBCOM, but ignoring consensus discussions to put in the changes you want with an edit summary that this reflects consensus is not ok. I am working on the human shields section now. We can open this up to RfC if you want, because I don't want to waste my time. Seraphim System (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically you see User:Nishidani and my objections to the sourcing and structure and poor organization of the original version, you agreed, and then you put it back in anyway. That is borderline uncivilized behavior. We have two who want to restore the old version, and two against, so the next step would be RfC and that is what I recommend for you instead of edit warring. Seraphim System (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say that this reflects consensus in the edits, just that I was carrying out my proposal. However, your earlier deletion of a huge section was done unilaterally too, and not based on consensus. OtterAM (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should RfC - that is the only way to do this in ARBPIA right now without risking ending up in ARBCOM. I was still new in ARBPIA when I did it, and I did it because it was cluttering up and already long article with repeat information, not for POV reasons. RfC is probably the best/only way to resolve this. Seraphim System (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You removed a large chunk of the article (which was built collaboratively) without consensus. Consensus needs to be established to remove that information. Drsmoo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Show me where that information removed was built collaboratively. Most of this page was built by successive additions over time, irrespective of consensus or collaboration. Most editors add bits and pieces, and edit is complete indifference to problems of structure. Structure here is a major problem.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These days I'm not sure what consensus means - since when has consensus meant that editors are not allowed to edit an article? Seraphim System (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really think this is worth escalating, but I think RfC would be more respectful to your fellow editors who have voiced objection for style reasons (over burdens article, repeat information, excessive citation, etc.) Seraphim System (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind undoing the revert you did to my second edit? (The first of the two reverts you performed.) My second edit was not related to the main area of contention (i.e., whether to include the criticism section), but rather on a different aspect of the article.OtterAM (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean the lead? I can restore it, I am not sure I can revert due to conflicting edits. Seraphim System (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Due to editing conflict I will self-revert both, but I still object to adding the original section back in without the revisions we discussed. Seraphim System (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The lead, but also moving a subsection from one section to another in the body. OtterAM (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's do a wider discussion of whether or not to move the "criticism" section to another article. OtterAM (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessarily needs to be removed, but significantly reorganized. I would suggest moving the rockets content to the already existing rockets section under the Violence and terrorism subheading, and the media section to the already existing media subheading. Children and Women as human shields should be in the section about human shields, and the magazine and Al Aqsa TV should be in the media section. The Children's section should be about the use of children as combatants. I think this would fix most of the problems with the section's poor organization. Seraphim System (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you can go ahead with your reorganization of this section. My main concern was that some of these issues (in particular issues related to human shields and comments by human-rights organizations) might be hard to find if the section were removed from the article. However, reorganization to improve the section sounds like good plan. OtterAM (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Why You mentioned that Hamas is antisemitism? Did they say that??? if yes where is the source from their own sources?? (All Arabs are Semitic) And Hamas is not Fundamentalist organization, it is a part of Muslim brotherhood which is a moderate islamic organization, and all people know that.

This articles is full of lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamasse (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideology: Antisemitism (until 2017)?
The sidebar names the ideology of the Hamas as "Antisemitism (until 2017)". It gives two sources, neither of which seem to say that Hamas is not an antisemitic organization as of 2017.

There are sources stating the opposite though 1,2,3.

As the antisemitism of the Hamas is apparent and well sourced - see eg the 1988 charter which is still in effect as of 2017, the quotes from various high-ranking members regarding Jews and the Holocaust, etc - a restriction like this should be supported by strong sources as well. As long as it is not, "(until 2017)" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zukorrom (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Zukorrom raises some fair points. And a change that significant should probably be discussed and consensus be gained on the talk page 1st. El_C 06:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2017
a new charter was published on 1st may 2017 by hamas, so this article needs major updates to reference this new charter, and to also to change the tense of comments related to the replaced 1988 charter. the new charter also has changes to the group's position in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood, a change in its negotiation boundaries, and its clarification on allegations of antisemitism and distinction with anti-zionism.

Further, there is significant bias in the current article which cherry picks quotes from the 1988 charter and interprets them in a non-objective manner to the benefit of occupying Israel. Upon response to this initial edit request, each instance of this can be particularlised and amendments proposed. Zali 999 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A reference to this change is made in the side-bar (hidden, so to speak, in a citation to the WSJ), but I could not find any of it in the actual text. Kdammers (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   01:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111223719/http://www.qassam.ps/aboutus.html to http://www.qassam.ps/aboutus.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812203213/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2CCHRON%2CISR%2C%2C469f38a8c%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2CCHRON%2CISR%2C%2C469f38a8c%2C0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120061025/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/675/re1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/675/re1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207074400/http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-06/11/01.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-06/11/01.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F06%2F15%2Finternational%2Fi025402D49.DTL&type=politics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120093842/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3268440%2C00.html to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3268440%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950866724&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723105318/http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/news/archive/2010/07/28/hamas-releases-second-response-to-goldstone-report.aspx to http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/news/archive/2010/07/28/hamas-releases-second-response-to-goldstone-report.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0%2C%2C2-10-1462_1867389%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thepress/read.php?id=1040
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013092026/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/terror_07e.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/terror_07e.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403024612/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Palestinian%2Bterror%2Bsince%2B2000/Victims%2Bof%2BPalestinian%2BViolence%2Band%2BTerrorism%2Bsinc.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Palestinian%2Bterror%2Bsince%2B2000/Victims%2Bof%2BPalestinian%2BViolence%2Band%2BTerrorism%2Bsinc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813152033/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729093431/http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55622 to http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55622
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728103620/http://www.qassam.ps/statement-1319-Twenty_two_years_on_the_start_of_Hamas_movement.html to http://www.qassam.ps/statement-1319-Twenty_two_years_on_the_start_of_Hamas_movement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720065737/http://www.phrmg.org/Fatah%20and%20hamas%20abuses%20since%20June%202007%20report%20_2_.pdf to http://www.phrmg.org/Fatah%20and%20hamas%20abuses%20since%20June%202007%20report%20_2_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Salaries and benefits for perpetrators of Palestinian political violence
By analyzing the Palestinian Authority’s Annual Budgets in Arabic 2013 – 2016, it has been discovered that the Palestinian Authority’s legislation and allocations of monthly salaries and benefits for imprisoned and released perpetrators of Palestinian political violence, and the families of Martyrs, amount to $300 million annually. Some of the perpetrators of Palestinian political violence identify themselves or have been identified as as part of Hamas.

Here is the complete research on the matter.


 * Copyright violation removed. Zerotalk 11:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add this information to the article to give a more complete information of Finances and funding of Hamas.

What do you think?

Nicolasegosum (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is a copyright violation and don't post that again. As to the material, in my opinion JCPA is a scurrilous organization that fails WP:RS. Zerotalk 11:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * JCPA analyzed the Palestinian Authority’s Annual Budgets in Arabic 2013 – 2016 and translated it. Here you can find it hosted on pmof.ps, the official website of the Palestinian Ministry of Finance. Nicolasegosum (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia - Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2017
I just read this. Do you think Saudi Arabia should be added to the section of countries which consider Hamas a terrorist organization?--181.93.231.83 (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9630
 * Added tag to http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=7087&jid=1&href=fulltext
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720001052/http://globalpolitician.com/24252-terror to http://globalpolitician.com/24252-terror
 * Added tag to http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=58&ar=HamasExploitationofCiviliansV&ak=null
 * Added tag to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes
 * Added tag to http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=58&ar=HamasExploitationofCiviliansV&ak=null
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212014352/http://middleeastfacts.com/Articles/teenage-suicide-bombers.php to http://middleeastfacts.com/Articles/teenage-suicide-bombers.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2017
Hamas was recently confirmed in the EU terror list. I ask somebody to add next to where it says "...in order to list organizations as terrorists.[432]" the following sentence: '''The European Union's top court ruled in 2017 that Hamas should remain on the EU terrorism blacklist. '''

--181.90.188.82 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

✅ (diff) but used Reuters for the ref and a text more fit to the context of the paragraph, though conveying the same idea. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2017
In the lead section, specifically this sentence: "The military wing of Hamas has launched attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, often justifying them as retaliatory" change "justifying" to "describing", as use of the term "justifying" implies that the attacks are in fact justified, and therefore violates the neurtal POV requirement. "Describing" is a much more neutral term. CJK09 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done per WP:NPOV. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   13:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Problematic bias in "violence" section
This section, under the thinly veiled cover of pacifism, presents a POV that the use of physical force against an occupier is always inherently wrong. While there is no doubt that Hamas does use violence, how this is presented is the issue. We need to address this and present the information in a more impartial way. For example, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article, there are no complaints about the Jewish Combat Organization and Polish Home Army using violence against occupying Germans. Same with French groups such as the French Forces of the Interior and Maquis (World War II) who used violence against German occupiers. The reality is, this is how people usually resist when an outside group takes over their country by force. As the article stands it takes a POV approach that Palestinians should not use physical force to resist the occupation of their country. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The page is outdated
Hama's has recently left the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sadman124 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC) I.e.Hamas distances itself from Muslim Brotherhood, seeks new role in region
 * This doesn't render the article out of date, but simply the few sections which mention the link. All one need do is adjust the text according to the source, which is

Yusduf Selman Inanç, Hamas distances itself from Muslim Brotherhood, seeks new role in region, Daily Sabah 24 February, 2017.Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613194342/http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/hamas.html to http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/hamas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725181521/http://palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=7087&jid=1&href=fulltext to http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=7087&jid=1&href=fulltext
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811140312/https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/7927-palestinian-government-criticises-un-position-on-gaza-tunnel to https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/7927-palestinian-government-criticises-un-position-on-gaza-tunnel
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805080903/http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA39307 to http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA39307
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804222805/http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/al_fateh_hamas.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/al_fateh_hamas.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120114454/http://www.adl.org/terrorism/profiles/al_aqsa_tv.asp to http://www.adl.org/terrorism/profiles/al_aqsa_tv.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514030330/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/03/content_12748559.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/03/content_12748559.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118123632/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aB2RfynNbLmk to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aB2RfynNbLmk
 * Added tag to http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache%3AIUoG7pzhCJsJ%3Awww.bicom.org.uk%2Fbackground%2Fresearch-and-analysis%2Fbicom-analysis%2Fbicom-fact-sheet-2--ashkelon---the-changing-scenario+Qassam+rockets+ashkelon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131122200005/http://onswipe.upi.com/upi to http://onswipe.upi.com/upi/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419025739/http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090113/FOREIGN/591536290/1011/rss to http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090113/FOREIGN/591536290/1011/rss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903231131/http://www.unrol.org/files/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf to http://www.unrol.org/files/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207145215/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=15&nav_id=45429 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=15&nav_id=45429
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815125329/http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/ifj-condemns-hamas-meddling-in-gaza-journalists-affairs to http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/ifj-condemns-hamas-meddling-in-gaza-journalists-affairs
 * Added tag to https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/mde2116432015eng.pdf
 * Added tag to https://www.amnesty.org/press-releases/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hama's being portrayed as a terrorist organisation
I think this article is biased and many facts are outdated as well.It is wrong that this article portrays Hamas as a terror group even though many countries don't recognise it as a terror group.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_positions_on_the_nature_of_Hamas 01234ssr (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310143530/http://books.sipri.org/files/RR/SIPRIRR23.pdf to http://books.sipri.org/files/RR/SIPRIRR23.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923141345/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11032 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11032
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807071834/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/video/2010-09/01/c_13472957.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/video/2010-09/01/c_13472957.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006164228/http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201112311414915283 to http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201112311414915283
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327103910/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9811/hamas_leaders.html to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9811/hamas_leaders.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hamas & Cair
What is Hamas’ relationship with Cair? Macnfry (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105120054/http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp to http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807211707/http://www.freemuse.org/sw10095.asp to http://www.freemuse.org/sw10095.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,COUNTRYREP,ISR,,3dc9379d4,0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805234113/http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1159712646109&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News%2FNews to https://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1159712646109&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News%2FNews
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102174646/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869343,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1869343,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Antisemitism in their ideology? They are clearly stating annihalation of Jews in their charter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellezzasolo (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2018
In sentence one of the second paragraph of the lead section, there should be a link to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Glenn984 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You are correct that the 1st sentence of the second paragraph is the first instance where PLO shows in the text, and it is not WikiLinked. However, the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph does contain a WikiLinked PLO. I would have moved it, but I am unsure if there was a specific reason why that was chosen as the more appropriate place for the WikiLink. Due to the sensitive nature of the article, I did not move it. Suffice it to say that PLO is Wikilinked, it's just further down in the lead. .   spintendo ⋅ ⋅ )  02:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2018
1. Add a space between "both" and "antisemitic" which appears as "bothantisemitic" on the rendered page, see below.

The foundational document, the Hamas Charter (mīthāq ḥarakat), is dated 18 August 1988, and contains bothantisemitic passages, characterizations of Israeli society as Nazi-like in its cruelty,

2. This same paragraph could be rephrased for clarity and without extraneous commas which confuse and mince the meaning of the paragraph.

Original: The foundational document, the Hamas Charter (mīthāq ḥarakat), is dated 18 August 1988, and contains bothantisemitic passages, characterizations of Israeli society as Nazi-like in its cruelty,[134] and irredentist claims that have never been revoked despite what some observers say are later policy changes in the organization regarding Israel,[135][136] and the Jews,[137][138] It declares all of Palestine waqf property endowed by God to Muslims,[139] with religious coexistence under Islam's wing.[140] The charter rejects a two-state solution, envisaging no peaceful settlement of the conflict apart from jihad.[141][142]

Proposal: The foundational document, the Hamas Charter (mīthāq ḥarakat), is dated 18 August 1988. It contains both antisemitic passages, such as characterizations of Israeli society as Nazi-like in its cruelty, as well as irredentist claims that have never been redacted despite purported subsequent policy changes within Hamas regarding Israel[135][136] and the Jews[137][138]. The charter declares all of Palestine waqf property endowed by God to Muslims[139] with religious coexistence on Islam's terms[140]. It rejects a two-state solution, envisaging no peaceful settlement of the conflict; only jihad [141][142]. Jdjennin (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Add quote related to 2014 conflict
There have been some secondary sources published regarding the 2014 conflcit and use of human shield which I believe merit some attention. In particular, the Stanford University Press published Tariq Baconi's "Hamas Contained" this year. One quote that he identifies from the 2014 conflict stands out, it is from Hamas current political leader during a 2014 event.

I propose to add the language in bold: this Hamas leader stated that "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel...the elderly excel at this...and so do the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children."[482] '''Prior to the 2014 Gaza confrontation, Hamas chief of Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh stated to a crowd that "we are a people who value death just like our enemies value life." " (I previously used the Extended Protect mechanism to request this alteration and Eggishorn asked me to first established consensus. Apologies for being hasty.  I would appreciate any feedback from the community, thank you)  Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (I was notified via my talk-page diff to this - this page is however on my watchlist, and I think Jonmayer18's intent was positive) My problem with the quote, which is seemingly in a RS, is that I am unable to find a second source verifying it. It is a very interesting quote, and I would expect to see it quite a bit more (also on the Wiki article) if it was verifible. It does seem Hamas MP Fathi Hammad said something similar (got to this looking for Haniyeh - I think this was in a user comment somewhere and ascribed to Haniyeh, while the link didn't quite add up). Unless we have a second strong source saying that Haniyeh said that - I would leave it out of our article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to know about the hasbara myth that Hamas used human shields, see Norman Finkelstein,Gaza:An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press, 2018 pp.68-81, which shows in great detail that third part investigations into these repeated claims could not be verified. Amnesty International for one wrote:

"In contrast to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks.'p.70"
 * They did find abundant evidence that, in defiance of IDF rules, Israeli soldiers regularly used Palestinian civilians and children as shields to protect themselves p.71, a practice with a long history that the Israeli Supreme Court condemned, without effect, over a decade ago. Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2018
This request was made by another user and marked as answered, but was not fixed. In sentence one of the second paragraph of the lead section, PLO should be a link to the Palestine Liberation Organization. The sentence reads as follows: "Hamas was founded in 1987,[17][18] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,[19][20] which in its Gaza branch had been non-confrontational towards Israel, refrained from resistance, and was hostile to the PLO." Thefray777 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The wikilink was attached to the second mention of PLO rather than the first. I've moved it as requested. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2018
In the third last sentence of the first paragraph in the 'history: Gaza Islamic roots and establishment of Hamas' section, the word 'into' should be replaced with 'to'. Original sentence: and concluded that loyal Muslims had a religious obligation ***into*** destroy Israel. Proposed edit: and concluded that loyal Muslims had a religious obligation ***to*** destroy Israel. Awweccshon1 (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Any objections to including 2012 War between Gaza and Israel?
The article Operation_Pillar_of_Defense needs serious copy editing, but it discusses 2012 and is the first war since the Israeli "withdrawal" from Gaza Shushugah (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2018
I am requesting that the 14th citation on this page (linking to an article on Hamas' terrorist designation that was published in euractiv) be replaced with a different article. I will link a more recent article that includes an updated ruling by a higher court, maintaining Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

proposed article url: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hamas-terrorist-organisation-ecj-european-court-of-justice-eu-uk-palestinian-israel-a7860301.html Awweccshon1 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 18:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of superpower countries that recognize Hamas in the lead
There are differing views on how Hamas is regarded globally. The U.S and Europe take one stance, while Russia and China take another. Both need to appear in the lead, not one. This article is not entitled "Western views on Hamas", is it? WP:NPOV requires both sides. The countries/union involved are all superpowers. The previous edit which included both stances will be re-inserted after 24 hours per WP:ARBPIAINTRO. Icewhiz as you deleted it, you are kindly asked to discuss and give your reasoning why you believe only the stance you choose should be included in the lead, namely the Western one. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Switzerland and Turkey are superpowers? I must have been out napping. The current text specifies that several countries regard it as terrorist - and goes on to list examples, it does not list those who have not designated Hamas. Russia's terrorist designation is specific to organizations that have attacked Russia, which Hamas has not done, and is not an indication beyond lack of attacks against Russians.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why you ask if Switzerland and Turkey are superpowers. However, Russia and China are - perhaps you have been napping? How Hamas is regarded is certainly important in the lead. Your edit seeks only to show how they are regarded by those who deem them terrorists - that my friend represents half the truth at best and does not meet NPOV. I will return the previous edit that represented both sides. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Two editors would like to see the lead showing ony Western views of Hamas; namely that as terrorists, excluding an accurate global perspective. This is not NPOV. The world's nations do not see Hamas the same way. The lead must reflect this. Russia and China do not view Hamas as terrorists and nor does the regional player, Turkey. Wikipedia must not become a tool for propaganda. We include the differing views of Hamas in the lead or none. The concept of NPOV is really not that difficult to understand. Those seeking to promote one view here while suppressing another clearly do not have Wikipedia's interests foremost, but rather their own agenda. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I reinserted Turkey/Russia/Switzerland for balance. I am inclined to say global perceptions of Hamas does not belong in the lead altogether, but if it does, then it should be balanced. Switzerland is a small country, but Turkey is a significant regional player, the same way Isreal is, even though neither countries are superpowers like the US, China or Russia. Shushugah (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, not every country which considers Hamas a terrorist organization is listed in lede, but only the most important ones (EU and US, while Israel is also mentioned for being the main enemy). If not, the lede would be too detailed and long, and information is covered elsewhere more specifically. Second, your attempt to portray a false balance between countries with different positions on Hamas is misleading, since countries like Russia and China don't consider Hamas as "freedom fighters" as you said (unlike Iran, which probably does). As you can see in this article, Russia sanctioned the Hamas-led government in 2006 as part of the Quarter, although they didn't designate them as terrorist in order to be able to held official talks with them in order to press the organization to renounce violence and recognize Israel. To pretend this Russian position is the opposite of countries like EU and US, or that the Russians defend Hamas (as Iran or Turkey would do) or even brand them as "freedom fighters" is completely false. Russia IS NOT an ally of Hamas. It's like saying that Peru supports Hamas because they don't have the organization in their terror list together with Shining Path. China, on the other hand, recognized the 2006 elections but remains neutral on Hamas, they don't support them in any way, shape or form. If any, China supports Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. There's no equivalence between the powers classifying Hamas as a terrorist organization and those who do not.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While Russia's position is clear and relevant (being part of the Quartet for instance), and Turkey's position is of some regional significance (and is also clear)... The same can not be said of China (barely involved in Israel/Palestine, and their position dates back to 2006 when they hosted a conference with Hamas government members (the Hamas, briefly, after winning the elections and before the major Hamas/PLO rift - being in government)) and Switzerland (which is regionally and globally mostly irrelevant). If we are to provided examples as a counterweight to the EU and the USA - Russia and Turkey are a better fit.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Switzerland is not necessary here. However, China as a superpower representing 20% of the population on earth is. A true counterweight with three on each side is acceptable; Two regional players Turkey and Israel, and four superpowers. That definitely provides the NPOV that was so blatantly missing. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * China's position on Hamas is scantily covered as China is very scantily involved in Israel/Palestine. Care to try and find a source stating China's views on Hamas that doesn't hark back to 2006?Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To say that China does not have a strong position on Palestine is entirely false and inaccurate. The possibility that Western media does not cover China's position adequately is probably the reason you assumed so. In deed, China supported UN Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli less than two years ago. Last year on July 25, at the United Nations, Chinese Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Liu Jieyi, spoke at the UN Security Council’s public meeting on the question of Palestine. Representatives of nearly 50 countries and organizations, including members of the Security Council and Palestine and Israel, attended the meeting. Liu Jieyi comprehensively introduced the "four-point proposal" proposed by President Xi Jinping to resolve the Palestinian issue and called on all parties concerned to respond and support actively. China has never withdrawn its support for Hamas. It seems that you are unaware of this. Care to try and find a source that says that China has withdrawn its support? Save your time, you won't find one. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the above indicate continued support for Hamas. What we do have, is China allowing Palestinian government officials (who at the time were Hamas) to attend a conference in China in 2006.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * China's tepid relation with Hamas, makes it all the more noteworthy. In 2006, they sent a Chinese representative to Gaza to specifically recognize Hamas election in 2006. Unlike Iran, they are not active funders and collaborators with Hamas. While the details of this are interesting, but are too much for the lede, as this entire conversation shows. Continuous support is not implied in any part of the lede and thus is irrelevant. Countries like Hamas and Russia have strong diplomatic relations with Israel, Fatah led PA and Hamas. 2006 is the most documented year in English media, simply because that's when the last election occurred. There have been more recent cases of relevance to China's recognition of Hamas, such as Bank of China money laundering. This article is generally informative about history/politics of China, and its Palestine policies. I appreciate that while this conversation is passionate, everyone has been civil so far. Let's continue that 😊 Shushugah (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see a more modern reference on China's position on Hamas (neither of the above - do - the money laundering doesn't address this, and thediplomat just references 2006 briefly). My personal ORish/FORUMish take (which I have seen in several sources - which I won't drag up) is that they don't really have a Palestine (or for that matter Syria, and a number of other locations "less interesting" to them) policy - but rather take positions in an ad-hoc and sporadic manner (contrast this with the EU or Russia who have a long standing and consistent policy on Palestine or Syria). In short - if we're basing inclusion in the lede (of all places) of China - we should have a better source than Chinese recognition circa 2006.Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It is undisputed that China has officially recognized Hamas. Implying that there has been any change regarding this is pure WP:OR and is unacceptable. China has had a long historic relationship with Palestine and has a vested interest in the region which it has made quite public in no less than putting its own peace plan on the table in 2017. China will be added to the article. You are free to search to your heart's content looking for a source which calls into question its support for Hamas, if that is your wish. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No - absent sourcing, the present position of China is unknown. What you do have a source for is that as of 2006 they hosted Hamas at a conference.Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The only sources required for the edit are that China does not regard Hamas as terrorists. Other arguments that have been presented here are straw men. Plain and simple. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Chinese recognition of Hamas officials in 2006 was a sporadic event several years ago, it doesn't show a trend nor policy. I agree that China has a record of supporting the Palestinian cause, but not Hamas.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Until more significant WP:RS is found, or a change of Chinese policy, I am happy to end here with what we have so far. Shushugah (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit doesn't' say that China supports Hamas, that is a straw man argument, but rather that it does not consider them to be a terrorist organization. Sources support this - "China has refused to label Hamas as a terrorist organization" 2016, "the Chinese, who do not consider Hamas a terror group..." 2013. The leg work has been done, the sources are there - The edit goes back up. At this point reverting has no grounds. China, a superpower with a peace plan on the table (2017) does not consider Hamas terrorists. This has just as much reason to be in the lead as America or the E.U. do. Let it go or this will go to the next step - RfC. What is worth fighting for here, NPOV or personal bias? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

China - Icewhiz's deletion of two paragraphs in the body
Icwhiz, you have deleted two paragraphs in the China section using fallacious edit summaries once again as per the previous discussion on the talk page of BDS Movement. In one case here, you deleted,

In 2014 Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on Israel to lift its In 2014 Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on Israel to lift its blockade and advised both Israel and Hamas to cease fighting. He reaffirmed support from China to the Palestinian people’s right to establish an independent state. He told a joint press conference, “China will grant $1.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.”

The source, dated 2014, states:

''Visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged on Sunday both Israel and the Gaza-ruling Hamas to stop the ongoing fighting, calling on Israel to lift its blockade of the restive enclave and release the Palestinians. China will grant $1.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, while the Chinese Red Cross will also provide humanitarian support towards the Gaza Strip," Wang noted.''

Your edit summary stated ”SYNTH/OR” for your removal when there was clearly none. If you can not demonstrate here what you deemed SYNTH/OR then please redact your accusation, revert yourself, and pay more careful attention to your edit summaries in the future.

In a second deletion, you removed another entire paragraph including in your edit summary “off topic”.

In June 2018, China voted in support of a United Nations Security Council resolution vetoed by the US that criticized Israel of excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians in Gaza during the 2018 Gaza border protests. Later the same day, China abstained from voting on a US drafted resolution that blamed Hamas for the escalated violence.

China’s abstention on a Security council vote blaming Hamas for the escalated violence is certainly on topic. Its interpretation is left to the reader. Note “abstained was linked”. In what respect do you see this off topic?

Rather than your wholesale deletes of well sourced paragraphs, it would be better to be more precise with what you wish to remove with edit summaries that actually correspond to your deletions. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed two recent additions -
 * this - sourced to Xinhua,Reuters. Reuters mentions China twice, Xinhua once - both sources in list form (with several other countries). China voted in favor of a resolution in support of the Palestinian people - inferring from this support for Hamas is OR/SYNTH - particularly when the sources say (indirectly - a bit ORish the way this was stated) that China abstained (an indication of lack of support) on a resolution that was specific to Hamas.
 * this - sourced to China Daily. The specific source does not indicate any support for Hamas - Wang Yi urged both Israel and Hamas to reach a ceasefire (supporting an Egyptian plan) - but did not express any support for Hamas itself.
 * Additions to the "International support" section should contain, as the title suggests, international support for Hamas. Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the following questions directed to you concerning your deletions of two paragraphs of sourced content.
 * 1. Please specifically quote what you perceive to be OR/SYNTH and what you take issue with in the edit you deleted,
 * "Later the same day, China abstained from voting on a US drafted resolution that blamed Hamas for the escalated violence." NB. The sources have already been provided to you in the second Reference box of this section.
 * 2. Furthermore, you changed the original, "welcomed Hamas’ foreign minister, Mahmoud al-Zahar" to, "welcomed the Palestinian foreign minister, Mahmoud al-Zahar". Both of the provided sources say, Hamas and not Palestinian. The first source says, "welcomed Hamas’ foreign minister", while the second source says, " welcomed Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas representative".
 * If you didn't know, Mahmoud al-Zahar is a co-founder of Hamas and his political party is listed as Hamas in his article at Wikipedia.
 * Why did you change the sourced information? Why did your edit expunge his affiliation with Hamas? You could have added "Palestinian" instead of the unwarranted deletion.
 * 3. You deleted, "In 2014 Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on Israel to lift its blockade and advised both Israel and Hamas to cease fighting". Your personal view of what constitutes "support" has no bearing here. The fact that the heading is called support does in no way preclude any other information dealing with China and Hamas relations from being included. If you're not happy with it in this section - then move it or rename the section, or better yet - leave it alone as this is the best place for it.


 * Wholesale deletion of content is not your only recourse. Again, I see a worrisome trend here as this is not the first article where your edits have deleted content in such a manner. As I'm sure you are aware, using delete takes all of a second, while researching well sourced content takes many hours. My edits always reflect what has been said in the reliable sources I provide. Contrarily, your edit summaries do not always reflect accurately or justify the removal of content as I have taken the time to show you above.


 * Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not address every assertion made in the wall of text above, however I shall say that if we were to include the voting record on Palestine issues by every country in the UNSC and/or every show of support by an international player for a ceasefire (brokered by others) - this would be a very long article indeed. Abstaining in a UNSC vote (on condemning Hamas) is not a show of support, nor is it a relationship. Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that China's persistence in treating Hamas as a party to the conflict that must be involved in the peace process is inconvenient but made some very good points regarding the specifics of your edits in that wall of text above. I would suggest you should address those specific questions about your contentious edits and seek consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, you were asked to address three points - I don't see your refusal to address them as conducive to the discussion, nor a justification for your deletes. You have deleted content on China's relations with Hamas on no fewer than five separate occasions in both the lead and body now, which makes your motives questionable. What does seem very clear from all of your edits is that there is an aversion, for whatever reason, on your part to include content concerning China/Hamas relations in this article. Lastly, I suggest you look up the difference between relations and relationship. I used the former while you suggested I used the latter - again inaccurate. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironies abound in diff - it would seem other editors involved here use relations and relationship interchangeably. As for the off topic material (not about support for Hamas) and a rather random UNSC vote (in which China, in the cited sources, is mentioned in a list alongside other countries - also offtopic as not about support) - I will step back let other editors weigh in.Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Including China's stance on Hamas in the lead
Should China, a country that does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization and that has a history and vested interest in the region with its own peace plan on the table in 2017, have a place in the lead to give the article NPOV and a global perspective?

The article currently says:

"(Hamas) is regarded, either in whole or in part, as a terrorist organization by several countries and international organizations, most notably by Israel, the United States and the European Union.[14][15][16] Russia and Turkey are among countries who do not regard it so.[17][18]"

For previous discussion and some background, see here.

For clarity, begin your edit with simply Support, Oppose, or Comment. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Comments


 * This RfC's question is not neutrally posed, stating the unknown present position of China as fact as well as adding other bits of unrelated info (e.g. the 2017 peace plan which does not address Hamas). This RfC should be withdrawn until it is neutrally and briefly stated per WP:RFC. Please keep personal opinions outside of the RfC question.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Context to the discussion has been linked and China's position is, in deed, known. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please also read WP:TPO, in regards to modifying posts by others. The context is Talk:Hamas where you were in minority. The RfC question is NOT the place to state you own position or thoughts on the issue.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your post was not modified. It was appended with "comment" as requested. Furthermore, four editors participated in the previous discussion – 2 deleted the entry which included China, yourself and יניב הורון while 2 inserted the entry, myself and Shushugah here. With only four editors participating and no strong consensus either way, the discussion was opened for comment to others.   Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - please note the extensive WP:CANVASSING here. Beyond a NPOV/n post (and BUMP) - we also have multiple wikiProject postings (some of them of a partisan sort, and omissions of some wiki projects are rather glaring) - (and "BUMP"s - . A post to Talk:China–Palestine relations. In addition we have 15 user talk page posts -  (the user talk page post saying the approach is due to being listed at Feedback request service Politics, government, and law, however per my count 15 users were canvassed out of a list of 207). Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been addressed with full transparency further down the discussion and commented on by other editors. No canvassing was involved. I suggest you strike your comment as a demonstration of WP:GOODFAITH. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Why would China's position be any less relevant than that of the USA or the EU? Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chinese recognition of Hamas officials in 2006 was a sporadic event several years ago, it doesn't show a trend nor policy.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question Has China ever rescinded that recognition subsequent to 2006? Because if they have not, your argument seems rather weak. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I think the emerging prominence of China in the region would mean that their position on Hamas as an organisation would warrant a brief mention in the lede after Russia and Turkey, as long as it is sourced correctly. Anything beyond a brief mention would be of undue weight. Alex Shih (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are two problems here - WP:WEIGHT, and WP:V/language (needs to be presented dated to 2006). China, for the most part, is rather silent on Israel/Palestine and is less invovled in the region - and due to this coverage of their positions on Israel/Palestine is rather scant. To make matters worse regarding their position on Hamas - the last time they took a position was in 2006 - when the Hamas/Fatah government (Palestinian Authority Government of March 2006) was in control of the PA and prior to the Battle of Gaza (2007) and the subsequent Hamas/Fatah split. Back in 2006 they hosted a conference in Beijing with members of the PA government - obviously things have changed quite a bit from 2006. More recent RSes (as the ones presented here - and there aren't that many!), mention the Chinese position on Hamas in a dated fashion - ascribing it to 2006 - which means we would have to do the same in the lede. Were China to take a stronger role in the region and/or make a clear stmt on Hamas that isn't dated (and it isn't just the 12 years - it's the major geopolitical rift between the PA/Gaza) - things might be different.Icewhiz (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a 2018 statement from a Foreign Ministry spokesperson where he comes down pretty hard on people blaming Hamas for civilian deaths. Between that and the absence of any retraction, it seems to me China's position hasn't changed. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore with all the OBOR stuff Xi has on the go, China's interest in the Middle East peace process is definitely growing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever China's current position (if they have a position) is regarding the Hamas, it would be WP:OR to state it is changed or unchanged from 2006. The circumstances in 2006 - a brief period in which Hamas was in government and prior to the Hamas / PLO rift and the battle of Gaza - are clearly different. I could see how China could choose to become a relevant player (as part of OBOR or otherwise), but that hasn't happened to date. Contrast this with Russia or Turkey (which we agreed to add to the lede) - whose position is well established and known and who play an active role in the region.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd contend it's WP:OR to suggest China's policy position has changed when they've never made any statement to that effect. We should assume that, as China has previously expressed support for Hamas and refuses to call them a terrorist organization now, that China does not consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We know what they said when the let in PA government officials, some Hamas, into a conference in 2006. Which brings us back to WP:WEIGHT - if the Chinese position were significant and they were asserting their (potentially quite large) power in this particular arena - we wouldn't be quibbling about the position being dated back to 2006. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * China's policy on foreign affairs is such that their rhetoric is not going to be a constant 24 hour scream like US foreign policy. They made a statement that Hamas is not a terrorist group which they never walked back. They have subsequently scolded reporters for blaming Hamas for IDF atrocities. It's pretty clear that China didn't start viewing Hamas as a terrorist organization in the meanwhile. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Reliable sources state clearly that China does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization. China has a long history with Palestine with its own article here on Wikipedia. To say that China has been silent couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s been very vocal from its formal recognition of Palestine decades ago before most other nations, through continued U.N. resolutions supporting Palestine in 1975, 2012, 2016 and finally with its recent 4-point peace proposal presented at the United Nations in 2017 to representatives of nearly 50 countries and organizations. It merits a place along side the views already expressed by the US and EU providing the article with NPOV. After all, the article is not entitled ‘Western views on Hamas’. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The coverage of China's peace-plan and their statements condemning others for blaming deaths on Hamas seems to be solid evidence that China is a relevant party to the conflict (in addition to their UN Security Council seat and its attendant veto which makes their opinion on virtually any international issue somewhat relevant). Arguing that their position is invalid because they haven't formally reissued it since 2006 seems strange--after what period of time do denunciations (or counter-denunciations) of terrorism automatically become invalid? Based on the content at List of designated terrorist groups, it seems that China actually does keep public lists of terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese and the article links to an archived old copy of the list. Ideally a Chinese-speaking editor could hunt down the most recent version of the list, but ultimately I don't see any reason to discount their previous declaration out of hand. Rosguill talk 17:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think that list is exhaustive; it's entirely East Turkestan related groups. And while Uighur extremism is certainly the "Terrorism" that most occupies Chinese attention, it's not the only thing that is counted by the PRC. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The link from the article goes directly to press releases about East Turkestan organizations. However, consider this parent page on the archived site, with the translated title "Terrorist organizations and terrorists identified by the Ministry of Public Security". It is outdated, and also seems to be primarily concerned with Turkestan activity, but presumably there could exist other such pages that are more up to date? The same wiki article also has links to press releases of China denouncing ISIS/ISIL as terrorists, so clearly China doesn't exclusively denounce organizations operating inside its borders. Rosguill talk 18:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - On account of coverage concerning China's involvement with Hamas vs. coverage concerning Turkey/Russia's involvement with Hamas. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The purpose of this text is to provide information about the international community's stance on Hamas, and China - a permanent UN security council member - is a very notable member of the international community. Though it's not unreasonable to say that China is not nearly as involved in the region as some of the other nations, and therefore their opinion is of less relevance, that is for the readers to decide on their own. Provide the information in the leading section on what the international community has to say, and allow the readers to do with that information whatever they will. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Brendon the Wizard (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)


 * Oppose - the position of China is both unclear and mixed. If at least the former changed, then including it would be beneficial, however until that changes, I believe not including it is the logical thing to do. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question upon what basis is China's position mixed? The "unclear" thing seems rooted in the statement being 2006, but again, there's no sunset date for these sorts of policy statements so that's irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy positions are always transient and correct for when they are made - this wasn't a formal and everlasting declaration (or a treaty) - merely remarks and admission to a conference. If I dig up a US state department position regarding the Second Boer War, I'm fairly sure it has expired in relevance.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a facile analogy, which seems more motivated out of a desire to keep the POV balance being one of "everybody except a few locals think they're terrorists" rather than the much more complicated truth that Hamas, while seen as terrorists by some are seen as a legitimate party in the conflict by others. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They are completely the opposite to the USA in how their policy is considered and developed and are not driven by elections as such, and less so by electoral opinion so their policy positions don't change until the party decides it, so I don't think your argument holds water. There is no evidence the position has changed at all. scope_creep (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see how the debate over whether or not the 2006 position is still relevant is in itself relevant given that the RFC only mentions including China as a country that doesn't include Hamas in its list of/declared terrorist organisations. At present there are no sources that indicate China has declared Hamas a terrorist organisation and therefore what was said in 2006 doesn't matter - it is still true to say China does not consider Hamas a terrorist organisation because it has not declared it one ever, and that it has not done so is a position in itself. Foreign policy statements might be transient but a formal list of terrorist organisations is not. We do have at least one source that confirms China does not consider Hamas a terrorist organisation (the Times of Israel link) and the Chinese Wikipedia article on Hamas has another . As for whether China is worth mentioning per WP:WEIGHT, as per BrendonTheWizard the article is supposed to give a picture of the international community's stance on Hamas. With China as a UNSC permanent member it has had to become involved in issues surrounding Hamas separate from its own foreign policy actions and declarations, such as abstaining from voting for a draft UNSC resolution tabled by the US in June this year that would have declared Hamas a terrorist organisation . To say China is not involved as a big player in the region is somewhat true but they do have some clout that influences the Palestine issue as a result of being a UNSC member, let alone its investments in Palestine. Alcherin (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alcherin (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
 * Support China has a long record of making decisions,and treaties and sticking to them. There communist party government means that no single person who is a communist member would ever go against the communist party, and utter any statements that were not a priori approved by the party, at the expense of their party, and of course themselves re pain of death, expulsion, tried for corruption and all the other concomitant actions that occur when you are expelled from the party, as has been seen in the past. Hence no person in the country would make any kind of statement to the press, concerning government business, as they would be heavily censured, and not believed for the most part. Saying anything that is not a priori approved, doesn't hold water. That fact they have said that, and not stated anything otherwise, means it is still in place. They are nothing like the US, where stuff is discussed endlessly, and position changed. In fact they are the polar opposite. Their party meets every 5 years, they take a position, and then one person decided that, and it all comes from him. And the evidence is there. scope_creep (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As an ex-Yugoslavian, all I can say is: sure :)  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - of course, why is this question even being asked? China is a significant enough world player to be included in the lead of this article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Note: I was involved in original discussion and editing. Alcherin's arguments are most convincing for me and hope that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Shushugah (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The fact that China has accepted Hamas' government should earn it a place in the lead unless such recognition has been withdrawn. While the country's involvement in the conflict is admittedly sporadic or mixed, there are factors that could show its commitment to this policy position. First, there is the pragmatism it demonstrated when dealing with Islamists, which is partly based on mutual interest with Arab countries. There is also the fact that despite China's support for the Clinton administration's initiatives, the Madrid Accords, and the Bush Roadmap to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict, it has often followed the Russian positions on the issue. Also, the low-key recognition for the Hamas government does not mean tepid involvement since some observers view it as an opportunity for China to become the peacemaker. By avoiding to alienate any major player or make major commitments, it can play the mediator, which has been demonstrated in its participation in the peace process together with partners like the UN and the Quartet.Darwin Naz (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Suport — Per—primarily—'s arguments. Although not as involved as the United States, China has supported the Hamas government on many occasions. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Concur with others. VeritasVox (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. If we're going to list the positions of major nations on it, including China seems obvious; and the arguments above that China's position may have changed in the past 12 years seem weak.  If it has, find a source saying so, don't speculate - given the significance of the topic, it should be easy to find reliable sources discussing it if there's reason to think China's position has shifted. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. As per above arguments in favor of the suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support These aren't minor international actors and they have been involved for a long time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not enough content in article to satisfy WP:LEAD, and the significance seems less than what Iraq or Iran say. The mentioned U.S., EU, Russia, and Turkey seem the major political and military powers active in the region, and China is not.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Inclusion in the WP:LEDE would need expansion in the rest of the article. The lead is effectively supposed to be an executive summary of the rest of the article. Including China here is effectively a footnote. Expand it in the rest of the article and I'd support its inclusion. For the record, I wasn't canvased and only replied because this talk page came up in my watchlist. Have a good day! Buffs (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - China is mentioned only once in the entire body of the article, stating--again--that it does not regard Hamas as a terrorist organization. Inclusion in the lede--and the article for that matter--amounts to a low-importance factoid. I would also eliminate Russia, and instead make the statement in the lede that Turkey and Qatar are Hamas' only two firm allies, as stated (with a reference from 2014) in the 'Qatar and Turkey' subsection of the 'International Support' section. DonFB (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I concur with others it would be Undue ATM to place China int he lead, prior to further expansions or a fork on it's views and activities. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  02:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Three paragraphs dedicated to China's relations with Hamas have now been added to body of article in its International Support section. Expanded on the advice of:, , ,

Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing
Concerning Icewhiz's canvassing tagging - I sent talk page requests to random editors (with a minimum of having edited in the last two months) who listed their names on Feedback request service Politics, government, and law and Feedback request service History and Geography to participate, about 15 in total. I do not know these editors, nor anything about the articles they have edited or content within. On one list I went bottom up and another I went top down which can be verified quite easily by checking the lists with my contributions. After this explanation, I expect Icewhiz to remove the tags. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way which is not the case here. I sought participation - period. The following is the message that was sent which did not suggest any way to vote but only to participate:

''We need your input! Request for Comment - Including China's stance on Hamas''

''Your name was found on Feedback request service Politics, government, and law. Please join the discussion here and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's position concerning Hamas. Thanks!''

Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I might add that it's quite significant that Icewhiz did not tag the oppose vote by Nosebagbear that also received a message in the same way as above per the feedback request. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would note that whenever I'm asked in this style for content I read the request fairly carefully and don't follow the links to any that don't appear neutral. It was (and is) fine to notify in this method - indeed I would ultimately !vote in a style opposite that to Veritycheck. As regards this specific style of notifications, at least, it doesn't appear to satisfy any of the CANVASS issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Prior to be called out, no notification here was made of this solicitation, whose scope (NPOV/n, some 5 wikiprojects (with quite telling omissions), an article talke page, and 15 individual users) is irregular. If I missed anyone in my tagging - I apologise - I matched the multiple !voters and multiple solicitations manually).Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A moment of reflection
@Icewhiz - Reading your essay entitled, Darned politics, on your User page, I could identify with much of what you said. I have also had to deal with edit-warring, itty-bitty bickering, and what’s becoming a 10-foot long talk page over one word, China. Ironically, this situation is happening here as a result of a single editor’s edits, and those would be yours. Consequently, your attitude, in this case, is hypocritical considering your thoughtful essay juxtaposed with the antics you have shown here.

You’ve spent a lot of energy attempting to discredit an honest edit with false allegations of Canvassing, false reporting of a non-existent prior consensus in your favor, a false accusation of me “modifying” your post, and even trying to stop this RfC from the very beginning. At this point, I’m asking myself if it’s all worth it? But what keeps me going is that the suppression of truth is my pet peeve and your edits have ‘pushed my button.’ Your edits on this article have sought to wipe out each and every inclusion of any country in the lead that doesn't consider Hamas terrorists 12 which is at odds with what you expound in your essay concerning NPOV. At the end of the day, I’m just another editor trying to improve articles by making them NPOV which is why I came to this article; nothing more, nothing less. I urge you to drop the shenanigans and focus your edits solely on the argument at hand and return to your ideals laid out in your essay - Goodfaith being one. Let’s both let the RfC run its course and accept the outcome. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is bullshit. With the way you worded your messages It seems reasonable to me that they'd have concerns about improper canvassing. Comparable to "Uncle Sam wants you." "We need your input!" "give your needed opinion". And the neutral closer can review all of that later. If you are going to ask him to stop his "Shenanigans" can you stop your soapboxing?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Criticism
Why is the critiscm section repeated here and in the separate article? I don't remember the full history but at some point some of the content was worked into the article more naturally (See Hamas and Hamas which contains some of the original content also in Criticsm of Hamas). Looking over the Criticsm section I'm starting to regret spinning it out since it now exists in two places and it was largely unneeded to begin with - I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea to look through the article and work in the content into relevant sections here. My suggestions would be:


 * Leave Al Aqsa TV under media
 * Leave rocket attacks under violent
 * Create a new section for "Human rights violations and international law" that is sourced to weighty sources and covers the subject in an effective manner. This would make the section shorter and cover it generally, trimming some of the WP:COATRACK content that's accumulated in this section: and and also

I'm willing to look around to find some law sources to do this, but I don't want it to turn into a whole shitstorm because it's a large amount of content. Seraphim System ( talk ) 21:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The existence of a spin-off article may be cause for expansion of the spin-off, not for redaction of DUE content here. Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, why don't you actually look at the article before commenting that criticsm of Hamas should be expaneded. This incorrectly titled section is basically about violations or international law and no, it should not be sourced to random WP:COATRACK quotes from media sources. In fact, there's no reason to use media sources here. These issues have been discussed in important and highly cited articles in law sources and other expert sources and I'm already planning a rewrite sourced to those sources. The "non-critiscm" sections include "Terrorism and violence" and "Antisemitism and anti-Zionism". The section as it is is suffers from false attribution (attributing to the New York Times statements of the Israeli army, content cited to YouTube accounts that have been terminated for COPYVIO, etc.) There's absolutely no question of expansion until the existing content is cleaned up. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Finances and funding
According to the Reuter’s article from 29 August, 2017, Iran reinstated funding of Hamas as both sides “reconciled” over Syria and Yemen differences. It’s worth adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E006:691:5801:583A:8F6C:7B7F:A4FD (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting space.
In Hamas, there is the following sentence: "Hamas developed its social welfare programme by replicating the model established by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.For them, charity and the development of one's community are prescribed by religion, and, at the same time, are to be understood as forms of resistance." The "Brotherhood.For them" should be corrected by placing a space after the period. -Xbony2 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

IDF blogs
These sources are not unbiased and are being used wrongly in this article. I am going to work in this article in the future I just wanted some attention to this problem in the meantime .--SharabSalam (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All uses here are attributed quotes, for which they are a perfectly reliable source. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats missing the point, and you know that. Every source is a reliable source for what that own source says. Whether or not that source should be included is an entirely different topic. Usually, the answer is if the source is only reliable for their own views then they should not be included in an encyclopedia article. If the IDF blogs have views that actual reliable sources have taken seriously then those views can be included. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan
change ((Recep Tayyip Erdogan)) to ((Recep Tayyip Erdoğan)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:e567:a0df:e568:67b4 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes check.svg Done <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 17:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2019
I would propose that a paragraph is added concerning finance. A lot of stuff has happened technology and Hamas is experimenting with using cryptocurrency for fundraising from around the world.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currencies-hamas/hamas-shifts-tactics-in-bitcoin-fundraising-highlighting-crypto-risks-research-idUKKCN1S20FA

Additionally, Iran has declined its funding of Hamas. Satoshibundaberg (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. You need to write such a paragraph here first, as well as provide sources for Iran declining funding. El_C 15:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)