Talk:Hamas

message: there is a whole article that states that Turkey supports Hamas - Turkish support for Hamas. 
The most recent article about this: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-leader-visit-turkey-talks-with-erdogan-2024-04-17/
Turkey is defenitely a Hamas ally. RAMSES$44932 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the allies and enemies listing is helpful, given the complex nature of various relationships. Eg this report which was later denied by Turkey. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Turkey removed?  

message: Wikipedia describes occupation as territory actually being placed under the authority of a hostile army. This article states Hamas has been governing since 2007 & that Gaza is Israeli-occupied. Can this sentence be updated to reflect the correct status of which areas Israel currently occupies as of 2007 - such as describing Gaza with an up-to-date word and/or phrase or using a phrase such as "...following occupation by Israel." (A previous edit to the talk page refered to the risk of creating a duplicate link. This is not a suggestion of linking to another article.) Wikchard (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN and most human rights organizations continue to consider Gaza to be occupied by Israel as Israel, prior to this latest offensive, controlled Gaza's airspace, territorial waters, population registry, and most border crossings. That, in their view, equated to the exercise of "effective military control" over the territory and as such Gaza remained occupied by Israel. That isn't even in question right now anyway, but even before the invasion by Israeli ground forces the majority view was Israel continues to occupy Gaza. See for example here:many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways. nableezy -  14:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation of Gaza 

message: The lead contains more vague statements that I wanted to address (and still want to), but recently (12 May, 05:49), one more vague sentence was added: the last sentence in paragraph three, about “foreign…relations…Egypt…(etc.)”. Its first five words seem redundant: aren’t (foreign) “relations with Egypt” etc. logically and always part of “foreign policy”? But the sentence ails also in graver respects. 
 
The sentence tells us about “seeking” (frn) relations but not about finding them. Is seeking more important than finding or having? If yes: why? If no: this leads to the conclusion that they have sought, but couldn’t find. But how then did they ‘seek’, concretely? (And why did they not succeed?) ‘Seeking relations’ is only metaphorical (thus vague) language, since ‘relation’ is an abstraction. If Wikipedia can’t tell what Hamas actually concretely did for ‘seeking relations’, except this vague metaphore, this vagueness tells us nothing, really; and a lead section seems not the place for vague idlenesses. 
 
Our section Hamas#Foreign relations however tells us, among much more, that a Hamas minister has “visited (…) Syria”, etc. etc., so Hamas' ‘foreign relations’ actually existed and perhaps still exist. In that obvious case, it is misleading to tell the readers in the lead section only about “seeking” frgn relations but concealing that Hamas indeed also has, or had, such relations. A Wikipedia article however shouldn’t be used for such deception of our reading public. So, please, colleague @Vice regent (and others), either replace this vagueness with serious and highly relevant information, worthy for a place in the lead section, or expect at some moment, sooner or later, this sentence to be deleted. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you be WP:BOLD and rewrite the sentence based on the information in the Foreign Relations section. Alaexis¿question? 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: , no one is attempting to "deceive" anyone, please WP:AGF and refrain from making WP:Personal attacks. I don't see much of a difference between Hamas has sought and Hamas has maintained foreign relations, but I'm happy to change it to maintained foreign relations.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I find "sought out" to be a better choice because it reflects Hamas's choices and strategic aims. Baconi for example stated (I can't recall the page but I can dig it) that since a long time Hamas has been eager to get Saudi diplomatic and political and support, but the Saudis didn't always reciprocate that interest. Likewise, many sources have said that Hamas, given Gaza's geography, has strongly emphasized good relations with Egypt, although Egyptian interest in relations with Hamas has fluctuated. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No vague, meaningless (and even deceiving) sentences please, in the lead section (about “foreign relations”…) 

message: The image of the emblem, :File:Emblem of Hamas Vector Graphic.svg, which is currently in the main infobox should be replaced with the locally uploaded :File:Emblem of Hamas.svg as the former was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, posing a potential copyright violation as it conveys the same meaning of the emblem.
The new image is a vectorization of the emblem frequently seen in Hamas speeches, which means it is more official: , 
The previous infobox image appears to be more stylistic rather than official.
Bambobee (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024 

message: Corriebertus, with all due respect, I disagree with how you are organizing the article. For example, I disagree with your recent organization of the foreign policy section. Wikipedia:Summary style calls for each subsection to contain a summary of a sub-topic. So "Foreign relations" should contain a summary of Hamas' foreign relations and full treatment should be given in another article. Prior to your edits, there was indeed a summary, but I agree that it was a terrible summary. In your edit, you removed the summary altogether.
The summary is important not just for organizational reasons but also because certain things are connected to one another. Take a simple example. Previously the section summary said:
With your reorganization, we would cover this information like this:
;Syria
In 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Syria.
;Qatar 
In 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Qatar.
...and so on. In your organization theme, where everything is broken down by countries, a particular foreign policy theme that spans across countries is lost.
I hope you will engage me in constructive dialogue on how to best organize this article which is already too long.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  for discussing this point, here. I (still) consider section ‘Foreign relations’ (very) intransparent, unstructured etc.. But that does not mean, that my attempted ‘improvement’ on 20 May was good enough; in retrospect, it seems to have been perhaps a little overhasty (not necessarily for all the reasons you mentioned here). --Corriebertus (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational issues 

message: In the criticism section it says that the European Parliament started the 2023 Israeli-Hamas war. This is untrue. GingerNinja2711 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   edit request on 26 May 2024 

message: “The charter is said to echoe Nazi propaganda in claiming that Jews profited during World War II” - spelling mistake of echo aside, the Nazis did not spread propaganda claiming Jews profited during World War 2. Why would they? It would make them look incompetent given they were in charge. They also did not spread propaganda following the second world war, since they were either in hiding or on trial.
I know they spread the “stab in the back” myth about the first world war, so maybe WW2 was a typo, but if so it just needs editing with a source about Nazi propaganda that specifically claims Jewish people profited from that war.
Or, if the typo was using “Nazi” instead of “Neo Nazi” then same goes.
But if it was meant as is, it’s categorically false. The Nazis never would have claimed that Jewish people were benefiting as a result of their actions.
KittyBukowski (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? Or misinformation?