Talk:Hamas

Why was Turkey removed?

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)

I'm not sure if the allies and enemies listing is helpful, given the complex nature of various relationships. Eg this report[1] which was later denied by Turkey. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

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: [2], [3]

The previous infobox image appears to be more stylistic rather than official.

Bambobee (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Organizational issues

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:

After winning the Palestinian elections, Hamas leaders made multi-national diplomatic tours abroad. In April 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt.

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)

Thanks @Vice regent: 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)

edit request on 26 May 2024

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)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

2001:1970:52E9:4C00:F0D1:F193:97CE:EB37 (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
In section two (2) "History" the claim:  Israel responded by invading Gaza Strip and killing 35,000 Palestinians, majority of them women and children. needs to be cited or removed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69014893.amp

There are lots of sources, BBC is a good choice as it can’t be accused of favouring Palestine. Not sure why you’d want it removed. Even with the unidentified remains skewing the demographics, the majority of identified victims are still women and children. KittyBukowski (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done removed as unsourced. Also poorly written. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Typo? Or misinformation?

“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)

References for casualties being "vastly" comprised of non-combatants

Only 1 of the 3 references provided actually includes the qualifier "vastly", while the others only mention the estimated number.

If this article must to mention civilian casualties in the latest conflict, it should defer to sources in the more relevant article, Israel–Hamas war, which includes a news article with a quote from a WHO spokesman that estimates a 56% civilian casualty rate, which is not a percentage compatible with the usage of "vastly".

I propose removing the 3 news sources in this article and replacing them the source from the Israel–Hamas war article. Tog000 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)