Talk:Hamas

Quotes in citations

As per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19#Quotes in references and per WP:COPYVIO I will remove the quotes within the citations. This will also make the article a bit shorter (especially the references section) and easier to edit.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.07.2008 06:18

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect an incontrovertible evidence of Anti-zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 January 2009

Was Hamas created in 1976, 1986, 1987, 1988?

1976

The Oxford World Encyclopedia: "Hamas¶ The Islamic Resistance Movement founded in 1976 by Sheikh Yassin Ahmed, with the aim of creating an Islamic state in the former Palestine. "

1986:

"Son of Hamas": http://books.google.com/books?id=QFYw0R8S-KMC&lpg=PT282&pg=PT33

1987:

Wikipedia: "Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada."

The Corporate Security Professional's Handbook on Terrorism: "Hamas was a splinter group of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was created as a separate organization in 1987."

1988

http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/HAMAS2006.PDF: Hamas is a creation of the Palestinian branch of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood movement. The organization was created in 1988 by the late Sheikh 11 Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas ideologue and founder who was then a preacher of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood movement in Gaza. In concurrence with his teachings, Yassin and his followers formed Hamas as the “military wing” of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. 86.68.157.246 (talk) {BG}; edited: 86.68.157.246 (talk) {BG}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.157.246 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 January 2009

For 1987 I can add that it is mentioned that: 'Hamas was founded in 1987 (during the First Intifada)'. The first intifada started at December 1987 in that case Hamas was established on December 1987, When exactly? Maybe with the first manifest?

Both Filiue and Tamimi give December 14, 1987 as the date for the formal establishment of Hamas. Tamimi claims this was the date for the first communique signed Hamas, although according to Filiue, Hamas was not recognized as the official name for the Islamic resistance movement until February 1988.

Gaza Finance section

This at most needs to be boiled down to a few lines. It is scattered tidbits patched together with no synthetic thematic approach.

Gaza domestic funding

Hamas approved a 540-million-dollar government budget for 2010 with up to 90% coming from "undisclosed" foreign aid, which includes funding from Iran and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood according to western intelligence agencies. Due to the Gaza blockade, Hamas still faces a financial crisis. With a bureaucracy of around 30,000 staff, the organisation is growing faster than can be handled, with salaries being delayed or prioritised for the lowest paid. To fund its budget, Hamas has raised new taxes on businesses and imposed a 14.5% tax on luxury goods smuggled through the tunnels. Gaza businessmen have accused Hamas of profiting from the blockade and using these taxes to buy large tracts of land and private buildings for public facilities in competition to established businesses.

In August 2011, the U.S State Department threatened to cut 100 million dollars in aid it sends to the Gaza Strip if Hamas continues to insist upon auditing American foreign aid organizations after Hamas suspended operations of the International Medical Corps following the group's refusal to submit to an on-site audit. Most foreign charities submit their own audits to the Interior Ministry in Ramallah. Charities must be audited by law, possibly to ensure money is not diverted for political or intelligence-gathering purposes but as the U.S. government forbids direct contact with Hamas, the action prompted Washington to issue the threat via a third party. Aid provided by American and other foreign groups goes to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, where most of the 1.6 million residents are refugees.

A U.S. official based in the region said "USAID-funded partner organizations operating in Gaza are forced by Hamas's actions to suspend their assistance work. (They) were put on hold effective August 12." According to the official, Hamas demanded access to files and records of NGOs, which would reveal financial and administrative information, details of staff members and information on beneficiaries. He said Hamas shut down IMC and USAID after the U.S. objected to "unwarranted audits". Hamas administration official Taher al-Nono said Hamas had a right to monitor their work in the territory but an understanding had been reached that would allow independent auditing teams to inspect the files of NGOs.

A day after the U.S. announced it was suspending financial aid to Gaza, Hamas officials said they had reached an agreement with the United States that would allow USAID to continue operations.

In August 2011, the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip imposed new travel restrictions on Palestinians active in non-governmental organizations by requiring them to provide details of the trip to the ministry in what the Palestinian NGO Network regards as another Hamas attempt to control and hamper them. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights condemned the new laws. Tharut al Bic, head of the interior ministry's NGO department, stated, "the new instructions are intended to make it easier for travellers to better organize their trip and to preserve order." Hamas requires sick people wishing to leave the Gaza Strip to submit applications and meet various conditions, in addition to restrictions Israel imposes on Palestinians leaving Gaza.

In 2014 Fatah accused Hamas of stealing a total of $700 million from aid directed at Gaza Strip reconstruction and civilian casualties of the conflict. In the beginning of October Hamas soldiers raided one of the branches of Bank of Palestine and seized $750'000 in cash. A number of Fatah activists also accused Fatah leadership of organized theft of aid resources.

References

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,[1] 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)

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

@Veritycheck: 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)

References

Please also read WP:TPO, in regards to modifying posts by others. The context is Talk:Hamas#Deletion of superpower countries that recognize Hamas in the lead 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) - [2][3][4][5][6] (and "BUMP"s - [7][8][9][10]. A post to Talk:China–Palestine relations. In addition we have 15 user talk page posts - [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] (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. [26] 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. [27] 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 [28]. 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 [29]. 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 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)
• (Summoned by bot) Suport — Per—primarily—Alcherin'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 (Summoned by bot) 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: @Markbassett:, @Buffs:, @DonFB:, @L3x1:

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)

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.

References

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.

References

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 -

1. 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.
2. 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.

References

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 Veritycheck 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)