Talk:Hamas/Archive 19

Notes

Citations

Sources

• In an article like this WP:NPOV is the dominant requirement.
• The names are given in alphabetical order because that avoids prioritizing.
• All of the sources are recent, scholarly and book-based.
• All of the sources unlike the other version are not clipped from pre-existing text, but examined and verified, with the content in notes.
• There are actually three positions. The first defines Hamas's actions as terroristic; the second defines them as legitimate in context; the third abstains from judgment, and maintains links with Hamas.

Robère’s version requires 9 sources. One, Israel Hayom, is notoriously not a reliable source. They are badly formatted: ‘state’ should indicate that it is the US Department of State report (for 2005) etc; newspapers are used, www.WashingtonPost.com. Times of Israel. BBC, Jerusalem Post, Middle East monitor, Newspapers are useful for contemporary events. But there are dozens of reputable book length studies and articles on Hamas by specialists which, given the priority they are accorded for best referencing at WP:RS, must take precedence, since they synthesize and do not suffer from WP:Recentism. My version restricts references to books by academics specializing in the field, and has just 4 refs for this, a notable reduction in space, also for the template used.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: "My" version doesn't change anything in terms of sourcing, since it's just copyedit. I'm getting the feeling you're trying to "hitch a ride" on my suggestion to push sourcing changes you couldn't get earlier. Now can you address the copyedit or not? François Robere (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My rule is, don't copyedit anything without (a) reading every source plunked in by any of the 1000 contributors over 18 years to an article like this (b) if the passage is flawed, oversourced, inept, question-begging etc., proper copyediting requires one to go through the quality literature and find a better way of expressing the generalization, so that it fits NPOV. Famously a copyeditor need not understand the book they are editing or evaluate the accuracy of what is written: all they need do is ensure the spelling is correct, the syntax acceptable, and that the ductus flows. This is an encyclopedia of which the reader expects high quality source control, accuracy of representation, and neutrality. Those issues emerge every time one copyedits.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately this edit is only from December 2019, and it isn't sourced, so we needn't go to those lengths. Now, do you have any concrete objection? François Robere (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You haven't read the thread. Read it. It shows why your suggestion is completely unacceptable, in part because it is based on an unacceptable sentence, in part because you have not listened to objections to it and your version, or sought a compromise. I gave one possible version to edit in which in my view fixes these defects, and you ignore it. So, kindly try and read the thread again, and reply to the suggestions offering tweaks, replacement of old sources, and emendments to your proposed text, and then get back to us.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your objections thus far have been: a) who determines what's a terrorist organization? (I don't care, that has nothing to do with my edit); and b) the sources are bad (I didn't touch the sources). What you haven't addressed is why the sentence I removed is anything more than WP:EDITORIAL. Oh, and there was that unsigned comment in which you made your suggestion, which you're now complaining I ignored.

Your suggestion is too verbose and makes needless use of footnotes. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is too succinct, tendentious in its calculated reduction of three positions to two where what the West decries as 'terrorist', the autocratic powers of the 'East' deny. We had for substantial periods a nuanced couple of lines on these complexities, which have been dumbdowned to puerile caricature, and now repackaged in the even more misleading précis you propose. And by the way, footnotes allow readers, if they want, to check the data base on which gross generalizations are based, do not harm maintext. I don't think readers should trust wiki editors, particularly on articles like this, which are obsessed over by nationalists. So, whatever the merits of my proposal, yours hasn't got off the ground - too much shoving under the carpet key dissonances (Brazil, Norway, Switzerland etc).Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Which again, is just a copy edit, and one that you yourself don't object as such; so I suggest we move along with the copy edit then discuss the matter further.

Not it isn't just a copyedit. It is an attempt to disrupt NPOV. Your trim just juxtaposes civil to non-Western nations, and is decidedly POVpushing.

As for your suggestion: there's no doubt that Hamas has used terrorism - attack of civilian population intended to sow a general feeling of dread - as a strategy. There's also little doubt that the countries that are lenient towards it are autocratic and have a similarly lenient attitude towards human and civil rights. As for the "dissonances" - two of them are neutral and have been so historically (eg. in WWII), so their position doesn't have much to do with how one defined Hamas. The last one, Brazil... well, if we're going that far of we might as well mention Paraguay. François Robere (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I know all about Hamas's historic resort to terrorism,(when I mention the parallels with Israel, endlessly, all POV editors ignore the reminder and keep, just as hasbara advocates (present company excluded) are trained to do, the discourse focused on 'them') as I know all about Israel's use of terrorism in the pre-state error and state terrorism after independence. Don't talk to me at least about sowing a 'general feeling of dread' as peculiar to Hamas. If Amnesty International, an org rightly critical of Hamas, can describe a half century of occupation by Israel as one in which Palestinians from childhood onwards have been constrained to live in 'humiliation and fear', what you say about Hamas is true for a few key days, but historically peanuts by comparison. The decision is not a matter of 'leniency'. Norway has a long history of working for peace, of high quality analysis of the core problems and issues, and that is why it abstains from joining the Western block's general appeasement of Israel's position. The 2014 Eu court annulment of the terrorist label (2003) specified that it had been applied by the Union in violation of standard procedures, i.e., by using press clips and googled internet clues, and had no sound evidential basis or rational analysis to warrant the label. The EU court eventually vindicated the right to use the epithet. Nations like Paraguay adopt positions based on commercial deals, as is well documented, something untrue of Brazil's position - made despite thriving military and commercial deals with Israel.

To repeat, therefore, the line you précis needs expansion because it is already vitiated by a bias, which is the result of constant trimming of important distinctions the article once had in the lead. Trimming it further as you propose only exacerbates the witting drift towards a sound bite of simplistic distortion. Don't put it in, just as I refrain from putting my version in. If that text is to be changed, it should be done consensually.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is fascinating, but do you have sources that back your assertions regarding eg. Brazil and Paraguay in this context? Would you like to mention both, or neither? Would you like to mention that Norway and Switzerland have remained neutral in world affairs for over 100 and 500 years, respectively, or just state their approach towards Hamas without context? François Robere (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope. (Of course I have sources for both but this is not a forum for discussing Paraguay or Brazil, as you remind me. Paraguay's move was fence-mending after it reversed its embassy shift to Jerusalem and got heated abuse from Israel in 2018; Israel only reopened its embassy in Asuncion in 2016 after 13 years, when funds were suddenly allocated to do so etc.etc.etc.) You came here out of the blue (a) proposing a trim to one phrase in the lead (b) your proposal gained the usual two or three votes, without discussion (c) two editors examined both the original and the version you proposed and found them wanting (d) alternative emendments, equally valid, were suggested (for discussion) (e) You ignored the alternatives and keep repeating your text, not moving a nano-inch from the text you originally proposed (e) Several academic sources were brought in to throw further light on the issue - all show that the list of countries there is more expansive than either of the versions you are handling (f) you airily ignored this new material and the work done to assist consensus forming (g) So, the picture is, you won't budge under any form of discussion that tweaks, emends, suggests modifications to the form you want. Therefore, the proposal fails the rules governing WP:CONSENSUS formation advised for situations like this. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, WP:NOTFORUM. I'm asking you question about your suggestion. Would you like to propose one that takes into account my comments on neutrality, unrelated nations, and style (verboseness and footnotes)? ATM we're 3-4 votes for my proposition and 2-3 for yours (with TheTimesAreAChanging supporting both), if you're counting. François Robere (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay you refuse to be rational, so I'll call you out, and note what I've known but suppressed per WP:AGF just to give you a chance to observe the rules of consensus-building. You refuse to, ergo

• You have never once edited this article.
• You came in just as it was locked to suggest one small change to the lead, which involved eliding wording that any support existed for Hamas outside the 'gang' of four unwestern autocratic or 'rogue' nations.
• This is exactly the position taken by Icewhiz the permabanned POV warrior whose behaviour you stoutly defended on every arbitration page where he was endlessly reported before admins woke up to him. He devoted 4 of his 14 edits to the article on precisely this piece of text, to remove mention of China and Switzerland, so that the lead had the Israel/EU/USA verdict with no balance. See
• here
• here
• here
• here

Three other edits consisting in suppressing source evidence of China's favourable view of Hamas as the legitimate representative of Palestinians in Gaza after the 2006 election. That is why he didn't even want China mentioned in this specific part of the lead.

In plain man's language, therefore, this is a case of WP:Meatpuppetry. It's also a remarkable case of chutzpah to try and sneak through asking a senior admin who locked down the page, to edit your/Icewhiz's proposal while no one else could object. I suggest you drop it and edit articles you have a known interest and certain competence in.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, Please strike your WP:ASPERSIONS or go to WP:ANI if you think you have any proof that anyone editing on behalf of banned user Shrike (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Facts are not aspersions. I don't report people. I've better things to do than get caught up in those time-sinks. The I/P area is bad enough timesinkwise. Blind Freddy and his dog can see this is meatpuppetry, and you are totally untroubled by it.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Only I didn't suggest we remove any of it. Now, are you going to address my concerns with your suggestion, or not? François Robere (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Waiting on you. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've already answered you abundantly, whereas you never addressed any of my concerns (This practice is actually taught in hasbara tutoring. as a friend familiar with it once told me). As I said, I view your edit as meatpuppetry, misleading in its ostensible simplicity, and question-begging. I won't waste time on this because basically in these situations, logic, evidence have no traction. Numbers are all that count. Of those commenting here, I see seriousness only in the comments of Selfstudier and The Four Deuces, agreeing with the former and dissenting from the reasoned opinion of the latter. The rest of the talk is just a formality to push through Icewhiz's desired edit, in the face of whatever one might say. I'm dropping this page until the iodeological fervor and sudden flocking ebbs, and one may work it, if ever, effectively and rationally. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There's an idea, the article International positions on the nature of Hamas is not protected, if a position can be squeezed into it, then it would auto resolve this discussion here, would it not?Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Or... we can discuss it here. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

We can't edit here, I'm merely trying to deal with your urgent request for an edit.Selfstudier (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the bluelink of that many words as "classify Hamas, either in whole or in part". It would be enough to bluelink the word "classify". Or even better, to avoid two consecutive bluelinks, we could say "have classified" and bluelink only the word "classified". I do agree that this would be an improvement as it is more neutral and less vague. I mean, "view Hamas in a positive light" is awfully non-enclyclopaedical. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• The blue link is required because prior to it, the lead explicitly distinguished Western nations that classify Hamas as terrorist, or only its armed branch as terrorist, meaning for several Western nations Hamas the political party in itself is not terrorist. A few editors disliked this distinction being made clear. preferring the blue link that buried it.
• No one disputes 'view Hamas in a positive light' is inept. But Robere's excision does not remedy the flaw, since strong sources relevant to this point underline the fact that many countries consider aspects of Hamas's militancy as legitimate, to the degree it is employed to throw off an occupation that has locked up 2 million civilians in an open air prison camp for 14 years, as even the rightwing British conservative Prime Minister David Cameron admitted (before conditions deteriorated even further).Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not fond of long blue links other than directly so I would prefer the actual title international positions on the nature of Hamas in some formulation. I also think we might include a lot of the material in that article as a "main" from this article which need only summarize it. At the moment that article says "viewed differently among the governments of various countries" which equates with the "various and diverse" that is being complained about currently. The distinction between the two is hardly worth the argument but I suppose we can find some suitable summary form.Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In this matter of contrary opinion, we ought to somewhere do more than merely mention in passing in the China section that the US failed in December 2018 to get a resolution past the UNGA that condemned Hamas as a terrorist organization. This despite weeks of arm twisting and pulling out all the diplomatic stops. Instead a resolution calling for a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” based on U.N. resolutions passed by a wide margin."U.S. Resolution Against Hamas Is Defeated in the United Nations". WSJ. December 6, 2018. Retrieved October 7, 2020.Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I support François Robere's previous version per ImTheIP. People are quibbling with words, but there's nothing factually inaccurate about François Robere's version at all. It's concise, fair, and perfect for the LEDE. ErinRC (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

People quibble over words, not with words (pleonasm). As such, you appear not to have read the thread, which is about the omission of words several sources note as not using the terrorist designation of Hamas. Those countries 'Norway, Switzerland, Brazil' existed at various times throughout the edit history of this page and have persistently been removed by POV pushers. The omitted countries are 'facts', and not mentioning them creates the inaccuracy, since 'China, Russia, Turkey and Iran' will suggest to contemporary readers that only countries in conflict with the West support Hamas. We report what sources say, and are not allowed to cherry pick data, highlighting some names while repressing the others to slant readers' perceptions.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I support that too. Because it is more interesting that Norway and Switzerland does not classify Hamas as a terrorist org than that Turkey does not. However, perfect is the enemy of good and that can be fixed later imho. ImTheIP (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever considered why the proposer won't simply add Norway and Switzerland to the edit he wants the admin to put on the page? I mean he won't include the three words you consider also as important. If an edit is to be done by an admin, it should reflect a refusal to compromise on such simple wording. It should reflect a rational consensus. To say, I agree but we can add 'Norway and Switzerland' afterwards, is to stabilize the admin-version and leave the adjunct words up for future edit warring. We are supposed to collaborate here, not strongarm the place with a proposal that admits of no tweaking?Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, your first comment on my suggestion was as follows: rant about article history; rant about "POV pushing"; implying that we shouldn't copyedit before we address the sourcing (?); source that reflects what we already state; general rant. Your second comment was comprised of a rant about Eurocentrism; rant about general Wikipedia practice; a historical rant (unsourced); and again a rant about the existing text. You then suggested, again, that we shouldn't copyedit a text if it's incorrect (ie keep it incorrect and ugly). If there was "collaboration" there, I missed it.

I don't think we should mention Switzerland and Norway in the lead - and we don't ATM - because mentioning that a rule that applies to 99% of cases also applies to a specific case is uninteresting. Saying that a country that's been neutral in every armed conflict since 1515 is also neutral in this one just doesn't say a lot about this conflict (though it does say a lot about that country, but that's not what this article is about). François Robere (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You turned up to an article you never edited, to edit a line that obsessed a permabanned user who happens to be someone you always defend, despite his notorious behavior on or off line. The text he wanted, and what you want are very similar. So, if you have any respect for this place and its rules, you should cease and desist now from your proposal. It cannot avoid being read as a piece of meatpuppetry, whatever the truth. there are many other ways this issue can be handled, and by editors with a known competence and interest in this topic, whatever their POV.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You're free to file on it if that's what you think, but until you do I have to ask that you stay on-topic. You wanted my comments on your suggestion, and I gave them in two places; now you either reply, or we move ahead with the CE and discuss the rest of it later, per the consensus. François Robere (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

'*I too support François Robere version especially that Nishidani version is clear violation POV and also factually incorrect.--Shrike (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Shrike. Where is the violation of POV, what is factually incorrect?One liners of ungrounded opinion count for nothing. Consensus is not based on roping in numbers: it is based on cogency of argument. You are being asked to approve of an edit that is almost the same as that made by a permabanned editor, and purveyed by someone who has never ever appeared here. I.e. has shown no interest or knowledge of the topic. The only reason this Icewhiz take is being recycled at this moment must be that if it is approved by EdJohnston, as the page is locked, it assumes notable administrative authority and can't be tampered with. That coincidence itself should indicate that the proposal should be ignored. By the way, this page needs a vast amount of work on it given the high importance. Why is it that several editors have suddenly shown up who rarely if ever edit it, all focused on this snippet?, while ignoring the mass of detailed understatements, suppression of context, omission of important historical details? Serious editors are supposed to do some background homework.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

My sentiments entirely. That this is the usual anti Palestinian effort cannot be denied and is hardly a surprise. The lead IS seriously deficient and the proposed edit would make the deficit worse, not better. I look forward to a robust editing process once the block is lifted. Certainly there will not be any pre-approval of edits.Selfstudier (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, It was already explained to you Shrike (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(a) It is immaterial that Russia and China might not (you assert this, where is the evidence?) 'support' Hamas's recourse to arms. Just as many Western countries over the past 30 years have regularly deplored Israel's recourse to massive bombing and indiscriminate killing, i.e. they don't 'support' Israel's violence, but they maintain otherwise solid relations with that country since it is a regular state. Militancy is no less POV than 'armed struggle'. The source I brought here specifically mentioned China, Russia etc.'s position regarding Hamas's armed struggle. All of this forming I am constrained to join in emerges simply from the fact that opposing editors refuse to accept the evidence of the sources, specialist texts, the language they use. Grasped that?

Shrik I always have extreme difficulty in understanding your elliptic judgments, which are just off the cuff standpoints and rarely if ever documented or argued cogently. What so many editors dedicated to spinning Israel's justness (in their self-perceived mission to balance the ostensible 'POV pushing' by 'pro-Palestinian' editors) cannot get into their heads, is that you get a zillion hits from newspapers that will satisfy a seething hatred of this adversary, but much less so if you actually read books by analysts who try to understand how Hamas is structured, the context and decisions behind its various periods of the use of violence. To explain is not to pardon or justify. But you can get hype anywhere on the net: Wikipedia is a place where you can be enabled to grasp the facts and the why and the rationale of any organization. Having said this reasonable statement, I know what some editors will think privately:'Yeah, sure, but this is not about outlining a history objectively, it's about making sure Israel's dignity is intact, and all of its enemies come out looking bad. So stuff your scholarship.' I'm neutral, despite the usual prejudice about why I edit here. I have a whole section on Hamas's persecution of the Christian community, for example, after its takeover, and how it gradually dropped the Islamicist repression. I can't put it in under this kind of editing hostility, because no doubt, I'll then get editors flocking to add contemporary newspaper hysteria on the topic. So another swatch of source garnering and writing will lay dorment in the files, and the article will remain the hackwork it is. Stiff cheddar| Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani,

I already presented your the links that they oppose violence so they cannot support "armed struggle". Change that they see Hamas it as valid political actor and "armed struggle" to "militancy" and I will support your version Shrike (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I associate "armed struggle" with resistance, which is entirely legitimate but you want to subsume this aspect in "militancy" implying that it is not legitimate. Militancy is only NPOV in generic usage. We need to differentiate between resistance and illegitimate acts such as attacks on civilians. Usual is to first edit the article body and then summarize that in the lead, not amend the lead to fit some preconception (that there are only three approaches, for example). Omitting the fact that the UN refused to condemn Hamas as terrorist is simply to further slant to the view that only US/Israel/EU count, which is demonstrably incorrect. Even Israel treats with Hamas so denying it is a "political actor" is kind of pointless.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

ToI 2017

Shein rejected a comparison of the groups to the Islamic State jihadist group and said Hamas rocket fire on Israeli cities during the 2014 Gaza war, was not terror “at all,” despite also affecting Russians.

“You equate ISIS [with Hamas and Hizbullah], but we think this is wrong,” he said. He said he condemned the rocket fire — “of course” — and was then asked, “That’s all you can say? There are bad terrorists and good terrorists?”

Now boys and girls, we all know that the MIT expert of missiles defined Hamas 'rockets' as fireworks or frizzle sticks with a kilo of explosive loaded onto a steel pipe (yes they had grads capable of striking far north and hitting cities but very rarely use them). 99% of the strikes are in the surrounding Israeli desert, and over the past several years many have been launched by Islamic jihad, not Hamas in particular. Israeli spin puts them on a par with the latest lasar-guided hi-tech 1 ton warheaded missiles they have in vast abundance. Parity. True, firing rockets into another country, esp, near or at civilian areas is terrorism. Legally and factually. Israel does it effectively, Hamas ineffectively. This is known, stated and analysed at length with the statistics in the technical literature and is almost never clarified in newspaper reports, which editors love.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

“No,” replied Shein, “we do not consider them to be terrorists at all.” Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Even though there is a link out to International positions on the nature of Hamas it is placed under a subsection entitled "International designations as a terrorist organization", again obscuring the fact that it isn't so designated by various countries (nor by the UN). The editing slant in the article is abundantly clear and the proposed edit request is just more of the same.Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This 2014 WAPO article doesn't mention Russia in its list but says "a lot of countries haven't exactly made their position clear, preferring a degree of ambiguity that makes even vague categorization difficult." This supports "various and diverse" although I would not insist on that precise formulation."Who are Hamas's friends these days? It's more complicated than you might think". WAPO. August 1, 2014. Retrieved October 8, 2020.

I agree with the changes as more concise. Also, in my experience, a huge number of footnotes usually indicates an attempt to overcome a lack of quality with quantity. The Diplomat source for example says that China has long supported the PLO, which is Hamas' main rival. They are now working with Hamas not because they view it in a positive light, but because they support the legitimacy of the Palestinian authority. No doubt all the countries mentioned would prefer a PLO government. TFD (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No one doubts the concision. All countries support the PLO. Few of these countries view the PLO in 'a positive light' either. It is just that they run to the Western money trough at every offer of porkbarrelling and therefore are amenable to the endless politics of gesturing at peace without actually expecting it from Israel, which is Israel's historic position. The problem has been that in the last legitimate elections the majority of the Palestinian people supported Hamas, which became the legitimate representative. (From memories of conversations with Palestinians there at the time, even many technocrats with a liberal background found the thorough clan corruption of the PLO intolerable, and thought Hamas, despite its fanatic Islamic worldview, wasn't on the take) This was unacceptable to both Israel and the US, who both organized a coup attempt to overthrow Hamas, which failed, and, when it failed, a major boycott attempted to starve Hamas, while propping up the PLO. So, yes, political realists prefer the PLO, which means corruption, but they are 'our guys'. China isn't part of this, but, like Norway and Switzerland, maintains contacts with both the PLO and Hamas. China indeed privately objected to the PLO's attempt to seek UN recognition. They did so out of self-interest, not wishing to create a precedent for their Uyghur minority and for Taiwan.

This length because concision everywhere should not blot out features of a very complex picture, by resorting to caricature. It is not 'Us' (the West generally) vs. 'Them' (4 rogue or autocratic nations competitive with the 'West'. The only way round this is to draft an emendment that avoids this simplification. Another several words fixes the caricature. One of Hamas's major financial sources comes from Qatar, which plays a far more important role than Russia, China and Turkey. It has intervened because, in the geopolitics of the area, Hamas, a Sunni group, was thrown by the boycott to rely on Shiite Iran. And the Gulf states' fear of Iran has lead Sunni Qatar to attempt to replace Iran, diminish its influence. If anything, Qatar, a country admired in Western geopolitical circles, should be there, to avoid the tendentiousness IcewhizRobere is endeavouring to work into the text at this point. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Concise at the expense of correct won't do. After all, the description given of the Chinese position fits "various and diverse" better than the so-called concise version. As for footnotes, the Balfour Declaration article has a huge number of them and is an FA so that argument is not going to work either.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the reason for the plethora of sources that these countries see Hamas in a positive light is that none of them actually say that but if you put everything each article says together, you might come to that conclusion. The reality is that Russia has long supported Palestinian self-determination and historically supported the PLO. And it's really unlikely that the leaders of Russia, China and Iran are going to abandon their ideologies for Sunni Muslim fundamentalism. Maybe China's put in an order for 2 billion Korans and prayer mats, but I doubt it. But China and Russia claim to be fighting Muslim fundamentalists within their borders. TFD (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The motivations for foreign policy (apart from the US, which is at least consistent) change over time. Once Erdogan was considered a reliable NATO ally, and that accounts for Turkey's traditional view. China's view was formed before Islamic fundamentalism assumed an important part of its internal agenda (there's a book on this); Russian played a leading role in backing partition, Israeli independence and UN recognition. Its support for the PLO is in part dictated by its traditional backing for secular nationalists, and checking the US. Its concern with Muslim fundamentalism goes back to the 70s (a French scholar in the early 70sa predicted that the Soviet Union's greatest challenge would arise from its soft Muslim underbelly. Brezinsky, acting on this kind of futurist analysis, advised Carter (in June 1979 was it?) was to play the Muslim fundamentalist card in Afghanistan to that purpose, i.e. destroyed the secular Russian proxy). We're living with those consequences ever since. It's not a matter of seeing Hamas 'in a positive light' as our text suggests. It is in part geostrategic calculations among our global hegemonic powers, and, if you put it on an ideological plane (which also counts) a better understanding (yes, it's Marxist) that if a people is occupied, it is normal for them to fight to throw off their shackles. Terrorism is politically inane, they argue, but fighting for autonomy against an occupying power (as long as Russia, China, Turkey and Iran's own minorities are ignored) is 'understandable', a position the major actors, the US and Israel, refuse to recognize. A strong academic literature exists arguing that both Hezbollah and Hamas, however one may dislike the religious ideology and their occasional recourse to acts of terrorism, are rational actors as the jargon goes. Branding them as terrorists and using every trick in the diplomatic books to isolate them hasn't worked. To the contrary. Switzerland, and Norway in particular grasp that. Their 'neutrality' and maintenance of dialogic relations are, ultimately, one of the few rational long-term policies that can work. The article, whatever my POV or that of the overwhelming number of hostile editors holds, must throw off the simplistic dualistic/Manichaean us or them/good or bad, and simply focus on the basic structural story, historical context. The rush to prejudice is universal, lucidity under stress a rare thing. My apologies for this Sunday preaching, but since I contest the POV of others, it is proper that I set forth the reasons behind my own opposition to an edit which annuls the earlier tradition of this article, which simple started that three positions exist. The US/EU/Israel etc. That of Russia, China, Turkey Iran, and that of nations, like Norway, Switzerland and Qatar, who espouse neither of the other diametrically opposed positions, but advise a rational dialogic process towards a resolution between the parties in conflict. Icewhiz's whilom success is erasing this third element should not not be authorized by another round of Manichaean caricature.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The choices at present are the Robere or Nishidani edit suggestions although in either event I would prefer to begin within the article rather than directly in the lead before reaching any final conclusions. I would also characterize it as a choice between simplistic and nuanced, the first from a driveby editor and the second from someone who actually knows something about the subject matter.Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean to say that these countries "view Hamas in a positive light." Isn't it just weasel-wording to say that these countries view terrorism in a positive light without having the courage to make the accusation outright? TFD (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I am not hung up on the precise form of words, I take it to mean a willingness to treat with rather than treat dismissively but there's the contradiction, even countries that disapprove of Hamas also are willing to treat with them and even if it's only via the back door.Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Done

• Per consensus I went ahead and implemented my proposal. The edit did not remove anything substantial, only WP:EDITORIALIZING that was added without sourcing in December 2019 (in line with WP:EDITXY).
• Nishidani's suggestion that my proposal had something to do with removing China is ridiculous, since it didn't remove China.
• Similarly, Nishidani's suggestion that my proposal had something to do with removing Switzerland and Norway is absurd, since these were already removed 3.5 year ago.
• The suggestion that this simple edit was timed or coordinated is beyond ridiculous. Those who made it should probably reconsider whether their attitude is appropriate for a cooperative encyclopedia. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)