Talk:Hamastan

• I suggest to replace this expression by "pejorative" for NPoV Ceedjee (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Al-Zahar saw the expresion as a compliment, so even if it was meant to be pejorative, not everyone sees it that way. DGtal (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is pejorative and Islamists take this with irony...

Taking their irony at first degree is not NPoV.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can add: "a crude propagandist concept, originally meant as pejorative...".

This will both reflect the fact it was born as pejorative, and the current reality where you can occasionally hear it used as a statement of fact: Hamastan in Gaza and Fatahland in the West Bank. DGtal (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think al-Azhar, who takes money and training from Iran, takes the term with Irony? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the term is not pejorative? Has al-Azhar or anybody else said so? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be a pejorative among some American/British/etc. to be affiliated with Iran, but certainly a good number of people are quite happy to take that money and the ideology that follows. What makes you think Hamas considers the term a pejorative when it's clear that they have mutual goals and ideological bond? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that describes the term as pejorative, and your conclusion that it's not appears to be original research. If you want to add a note that one Hamas executive liked the sound of it in an interview with Newsweek, that's fine with me, but it doesn't make the term less pejorative. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some selected Hamas figures or Hamas supporters may defiantly embrace the term on certain occasions, or provisionally accept it as a rough-and-ready useful term of political discourse, but overall and generally it's pretty clear that the term is in fact pejorative. Just in terms of Arabic sprachgefühl, the word itself has a rather crude and outlandish air, from the point of view of morphology, since it incorporates an acronym, haplology, and a Persian suffix. If a Hamas-run state were to be founded, it's a 100% safe bet that its leaders would not choose to give it the name "Hamastan" (something like the Islamic Emirate of Palestine or Islamic Republic of Palestine would be much more likely...). AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's really no validation that "it's pretty clear that the term is in fact pejorative". Certainly, a Hamas co-founder and spokesperson is an indication to the opposite. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See comment of "20:51, 2 February 2007" above... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That comment doesn't make it clear at all. Do you have something tangible other than the op-ed about eastern-asia countries? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, I'd appreciate an explanation to why you'd remove the Hamas co-founder perspective as well as the reasoning why the term is deemed a pejorative by the used source.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The warmest of regards to you too. I have not removed it (except from the lead), and I think you agree that a sole off-the-cuff remark from an interview with a magazine reporter does not give anything official status. As for your request to explain William Safire's thinking when he deems the term pejorative, here is the full text:

"At the turn of the new millennium, attention was called to newly independent states on the fringe of the former Soviet Union — Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan — which the BBC identified as “collectively known as the Central Asian ‘stans.’ ” They were derogated by Stephen Kotkin in The New Republic in 2002 as “a dreadful checkerboard of parasitic states and statelets, government-led extortion rackets and gangs in power, mass refugee camps and shadow economies. Welcome to Trashcanistan.”

"That pejorative use of the suffix -stan to describe a place largely populated by Muslims — in 1990, Islamistan — was applied by Time magazine to the city of London in 2001: “So many volunteers to the bin Laden cause use the British capital as a base between visits to Afghan camps that French antiterrorist officials now call the city ‘Londonistan.’ ” In 2006, The Weekly Standard wondered who, if our efforts in Iraq did not succeed, “would take the trouble to ensure that some portions of Iraqi territory do not become little al Qaeda-stans?” U.S. News & World Report discovered Hamastan at about the same time The New Yorker coined Hezbollistan."

MeteorMaker (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's still a single op-ed and we have a more notable opinion by Hamas co-founder. I could agree to moving that text down but the neutral way of registering the nature of the term is 'controversial' as there's a disagreement towards the use. To be frank, I believe current version explains both perspectives (pejorative/not) in a clear and neutral manner so that readers can get the full sense of the term from the WP:LEAD and can go deeper into the article for background notes about Hamas.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that describes the term as "pejorative", and that's all we need. Your opinion that it is not pejorative, based on a creative interpretation of an off-the-cuff remark by a Hamas member, is mere original research and does not in any way outweigh William Safire. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear MeteorMaker,

1. The source is an opinion piece which explains that the term has been used in a pejorative manner outside of it's normative use. The opinion of said writer is no more important than that of Hamas co-founder (and it would be easy to argue the opposite). Elonka has recently explained to you how material is inserted in these instances so I'm not following why you'd try to promote removal of a clearly notable and well referenced opinion (Review the policy, it is not original reaserch).
2. Certainly, I'm not a person to agree with many of Hamas official opinions, and even if I were, the only issue here is what notable opinions believe and not what you or I believe. Please comment on content and not on fellow ediotrs (see also: WP:NPA and WP:CIV).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But you keep removing "pejorative", based on your own interpretation of a remark from a Hamas member. Does Mr al-Azhar actually say it's not pejorative? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to persuade that the Hamas co-founder says his organization should be berated?

p.s. I did not remove the word. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you actually did. If it's fine with you, I'll put it back where it belongs. I'm not trying to persuade you in any way, just asking for a reliable source for your claim that the term is not pejorative. Or have I misunderstood you, are you not claiming that? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou -- Don't want to impugn your perceptivity or anything, but the majority of editors of this article who have considered the context of the interview have not come to the conclusion that he was wholeheartedly endorsing and embracing the term "Hamastan"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heyo AnonMoos,

Please explain to me where I'm mispercieving "It should be Hamastan. Why not?".

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For instance, has al-Azhar taken any steps to elevate the term to official status? Has he mentioned it again in other contexts? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Because his intended meaning was presumably mainly to indicate that the idea of a Hamas-ruled state was a good idea, and not to fully take as his own the particular word "Hamastan" (which sounds linguistically somewhat grotesque to many Arabic speakers, and which furthermore doesn't really fit with the term which Hamas calls its own ideology by, namely "Islam", not "Hamasism"). AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I just read the entire discussion and don't see how an opinion piece by the columnist William Safire can be interpreted as set in stone. In fact, opinion pieces in general should not be used to source facts. It is clear that not everyone thinks that the term is pejorative, as proven by the link that Jaakobou provided. Hamastan is a term widely-used by the Israeli media, including the left-wing Haaretz (op-ed by Ze'ev Schiff). Because the term has clearly generated some controversy, I suggest using 'controversial', which is a neutral term that doesn't take sides. Alternatively, the label should be removed entirely. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, we have an RS (and one who cannot reasonably be accused of anti-Israel bias at that) and that is all we need. In the other corner: Jaakobou's personal interpretation of an off-the-cuff remark by a Hamas member, in all likelihood intended as a joke. Even if al-Azhar had explicitly said "Hamastan is not a pejorative term" (which he did not), that would only be him speaking his personal opinion and not something that somehow nullifies what other sources say. But I can agree it would be helpful to add a note that the term is "widely used by Israeli media", as you point out. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

AnonMoos,

The -stan suffix is not grotesque. It is a naming convention for Islamic territories under control of X group. i.e. if an Islamic group/tribe with the name X is in control of an area, it is sometimes referred to as X-stan. The term becomes a pejorative only when intended as one (e.g. 'Londonistan' suggests Islamic groups have taken over London which can be regarded as an offensive suggestion) and not automatically. This is illustrated by a good number of areas who use the suffix out of their own will.

It seems that you agree Hamas take a liking to the standard meaning of the term (per "the idea of a Hamas-ruled state was a good idea") but that the standard interpretation is alien to your ears. If you note my suggested phrasing, it deals with presenting both perspectives.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said "-stan" on its own was grotesque; I said that the term "Hamastan" as a whole -- with its incorporation of an acronym, haplology, and use of a non-Arabic suffix to refer to a location in Arab lands -- is rather crude and outlandish in terms of Arabic sprachgefühl. I could have also mentioned that it's a compound, while the Arabic language doesn't have true compounds (only the idafa or "construct state" construction). AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect,

1. These are a lot of personal notes without anything specific to the subject at hand.
2. Hamas sees itself as a member of the Islamic Ummah rather than the Arab World (A reason they are rejected by Arab leaders as well as Western countries).
3. It still seems that you agree Hamas takes a liking to the standard meaning of the term (per "the idea of a Hamas-ruled state was a good idea") so I don't understand what you want us to do about it. I have no objection to a formal source that repeats your perspective but Hamas' perspective is certainly notable. Suggestions/Thoughts/References?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the fact that Hamas sees itself as part of the global Muslim community doesn't mean that it's eager to adopt a bastardized pseudo-Persian name (invented by an Israeli!) for the territory it rules. Refer to the history of Shu`ubiyya, to start with. My "personal notes" are an explanation of why Hamas will never use the word "Hamastan" when picking the flag, anthemn, motto, coat of arms, and name of a Hamas-ruled state. Your own "personal notes" about an offhand remark in one particular interview do not change all this. AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is about the chance that Hamas will call their territory Hamastan officially, then we have no quarrel as I think that will (almost certainly) never happen. The only issue here is if in their perspective, it is a pejorative - which it is not. Hamas co-founder said they see no problem with the nickname suggesting Gaza should indeed be the 'land of Hamas' (i.e. Hamastan). Have you looked at my suggested phrasing? It's certainly not the best of phrasings though and I'm open to suggestions.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rephrase for the second part:

The 'stan' suffix has been approved by Hamas co-founder for it's "place of" standard meanning, although the suffix has also acquired a pejorative connotation in English regarding "government-led extortion rackets and gangs in power, mass refugee camps and shadow economies"'.'^[1]

Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, we have a reliable source that characterizes the term as "pejorative". Your OR that "it has been approved by a Hamas founder" does not in any way nullify that. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear MeteorMaker,

Two editors, one of which is an admin, noted to you the value of op-ed articles and we're still calling it a pejorative in the very next paragraph. Can you accept this compromise or do you want to take this argument all the way to ARBCOM? Please stop repeating the same argument ignoring the points raised by fellow editors.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus at all for your wording (that you keep repeating while ignoring fellow editors as well as WP policy), particularly not your OR claim that Hamas has somehow "approved" it. Could you find an RS that corroborates that claim? And while you're at it, one that characterizes William Safire's "On Language" column as an "op-ed"? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

MeteorMaker

1. Please comment on content and not on fellow editors (per WP:NPA). I'm not ingnoring WP policy at all, to the contrary - I've been making a concerned effort to explain the issue as well as propose a compromise and allowed for a 'wrong version' of the article to stay up in the meantime.
2. If there's better suggetsions, I'm open to consider them as long as they include Hamas' perspective on the matter. Please note that there's a crude consensus towards 'controversial' as it was suggested also by fellow wikipedia admin Ynhockey and was not objected to by Anonmoos once I explained and gave a proposed compromise. Consider that the relevant sources are one opinion column and one official spokesperson with opposing perspectives. Add to this the note about Haaretz using the term without and you come to the conclusion that there is no single perspective to consider the term and this is a good compromise.
3. If you insist that the opinion poll trumpts out the opinion of Hamas, then we cannot agree on this and my only suggestion here is to open up the discussion for review through WP:RfC but I believe you're misreading the value of the news report vs. Hamas/General use sources.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not commented on you, only your suggested changes to the article, which I find insufficiently sourced. Again, kindly find sources for your claims that

1) Hamas has approved the term "Hamastan" (you have now added "Hamas perspective" and "Hamas opinion", so clearly you must have sources that you have not shown yet)

2) William Safire's "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine is an "op-ed"

3) the term is considered anything else than a pejorative by anybody notable.

MeteorMaker (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaakaobou, please don't cite me as accepting your views; my actions are explained by the fact I don't care to get involved in any kind of edit war on this matter. Also, while Safire's column is often problematic in some respects (when he verges into the area covered by scholarly linguistics, as discussed in the Language Instinct), it is most definitely not an "Op-Ed"[sic]... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Heyo AnonMoos,

I apologize if you felt I marked your 'acceptance', but I've only meant htat you've not shown a real sense of disagreement, which leaves MeteorMaker at a crude minority with the people who left their opinons on this thread. I'm not sure on how you'd like this article to account for if not as an opinion piece. Anyways, if you have better suggestions on the phrasing, I'm certainly open to hear them.

MeteorMaker,

It really seems that we're going around in circles. I've cited Hamas co-founder saying "It should be Hamastan. Why not?" and it feels disparaging that you state this to somehow not account as Hamas opinion. As I wish to find an agreeable consensus, I've offered a compromise which I believe to be fair and I'm also open to compromise suggestions that you are willing to make. Otherwise, I only see WP:DR (possibly WP:RfC) as a possible way to move forward.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to find an agreeable consensus too, but it should be based on reliable sources and not an individual editor's own interpretations of the available sources. We have a reliable source that says the term is pejorative, and your position that it's not seems insufficiently sourced. You claim the term has been "approved" by Hamas, but I don't think there's support in policy for interpreting an offhand remark by a Hamas member as "Hamas perspective" and "Hamas opinion". Just to check that we are on common ground regarding what constitutes a pejorative, would you say the term nigger is an example of one? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we've said repeatedly that the strongest possibility is that he was endorsing the concept of a Hamas-ruled state, while not choosing to quibble at that particular moment with the interviewer over the terminology the interviewer used. Those among Hamas supporters who are sensitive to matters such as symbolism, history, and sprachgefühl — and who are considering terminology as terminology — would be likely to have a much more negative view. AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: If it is an agreeable course of action, I'd be inclined to open an WP:RfC to resolve the dispute around this issue. We seem to have a deadlock between two highly involved editors and it might be better to get external perspectives.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

{{RFClang}}

• There's a semblance of consensus by uninvolved editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Request: User:MeteorMaker requests that the term Hamastan will be marked first and foremost as a pejorative as he believes the term can only be/is only used with derogatory intent or underscores. His assertion for this is based on the belief that Hamastan should be equated with the clearly pejorative "Zionist Entity" (i.e. the Islamist terminology intending to suggest the evil nature and short living status of the State of Israel) and a single opinion column by William Safire published on New York Times titled: Year of the Stans.

Response (by Jaakobou): .

Relevant past discussions:

1. Talk:Hamastan#Hamastan_is_not_a_deraugatory_nickname
2. Talk:Hamastan#a_crude_propagandist_concept

In any regard, my response to the "pejorative" claim (as seen above) was/is that:

• William Safire doesn't actually say that Hamastan is a pejorative:
  • The column by William Safire source is an interesting opinion piece which explains that the -stan suffix has been used in a pejorative manner outside of it's normative "place of" usage by Stephen Kotkin who commented that, areas in newly independent states on the fringe of the former Soviet Union — Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan — which the BBC identified as “collectively known as the Central Asian ‘stans.’” were "government-led extortion rackets and gangs in power, mass refugee camps and shadow economies" adding a "Trashcanistan" punditry to his observation/theory.
  • Safire adds that other pejorative uses of -stan exist as well, like describing a place as being largely populated by Muslim when this is not the case (Islamistan/Londonistan — applied by Time magazine to the city of London -- came from French antiterrorist officials). Another mentioned use, which is sort of derogatory is that of the Embassy of Kazakhstan not appreciating Borat's portrayal of their country calling him "Boratastan — a country of one" but this could be seen as the correct usage of the term as well and a mere attempt at saying that "Boratstan" should not be confused with Kazakhstan.
  • Safire mentions the naming a place as "al Qaeda-stans" (if the movement takes over it) or mentioning that U.S. News & World Report discovered Hamastan at about the same time The New Yorker coined Hezbollistan but Safire does not actually make any statement if Hamastan has pejorative intentions but rather focuses on the "plays on names" making movie goers confused about the existence of Kazakhstan as a real country. This is further illustrated by the article's first paragraph where an official living in close quarters to numerous states that use the "place of" (-stan) suffix notes his confusion "with all these stans".
• The term has been used in it's original 'place of' meaning and also in a favorable context:
  • Hamas co-founder has used the term favorably. e.g "It should be Hamastan. Why not?". This was described in an early article version as "In interviews Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar has described the creation of Hamastan as a goal of Hamas." which would certainly fit the source content.
  • Numerous sources also use the term with it's original "place of" meaning:
    • Samples:
    • - Hamas's takeover of Gaza, which yesterday seemed closer than ever, is destined to split the territories into two entities that are politically and even culturally separate: Hamastan (the Gaza Strip) and Fatahstan (the West Bank).
    • - "...I cautioned that it was a tactical and strategic error by the State of Israel to recognize the state of Hamastan," he added, referring to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
    • - what is now being dubbed "Hamastan" will not only be physically cut off from their compatriots in the West Bank but will also be ruled by a movement that advocates armed resistance and is boycotted by Israel and the international community," says the paper's Middle East editor. "Neither side will be in a position to conduct negotiations with Israel or anyone else."
    • - As the dramatic news broke there was already excited talk of the Islamist movement "proving its credibility" and of the hope that with Johnston now finally free, the siege on Hamas could be lifted too. If Hamastan is seen to be functioning, this line of thinking goes, then Hamastan can break out of its isolation.
    • , , (Hebrew samples)

• • There is, off course, an added subcontext with the Hamastan terminology that suggests to Hamas being (a) Islamist, and (b) economically and strategically backed by Iran; but these are known facts and not meant to embed as an added pejorative.

Previously suggested compromise:

Using "controversial" as the main descriptive and adding the following text to the lead:

Although the 'stan' suffix has acquired a pejorative connotation in English regarding ''"government-led extortion rackets and gangs in power, mass refugee camps and shadow economies"'', it has been used in approval by Hamas co-founder with it's standard "place of" meaning.".[1]

I'm actually feeling, based on the inspection of sources, that citing only the Hamas co-founder for using the "place of" meaning is inaccurate as others have used it without malice as well. I'm open to rephrase suggestions but I'm thinking that 'pejorative' should not be the main descriptive.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is quite common to give oriental muslim countries a name with the suffix "-stan" (Pakistan, Afghanistan Turkmenistan and so on), as it usual to give european and other western countries names with the ending "-ia", even if it´s name in the native language is constructed in another way (slawic languages are forming the state name often with an "-o", see cesko or slovensko.) Nobody takes care when we say "Egypt" to misr or Slovakia for Slovensko, Algeria to al-Jazā’ir, Georgia to sakartvelo, so it is pseudo-political correct to cry about an nonarabic suffix in an english neologism. I have removed the sentence. --Feliks (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The suffix "-ia" actually has an accepted counterpart in Arabic (as in the Arabic names of "Libya" and "Syria"), so that's a non-issue. More importantly, if you had been reading above, you would have noticed that it's not at all usual to give the suffix "-stan" to an Arab-ruled and Arabic-speaking country or region, and some Arabs would find it objectionable. The form حماستان is actually linguistically objectionable from several points of view, when considered in the light of standard traditional "correct" Arabic (not just the choice of the -stan suffix), and in any case "Hamastan" was not actually first created as an English neologism.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamastan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928101503/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/eng_n/hamastan_e.htm to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/eng_n/hamastan_e.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

should we move article to khamastan Easternsahara (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain what that means? Please be specific and cite examples of that terminology being used in a non-pejorative manner. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Leave as Hamastan. Hamas is the common spelling of the organisation and unless that changes we should leave the current spelling. DGtal (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)