User talk:Cawhee/Archive 2

Precious

diplomacy and art

Thank you for quality articles on personalities such as Adolphe Féder and Han Xu, for templates such as Ambassadors of China to Japan, for converting citations, for welcoming and warning users, - Cameron, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1413 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

1988 charter vs later documents

On 11 December, 21:48, I removed sentence three from section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’ (“However … the "new" discourse … reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas.”). It referred only to source Kh.Hroub in Journal of P.Studies summer 2006, which source I had read (indeed) and appeared to me as (mainly) arguing that the Hamas electoral program of March 2005 and government program in March 2006 showed more “pragmatism and flexibility” and less “Islam” than the 1988 charter did. Even if we accept that statement and analysis of K.Hroub as true and correct, the statement does not imply that the charter had become less relevant in the Hamas movement – simply because a Charter embodies a different function within a movement than an electoral or a governmental program. Therefore, I (with motivation) removed the sentence from the section because Hroub’s statement/analysis did not (explicitly) imply any change in importance of the charter. That edit of mine was directly reverted, by colleague @Cawhee: (12 Dec 17:08) (who misrepresented my given motivation for it).

Some editor somewhen has (in our section “Relevance…”) wanted to ‘summarize’ that summer 2006 analysis of Hroub as: “…genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas”. I’m not sure whether these are the (summarizing) words of Hroub or of a Wiki editor, but in either case they don’t seem to alter my conclusion that the whole 2006 article of Hroub does not show or argue that the Charter had become less relevant in the Hamas movement; therefore, I’d still say, Hroub’s 2006 article deserves no place in section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’ (or whatever name we give to that section). (Editor Cawhee reverted my removal without reacting on my given motivation for it, what doesn’t strike me as a highly constructive manner of cooperating.) Surely, taking up government responsibility (as Hamas did in 2006) is a major or “cumulative” (and “genuine”) change, but ‘changes’ can occur on very many aspects and the mere assertion that ‘great changes’ took place within Hamas therefore does not automatically imply that those ‘changes’ pertained to the relevance of its charter (what therefore, indeed, is also not what Hroub states in his 2006 argument, as far as I can see). Therefore, whatever (else) Hroub is saying or arguing in 2006, it can surely be relevant for other sections in our Wiki article but to my opinion, clearly stated and argued on 11 December, (apparenty) not for section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: I think VR has done a pretty great job here of providing quotes of the source regarding the document's relevancy today. There is no reason to say that information from Hroub cannot be cited in this section of the article. The section provides multiple points of view on the subject–those that say that the document is irrelevant (or even less relevant) to policies of the current leadership (such as Hrob) and those (including multiple heads of state) who have argued that the leadership continues to hold a reverence for the document in its entirety. --Cawhee^Talk 03:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Quotes of Mahmoud al-Zahar (2006 and 2010)

@Cawhee: Two quotes of mr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, former minister (2006–07) in a Hamas government, have been recorded in section ‘Relevance in the 21st century’: [Hamas] "will not change a single word in its covenant" (2006), and: "Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy" (2010). Recently you have (further) adapted those citings in our article. What can you tell us about the circumstances of those statements? Statements don’t just fall out of the blue sky: usually they come as part of a discussion or interview started because of a recent ‘event’ (or) reacting on a recent statement of someone else, sometimes (also) as direct answer to a question from an interviewer. To know these circumstances and direct background can help us assessing or estimating the meaning and relevance of these statements (for Wikipedia). --Corriebertus (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Corribertus:, I'm glad you're eager to improve this article. If you find that there are important details mentioned in the source that ought to be included that I have not, I encourage you to be bold! Add on to the project and improve the words! If you find yourself questioning whether certain language or large concepts might enrich an article, feel free to do so on the talk page of the article! You'll notice that the talk page of the article has been used to form consensus in the past, and I'm sure that it can be used to do so moving forward. I would only encourage you to direct your questions to the article and not the contributor.

Happy editing --Cawhee^Talk 03:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Source website 'The Atlantic' is not freely accessible. I thought you knew that. That is the reason why I asked you what I asked you, about statements of al-Zahar. So; once again - if you are also interested in making the article better, clearer, and more relevant - what were the conditions etc. how and why al-Zahar made those statements? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This might have to do with Hamas agreeing to a 1967 borders Palestinian state without recognizing Israel: "Hamas would be willing to accept a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, a leader of the militant group, Mahmoud Zahar, told the Palestinian news agency Ma'an on Wednesday, adding, however, that Hamas would never recognize Israel." Hamas explains this "The difference is great between respect (ihtirâm) and recognition (i‘tirâf); I respect does not mean that I implement. This is what happened in the case of the Mecca Agreement; we respect old agreements, but this does not mean we recognize them. For instance, we respect the new Palestinian reality and we participate in it; but this does not mean we are in agreement with Oslo. There is a difference between dealing with reality and accepting this reality. This is exactly the same thing as regards the recognition of Israel." (Seurat p 50).VR _talk 18:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)