Talk:2017 Hamas charter

Ongoing discussion regarding this article at Talk:Hamas Charter#New article for 2017 charter

There is an open discussion regarding this article ongoing at Talk:Hamas Charter#New article for 2017 charter. Feel free to join. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

On "Repudiating the 1988 charter"

Meshal very clearly and explicitly states in response to a direct question about whether or not the new document is intended to replace the old one that this document is meant to serve as the new guiding principle for the party, and calls out the old document as a "product of its time," then notes that "we live in a different world today." Pretending that this statement is in any way ambiguous regarding the intent of the new document and its relationship to the old one is disingenuous, ahistorical, and revising my sourced edit to return the prior disingenuous language while leaving the source I've provided that contradicts this language regarding "not repudiating" the old document is inexplicable. Stating that it was a product of its time but irrelevant today IS a repudiation of it for today. If this is insufficient for you, Marzouk has been "repudiating" it since 2007, in his article in the LA Times titled "Hamas' Stand." --Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you are not allowed to edit articles until you are extended confirmed (see your talk page). You are allowed only to make edit requests on the talk page.

However, @Jayen466:, I am a bit confused by your edit, the source does not seem to support "Hamas fell short of repudiating the original"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, Deadlyhandsomeman: The source is cited in the body. It's Brenner, pp. 205 and 206. Other scholars comment on the lack of explicit revocation as well. Would you like me to look them up? Andreas JN466 13:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, the misleading ref has been removed, that was what was bothering me. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "misleading ref," it's literally the words of the person who was most responsible for the re-write. Brenner, the person he's citing, even wrote an op-ed in Haaretz saying the following:

"After several years of internal deliberations, hundreds of thousands of Hamas members have agreed on substantial revisions to their organisation’s 30-year-old founding document. The new text excludes anti-Semitic language and embraces a Palestinian state on pre-1967 lines. For Hamas, this amounts to nothing less than a departure from its original goals and a compromise with its thus far rejectionist ideology ... these changes are now a fait accompli, inked into its key ideological document." It's on his own website.

Paola Caridi also makes these points in her 2023 revision of Hamas: From Resistance to Regime. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It misled me, because it didn't support the sentence, but Jayen has cleared that up. As I said below, if there are independent reliable sources saying repudiated or similar we can look at those. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Off topic discussion with non EC editor

::::::You understand why your proposition makes little sense, right? The only people who could repudiate the original charter are not "independent" sources, but the people who are responsible for the repudiation. A repudiation can't be an external observation, it must necessarily be by the people who are called on to repudiate it. In what reality is the leader of the organization at the time -- prior to Haniyeh's takeover, which is why they pushed to get the document out when they did -- saying "the old document was a product of its time and no longer relevant today" not a "repudiation" of that document? Regardless, I have linked you above the exact same author that Andreas is citing explicitly saying that it's a "departure from its original goals and a compromise of its ideology," and "changes inked into its key ideological document." Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC) I don't want to engage in discussion with you over this because you are not allowed to do anything other than make edit requests. However, Hamas or their representatives can be cited as saying (it's called attribution) that it was repudiated. But to say something as a fact in WP voice (no attribution), we need independent reliable sources confirming that it was so. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC) You can become your own independent reliable source by reading the interview where he repudiates it and writing about it in a book, I suppose. So can anyone who writes a book and cites that exact same interview. However, if you'd like a book to point at, you can read Paola Caridi's "Hamas: From Resistance to Regime," page 116-117, wherein she writes: "According to Tamimi, this assessment [of the 1988 Charter as Hamas's 'worst enemy'] is shared by Khaled Mashal, who has reportedly said that the Charter was written 'by mistake' -- a recognition made in private conversations by the leadership itself, albeit not in public. There are those who maintain that no one within Hamas can recall the [1988] Charter, nor cite from memory its main points, and that it is better known to the movement's opponents than its own members." And on page 380-385: "Indeed, the document represents a significant change in the movement's discourse, compared to the 1988 foundational charter. ... Far from being quantitative and philological exercise, attention to the kind of words used in the document and approved by the whole movement through a long-lasting internal debate is necessary to understand the differences from the 1988 Charter, dictated by the urgency of the contingent movement. Moreover, attention to specific language is necessary for comprehending the evolution of Hamas over thirty years. ... If such assumptions are founded on principles for Hamas, where is the difference in the 1988 Charter? It is a strategic distinction in pursuit of Palestinian national consensus, as explained in Article 20. ... The document in its entirety represents a fundamental breakthrough for Hamas, mainly because it shifts the axis of discourse on a platform involving international responsibility on the Israel-Palestine issue. ...This is Meshal's imprint on the recent history of Hamas, which delivers to his successor, Haniyeh, a new charter that is the result of an internal consensus not at all taken for granted, judging by the contrasts between the constituencies in more recent years." Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The first paragraph, attributes Khaled Mashal. The second does not say anywhere "repudiates" or anything like that, instead it uses language like "a significant change in the movement's discourse", " shifts the axis of discourse on a platform involving international responsibility on the Israel-Palestine issue". I would agree with that because I added this material to the Hamas article the other day. If you do not want to make an edit request, that's fine, perhaps another editor will edit something on your behalf. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC) I'll, again, point out that an "independent source" cannot REPUDIATE anything, it must necessarily cite someone REPUDIATING it, hence me citing Meshal's interview doing so. I'm not sure what the communication gap is here, but a third party cannot repudiate something on behalf of someone else. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The communication gap is that you do not understand WP policies because you are a new editor. That is the reason we have rules governing contentious topic areas like this. And now I am done talking with you. Ttfn. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Editing policies are not related to your complaint about "repudiation," so instead of deflecting, can you answer the question about why you're insisting on an "independent source" to prove "repudiation" rather than an interview with the person who would be responsible for the repudiation itself? Be as specific as possible, because your request makes zero sense. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you make a WP:EDITREQuest, properly citing the source(s) supporting the request. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the LA Times article. Hadn't seen that before. Andreas JN466 13:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deadlyhandsomeman: If there are independent reliable sources that say "repudiation" or similar, we can look at those. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

1967 borders

I want to leave a link here to an RfC at Talk:Hamas where there was a discussion of whether or not Hamas accepted the 1967 borders and about a dozen scholarly sources that say Hamas had. A longer list of scholarly sources that say Hamas had accepted the 1967 borders is at Talk:Hamas/Archive_25#17scholarlysources.

There are also sources that explain why Hamas doesn't recognize Israel even though it accepts the 1967 borders, which obviously implies another country on the other side of those borders. I'll add that soon.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thematic organization

@Jayen466: excellent job in creating this article!

I wanted to propose organize the contents of the charter thematically as opposed to by paragraph. So the contents section would contain subheadings like "1967 borders", "Antisemitism", "Armed struggle" etc. I think that will be easier to navigate and more useful to the reader than headings like "Preamble", "Paragraphs 1-42" etc. What do you think? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Vice regent! I agree about the organization ... I always meant to change it eventually but never got round to it. So have at it! Best, Andreas JN466 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Palestinians returning to homes in Israel

The page mentions that in a hypothetical two state solution, it’s an obvious logical inconsistency to advocate for Palestinians to return to their homes in Israel without a source. ConlanO (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair and true presentation of this (new) charter

Hamas in their 2017 ‘charter’ didn’t just advocate or allow for such a Pal. state in ‘1967-borders’ (as our lead section correctly stated) but also still strove (and “struggled”) to “liberate” all (mandatory) “Palestine” from "the Zionist entity". This may seem or sound like a very difficult (for some perhaps even insolvable) puzzle; but that is for the reader to decide; it is not up to us, to make that puzzle seem simpler by leaving (the hardest and most controversial?) part out of our presentation of it. We then shouldn’t depict or suggest the Hamas’s new charter here as to be more simple, harmless and constructive (and practical and workable) than it really is. Such a more (fair and) true presentation of that charter does, however, not contradict or forbid the fact that we perhaps at the same time also feel pity for the civilian population of the Gaza Strip (and West Bank) who are suffering great distress, misery, hardship (since decades and perhaps even more severely since October 2023). --Corriebertus (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Fair and true"? We go by the sources, whether or not they are fair and true is for the reader to decide. I see no sources in the above comment, however. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Misleading title: not a new charter

I believe the Hamas ("Principles..." etc. vs "Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement") and Benny Morris on that. The Covenant remains the covenant, and the Principles are A) something else - and a lesser something, and B) people might argue with this, but the Principles are dust in the eyes of the West & taqiyya: tell them what they need to hear to support you, until you win. Because the Koran remains the Koran, and the Muslim Brotherhood remains loyal to Koran & Brotherhood teachings.

Good night, sleep tight. Arminden (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

On limiting itself to Palestine: A.) In general, the work is split between the Iran proxies, where the Quds Force & Hizbollah do the overseas work (see Argentina, Bulgaria etc.), but B.) Hasmas also got the taste of it. Here the Haaretz article (not much of a Netanyahu mouthpiece), and if you're not willing to pay, then here at The Times of Israel, not an... etc. either, but more towards the Zionist centre. Quoting Danish police ("terror" attack), not famous for being a Zionist stooge. Not good enough? What about the BBC? Arminden (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hamas is a creature of Israel, invented by them, nurtured by them and any consequences are just deserts. Israel/Netanyahu did it to keep Palestinians divided and now we see the results, along with Israeli true colors. If you want to change the title, as opposed to just ranting about it, there's a thing called an RM, you're welcome (don't forget the sources). Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

also referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter

This makes it sound like everyone accepts that this is a new charter. This is obviously not the case, I've provided a source that doesn't describe it as a charter and says that it's seen "by some" as a charter. Alaexis_¿question? 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the "some" part, needs more than just a single ref for that. Selfstudier (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's tally the sources currently in the article

• Slater: explicitly calls it a new charter
• Dunning: explicitly calls it a new charter
• Ayoob: explicitly calls it a new charter
• Schulz: explicitly calls it a new charter
• Hroub: this document "can be considered a new charter"
• Musgrave: "which was seen by some to be a new Charter"
• Seurat: calls it a document
• Milton-Edwards: calls it a new document
• Spoerl: calls it "2017 “Document”"
• Bartal: calls it “A Document of General Principles and Policies"
• Levitt & Rich: calls it a "new statement"

Media articles

• Abu Saada: doesn't call it a new charter
• Dunning: explicitly calls it a new charter

This is what we have in the Reception section, I'm not including politicians from both sides, non-scholars and the Israeli think tank. The sources in the "Assessments..." subsection are mostly media outlets and think-tanks so they have less weight.

Given this distribution, I think it's clear that while some sources do call it a charter, this is not a universally accepted name. Musgrave and Hroub are correct in saying that it's sometimes considered a new charter, and this is what we should say here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We have clear high quality RS that explicitly refers to it as a new charter. The fact that other terms are also used for it like "document" or "statement" elsewhere does not undermine that fact. Unless you can find non-fringe RS of equal weight and prominence that explicitly say it is not a charter and those RS who refer to it as such are wrong to do so, we should not artificially add any ambiguity here, as again it is not reflected by cited high quality RS.

Also, stop adding highly contentious lines into long-standing consensus pages that without seeking consensus first. You clearly did not establish consensus for it and yet you still keep adding it after other editors reverted it. This violates WIKI:EDITWARRING. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Your demand for "RS of equal weight and prominence" isn't appropriate, WP:WIKIVOICE has no such standard. Our policy is simply to not use wikivoice for opinions or interpretations.

We don't need a source explicitly saying "this is not a charter" to see that it's an opinion or interpretation; the sources Alaexis mentioned already make that quite clear. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If an article designates a name as a bolded aka, then it is perfectly OK to use that aka (wikilinked) until such time as it is no longer a bolded aka, for which an RM is needed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx Fortunately it's not a mere opinion or interpretation, it's how high quality RS "also refers to it as", per the sentence and cited sources.

We don't add ambiguity where there is no reason to do so, which would be the case if there are non-fringe high quality RS explicitly disputing its designation as such. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the sources Alaexis mentioned are somehow fringe? How so?

Here's another, Haaretz: Hamas isn’t renouncing [the charter]; nor is the new document called a “charter.” Do you think Haaretz is fringe also?

Here's one more: Hamas in Power (Qossay Hamed): In Arabic, similar to English, there exists a semantic difference between Wathiqa (Document) and Methaq (Charter). [...] In the context of Hamas, called the new literature a ‘Document’ has a significance. Ahmad Al-Betawi and Adnan Asfour explain that Hamas has never declared that the New Document is an alternative, amendment, or replacement of the Charter. Hamas’ Charter of 1988 is a long-term eternal covenant and promise that accounts for the movement’s moral and honorary commitment toward Palestine..

The latter is from a book which discusses this particular semantic distinction in depth, which carries a lot more weight than sources which simply use one or the other term in passing, with no indication that the author thought through the semantic distinction. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, stop making edits to long-standing text that are being discussed in talk for which there is clearly no consensus. Both you and @Alaexis are edit warring, and you have a habit of doing that. If you continue with this behavior, I will bring it up in arbitration. And I will revert your latest malicious edit, you have to obtain consensus for it here first.

The majority of the sources on the page noted by @Alaexis explicitly call it a charter, and none of them say that it should not be called a charter. In fact, some of them explicitly call it a charter themselves in other texts:

Milton-Edwards: As Hamas leaders now set about revising the charter, they’ve set aside the exhortation to jihad against Israel. And the new charter emphasizes leaders’ long-held willingness to move from maximalist positions. The revised charter, for example, offers the possibility of Hamas accepting political solutions to achieving Palestinian statehood in the territory of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. In short, this could be Hamas’ two-state solution moment.

Also, of those who don't call it a charter, Spoerl, Bartal and Levitt & Rich aren't subject-area experts. And @Alaexis is wrong about the Abu Saada Al Jazeera piece not calling it a charter, it explicitly does under the name of their senior political analyst Marwan Bishara: He said their philosophy and the philosophy behind writing a new charter is that “we are going to be a dynamic and open organisation”.

Regarding the Haaretz piece, do you think people will not bother to click on the links you provide? The title of that Haaretz piece calls it a "new charter": Why Hamas' New Charter Is Aimed at Palestinians, Not Israelis, and there are also links to other Haaretz articles on the same page explicitly referring to it as a charter:

Hamas Presents New Charter Supporting Palestinian State Along 1967 Borders: After some initial delays, Hamas presented its new charter on Monday.

House Foreign Affairs Head Dismisses Hamas's New Charter as 'Rebranding Effort'

Moreover, Hass concludes: But the Hamas charter is no longer the organization’s official ideological platform. Do you agree with this conclusion? Because I recall you arguing against that.

So I suppose you believe Haaretz is fringe when it disagrees with you, but a highly credible reliable source when you can nitpick it through a quick Google search.

Regarding the other source, that's from a PhD dissertation, not granted at a reputable institution, that was published through "IGI Global", a vampire publisher that has no editorial standards and is a PhD publishing mill, listed as a Vanity Press (meaning pay to publish) on Beall's List of predatory publishers. The fact that you had to resort to this obscure fringe source that you found through a Google search, and decided to ignore the rampant grammatical errors strewn throughout, shows I think what is actually happening here.

And though it shouldn't even be entertained; it merely explains the distinction between the terms, and doesn't say that it is not also referred to as a charter, which it plainly is by high quality RS, or that it shouldn't be.

Again, there are countless high quality RS that confirm (along with your precious Haaretz) the current lede description, namely that it is "also referred to as a new Hamas charter."

In fact it is so often referred to as a new charter that it is WP:COMMONNAME, hence why the page is named that. If you and @Alaexis want to argue otherwise and contest its usage as such, then it's not only about adding "some" to the first sentence, it's about an RM, as @Selfstudier noted.

If you want to go ahead with that, good luck. I oppose it for reasons mentioned. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you haven't fully grasped some of our policies:

• WP:HEADLINES - we give very little weight to them. Typically they're not even written by the author, but an editor with less context.
• WP:EXPERTSPS - a dissertation by a (now) PhD holder in the field is a reliable source, regardless of where it's published. It also seems farfetched to call a dissertation a "obscure fringe source" for being published in IGI Global, when traditional journals don't accept dissertations due to length etc. You also seem to be misreading Beall's List, which calls IGI Global vanity press but not predatory (not that it would be relevant anyway).
• WP:NPOV tells us to represent all significant viewpoints, which means that if two articles disagree (whether or not they're under the same publication), we normally represent both, unless one can be shown to be insignificant which is a high bar.

The fact remains that the aforementioned dissertation is the only source we have where a subject matter expert discusses this exact semantic question in depth. Merely using a word in passing isn't exactly an argument that that label fits precisely and isn't subtly wrong. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're incapable of grasping that headlines are matched by the content of the pages, specifically with respect to the Haaretz pieces I linked that use the term "new charter" in the articles.

Also, I know it's embarrassing that you presented a PhD dissertation from a non-reputable university by a person who is not a reputable scholar in the field (his main publication is the one from the PhD Vanity Press pay-to-publish mill) as your main go-to source to argue (inaccurately) that it says that the term "charter" should not be used, which it never does, but unfortunately it has zero value per WP:Reliable Sources: Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

Even if this had been published in a reputable academic press by a reputable scholar, it still wouldn't matter as it merely provides an analysis of the distinctive uses of the terms, and does not say that "charter" should not be used.

So this is clearly not a significant viewpoint, and WP:NPOV would only be violated if it were artificially introduced and presented as such on the page.

The entire discussion is moot, as the first sentence of the lede calls it by its official name, and then says: "also referred to as a new charter." It doesn't say that it is only referred to as such. By adding "some" like you wish to do even though it violates WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, you want to inaccurately portray its use as such as a minority or fringe position, when in reality it is the standard consensus usage for it in RS, both in media outlets and among subject-matter experts. In short, it is WP:COMMONNAME, which is why the page is titled "2017 Hamas Charter". Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:HEADLINE, feel free to propose a change to it, otherwise our current policy is to deem headlines unreliable.

You're quoting the less-specific section of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, rather than the section on dissertations. Dissertations are normally reviewed by a committee of scholars at the university, not volunteers for a journal. University of Bordeaux is a pretty good political science program, not sure why you would call it a "non-reputable university". It also just seems a bit silly to scrutinize this dissertation when it's the only source we have which really discusses this semantic issue.

By "official name", you mean the current title? We don't use Wikipedia as a source for itself. The current title being questionable doesn't oblige us to mirror that with questionable content. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The current title refers to the WP:COMMONNAME. From Hareetz you seem to be focusing on a single article, but there's plenty (some already mentioned above) that call it a charter in the body and sometimes in the header too (some examples 1 2 3 4 5). Regarding your other source, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP Completed dissertations [...] can be used but care should be exercised [...] Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not (emphasis by me). It doesn't seem the best source to use. Surely there are more RS supporting your point? I haven't properly checked the article to see if the list provided by Alaexis is accurate, but assuming it is, from the 13 sources, the vast majority called it a charter, and some call it a document, which is already reflected in the lead. So I'm not sure what exactly is that trying to prove.

This entire discussion seems like a waste of time. Per WP:WEIGHT, If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I'm not seeing that. - Ïvana (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Re dissertations, care should be exercised is out of context - it's followed with as they are often, in part, primary sources, which is not the case here. And it seems safe to assume that a dissertation at a reputable program like University of Bordeaux's would have gone through a meaningful committee review process.

Are there any other reliable sources which actually discuss this semantic issue and arrive at a different conclusion? Are there any prominent adherents to the view that this is a charter? Using a label in passing with no discussion of it doesn't really make one a adherent. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP specifies a preference for citing published book versions. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. and Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. As pointed out above by Raskolnikov.Rev, the dissertation was posted by a vanity press.

"Are there any prominent adherents to the view that this is a charter?" yes, and one comes to mind, Khaled Hroub, a leading scholar on the subject, who published two books about it and also has an article analyzing the charter where he explicitly calls it the new charter. "Using a label in passing with no discussion of it doesn't really make one a adherent" and presenting cherry-picked examples of articles that do not use the term doesn't prove that it is actually contested. If you can provide multiple reliable sources that analyze both terms and explain why charter is not applicable, you are welcome to cite them here. Otherwise, this perspective remains a minority view that should not carry significant weight. - Ïvana (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Dissertations from reputable institutions are vetted by a committee of scholars. Publication in a vanity press doesn't mean there was no review, it just means there was no review by a journal's unpaid volunteers. That's 100% normal for dissertations. A PhD in the relevant field clearly passes WP:EXPERTSPS in any case. I wouldn't say this is the ideal source, but it's clearly a reliable one.

The paper you mention says the document could be considered Hamas’s new charter, which isn't exactly a definitive statement that the label fits precisely. It also uses the label new charter twice. There doesn't appear be any discussion of this semantic issue at all beyond that sentence in the abstract. We're still left with zero sources expressing the view that "charter" is a precise label and not subtly wrong. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I and others would argue that it is difficult to use that source because we cannot conduct an expert analysis of that dissertation, and if you are doing so as an expert in the field, then that constitutes original research.

I agree with @Raskolnikov.Rev and @Ïvana - we are going around in circles because the view that it is not a charter does not have prominent adherents. On the other hand, the view that it is a charter does. Even the people over at RAND corporation call it a new or revised charter. I'm not sure how anyone could express the specific view you are demanding here: We're still left with zero sources expressing the view that "charter" is a precise label and not subtly wrong. We have plenty of sources saying that it is a charter. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't really have any sources clearly expressing this view that it is a charter though. To draw a comparison, if we look at something like Native American name controversy, its sources actually discuss the semantic issue; we don't take the mere use of a label like "native American" as an endorsement of one side of the semantic controversy. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's your position, run the RM and get it removed as an aka (which means that there are sources referring to it as a charter). Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

From the article and this talk page:

1. Luz 2023, p. 163: the current charter of Hamas [1]
2. Alsoos 2021: Hamas’s new charter [2]
3. Radonic 2021: the Hamas Charter of 2017 [3]
4. Ayoob & Lussier 2020: p. 124 new charter, p. 125 2017 charter [4]
5. Schulz 2020, p. 72: 2017 Charter [5]
6. Slater 2020 p. 334: new charter [6]
7. The editors of Contemporary Review of the Middle East 2017: new charter [7]
8. Hroub 2017, p. 102: de facto Hamas’s new charter [8]
9. Brenner 2017, p. xii: new de facto charter [9]

The assertion that We don't really have any sources clearly expressing this 'view that it is a charter' misrepresents the sources. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't responsive to the point I've been making, which is that the mere use of a label isn't an argument that it's precise and not subtly wrong. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's responsive to We don't really have any sources clearly expressing this 'view that it is a charter'. You should admit that we really have sources clearly expressing this view that it is a charter, because they call it a "charter." Their view may be wrong -- and you're free to disagree with it -- but that doesn't change the fact that it is their view. And we will include that view. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah my bad, I shared the abstract when I should have shared the actual article where Hroub calls it the de facto Hamas’s new charter.

Regarding the dissertation, it was published through IGI Global which is listed on Beall's List of predatory publishers. That is two red flags per WP:VANPRED, who not only calls out IGI Global specifically, but also points out how one of the indicators for predatory publishing include being listed on Beall's List. It also adds On Wikipedia, we, unlike scholars, cannot assess individual published works. We must instead rely on the reputation of the venue in which something is published [...] while it is possible to have good research published in a predatory journal or vanity press, it is unlikely. In those cases Wikipedia errs on the side of caution and does not consider those references to be valid. Vanity presses and predatory journals are disregarded for failing to conduct proper review and for their willingness to publish the work of researchers who actively avoid peer review. I think that makes it clear that it is not a valid source. - Ïvana (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, de facto Hamas’s new charter does seem more useful, although it's still only part of a sentence vs Hamed's substantive discussion of the matter.

Clearly actively avoid peer review doesn't apply here - there's just no peer-reviewed journal which would accept a book.

While I think this passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP, really WP:EXPERTSPS is the most relevant here. This isn't empirical research or anything like that, it's just expert commentary which would pass EXPERTSPS even if it was published on a blog with zero review. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I'll recheck my list and prepare a table, adding more relevant RS. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)