Talk:Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Revert Background

Greyshark09, you made this revert with the sounding comment "unsourced biased political anti-Hamas manifest". You created this article on 12 October 2014‎ without further adding one iota. Please can you explaine your hollow cry that does not make any sense? I merely stated obvious facts, which are unchallenged and supported by links.

You make an absolute fool of yourself by calling the presentation of Hamas' position an "anti-Hamas manifest", so make a useful contribution or back off. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International community

This phrase is used in the article but I question it's appropriateness. Does most of the world actually oppose the unification of Fatah-Hamas or is it just the usual anti-Palestine players who oppose a unified Palestinian government? Sepsis II (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As "most of the world" designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, this might be true but also not true. I"ll add a citation needed tag on "major parts of the international community" until I"ll find a proper source.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process. 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:

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) 17:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: 2017 talks Suggestion

Could an authorised editor (perhaps Qualitatis, Sepsis II or Bolter21) please add, or consider adding, the following edit under a new sub-section?

2017 talks
In 2017 reconciliation talks led to an agreement whereby Hamas will cede control of Gaza’s civilian ministries and add 3,000 Palestinian Authority police officers in the enclave.^[1] The deal was organised under pressure from Qatar, the UAE and, especially, Egypt; however, according to The Economist, it “is likely to fail for the same sorts of reasons” as agreements of the past.^[1]

Yes sir! Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "The Palestinians try to reconcile". The Economist. 5 October 2017.

2022 Agreement

Can an authorized user please add info about the 2022 Palestinian reconciliation agreement? Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EI is not acceptable here

It is not written by subject matter experts (as far as I can tell), and the source is not to be used in this area, where it is particularly unreliable. FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both authors are with Inter Press Service (https://www.ipsnews.net/author/khaled-moussa-al-omrani/ and https://www.ipsnews.net/author/adam-morrow/) and the article is a repost from that newsorg per statement at bottom of article "All rights reserved, IPS - Inter Press Service (2009). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden" so I think that is OK. the source is not to be used in this area, where it is particularly unreliable ? Says who? What area? Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliability of the source has been discussed at length in the RfC, with a significant amount of the Issues related to I/P. As contentious topics generally require a higher standard of sourcing, EI generally is not appropriate IMO.

I saw that, but couldn’t find the original article (that may be geographical or my search engine, but who knows). IPS does appear to be reliable and older EI is sometimes less bad, so if you find it from them and it wasn’t removed/retracted, I am happy for you to include the IPS version? FortunateSons (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to leave it the way it is, I guess you didn't get that part? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got that part. However, as an actual IPS source would address both of our issues, I think a second pair of eyes to look for it would be beneficial, don’t you? I can look for a different source for the same content and then replace based on source quality, but IPS has decent ratings, so if we find that, it would be optimal? FortunateSons (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I you to mine, I’ll look for a non-gunrel source unless you believe that this citation provides a unique benefit? FortunateSons (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content EI is cited for is Fatah clings to adherence to the Quartet conditions, including recognition of Israel and focus on negotiations with Israel, while Hamas wants a majority in a new government and refuses to recognize Israel. Are you suggesting that they are not accurately representing what happened? Or is it that you think that any usage in anything related to Palestine is unreliable? Beyond that, it is a Wikipedia:Convenience link for the IPS article. Anyway, you dont get to decide that a source may not be used in a topic area, that isnt how any of this works. nableezy - 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the articles I’ve read in the last months, I wouldn’t trust them on their own for anything not verified by a third party unless written by an expert. If this is just a convenience link, it can stay, but someone needs to actually make sure they are identical, per “However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.” (From the essay). If you have access and can do it, it can stay (obviously not verifiable, but I’m going to trust your word if you give it). FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your level of trust isnt my concern. Nor is your belief that you are the arbiter of what can stay and what cannot. This is entirely non-objectionable content and I see no reason why EI isnt reliable in this context, even if it werent an IPS news article. nableezy - 18:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cited the essay, I think it isn’t a unreasonable expectation that you actually make an effort to follow it. FortunateSons (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that EI is perfectly reliable to believe them that this is an IPS reprint and even if were EI staff writers that this instance, internal Palestinian politics, is an area where they are well-suited to be cited. nableezy - 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I believe to have found our issue: I consider this to be at the very least external-adjacent enough to be considered partially external with Israel, an area where their reliability has been disputed in the RfC. As I said above, if you have access and can verify that they are identical, I would consider the issue to be resolved. FortunateSons (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think EI is unreliable for this material, or for saying that this is an IPS news report. As such I do not see any reason to go beyond including the EI link. That appears to be the majority view here, and if you dispute that view you can raise that at some noticeboard if you like. nableezy - 19:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[“veconomist”-1] "The Palestinians try to reconcile". The Economist. 5 October 2017.

[1]