Talk:Samidoun

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

NGO Monitor as a source

This should probably be avoided per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Prezbo (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Misleading Intro Regarding Terrorist Status in US

The intro currently reads "Samidoun has been restricted or designated as a terrorist group by Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, Canada, and the United States...." My issue with this is that "restricted" and "designated as a terrorist group" are very different categories of condemnation by these states.

This is particularly a problem with the United States because the US has not designated Samidoun a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It has made them a "Specially Designated National" and sanctioned them for association with designated FTOs like the PFLP. In the announcement from the Treasury Department, the only direct accusation made is that Samidoun is a "sham charity." The legal rights of SDNs and their associates differ from FTOs in material ways.

Both categories in this sentence are serious accusations, but the intro currently conflates the two categories and gives a false impression. I'm not sure how I would reword this offhand, but these designations ought to at least be split into two sentences, I think. lethargilistic (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, one sentence per category seems like a reasonable approach. Afaict, the two sources for Germany (Reuters and Federal Ministry of the Interior) only say Samidoun was banned in Germany and do not indicate that Germany designated Samidoun as a terrorist organisation. Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the section National bans and sanctions should also be clarified in a similar way the second paragraph of the lead should be. Just pointing it out for anyone who wants to correct this. Mason7512 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I took a stab at this, so let me know if you think this is good.

I have similar concerns about the Dutch source, so I added the primary source to the article. I don't read Dutch, but the reporting traces back to a translation of the Dutch source posted on Twitter by an Israeli diplomat. Their translation says that the Dutch Parliament was calling on the government to designate Samidoun a terrorist organization, not that the resolution itself had the effect of the Netherlands designating Samidoun a terrorist organization. I don't know if those are the same thing in the Dutch system, but it could use a look-see by someone more familiar or with more time. lethargilistic (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I got around to it. Basically, I am convinced that the October 1 resolution in the Dutch Parliament was just that: calling on the relevant government agency (i.e., not Parliament) to add Samidoun to the list of terrorist organizations. The list can be found here, and it is dated on the website October 3. The last addition to the list was The Base on January 18. Each addition links to an official publication from the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs announcing the decision. This is the announcement for The Base. As a reminder, this is the parliamentary resolution about Samidoun. They are clearly different. Samidoun is not on the Dutch terrorist list as of now. We should check back in a few more weeks. lethargilistic (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead changes

@Marquardtika: That the edits "whitewash" is a serious claim and WP:AGF should have been the first reliant. It should be noted that the edits merely restored what was inexplicably removed in recent edits which unilaterally overhauled the article. WP:ABOUTSELF can lead to a rewording but a wholescale removal of what the group claims to be is undue, it was afterall setup to advocate for prisoner rights (specifically PFLP prisoners though it obfuscates that). The recent edits barely pass the vail of WP:NPOV when you replace this descriptive with vague "anti-Israel" (nowhere in body though and needless regardless when in the very next line we list its alleged connections to the PFLP and designation on that basis) and "designated as a terrorist group by a number of global governments" directly in the lead sentence. [PS: The above discussion shows that the group hasn't actually been designated as such by the Dutch government (parliamentary resolutions don't do that). So, the "number of global governments" is basically Israel and Canada.] You should see how we describe Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other militant groups on enwiki [at least for the lead] on why your edits are problematic (Samidoun isn't even a militant group).

And where is "prominent" organizer of protests coming from? I don't see sources for this nor is this in the body. This wording also appears to be deligitimizing the protests as a whole, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with this group (a gander at Gaza war protests in the United States will tell you that).

The use of highly questionable sources such as WP:FREEBEACON and WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER in such a contentious area is also not something we should be doing.

Again, I would note that it was your recent edits which overhauled a WP:STABLE article. This is a sanctioned topic area and we have both made our reverts here, we need to continue the discussion here. If you don't see this as viable, I can move the discussion to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Gotitbro (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro, Marquardtika's version better reflects WP:RS. High-quality sources including NBC and National Post have both called Samidoun anti-Israel and have in fact gone much further, calling the group pro-Hamas and terrorist. "Anti-Israel" by comparison is a neutral, very well-supported statement. GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This barely addresses rest of the concerns raised above to justify a wholescale revert. I will be taking this to the noticeboard. Gotitbro (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a group that cheered the October 7 massacres and handed out candy to celebrate the anniversary. As shown above (and in the article), reliable sources have described them as "a terrorist group" and "pro-Hamas". It would be absolutely inappropriate to use their WP:ABOUTSELF description in the lede. That would be non-neutral, to say the least. Marquardtika (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We can describe its claims on our own words in the lede then, though the recent edit by Evan works for me. Hamas actually carried out those attacks and see how the lede for that militant group goes (as also for PFLP). This isn't even a militant group and we would need to be even more measured as such. Gotitbro (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:UNCHALLENGED, just because the article has been unchanged for a while doesn't mean it can't be improved. However, I'm not sure all of the changes are fully NPOV compliant. I agree that removing the self description is non-neutral, but the old "struggle for freedom" quote wasn't neutral either. I've tried to strike a middle ground between the prior stable version and the most recent updates on this point. I also agree that anti-Israel is a contentious label and should be removed. Moving the PFLP front allegations down and just saying they've been designated a terrorist group seems like an improvement. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@EvansHallBear: The Netherlands hasn't actually designated this group as terrorist, that was only a parliamentary resolution to do so. This is now incorrectly stated in both the lede and the body. lethargilistic clearly pointed this out in the last discussion above. Gotitbro (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I reverted that part. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Check out WP:MISSION. There is no reason to cite the group's own self-published/self-described mission statement. This article should be about what reliable sources say about the group, not what the group says about itself (unless that is included in independent sources). Marquardtika (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Saw this in the NPOV noticeboard and it piqued my interest. Agreed that per WP:MISSION there needs to be a stronger justification for keeping the self-descriptive in the lead. Looks like WP:PROMO, at most, it seems justifiable to find an appropriate location for the content in the body of the article. Maybe in the History or Funding sections? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of PapaTakaro, see investigation.

Sources for recognition as terrorist groups are absent

The intro mentioned that the EU recognizes Samidoun as a terrorist organisation, however there is no source, and the EU as an entity does not declare organizations as terrorist. Its member states do so on their own. I do not have the permission to edit the page but it should be reflected.

The article had very few sources in general.

Bouktin (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The article says that "Samidoun has been designated as a terrorist group by Israel and Canada for raising funds for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a political and militant group that the US, European Union, and several other countries designate as a terrorist organization." It doesn't say that the EU designated Samidoun as a terrorist group, it says the EU designated PFLP as a terrorist group. And yes, the EU does maintain a terrorist list. Marquardtika (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)