Talk:Hamas leader discusses future of Palestinian State and Israel

NPOV
Please provide npov as I could not find appropriate material in the article for that purpose. Neutralizer 04:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it, but without an official transcript there will be difficulties with some of the characterizations of the discussion. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In comparing the statements of al-Zahar with the descriptions of the conversation in this article, I find the quotes and interpretation of this article to be expressing or supporting a POV. The title, for example, is not supported by the statements of al-Zahar.

I suspect the article may accurately reflect al-Zahar's beliefs, but the actual text of the CNN transcript does not support the interpretations; he carefully avoids making any such claims while at the same time implying they are the logical conclusions to draw.

I'm also at a loss as to how turn this article into a news article. CNN had an interview with a co-founder of Hamas regarding the future political actions of the newly-elected party. The party carefully made no committments on foreign policy, except to state it would announce its policy regarding Israel when Israel announced the borders it would recognize with Palestine. There's no news here. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, Amgine; I also find the "story" cumbersome and don't really know how to fix it or make it more appropriate for Wikinews. It may be unusable. I did notice that some of the Hamas leader's remarks(below) jolted Blitzer (you can't tell it from the transcript, however), so I thought that maybe there was some kind of important news in here; but even if there is,as you say, it may be too vague to report. Neutralizer 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * About the flag : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/isflag.html

Jacques Divol


 * Yes, Even in Wikipedia there is a section about "Claims of "Nile to Euphrates" territorial ambitions". Neutralizer 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Transcript
Since the transcript is pretty long, here are the sections I used for the beginning of the article;

"Lastly, I think -- and also at the same time, ask the Israeli about what is the meaning of the two blue lines in their flag. What is the meaning of land of Israel in their concept?

BLITZER: The two blue lines on the Israeli flag that are on top of the Star of David, is that what you're talking about?

AL-ZAHAR: They are indicating -- they are saying that frankly -- it is indicating the River Nile and Euphrates (inaudible). On one coin, the gold shekel, there was -- it was a map, including Palestine, Sinai, Syria, Jordan and part of Saudi Arabia. So they are not denying that. Ask them about this question...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Well, let's just be clear about this. What you're saying is that Israel wants to establish a state between the Nile and the Euphrates, is that what you're saying?

AL-ZAHAR: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question.

BLITZER: Are you saying that Israel hopes to establish a state between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River in Iraq?

AL-ZAHAR: Yes. It is written in their Bibles. They are even -- it is written in the Knesset. That is the meaning of the David Star that was said (ph) as the land of Israel. This is the historical land of Israel.

AL-ZAHAR: All the time, you are describing, you are not accepting Israel to exist. I think it is unfair to speak like that, because we are -- we are not a supreme power. We are a single (ph) people who are living in these occupied territories. Why is our enemy having an atomic bomb? Who is going to destroy the other? Hamas is going to destroy atomic state, or the atomic state is threatening the international security, especially Middle East security?" Neutralizer 04:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

title / what exactly is the focus of this story?
Not sure about the title. I guess one first needs to figure out what the story should be about. Right now I see no reason why the current title is preferrable to, say, "Hamas leader avoids questions on American TV". And the second version is much preferrable to the first, as I see no reason to give Hamas a platform for their accusations by making this the title, especially when the supporting arguments are quite inconsistent...(It's all in the flag, don't you see?) As hinted above, maybe there just is not enough content in that interview to make it a viable news story. --vonbergm 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been trying to find a story in here because Blitzer seemed to react (on TV) as if he had tripped over some "breaking news"; but there just isn't anything here that I can find. I will change the title in case anyone else thinks this is worth developing; I have come to agree with Amgine and Vonbergm on this one. Neutralizer 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

title / Title
After reading the relevant sources, I don't think the title is appropriate. He seems to address all of Blitzer's questions. What's wrong with "Hamas leader discusses future of Palestinian State"?