Jump to content

Talk:Hamas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Organ123 (talk | contribs) at 13:36, 20 July 2007 (→Best known for ---> Responsible for). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateHamas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:FAOL

Archive
Archives

Points of reference... Sinn Fein and the IRA

I thought that I might point out that a similar relationship to Hamas and the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades existed between the Northern Irish movements of Sinn Fein and the IRA during the 70s, 80s and 90s. I think that these two excellent articles on Wikipedia perhaps offer a useful template for this article. In both of these articles, the introduction outlines the organisation broadly within its own terms, whilst the subsequent sections talk in detail about controversies and the views of others.

Interestingly, the UK - having dealt with Sinn Fein and the IRA - only officially consider the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades to be a terrorist organisation. But, perhaps that point should be saved for a different discussion -- 128.232.240.178 13:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas' own view

An interesting article in the LA Times by a Hamas official shows its own view:

Mousa Abu Marzook (2007-07-10). "Hamas' stand". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

—Ashley Y 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas is best know for....

I agree with Nbauman. Newspapers that are generally considered to be reliable sources cannot be considered to be reliable sources if they give opinions without supporting evidence. This is why a reputable journal like the Wall Street Journal is not regarded as a reliable source in the Global Warming article. They regularly publish editorials disputing the consensus on climate change. But they do not cite peer reviewed papers when they do that.

Basically the facts reported on wikipedia have to be verifiable. That means that if wikipedia refers to the Baltimore Sun, then I should be able to verify that fact from the Baltimore Sun. Which means that they should explain how they obtained that fact, e.g. a poll or they should cite a study published somewhere else. Count Iblis 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely misunderstood (or perhaps not read) WP:V. It says that sources are either reliable or not; it doesn't say that we have to be able to fact-check them ourselves, or that they suddenly become unreliable if we happen to disagree with something they've said. Regarding newspapers, the statements in question do not come from their opinion pages, but rather from their hard news pages. In addition, the sources used are not just newspapers; PBS, ABCNews, Time Magazine, and Der Speigel are not newspapers. And James L. Gelvin is certainly not a newspaper; rather, he is a recognized, highly respected, expert in exactly this field. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV says: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute..."
"Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.
When you say, "It is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks" that's not a fact but an opinion, just like saying that the Beatles were the greatest band. You have to attribute it to the media, and you haven't done so.
You also have to support that with reference to a particular survey, or to something equivalent to the Billboard Hot 100. You haven't done that. That long list of citations is merely a collection of opinions, the equivalent of saying, "the Beatles were the greatest band." According to WP:NPOV you can't say that without reference to something like a particular survey.Nbauman 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections you are citing apply in the case of a single opinion. When you have a dozen different reliable sources all making the same claim, and none claiming anything different, then it is a simple fact and can be stated as such. Have you found any reliable sources that claim anything different? Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at. Otherwise it is just an opinion and that should then be stated in the article. As for contradictory published opinions, you wouldn't expect there to be any, because Hamas being best known for X or Y is simply not an interesting topic for research.
Perhaps Hamas is no longer "best known" anymore for sucide bombings but rather for their takeover of Gaza. But assuming that to be the case, you wouldn't see a flood of articles that will write: "Hamas used to be best known for suicide bombings, but a recent poll conducted by X now says that Hamas is best known for the Gaza takeover." Can you imagine reading this somewhere? I can't, and this just shows that when people write about Hamas being best known for X or Y, they do that for literary purposes.
Such statements then can lead lives of their own, detached from future developments. Suppose that after 30 years there is peace with Israel, there is a Palestinian state and that Hamas is a repectable political party. Even then you would still have your old sources saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" and there would still not be any sources saying that Hamas is best known for something else. Count Iblis 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at". According to whom? Is there some part of WP:V you are referring to? In fact, using original research to try to confirm or refute reliable sources is a violation of policy. And you don't need a bunch of articles saying Hamas is not best known for suicide bombings, you just need reliable sources saying it is best known for something else. Regarding your final point, when that time comes, we will be able to say that it was best known for suicide bombings. There's no point in trying to pretend that the truth doesn't exist; Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, and that fact is also verified. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that one has to perform original research to verify sources. If I read something in a newspaper about some event, I know that a journalist is reporting on facts. Unless that newpapaper is not reliable (e.g. known for inventing facts), we don't have to question that. But statements that are clearly not the result of observations or measurements must not be taken too seriously. I agree that Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, that is pretty much undisputed. But very specific statements (in this case the word "best" in "best known" and "outside the Palestinian territories") requires additional evidence which simply does not exist. Perhaps this issue must be raised at the talk pages of WP:V and related pages... Count Iblis 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fine line between "infamous" and "best known", and the sources do say "best known". And, as I've pointed out, they're not all newspapers. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at". According to whom? Is there some part of WP:V you are referring to?
We're referring to this part of WP:NPOV:
we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey;
"the Beatles were the greatest band" must be supported by references to a particular survey.
Similarly, "Best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings" must be supported by references to a particular survey.
It's not sufficient to simply find many newspapers that describe the Beatles as the greatest band, just as it's not sufficient to find many newspapers that describe Hamas as "Best known" for its suicide bombing.
Therefore, that line about Hamas violates WP:NPOV. Nbauman 05:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you've read the responses above, which deal with what you're saying. It's not just one source that says they're "best known" for that, but a dozen. When a dozen diverse reliable sources say something, one cannot list every single one that says it; rather, one simply reports the fact. If you find reliable sources that say they are best known for something else, then, of course, one would have to report on both "sides". But right now, reliable sources support only one view. Jayjg (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources that say "Hamas is best known in the west for...etc etc". I think this is more NPOV as there are many Islamic communities/countries in the east that that dont have the view as well as many countries who probably don't even think about what Hamas is known for at all. Wayne 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an opinion on such a controversial subject is disputed, newspapers are no longer a RS as they usually conform to their governments POV. In fact they actually lie as was proved when FOX was sued and the courts ruled the media has no obligation to tell the truth even if they know what they report is a lie. If we use only Islamic newspapers I guarantee they will mostly say Hamas is best know for their humanitarian works but no one is suggesting we edit that in. I suggest using a RS that is an academic opinion for a reference to avoid the dispute. Wayne 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, to begin with, American and British newspapers do not, in fact, "usually conform to their governments POV". Second, we haven't quoted FOX here. Third, as explained many times, many of the sources are not newspapers. Since you seem to be ignoring my comments, which pointed out many times that it was more than just newspapers, I'm not going to respond any more to yours. I hope you don't mind. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've obviously read the responses above. You keep repeating an argument that violates the explicit words of WP:NPOV.
If you want to say, "The Beatles were the greatest band," it's not enough to get repeated media statements that The Beatles were the greatest band; you have to get a RS reporting a survey of people from, say, Liverpool, saying that The Beatles are the greatest band.
Similarly, if you want to say that "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," it's not enough to get repeated media statements; you have to get a RS reporting a survey of people from outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip saying so.
The example of The Beatles in WP:NPOV parallels the case of Hamas in every substantial way. You're violating NPOV and I'm going to change it.
I propose we take this to arbitration, since you simply deny that WP rules apply even when they clearly do. I believe that any unbiased reader of WP:NPOV will agree with me. Nbauman 18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you keep inserting falsehoods into the statement; it's not just "Western media" who make this claim, and you still haven't found any sources that say they're best known for anything else. Also, the Arbitration Committee doesn't deal with content disputes, and doesn't in any event deal with disputes that have not first been through mediation. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is about as clear as it can possibly be stated. Jayjg, Avraham, and any of the others who keep insisting on a unqualified version of the "best known" line are running afoul of the Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves bit of WP:NPOV. Tarc 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As explained, oh gosh, 5 times now, we can't really list all the sources which say it, because there are a dozen now. At some point something just becomes fact. Of course, I have welcomed someone else providing a source that says Hamas is "best known" for something else, but so far there have been no takers. How about you? Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The number of citations is irrelevant. There are hundreds of reputable sources that contradict the scientific consensus on global warming. However, because they give opinions, mostly of dissenting scientists and do not give detailed scientific arguments (also there is no peer review in newspapers), such articles cannot be regarded as a reliable source for that article. I think that this case is much the same. You can have many articles making statements that can only be established using some research. But if that research (like conducting polls) is not done, then it is just an opinion.
With Jayjg's rule, the pseudoscience pushers would have a field day on wikipedia. There are a lot of them here on wikipedia who edit articles like theoneon Cold Fusion. They write about some observed anolay that has allegedly been observed, giving some citation to a newspaper article. You'll never be able to dispute that directly by citing some scientist who contradicts that, because they won't bother. The way to deal with this problem is to demand that the citation for a claim be of an acceptable standard. In case of scientific articles that would be the peer reviewed journals that have a high impact factor in the relevant field.
In case of this article, one has to make sure that if we present something to be a fact rather than an opinion, the literature indeed presents it in that way. But the sentence "best known..." in the cited articles is presented there as a vague opinion, not supported by any research. Count Iblis 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your slippery slope argument does not apply, as "pseudoscience pushers" are not reliable sources to begin with. On the other hand, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen are. And in any event, James L. Gelvin is certainly an expert on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were only that simple. From time to time you'll read articles on, say, Cold fusion, in similar reliable sources that give the perspecive of someone who disputes the established scientific point of view. Let me give another example. Prof. Lindzen is an expert in meteorology, who regularly publishes his skeptical ideas on climate science in the reputable journal The Wall Street Journal Count Iblis 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you know what? He may be right. He's not the only respected scientist who is a climate science skeptic, at least regarding the current claims being advanced regarding the accuracy of the models being used, the attribution of causes, and the predictions for the future. However, that's completely unrelated to the topic at hand; there is no pseudo-science here, and no-one is claiming anything particularly outrageous or even that hard to believe. I think we're all agreed that Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, so now it's just a tiny issue of degree, whether it is not only "infamous", but also "best known". As I said earlier, that's a very find distinction. I've already ignored some of the original waffle put into the sentence, where it says "outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip", even though almost none of the sources qualify "best known" in this way. Indeed, you can bet that Hamas is very well known for its suicide bombings inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, if The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"? Nbauman 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have left off a couple of the sources. This doesn't surprise me. Have I been able to make it clear to you yet that James L. Gelvin says the exact same thing? That Gelvin is an academic expert? Try an analogy that includes that sort of source, then I'll respond. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection if you wrote, "According to James L. Gelvin, Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks."
But my position is you can't say "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," and attribute it to Gelvin or anybody else in the footnotes.
Once again, I'm asking you: if The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"? Nbauman 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Gelvin doesn't say "outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip"; he simply says Hamas is "best known" for its suicide attacks. Would you be o.k. with that? How about if the article said "According to James L. Gelvin, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen, Hamas is best known for suicide attacks"? Would that be a reasonable statement in your view? Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a statement that began, "According to James L. Gelvin," etc. would not violate WP:NPOV. Nbauman 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But would it make sense to insert the sentence "According to James L. Gelvin, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen, Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" into the article? Also, I'm very curious, as I can't seem to get an answer to this question: Is Hamas "best known" for anything else? Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't make sense, but at least it wouldn't violate WP:NPOV.

I don't think it makes any sense to say in a purported objective, factual article that an entity is "best known" for anything. If there were an objective measurement such as polling data, it might (or might not) make sense, as in the Beatles example, but you don't have that objective measurement here. Nbauman 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources cited were probably talking out of their behinds when they came up with "Hamas is best known...". But honestly, who cares? Can't we just say "widely known", "well known", "notorious", etc? Yes, it's true that as an organization, Hamas does not invest a major portion of its resources into suicide bombings, and they've suspended their use of the tactic for at least two years now. Those facts should be mentioned, too, and prominently. But I don't understand why it's so important to split hairs over wording here. Can we just say "notorious" and leave it at that? Eleland 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spliting hairs. It's an important principle that Wikipedia must stick to the verifiable facts. In using Wikipedia, we all agree to follow WP:NPOV and the other Wikipedia rules that prevent people with one particular ideology from taking over an issue and turning it into propaganda.
This Hamas article violates many Wikipedia rules, including NPOV, which is the most clear-cut and egregious.
Wikipedia absolutely must not say in the text that Hamas is a terrorist WP:WTA organization or that it's "best known" for its terrorist activities, without attribution. If Wikipedia allowed that, we would be arguing forever about for example whether Israel is a terrorist state. Nbauman 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with considering the aggregation of sources reliable, but I think it should be "Best known in the West for its sucide bombings" (or possibly "in Israel and the West"). I don't think the sources given support more than that. —Ashley Y 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Y, please clarify. Do you mean you're fine with using the attribution, such as "According to James L. Gelvin, Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks."?
You agree that we can't just write, "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," right? Nbauman 10:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we're having here is an administrator who is fabricating policy such as "at some point something just becomes fact". What the real policy states is that we are to assert the facts of the opinion (i.e. that many Western media/sources feel Hamas is best known for suicide bombings and such), and we are not not assert that opinion itself as fact (i.e. declaring that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings). Tarc 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid comments which could be considered personal attacks ("fabricating policy"). I strongly suggest that this issue, which frankly strikes me as really, really stupid, be sidestepped. Describe Hamas as "notorious for" suicide attacks, or "well known for" if you insist that "notorious" sounds like editorializing. This article may have POV problems but laser-like focus on this single, fairly unimportant distinction between "best known", "best known in the West", "best known in the West according to (laundry list of reliable sources)" is a waste of time. Eleland 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the sources says "infamous", I believe, and other editors here have agreed that the term is appropriate. The problem is that all of the sources actually say "best known". I suppose we could try "Infamous for its suicide bombings etc.", if everyone else agrees. It can't really be "best known in the west" because almost none of the sources make that qualification. It astonishes me how editors here are willing to insert all sorts of unsourced claims into the intro on this subject, but mightily resist the actual wording used by a dozen reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, I keep asking you this question and you haven't given me an answer: If The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"?
I'd like you to answer this question. Or if you can't answer this question, say so.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbauman (talk • contribs) 13:31, July 19, 2007 (UTC)
No, I asked my question first, so I'll expect an answer first. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you your answer. You're obviously playing games with me. For the record, you can't or won't answer that question. I'll leave it at that. Nbauman 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you actually have never answered the question. Show me the post in which you did. And it's time for you to stop playing games; Wikipedia will report what reliable sources say on this topic, regardless of your determined attempts to whitewash this article. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got your answer, and I'll answer again. The idea that Hamas has to be "best known for" anything is nonsense. Nbauman 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

Jayjg, how can "infamous" or "notorious" be a neutral point of view? Nbauman 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are misunderstanding what neutral point of view means. It does not mean that the text has to be written as if by a lobotomized robot. It means “representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).” Here, fairly representing the views published by the LONG list of reliable sources brought in the article demands our use of terms similar to "best known", "infamous", etc. To do otherwise is to deny, or re-write, the evidence provided, which is a VIOLATION of WP:NPOV, besides original research. Here, I will bring a larger excerpt for your convenience, but I suggest that you re-read the policy on neutral point of view for your own clarification (emphasis added is my own):

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth," in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

— WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view

-- Avi 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Avi said. They are, indeed, and without question, infamous for suicide attacks. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible for…

I think that is a reasonable substitution. -- Avi 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought that it would be better. You see that sticking to the hard facts works both ways... Count Iblis 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bland, doesn't represent the sources properly. I've put in infamous. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but then there are other citations that can be used... Count Iblis 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is best known for....

I can't find it in the Hezbollah article :) I'm sure that if I could find such statements in the lead, then that article would still have the POV tag on it and would certainly not have been awarded Good Article Status.

So, why not consider if we want to have difficult to verify statements (and I mean "verify" in the literally sense not in the wiki-law sense) that expresses certain opinions in the lead. In this case the statement is itself the opinion of people (that Hamas is best known for...) about which certain authors have expressed an opinion without doing any research to gauge that opinion. So, the dispute is whether it is an opinion about an opinion, or wheter it is a fact that it is "the opinion".

So, I would propose to focus more on the hard facts in the lead. Opinions about Hamas are facts too, but they are secondary facts. They must also be mentioned in the article, can even be mentioned in the lead if it is important enough. But any fact, whether it is a fact about the organization or a fact about the opinion of people must be presented fairly.

If we assume for a moment that Hamas is indeed "best known for suicide attacks" (e.g. suppose that a poll shows this), it would still not be a good idea to mention this in the lead. The suicide attacks themselves are then more important facts and these should be presented more prominently. In the lead you want to put the most important facts about the organization. So, one has to wonder why one would want to mention an opinion about the conduct of an organization in the lead, rather than the conduct itself. Count Iblis 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that Tarc inserted that falsehood about "in the Western media" again, which shows he hasn't even bothered to look at the sources or the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and the only one spouting falsehoods here is you I'm afraid. The sources are all examples of Western media, and the continued insertion of it is a clear NPOV violation. Hell, the "infamous" term is even worse, as now we're nose-diving into weasel words. Tarc 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I have clearly pointed out several times that not all sources used are "Western media". I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Please review the sources and the Talk: page, and refrain from inserting original research falsehoods into the article again. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources grouped together under note #5 are Western media and books by Western authors. Please stop distorting the facts. Tarc 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, it appears you tried to pull a fast one there. A book by a scholar of the Middle East, whose particular expertise is nationalism and the social and cultural history of the modern Middle East, is not "Western media". Please don't insert falsehoods into the article again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the discussion, "Western media" and Israeli sources are one and the same. You should have known that, and if you didn't well, now you do! Whoops! Tarc 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best known for ---> Responsible for

I know that the sentence now reads a bit more awkward and that the citation needs t be modified a bit. Also, we may want to qualify this statement a bit more. But I think that this is better, given what I wrote above... Count Iblis 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified to something more realistic, "infamous". The sources actually support "best known", but I'm willing to compromise. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're willing to compromise. We can compromise on something more neutral than "infamous", which has a clear bias and point of view. Nbauman 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, you have misunderstood what "neutral" means in the WP:NPOV policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nbauman has not misunderstood what "neutral" means. Administrator should cease from pushing POV in the intro to this article. The second paragraph is highly misleading. It states the obvious falsehood that Hamas is best known outside of Palestine for its suicide attacks. Nonsense. Everyone here knows that that is untrue, but one person is almost singlehandedly stonewalling efforts to insert reality into the second paragraph. I don't want to sound combative, but reading through the archives it's pretty clear that that is what's happening here. Please cease from pushing POV at the expense of reality. There is a near-consensus here, since the sentence with "best known for" is so clearly absurd. The weak argument that we are just going along with the sources doesn't hold water here, since the sources aren't based on polls, and since almost everyone here thinks the current phrasing is misleading. Let's put something in the second paragraph that reflects reality. The point of this article is not to make Hamas look bad by inserting whatever reflects our viewpoints at the expense of a reflective and accurate article. Finally, the editor who is downplaying the significance of this aspect of the intro might reconsider; with Gaza effectively starving to death right now, propaganda-pushing at the expense of fact and perspective is no light matter. Organ123 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reality I think everyone here knows it's true, though some are publicly denying it because of personal bias. In any event, the material is properly sourced to reliable sources, and not one person has yet to come up with any other thing that Hamas might be best known for. Your argument that "the sources aren't based on polls" is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy; WP:V says we rely on reliable sources, we don't use our own original research to try to disprove them. Finally, the editor referring to "propaganda-pushing" would do well to avoid engaging in it in the future; that would be a nice change. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we don't have a strict separation between reliable sources and non reliable sources. See the examples about scientific topics I gave above. This is not an Original Research issue, rather just demanding that the sources give facts rather than opinions (and if they give opinions rather than facts that we report it here as being an opinion). If a source is reliable they will tell how they got the facts they report on if it isn't obvious.
Anyway, I think the best thing to do is to avoid the issue altogether. If there are no objections then let's just replace:
"Best known for" ---> "Responsible for"
and replace the citation by the citations given in the section about military and terror attacs. Count Iblis 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep acting as if a) "facts" and "opinions" were completely different beasts, b) one could easily distinguish between the two, and c) Wikipedia policy insisted we should only deal with "facts". It's not our responsibility to decide what "THE TRUTH" is; instead, we repeat what reliable sources say. And in this case, reliable sources say "best known". There's no getting around that simple point. Oh, and what else is Hamas "best known" for? I'm going to repeat that question in every single comment from now on, until someone finally answers it, or publicly admits that they're best known for suicide attacks - something we all actually know, but which most of us has been reluctant to admit so far. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2007

(UTC)

There is also a source that says "perhaps best known for". And I'm not really sure that people in Iran and Syria have this opinion (partially due to their state propaganda). And today Hamas may well be better known for the recent events in Gaza. The problem I have with the sentence is that in the reliable sources themselves they were never meant to be taken to be hard facts. You can't take one sentence quotes from articles and then say that because the journal in which it is published is a reliable source it must be taken to be the truth without question.
If you want to know what reliable sources say, then you must focus on articles that investigate this matter. It is wrong to take an article that reports on some totally different aspect and in the introduction makes a sweeping statement and then quote that statement.

Count Iblis 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not just one source, it's a dozen, and it includes works by scholars and experts on the subject. And as far as Hamas being "best known" for what happened in Gaza, according to whom? Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In astrophysics you can find many articles that write in the introducton that "the lightest supersymmetric particle is the best motivated candidate for the dark matter". But that's presented as an opinion. If I need to give a citation to the claim that it is well motivated in a research article, I cannot give citatons to these articles just because they make such statements in the intro. I must instead cite articles that discuss the viability of that type of particle as a good dark matter candidate.
Anyway, why do you object to mentioning that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings in the lead? Count Iblis 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain again why one should replace: "Best known for" by "Responsible for". Suppose you think that the fact that Hamas is Best known for suicide attacks is very significant. But then the reason why Hamas is best known for that must be even more significant: namely that Hamas has carried out many suicide bombings. Therefore that would be the thing to mention in the lead. That then defines that aspect of Hamas that makes it "Best known for suicide bombings". This simply has more to do with Hamas itself. The perception this has caused in the minds of the public is a consequence of that. Count Iblis 02:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis et. al. are correct. Administrator keeps mentioning WP:V -- but verifiability is exactly the problem with the "best known for" language. It's simply not verified without a poll, and, since there are obvious contradictions to the claim (see Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc), almost every single editor to this page has a problem with it. "Responsible for" is a much more verifiable claim, one we can all agree on. Is Hamas "responsible for" suicide attacks? Of course it is. Done. I suggest that Count Iblis enact his/her proposed language. Then we can worry about improving the intro, but at least we'll be dealing with statements that aren't obviously false. Organ123 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas&oldid=145911666"