Talk:Rafik Hariri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Lebanon Portal This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Someone edited this as I was editing it. We were both going for the same thing -- he's dead.

I removed the "by Syrian special forces," added the denial by Syrians and Israeli and a pointer to the Reuters article including the denials. Ahseaton 15:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would the anon editor who keeps changing the name to Rafiq, please stop. The name in the article must conform to the name used in the title. This is Wikipedia convention. If you feel it is wrong, then the title must also be changed. But it is not wrong. These are simply a small difference in transliteration style. It actually makes no difference. SlimVirgin 01:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a difference. The word ق is consistently transliterated in Roman script as "q". See the Romanization system recommended by the United Nations. The name and the title should therefore be changed as "Rafiq".

It's not accurate to say that the group called itself "Support and Jihad in Syria", because Al-Sham usualy means to non-syrians the whole north arabic region except for iraq, which includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine ... and probably that's what the group meant by Al-Sham due to the fact that nationalists and islamists don't believe in the borders whice were made between the arab countries.

Hi, that's not the way Wikipedia works. We have a source - the Guardian - which we have cited. They say the group was called Suppor and Jihad in Syria. We are an encyclopedia and we report what others report. We don't do our own research. If you have a better source than the Guardian for the name of the group, by all means change the name and cite your source. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

"An-Nosra wal Jihad fi Bilad al-Sham". First of all, the guardian article (currently) says "Support and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon", not "Support and Jihad in Syria". And many sources, more reliable than the Guardian when it comes to translation from arabic (I think), claim the group's name is "Victory and Jihad in Greater Syria". SlimVirgin, 1. you're patronizing and that's why I'm making this comment; 2. if a Guardian (sic) article translates "pomme" by "fruit" and a french speaker is kind enough to report that actually it means "apple", are you going to tell him "that's not the way Wikipedia works"? The issue here is not the reporting of facts but the meaning of words, unless you consider that just because *you* don't speak the language, the meaning of a word becomes something for which Wikipedia needs an "official" source. I agree that sources are extremely important. The last paper I wrote when I was a student had a 15 page bibliography as far a I remember. But in this case you should admit that it's safer to rely on someone who *does* know than on the Guardian translating from arabic. Even without additional sources. BTW while the translation may not require a source in my opinion, the claim by the group does. Possible sources (with correct translations) are the FT and NY Times, but I think these have limited archives. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c794d532-7fbe-11d9-8ceb-00000e2511c8.html ; http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c794d532-7fbe-11d9-8ceb-00000e2511c8.html ; http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050214/1/3qkmu.html

"Intelligence sources place the Syrian government at the top of the list of suspects." Could you please cite them?

Contents 1 The International Tribunal 2 Sunnis and Alawites and the Baath 3 The Fitzgerald Report 4 Personal attacks in edit summaries 5 Crown Prince Abdullah 6 Whitespace issue 7 Lead section 8 Arabic name 9 Sarajevo rewind, world war and a flu to finish it off. 10 Seperate article 11 Explosion 12 Assassination 13 Chirac campaign 14 The use of "however" misleading

[edit] The International Tribunal

Should not there be any mention of the proposed international tribunal?--213.6.211.117 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunnis and Alawites and the Baath

The paragraph below is rather biased. This is completely ignoring the Baath, the Sunni population is considered largely secular. The massacre at Hama was carried out against the Muslim Brotherhood (the head of the airforce at the time was the brother of Hafez al-Assad). Hariri might have opposed the Syrian presence in Lebanon lately, however he was prime minister throughout the 1990s and the early 2000s, when did his opposition to this presence begin? When exactly was the 'Sunni' leadership of Syria 'deposed'? Weren't they all Arab Nationalists, if not in practice at least making all the right noises? " Syria considered Hariri a threat because he was a Sunni Muslim figure admired in both countries, he had powerful friends in both the West and Saudi Arabia, and he opposed the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Syria's minority Alawite rulers deposed the Syrian Sunni leadership and brutally repressed the majority Sunni population (see Hama Massacre conducted by al-Assad's father Hafez), so al-Assad's Alawite leadership fears an independent Sunni leader in Lebanon.". I suggest one of the editors delete this section.

I completely agree. I deleted the whole reference to the Sunni-Alawite reasoning because it is false and irrelevant. It was a simple case of POV Syria-bashing. P. S. Please sign your posts.--AladdinSE 10:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fitzgerald Report

I have reverted AlladinSE's supposedly "NPOV" edit. I know you're new here, Alladin, and I've been known to make the same mistake myself, so please don't take this personally, but the deletion of large chunks of text, without adequate explanation, is widely considered to be against the spirit of Wikipedia. Some consider it to be vandalism; I would not label it as such in this case, but I do consider it unjustified. The text you deleted was (a) a fact and (b) relevant. I don't see how its removal enhances NPOV. Don't get me wrong - I'm NO lover of the United Nations, but for once - as a fluke - I think they've tried to be as objective as possible. Whether that's so or not is irrelevant, however; what does matter is that QUOTING the report is perfectly NPOV, although saying whether or not we agree with it would not be. IMO, User:Riccati's edit merely quotes it, without necessarily endorsing it. I think it should stay put. David Cannon 10:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I can take a moment to recover my breath after choking on your condescending tone, I strongly disagree with your conclusions that the Fitzgerald report accused Syria of the assassination, which it specifically declined to do. You are attempting to quote from the report as if it is a finding of fact, when if fact it was simply a statement made by Jumblatt and various Hariri aides, and is considered testimony and not a factual finding. Please see [1]. The BBC says "The UN report did not specify who was behind the 14 February killing but blamed Syria for the political tension that preceded the assassination." This information I myself preserved and clarified in my edit. I am not against quoting from the report per se, but the preamble by Riccati falsely claims that the report confirms Jumbatt's account, which is patently false.

The report also states:

The Lebanese investigation process suffers from serious flaws and has neither the capacity nor the commitment to reach a satisfactory and credible conclusion.... To find the truth it would be necessary to entrust the investigation to an international independent commission.

Therefore what I was doing was most certainly in the interests of NPOV. Especially reverting the deletion of the very important sentence in the first paragraph: No actual substantial evidence implicating any party or individual has yet been uncovered in the case. Also, please learn to use professional and informative section tittles, and what's more, learn to spell my username.--AladdinSE 10:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that the report accuses Syria of the assassination. But read Point 61 of the report - it DOES blame Syria for creating the situation in which the crime took place. I STRONGLY suggest getting some kind of consensus before we start deleting large chunks of text, and if you persist in removing them, I shall persist in reinserting them, unless and until a clear consensus emerges to remove them. David Cannon 11:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. You can say in the article that the report places primary responsibility with the Syrian government for the political tensions which preceded the assassination, but you certainly may not present Jumblatt's testimony as FACT. You MUST insert "alleges." Other qualifications which make clear the incomplete and unfinished nature of the report must be maintained. After all, they do not know who did it, and they recommend a further, more extensive international inquiry.--AladdinSE 12:05, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

They say and assume that Rafik Hariri was the top level semi-official link between Israeli and Saudi governments. Otherwise currrent White House politicians would not care. Can you expand on this thought and investigate this connection much further? How much is it true, if any. How long and to what extent if any? And what level? Hoax, lie, truth, top secret or speculation?

[edit] Personal attacks in edit summaries

I am posting a complaint about the vile attack made by Riccati against myself in his/her edit summary [2] when reverting my edit. Quote: "NPOV revert to last Davidcannon; AladdinSE, I don't have time now to correct all your POV insertions, but did wipe your filth from Hariri's grave here -- perhaps others can remove the rest elsewhere." Regarding the recent edit disputes, the substance of which is outlined in the Fitzgerald Report Talk section above, if anyone has any doubt left about Riccatt's neutrality, I trust this quotation will put them to rest. This is a clear nationalistic Lebanese bias, and what's more it is also in this case a personal attack against me personally, which I will not stand for. Consider yourself notified of my intent to take action.--AladdinSE 23:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

AladdinSE -- My statement is clearly directed at the content of your prose, not your person. Therefore, it is not a personal attack—please feel free to lodge a complaint as such. My bias is only toward a truthful and accurate account of Hariri's life, accomplishments, and assassination. That you have gone out of your way to insert POV edits here and elsewhere impugning credible (to the UN, to the international media, inter alia) testimony about personal threats to Hariri by Bashar al-Assad has, I admit, made it a challenge to adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines to be cool, be civil, and assume good faith. Please allow me to attempt these in view of your edits of the events surrounding Hariri's assassination. These give the strong appearance that you are a pro-Baathist who would very much like to obfuscate the rather strong circumstantial evidence implicating the Syrian government in Hariri's murder. I am certain that this is not the case, and know that you have nothing in mind but the accurate reporting of the important facts surrouinding this case. Therefore, I'm certain that you will agree with my edits to this page, which include removing the irrelevant and controversial statements about the motivation of Jumblatt and others in reporting about al-Assad's threat to Hariri. I am also certain that you or others will see the NPOV wisdom in removing such statements from all pages, excerpt perhaps Walid Jumblatt's, where they would properly reside. Riccati 15:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I might be a bit late here, but I'm very much afraid that "wipe your filth" is a personal attack (you are claiming the material written by the editor is his filth, this is very much an inflammatory comment and this is a personal attack). - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly directed at my prose? Are you actually saying that with a straight face? You say "wipe your FILTH from Hariri's grave" and you still claim it is not a personal attack? I will let the record tell for itself who has gone out of their way to insert POV edits. Claiming quoted testimonies (in the Fitzgerald report) are CONFIRMATIONS is patently false and I was 100% right to make clear the distinction. Your edits elsewhere have likewise sought to blacken Syria to the exclusion of all NPOV balance including properly referenced comments. You have only now stopped removing the BBC references to Jumblatt. Strong circumstantial evidence? I have obfuscated none of it. I have made it clear it is circumstantial, and that no physical, actual evidence has yet surfaced, and that a new investigation has been called for. This is all PURE npov.

It is regrettable indeed that you have not apologized for such a clear breach of cordiality and a most uncouth use of language. Before this incident, there was only editorial disputes. You have sullied it with below the belt personal attacks. Complaint will be lodged since you have refused to apologize. --AladdinSE 05:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Prince Abdullah

Parade Magazine said today that "it's rumored that Hariri, who had dual Saudi-Lebanese citizenship, was Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's illegitimate son." Where have these rumors been posted? I found one Google link to the rumor. RickK 21:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Rumour? It might possibly be a non-printed rumour. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace issue

Far too much whitespace! what is going on? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

Can we please get a sane lead section? No more than two paragraphs, and no lengthy quotations! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've done it myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic name

I believe that it's رفيق الحريري however, can't be sure. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and it's رفيق بهاء الدين الحريري for the long name. CG 17:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarajevo rewind, world war and a flu to finish it off.

This Hariri case, now with the latest november UN ultimatum to Syria is an almost exact copycat of the Franz Ferdinand assassination by the black hand youth slavic patriots.

You know the event that started WWI. Then the austro-hungarians accused Serbia and demanded full compliance, i.e. letting austrian police do the investigation on serbian soil. This was unacceptable for serbian state souverignity and refused, so the hapsburg franz joseph declared war, then russia declared war on austro-hungary, then the german empire attacked russia and france and then the britons declared war on germany and the Great War started in a few days, killing 25 million people in four year. Then came the big spanish flu epidemic and killed a further 50 to 80 million people worldwide.

This Hariri case could similarly become bush+zionists+puppets vs panarabs+muslims world war, possibly nuclear, the zionists have 220 to 400 Dimona A-bombs, and in the end bird flu pandemic will take care of the remaining people.

While the stage is set similarly, it would be most unfortunate for it to turn out that way. It would also be rather difficult for any action similar to a USA/Israel/"Puppets" (I guess you mean Europe) vs. Pan-Arabs+Muslims. First, it would be rather difficult to sway the USA public into supporting another war considering the distress it is experiencing now. Second, a nuclear conflict would not occur unless Israel and Iran were in the picture. With Saudi Arabia a shoe in for the USA/Europe team, it wouldn't be much of a war (with Iraq out of the picture). The worst case scenario would be USA/Israel pressure on Syria that led to Iran's further involvement. If Iran or Israel get militant, the whole region (and the world as a whole) will feel massive impact. I pray to God, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, and FSM that Israel and Iran stay away from each other. Avengerx 18:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hariri's assasination - I have read report saying Syria probably didn't have anything to do with his death - all the way to implicationg 6 Australian agents. What's up?

[edit] Seperate article

Just a thought here, Hariri's life was full of events, rises & falls, so was his assasination which is a matter of controversy till date, unforunately I sense that most of his acheivements/ setbacks are omitted from the article due to the fact that most contributors are focusing on his death circumstances.I suggest a seperate article for Hariri's assasination the same way JFK page has, this article is supposed to be a biography, not to discuss the political delima & confusion subsequent to the assasination. 213.42.2.22 12:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)The man who sold the world

[edit] Explosion

A I am still new on Wikipedia , i would like somebody to ad this to the page.

The Explosion took place in front of the St.Georges Hotel it created a fife meter deep crater.22 cars where hit, 7 security people and 12 civilian bystanders where killed, 220 people wounded.

This is taken from the german book Mordakte Hariri J.C. Külbel Kai Homillius Verlag 2006

My own comment: I do not think that I would use such a bomb, ore bombs, when I would be the secret service of an occupation force. The size of the bombe its force was 1/20 of the Hiroshima bomb ( taken from the same book)says a lot about the people witch have used it. Its like handwriting.

you perhaps mean this book of Jürgen Cain Külbel [3]

[edit] Assassination

"The motivation of Israeli involvement, say critics, is an attempt to mobilize the Lebanese people against Syria (which the U.S. has been keen on invading, and Israel keen on weakening), by having the Mossad carry out a false flag operation and blame it on Syria."

This paragraph needs citation from reputable sources. It sounds like conspiracy theory supported by a political point of view.

Added reference, Seale, Patrick. "Who killed Rafik Hariri?", The Guardian, February 23, 2005.. Thanks.

[Boris, Nov 23]It's not right to put a paragraph of the speculative nature in the "Assasination" section. Assasination section contains factual information - we all know that he is dead, and putting conspiracy theories right below implies the same level of factuality. We all know that there are two camps here - some think that Mossad did this, some think it was Syria - well how about having them BOTH put somewhere else.

I think This is a good suggestion, and we should keep the information (both sides) and place them under a "Conspiracy Theories" section, to include: 1. Syria, 2. Israel/U.S. (possibly separating these two further, as they are two separate countries, two separate interests.) Thanks. Serouj 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chirac campaign

I just deleted the sentence concerning Hariris generous contribution to Chirac's presidetial campaign since there was no quote concerning this fact. The only quote linked to an article saying that Chirac won elections.

[edit] The use of "however" misleading

In my opinion the word "however" is somewhat misleading in the following phrase: However, the latest progress report by Brammertz has indicated that DNA evidence collected from the crime scene strongly suggests that the assassination might be the act of a young male suicide bomber.. I have read the Brammertz' report, as well as the one by Mehlis, and although it's true that the former has found new leads (human remains) that suggest a suicide bomber, it's only the remains which are new, not the theory of a suicide bomber. By the use of "however", the entry implies that the suspicions/links/allegations of a Syrian involvement has been diminished by these findings. This is not substantiated in the report(s), and consequently I'll propose editing that phrase to: The latest progress report by Brammertz indicates that DNA evidence collected from the crime scene strongly suggests that the assassination might have been triggered by a young male suicide bomber. However, the scope and size of the assassination makes it unlikely that this was an operation carried out by individuals without backing from a larger entity.

Others might have a better command of English than me, but I hope you see my point. Thanks.--Noorpeak 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)