The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Yasser Arafat[edit]

previous FAC

I am renominating the Yasser Arafat article for FA status. The issues from the previous nomination have been fixed/solved.

• I have looked into all internet citations to make sure they backed the text. I have also looked into the Aburish biography (which also covers several other book refs in the beginning sections of the article. The Jimmy Carter and Michael Oren books on agreements and the Six-Day war have been looked into as well. (I have these books and the biography). I have removed several passages of info because they were falsely referenced.

• Bolding, italics and excess slots in the citations and their templates have been removed.

• An enormous amount of trimming and cleanup has been done to bring the article to an acceptable size and to stick strictly to the bio.

• Portions of the article have been relocated, in particular the illness and aftermath sections. More subsections have been created.

• A tremendous amount of images have been added to the article.

Over all I know this article deserves a bronze star. --Al Ameer son 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Two of the images have been labeled as having uncertain copyright status. 82.71.48.158 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. There was actually three but I removed two until their fate is decided. I kept the one with Arafat and Ahmed Yassin because it is leaning towards survival. --Al Ameer son 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Leaning towards opposition, I would like to point out that in "Tunisia and First Intifada" the prose at the end of the section is not nice with the presence of these stubby seamlessly inter-connected paragraph. Most importantly, though, IMO the dealing of Arafat's record as president of PNA between 1993-2001 (prior to the second Intifada) is unsatisfactory. Human rights violations issues? Bureaucracy and corruption accusations against him during all these years? The way international community treated him and his government despite these accusations until 2001? And if the international community swallowed these accusations against the President of the PNA until 2001, why did they do that? How did Arafat build the first Palestinian quasi-state between 1994-1996? Pros and cons of his choices? I would also like to say that the lead is not necessary to be over-cited. During the analysis all the issues mentioned briefly in the lead can be exhaustively analyzed and properly referenced.--Yannismarou 14:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded Arafat's decision on his support for Iraq during the Gulf War, and its consequences as well as mentioning top aide Abu Iyad's assassination in that same time period. I am not sure what you are referring to by Human Rights violations. How and why the international community treated him despite corruption accusations is getting into choppy waters and will seem like POV which is something we have worked hard on eliminating. However the way Arafat built PLO authority in the territories is a major transition point and is a missing piece in the article. I will try to add a new subsection after Oslo and before Elections elaborating on it. This would include the construction of a police force, assignment of posts to certain people, confiscating or taking control of independent Palestinian businesses, etc. Here I could briefly mention the accusations of bureaucracy and corruption. I will work on this section ASAP and the lead as well. It should be finished by the end of the day. Hopefully you will change your mind about the article after the ending results. Also I would like to mention that the primary reason we I do not want to go all out on the details is because of size concerns. From the previous discussion there was an issue on the article's text passing the limits of FA standards (30-50KB). --Al Ameer son 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is done. The new section might take a little bit more than a day. --Al Ameer son 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I do not care so much about size limits. FACs with over 80 kbs of prose have gone through this page or have survived FAR(C). Of course, not exceeding 65-70 kbs of prose is IMO a fare goal. But do not sacrifice thoroughness and quality in favor of some unclear size limits. And I do understand what you say that you cannot go into many details about the issues I brought here, but some mentioning and analysis is needed. When I speak about HR violations, I refer to all the accusations against PNA and Arafat personally that misused their powers and their control of security forces, in order to suppress dissidents. There are many relative analyses (e.g. Forgione (2004), Kelly (1998), Brynen, Rex (2000). A Very Political Economy: Peacebuilding and Foreign Aid in the West Bank and Gaza, 175-176, Le More, Anne (October 2005). "Killing with Kindness: Funding the Demise of a Palestinian State", 985-986 etc.). Looking forward to your improvements as you have announced them here!--Yannismarou 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the new section entitled Establishing authority in the territories. The section might need some copyediting which will be taken care of by a professional English teacher who is a user on wikipedia. The section mentions Arafat's need for financial backing, his leanings to dictatorship and clear financial corruption. However I did not write any of these statements exactly to avoid POV but the reader will infer this by reading about the actions he committed. I can't really explain it, you should read the section to understand. If you see anything missing, then inform me and I'll add it to the section or subsection. I am going to add on more about the PSS (the new police force Arafat developed) and how they wounded over 50 and killed one after attempts downsizing Arafat's dissidents and even torture in some cases. Your sources for these allegations will be useful in this area I think. I personally never had a problem with size but it was a factor in the article's FAC failing the last nomination. However the article still has not exceeded 50KB in text and there is some room for more editing. --Al Ameer son 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added accusations of human rights abuses in the new section with your Forgione reference. I also added bits of financial corruption in the Financial dealings section with a reference already existing in that particular section. --Al Ameer son 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I repeat that in FAC size limits were never so strict. I respect other editors' opinions (and Sandy is one of the most respectful around) on this issue, but I can name a series of nominations where size over 55 kbs was no problem for FA status. I say again that, of course, we shouldn't overdo it, but this does not mean that there are specific strict size limits. Concerning the corruption issue, I understand your POV worries. I just want to mention the 1997 report of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which dealt with the issue of the financial mismanagement (not using the word "corruption"), and provoked a political crisis within the PNA. As a result of this report, the Palestinian cabinet resigned, but Arafat refused to accept the resignations (See Halevi [1998], "Self-Government, Democracy, and Mismanagement under the Palestinian Authority", 42). And these are facts ... Just in case you think this information could be useful in your article. Anyway, I still see ground for improvements (in terms of content and prose), but I'll give my support, taking into consideration that the quality of the article is already high.--Yannismarou 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly add the 1997 event especially since there is somewhat of a gap between events in '96 and in '98. Also it does not incite and POV. Thanks for your suggestions, sources and support!

--Al Ameer son 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 1997 event. I also wanted to point out there is more info on Arafat's corruption in the Financial dealings section. I know there is other content that could be added in this section such as a Romanian flour import incident and another with a refusal of proposed Palestinian cement. --Al Ameer son 01:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Perspicacite 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I worked to copyedit this article in earlier stages, and I've been impressed with the level of dedication Al Ameer son has put into it. I'm a little concerned with the possibly-unfree image of Ahmed Yassin, but I believe the quality of the research and documentation is very high. – Scartol · Talk 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arafat-Yassin image is in discussion. Apparently the image is not free but the fair use rationale for its place in the Yasser Arafat article is valid. I'll remove it until the discussion is officially over. See the discussion here --Al Ameer son 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Seems pretty well-written. MOS breach in "1973–4" and in the hyphens after "...ly". And there are a few hyphens used as interruptors—see MOS on em dashes. And the one-sentence paras need merging. Tony (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One-sentence paragraphs merged. I will separate some again but expand on them soon when I obtain more info. I'll fix the en dashes tomorrow. --Al Ameer son 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Articles about controversial figures will never please everyone and will inevitably attract criticism. Al Ameer son has shown remarkable dedication and tenacity in achieving such a high standard with such a difficult subject. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Truly great article. Great work Al Ameer Son. I just have some questions about the "Lebanon" section in the article.
  • The primary component of the Christian militias was the Maronite Phalangists loyal to President Camille Chamoun. Weren't the Kataeb/Phalangists loyal to Pierre Gemayel instead, while the National Liberal Party) were the ones loyal to Camille Chamoun?
  • against the Lebanese Army, a primary backer of the Christian militias. Could you provide a source for that?

Thank you. -- CG (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for finding those errors. It has been corrected;Phalangists loyal to Gemayel, Tigers Militia loyal to Chamoun. Its all mentioned correctly in the Aburish biography, but I mistakenly added misread text from the bio into the article. I removed the primary backer of the Christian militias portion of the statement above, until I find it firmly written in a reputable source. The fact that the DFLP carried out attacks against the Army is from the bio. The Lebanse Army as well as the Syrian, did back the seige of Tel al-Zaatar and that is mentioned with a ref. Damour casualties have also been specifically cited. I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!! Thank you!! This article deserves a support. CG (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well-written, thorough and balanced article which is hard to do considering Yasser Arafat's long and complex life. Shoukran Al Ameer son, excellent patience shown. - Fedayee (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

Quneitra[edit]

Self-nomination. I have a soft spot for abandoned/destroyed cities (Pompeii, Sukhothai etc...) and found this story particularly interesting, given its recent nature. This article had previously been the subject of some POV-pushing and edit warring. I rewrote it from scratch and greatly expanded it with a wide range of modern and contemporary sources to provide a neutral overview of a controversial issue. The article has been stable for some time, has been featured on the Main Page's "Did You Know?" section and achieved good article status last month. I believe it meets the FA criteria and would be a useful addition to the list of featured articles. -- ChrisO 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, a very nice little article that appears to be close to FA yes, good referencing. A few things though:
  • In general, I believe section headings are not supposed to repeat the article title (e.g. "Destruction" or "Destruction of the city" instead of "Destruction of Quneitra") (see WP:HEAD)
  • The website linked in the infobox does not work (at least not at the moment), is it still correct?
  • There are 2 redlinks in the article, would it be possible to generate small stub articles for those (not an FA requirement, but a personal preference of me)?

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the section headings accordingly. The infobox website did work up until a couple of weeks ago. I've left the link intact for now, but I'll replace it by the end of the month if it stays dead. As for the redlinks, I'll see what I can do... -- ChrisO 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Political status" section needs references. --Kaypoh 11:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now provided. -- ChrisO 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict does not mention Quneitra at all. So Quneitra is not comprehensive, because it has no info about the legal status of the area. --Kaypoh 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It describes the status of the Golan Heights area, within which Quneitra is located. I've clarified this in the article. -- ChrisO 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, assuming the remaining issues will be looked into, as the nominator stated above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments—I've copy-edited the opening; the rest needs work by someone new. Check overlinking (especially repeated links). Use an en dash usually for year ranges (see my change to a title). En dash for "Arab–Isreali war". Use "logical" punctuation at end of quotes (see MOS). "Sightseeing". Consider using the blockquote function below the edit box for the quote(s). Political status section needs fleshing out: it's a bizarre political situation, and our readers will be interested. Something makes me want this to be a little larger. I do hope the nomination succeeds. Tony 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Good now. Tony (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Article on a contentious topic which is not neutral at all. Following the Israeli withdrawal, allegations emerged that much of Quneitra had been razed to the ground - but there are no indications that it is not true, so it should rather be Following the Israeli withdrawal, much of Quneitra had been razed to the ground (or perhaps, Prior to Israeli withdrawal...). The city had reportedly been systematically stripped by the Israeli forces - no indications that it is not true, so it should be The city had been systematically stripped by the Israeli forces. In violation of the provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement - unsourced, and I find it hard to believe that an agreement specifies that an area must be repopulated (even if f.e. its residents don't want it). Destructed by the Zionists and changed it to firing target - bad grammar, probably should be changed into. Additionally, there are no sections which all articles on cities should have, such as "Geography", "Demographics" (should discuss demographics before destruction) etc. Nikola 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Nikola. You're right about the "allegations" weasel wording - this wasn't in my original version, someone has seen fit to add it. There's no doubt at all that the city has been razed; the only dispute is over who did it and how (see e.g. [1], so I've removed the word from the article. In the next line that you highlight, the "reportedly" is there because that is a controversial point - as far as I know, the Israelis haven't officially admitted looting the city, so it's necessary to indicate that this is a contentious point. As for the agreement, you can read it for yourself here - it states that "All territory east of Line A [the disengagement line just west of Quneitra] will be under Syrian administration, and the Syrian civilians will return to this territory." The line "Destructed by the Zionists" is sic - if you look at the full resolution version of the photo of the destroyed hospital, you'll see that the English words on the sign say just that. Finally, fair point about the need for a Geography and Demographics section; I'll add that to the article. -- ChrisO 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a Geography and Demographics section as requested. -- ChrisO 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me now, except for the: "In violation of the provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement, Quneitra has not been repopulated". I'm no expert on the international law, but I don't think that that means that the city must be repopulated. Even if the agreement states that "civilians will return", it only means that they can return, but they don't absolutely have to. I seriously doubt that it is a violation of the agreement if, say, civilians don't want to return, or the area became unsuitable for living, or Syria simply has no money to rebuild the city etc. I'm not sure how to solve this, perhaps with a line like in the intro: "The government of Syria has been criticized for not returning civilians to Quneitra, per provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement.". If it's changed to something like that, I support. Nikola 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How (and where?) does Quneitra Governorate function? Does it operate out of the ruins of Quneitra, or is it de facto somewhere else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, the governorate - the province itself - is still in existence, albeit with most of its territory in Israeli hands. I haven't found any reference to where the provincial government is based but it doesn't seem very likely that it would be in Quneitra itself. -- ChrisO 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think the article is neutral, and I believe the new section has answered the concerns about comprehensiveness. DrKiernan 08:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.