Talk:Rafic Hariri/Archive 1

First discussion, multi-topic
'''As a lebanese reading this article, I can see clearly that it was edited by Micheal Aoun's support who have innate and deep feelings against the late Prime Minister. A lot of claims are unsubstaintial, uncited and are just recycling of the attacks against Hariri by the political opponents during the period of syrian hegemony over lebanon. I recommend re-editing by an unbiased or non-partisan (non-lebanese preferably) and to lock the article for further editing.'''  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.142.162 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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? [unsigned]

You know, it's SO interesting. The first reason why I became a registered Wikipedia User, was because my variable IP often received (relevant) warnings of vandalism, obviously originating from the same country, and all making dubious modifications revealing a political bias of the exact same single "coalition" in Lebanon. To one who prides himself on being objective and neutral on Wiki, that was too much. [Hint: it's the same political side who writes all in bold or capitals to express shouting, who never sign their comments, and who type and post so fast they even misspell the knee-jerk names which they immediately accuse.] Yes, many anonymouses (anonymi? anonymice? anonymeese? anonymous's? animoses?...) from Lebanon don't "get" Wikipedia, and by extent, I'd say, plain don't respect Knowledge. BTW, how come any anti-Hariri has to automatically be a "Michel Aoun's support"? What about all THE REST of the "March 8th camp" of lebanese Opposition: Hezbollah, the Marada, etc... (I can't name more simply because I don't *do* politics.) Please, think before you speak, and do follow the civility and rationality guidelines. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Corruption" section: Something is really chocking in this page, and the brilliant contributor who added the "corruption" section. What is said in that section is completely biased and based on false claims with no references specified nor any justification. The reference put in there are to a site which doesn't even exist. Anyone can check that. So i wonder how established members and admins accept to keep such outrageous and obscene falsities. The man is dead, pay him some respect and let's not keep such unjustified lies on a site visited by millions of users. I am still not an established member according to Wikipedia's rules and i cannot modify anything on the page, i hope one of the established members or admins can take this issue in consideration and remove that part of the page.--Sybetron phoenix (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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 . 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?

This page on rafiq hariri is below standards, full of lies and written by amateurs and bigots who are pro-syrian/iranian regime terror supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.187.95 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries
I am posting a complaint about the vile attack made by Riccati against myself in his/her edit summary 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&mdash;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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


 * Who's FSM? I thought I knew all the Names... Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2009 (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?

Sorry but that with the first WW is nonsens. Austria declared war and than nothing would have happend if Russia would not have mobilised the army and that they did only because the Frensh confirmed they would help them and the frensh did so because the british confirmed they would step in. So in a way the British stated the first ww and as they backed up Poland before the second world war you can say they actualy stated both wars that is why they are crying most laudly that the germans are guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.218.122 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Geopolitics are such a captivating thing. The NATO war on Serbia about Kosovo would never have happened if post-Glasnost Russia at that time had regained the power it again has today. Case in point: the Southern Ossetia "affair". Which in itself sounds more than a little like "sweet payback". The whole matter of WW1 was about nobody realizing that by definition, it would cause everybody to emerge a loser, so everybody fled forward and then couldn't "lose face" by standing down. Hopefully, today the world has understood that any course of (non-)action is better than such a mess. Even if such dramas as Darfur have to remain unhandled because the New Balance Of Power can never reach any common position. Tibet? Abkhazia? Or, for that matter, Basque country? Ireland? Etc. A great many boils fester in the world, but none preferable to a nuclear war. We're still pretty much (hello euphemisms!) in the Age of Barbary, my human brothers. I dread the opinion of my great-grandchildren! :-P As for the "first WW nonsens"(sic), that's precisely the problem Russia has with NATO today. Offering membership to directly neighboring countries and installing bases whose purpose fools no-one is practically viewed by Russia as a casus belli. Yeltsin was a pushover drunk, but nationalist pride more than explains Putin's genuine popularity in Russia. Not supporting anybody there, really. Just pointing out the facts of today's world. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * Sorry to contradict, but that book is flagrantly inacurate. Little Boy in Hiroshima had a one-kiloton power, meaning it was equivalent to a thousand tons of TNT in a single bomb. That would mean that Hariri was killed with the (non-atomic) equivalent of 50 tons of TNT! Man, if you know of such a non-radioactive explosive that fits in less than an 18-wheeler, better watch out, the secret services of the whole world will want to get hold of you! ;-) That's like comparing the few thousand deaths of Pristina with Hitler's 6 million Death Camp victims. (To say nothing of those killed by battles and bombings.) Perspective, gentlemen, perspective. Not all references are equally reliable. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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, . 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)

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.


 * I think I heard, here in Lebanon, that it was an open and official fact. The thing is, I don't have a reference. What I recommend, for those savvier than me, is rather than just delete it, search for a possibly existing reference. IN the name of factual accuracy. If it's true, it's well worth being mentioned. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

post-mortem
on the issue of Hariri considered a martyr, one must recall that he was plotting with foreign powers for the ultimate implantation of palestinians permanently in Lebanon. I do not see how a potential traitor of his country is being marketed as a martyr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.224.90 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Like all politically polarized contemporary issues, this one is highly debated and controversial. To his supporters he's a martyr, to his opponents he was just a traitor. For Wikipedia, we can only note that some (not ALL) view him as a martyr. Dead and assassinated. So far by Allah knows who. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how many died?
This article states 22 people died. Another article 2005 Lebanon bombings states 21 people died. Thank you for clarifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riemerb (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

name
His name should be written "Rafiq" with a "Q" not a "K" radiant guy (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

shipping
Israel did blockade the port of Sidon. Far from dubious it is a fact....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Syria not a suspect anymore
In March 2009 all the Syrian suspects were released, and at the moment it seems very likely that the special troops of Hizbollah were behind the murder. There has been no official statement about this yet, but the detailed informations have already been circulated in some highly serious news sources such as the German weekly Der Spiegel (May 2009). -134.93.52.128 (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jürgen Cain Külbel
Ok why is this section included? There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there, I don't see why this one takes precedence over any other lame idea. The whole world, from the UN to major governments everywhere, and all the factional leaders inside of Lebanon, agree that the assassination was committed under Syrian influence. Of course the details are always arguable, but a totally meaningless claim that it was Mossad is laughable and does not merit a place in a serious article on Wikipedia. Caspar esq. (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of name in 419 scam emails
Beginning on or about 2 July 2009, the name of this person is being used in an attempt to defraud unsuspecting people via '419 scam' and 'Nigerian Advanced Fee Fraud' emails. Those emails reference this article, and also reference a website that has this person's last name in the domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.107.82 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Can anyone explain why the article uses predominantly "Rafik" and "Rafiq" when the apparently official website (rhariri.com, stating copyright by Hariri) uses "Rafic"? Shouldn't the article be moved? There seems to be a divided convention among English-speakers, but wouldn't "Rafic" be the way the subject preferred to spell the name, and presumably he had sufficient command of English? Or is there other obvious evidence? This is not a case like "Confucius", who is much better-known under that name than his birth name; rather, this case is a simple spelling preference. I see also unresolved discussion re Rafik/Rafiq, but even mention of UN style also appears trumped by personal preference. Other evidence: airport is Rafic; hospital and foundation are Rafiq; Google favors Rafik, with Rafic then Rafiq not too far behind. Not an easy call! JJB 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC) According to Worldcat, subject has authored 2 books as "Rafic Hariri", and 3 (1 in Arabic) as "Rafiq Baha Hariri", with lots of diacriticals, not reproduced here. This suggests the subject preferred "Rafic" in ordinary English contexts (such as this article overall) and "Rafiq" when context demands Roman transliteration of Arabic (such as the lead sentence). I'll go to proposed moves. JJB 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Rafik Hariri → Rafic Hariri — See evidence above. Possibly noncontroversial, listing for discussion and research only. Move will require admin. JJB 22:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC) No discussion ensued; requesting housekeeping deletion and moving under WP:BRD to see if anyone is interested. JJB 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

arrest of 4 officers
the uncited info on the page talks of the arrest and release of 4 officers in 2009, however some days ago for "pro-Syrian generals" were ordered released by the court for want of evidence. Is this the same 4 we are talking about? Needs some clarification here.Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Odnako
I've removed text attributed to Odnako from the article. The text in question is: "'According to the Russian weekly Odnako, Germany would be involved in the attack against Hariri. According to NewTV, the basic findings used by Odnako, had been quoted in an unpublished report of the scientific coordinator of the UN, the French Xavier Laroche (Institut de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale). This report, reversing the position of the truck bomb and confirmed the missile, had been rejected without explanation by the president of the UN Commission, Detlev Mehlis.'" I've removed this for a few reasons, most notably WP:FRINGE. If editors would like to re-add it, they need to do two things. First, go to WP:RSN and create a new case, asking whether or not Odnako is a reliable source for what it is being cited for in this article. Second, provide a translation of the relevant Russian text in English, so that the citation can be verified (this would probably be helpful to reviewers at RSN as well). After those things are done, it can be re-evaluated, but the burden lies with those who attempting to add material, and that burden has not been met. ← George talk 21:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

All theories are to be included. The Missile from the Sky one is the most popular on al-Manar and other pro-hezbollah channels at the moment, I think you yourself, like everyone else, already know that. Not to include it would be silly.--Propaganda328 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Bomb Attack
This seems rather absurd "A 2010 blog post by French political analyst Thierry Meyssan alleged that the crater found on the scene of Hariri's assassination could not have been produced by a car bomb. Rather a UAV-launched nuclear missile employing nanotechnology was theorized.[12]"

Does any ration person believe this is anything but distracting propaganda? Is a blog post all that is needed for citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.134.72 (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

2007 Counterpunch article
Provided for anybody interested: Counterpunch - Trish Schuh - The Salvador Option in Beirut, 08 February 2007.

Perhaps of particular interest, the paragraph which says: "It is also not certain where the explosion that killed Hariri was detonated. French experts assessed it was underground because the blast had cracked the foundations of adjacent buildings, manhole covers on the street had blown off, and asphalt was propelled onto nearby rooftops. After it was found that an underground explosion would not implicate Syria- but rather the pro-US/Israeli Lebanese government who had supervised road work in the days before Hariri died- the focus shifted to an above-ground blast via suicide bomber."

   ←   ZScarpia  03:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds bizarre. I wouldn't think of calling the Lebanese government remotely "pro US/Israeli". The biggest backer of the anti-Syrian faction has traditionally been Saudi Arabia. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Corruption
Who is going to answer to this and the removal of text from the lead here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.143.90 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite simple, really. That language you keep adding to the lead is far from neutral and in no way conforms with WP:LEAD. The lengthy diatribe about corruption is sourced to something that goes here--and even if it were linked correctly, MEIB is not a reliable source. Read WP:RS. Please stop inserting this stuff; it's not according to the rules we should play by here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: your note on my talk page, and this link, that's a good start. This looks odd, but is legit, I think, and this certainly is--though plenty of editors might have problems with The Nation. Now, the burden is to add this rather incriminating material in a neutral and objective way into an article that is fundamentally, well, crap. Please be mindful of the injunction to edit neutrally; don't do what some of the hagiographers who were responsible for the current version did, and please have another look at, for instance, WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time of his death did he have an official postion in trhe government or was he running for office. IE was he a private citizen when he was murdered or was he assasinated while a government official. Syria seemed to be the official bad guys for some time - it appeared at the time there was no evidence, just they were the ones the West wanted to be the bad guys. Now we seem to want Hizbollah to be the bad guys - any evidence other than the Obama administration's desire. So far the DNA of a possible suicide bomber seems to be the only evidence - any evidence if it is Syrian, Hizbollah, Israel, .... DNA? I remember when we were 100% sure that Syria did it. Was the switch gradual or evidence based?159.105.80.220 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the corruption section looked very good and proffesional. I don't see what was so non-neutral about the way it was written. Just my opinion.--77.42.149.155 (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about corruption. The Source linked is a) not reliable, and b) doasn't even mention corruption in regards to Hariri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.36.94 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree. The source is very shady: it doesn't give any information about its sources, nor even who wrote the blog. As a blog which does not even identify its writer, it is not a Reliable Source. Also as stated before, the blog does not even state what the wiki-references allege it to say – the original post that contained the corruption allegations appears to have disappeared, and now it has one writing about Lebanon, that (in German) makes a short, positive remark of Harriri, and no word about corruption.
 * I am all for removing this section altogether from the article for now, until more reliable sources can be identified. However, anonymous IPs seem to always come and revert the removal of the section. --hydrox (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you people are complaining about. The Independent and The Nation are good sources.--94.187.96.175 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not notice that someone, possibly you, had added sources to the article. Those are by all means reliable sources. When I wrote above, the article did not have these sources, but a reference to a non-existant blog article, as described above. --hydrox (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The independent article says the very opposite of what the corruption section says. The corruption section claims that Hariri was the principal actor in the Corruption in lebanon, while the Independent article says that Hariri was "too rich to bribe". (86.134.190.170 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Mr. Morris Thank you for taking the time to manage the Rafic Hariri page. While many parts of the bio have some level of accuracy I must say that I am deeply offended and surprised by the section titled "corruption". The facts in it are not accurate and it is heavily biased towards claims (untrue and unfounded) by political rivals of the late Mr. Hariri. I am more than happy to help you correct this information and answer any questions you have, however I would ask that you remove this section or at least reflect both sides of the argument around these allegations. It is not right to try and tarnish the image and reputation of a man that did as much as Mr. Hariri did for his country and people. Regards, AMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.28.241.20 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Morris Thank you for taking the time to manage the Rafic Hariri page. While many parts of the bio have some level of accuracy I must say that I am deeply offended and surprised by the section titled "corruption". The facts in it are not accurate and it is heavily biased towards claims (untrue and unfounded) by political rivals of the late Mr. Hariri. I am more than happy to help you correct this information and answer any questions you have, however I would ask that you remove this section or at least reflect both sides of the argument around these allegations. It is not right to try and tarnish the image and reputation of a man that did as much as Mr. Hariri did for his country and people. Regards, AMH


 * Bulleted list item I agree with the comments made by AMH, the section concerning "corruption" are in no way accurate. There are many Lebanese who claim that Mr. Hariri was corrupt and that his wealth was built by "stealing" property in downtown Beirut. But these claims are only made by political rivals with political agendas, its just propaganda. And the 15% property value compensation mentioned in the section is a ridiculous number. The value of the property at the time was not as they are today, downtown Beirut was a ghost town of ruins when Solidere was created. I actually think the compensation was generous. - Simz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.229.241 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for readers who aren't sure what is going on: "Mr. Morris" refers to me. I've been anti-vandal patrolling today, and semi-protected this page to prevent the removal of the 'corruption' section without consensus discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is directed to people who want to remove the corruption section. I believe the sources are reliable enough. As for comments such as "It is not right to try and tarnish the image and reputation of a man that did as much as Mr. Hariri did for his country and people" that is a completely biased point of view, as many in Lebanon view him as the very source of the corruption that took place in the country, however they never speak out about their views(unlike pro-Hariri partisans who regularly keep claiming and reminding people of how Hariri "built Lebanon") because insulting Hariri in Lebanon would not only break the already stressful multi-sectarian coexistence(as Rafic Hariri is mainly Popular with Sunni muslims), but also because there is a taboo about insulting dead people, especially those viewed as martyrs by a huge chunk of the Lebanese population, so that's why you never hear the opposing views to your own view of a saintly Lebanon-loving Rafic Hariri, and that is the reason why you are all shocked and baffled by this corruption section which completely contradicts what you have come to believe is a fact.. because rarely has anyone in Lebanese media ever spoken an opposing view to your own.
 * And I must add, this is the beauty of wikipedia, all viewpoints can be seen and the truth can be told about anyone, no matter how many hearts it breaks.--77.42.226.172 (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This section's neutrality is disputed. Whoever wrote this is holding Harriri responsible for the entire corruption in a post civil war Lebanon but clearing the Syrians and their stooges who ran the country to the ground despite Harriri's attempts to constantly building it (and succeeding through Paris I and Paris II). The rhetoric in the entire passage is just biased, it's the same arguments that Pro-Aoun supporters in Lebanon use without much evidence. No proper study of corruption in Lebanon has ever been done, and if it were to be done my money would go on the Syrians and their Lebanese allies as topping that list, not Harriri. And then they killed him.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Gooner (talk • contribs) 17:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I look into the article, and the section certainly looks like a violation to WP:NPOV. In my opinion, at least weaker wording should be used.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Archived references
--Jetstreamer Talk 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)