Talk:Saeb Erekat

Criticism Section again. Now tagged
The following sentence is not correct formulated. " He is married with twin daughters and two sons." It should be " He is married and has twin daughters and two sons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.216.53 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As discussed ad nauseam above, this section needs a trim and rewrite - it has myriad problems, from simple poor English phrasing and ugly formatting, to possible WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:POV violations. I've tagged for now rather than done anything myself because a) the editor who wants it to stay as it is can't currently edit here; b) even if he could, I'm tired of edit-warring over this sort of thing; and c) all the references in it are virtually impossible to untangle and tidy up on the edit page, at least for a technically deficient editor such as myself, so maybe someone else might be able to have a go. --Nickhh (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would help you out there, but Jaakobou will just revert as soon as he's able. It was about 8:1 against his version the last time we tried to fix this article, but you know how that worked out. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for reminding me that we can add WP:OWN and WP: CONSENSUS to the list of issues. I did a quick recap of the voluminous material above, and actually made it 9 against 1. --Nickhh (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK so no-one else has stepped in. Erekat is not a controversial figure, and no profile you can find in any mainstream WP:RS suggests that he is. Nor do most of those profiles even refer to the issues highlighted here, let alone refer to any criticism being directed at Erekat over them. The only specific criticism of Erekat in this section is sourced to obscure internet sites or one-off op-eds. Look hard enough and you'll find criticism of everyone and everything somewhere on the web - that doesn't make it significant or notable. I'm going to be bold and remove the whole thing. --Nickhh (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, that might be a little much. I think it's worth mentioning that Erekat is a prominent spokesperson for the PA, and has been criticized by Israelis for statements he made in the aftermath of the Jenin battle and in the run-up to the Annapolis summit. It really deserves only one or two sentences, though. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and I'm not in principle objecting to having a very brief mention of these two events, but that section couldn't stay as it was, and as I've said it was impossible to pick through and edit down to a reasonable state. It was kind of irretrievable really imho. --Nickhh (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about something like this as a compromise, under a heading "Media Profile" or something, with one or two cites only for each sentence? "Erekat is one of the more prominent Palestinian spokespeople in the Western media [cn]. He was criticised by some Israeli commentators for giving interviews at the time in which he allegedly inflated Palestinian casualty figures during the IDF's 2002 incursion in the Palestinian town of Jenin.  Ahead of the Annapolis summit in 2007, in an interview with Israeli Army Rado, he rejected demands that Palestinians should recognise Israel's status as a Jewish state". --Nickhh (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

 * ''per the following diffs:,.

I can't support this edit, and esp. the removal of sources. Ever since 8 October 2007 Eleland has been insisting on removing the very high profile criticism on Erekat -- repeating false accusations that 500 Palestinians were massacred by Israel in Jenin -- due to the claim that this is an unnoticeable occurrence; "'there is no reason to treat this as relevant or significant' - Eleland, 17:29, 13 October 2007" Before Eleland forced months of discussions and heavy source scrutiny (rejections of The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post and similar), the article version was a short consensus version agreed upon by both Jaakobou, Rama, and Khukri. After spending so much time to validate the case's notability there is no way that I can approve removing all the high quality sources found, and replacing it with a single "haaretz" link and a version that doesn't barely even explains why the issue was notable.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't try to pretend you have consensus for your version! I invite you and anyone else to review the endless discussions above, where very other editor disagreed with you. These "controversies" you want covered in great detail and in scrappy English are not notable outside of the right-wing blog world of Little Green Footballs, and one newspaper op-ed, the original of which doesn't even appear to be available on the web. That's the whole point - it's NOT notable. Feel free to add a small amount more, but the version you are trying to push is embarrassing and OTT. --Nickhh (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh,
 * I did have consensus with Rama and Khukri (see following edits by Rama:, 8 September 2006). After that edit, I've only added the word "Saeb Erekat repeatedly claimed"  and the argument ended there. That September 200 6  version lasted uncontested until in September 200 7   decided to play with the material to support his long time claims that the Jenin Massacre (also known as "The Big Lie") indeed occurred.
 * Eleland, who at the time was busy trying to protect PR from being sanctioned by repeating his disruptive behavior, joined PR and we've been discussing the issue ever since (i.e. for 7 months now). On numerous occasions I've offered Eleland to go back to the compromise version achieved by Jaakobou and Rama, but he refused, insisting that this incident is a non-notable; forcing me to find more and more and more high quality links and "establish notability" to the point where Sm8900 felt compelled to state his disapproval of other editor's conduct.
 * A few others objected along the way to some of the previous versions of the text. Ryan Postlethwaite made some valid points (and some non valid, based on OR reading of non secondary source material) and we've managed to work out a consensus version that he did not object to either (see: 16 February 2008).
 * Your "you are trying to push" comment is a bit uncivil and personal, esp. when placed in context of your recent edits. I request you avoid these comments and work within wikipedia principals.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC) some touch-ups 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of the diffs you've provided merely show that other editors simply stopped editing here at some point after long debates with you, or reverted to your preferred version simply to remove borderline vandalism. Neither action implies consensus on "your" version; plus in fact, despite what you claim above, you have in fact expanded the section considerably since 2006, and not just with additional footnotes. And unsurprisingly you have neglected to mention all the other editors, including those who you claim are on your side, who have contested your general claim that the so-called controversies and criticisms are worthy of anything more than a brief reference. And you keep missing the point about your insertion of more and more references to what Erekat did or didn't say at the time - the issue is around the significance of what he said and beyond that, the notability of the supposed controversy around it. As so many people have pointed out, the latter only appears to be noted in one, perhaps two, op-eds in right-wing media sources and that's it (excluding the usual fringe blogs and forums) --Nickhh (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh,
 * I don't see how you can say that Erekat didn't these say things repeatedly on international broadcastings. This is the very reason that the following sources (and many more) criticized him and the Palestinian authority also.
 * CNN Transcripts: Interview with Condoleezza Rice; Last Chance for Arafat?; How to Best Protect the Cockpit? BLITZER: Mr. Erakat, you probably know that you've come under some widespread criticism here in the United States for initially charging that the Israelis were engaged in a massacre in Jenin. Perhaps 500 Palestinians murdered in that massacre, you suggested. But now all of the evidence suggests that perhaps 53 or 56 Palestinians died in that fighting in Jenin.
 * "Liar, liar" by Bret Stephens, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 26, 2002 (hosted on take-a-pen.org) (source) 'Every word she says is a lie, including 'and,' 'but' and 'if.'' What Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, so one could say about Saeb Erekat.
 * JCPA Issue Brief: What Really Happened in Jenin? Since October 2000, Jenin-based terrorist networks were responsible for 28 attempted suicide attacks against Israel, of which 23 were actually executed. It is no wonder that in a captured Fatah document (http://www.idf.il/english/news/jenin.stm) the Palestinians themselves call Jenin "the martyrs' (meaning suicide bombers) capital" -- as-simat al-istashidin. Yet Palestinian spokesmen characterized Israel's counter-terrorist operations in Jenin, right from the start, as a "massacre." Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erakat charged during a CNN interview on April 10, 2002, that Israeli troops had killed "more than 500 people." ...
 * 'BACKGROUNDER: A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference' by Yehuda Kraut (CAMERA) * April 7, 'Israel warns Lebanon, Syria they risk a new border war' by Betsy Pisik, Washington Times (source) On April 7, Betsy Pisik of The Washington Times quoted Saeb Erekat as saying, “This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp.”
 * CNN Transcripts: Israel Retaliates to Suicide Bombing by Invading Arafat Compound BEGALA: Let's keep in mind, because we heard about a five or 10 minute diatribe from Mr. Erekat of the Palestinian party. ... we should keep in mind, he's the man who wrongly told the world that there had been a massacre at Jericho, wrongly told the world... ...the Church of the Nativity in -- it was being torched by Israelis. (editorial comment: Erekat sat and spoke with CNN from Jericho, massacre claims were regarding Jenin).
 * CNN Transcripts: Massive Gunfire Outside Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity HOPKINS: Do you have a reaction to the U.N. seeming decision to not have a fact-finding group come to see what happened in Jenin? GOLD: Well, you know, the whole notion of a fact-finding group was born out of a fundamental lie, that Israel had committed a massacre in Jenin. Originally you had Palestinian spokesmen like Saeb Erakat stating on CNN that upwards of 500 Palestinians were killed in Jenin. We now know that the figure is even around a 10th of that. And that's now verified not only by Israeli sources, but also by Palestinian sources. So the entire motivation for conducting this operation basically doesn't exist any longer.
 * Three separate CNN anchors say that Erekat wrongly reported to them, makes it clear that CNN sees this as a highly notable event. Also, The Jerusalem Post and a number of other sources used are completely mainstream of the highest quality.
 * To further explain the situation, after 7 months of Eleland trying to eliminate the text on the claims that it was un-notable; the two of you are trying to replace the established version with one that only uses a single Haaretz article for the 'Jewish state controversy' and NON to say that he "criticised by some Israeli commentators ... allegedly(?!) inflated Palestinian casualty figures".
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is SO hard to get through to you. For the 20th time - 1) I have never said he didn't give interviews at the time where he got the casualty figures for Jenin wrong (as did others when the picture was unclear, Israelis included); and 2) I have never said he wasn't criticised by one or two poeple for that, mostly partisan commentators. So you are wasting your time as well as mine in posting lengthy essays like this on the talk page.


 * What is at issue, and a point which you have never dealt with, is a) whether he got those figures wrong as part of a deliberate deceit; and b) the significance of these events and the criticism around them in his overall biography. Just because you are obsessed with it even to this day, does not mean it needs this level of detail on a Wikipedia page in 2008. I am so bored with this. --Nickhh (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a number of issues, one of them is that the version you reverted to is completely inaccurate (there's nothing "alleged" in Erekat's claims, he stood behind them) and under-referenced as well.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are 100% wrong, as you usually are about matters relating to the English language - "inflated" implies deliberate exaggeration. That is, indeed, as I keep pointing out to you, an allegation. To be factually accurate, and to avoid genuine WP:BLP issues, the wording should either say "allegedly inflated figures .." or simply "gave higher than turned out to be accurate figures ..". One or the other. I'm still waiting for a response about the significance of this whole event as part of Erekat's biography as well. After 2 years, can we finally have an answer? --Nickhh (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to Political Career sub-section
Jaakobou I'm not going to revert them, in order to avoid further wranglings, but it might be worth pointing out that | your recent series of edits have had the effect of - duplicating material relating to his resignation from Abbas' cabinet, which was already in the "Chief Negotiator" section; duplicating the BBC profile as a reference (it was already there); introducing a sentence that refers to him quitting a "post" which is not defined beforehand; and introducing the phrasing "a loyalist of Yasser Arafat" which doesn't really work that well, and isn't commonly used. I'll leave it up to you to sort out. --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, can you please sort this out and tidy up your mess, instead of spending your time edit-warring across other pages and posting tired arguments up on MedCab pages? Yet again you are running around accusing anyone and everyone of disrupting Wikipedia, using it as a battleground, or soapboxing etc .. yet those criticisms would seem to be far better applied to you. --Nickhh (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you bring the article back to this version + the totalydisputed tag, we won't have a version conflict.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? What "version conflict?"? I'm just asking you (three times now!) to tidy up the slight, but nonetheless obvious, mess you've made of an otherwise uncontentious part of the article. Are you refusing to do that? Who's being "disruptive" now? --Nickhh (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please maintain WP:CIV.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop mucking up this encyclopedia, whether through blatant POV warring, or even more oddly - at least the former makes some strange sense as Hasbara - through duplicating material and references, and then refusing to tidy up that mess when it's pointed out to you perfectly politely. --Nickhh (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a problem on the article with more than one section. I am not planning on going deep into it until we resolve the current controversy mediation/problem. I'd request you refrain from making heavy changes also.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. if I've missed some gross error, you can be WP:BOLD and correct it. It's not like you're new to reverting my edits.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Other people have to spend way too much time as it is clearing up all the sh#t you leave lying around, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to use the pooper-scooper yourself this time. But since you refused to, I'm now more than happy to leave these mistakes (and they are genuine mistakes, which you introduced very recently) in there as a momument to both your ineptitude and your stubbornness. --Nickhh (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace
On Wikidata, an IP posted the following on d:User talk:207.228.62.140 (I deleted that page, as this misplaced comment was its own content):

In the page on Saeb Erekat, it gives three different birthplaces. East Jerusalem, Abu Dis (which is not, as implied, a part of Jerusalem) and Jericho. They can't all be true. Second, he claims to be native Palestinian for thousands of years, but on the Facebook page for the Erekat clan, it is shown that they are from the Howeitat region of Saudi Arabia. So care needs to be taken in terms of what is said about him.

Please check. Thank you. --YMS (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Saeb Erekat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061031215707/http://info.jpost.com/C004/QandA/qa.erekat.01.html to http://info.jpost.com/C004/QandA/qa.erekat.01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saeb Erekat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815135404/http://jmcc.org/politics/pna/newemerggov03.htm to http://www.jmcc.org/politics/pna/newemerggov03.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114124815/http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/Jeningrad_What_the_British_Media_Said.asp to http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/Jeningrad_What_the_British_Media_Said.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

West Jerusalem is not Israel
Carlossuarez46, show me evidence that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, but he got sick in "State of Palestine", and after died on West Jerusalem, he buried in "State of Palestine"! I see that both categories should be included! Also he was died from "the COVID-19 pandemic in State of Palestine" not "the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel". His name mentioned at COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine and not mentioned at COVID-19 pandemic in Israel!   -- Alaa  )..! 22:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both cats should not be in the article because he was in the West Bank and Jerusalem only, at no point of time did he enter Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding West Jerusalem, the Wikipedia Article about it says that:

West Jerusalem or Western Jerusalem refers to the section of Jerusalem that remained under Israeli control after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, whose ceasefire lines delimited the boundary with the rest of the city, which was then under Jordanian control. A number of western countries such as the United Kingdom acknowledge de facto Israeli authority, but withhold de jure recognition. Israel's claim of sovereignty over West Jerusalem is more widely accepted than its claim over East Jerusalem.
 * Also: Australia recognizes west Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (CBS News) Glide08 (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing here proves that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel. Only a very few countries, there is no wide recognition. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been under Israeli control since 1948 (i.e. when Israel was established) and is within the pre 1967-borders (the green line). A person who dies in Taipei will still be listed as dying in the Republic of China, even though the ROC does not have wide international regonition either. Glide08 (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is about Jerusalem, not china, if you want to discuss china go to those articles. No evidence has been provided showing West Jerusalem internationally recognized as being in Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of international recognition, this is a matter of facts on the ground. The "place of death" entry on the infobox should respect the facts on the ground. I'm only citing the ROC because it's another case where international recognition and the facts on the ground don't match up. Even then, I understand omitting "Israel" in the case of East Jerusalem, but the Hadassah Medical Center is in West Jerusalem. West Jerusalem lies within the green line and was Israeli territory - if not de jure then certainly de facto - since 1948. Glide08 (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * West Jerusalem has never been Israeli territory. Facts on the ground is that its occupied and disputed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're confusing East Jerusalem with West Jerusalem. Glide08 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. The entire city is disputed. Show me evidence that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Recognitions from Australia, Russia, and the Czech Republic of West Jerusalem Specifically. Also, I referred this to a Request for Comment. Glide08 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly as I said "Only a very few countries recognize Israeli claims in WJ, there is no wide recognition.", you showed me 3 countries out of over 200. Also where is UN recognition? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020
Add to death section: He was buried in Jericho cemetery. source 219.92.102.54 (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much for your contribution!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Place of death
Should the place of death be "West Jerusalem, Israel" or just "West Jerusalem"? Glide08 (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be "Jerusalem" or "West Jerusalem" only, without "Israel" as Jerusalem is a disputed and occupied city and no part of it including West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel. Only a very few countries recognize Israeli claims in WJ, there is no wide recognition. It would be a clear violation of npov to claim Jerusalem or West Jerusalem as being "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We already had this argument between ourselves above. This RFC is specifically for outside voices to voice their opinions. Glide08 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking the participants in prior discussions do weigh in on an RFC; first, doing so allows them to present their arguments to new arrivals, and second, while attracting outside voices is part of the role of an RFC, it's also supposed to gather the overall opinion on the article, which includes people who are knee-deep in the dispute. People shouldn't, like, repeat the entire argument, but it's normal for them to weigh in and briefly state their position. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Jerusalem or West Jerusalem without Israel – per Supreme Delicousness. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem or West Jerusalem without Israel. It's a disputed territory, so we should avoid taking a position on its ownership unless the context strictly requires it.  Clearly this does not. --Aquillion (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem or West Jerusalem without Israel. Per above -- Alaa )..! 00:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem or West Jerusalem without Israel, because of the controversy associated with the region. Idealigic (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem or West Jerusalem without Israel; there's no need for an article about this specific guy to be the place where Wikipedia takes a stand on the issue. jp×g 11:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem or West Jerusalem without Israel; per above. Maplecreek1 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2021
Please change the category Category:People who died in office to Category:Politicians who died in office. 2601:241:300:B610:88C7:2343:2AC9:6C79 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening statement missing info about death
Erekat died in Israeli Hadassah Ein Karem hospital in Jerusalem of complications from COVID-19 on 10 November 2020, at the age of 65.

Amen to that, Inshallah. 77.137.79.245 (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023
I have a video interview I made with Erakat in Jerusalem in 1991. It is on my YouTube page. I would like to add it as an external link. It can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V00BrFCgnOk. PalestineArchive (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023
I have a video interview with Saeb Erakat that I conducted in 1991 in Jerusalem. I would like to add it to his page as an external link from my YouTube page. It can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V00BrFCgnOk

Thank you, Tom Wright PalestineArchive (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reposting the same request won't get you a faster answer. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks like a professional (for 1991) informative video that would do nicely in the EL section. My only concern is the video is copyrighted. The video was just uploaded to Youtube on October 31, 2023. I'm unsure how long it takes Youtube's copyright check-software to flag videos, if this had been on the site for a substantial amount of time (and not flagged) I would be more comfortable with adding it. Does anyone else have concerns about this? Regards, Spintendo  04:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've gone ahead and added this to the EL section. If other editors have concerns, please feel free to revert this change. Regards, Spintendo  00:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)