Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abu Nidal/archive1


 * 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 by SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009.

Abu Nidal

 * Nominator(s): SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-nomination, an article I've been writing very slowly on and off since 2005. I think it's a good length, not too long, and I believe it contains all the most significant issues. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 13:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support on the basis of 1a: beautifully written. Sourcing looks highly skilled. Disclaimer: I don't know the topic well. Just a few points you may consider:
 * Last two paras in 1948 Palestine War—can they be merged?
 * "each other's homes"—I can't work out whether it should be others'.
 * Just checking: it is in BrEng with "ize", yes? While the zed is a minority choice, it's still acceptable.
 * At the moment he shot Abu Iyad, Hamza reportedly shouted, "Let Atef Abu Bakr help you now!" a reference to the senior ANO member Abu Nidal believed Abu Iyad had planted within the group as a spy. In addition to that, Abu Iyad was on poor terms with Gaddafi, giving Abu Nidal additional cause.[60]—Comma after the quote? Perhaps avoid "addition ... additional". Tony  (talk)  12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, Tony. I merged the two paragraphs, and I think it's "each other's homes," which I seem to recall from Fowler, but I'll check. I didn't consciously write in either BrEng or American; I just wrote what I'm used to doing myself, so I'll check to make sure it's consistent. I added a comma after the Hamza quote, and I've removed the additional "additional." :-) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is "each other's".  JN 466  10:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks JN, yes, of course it is. The spelling, Slim, is consistent, since BrEng can and still does occasionally use the zeds. I think there's no issue. Tony   (talk)  15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments *Is it intentional that publications (Der Spiegel, The Guardian) aren't wikilinked? If not, I don't mind going through them quickly.
 * Section Personality: "and the early loss of both his father and mother"—we have just said that he remained close to his mother.
 * "... and Black September, a group of radical fedayeen associated with Arafat's Fatah, who carried out operations using Black September as a cover." We are using Black September twice in the same sentence, with different meanings. I can't think of an elegant way to fix this right now.  JN 466  23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayen, thanks for commenting. I intentionally didn't link publications, because I like to keep the number of blue links low, but feel free to add them. I've fixed the "early loss" of father and mother, and the Black September sentence.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Publication names: If you did it intentionally then I'm happy to leave it as you had it. On the referencing: Could we add the books' ISBN numbers in the References section? It makes verification easier. I could also harvardise the references for you, so the footnotes are clickable, as they are here for example (it's not needed for FA, obviously, but is user-friendly).
 * There are a few things listed in the references that don't appear in the notes section; e.g. "Pipes, Daniel (1992). "Abu Nidal: A Gun For Hire", book review, Wall Street Journal, February 18, 1992, accessed June 7, 2009.", "Abadi, Jacob (2000)."Pragmatism and Rhetoric in Libya's Policy Toward Israel", Journal of Conflict Studies, Volume XX Number 1, Fall 2000, accessed June 7, 2009." As the article seems quite fully referenced, with at least a reference at the end of most paragraphs, how do these references support article content?  JN 466  10:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few unreferenced statements/paragraphs that I feel would profit from a reference: e.g. "it seems he grew to despise women ..."; the paragraph starting "Each new recruit ..." in "Nature of the organization"; in the lead section of "Political life", there are a few paragraphs that are wholly or partly unreferenced; the section "Criticism of the PLO" is likewise completely unreferenced. Would it be possible to add the missing references to these?
 * In amongst my nit-picking let me say that I find the article very interesting overall; so far I don't see any major non-compliance with WP:WIAFA criteria.  JN 466  19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-) I'll add refs for the material you've pointed out. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the extra refs; let me know if you want more. I also added ISBN numbers. Regarding the Harvard refs, I'm not a big fan of those, though I won't object if someone else adds them. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Reading about the "First operation", I did a double-take – it was not immediately clear to me that the wording "a high-level hostage situation" in the 2nd para referred to the seizure of the Saudi embassy in Paris described in the first para. I was also left wondering if the hostages were flown places or stayed in the embassy. Is it possible to clarify this section a little?  JN 466  16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting)I think this is a bit clearer:

Abu Nidal's first operation took place on September 5, 1973, when five gunmen, using the name Al-Iqab (The Punishment), seized the Saudi embassy in Paris, taking 11 hostages and threatening to blow up the building if Abu Dawud was not released from jail in Jordan, where he had been arrested in February 1973 for an attempt on King Hussein's life. After lengthy negotiations, the gunmen and some of the hostages left on a Syrian Airways jet for Kuwait, from where they flew to Riyadh, threatening to throw some of the hostages out of the aircraft on the way. For three days negotiations continued, aided by Ali Yassin, a PLO representative, until eventually the gunmen were convinced by the Saudi's insistence that they had no control over the Jordanian authorities. They surrendered and released the hostages on September 8. Abu Dawud was released from prison two weeks later. Seale writes that the Kuwaiti government had agreed to pay King Hussein $12 million for the release.

According to Seale, the seizure of the embassy had been commissioned by Iraq's president, Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr. On the day of the seizure, 56 heads of state had gathered in Algiers for the 4th conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Seale writes that al-Bakr commissioned the attack out of jealousy toward Algeria that they were the hosts; a high-level hostage situation was therefore arranged as a distraction. One of the hostage-takers later admitted that his orders had been to fly the hostages back and forth until the NAM conference had ended.

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is brilliant.  JN 466  00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Finished copyedit. Support, fine article.  JN 466  01:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This article, to my surprise, is very detailed and comprehensive. It is also fully referenced and I have yet to spot any blatant POV. The only thing I'm against in this article are the massive quote boxes in the "Early life" section. Other than that small problem, I see no reason to oppose. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose due to image concerns (WIAFA #3): Other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Choose either File:AbuNidal3.gif or File:AbuNidal.jpg: I am not certain why two fair-use images of Abu Nidal are needed. One is more than sufficient.  His features has not changed much between the two.
 * I have replaced the chosen GIF with a JPG version (per WP:IUP), and written up the fair use rationale in a template. Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rome airport 1985.jpg: please explain in the fair-use rationale why this photo is signficant with respect to Abu Nidal, and why removing it from the article would result in a loss in the reading experience. (ref:Dispatches: Reviewing non-free images)
 * File:Bank of Credit and Commerce International logo.jpg: where is the image's fair-use rationale for this article? Of what significance and irreplaceability does it serve in this article?
 * File:Weizmann 1948.jpg: Brown-Suarez photo are not government employees. They are a private business.  The license is wrong.  What assures this image to be in the public domain?


 * I removed the second image of Abu Nidal. These are believed to have been released by the Israeli army (IDF), and they're iconic images, so there's no problem using them: I'm claiming fair use because the IDF didn't respond to my queries about them.


 * The Rome airport image gives an impression of the carnage the gunmen left behind. Again, this is an iconic image. I used the BCCI logo partly for aesthetic reasons only, to break up the text, and partly to remind readers about the BCCI story: the image was published everywhere at the time of its closure. I don't know who would own it now that the bank no longer exists.


 * The Weizmann image is on the Commons and says it's in the public domain. I don't know anything about it beyond that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the airport image as iconic of his acts, but the image is already used in its own article. Non-free content (#5) states it as an unacceptable use of fair use images: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)".  It would be best to remove the photo here.  The same reasoning can be applied to the BCCI logo (although I believe its signficance, as a logo, to Abu Nidal is very weak).  Moreover, both images are lacking fair-use rationales specifically for this article (fair use images require a separate FUR for each article they are used in).  If the BCCI section needs a photo, File:LordBingham3.jpg could do.  File:Rom Fiumicino 04.jpg or one of the other photos in commons:Category:Aeroporto di Roma-Fiumicino could serve as a image in the Rome and Vienna section.


 * For Weizmann, some things on Commons are not truly in public domain (some are uploaded mistakenly or under misconceptions, others are...). How about using File:Weizmann's passport photo.jpg or File:Chairman Weizmann.jpg, which have a solid case for being in public domain compared to the Brown-Suarez photo?  Jappalang (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I replaced Weizmann with one of your suggestions (thank you for linking to those; when I looked on Commons for a replacement, I couldn't find one); I removed the BCCI logo and replaced it with a free image of the Bank of England; and I removed the Rome image entirely. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Single copyrighted image is under appropriate fair use to identify deceased and reclusive(?) subject.  Jappalang (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Per the MOS, the big curly quotes on the quotations are depreciated.
 * As a general matter, I would prefer to see the references all alphabetized together, rather than having most of them alphabetized by author (through Yallop) then have another section of just titles alphabetized (mostly, as it's not very well alphabetized.) I'd alphabetize by whatever is given first in the reference. But this isn't a deal breaker, just makes it easier to find the short form refs.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean alphabetize the other references by the first word in the title? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've alphabetized the articles without bylines according to the first letter of the title, but I've kept them separate from the bylines. The curly quotes are just for the pull quotes, by the way. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the pull quote format is depreciated, especially as our cquote template doesn't make the font size of the quote bigger. Check with Sandy however, she's the MOS guru. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She took a look over it when I first put it up, so I'm assuming they're okay to use. I like pull quotes; they break up the text for the reader. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that one for a true expert to opine on. I'm done, looks good on sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Article articulates itself around 2 main books written by Patrick Seale and Yossi Melman. Both are high standing journalists specialists on the topic and without apparent bias. Quotes clearly indicates these journalists investigated a lot and interviewed numerous people. Arab secondary source could be an added value but it is very hard (if not impossible) to find. I am not a specialist of the topic but I checked in the books I have about Middle-East and I/P conflict and I didn't find any other important event related to this man. I think the work here is more than satisfying for what concerns sourcing. Ceedjee (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * sources : comments


 * Question Wikipedia has a policy that doesn't call any organization as "terrorist" for Al-Qaeda it is "Designated as Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department Designated as Proscribed Group by the UK Home Office Designated as terrorist group by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy" You should fix it in the lead for neutrality. It is a long article which is a major accomplishment, but I cannot review it fully since it is really long. Kasaalan (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about not using the word "terrorist." I previously had "guerrilla group," but another editor changed it, and I'm currently debating with him on the talk page. I'll change it back in the meantime. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No debation is actually needed, just show him Al-Qaeda it is a wikipedia wide policy. Guerilla group is just fine. Kasaalan (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another editor objected to "guerrilla" on talk, so we've settled for "militant." I've also added an infobox, per talk suggestion. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.