Jump to content

Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-citations

  • Many of the quotations cited in the article are only semi-cited. They give names of non-English newspapers and dates: they don't give either in English or in the original language the title or author of the article in question.
  • I have commented out a blind-URL citation to http://www.emra.org.il/story.php3?id=12801. The link is not accessible as of 5 December 2006, nor is it on the Internet Archive. Unless someone knows what it was and where a copy might be now, this one is effectively lost. This is part of the problem with putting an uncommented URL as a reference.
  • The reference given as (in Hebrew) http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/003-D-6200-00.html?tag=23-15-32 nfc.co.il news site would be much improved by the date, Hebrew title, and translated title; if there is an identified author, that would be good, too. Ideally, we would also provide the original and translation on relevant passages.
  • There are citations to "Smith, op. cit., p. 357" and "Smith, op. cit., 376" but there is no original citation of a "Smith" for these to refer back to. I suspect that there once was; someone may want to trace through the article history for this.
  • http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1082606041893&p=1078027574121, cited as a source, just says "Cannot find article". Although the Internet Archive shows itself as having archived versions of this page, they also come up blank. This raises the same issue as the other now-dead blind URL.

- Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

After you wrote these remarks I actually went through the page history reasonably thoroughly and could find no citation for "Smith". A brief look on Amazon turns up a book called "Palestine and the Palestinians" by one Pamela Ann Smith, though I've heard of neither book nor author before myself. Unless someone can confirm that as the source, perhaps statements and references alike should go. Palmiro | Talk 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Claim that "PLO no longer represents Palestinian people"

The reference to the PLO being recognised as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people has nothing to do with who wins elections in the PNA. There is no evidence that any relevant body has withdrawn its recognition of this status of the PLO on this basis. The PNA, on the other hand, has never been recognised as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by any body, even if it has to some extent been de facto treated as such by some countries; and it is in fact forbidden from engaging in international relations by the Oslo agreements under which it was set up. So there is no relationship between the PLO being recognised internationally as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and Hamas winning the PNA legislative elections.

Whether people conclude that the PLO does not in practice represent the opinions of the Palestinian people is quite another question, which should not be contraposed to this one, at least not without a very weighty source suggesting that it is immediately salient thereto. In any case, this too can hardly be purely addressed on the basis of PNA elections given that most Palestinians don't get to vote in PNA elections - only those living in the Occupied Territories can vote, a minority of the Palestinian people whom the PLO is considered to represent.

It should also be noted that the source cited does not in fact support the contention that the PLO's status is now in question, and is not itself the epitome of a reliable source (with all due respect to the International Committee of the Fourth International). Palmiro | Talk 12:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Drug Trafficking

Can i see another source for this...one that doesnt lead you to a site full of pop-ups that slow down your computer. (Ssd175 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)) No evidence? What about in 2001, when Faisal Hussieni, PA minister in jerusalem affaris and obviously a member of Fatah said that Oslo wa slike the trojan horse and that their aimm is still the liberation of Palesitne from the Jordan river to meditarianian sea in othe rwords destruction of Israel. Or when Arafat said three years after Oslo, we plan to eliminat eIsrael. we will establish a purely Palesitnian state. Jews won't want to live among us arabs. Or the fact how the PLO controlled media still calls for the elimination of Israel. 99% Palesitnian schoolbooks glorify suicide bombings and show maps of Palestine with no Israel on it. Mahmoud abbas calls for the right of return becaus eit would demographically destroy Israel. Is that not proof enough? Don't listen to me. Listen to their messages to their people and you will see that I am right. There was also plenty of footage of arafat inciting violcen on Palestinian TV. The Center for the Impat on [peac etooka surve yof textbooks througout the Middle east to se eif the yincit eviolcen or not and found that Palestiniant extbooks an other textbooks incite violcent on infidels [ncluding Jews] while Israeli textbooks promoted peace with the Palestinian people-Dendoi

let me correct something hear. 1- give proofs about this faisal husseini statement or whatever his name is, because what you are saying is pure crap. 2- Arafat NEVER said that, I challenge you to give solid proofs. 3- Palestinian schoolbooks glorify suicide bombings? are you retarded or what? that's nonsence, and again I challenge you to prove that Palestinian schoolbooks even mention suicide bombing. 4- Arafat gave up all military choices since the 90s, but if you have proofs of your claimed 'messages' and 'footages', you're welcome. I remember when israeli artillery killed 15 civilian on north gaza, Khlaed Mechaal, spokesman of HAMAS, declared that the armed wing of HAMAS will carry military operations against Israel, I've heared it because I speak arabic, then I turn on ABC news, and the translation was: 'HAMAS invited muslims all over the world to strike american and israeli interests all over the world in revenge to blalala'. I mean seriously, who's sending the twisted messages through media? think please, in Palestine they don't even have media. 41.224.223.191 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

jj

Munich massacre

I don't see any mention of the 1972 Munich massacre in this article, even though the attack was carried out by Black September, a group with ties to the PLO. Due to the importance of this event and its impact on the PLO's cause, it should at least get a mention. --♣Transfinite(Talk) 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are no objections, I'm going to add a mention. JoshuaZ 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What ever happened to this mention? Biccat 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It ain't here yet, but I might as well add it given that I cite sources. Yes, Fatah and Black Sept. are affiliated with PLO. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch the language!

While I wasn't the one who put up the tag about disputed neutrality, I kinda agree with it. Some of the words in the article have strong connotations and should in general be avoided in Wikipedia articles. In addition, I'm not entirely sure that some of that wording is entirely accurate. For instance, did the PLO really want to "annihilate" Israel when it was first created? I know it wanted to destroy the political body of Israel, but "annihilate" sounds more like what the Nazis intended for the Jews, and I don't know whether the PLO was operating at that level of hatred. (Of course, I know next to nothing about the subject, so if the PLO really wanted to annihilate Israel, then I am simply wrong.) 24.143.231.211 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You have only to read the "Statements made by members of the PLO" section to know that their aim was indeed to annihilate Israel and kill Jews.Dhimwit 11:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to move quotes over to Wikiquote?

I notice there is a growing list of quotes in the quotes section. This really isn't an appropriate use of a Wikipedia article. Rather these quotes should be moved over to Wikiquote in an article entitled "q:Palestine Liberation Organization." --Abnn 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

it would be helpful if Palestinians had access to the internet but they would probably have to go past 3 checkpoints to get out of their own home :p

"they would probably have to go past 3 checkpoints to get out of their own home"

The thing is I was actually in Palestine to produced a documentary on the need for micro-finance in the Palestinian region and I must say that getting in and out we passed one checkpoint each way and it was simply a matter of "Do you have ID?"..."Yes"..."Good now move along." And I would also like to point out that on my way back into Israel from Ramallah, I was on a buss full of Arabs, and the checkpoint was still only a 5 minute thing.

"The Impending Total Collapse of Israel"

The article is sprinkled with quotes from this supposed "secret speech" made in Stockholm. No source is provided, and a quick google search reveals that this speech is found only on some obscure pro-Israel blog sites, all of whom probably got it from the ultra-nationalist Arutz Sheva media organization. It is highly, highly unlikely that this speech ever occured. I've removed the relevant quotations, and I believe we need to comb through the article again for any more of this propaganda nonsense. Eleland 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This article uses rather shocking language throughout, and massively fails NPOV. It needs better sourcing, attribution, and needs to avoid the use of hyperbolic language except in specifically attributed quotes. I need help doing this I think. It's a huge task which is why I placed the tag. Anyone who want to help is more than welcome. :) Tiamat 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

does the ten point program really call for a binational state

My answer to the question above is no. Where did they get that idea. The ten point program callled for a Palestinian state on the occupied territories and then the Palestinian state to replace Israel. It says that the palestinian national Authority will call on the Arab states in confrontation with Israel to complet ethe liberation of Palestine which is equal to havibg a palestinian state replace Israel. Also, it also saya that the pLo will struggle against the creation of a Palestinian entity in return for peace and recognition. The ten point program calls for a Palestinian state to replce Israel not a binational state.-Dendoi December 8, 2006 Friday 10:51 AM

Agree with the above. The democratic secular state idea was specifically counterposed to the idea of a binational state.

See: "Towards the Democratic Palestine", Fateh (English-language newspaper), Information Office of the Palestine Liberation Movement, Vol. II, No. 2. This official programmatic article explicitly rejected the idea of a bi-national Palestine as a "misconception": "the call for a non-sectarian Palestine should not be confused with ... a bi-national state". Moreover, the article stresses that "the liberated Palestine will be part of the Arab Homeland, and will not be another alien state within it"; and looks forward to "the eventual unity of Palestine with other Arab States". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.7.46 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PLO recognition of israel is fake

The PLO never recognized Israel's right to exist. They only pretended to do so. To Arafat, the Oslo accords [a failure from the start] was a tactic to accomplish the ten-point program, which calls for first a Palestinian state in the territories then the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. The PLO still has the same goal of abolishing Israel. I can't believe I actually once believed that the PLO changed their position on Israel because they didn't. As Fasial Husseini, a PLO moderate said that the Oslo accords are like the Trojan horse and that they are cheating the Israelis and that the PLO still has the same goal, which is the destruction of Israel. The PLO are nothing but lying terrorists.-Dendoi Saturday 11:07 PM January 13, 2007

Wow. That makes one wonder what that makes Israel . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.24.252 (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If you haven't got a leg to stand on when defending the arab terrorist just make more pointless comments toward Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlrekooh (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


I doubt the PLO is the "only organization" that recognizes Israel. Please be more precise. -Megapanphilos, december 28th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapanphilos (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Terrorist organization"

Im no great lover of the current PLO (although i do support the palestinians, I wont deny) but to say that the PLO is a 'terrorist' organisation then to say it is 'the sole representative of the Palestinain people' looks like someone is trying to call all Palestinains terrorists? To some degree I sympathise with the POV that elemnts of the PLO are open to terrorism, but so are elemnts of the IDF, and they are not classed as 'terrorists', its a loaded word that should be avoided, because for every western country that calsses them as terroirsts there will an eastern country rejecting this, and wikipedia is not just for westerners (or as it happens also Israelis). I think that the word is an pinion, that if you want to use it, you should try and at stop the lead from making it sound like all Palestinians support all of its activities,m terrorist or political. Although to a degree it is an ssumption of bad faith, it seems quite clear to me the chief editors of this article have an agenda.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just cheking, it dosent seem like the source in the lead supports the idea that the PLO is a terroist ogranisation, seems like a bit of hyperbole on the part of a POV editor.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What I also find quite bizarre (although i guess this is just an opinion), is that despite the fact that Fatah over the yars has been the main group attacking Israel and casuing deaths, Israel are doing oeverything in their power to support 'terrorist' Fatah over the more popular (and btw democratically elected) Hamas, even though Hamas' crimes are culmitavily less, simply because Hamas puts Israel in a sticky position where morals and votes are concerned.86.138.254.99 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited out 'terrorist organization'. Wikipedia has extremely strict rules on the use of this term. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The intro still quotes the British National Criminal Intelligence Service as saying that the PLO was the richest terrorist organization. Although the NCIS really did state that, this statement should not be included without explanation. For example, much of the Israeli government's and the US government's actions are terrorism on a much larger scale, and those two organizations were and are richer than the PLO was. So the quote should be removed from the introduction. Alternatively, we can quote the assets, but not the word "terrorist". Or, we can qualify the quote by adding that it may have been the riches non-governmental terrorist organization at the time. -Pgan002 (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, the article still includes the "History of Terrorist Groups" sidebar. Pgan002 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious text

I've removed:-

(1)

'although many Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Faisal Husseini have declared their goal is still "liberation" of all of Palestine.[1][2]

Both Arafat and Faisal Husseini are dead, 'have declared' implies they are living. (2) The two texts do not support the statement, except for historic opinions dated back at most recent, a decade, referring to Arafat. (3)This leaves many Palestinian leaders (still living and authoritative, apparently still asserting their goal to liberate all of Palestine, something the sources do not say.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(2)

'

Those who object are welcome to read Rex Brynen's study of the PLO0s battle with many other factions, factions competing with the PLO, and often conducting operations independently, without PLO consent or indeed against its advice. This page deals with the PLO, not George Habash or other leaders who constituted the opposition to it.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the 'factions associated with the PLO' in the terrorist incident section. Many of these factions acted against the PLO, they existed or arose to challenge the PLO's ascendency or political line. The massacre of Ma'alot was undertaken by a group that apparently wished to distance itself from the PLO etc. This article is on the PLO, not on Palestinian factions in Lebanon. So we list what terrorist actions the PLO undertook, and nothing else.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The Savoy and Coastal Road massacres were executedc by Fatah, for which Arafat had full responsibility. The others were undertaken by organisations at odds with Arafat, as far as I know. If I am wrong, I'd appreciate specific historical references referring the other incidents to Arafat as head of the PLO. I would add that the list lacks several murderous operations which Arafat approved of. I'll add them in if I can find the time to hunt up RS.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Membership" section tells us the PFLP and DFLP are members of the PLO (indeed, prominent members, being the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations, respectively). They were not ejected from the PLO after these actions, nor sanctioned in any way. This is not a list of "PLO actions personally approved by Arafat", but a list of PLO terror incidents, and clearly high-profile terrorism by the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations fit the bill. I am restoring, accordingly. NoCal100 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written. I have yet to see you citing Reliable Sources here to improve it. You are citing the page itself, which is no guide to the historical realities. Please read Rex Brynen's book on on the PLO and its factions before jumping into it. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid soapboxing statements along the lines of 'This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written'. if you have specific concerns, let's hear them. If there is material that is lacking references, tag it with {{cn}} so that it could be improved, but please don;t remove material on flimsy premises. NoCal100 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Look up WP:SOAP, you have forgotten its content. To remark that an article is poorly sourced and poorly written is not by any stretch of the imagination soapboxing. Okay. I reported the defects in this material several months ago, and waited patiently. I think waiting 8 months for a reply is sufficient indication that there is no objection. As soon as I proceeded with my edit, within minutes you, who do have a record of stalking me, reverted them, though you show no knowledge of the subject. That is an ideological revert. I have no objection so far to your stalking, but I do object to your rapid challenging of my edits on pages whose subject I have studied, by someone who shows no prior effort to read up on the topic. This is in my view ideological reverting. If you had an objection, you had 8 months to post it. Why the sudden interest? Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside your presumptions to know what I do or do not know of the subject, what specifically are you looking for - references that state the PFLP or DFPL were and are PLO members? NoCal100 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As if these were really in quetsion, here you go:
Give me a break. Googling instantaneously does not constitute personal knowledge. It means you simply put key words into a search machine and ask it to connect the dots. Your first source is wrong. The DFLP (al-Jabha al-dimuqratiyya li-tahrir filastin)did not split off from the PFLP ((al-Jabha al-sha'biyya li-tahrir filastin) in 1969. This article requires not googling but reading a reliable source on the intensely fractured nature of the PLO, with its internecine battles, breaks divisions and regroupings. To note one of about 20 facts pertinent here, the PFLP for the period of 1974 (massacres etc) withdrew from the PLO Executive Committee, and joined the Palestinian Rejection Front opposed to the PLO. So unless you are willing to read a detailed analysis like Brynen's you simply will not have the background to assess whether what you google up is correct or not. It's hard enough with book-learning to disentangle the mess, and order the page on a time-line to clarify who belonged to what, at what period, and whether these groups at this or that time seconded the PLO or opposed it, without jumping at the page with slick info' dredged up by googling rapidly. I repeat. If the page really does interest you, read Brynen's book on the PLO in Lebanon, and we can work over this together slowly. I do need help. It's a very complex subject. Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As to my Soapboxing, please see Jmabel's remarks in the next section. he says exactly the same thing. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so even if you were correct, it would be your personal resarch , which is not allowed. The date when the DFLP split off the PFLP is not the point here - it is their membership in the PLO, which was not affected by the split. These is not about 'one of about 20 facts' (though it would be perfectly reasonable to include such acts if it were) - but about the 2nd and 3rd largest member organizations. The PFLP's withdrawal from the PLO Executive Committee can be noted in the history section, but it is undisputed that they remained a member of the PLO throughout the period during which they committed these hideous acts of terrorism, and that the PLO did nothing to suggest that it viewed these actions as actions of non-member groups.
You don't know what you are talking about, since you can't even defend the one, of many errors, in the paper you cited, and which I noted. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And, no, Jmabel most certainly does not say "exactly the same thing" as you - he says the article is weak, and then proceeds to name 5 specif issues he sees that needs addressing. If you do the same, rather than spewing generalizations such as 'This whole article is poorly sourced and poorly written.', we may get address those. NoCal100 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Terrific. I can't wait to observe your dazzling erudition at work here. As elsewhere, when I find, on pages I habitually edit, someone stalking in, I drop the page and leave them to it. Normally I find that as I withdraw they fiddle with a few edits, and then, lacking the chosen antagonist, wander off, wait a bit, and then try it with me on another page I habitually edit. So, I'll leave it to you, drop my intended comprehensive review of this and associated pages, and see what you can do with it. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I take it you have nothing substantial to add to this article then, nor any specific issues with anything contained herein, now that your policy-violating edit has been reverted. NoCal100 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Take it as you will. Had I continued the page would have had, apart from substantial general revision, several terroristic acts undertaken by the PLO which, since you appear not to know about them, it will probably lack. It would not have acts listed as PLO terrorism which were specifically undertaken by splinter groups in that organization, in defiance of the PLO's directives, in order to shipwreck peace talks undertaken by Arafat. Of this you know nothing, otherwise you would have concentrated on helping the page, instead of focusing on my one edit. I've tipped you off, so get to work, and start adding to the list of terrorist acts that can be ascribed to the PLO. In a year, I'll come back and see if you've improved the page. I'll edit with anybody, of any POV, as long as they see their role as aimed at improvement in an encyclopedia, and not playing jejune games with other editors. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Your persistent patronizing attitude reflects badly on you, not me. Fell free to add any terrorist acts undertaken by the PLO which are not currently there, or feel free to leave. It is of no consequence to me. This article will most certainly contain acts carried out by organizations who are PLO members, whether Arafat personally approved of them or not. NoCal100 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In bidding you adieu here, could I note that my patronizing tone comes as a response to your wikistalking where, habitually, you precipitously revert or controvert an edit of mine, and then start saying 'feel free to (do this). . . feel free to (do that)' and make various admonitions, warnings, veiled threats I will be reported. I need your advice as much as the page needs your attention. I am free to do as I like, and don't need some patronizing voice over my shoulder seconding my natural instincts. Good evening and good bye, until at least you turn up on another page I habitually edit and where you don't.Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Accusations of wikistalking ring hollow coming from someone who less than 2 hours ago followed me to an article he hasn't edited in more than 4 months, in order to summarily revert an edit of mine. Keep editing this way and you will soon find yourself blocked, yet again. NoCal100 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Check the page. Or ask Michael Safyan, how much work we have both put into that page. It runs to dozens of pages of extensive discussions on the intifada, subjec to also to administrative mediation. The record is there. You weren't. Check before you make silly remarks.Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've checked the page. Your last edit there was in June, more than 4 months ago, exactly as I wrote. You then followed me there today, and reverted my edit within hours of me making it. As I said, accusations of wikistalking after such behavior ring hollow. NoCal100 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
81 revisions, check the diff. Nothing of substance worth challenging, until the page undergoes serious revision, since we are still arguing about 'uprising'. I have a long history with the page, and follow each revision. You haven't. In any case, now that this is becoming a pattern I will list on my page the instances. Not a threat, since I don't report misbehaviour, but I like studying patterns. Your rising obsession with me is quite curious.Nishidani (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
81 revisions, the last more than 4 and a half months ago, until suddenly today you show up to revert an edit of mine a few hours after it was made. As I said, accusations of wikistalking after such behavior ring hollow. make your list, and I will make mine. NoCal100 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This: "The PLO's diplomatic relations with other Arab countries, particularly those against Israel, are fairly misunderstood. Most Islamic Arab countries generally dislike and show contempt for the PLO, due to the fact that most of its formidable members are leftists, communists, and seculars." was put under the section In The United Nations. Is this a POV? It isn't sourced and one wonders if this "contempt" was materially demonstrated by Arab countries at the United Nations. If not what is it doing here? And if so what is the relevance? Eyesockett (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Weaknesses

To me, this article seems weak. I definitely don't have the expertise to fix it, but I would hope that someone else does.

A few remarks:

  • Although Fatah eventually became ascendant, the PLO started as (and, officially, still is) a confederation of organizations. The word "confederation" does not currently appear in the article. That seems an odd omission.
  • The article refers to these organizations as "factions", which seems to me a dismissive word.
  • We indicate present member organizations and two former member organizations, but we give no list of which of these were founders.
  • We mention the PFLP joining the Rejectionist Front but nothing about them returning to the fold. Or am I mistaken about the latter?
  • The collection of quotations reads like a large mass of undigested material. Some of the choices seem very polemical: for example, the three quotations under "On whether the PLO police force will work with Israel against terrorism" all imply that they will do no such thing, whereas in practice they have often done precisely that. Also, all of these quotations are about 14 years old, and don't necessarily reflect current policy. Surely we would not attempt to represent U.S. government policy on Israel and Palestine by drawing our quotations from the first Clinton administration.
  • In general, a collection of quotations is not how we do these things, and there is a good reason for that. With decades of history to pick from, and such a broad organization, you can probably find a quotation from some leader of the PLO saying nearly anything. Quotations like this, appropriately placed, can give flavor to an otherwise bland narrative, but they should not be used as a substitute for citing strong secondary sources and what they have to say about the evolution PLO. And "evolution" would seem to me to be the operative word: organizationally, operationally, and politically, the PLO has undergone extensive changes; one can glean that from the article, but other than a general (if not by any means uniform) movement from rejectionism to support for (or at least toleration of) a two-state solution, the rest of that evolution would be very difficult to glean from this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Note the original PLO charter article 24 (PLO permanent observer to the UN website):
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
Thus, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was officially sanctioned while the occupiers were Jordan and Egypt, and there was no objection to these occupiers' treatment of the refugees. The charter changed in 1968, after the 1967 War, and this article was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.190.58 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Occupation? Perhaps you can show us where Jordanian or Egyptian soldiers ever behaved like this: I immediately thought of the stories my parents had told me of how Jews had been treated by the Nazis in the 1930s ... how Jews would be forced to clean sidewalks with toothbrushes ... an elderly Palestinian walking down the street, leading his donkey ... his grandson, was with him ... ordered the old man ... kiss the animal's behind ... Throughout that summer of 1985, I saw similar incidents: young Palestinian men being forced by Israeli soldiers to bark like dogs on their hands and knees PRtalk 12:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
@Jmabel - there are much worse Israel/Palestine articles than this in the project, but the commentary on the Palestinian policemen is typical of the rank and worthless propaganda that's been shoe-horned in. Even more than most Palestinians, the policemen were singled out for murder at random by Israel - and we don't need to rely on "confused Arabs" to document this policy, because we have 5 Israeli soldiers telling us they were under orders to do it.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] - published by an Israeli source in Israel. PRtalk 12:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
While I do respect "shovrim shtika" (your source) as a credible source, considering that the Palestinians did not blow the Jordanian or Egyptian buses, I can't see a reason for the Jordanian/Egyptian to shoot Palestinian officers. I'm against the acts depicted in your sources, but considering the long list of terror attacks against Israel from the 1920s (someone said occupation?) I can see why a commanding officer will want to break the international law and shoot a Palestinian officer. You are trying to put things out of context in order to picture the Israelis are "evil". Well, try to watch the Israeli "sesame street" and then the Palestinian one... While the Israeli show teaches the young to understand and accept everyone, from all religions and views, the Palestinian show teaches how there was never a holocaust, the jews are the source of all evil, and that god want every little boy to be a suicide bomber...User:FraterAchad —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

ITS ALSO KNOWN AS PLO REMEMBER THIS IT MAY COME IN HANDY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.101.99 (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

UNSUPPORTED TEXT

This: "The PLO's diplomatic relations with other Arab countries, particularly those against Israel, are fairly misunderstood. Most Islamic Arab countries generally dislike and show contempt for the PLO, due to the fact that most of its formidable members are leftists, communists, and seculars." was put under the section In The United Nations. Is this a POV? It isn't sourced and one wonders if this "contempt" was materially demonstrated by Arab countries at the United Nations. If not what is it doing here? And if so what is the relevance? Eyesockett (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Breein, if you have further concerns with the text please discuss it here.

Lets talk Unomi (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not how you discuss things. I removed unsourced material, you reverted me with no explanation or discussion, and cited WP:BRD when you in fact were the one who should have been discussing. You then edit warred me without addressing any of the concerns I raised in my edit summaries. I will spell it out clearly for you, by repeating what I already told you in the edit summaries.

The source you are using to justify the text that was inserted by another user yesterday (without a source) is a primary source and does not say what you are attempting to insert in the article. Rabin's wording in the letter is NOT sufficient as a reliable source to paraphrase in the way that you have done. This is called original research. If you can't find a proper reliable (secondary) source for this information, it doesn't belong in the article.

This is the violating text:

"PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism"; in response"...

...if you do not self-revert your most recent addition of this text into the article, I will be forced to file a report which will most likely see us both blocked for edit warring (we are both now at 3 reverts).

That is the only issue I still have with the article after your latest edit. Breein1007 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you giving us the opportunity to discuss.
The letter exchange, seems to me to support "PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism"" directly and it has Rabin stating

In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

What is it about that passage that you object to? That they recognized, accepted and rejected? or in response?
By the way, I wish I could get at this.
How can we phrase something workable from: [7] or the 1994 Cairo Accord text : "REAFFIRMING their adherence to the mutual recognition and commitments expressed in the letters dated September 9, 1993 , signed by and exchanged between the Prime Minister of Israel and the Chairman of the PLO;" which could well be construed to be a secondary source on the September 9 exchange. Unomi (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am going to rewrite the passage based on the balitmore sun source above, if you wish you may revert and I will not hold it against you and I will defend your right to do so should it be necessary. Unomi (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have decided to take what I said seriously and are now stating your intention to make changes accordingly. I'm eager to see what you come up with from that source. If I have issues with your wording, I'll be sure to let you know. Breein1007 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
As the text you raise concerns about is in the lede, I cannot add the ref to it directly, I have however added it to the somewhat odd section at the end of the article. In light of the baltimore sun source, the text of the cairo accord and the letter exchange I am not sure if you still find the current wording problematic. Unomi (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
More potential sources: [8],[9] Unomi (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Central Council

  • What are the functions of the Palestinian Central Council, how are his members selected?
  • How are PNC members selected?
  • How is the Chairman of PLO selected? Alinor (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This Article is garbage

This entire article needs to be re-written, preferably by a non-Zionist. Also, the recent uncovering of classified documents of the PLO's dealings with the Israeli government, exposed by Al Jazeera should be mentioned here too. Thebutterfly (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Go for it Butterfly. --BwB (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"preferably by a non-zionist". Is this so the article can have an anti-Israel bias? 206.126.80.6 (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How do you know it was written by a Zionist? Assume good faith. If you disagree with certain parts of this article, please discuss them here with your sources so that the article can be improved.

Tamsier (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

PLO and the US Congress

I updated the lead to reflect the years-old opinion of the US Government that the PLO is a terrorist organization. My properly sourced revision was undid and this was the explanation...

"Congressional resolutions are a dime a dozen; in the U.S., it's the executive branch that makes such determinations"

The link I cited in my edit would have taken you to the resolution that congress passed, and that the president signed into law. Yes, resolutions are sometimes frivilous, but if it is passed by both houses and signed by the president, it becomes part of US Code and is law.

Why was the PLOs status changed? Because it stopped terrorising? No. The president signed an order allowing for negotiations with the PLO despite them being concidered a terrorist organization. He didn't change the status of the PLO, he just allowed an exception to the "We don't negotiate with terrorists" rule. The president does not decide who is and is not a terrorist on his own. But the president can negotiate with terrorists anyway if he feels it necessary. It doesn't mean they stop being terrorists.

The old lead is purposely misleading. It makes readers think that PLO terrorism is a thing of the past. Its not. The US Gov'ts softer stance is also a thing of the past. I don't want a lead that says "TERROR TERROR TERROR" but to say that the US called the PLO a friendly, diplomatic group and thats the final word, is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.161 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The PLO is not on the US State department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. Hence it is not considered a terrorist organization by the diplomatic wing of the US government. Poyani (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

References

I read this article for the first time tonight and find it seriously lacking in references. We need help to find sources for the current material. --BwB (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit [10] deletes a link to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the "Diplomatic representation" section. Are there any objections to keep this wikilink? Alinor (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article's POV is extreme to say the least. It makes claims which are verifiable false (such as blaming the Avavim School Bus Massacre on the PLO when in fact it was carried out by the military wing of the PLFP-GC). It makes clearly racist claims (such as "fulfilling Palestinian desire to destroy Israel and throw out its Jewish population" - since when do races of people have desires?). It is full of unsourced contentious material. It violates WP:Label on several occasions. For other contentious material, it relies heavily on sources known to favor one side in the conflict (such as Rubin) which it presents as facts, rather than opinions of the author. The external references includes links to commentary by sources whose expertise on the PLO are dubious and questionable (such as VJL) or activists organizations (Palestine Poster Project).

For all these reasons and more, I am putting a POV tag on this page. It will take a long time to clean this page up and bring it to standards. Poyani (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Role of the KGB

There is no mention of the role of the KGB in instigating the notion of the Palestinian Arabs. Prior to 1964 the Jews were the Palestinians, having been so named by the Romans in 135AD. Arafat was reluctant to use the term Palestinians for his Arabs as it was then a term of abuse to call an Arab a Palestinian as it was synonymous with calling someone a Jew.


Citation Needed

I would be honored to add such a mention on the page, if I could please have any type of standard documentation for a citation. In fact Russia has many Jewish Citizen and there should be mention of some type of migration at some point in time isn't there? We should look into this. Eossipov (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Mis-attribution. Possible false statement.

The attributions for "In 2004, the United States Congress re-declared the PLO to be a terrorist organization." send you to attributions from the 1987 declaration of PLO as terrorist organization. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the US did declare the PLO to be a terrorist organization in 2004. If no one can find otherwise we should remove those references shortly.

It certainly is not considered one today: Foreign Terrorist Organizations according to US Department of State

--Hoosier80 (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference: Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups-political-legitimacy/p10159#p6 CRS Report for Congress: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21235.pdf Oxford University - - Oxford Islamic Studies Online http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0618# I believe there is more within the state department which maybe useful, but I was trying to stick with neutral and indisputable references. Interestingly a number of the PLO fractions are still listed on the Terrorist Watch List, including Hamas and Fatah Unfortunately I did not locate the documents concerning 2004 re-listing of PLO as a Terrorist Group, again, I will continue to look into it. In the mean time I believe the referenced doc's provided have excellent resources and citing. Eossipov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel's "right to exist"

"In 1993, PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace" Should a consistent phrase be used to describe when the Israeli or Palestinian elements oppose their opponents statehood ? Currently the phrase "right to exist" is not used in wikipedia to describe the stance of Naftali Bennett and Moshe Feiglin when opposing the creation of a Palestinian state. I feel NPOV requires a consistent phrase used for all situations where statehood is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised the Palestinians don't use the phrase to mock the Israelis, but I don't recall ever seeing the phrase used by the PLO, probably because they would rather not dwell on this rather important concession of recognizing Israeli statehood (everyone wants their cake and to eat it too.) I think it would be difficult to just use the phrase without such sources, as it has rather obvious political overtones. Int21h (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the contribution - sorry I don't quite understand your "difficult to just use the phrase without such sources", are you saying that this and other articles should not use the phrase "right to exist " with regard to those Palestinian groups that don't recognise Israel (and maybe those Israli groups that don't recognise Palestine) as the groups themselves dont' use those phrases. Re sources I think there are plenty of sources detailing the rejection of statehood by Hamas, Naftali Bennett, Moshe Feiglin etc - my point is should a common consistent phrase should be used to describe that policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.224.75 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"sole legitimate" representative ... by the United Nations

I keep getting reverted on this, so I want a discussion on this very technical point. The United Nations does not, as the introduction says, recognize the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people"; The United Nations recognizes the PLO as the "representative of the Palestinian people". The 1974 Arab summit conference did, as the citation correctly states, but I stress the United Nations is not the Arab summit conference.

United Nations Resolutions 3210 and 3236 both refer to the PLO as the "representative of the Palestinian people" but not the "sole legitimate" representative. (United Nations Resolution 3237 invited them as observers, thereby making the PLO, not Palestine, a UN observer.) While others may consider them as such, the UN General Assembly does not.

As such, I propose:

  • any sentence that claims or purports that the United Nations recognizes the PLO as the "sole legitimate" representative should be corrected to either identify who (obviously not being the United Nations or its General Assembly) considers them as such, or removing the "sole legitimate" phrase when referring to the United Nations recognition.

This appears in the introduction and throughout the article. What say you, fellow Wikipedians? Int21h (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. The references provided for the quote concerning the UN do not contain any statement about the UN referring to the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In fact an explanatory note accompanying the 4th reference explicitly notes, as the above commenter points out, that is was the Arab summit, not the UN, that referred to the PLO as such. To make matters worse, not only does the author of that first paragraph erroneously attribute that quote to the UN, he also states that 100 nations have also referred to the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Needless to say, there is no reference provided to back such a claim. Allowing that quote to be attributed to the UN and 100 other states amounts to lending Wikipedia's imprimatur to a deliberately propagated falsehood. Moreover, it also completely calls the neutrality of the article into question. Something needs to be done to correct the situation immediately.74.128.36.29 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


I concure, there is a great difference in the statements and "sole legitimate" should be removed from all current references except those made directly by the PLO, I would consider a Citation for a footnote on the PLO page rather than risk an accidental error of omission or admission. So As the You Move from Palistinian Liberation Organization(cite) (PLO)(cite) PLO Eossipov (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Sources referenced above United Nations Resolutions.

I note I have been reverted again, this time by User:Faizan, so I have made the changes again. I have added quotes from the sources. To summarize:

  • 1 secondary source claims the 7th Arab conference considers the PLO the "sole legitimate" representative
  • 1 secondary source claims "well over 100 states" considers the PLO the "sole legitimate" representative
  • 2 primary sources claim the UN GA resolutions refer to the PLO as "the representative"

You cannot mix and match. Int21h (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. My last edit was on February 24. If there were successive discussions which supported the exclusion of the phrase "Sole legitimate" from the disputed line of the United Nations, then I have no reservations. Faizan 11:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
There were no successive discussions. There was 1 discussion, AFAIK, and you're editing it now.
OK, it is my fault really. It was 208.80.119.67 on 19 September 2011‎ that confused matters. I have just reset that sentence to before that edit, but I kept the UN GA Resolution references. Int21h (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal

Okay sorry people I forgot my username password... Anyway, I just deleted the following from the charter section: "The Palestinian National Charter as amended in 1968, endorsed the use of armed struggle against Israel who had recently invaded and placed Palestine under military occupation." Several reasons: a) The state of Palestine historically did not exist at that time. b) In 1967, the West Bank was *illegally* under the control of Jordan (which had illegally annexed the West Bank). While the question of provocation on the southern front of Israel during the 1967 war is questionable, Jordan and Syria definitely attacked Israel before Israel attacked them. Therefore, "invasion" is inaccurate. c) This is clearly politicized and has no place in this article. Moreover it does not reflect a NPOV. d) This does not add anything to the article, as the following paragraphs contextualize the Charter properly.160.39.136.21 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palestine Liberation Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sock

The vandalizing Argentinian sock is most likely a sock of User Zeremony. [11] [12] [13] [14]; [15] [16] --Qualitatis (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[17] [18] --Qualitatis (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

change unjustified to unjustly (grammatical error) in The basic idea in the PLO's ideology is that Zionists had unjustified expelled the Palestinians from Palestine and established a Jewish state in place under the pretext of having historic and Jewish ties with Palestine. They demanded that Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes. This is expressed in the National Covenant: Lordvigm (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kamel Tebaast add this as a new section [19].

The first is about a case which was privately settled, out of court.

The second part has been thrown out of court, (also, see this) this August. I cannot see that there is a justification for a section on this, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It is covered by multiple WP:RS so it notable and WP:DUE to include.--Shrike (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, from what I understand, in the US you can sue anybody for just about anything....but the case was ultimately THROWN OUT. Does this mean we should cover every case which goes to court in the US?? We would, say, have a few thousand new articles about the cases involving Donald Trump, then. Seriously..... Huldra (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It was not "thrown out", it was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which means that it can still move forward. Your argument that it is simply like any other lawsuit is ridiculous, considering the number of international RSs. When I revert you, I'll also be adding to the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokolow_et_al_v._Palestine_Liberation_Organization_et_al. BTW, it's interestesting why it was dismissed. Because the U.S. does not recognize the PA or the PLO as a sovereign nation. Had it, the award would have stood. Be careful what you wish for. KamelTebaast 23:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe not. If PA had been recognised as a sovereign nation by the US, it could have done what Israel does, namely claim "sovereign immunity" against any prosecution.
Shurat HaDin apparently gets enough Israeli funding to throw away on these wild goose chases, that still doesnt make them significant. If that 600+ billion case was left standing, yes, then I would agree, it would be notable. But that simply isn't the case. At the moment all it shows is that Israel/Shurat HaDin has too much money to spend......Huldra (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Your POV aside, the article will be based on RSs. KamelTebaast 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Heh, heh. And you, off course, don't have a POV....... I get it. I can only repeat, many failed litigations (like Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al) does not make a case. Shurat HaDin/Israel can throw away as much money as they like on New York lawyers. This, unless you are a lawyer in New York, is still insignificant...(at least for the PLO/PA.) It should be in the Shurat HaDin article, though. Huldra (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Your "thrown out of court" argument to preclude edits and insertions into the PLO article has no basis. Thrown out of court is when a lawsuit is frivolous. A case that has been in the court system for more than a decade, had a half billion dollar jury verdict against the PLO, then is overturned on appeal on a technicality, is far from a frivolous case underserving of mention in the article. These cases have serious RSs and your future deletion of the edits will be considered disruptive editing. Lastly, can you please point me to the policy that states that a private settlement resulting from a lawsuit should not be mentioned in an article? KamelTebaast 00:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
"Thrown out" are the words used by the NYT source. It is not up to you redefine it. And lack of jurisdiction is not a mere technicality but a fundamental part of the court system. Zerotalk 02:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Classic... you just strengthened the argument for inclusion into the article! KamelTebaast 02:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
He actually demonstrated that you hadnt even read the sources. nableezy - 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe someone will explain to you what I meant. And, just so that my silence doesn't get misrepresented (again), the verdict was "thrown out", not the "case", as Huldra wrote. That is what I was referring to. KamelTebaast 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you really trying to make that claim? Well then. The verdict was in fact vacated and the case, in its entirety, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. You continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding on the topics you are trying to edit. But regardless of that bit of pedantry, why should this specific case, one that was ultimately dismissed, be included in an overview article on the PLO? nableezy - 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A court case is almost always notable. Especially if it received coverage in the news. If it was more than one court case, then that fact alone indicates notability. We should then write "A number of court cases...". The subject and result(s) of the cases should of course also be indicated. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the claim of "sovereign immunity" doesn't always hold, for example when damages were done outside a country by its army not as part of a war (example: the army rented a car to give their soldiers some time off abroad), the rule it that there is damages liability. Debresser (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Notability has nothing to do with article content. The case is in fact notable, which is why there is an article covering it. What matters here are the content policies such as WP:DUE. In a general overview of the PLO I dont think this specific case merits mention. Like I said I think this can be covered briefly, something like there have been a number of lawsuits filed against the PLO in the US (if there are other jurisdictions add that), with one having been settled out of court. nableezy - 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Nobody cares about what you think (maybe other than your POV fan club). KamelTebaast 22:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thats cute, but thats actually Wikipedia policy I was talking about. You dont seem to understand that you kind of have to care what others think here. Or have you not yet read WP:CON yet? nableezy - 08:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I dont really have a problem with it, but it cant take up too much space. I dont think we need to cover individual cases in any real depth here, that can be covered in another article, but material on legal actions against the PLO and the results (settled, dismissed ...) I think are fine. We cover Tzipi Livni's arrest warrant in the UK, but we seem to be missing the arrest warrant for Netanyahu in Spain. Will have to correct that latter oversight. nableezy - 17:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed KamelTebaast 17:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Idk if you do, because your edit is directly at odds with that. But going on the assumption that you do now agree that we dont need in depth coverage of an individual case, how about you propose a wording, here on the talk page, and we can work from there. And if and when there is consensus for that draft we can insert it. Not before, not when your 24 hr clock on reverts resets, but when there is consensus for it. nableezy - 17:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
My edit is "directly at odds"? Two court cases with two sentences each... then we obviously have different understandings as to what in depth coverage means. (I'm striking my agreement.) As for having to get your authorization first, forget it. The edits were strongly sourced and the revert was no more than disruptive editing, as yours will be should you revert. After I reinsert, you have your normal options. Cheers. KamelTebaast 18:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my authorization, it is how a consensus based editing model works. You made a bold edit. It was reverted. You seem to think that you are entitled to one revert each day, until the edit you want sticks. That is not how things work, or at least not how things are supposed to work. Consensus on the talk page as the outcome of a discussion involving your proposed changes, that is what you should be working towards. I dont feel either of these two court cases should specifically be mentioned, this is an overview article of the PLO. It is enough to say the PLO has been sued in X country Y number of times, with results ranging from dismissed to settled out of court. nableezy - 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Although reading your pontification about consensus building was the humorous part of my day, I truly could care less about what you think, what you think I think or assume, and I care even less about your feelings. KamelTebaast 21:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Noted. nableezy - 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I reverted it, because Kamel Tebaast made it look as if the PLO had a case of paying a $655.5 million award....even though that verdict had been overturned, ...and that was something KT conveniently overlooked...
  • I personally do not think this is important enough to be included. I have been sued lots of times (all "civil litigations"), if you are dealing with "litigatious bastards", that is what you have to expect. It is scary as hell the first few times...(and as one of my lawyers told me: in the lower courts, anything can happen!) But in the end they (usually!) lose.
  • So that a dismissed lawsuit agains the PLO/PA (who are, shall we say "slightly" larger entities than little me), sorry, I simply don't see the importance of that.... But if the rest of you want to include (a short!) sentence about it, fine. Just please don't forget, again, to mention that the case was dismissed... Huldra (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm still searching Wikipedia for the policy about edits based on what Huldra personally thinks (and Nableezy as well). You continue to re-state that the lawsuit was dismissed, as though it was frivolous and didn't get to court. Good try. The half billion dollar verdict was overturned in the U.S. Court of Appeals. That alone makes it notable. KamelTebaast 21:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is the thing: court cases are rarely dismissed before being heard. (At least in my country, which is generally less "litigatious" than the US). I guess that if I went to court, claiming that I was the rightful queen of England, then it might get dismissed right away.....but otherwise; if people want to spend money on it, it will always be heard. Looking through some of the cases that Shurat HaDin have had, I would be in no doubt as to call them pure harassment cases. (Like the case against Jimmy Carter). That is; cases which would never go anywhere, but is just meant to cause distress to the people they were against.
And to repeat; in lower courts, anything can happen! I once had a lower court find that in a contract which said basically that "a=b" actually meant that "a did not equal b".... (it was overturned in appeal court, of course). That "half billion dollar verdict" in the lower courts against PLO/PA turned out to be worth exactly 0 cents. Is a 0 cents verdict notable? I think not, but feel free to disagree......(Btw, if I was ever to get a WP:BLP on wikipedia (and I am praying on my knees that I will not!)... then the 2-digit court cases I have been involved with, would IMO be completely unimportant...) Huldra (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It still will be notable. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so you find a 0 cents verdict notable. Noted. Huldra (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
But as I noted above, I don't mind having a (short !) passage about this. What I absolutely mind is leaving the article as Kamel Tebaast left it, that is, as if PLO/PA actually had to pay $655.5 million. Huldra (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I agree with you about that. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Well the court ruled that it in fact never should have been heard. My point, and the policy is WP:DUE, is that these things are relatively trivial in the context of an overview of the PLO, and that as such it merits mention and not much more. nableezy - 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Nableezy Statements like "Notability has nothing to do with article content" are very helpful in building a case against the competence of an editor. Of course articles in an encyclopedia should strive to include all notable material about their subject. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to quote private essays as you like, (like Wikipedia:Competence is required); however, I doubt that it will be helpful in building a case against Nableezy ;) Huldra (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind permission. I really needed that. Just that you should know, incompetence is a valid and actively used reason for blocking editors. The fact that I mentioned an essay does not change that fact. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You are most welcome. And I really wish that incompetence was a valid reason for blocking editors, but please humour me, and refresh my memory: when was "incompetence" last used as a blocking reason in the IP area? (And I still think you will have, hmmm, "some" trouble "proving" that Nableezy is an incompetent editor...) Huldra (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, if you are going to imply Im an idiot and lack the competence to edit here you would be well advised to actually read one of the any number of policies or guidelines you pontificate on while being utterly ignorant to their contents. Quoting directly from WP:N: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. Later, These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. You get that? Notability has nothing to do with the content of an article, and you people parroting the same nonsense doesnt change that. Competence, please. Before you press save when slyly trying to call somebody an idiot see how it is you are going to look when you are, with literally the in a nutshell quote of the guideline, proved completely wrong. nableezy - 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast, your position is that these two lawsuits merits more space than the firggen Oslo Accords? Or Black September? Or the Second Intifida? Jesus christ, this is not a defining trait of the PLO. This merits a couple of sentences, which is what I reduced it to. nableezy - 20:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization I do not understand this: The PLO has always, above all, the Palestinian people labelled as Arabs. 47.216.95.193 (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Debresser (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The IP certainly has a point. The sentence "The PLO has always, above all, the Palestinian people labelled as Arabs" makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't really know what was meant, though, so I don't know what we should replace it with, Huldra (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It was added in this edit. I think one word should be moved: The PLO has always, above all, labelled the Palestinian people as Arabs. Where the words "above all" are actually redundant, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the "above all" is redundant. Suggest replacing "The PLO has always, above all, the Palestinian people labelled as Arabs" with "The PLO has always labelled the Palestinian people as Arabs", (though I am not entirely happy with the word "labelled", perhaps someone with a better command of English than me can suggest a substitute, "classified", perhaps?) Huldra (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Palestine Liberation Organization. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding Arafat and terrorism to the lede

I'm adding the following into the lede:

During much of the 1960s and 1970s, the PLO was recognized internationally as a leading terrorist organization. As an umbrella organization for several Palestinian factions that held ideologies from Marxism to radical Islamic militancy, its chief faction was Fatah, led by Yasir Arafat, who waged a war primarily against Israeli civilians.[3][4][5]

A lede about the PLO without mention of Arafat or terrorism is like an article about Nazi Germany without a mention of Hitler and the millions he murdered.

As far as continuing a debate as to whether the Palestine Liberation Organization was recognized as a terrorist organization, in their own words they admitted it. If in 1993 they "renounced" terrorism, that's an admission of terrorism. KamelTebaast 04:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference plo1974 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Accessed 5 December 2006.
  3. ^ http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups-political-legitimacy/p10159
  4. ^ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21235.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html
To begin with, why should that be mentioned before its international recognition, its status at the UN, ... ? Secondly, is it even accurate? The PBS source doesnt support it, not even a little bit, nor does it seem does the CRS brief. What in those sources support the line During much of the 1960s and 1970s, the PLO was recognized internationally as a leading terrorist organization.? The PLO itself, not member groups, not individuals associated with it, but the Palestine Liberation Organization itself. nableezy - 22:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


I believe this edit shows bias more than actual knowledge of the history of the PLO (you can even tell from the unnecessary comparison with Hitler and Nazi Germany in this very section). I have the following explanations:

  • The PLO didn't have any radical Islamic militant groups (and still doesn't as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are not members of the PLO to this day - April 2017) as shown in the PLO Wikipedia article itself[1].
  • The PLO itself had never had a single armed branch or group. Each group had its own armed wing and carried out and claimed attacks separately.
  • To say that the "its attacks were aimed at Israeli civilians" is again a complete misrepresentation of the PLO history because:
  1. The PLO factions were involved in the Jordan Black September war so it fought off Jordanian armed forces.
  2. In 1976 it was involved in a short bout of fighting in Lebanon against the Syrian government forces so it also fought off the Syrian army[2].
  3. Between 1975 and 1982, it was involved as a chief party to the Lebanese civil war (with Israeli civilians having nothing to do with it).

Therefore, in quantitative terms, the PLO factions mounted more attacks against non-Israeli targets than "Israeli civilians". The sources listed to support this false assertion in the lede create a confusion because they confuse Fatah and Arafat with the PLO since Arafat was the head of the PLO as well as Fatah. In reality, he did not have direct control over other Palestinian factions and indeed, to this day, some PLO factions such as the Popoular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) believe in the armed struggle against Israel (unlike Arafat himself).

From another angle, it is also completely misleading to attribute only violence to the PLO at this early part of a Wikipedia article. The PLO overall was a Palestinian national project that was primarily dedicated to the safeguarding of Palestinian nationalism (however we might disagree about this concept) of which armed struggle was only a single component. Primarily, the formation of the PLO was pushed for by Egypt in 1959 especially because they wanted the Palestinians to represent themselves (as Egypt dissolved in the same year the All-Palestine Government which it formed in the wake of the 1948 war).

Indeed, the PLO has since its inception had departments such as the General Union of Palestinian Writers[3], General Union of Palestinian Women, the Palestinian National Fund[4]. All these departments had nothing to do with armed struggle and were actually administrative/financial or trade-union-like sections.


I therefore suggest the phrase "Much of its attacks against Israeli civilians" be removed. The lede should read as follows:

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (Arabic: منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية‎‎; Munaẓẓamat at-Taḥrīr al-Filasṭīniyyah (help·info)) is an organization founded in 1964 with the purpose of the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle.

I'm happy to discuss this further.

gahgeer - 21:11, 30 April 2017 (BST)

I think the lead, as well as the article, should follow history. That means starting with the goals of its foundation, through its terrorist activities, and only then to political activities. I agree with the somewhat emotional worded argument of the editor who opened this section, that not mentioning the heavy emphasis on terrorism for a long period, would mean biased editing. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's "emotionally worded". It's false. The PLO factions were engaged in more than one conflict at a time and in fact prior to 1987 (the first intifada),most of its actions were against other Arab parties. I also have never heard the "PLO" claim an attack, terrorist or otherwise. It was always its factions.
You said: that not mentioning the heavy emphasis on terrorism for a long period, who me biased editing. Care to explain? I think there's a typo. Gahgeer (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)gahgeer
Factions of the PLO that answered to Arafat. That is the same thing, really. Fixed the typo: "would mean". Debresser (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You really falsely assume that all the PLO factions reported to Arafat which is far from the truth. Some of these factions (e.g. Al Saiqah) had stronger ties with the Syrian regime than Arafat. You also assume that all the PLO factions were engaged in terrorism when this is - again - far from the truth. For example, the Palestinian People's Party (successor of Palestinian Communist Party) was not involved in terrorism. I'm genuinely concerned that you are also covering for the biased editor's version of events, which is subjective, not useful and puts the reader into a judgmental position about the PLO from the outset of the article. Judging by your logic, we should add a similar phrase to the Wikipedia Israel article too. You say it's "always the PLO factions". Does this mean you agree that we should blame Zionism as a whole for the terrorism of Lehi and Stern? With due respect to your history at Wikipedia but you seem to lack basic knowledge of the PLO history and you are yourself biased. Is there way of involving someone else in this discussion/decision? Gahgeer (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)gahgeer
You could post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism, and ask them to join this discussion.
Please do not accuse me of being biased. Comment on the content, not on the editor. I may be ill informed, as you claim, but you have no right to assume I am biased, just like I am not assuming any bias on your side. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I commented on the content and made an argument. You said it was not right without proving me wrong with any data or logic. I'm saying the PLO during the course of its history was engaged in war and attacks on a group of parties, such as Syria, Jordan, the Lebanese factions and other Palestinian groups (non-PLO). Its attacks on Israel were numbered until probably 1987 with the first intifada. This lede is meant to demonize the PLO by highlighting a false allegation that can't be backed up by numbers. The sources listed are all false and don't specifically say that "much" of the PLO attacks were against Israeli civilians. Therefore, where do I resort to for an escalation?Gahgeer (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)gahgeer
Sources are all false? That is quite an accusation. In any case, for mediation (rather than escalation), please post on WP:TERRORISM, is my best guess. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Look you are backing up this false assertion, it is you who has to provide a strong, unbiased and authoritative source, preferably verbatim. Otherwise all the sources are literally either false or don't mention that "much of the PLO attacks were against Israeli civilians. See here for more information:
Source 1:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,781566,00.html This is an op-ed piece written by Lisa Beyer. It actually proves my point that “much” of the PLO attacks were in fact not against “Israeli civilians”.

Source 2:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1371998.stm This is profile of Fatah, not the PLO. In any case, it doesn’t mention that much of the PLO attacks were against Israeli civilians.

Source 3:

http://jcpa.org/article/how-arafats-palestinian-authority-became-an-entity-supporting-terrorism/ A biased article by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a right-wing Israeli think tank with a classic bias against the Palestinians. Even if we take the article’s content, it doesn’t show that “much” of the PLO attacks were against Israeli civilians but rather focuses on the alleged ties of Fatah (not the PLO) with “terrorism”.

Source 4:

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/palestine-liberation-organization-plo An article by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (what is this? a Wikipedia article or a page from Anti-Palestinian 101 manual??) Even if we take the ADL article, it mentions only “scores” of attacks by the PLO. Today, the PLO continues to exist; however, most of its leaders have now become top Fatah officials in the Palestinian Authority.

Source 5:

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-11-08/news/mn-2784_1_senior-plo This is an article that only mentions Arafat (Fatah leader) as “PLO” leader and his call for a ceasefire. Because it is a fact that in that period Arafat had more control over Fatah’s military wing, aka Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, than say the DFLP, PFLP or even other PLO factions that have no place inside the territories e.g. the ones in Syria or Lebanon. In any case, the article doesn’t mention whatsoever that “much” of the PLO attacks were against civilians.

Source 6:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestine-Liberation-Organization Article by Encyclopedia Britannica which is probably the most unbiased source in this series of weak, subjective, pro-Israel sources. The article duly mentions that the PLO was involved in terrorism but also mentions that the PLO was involved in more than a conflict with Israel (as I repeatedly said). Additionally it doesn’t mention whatsoever that “much” of the PLO attacks were against Israeli civilians.

I don't think we need to resort to mediation since I proved my point. I proved that the assertion by the editor is utterly false so I ask again for the lede to be redacted. It is presented from a specific angle, an ethno-centric one, given that the original editor and you are pro-Israel. Wikipedia is for the whole world and readers shouldn't be hit with a biased angle from the get-go. Gahgeer (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)gahgeer
  1. Lisa Beyer is a journalist on international relations.
  2. Fatah is PLO-related, and the proposed lead states so clearly. As you say yourself "Today, the PLO continues to exist; however, most of its leaders have now become top Fatah officials in the Palestinian Authority".
  3. What you call biased doesn't make it so. The source is reliable.
  4. You didn't say that there is anything wrong with that source.
  5. You admit yourself that it mentions Arafat.
  6. You admit that this sources supports the proposed lead.
So your opposition to the proposed lead, verbose and fierce as it is, does not have what to stand on as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are concerned. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Again you fail to address any of the points and blindly support the editor's bias. I showed that none of the sources above, biased as most of them certainly are, specifically prove the gross allegation that "much" of the attacks of the PLO were against Israeli civilians. You fail to address my points and repeat yourself again and again. I don't think you are qualified to judge as per Wikipedia guidelines. I'm asking for an escalation. Gahgeer (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)gahgeer
I addressed all your 6 objections in order. It is you who does no reply at all to my refutations, but only repeat the mantras of the tendentious editor. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ad-hominem but TE is adding false information because "why not add Hitler's actions to the lede". You guys are honestly the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia with your partisan pro-Zionist agenda. You haven't addressed any of my points whatsoever. Wikipedia Foundation needs to stop treating the number of sources as strong evidence. This case shows that the high number of sources attached to that snippet is actually aimed at blurring the fact that that it is wrong information. I'm escalating myself probably tomorrow or after. The reason why this article was locked is because of this kind of editing which unfortunately you're defending tooth and nail. Gahgeer (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)gahgeer

citation #74 no longer available

citation #74, "Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, Decisions and Actions Related to the Palestine National Charter" shows not found. I searched, using google, for a UN.int or un.org page that has the words ""Decisions and Actions Related to the Palestine National Charter", and could not find any. Gsoctravel23 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

citation # 85 is no longer available

citation #85 "Arab-Israeli Conflict, Encarta Archived 28 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine." is no longer available. I get a message "This site can’t be reached" Gsoctravel23 (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

I have two sources for this tag that are already in article: [5][6] --181.1.145.49 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization#Membership
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tel_al-Zaatar
  3. ^ http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/general-union-palestinian-writers-and-journalists-gupwj
  4. ^ http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/palestinian-national-fund
  5. ^ U.S. Code TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 61 > § 5201. Findings; determinations, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved 5 December 2006.
  6. ^ Rachel Ehrenfeld. "FUNDING EVIL, How Terrorism Is Financed -- and How to Stop It"" (PDF). Eufunding.org.uk\accessdate=2017-03-08.
Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Lede misleading

The first sentence gives the reader a false impression. It may be true that historically the PLO engaged in violence against Israel, but that is certainly not the case after the Oslo Accords. It's misleading and certainly not representative of a neutral point of view. JDiala (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence says that the organization "was founded in 1964 with the purpose of the 'liberation of Palestine' through armed struggle, with much of its violence aimed at Israeli civilians". Which part of this sentence is wrong ? The lead goes on to describe how the organization denounced violence in 1993, but it was certainly not the case when it was founded. “WarKosign” 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Palestine Liberation Organization. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

The article "Legal actions against the PLO" indirectly refers to Leon Klinghoffer who was murdered October 8, 1985. It refers readers to Klinghoffer as a footnote, stating "Further information: Leon Klinghoffer and Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al". Klinghoffer was a Jewish-American killed and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by members of the PLO by describing them as "Palestineans". The PLO hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro while she was underway in the Mediterranean, which led up to the murder.

This event also belongs in the "Early actions" along with the murders of civilians, including school children, which were cited. These "actions", for a large part, were not military in nature, they were terrorist actions visited upon non combatants. Wikipedia needs to discern this terminology of "military actions" versus "terrorism", regardless of whether committed by the PLO, Iran, Israel, Germany, the British or the USA, or any other country.

Protecting any article from edits does not mean it will be accepted as factual, especially if politics are suspect. Bd64kcmo (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Suggestion does not comply with the Core Content Policies. Please establish for making this change before using the edit request template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2018

"targeted Israeli civilians"? 47.145.177.119 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done. It is unclear which change to the article is requested and for which reason. “WarKosign” 08:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead very problematic, especially the first sentence, violates WP:NPOV

The lead mostly talks about how other nations portray the PLO's activities rather than explaining what the PLO is. It only says that the "organization founded in 1964 with the purpose of the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle", which is very vague. Then it mentions most of it's victims are civilians, which is the case for most organisations/armies engaged in armed conflicts. This is a judgement of value intended to discredit the subject, and while I agree that the civilian/militant casualties ratio should be mentioned, I don't believe it has it's place in the first sentence. The rest of the lead is about changes in how it was classified over time, which doesn't tell us much about what the organisation really is doing, just that it's maybe (or maybe not) a terrorist organisation, depending on who and when you ask.

To fix the lead, it should be made somewhat like the lead of the corresponding Britannica Article Emass100 (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that most victims are civilians is supported by eight reliable sources.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Having 8 sources is excessive sourcing anyway. And I don't disagree with the fact, I just question its place in the lead, giving it WP:UNDUE importance. Emass100 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, just think about it, inserting something similar in the Israel Defense Forces article... apparently there are no victims of the IDF...if you read the Wikipedia article about it. Huldra (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The PLO's targeting of civilians (e.g. aircraft hijacking) is quite established.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but this is the case for all belligerents engaged in armed conflicts. In fact 90% of all death in wars are civilians. However, not all military groups have a "they primarily kill civilians" sentence in the lead of their article. So let's cut this biased judgement of value in the lead, and make the lead talk about what the organisation is, what are its goals, its strategy, and a resume of their history. Emass100 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If an organization is described by many good quality sources as targeting civilians, this is how it should be described here. “WarKosign” 19:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course, I don't want to censor this, except this is given WP:UNDUE importance if this is put in the lead. Emass100 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead is a travesty

I'm sure you can find sources stating the IDF's mission is to protect Israeli supremacy over Arabs through violence against civilians, but any attempt at writing that, and at the lead no less, would be reverted, and rightly so, as inflamatory. There's no excuse for this over-the-top intro - nothing as hyperbolic would be said about any mainstream party in Israel or in Western countries. And God knows Israel and the West have no dearth of mainstream parties which have advocated violence and wars against oversees populations or marginalized people within their own societies.Rafe87 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are so sure you can find sources, go ahead and find them. Look at WP:RS first to understand what is and what isn't considered a source. "God knows" is not considered a source, for instance. “WarKosign” 07:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The current lead if at all casts "violence against Israeli civilians" in a much too favorable light - as it ignores that the vast majority of sources consider attacks such as the Coastal Road massacre as acts of terror and that the PLO has also attacked non-Israeli targets (Jewish and non-Jewish).Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why you think the lead is favouring the PLO while it mentions 'much of its violence aimed at Israeli civilians' in the very first sentence? Overall, the lead has a US perspective. Bever (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Bever, forget about it. The lede ignores completely the fact that the PLO had other civilians branches that were aimed mainly at safeguarding and developing the Palestinian identity (Writers and Journalists Union, Women's Union, Samed economic division, a radio station and several publications such as Filastin al Thawrah and others). The PLO at some point in the 1970s funded the Leipzig Film Festival in East Germany. But hey, there are eight footnotes to this disputed fact that includes very non-authoritative and biased sources (which honestly exposes the fact that this insertion is dodgy). I tried to debate this particular lede, which I think is aimed solely at showing this specific insertion ("against Israeli civilians") when Googling the PLO. See here for example. But all my attempts failed and I was even threatened of being suspended because let's face it, Wikipedia's I/P articles have been taken over by a group of ardent radicals who obviously care more about pushing their narrative than providing a holistic view of an organisation (including its armed struggle/terrorism strategies). This way of working, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, is a case in point to explain why students are discouraged from citing Wikipedia as a source. If there's 1% chance a historical article will be aligned with the political agenda of an editor who has 1,000,000 edits on his belt, then it will happen.Abdallasalmi (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Misleading section

As at now, 9 Aug 2018, there is a section that says The PLO and its dominating faction Fatah are often contrasted to more religious orientated factions like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). All, however, represent a predominant Muslim population. Practically the whole population of the Territories is Muslim, most of them Sunni. Only some 50,000 (ca 1%) of the 4.6 million Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) are Palestinian Christian. ... etc

It seems to imply that there are hardly any Palestinian Christians. The linked references says the exact opposite thing. There used to be 10% in 1948, until 1967 the conditions were stable. But after Israeli occupation started, conditions became harsher, and more and more Christians emigrated, so that by today, only 1% of the Palestinians remaining are Christian. Palestinian Christians are today mostly in the diaspora.

It does specifically say that it is only referring to Palestinian Christians living in the territories. But the phrasing is so badly constructed, many people would likely jump to the wrong conclusion that 99% of Palestinians are Muslims.

Wish I knew how to fix it.

Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land and the Diaspora. Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, 21 October 2014

Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land. Institute for Middle East Understanding, 17 December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erqua (talk • contribs)

Christians in Gaza and the West Bank were leaving/assimilating also pre-1967 - and more importantly what is relevant to the PLO is post 1964 (founding), and really only in the post 1967 dynamic. Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

At the end of the following (part of a) sentence, the citation/source number [6] is listed twice, and the actual source that it references is also identical to that of the initial indicator:

"much of its violence aimed at Israeli civilians.[5][6][7][8][6][9]"

This does not look good on a couple of levels but mostly aesthetically and professionally. Please kindly perform the needful, thanks. NotPedanticReally (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Tartan357 (Talk) 10:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

I apparently don't have sufficient edit count to edit this page (just a minor edit), but I'd like to see wikilinks added for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad where those items are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbessler (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. Note that due to the overlink policy not all mentions will contain a Wikilink. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lebanon and the Lebanese Civil War - last para

This para starts by clearly implying that those who attempted to assassinate Israeli Ambassador Schlomo Argov in London were the cause of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. However the would-be assassins were from Abu Nidal organisation (not PLO) and had no connection with Lebanon. So the link is false. 

 In 'Fateful Triangle' Chomsky gives a well documented account of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon being driven simply by a desire to destroy the PLO as a political organisation representing Palestinians.
 (Overall I find the article signally fails to reach your usual standards of neutrality.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.84.97 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead reflects the bias of the entire page which faithfully presents the views of anti-Palestinian racists towards the Palestinian liberation struggle, but does little to reflect Palestinian views. What does it mean to say that 'much of [the PLO's] violence was directed at Israeli civilians? Palestinian civilians fatalities at the hands of the Israeli army, Israeli militias and Israeli terror groups far outnumber the Israeli civilian fatalities. The article dwells heavily on the Palestinian armed struggle, and fails to mention Palestinian diplomacy and its commitment to peace processes which have been trashed by Israel. It fails to mention the fact that people living under violent occupation have a right in international law to resist occupation with violence - and in contrast, international law characterizes the violence of occupation as illegal. The article as a whole avoids international law as scrupulously as an Israeli propagandist. But it would be a reasonable way to frame this article, which as it stands is just a collection of attack lines from Israeli racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiethomas88 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead is Israeli POV

Palestine Liberation Organization is an organization founded in 1964 with the purpose of the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle, with much of its violence aimed at Israeli civilians.

How can this problematic opening sentence stay for more than 2 years and why is the page edit-protected? Lead section, most importantly the opening sentence, should not contain any bias.--Dijkstra (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I found that "with much of its violence..." part was added by Kamel Tebaast and it wasn't included in the long standing consensus version. Can someone with extended user rights please revert it? --Dijkstra (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Rejigged it a bit so it's more NPOV and joined it up with Israeli/US terrorist designation.Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine_Liberation_Organization/Archive_2&oldid=1195166170"