h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks for that! I looked up 'hijacker' in various dictionaries, both online and in print, including the Oxford and Merriam-Webster, and they all came up blank as to derivation. Very odd. The derivation I gave comes from the 1999 edition of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, which I have in print. Brewer's dates from 1870 and is authoritative and highly respected in the UK, so I went with that.

Brewer's says 'Hijacker' is 'A term of American origin denoting a bandit who preys on Bootleggers and other criminals.' It says the expression 'Bootlegger' derives from the smuggling of flasks of liquor in boot legs. Brewer's also mentions 'Skyjacker', and says 'Skyjackers are mostly anarchists or terrorists but robbers and crazed folk are also among them.'

So there you have it. Perhaps it's not so surprising that the origin of 'Hijacker' is obscure - after all, there are different opinions on the origins of 'OK' - see A704521.

Not really surprising, either, that personnel serving at NAS Sigonella are not kept fully informed of such inglorious incidents there.

"Not really surprising, either, that personnel serving at NAS Sigonella are not kept fully informed of such inglorious incidents there."

Heh, well, it wasn't so much that as the fact that I left before all that Achille Lauro stuff happened. Also, while I was there, I was between the ages of 10 and 14. So. Not actually "in the service" - that was my Dad's job.


- JD (not a scientist)

Congratulations, Belshazzar!

Your entry has been recommended and is on its way to the Sub-Editors for inclusion in the Edited Guide. A fine entry and well deserved!

More for Belshazzar!

Azara

Cool! Congratulations!

(think of it as fireworks...)

Hi Belshazzar,

Fantastic entry, and a pleasure to sub

And now I get to add my two pennyworth...

The 'edited' entry is split into three bite-sized chunks:

A730900
A731701
A731710

I've added some text linking the three parts together.

Re the title... I thought 'Hijack on the High Seas' was going to be a history of piracy or something along those lines. The title at the moment is "The 'Achille Lauro' Hijack"...

I still need to reread it all thoroughly before I send it back to the Towers, but let me know if you have any comments.

Title:

I changed this to 'Hijack on the High Seas' following comments from Reviewers in this thread, who had assumed it was a plane not a ship. They seemed happy with the change. Your suggestion would only work for people who already know what the Achille Lauro was, and lots don't.

You thought that 'Hijack' referred to piracy, and although piracy is slightly different (usually involves robbery) it's in the same ball park and I don't see why that should be a problem. But if I was writing about piracy I would have called it Piracy on the High Seas, which I didn't. In any case, people only have to read the first para to know what it's about.

If you are concerned that people would think it is a general history rather than the history of a particular incident, and you think this is a problem, would 'A Hijack on the High Seas' cut it? or 'A Hijack at Sea'?

Your intro to Parts 2 and 3:

This describes the hijackers as 'terrorists'. In all 6000-plus words I never once called them terrorists. It's a highly emotive term and these guys were never convicted of - or even charged with - acts of terrorism. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. As it says in the entry, they were lying low and trying to get into Israel when something happened, they panicked, and found themselves in the role of (rather inept) hijackers. So, 'armed Palestinians' or 'Palestinian gunmen', please!

I'll have a read-through later to see if I have any further comments.

> If you are concerned that people would think it is a general history rather than the history of a particular incident, and
> you think this is a problem, would 'A Hijack on the High Seas' cut it? or 'A Hijack at Sea'?

'A Hijack on the High Seas' sounds like a good compromise to me

> This describes the hijackers as 'terrorists'. In all 6000-plus words I never once called them terrorists.

An excellent point - I shall put it right immediately.

Let me know what else you find...

Danny B.

Danny, I don't have to tell you that this entry deals with issues that are extremely sensitive in the present troubled state of the Middle East. This means we have to be very, very careful about exactly how we word things, and in writing this article I have tried very hard to meet this challenge. You have made certain changes, and no doubt you had good reasons for doing this, but my problem is that I don't know what those reasons are, since you haven't said.

I wrote:
As it turned out, the American tourist, a disabled Jewish man, was later shot and killed and his body and wheelchair were thrown overboard.

You changed this to:
As it turned out, a disabled Jewish man - the American tourist mentioned above - was later shot and killed and his body and wheelchair were thrown overboard.

This is a subtle but significant change of emphasis. If you just want to tack 'mentioned above' onto the end of 'American tourist', fine, but you have changed both the word order and the punctuation, I don't know why, and your version does not convey what I intended.

At the foot of part 1 you write:
The Story Continues
Part II - The death of the American tourist is discovered and the US military intervene

This suggests that Part 2 is just about US military intervention, whereas in truth there was also Italian, Egyptian and Israeli involvement. I suggest you delete 'US'.

You write:
Part III - Political and legal wranglings abound as the hijackers are put on trial

There is rather more to it than that! Political and legal wranglings abound as the hijackers are put on trial, wanted men escape to a safe haven, and the Italian government collapses.

At the top of Part 2 you write:
In October 1985 the cruise liner Achille Lauro was hijacked in the Mediterranean by a group of armed Palestinians and taken to Egypt, where it was eventually released.

This is misleading. There is no suggestion that it was taken to Egypt. In fact it wandered around the Med and happened to end up somewhere off the coast of Egypt, hardly surprising since it was on its way from one Egyptian port to another when the hijack took place. What you write suggests that the purpose of the hijack was to get it to Egypt. But if that's what the hijackers wanted, all they had to do to get it to Egypt was wait till it docked at Port Said, its destination at the time of the hijack.

Also, there is no mention of its being released. The Egyptians were holding it as a bargaining counter.

You write:
The hijacking, which led to the death of American tourist Leon Klinghoffer, triggered an international incident involving Italy, Egypt, the USA and various other countries. The first part of this report can be read here.

I suggest:
The hijacking incident, which involved the murder of American tourist Leon Klinghoffer, triggered...

In Part 2:
But the US wanted the hijackers extradited to Italy or the USA, while Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat was insisting
You need to insert (PLO) since it refers to the 'PLO' later.

'listen in'
I think it's clearer with the hyphen, but I know some people are anti, and I can live with that.

Part III - the fate of the hijackers is debated by the interested parties
A Hijack on the High Seas - Part III
In October 1985 the cruise liner Achille Lauro was hijacked in the Mediterranean by a group of armed Palestinians, who later killed Leon Klinghoffer, an American tourist.

That's fine!


Top of Part 3:
The Story so Far
Part I - the Achille Lauro is hijacked, taken to Egypt and eventually released

see comment above

In pt 3 you put 'Palestine Liberation Organisation' in quotes. In previous instances there were no quotes.

>Reagan even sent Craxi a conciliatory letter, which became known as the 'Dear Bettino Letter and appeared to be a US apology for its actions. Craxi thus appeared to have triumphed over the USA.

You have slightly altered what I wrote but I won't quibble. You just need to close the quotes after Dear Bettino Letter.

My mistake:
Magied al-Molqi
Molqi, jailed for 30 years in 1985 for the murder of Klinghoffer, was released in 1996 by Italian magistrates on 12 days' parole 'for good behaviour'. He disappeared. Two other Achille Lauro hijackers had already vanished in the same way in 1991. This left only one of the hijackers - Atif - still in an Italian prison.

Please change 'Two other Achille Lauro hijackers' to 'Another Achille Lauro hijacker'.

------------

I'm sorry to have to be so pedantic about these things, but it's really important to get them right. Hope you understand.

BTW Belshazzar saw the writing on the wall but couldn't decipher it. To help him understand it they brought in - Daniel.

Oooooh. I knew this one would be trouble

[...a disabled Jewish man]

> This is a subtle but significant change of emphasis. If you just want to tack 'mentioned above' onto the end of
> 'American tourist', fine, but
> you have changed both the word order and the punctuation, I don't know why, and your version does not convey what > I intended.

I think what I was trying to do was get the 'mentioned above' in while still keeping the sentence flowing - I do think it clarifies things slightly to refer to the previous mention. As you rightly point out, my reshuffle did alter the emphasis, and I've changed it back.

> Part II - The death of the American tourist is discovered and the US military intervene

> This suggests that Part 2 is just about US military intervention, whereas in truth there was also Italian, Egyptian and
> Israeli involvement. I suggest you delete 'US'.

Done.

> You write:
> Part III - Political and legal wranglings abound as the hijackers are put on trial

> There is rather more to it than that! Political and legal wranglings abound as the hijackers are put on trial, wanted
> men escape to a safe
> haven, and the Italian government collapses.

Done. (I was trying to keep it short, but I thought you might want to tweak it slightly... )

> At the top of Part 2 you write:
> In October 1985 the cruise liner Achille Lauro was hijacked in the Mediterranean by a group of armed Palestinians > and taken to Egypt,
> where it was eventually released.

> This is misleading.

> Also, there is no mention of its being released. The Egyptians were holding it as a bargaining counter.

I suppose I was thinking 'released by the hijackers', but I've clarified this point in the couple of places it occurs.

> You write:
> The hijacking, which led to the death of American tourist Leon Klinghoffer, triggered an international incident
> involving Italy, Egypt, the USA and various other countries. The first part of this report can be read here.

> I suggest:
> The hijacking incident, which involved the murder of American tourist Leon Klinghoffer, triggered...

Done.

> In Part 2:
> But the US wanted the hijackers extradited to Italy or the USA, while Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser
> Arafat was insisting
> You need to insert (PLO) since it refers to the 'PLO' later.

I like to claim that this is the sort of thing I'd spot on my second read-through

> In pt 3 you put 'Palestine Liberation Organisation' in quotes. In previous instances there were no quotes.
...
> You have slightly altered what I wrote but I won't quibble. You just need to close the quotes after Dear Bettino Letter.

I refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous remark

[ Magied al-Molqi]

Please change 'Two other Achille Lauro hijackers' to 'Another Achille Lauro hijacker'.

Done.

------------

> I'm sorry to have to be so pedantic about these things, but it's really important to get them right. Hope you
> understand.

Absolutely. It's a great article and worth getting right for that reason alone. And, as you say, there are other reasons for making sure everything is written appropriately.

> BTW Belshazzar saw the writing on the wall but couldn't decipher it. To help him understand it they brought in
> - Daniel.

Hmm... no comment



Danny B.

OK, Danny, we're getting there.

pt 1
>As it turned out, the American tourist mentioned above, a disabled Jewish man, was later shot and killed and his body and wheelchair were thrown overboard.

I agree it sounds stilted. Look, we've already said he was an American tourist, and the name Klinghoffer has already been mentioned - twice! I had to mention it near the top because I wanted to go on to refer to the eponymous opera, and it was mentioned again in the name of the opera itself. So how about:

As it turned out, Leon Klinghoffer, a disabled Jewish man, was later shot and killed and his body and wheelchair were thrown overboard.

Now we can do some polishing. I know you would pick up these points in your next read-through, but in your next read-through I'm hoping you'll concentrate instead on any points I've missed so far.

pt 1 footer
Part III - Political and legal wranglings abound as the hijackers are put on trial, wanted men escape to a safe haven, and the Italian government collapses

Couldn't have put it better myself! So why not use that for the pt 2 footer instead of what you've got?

pt 3
preamble
After long negotiations, the hijackers had been removed to a miltary jail

miltary?? (OK, OK, I know you haven't spell-checked yet!)

To clarify this, you need to say 'a jail at the Italian air base' or at least 'an Italian military jail', otherwise it looks like a PLO or Egyptian jail.

The Story so Far
Part I - the Achille Lauro is hijacked, and eventually ends up anchored off the coast of Egypt

You could lose 'eventually' - it was only a couple of days later, and 'ends up' is fine. Lose the comma.
Capitalise 'So' in the header?

Yasser Arafat
Arafat's involvement with the Achille Lauro hijacking is not in doubt, but the extent of it is unclear. Arafat's relationship with Abbas, however, and the fact Abbas was a member of the PLO's Executive Committee from 1984 to 1991, led to a US decision to refuse Arafat a visa to enter the US to address the UN General Assembly in November 1988.

spell out UN

OK... done that.

Next...

pt 1 footer and pt 2 footer:

>Part III - political and legal wranglings abound

Better would be:

Part III - political and legal wrangling abounds

Consider it done

Hopefully I'll get round to reading the whole thing properly again some time tomorrow, but the more you spot now, the less there'll be for me to do then

I'm happy to let it fester, now, till you re-read. RL beckons!

Annoying when that happens, isn't it...

I'll let you know when I'm 'finished' with the article.

OK, at the risk of speaking too soon, I think I'm finished with the three sections. I haven't really done anything with them (except for capitalise all the GuideML tags, of course )

Let me know if you have any final comments and we can get them sent back to the Towers.



Danny B.

Off you go to the Towers, then, with your toffee-nosed upper-class upper-case tags. See if I care!
It's all right for you, I've got the opera to do now, dammit!

By the way, thanks a lot for sorting this out - I do appreciate it.