Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

PLEASE Do not report the various reports circulated in the press about Arafat's death or coma etc. without quantifying their reliability. Within the same day, we've had so many conflicting reports it's mind-boggling. David.Monniaux 19:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FLASH: CNN reports at 2322EST that Arafat has died in a Paris hospital. Baylink 04:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Contents

What the hell is your Problem Jayjg

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

The sentence you inserted "Arafat was outside the Palestinian area when the nakba occured in 1948, but had long realised the zionist intentions (as evidenced by his essays in the magazine he helped publish, "our palestine") and as early as 1946 the 17 year old Arafat was organising smuggling weapons to Palestinians and encouraging others to take the fight to the hagannah as the British were "feeble"." is POV, poorly linked, improperly capitalized, poorly spelled, vague, and most importantly, POV. The original version was neutral, and the text was actually referenced directly by the links. What does "long realized the zionist intentions" mean? What did his essays say? Where are the sources for all of this? Seriously. Jayjg 17:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


It is not POV, where is the POV, correct the spelling and grammer if you wish, but thus far it is the only mention of 'our Palestine', and the only mention of his directions to others to attack Hagannah, and the only mention of how he referred to the British as Feeble. he knew about the Zionist intentions, whats wrong with that?
What does "Zionist intentions" mean? What did his essays say? Where are the references to this material? Please note the link in the article in the original version directly supports the information preceding it, in your version there is no such link. Jayjg 17:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Zionist intentions" are the intentions the Zionists had. The essays were in the magazine Our Palestine, a magazine who's existence you seem to want to hide.
What exactly does that mean? What were their intentions? Did they intend to hold square dances on Tuesday nights? And whayt did the essays say? I'm not hiding anything, since you've said nothing at all about the magazine, or its contents, and more importantly, you've sourced none of it. Jayjg 18:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Yes, the Zionist intentions were to hold square dances every Tuesday. -- If you seriously don't know the intentions of the Zionist movement I seriously suggest you stop talking right now.
As I said, vague. You haven't answered even one question, nor have you attributed anything. Jayjg 19:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg is a Zionist troll who thinks his mission in life is to poison Wikipedia with his extremist POV. See his user page to understand the mentality of teh person you are dealing with. --Alberuni 19:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hello Alberuni, why the adhominum attacks? Your use of personal attacks on other editors and negative assumptions about others' motivations only diminishes respect for your contributions, and makes your edits look very biased and unscholarly. What is there to gain by all that negative energy you're investing in attacking others? Isn't your time more valuable than to waste it in such unproductive endeavors? MPerel 19:54, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I am going to have to side with Alberuni on this particular argument. The name "Zionist" tells their intentions: they want to establish "Zion". However, Alberuni, you shouldn't turn a debate over writing an encyclopedia article into a personal attack. This isn't an AOL chatroom. Attacking people won't help your cause. It will just alienate people even more. I understand that the condition over there is very harsh, and that the radical factions of Zionism have been treating your people unjustly, but using an encyclopedia article to call someone a Zionist "Troll" will only make things worse. You can be stronger than that. --NoPetrol 07:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should Jayjg continue Posting here?

Jayjg Continually edits the Arafat Article to pieces, shoving in his POV at every chance. Surely, considering you clearly feels so passionate and opinionated abaout Arafat that maybe he should not touch it and allow people who actually have a NPOV to edit it wouthout his Anti-Arafat meanderings? Just a thought.

I haven't injected my POV; I don't have strong feelings about Arafat. I've just tried to keep POV edits from being forced onto long-standing and stable sections of the existing article. And related to your question, should anonymous editors get themselves userids, sign their edits, and subsequently restrict their Talk: page comments to discussions of article content, rather than other editors? Just a thought. Jayjg 17:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nice thought, and in relation to your suggestion, I would if I could, but right now I can't. However, in regard to my original Question, I don't want this article to descend into anothe Edit War, and you cannot seem to leave your POV from entering the article, so perhaps it is in the best interests of the piece if you leave it alone. You have constantly taken other peoples work and reverted it because it does not relect your Personal POV, and that is why the Arafat article is a piece of crap. It would be better if people with extreme POV's about a subject, as you do about Arafat, should leave their POV's and baggage at the Door. Just because people say it doesn't make it right or true, and makes Arafat's article one of the worst on Wikipedia.
The stuff I return to the article is not my POV. Rather, it is information that has been in the article for months, and often over a year, and which was arrived at through consensus. Deletions of this kind of material should be agreed to by consensus in Talk: first, rather than just being aribtrarily removed by people who assume that every negative thing said about Arafat is an attempt to smear him by his "haters". Wikipedia articles are supposed to tell everything in a NPOV way, the good and the bad, and not merely be a whitewash. Jayjg 15:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Consensus is an agreement by all, and as such anything which does not fit your agenda you revert. I've watched you do this for months now. You've destroyed the page. It's an appalling slurish hatchet job filled with sly digs and torrid innuendo and unsusbstantiated allegations. Considering you have such strong opinions, which have clearly warped the article to a direction of your choosing away from any attempts of being an article of encyclopedic information, surely it's best if you leave it alone ? Whats your problem with leaving this article alone? It is in the best interests of Wikipedia if you and your "strong opinions" leave this alone! [ 12:05, 10 Nov 2004, User talk:195.7.55.146
Hello nameless 195.7.55.146, what a ridiculous accusation, "you've destroyed the page"! Please... What exactly have you offered except adhominum attacks?MPerel 20:35, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Hello. The accusation stands. I have tried many many times to do some work on the page, and Jayjg has threatened to ban me. Consensus ? Every alteration to the pahe I make, he rverts because it does not suit his POV. It's not just me though, he does it a lot. His opinions are seep-rooted, which is fair enough, but he is imposing that upon this page, and I think he should just let it go.
When have I threatened to ban you? Jayjg 15:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Look at his User:Jayjg page. It explains alot about the mentality of this editor. --Alberuni 17:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Likewise for you: User talk:Alberuni A2Kafir 18:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pardon my green-ness--this is my first post to Wikipedia. I am a user, not a contributor, and I only post in dismay. It is very frustrating to see so many personal attacks by Alberuni. Please refrain from doing so on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:No personal attacks); go find some other outlet to vent your frustration. It really lowers the quality of an otherwise fine information source. (Though I do not approve of Jayjg when rude, it's really the personal attacks from Alberuni that disgusted me enough to comment. Alberuni, please control yourself or go somewhere else.) --James

To answer your question, "Should Jayjg continue posting here", an emphatic YES. I think that the people who only make adhominum attacks should reconsider the value of their continued posting on Wikipedia. It's supposed to be a project of consensus, not adhominum attacks. MPerel 20:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is personally insulting to all Jews to be referred to as "Zionists" which carries a negative connotation in the manner that it was used in this article. The nakba is perhaps an appropriate word, yet the article should make reference to the fact that Palestine wasn't fighting for its freedom, Israel was! Palestine invaded Israel in 1947!

Zionists are a group of mostly Jews, but not the entire Jewish community. It is based on Jewish dreams of a Jewish national homeland. Denying it's Jewish-ness is silly. No one is contending that all jews are or were Zionists, but denying the importance of Judaism to Zionists is .. just wrong. And, considering there has never been a Palestinian state, in the modern context, Yes, Palestinians were fighting for their freedom.

Illness of late October 2004

Diagnosis - update November 7th: Arafat's liver is not working. It just appeared in European media. --Lumidek 12:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat's liver is not working. It just appeared in European media. Oh, gross. --Calton 00:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat collapsed after vomiting during a meeting, and he lost consciousness for ten minutes. He remains in serious condition. Although confined to his Ramallah compound, he is free to leave for medical treatment but has refused to go because Israelis have not agreed to let him return.[1]so

Arafat's top adviser, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, said doctors examining the 75-year-old Palestinian leader Thursday were still deciding whether he needs to be hospitalized. Arafat has been confined by Israel to his compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah since 2002. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a telephone conversation with his Palestinian counterpart, Ahmed Qureia, agreed to allow Arafat to be flown abroad for treatment if necessary. However, Israeli security officials said the Palestinians have only requested, for now, to take Arafat to a local hospital. (AP: [2])

Added the CurrentEvents template msg to the Recent Events section, to flag the rapidly-changing situation surrounding Arafat's health. -- Penta 19:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More news: CNN is reporting that Yasser Arafat is going to be moved to Paris for treatment. -- Penta 19:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is not an adequate explanation of his present symptoms, although some of the tougher medications used in this conditions may cause nausea & vomiting. None would explain loss of conciousness! JFW | T@lk 10:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The claim that Arafat lost consciousness is disputed. I heard Nabil Shaath deny that it happened.--Alberuni 23:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your hero Yasser Arafat will be dead in the next two weeks. -- Chaz
The most likely diagnosis given his long history of ill health is probably one of the leukemias, nonetheless, ITP was the diagnosis offered by his physician (for public consumption, anyway). I agree with JFW that it's not an adequate diagnosis. - Nunh-huh 01:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) - P.S. FOX news announced "a Palestinian diplomat" (unnamed) had said Arafat's doctor (unnamed) had ruled out leukemia, but no details. It would be nice if the doctors would say something instead of having it filtered through diplomats/newsmen, but I always think that when newsmen don't know enough to ask the pertinent questions. - Nunh-huh 02:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arafat's alleged homosexuality

I've recently been told by a right-wing Israelli that "everyone knows" that Arafat is a homosexsual. I've never heard of this charge before.

Looking into this matter, I found a claim by http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34717

An article which refers to Arafat as "terrorist-killer-scum ... a monster who takes pride in his bloodlust ... pedophile ... a closet pervert, etc" is not exactly one I would use when assuming a NPOV. Clearly, this site does not!

it refers to the book "Red Horizons" by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former head of Romanian intelligence. I've found more sites (again, Israelli ring-wing associated), with similar references.

I've been unable to find anything else to either sustentiate or disprove this.

"Everyone knows" that Ariel Sharon eats fetuses too. Unsubstantiated allegations such as these are known as disinformation. --Alberuni 23:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They know Sharon eats fetuses? Who says that? Jayjg 00:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ariel Sharon's bloodthirsty gluttony is widely known and was depicted in the UK's cartoon of the year 2003, [3] (see bottom of the page).--Alberuni 01:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are you unable to answer the question? Who says Sharon eats fetuses? A name, or a weblink would be nice. Jayjg 01:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are you unable to read? Is the UK's political cartoon of the year 2003 not enough for you? --Alberuni 01:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the question is more appropriate for you; the cartoonist in question alleges that the cartoon is a parody of "Goya's painting Saturn Devouring One of His Sons" (not fetuses), and makes it clear that he does not believe, nor was he trying to suggest, that he actually thinks Sharon eats babies. Again, are you unable to answer the question? Who says Sharon eats fetuses? A name, or a weblink would be nice. Jayjg 03:08, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Haha, the cartoon is just a "parody of Goya's painting"? I see! It has nothing to do with the subject; "a ravenous Sharon — clad only in a "Vote Likud" ribbon covering his loins — biting the head off of a Palestinian child. The cartoon takes place in the desolate wasteland of a razed Palestinian city, with Israeli helicopters swooping overhead blaring, 'Sharon ... Vote Sharon ... Vote ...' over loudspeakers. Sharon, with the headless child in his arms, asks: 'What's wrong? ... You never seen a politician kissing babies before?'" That's why Ariel Sharon protested through the Israeli Embassy and the Israel Hasbara Committee protested this supposedly "anti-Semitic" depiction of the Butcher of Beirut? If it was just a parody, why were they so upset? They should have checked with you first. As for finding a source for my statement that "everyone knows" Sharon eats fetuses, too" I will paraphrase you: I stated my opinion, and I didn't state that this opinion is necessarily on the internet. I believe Ariel Sharon eats fetuses. (And so do the lowlife schmucks who support him). And look: "Ariel Sharon eats fetuses". Now any schmuck can find it on the Internet. --Alberuni 04:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do you imagine you're "everybody"? Another false claim disproved. Jayjg 06:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I stated " 'Everyone knows' that Ariel Sharon eats fetuses too" in an attempt to compare with the "'everyone knows' that Arafat is a homosexsual." You are right though, the characterization is not that Sharon eats fetuses. It's that he consumes the flesh of babies. Good save. --Alberuni 20:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is the most offensive thread on here. Look at how defensive Alberuni gets when someone brings up Arafat's sexuality. What difference does it make? What makes you think Arafat wants a sexually deprived nerd like you defending him anyway?

oh come on guys! this is stupid. I've asked a serious question, and I've given an actual person and actual book where Arafat's gay practices is discussed. This is not just a "link" by some internet user, we're talking about a former head of Romanian intelligence. Yes, he might have written this book in order to spread disinformation. If so, I'd expect someone to show a link critical of the book and with some motives for it, not some BS about Sharon or the consumption of babies (didn't the depiction is of babies, not fetuses?)

Yes, the picture is of a baby, not a fetus. And you're right, you weren't given a response, but mis-direction instead. Jayjg 14:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I replied that the baseless accusations against Arafat are part of Israeli disinformation campaigns (like similar baseless allegations that Sharon consumes the flesh of Palestinian infants). That was a relevant resonse to your question. You even admitted that the accusations come from right-wing Israelis. What more do you want? Yes, as usual, Jayjg added nothing to the discussion except his trolling. --Alberuni 20:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe he's talking about a Romanian source, not an Israeli one. That said, I have reverted the anonymous speculations regarding Arafat's homosexuality which were recently inserted into the article, as we haven't seen any reasonable sources regarding them. Also, please note the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 21:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As stated above Ion Pacepa, the head of Romanian intelligence under Ceausescu, made these allegations in his 1987 book Red Horizons. While it is uncontested that he made these allegations in the book, there doesn't seem to be anyone else who confirms them. Some commentators are now speculating that Arafat's current medical condition resemble AIDS. Jayjg 17:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hearing those voices again? People who constantly cite, "some groups", "some people", "some sources", "some commentators" etc. without providing references are suspicious. Seem a conveniently sleazy way to insert one's own POV and attribute it to others. Why can't people be more specific? Who are these unnamed sources spreading disinformation? Are they published? Is it the National Enquirer or its Hebrew equivalent? Are these sources friends, neighbors, mother, roommate, pet fish? --Alberuni 21:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whoa, chill out man. Apparently John Loftus said it it on John Batchelor's ABC radio show a couple of weeks ago. Political commentator David Frum has suggested it as well more recently. [[4]] Sheesh! Jayjg 22:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Some commentators" report that the Israeli Mossad may have poisoned Arafat. See? Speculation is easy. "According to French sources, one possibility was that Arafat might have been poisoned. But Palestinian sources denied an American television report that Arafat may have been the victim of an assassination attempt, through slow poisoning, by Mossad, the Israeli secret service." [5] --Alberuni 17:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I heard that too, although the latest news I had heard was that French doctors had ruled out both leukemia and poisoning. I suppose we'll know more as time goes on, but right now the various rumours are difficult to sort out. Jayjg 15:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now we know why you prefer not to name your right-wing neo-con sources for your "information". --Alberuni 22:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Huh? Jayjg 22:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You don't need to feign ignorance. Warped right-wing rags blogs and rags like Free Republic, FrontPageMage, and WorldNetDaily are your information sources. --Alberuni 17:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't read them; I'm not even sure what they all are. However, Google's good at finding stuff, and it doesn't seem to restrict itself to publications you find more "acceptable". More importantly, I can't see how your accusations about my reading material could possibly be relevant to this Talk: page. Jayjg 15:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you aren't able to differentiate between legitimate respected news organizations and unreliable partisan blogs then your value as an editor is even less than I thought. --Alberuni 15:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quit your immature bitching. It is pointless and not really relevant, your personal opinions, while amusing should be kept exactly that; personal.


After reading through this dizzying thread, one may conclude Arafat eats homosexual fetuses. Thanks for clarifying. Revmachine21

Actually, I'm afraid I've learned that the allegations are probably true. These allegations come from a former head of security of Romania. It is written in a well-published book, available on Amazon. I've seen negative opinions on the book, but I've not seen a single place where anyone discredit the outragous claims of this book regarding Arafat (ie Homosexuallity being taped, etc - see the source)

Add to this his current "illness" that is "unknown" but has a lot in common with AIDS and you begin to see a clear picture. Just to think that I was calling right-wing Israelies liars for brininging this up ... I sort of feel like a fool.

You should feel like a fool, Anon User. Anyone who hangs out with right-wing Israelis and helps spread their BS is a fool. If someone accuses you of homosexuality, how do you "disprove" it? You can't prove a negative. Furthermore, AIDS can be treated. There is no evidence Arafat has AIDS. If he did, I'm sure it would be known because the Israelis would leak confirmatory information instead of just rumors. Nice try. --Alberuni 14:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See, look at this. Alberuni attacks someone just for expressing their opinion. This isn't your Third world homeland, Alberuni. Here we have something called Freedom of speech.

In a good prosecution, two believable uncompromised witnesses are required to outweigh a defendant's alibi. Before this line goes further, we ought to first find a reputable second source. The source is going to have to be gold-plated and completely independant one. Even if we were to find an 2nd literary source in addition to the 'Red Horizons' book, unless there is a Paris Hilton style video on the internet of him doing another guy doggie style or homo-erotic poetry in the man's comatose hands, I am unlikely to believe it. It just is too easy to throw around the 'homo' accusation to smear a person's character. Revmachine21

I've also read that Arafat's family is prone to a heriditary illness which recently killed his sister. The homosexuality thing smells like typical disinformation and the source - Romanian intelligence - highly dubious. --LeeHunter 16:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, any doctor in the house? Explain why we still have no diagnosis! I've not heard such BS in a long time. The man is in a hospital for over a week, best possible treatment/tests, money is no object bla bla, and all they report is "Cancer was ruled out"?! Systems failure? Low blood count? it smells of AIDS! Why didn't the hospital "ruled out any known viral disease"? or AIDS specifically? The test is trivial, it must have been done already. Why keep us in the dark regarding his illness? I've also not heard the statement "all known tests have been completed and we have no idea". How is he being treated without a diagnosis? What kind of hospital is this?

The hospital, legally, as any hospital in France, cannot give information to the press without the consent of the patient or at least his close family. From how the spokesman of the health services of the armies explained himself, the communiqués were vague at the request of the family (read here: Suha Arafat).
To answer your question "what kind of hospital is this": Percy training hospital of the Armies. David.Monniaux 08:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   I don't have any new information to shed here, but i was wondering since when AIDS = Homo?

I was wondering what "a well-published book" was. Because it's in print it must be true? It's a pity that all this nonsense about fetuses and a "charge" of homosexuality from some obscure spook prevents me even correcting a typo in the article. 62.64.227.251 13:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"a well-published book" is one available in both Hard and Soft cover, has 19 reviews at amazon.com, and is listed as "Amazon.com Sales Rank in Books: #56,848". Well-published as opposed to "obscure" - like the book I've recently bought from Amazon, Better Aerobatics - 3 reviews, "Amazon.com Sales Rank in Books: #315,593".

And no, AIDS does not imply you're a homosexual, not that I personally care. I actually employ two gays and one Arab (not a gay). However, the allegation is out there! Google News now lists some Gays news site (not Jewish related!) with the same question I posed here. When I first posted this question, I expected a quick reply with a clear link to denial and to indications this book is just BS. I also expected Arafat to die of cancer or be diagnosed within 2-3 days. <<Sorry for not logging in. I'm Michael Golan from Tel-Aviv.>>

So a "well-published" book = reliable? or just well-known? why not just say what you mean? Certainly a novel concept, that a book is somehow "better" published because it sells well or has many Amazon reviews! The infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion has sold pretty well over the years I imagine, and boasts no fewer than 46 customer reviews on Amazon. Wonderfully published! Still using the word "allegation" about Arafat's possible homosexuality I see. 80.225.6.201 06:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Arafat is not a Homosexual, that idea is hilarious. Arafat was well-known as a womaniser and when a Hack from the Mirror interviewed him in the 80's he tried to get her to sleep with him. During the 60's and 70's he is said to have had his fair share of women and refused to marry them because, using the excuse he was married to his cause. he most certainly did not have aids either.
Although keep in mind that the fact that someone's a womaniser doesn't automatically make him heterosexual. There's always the bisexual possibility. I'm not alleging that's the case, just something to keep in mind. And a former Romanian senior government official, who was in the position to have such knowledge, has gone on record saying that Arafat was homosexual, so we can hardly dismiss the allegation as "hilarious". The allegation may easily be false, but it deserves objective consideration. - Walkiped 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's so widely believed, why not mention it? --bas


Am I right that an allegation of homosexuality is taken more seriously in the Islamic world than in the West (outside of some right-wing and conservative Christian circles)? Homosexuality is a violation of the Qur'an and is punishable by death in some Islamic countries, and British OutRage! gay rights lobby group founder Peter Tatchell (a supporter of the Palestinian resistance struggle) has campaigned against persecution of homosexuals in the Palestinian terrorities.

To Alberuni: I don't particularily like the Zionist "NPOV warrior" Jayig much but you probably shouldn't fill the talk pages of other articles with arguments and the slinging of personal attacks. (Maybe just Jayig's talk page :-) ) It just annoys a lot of people and makes Jayig look good.

Where did this ridiculous rumour about Ariel Sharon eating babies or foetuses come from? Maybe he dropped bombs on babies, demolished houses making babies homeless to make way for his illegal colonial settlements and let Christian militiamen at Sabra and Chatila murder babies--but eating babies? Kingal86 23:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The remark was facetious. Sarcasm. In response to ridiculous "everyone knows" comments. That much context should have been obvious to native speakers, which I suspect the participants in this discussion are. In any case, both Arafat's sexual preferences and Sharon's culinary preferences are mercifully absent from the article, and it really should remain so. Chuck Adams 23:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zionist POV editor smearin Yasser Arafat article

The Zionist POV edits are largely a series of biased smears. I guess he wants to get his kicks in while Yasser Arafat is in the news. A rat gets excited when it smells blood.--Alberuni 06:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Try editing without the personal attacks. RickK 06:42, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

POV edits made to a stable article before bringing the suggested edits to Talk are rejected. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Exactly; glad we agree. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, let's all first be happy that this evil racist imperialist Egyptian terrorist has gone to Hell!!! - Even though the mass murderer Arafat should have been tried for crimes against humanity.

As to the reason of his dead, it was well known, that he liked the "company" of young boys. If they were not minors in a legal sense, but simply attracted to the beautiful face and body of Arafat, I see no problem there. And of course as everybody else I'm happy he got AIDS and died from it a few days ago.

But of course Arabs a intolerant and narrow-minden, they always have to blame the Jews/West/Christians/Hindus etc. for their own failures.

Arafat biographer Aburish

The perviously stable introduction, which stated:

At birth, his name was Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat Al Qudua Al Husseini. As explained by Said K. Aburish, an Arab biographer (in Arafat: From Defender to Dictator, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1998, p. 7), "Mohammed Abdel Rahman was his first name; Abdel Raouf his father's name; Arafat his grandfather's; Al Qudua is the name of his family; and Al Husseini is the name of the clan to which the Al Quduas belonged." Claims that he was related to the Jerusalem Husseini clan through his mother (an Abul Saoud) are untrue given that the Husseini clan designation comes from his father's side. Aburish further explains that Arafat was "unrelated to the real Husseini notables of Jerusalem" (Ibid, p. 9) and explains that "The young Arafat sought to establish his Palestinian credentials and promote his eventual claim to leadership... [and] could not afford to admit any facts which might reduce his Palestinian identity. ...Arafat insistently perpetuated the legend that he had been born in Jerusalem and was related to the important Husseini clan of that city." (Ibid, p. 8) Arafat lived most of his childhood in Cairo, except for four years (following the death of his mother, between the ages of five and nine) when he lived with his uncle in Jerusalem.

was changed to

Claims that Arafat was related to the Jerusalem Husseini clan through his mother have been disputed by Said Aburish, a Christian Lebanese journalist based in London (and holder of an American passport) who is highly critical of Arafat. In a biography written without Arafat's assistance (Arafat: From Defender to Dictator, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1998), Aburish claims that "Arafat insistently perpetuated the legend that he had been born in Jerusalem and was related to the important Husseini clan of that city." Arafat spent his childhood in Cairo and Jerusalem.

Why was all this information from his biography removed? After the changes the opening section had almost as much information about Aburish as it did about Arafat! Jayjg 15:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The long description of Arafat's origins by an aunauthorized bigrapher are unnecessary. The original version was sufficient to get the point across. Perhaps you should create an article about Arbush. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why are they unnecessary? Why is this information being censored? Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The current version describes Arafat's origins without delving into Israeli disinformation attempts to decertify Arafat's Palestinian identity. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how your comments about "Israeli disinformation attempts to decertify Arafat's Palestinian identity". If you're referring to Said Aburish, he is an Arab; one of the editors here has claimed he is a Lebanese Christian. The original version has stood essentially unchanged in the page since mid January of 2004, over 9 months, an eternity in Wikitime; I really think some consensus is needed before removing something this well established in the page. Also, I've explicitly included the information from the Nobel Prize site about his parents both being Palestinians, with his mother coming from an "old Palestinian family in Jerusalem", which was not there before. If anything I've strengthened Arafat's claim to "Palestinian identity". Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That said, the quotes are a bit repetitive, and I think the point could be easily made without the middle quote. Would you agree to cutting this one out? Jayjg 21:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hello Alberuni, Whoever wrote the disclaimer about Aburish "Said Aburish, a Christian Lebanese journalist based in London (and holder of an American passport)", besides being lifted word-for-word from a reader comment of Aburish's book at Amazon.com, seems like an attempt to decertify Aburish's Palestinian identity. What a renowned Palestinian political analyst, author, and scholar says about the controversial background of the leader of his countrymen is relevent to Arafat's biography. It's hardly neutral-POV to present only biographical history censured, whitewashed, and "authorized" by yes-men. I would expect that on a propaganda site, but an encyclopedia entry should be a more critical presentation and objectively present all sides of controversial elements. --Mperel
Excellent points. The actual book descriptions on Amazon describe Aburish a London-based journalist and American citizen who calls himself "a loyal Palestinian, and the internationally respected Palestinian political analyst and writer. Other common descriptions on the net include "Palestinian author" and "Palestinian writer". Apparently he is the grandson of the "flamboyant headman" of the "village of Bethany, outside Jerusalem, Khalil Aburish, guardian of the tomb of Lazarus". I wonder why someone would try to describe him as "a Christian Lebanese journalist based in London (and holder of an American passport)"; it couldn't possibly be part of an "anti-Israeli disinformation attempts to decertify Aburish's Palestinian identity", could it? Jayjg 00:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hello Jayjg, Aburish documents his own experiences growing up as a Palestinian Arab in "Children of Bethany: The Story of a Palestinian Family". He is most certainly Palestinian, one of many who do not find Arafat to be a leader who represents the best interests of the Palestinian people. --Mperel
Thank you for finding this information. Jayjg 17:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

EU investigation

A sentence was inserted stating

An investigation by European Union of claims of financial improprieties also found no improprieties.

However, if you read the link provided[6], it is clear that the investigation was about misuse of EU funds to the PA for the purposes of terrorism, not an investigation of Arafat's personal finances, and their statement was restricted to that claim. Moreover, the report insisted that finances had to be reformed in the PA to avoid "misuse of funds and corruption", and that further funding was contingent on that. As it stood, the summary was not an accurate representation of the report and its conclusions. The accurate statement substituted is as follows:

An investigation by European Union of claims of misuse of EU funds by the Palestinian Authority has, until now, found no evidence EU funds being diverted to terrorist activities. However, the EU has insisted on "deepening reform in the PA and improving its financial management and audit capacities" as "the best preventive strategy against the misuse of funds and corruption in the PA", and has made further funding contingent on these reforms.

--Jayjg 15:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The original version was sufficient to get the point across. The POV editor uses "yet" to imply that there are financial improprieties that have yet to be uncovered. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article itself uses the word "yet". The original version was misleading, as the investigation had nothing to do with Arafat's finances, but was actually about the PA misusing EU funds for terror. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More Israeli accusations.--Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think we have a disconnect here; I'm talking about EU statements and investigations of PA misuse of EU funds for terrorist purposes, as listed in the article, not about Israeli accusations. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed the entire sentence containing the "until now", since no clear citation was given to an investigation that did uncover the misuse. Put it back when it's more than a two-word-and-two-commas aside spliced into a sentence. The rest of this section still has pretty terrible journalistic quality, qualifying nearly every statement with "though this was unsubstantiated" and whatnot. Chuck Adams 18:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Let's talk turkey: Sharon is more right in calling himself af "Palestinian" (since the state of the Jews since 3000 years, Eretz Israel, for some shorte periodes of time has been called "palestine" by foreign occupying power like the Turks and the British), than the racist Egyptian massmurderer, Arafat who is (was, thank god!!!) an Egyptian!!! Very simpel - even a fascist and racist arab terrorist like "alberuni" should get the point...

"Pro-Israel" Forbes magazine?

Recent edits have described Forbes as a "pro-Israel" magazine. Are there any reasonable sources out there that described the magazine this way? Or is this merely the POV of the editor in question or original research? Jayjg 15:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, this charge belongs on the Forbes page. Attribution of the charges should be available on Arafat page. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean "Attribution of the charges should be available on Arafat page"? Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Forbes and article author should be mentioned as the source.--Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course Forbes. Why the article author, though? I don't know who he or she is, but why is he or she important? Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CBS report on Arafat's finances

Recent edits summarized this article [7] as follows:

However, as Arafat lives frugally and has no known major possessions, these claims appear to be based solely on Arafat's control over Palestinian public-funds.

From reading the article, it would seem to be a woefully adequate and highly misleading summary; one might might say a whitewash. In fact, the article discusses a team of investigators hired by the PA Finance Ministry to examine Arafat's finances, which has uncovered a number of secret portfolio worth hundreds of millions, and that the head investigator pointed out that the public funds were not used for the Palestinian people. Also, the article described other secret accounts, and pointed out that Arafat used his money to gain influence and prestige in a number of ways. It did also mention that he lived frugally, but this was hardly the thrust of the article. I've changed it to this:

In 2003 a team of American accountants - hired by Arafat's own finance ministry - began examing Arafat's finances. The team determined that part of the Palestinian leader's wealth was in a secret portfolio worth close to $1 billion -- with investments in companies like a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah, a Tunisian cell phone company and venture capital funds in the U.S. and the Cayman Islands. The head of the investigation stated that "although the money for the portfolio came from public funds like Palestinian taxes, virtually none of it was used for the Palestinian people; it was all controlled by Arafat. And none of these dealings were made public". Arafat appears to use his wealth to improve his standing and influence; he has always lived frugally, and continues to do so.

which I believe is far more representative of the article's contents. Jayjg 15:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The original version was sufficient to get the point across that critics of Arafat accuse him of financial improprieties. Your depiction of the "American accounting team" (as if Americans are more reliable) findings are selective and biased. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article itself describes it as an "American accounting team"; this description is entirely neutral, and any other description rather bizarre. The sentence describing what the funds were used for, and in particular the statement that they did not go to the Palestinians, were important in the context of the charges. Also, the statement that he lived frugally alone was misleading, since no-one alleged he lived any other way, but rather used the money to increase his standing and influence. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Irrelevant investigations designed to defuse incessant and annoying Israeli disinformation and accusations. Deserves one line at most. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Palestinian authorities themselves have expressed grave concerns about the lack of transparency in PA finances; it is the PA Finance Ministry which is conducting this investigation, not Israeli "disinformation and accusations"; when the PA investigates Arafat that surely is significant. Or are you alleging that Israel is running the PA Finance Ministry? Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Occupation colonies?

A long stable line in the Lebanon section of the article stated

The Fatah movement continued to launch terrorist attacks against Israeli targets; moreover, in the late 1970s numerous leftist Palestinian organizations appeared which carried out further attacks both within Israel and outside of it.

This was changed to:

The Fatah movement continued to launch attacks against Israeli targets. In the late 1970s several new leftist organizations appeared and carried out attacks on Israel and Israel's occupation colonies.

The attacks by Fatah were against civilian targets; while I think any reasonable individual would agree that deliberate attacks on civilians for political purposes are terrorist, I've replaces the phrase "terrorist attacks" with the less contentious "attac on civilian targets" for the sake of compromise. However, does anyone really imagine that "occupation colonies" is a NPOV term for the Israeli communites in the West Bank and Gaza? Wikipedia, in line with most of the world, describes them as Israeli settlements); shouldn't we be using the standard and NPOV Wikipedia term? Moreover, these attack were not even against Israeli settlements, but rather against civilians in cities inside the "Green Line", such as Haifa, Tel Aviv, Avivim, Ma'alot, Kiryat Shemona, as well as against Israeli civilian targets in foreign countries such as Athens and Munich; I'm not aware of any against settlements. Thus it is inaccurate as well. I've changed it back to its original form, substituting "attacks against civilian targets" for "terrorist attacks". Jayjg 16:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your depiction of Israeli occupation as civilian enterprise is inaccurate POV. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your response does not deal with the salient points; the attacks were on civilian targets, and they were not on Israeli settlements, which in any event are neutrally described by Wikipedia as "Israeli settlements". Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Israelis build colonies to occupy territory that is not Israeli. The settlements are on Arab land to expand Israeli hold on militarily occupied territory. They seized Lebanese territory to protect Jewish settlements and then seized more Lebanese territory to protect the previously seized territory. Israel's policy of expansionism is military aggression hiding behind defense of civilian settlements. Your depictions are the typical, "Israel is always the victim" POV. Hasbara. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your political views are interesting, but they fail to address the point; the attacks were not in the West Bank or Gaza, but were in Israel as defined by the 1949 Armistice agreements, within the so-called "Green Line", or in foreign countries altogether. How do the Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank even come into it? We could return to the original text, which is even more negative about the PLO (in my view); those statements have been there little changed for over a year now, another eternity in Wikitime. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PLO played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War?

In the Lebanon section of the original article it stated

The operations of the PLO within Lebanon did not receive much news coverage. It is certain, however, that the PLO had played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War.

This was changed to

There were claims that the PLO had played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War.

Aside from this being a grammatically incorrect sentence stub, who disputes that the PLO playes an important part in the war? The PLO was involved in a great deal of fighting, and accused of a number of massacres. I'm not aware of anyone thinks any different. I've changed it to

The PLO played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War

-- Jayjg 16:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The PLO played an important part in the Lebanese Civil war because their presence attracted Israeli military pressure bent on perpetuating violence in Lebanon to further Israel's own expansionist interest and desire to control the Litani River. As usual, you blame the Palestinians and ignore the heavy involvement of Israel arming the Phalangists in perpetuating the violence. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good, we agree that the PLO played an important part in the Lebanese Civil war. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Except that you ignore Israeli aggression and portray Israeli militarism in a defensive light. Your POV is showing. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean; I'm just talking about this small section of text, which states that the PLO played an important part, as we both agree. That particular statement has been in the text for a year and a half (I guess that's two eternities in Wikitime), and I've actually watered it down to accomodate NPOV concerns. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The PLO did play an important part in the Lebanese Civil War - and not just because of Israel; their increased presence tipped the already extremely fragile compromise between the various religious and ideological groups by weakening the Maronites' position. This sentence is fine in Jayjg's version. - Mustafaa 23:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retaliatory strikes?

The article originally read

The PLO then began to use this territory to launch artillery strikes on and infiltrate into Israel, attacking and killing Israelis. These attacks occurred in the context of far more destructive Isreali attacks on Lebanon; sometimes retaliatory, often not.

This was changed to

The PLO then began launching artillery and guerilla strikes on Israel from there. These PLO attacks occurred at the time of far more destructive Isreali attacks on Lebanon, some of which were retaliatory, but most were offensive.

I've already discussed the absurdity of describing deliberate attacks on civilians as "guerilla strikes" rather than "terrorist attacks"; moreover, the edit removes the information that the terrorists were entering Israel from Lebanon. However, as stated earlier, I've change the wording from "guerilla strikes" to "attacks on Israeli civilians". Also, what is the source for the POV statement that the attackes were "sometimes retaliatory, often not"? I've excised it pending some reliable documentation. Thus the sentence now reads:

"the PLO began launching artillery strikes on Israel and attacks on Israeli civilians from there; Israel responded with far more destructive attacks on Lebanon.

-- Jayjg 16:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your constant depiction of Palestinians as attacking civilians is POV and incorrect. Israeli military were targets. You ignore Israeli brutality and slaughter of thousands of Lebanese and palestinian civilians, as usual. Your edits are POV, biased and unbalanced. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please provide evidence of the military targets. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are making the revisions to a stable article so you have to prove that Palestinians only attacked civilians. It is absurd that you believe no Israeli military targets were attacked. It just shows the extent of your bias. According to [8]: "Palestinian fighters mounted intermittent cross-border attacks against civilian and military targets in Israel." Another example is the 1987 Palestinian hang glider attack on the Israeli military base killed six IDF soldiers. The attacks on Israeli military bases, convoys and outposts were numerous but your pro-Israeli view just wants to delegitimize Palestinian resistance as terrorist. Your POV is showing. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for providing evidence, I'll incorporate that into the article, using the exact wording you have provided. Please restrict your comments to discussion of article contents, not me. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Parents

I've added a little more information about Arafat's parents; specifically that

Arafat was one of seven children born to a textile merchant father who was a Palestinian with some Egyptian ancestry; his mother from an old Palestinian family in Jerusalem. According to Arafat and other sources, he was born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 [9]. His date and place of birth have been disputed; according to other sources he was born in Cairo or even Gaza[10]

This is in line with the information given in the second bio, which is from the Nobel prize website. Jayjg 16:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This was in the original stable version of the article before you started editing it. You added nothing. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Incorrect, I added all these facts. The original merely described his father as a merchant, nor did it list his parents origins. Please examine the histories next time. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What does "some Egyptian ancestry" mean? --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's the exact phrase the Nobel prize site uses; I assume it means that his father's ancestors were primarily from the region of Palestine, but that some were from Egypt as well - that would be the logical way of understanding the sentence. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wife and daughter.

I've added some more information about Suha Arafat, specifically that she had a maiden name (Tawil), that she was a Palestinian Catholic who worked for the PLO in Tunis, that she married him in 1990, that she was more than 30 years his junior when marrying, that she converted to Islam before marrying him, that they had a daughter Zawha in 1995, that they moved to Paris to be with her mother after the start of the second infitadeh. These statements are confirmed by many sources including this: [11]. Jayjg 16:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This information belongs in an article about Suha Arafat. Her age is irrelevant and simply reflects your POV attempts at describing Arafat in a negative light whenever possible. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All information reverted because she was much younger than him? And why is this something negative about Arafat? It's a simple fact; is there a stigma against significant age differences in marriages? Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This information belongs in an article about Suha Arafat. Her age is irrelevant. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fine, I'll remove the statements about her age pending agreement here. On the point, I actually thought it might be considered a positive point; isn't having a younger wife actually often seen as a positive thing, a sign of virility, manliness etc.? Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Report the basic facts on Suha Arafat: place of birth, age, maiden name, place of residence, citizenship, religion, education, offices held, etc. Its the standard. Lance6Wins 20:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but wouldn't that belong in an article about Suha Arafat, not Yasser Arafat? Jayjg 02:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like an Islamic apologetic at work. Why can't it be mentioned? Afraid it'll antagonize western Arafat-supporters? I assume it's relevant, since it's stirred up a controversy. --bas

460 to 3,500 Palestinians killed

I've changed the numbers in the Sabra and Shatila section to "between 460 and 3,500" killed from "between 800 and 3,500" killed, to put it in line with the sources provided in the Sabra and Shatila massacre article. Jayjg 16:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You changed the wording to reduce apparent complicity of Israeli forces. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The edit reflects the existing facts in other articles; please deal with the edits and do not attribute motive. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your changes to this section were carried over in the reversion. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean they "accidentally" got reverted in HistoryBuffEr's massive revert, I think it would be safer to go through each edit and examine it for validity; that's certainly what I've done with HistoryBuffEr's edits, regardless of the fact that he should have proposed them in Talk: first, and still should do so. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chronological order

I've ordered Arafat's biographical section chronologically as far as possible. The new organization introduced last night led to facts being repeated in more than one section, and a chronological order gives a good overview of his life. Jayjg 16:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bring changes to Talk before editing as you demand on other pages. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They've been brought here; the original article was also differently ordered, it's rather hard to tell what the order was with the massive changes HistoryBuffEr wrought, but I believe the article now reflects the original ordering. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bring your changes here first for discussion. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there are any changes from the original order that I've made. Do you have an issue with chronological ordering? Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israeli campaigns to discredit him

The statement

As the leader of Palestinian resistance Arafat has been subject of Israeli campaigns to discredit him.

was inserted at the top of the Financial sections by last night's editor. Aside from being an unsourced claim, it's relevance was not readily apparent, since the information listed was the most part from the IMF, EU, PA Finance Ministry investigators, 60 Minutes, French government, etc. I've removed it pending discussion of relevance and sourcing. Jayjg 16:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You may bring suggested changes to Talk before deleting sections from a stable article. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The insertion of this statement was the change in question to the stable article; please propose why it is valuable here in Talk: Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Arafat has been the subject of Israeli disinformation campaigns for the past 40 years. You are just a minor example. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please restrict comments to discussion of article content, not me, as this violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't be offended. I'm sure that once you grow up, you will become a major annoyance. --Alberuni 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not offended, but I am concerned that your comments continue to violate the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 06:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many changes made to the article

I've gone through the many changes made last night to what was for a while a fairly stable article, and kept a number that I could see were uncontroversial or NPOV. However, as the editor in question has been informed on numerous occasions, it is Wikipedia policy that significant changes to controversial articles be discussed in Talk:, as the NPOV text at the top of the article says. For the many controversial or NPOV edits and deletions, I've generally reverted to previous wordings, sourced from linked articles, or tried to NPOV them pending discussion here. Please bring any changes not listed above here for discussion first. Thanks. Jayjg 16:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You can bring your editing suggestions to Talk before editing a stable article. Your perception of what is NPOV is not acceptable to many other editors. You should try to reach a consensus with other editors before making your POV editing changes. Thanks. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article was stable until 24 hours ago when HistoryBuffEr wrought massive changes without consulting other editors. Please desist from trying to revise history in Talk:. Serious discussion on yours or HistoryBuffEr's part would be appreciated. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Everyone should work to achieve consensus for changes to this article befre making edits. Read the NPOV notice at the head of the page. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly what we're doing here. Thanks for working with me on that. :-) Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arafat Youth Rewrite

This is an NPOV re-write of the section on Arafat's youth: Arafat was the fifth of seven children born to a Palestinian textile merchant. His father’s family included some Egyptian ancestry and his mother descended from a prominent Palestinian family in Jerusalem. According to Arafat and other sources, he was born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 [12]. His date and place of birth have been disputed; some sources contend that he was born in Cairo or the Gaza Strip [13].

The useless material about Husseini clan affiliation from Aburish’s unauthorized 1998 biography of Arafat is irrelevant and should be deleted. (Arafat: From Defender to Dictator

Arafat’s childhood was divided between Cairo and Jerusalem, where he lived for four years with an uncle following the death of his mother when he was five. Arafat attended the University of King Faud I (later renamed Cairo University) and sought to understand Judaism and Zionism by engaging in discussions with Jews and reading publications by Theodor Herzl and other Zionists [14]. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Arafat left the university and, along with other Palestinians, he sought to enter Palestine to fight for Palestinian independence. He was disarmed and turned back by Egyptian military forces that refused to allow the poorly trained partisans to enter the war zone. After returning to the university, Arafat joined the Muslim Brotherhood and served as president of the Union of Palestinian Students from 1952 to 1956. By 1956, Arafat graduated with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and served as a second lieutenant in the Egyptian Army during the Suez Crisis. [15]

(I did not find neutral sources to support the claim that Arafat was “close to Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem”)--Alberuni 00:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The information about his birth certificate needs to be included, it's significant. And I don't think all the Aburish stuff is useless,; it's actually quite significant as well, though as I said above I'm willing to cut some out. I think his thoughts of studying in the U.S. should be mentioned as well. I'll look for sources on the Mufti stuff. Also, if you're going to include the "friend of the Jews" stuff, then you need to include the next sentence "But by 1946 he had become a Palestinian nationalist and was procuring weapons in Egypt to be smuggled into Palestine in the Arab cause." And here's the rest of the interesting information from that site "When the first Arab-Israeli war broke out in 1948, reports say that Arafat slipped into Palestine to fight the Israelis. He later claimed, however, that he and his compatriots were disarmed and turned back by other Arabs who did not want the help of Palestinian irregulars." Their presentation is slightly different from yours; what was the rationale for your changes? Jayjg 00:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's outrageous to believe that Arafat discussed Zionism with Egyptian Jews and perhaps others particluarly in light of the rapid demographic changes and political ferment in Palestine during his youth. In any case, the claim is sourced. I skipped 1946 and went to 1948 for the sake of brevity but do not have any objections to including it. I believe my description of 1948 events is true to the original sources. I re-phrased the description to avoid copyright infringement. If we're going to NPOV section after section, we're going to have to be flexible. Of course, as soon as we're done with this excruciatingly tedious teeth-pulling exercise, some jingo will come along and edit everything to suit his/her POV. --Alberuni 00:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to the Zionism information, and I'm fine with your formulation on the 1948 events. You haven't commented on the Aburish and birth certificate information yet, or studying in the U.S. And you're right, as soon as it's all NPOVd someone will come along and POV it; in fact, it just happened again a few hours ago. Jayjg 17:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Odd, the information about Aburish and the Birth Certificate disappeared in your latest edit, Alberuni, even though it had clearly not been agreed to in Talk: I'll assume that was an oversight and restore it for you. I did cut out a couple of the Aburish quotes for brevity, as was discussed above. I also changed "written without Arafat's help" to "unauthorized", which is the English was of saying "written without Arafat's help", but I'm perfectly willing to revert to the old version if you prefer. I also described Aburish as a Palestinian historian, as per the discussion above, but I'm willing to revert that as well pending agreement here. Jayjg 17:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can anything be done about people like HistoryBuffEr who come in and make major edits without any discussion or consensus with other editors? At least you and Alberuni seem to be having some discussion in an attempt to create a NPOV article. --MPerel
Wouldn't that be nice? I'm not optimistic. Jayjg 17:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg also does the same thing. He requires others to bring changes to Talk but he thinks he is exempt. Everyone should be held to the same standard. --Alberuni 01:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't think of any controversial changes I've made that I haven't proposed in Talk: first. I could be wrong, though. I don't consider wiki links and minor grammar and English edits particularly controversial. And I've certainly reverted some that you thought were controversial. Are there any outstanding edits of mine that you disagree with? Jayjg 02:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Most of your edits reflect your extremist Zionist POV. They are annoying, inaccurate and biased. For instance, the perspective of the following edit is fully from your narrow right-wing POV. You can't even imagine writing it neutrally. You are not an honest editor and there is no way to work with you because you constantly push your POV. "Due partly to his own politics (Barak was from the leftist Labor Party, whereas Netanyahu was from the rightist Likud Party) and partly due to immense pressure placed by American President Bill Clinton, Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital, a return of a limited number of refugees and a compensation for the rest. In a move widely criticized abroad and even by a member of his negotiating team and Cabinet, Nabil Amr, Arafat rejected Barak's offer, and refused to make a counter-offer" --Alberuni 03:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you object to about that edit? Also, please restrict your comments to discussions of article content, not personal attacks. Jayjg 05:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is hopelessly biased and POV just like everything else you write. This is the mirror image of your POV version. See if you like it. "Due partly to his own politics (Barak was a hardcore Zionist, a military veteran and a former assassin) and partly due to slight pressure placed by American President Bill Clinton, a close ally of Israel's, Barak was able to offer Arafat just a bantustan Palestinian state in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, no guarantee that Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return and Israeli-dictated levels of compensation for the rest of Palestine that was consumed by Israel. In a move widely applauded by principled Palestinians whose lives and futures were being negotiated away, Arafat rejected Barak's offer, and refused to continue discussions due to intracatble Israeli demands and US allegiance to Israel." --Alberuni 06:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please be explicit about which parts you think are biased or un-factual. Also, please note that I am not the author of most of that section, it has been in the article for months. Jayjg 06:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat survived a plane crash in the Libyan desert in 1992

Why is that missing from this article? What about the Israeli air raid on Tunis that almost killed him in 1985? What about the 1968 Israeli attack on PLO in Jordan, the siege of Beirut, the Israelis assassinating his deputy Abu Jihad in Tunis in 1988, bombing his offices in Gaza and Ramallah 2001, 2002, de facto house arrest by Sharon since then, etc? Lots of important facts missing or glossed over but impressive detail from Aburish concerning irrelevant details about Husseini clan allegations, EU and US accountants review of PA financial dealings, and many other accusations made popular by Israeli propagandandists. This article needs more NPOV fact details and less National Enquirer Hebrew edition speculation. --Alberuni 04:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Aburish has ever written for the National Enquirer, and I don't think it has a Hebrew edition. As for the other details about Arafat's life, any significant details of his life should be included. I'm not sure information about his lieutenants belong in an article about Arafat, though certainly in an article about the lieutenant. Let's try to make sure that any information proposed to be inserted in the article is about Arafat himself, rather than another re-hash of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of which far too many already exist on Wikipedia. Jayjg 17:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think his wife (and her age) and child are more important than the Israeli assassination of his second-in-command, Abu Jihad? Because Israel assassinated him and ghoulishly videotaped the assassination for later review and enjoyment? --Alberuni 02:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Most people's spouses and children are more important to them than their work associates; at least I hope they are. Jayjg 05:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is Arafat writing this article? Is it about what HE finds more important? He wasn't even married when his lieutenant was assassinated. It was an important event in his life, more important than the financial investigations that interest you so much. Again you argue dishonestly and from an Israeli POV. --Alberuni 02:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we can decide what Arafat finds more important, but most of the biographies I've seen on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) do talk about family, and financial details(if applicable) - see Dick Cheney for example, which includes a whole paragraph on his wife (including the fact that she was elected "Mustang Queen"), a whole paragraph about his children (including his daughter's sexual orientation), and two paragraphs about his questionable financial dealings with Halliburton. Jayjg 15:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lost information

So much information was lost from this article in recent edits. I have restored much of it. Added a section of See aslo which somehow was missing. Please bring additional information with citations. I would particularly like to see citations for the various Israeli attempts to kill Arafat that Alberuni mentions above. That and the Hebrew edition of the National Enquirer and how Israel propagandanists determine the results of US and EU financial audits which Alberuni mentions above. Lance6Wins 18:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lance6Wins, I realize that you've done a more extensive revert than that. I've restored the version agreed to in Talk:, with some other small fixes. Please work with the process in Talk: here; HistoryBuffEr's continual reversions to his own new and unique version are bad enough. Jayjg 18:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Birth

Why do we prefer a version of his birth different from the birth certificate issued by the Government of Egypt and published by the Nobel Prize committee. What do we base our preference on? We should have citations for this unusual preference.

Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini was born on 24 August 1929 in Cairo**, his father a textile merchant who was a Palestinian with some Egyptian ancestry, his mother from an old Palestinian family in Jerusalem.

Lance6Wins 20:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is some controversy over his birth; I think the current version reflects the version of the Nobel Prize organization and others as well as Arafat's, what do you think? Jayjg 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Latest changes by Alberuni

Alberuni, I thought we were working through a series of agreed to edits here. Why have you removed or changed many sections of the article that have been stable for months, and possibly years? Please bring proposed controversial changes to Talk: Jayjg 20:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The edited sections contained the usual Israeli POV and they have been NPOVed. If you want to discuss returning POV material, like the following, start discussing. This is irrelevant and POV: "badly battered PLO" and "Claims that Arafat was related to the Jerusalem Husseini clan through his mother have been disputed by the Palestinian historian Said Aburish, given that the Husseini clan designation comes from his father's side. In a unauthorized biography (Arafat: From Defender to Dictator, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1998), Aburish claims that "The young Arafat sought to establish his Palestinian credentials and promote his eventual claim to leadership... [and] could not afford to admit any facts which might reduce his Palestinian identity. ...Arafat insistently perpetuated the legend that he had been born in Jerusalem and was related to the important Husseini clan of that city." (Ibid, p. 8)" and "Black September which is generally believed (although not proved)to have been an operational cover for Fatah" and "Israel claimed that Arafat was in ultimate control over these organizations and hence had by no means abandoned terrorism as a means of policy, but Arafat has steadfastly denied responsibility for acts committed by these groups." etc --Alberuni 20:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, if you think these longstanding sections were POV, the place to discuss changing them is here; that is Wikipedia standard practice. Jayjg 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you start sections on "badly battered", Black September, "abandoned terrorism" and we'll work out something. The Aburish section already exists above. Jayjg 21:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You should have supported my very mild NPOV version that we all could have agreed on. But out of stubborness and spite, you were unable to agree to reasonable changes. Now you are stuck in an edit war with with HistoryBuffEr. Good luck to the both of you. If you wanted to ruin the article, you have succeeded. --Alberuni 01:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I did agree to all your NPOV edits, and didn't revert any of them. Of course I did insist that the POV edits to longstanding article sections be justified in Talk:, first something you should have done before even entering them. And I still encourage dialogue on any of the remaining edits you think need to be made; that is the Wikipedia way. HistoryBuffEr's vandalism is not relevant to the discussion, since he is not present on the Talk: page. Jayjg 02:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link to Black September

Lance6wins, your insertion created two links to Black September in the same sentence, and goes to a disambig page, rather than the actual article. I think it should be removed. Jayjg 21:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Was Arafat the leader of Black September? Why is it even in the article? --Alberuni 02:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is generally believed that Black September and Arafat were linked; senior members of Black September were also senior members of Fatah, Arafat's organization. "Even today, Fatah and the PLO deny involvement in Black September and all its operations, but this claim now seems highly improbable. Abu Daoud, the Black September commander most closely involved with setting up the Munich operation, admitted to the filmmakers that Black September was merely the cover name adopted by members of Fatah when they wanted to carry out terrorist acts, but did not want the party's name besmirched. Daoud even recalled how Arafat and Abu Mazen (now seen as Arafat's natural successor) both wished him luck and kissed him when he set about organising Munich. The de facto leader of Black September (and the man who personally carried the arms into Germany that were used in Munich) was Abu Iyad, Arafat's long-time deputy." [16] Jayjg 15:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"An extremist, militant corps of Fatah called Black September (Aylul Aswad) subsequently emerged, first proclaimed in November 1971." [www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9033809] Jayjg 01:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pistol

Although the BBC link claims Arafat waved a pistol at the UNGA, most sources indicate that he merely had a gun holster on his hip, and some insist that the holster was empty. Please see this: [17]. I recommend the statement be removed. Jayjg 21:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to call this a false memory without clear video evidence. (Speaking frankly, BBC makes up in breadth what it lacks in professionalism.) Compare [18]. It defies credibility that UN security, responsible for hundreds of diplomats, would have allowed him on the floor armed. Gazpacho 23:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Repulsed?

Alberuni, I don't quite get the meaning of the following sentence: "Despite the high Palestinian death toll, the battle was considered a victory for Fatah because the Israeli army was repulsed." A victory because the army was repulsed? Could you clarify what you're trying to say? MPerel 00:49, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe they saw something disgusting and found it repulsive. Jayjg 01:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Repulsed means repelled, rolled back, defeated. --Alberuni 01:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Well on looking up the word I see you are right, it is technically correct usage, however I don't think it's common usage. You may want to consider replacing it with the word "repelled" since most readers may be more likely to interpret it in the more colloquial sense. Here's what my dictionary says about the usage: USAGE NOTE A number of critics have maintained that repulse should only be used to mean “to drive away, spurn,” as in He rudely repulsed their overtures, and not to mean “to cause repulsion in,” as in Their hypocrisy repulsed me. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing tendency to use repulse in the latter sense. Reputable literary precedent exists for this usage, and given that the stigmatized use of repulse is parallel to the unexceptionable uses of repulsion and repulsive, the frequency of its appearance is not surprising. Still, writers who want to avoid repulse may choose repel, a synonym that is perfectly acceptable.

MPerel 04:43, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Use of 'repulsed' remains quite common in a military context. Attackers are generally said to be 'repulsed' rather than 'repelled.'--Monupics 15:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, 'repulsed' sounds fine and makes perfect sense to me in this context. "Repelled, rolled back, defeated" is in fact the primary meaning of the word. If you do a search on Google for attackers|invaders|forces combined with repulsed|repelled you will find marginally more entries for repulsed. Blorg 16:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dead Links

Jayjg, I've twice removed the following dead external links, but they keep re-appearing:

*ABC News - Arafat Biography
*Interview with Israeli Major General Amos Gilad in HaAretz 
*Interview with Gilad's superior Amos Malka, accusing Gilad of misrepresenting the evidence

MPerel 00:57, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, they're not in the current version. However, given the constant vandalism, I doubtful they'll stay gone for long. Jayjg 01:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, well I don't understand vandals, willing to waste all that energy on something so unproductive. MPerel 05:01, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Arrest warrant and flee to Kuwait

According to the AP biography, "Arafat's ties to fundamentalists led to a warrant for his arrest in early 1957 while he was attending a student conference in Prague, Czechoslovakia. He fled to Kuwait...". I think this information is valuable in explaining his sudden move to Kuwait. Objections? Jayjg 01:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the www link? Who issued the warrant? More derogatory material for / from people with a POV to push. Compare to your highly defensive description of Sharon escaping his warrant for war crimes. Your POV is showing. --Alberuni 01:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't see it as derogatory; it actually reflects poorly on the Egyptian government, and it is why he fled to Kuwait. The link is at the bottom of the page, it's the biography by AP. Jayjg 02:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Acting President? NOT!

I object to the rewrite of my edit that Arafat has been acting president since 1999. His term (elected in 1996) expired and he has refused to hold further elections (always delaying them under one pretense or another for five years now). He is serving without a "renewed mandate" from the Palestinians, which was the edit I had put and was changed inappropriately. Please reinsert ", serving without a renewed mandate since 1999" in the introduction in place of "acting President since 1999". Jewbacca 08:09, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

How is he not acting President? He calls himself president, and the PA accepts him as president. I'm not claiming this is his official title (hence "acting" is not capitalized). The purpose is just to avoid taking sides on legitimacy questions in the intro. Gazpacho 11:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He is acting President, but he has also been serving without a renewed mandate since 1999, 5 years now. Acting President usually implies someone who was appointed President by another body for a limited period of time, none of which I think apply to Arafat. Jayjg 11:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Ariel Sharon's policies of invading and bombing Palestinian areas and enforcing Arafat's virtual house arrest has ensured that conditions would be too volatile for elections. Serves his right-wing Likud followers well. You don;t see that mentioned in the article. Of course, right-wing Likud Wikipedian editors can never attribute any wrong-doing to Israel. Ever. That's why they are here. To protect Israel from the facts. --Alberuni 16:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Um, how does your statement relate to the simple fact that he has been serving without a renewed mandate since 1999? Jayjg 17:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It relates to your POV description. He has been serving as acting president. Period. Your attempts to frame it as Arafat's fault "without renewed mandate since 1999, 5 years now" disregards, as usual, the context of Israeli attacks, closures, and oppression. --Alberuni 17:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A) It's not my description b) While Arafat has advanced that as the reason he has not held new elections, critics both outside and inside the Palestinian Authority have stated that that is a sham. Jayjg 17:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Those anonymous "some people" backing up your POV again, huh? They are so reliable for you. --Alberuni 02:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your comment; it seems to be about me again, rather than the page content. Jayjg 15:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, let's open the dialogue here

Which parts of the article do you want to change, and why? Jayjg 22:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile Arafats's condition is deteriorating, making this a very current event. If you two could work out your differences we could unprotect this page and get it updated. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg made 60 edits, almost every single one intended to insert his pro-Israeli POV, to this article over the past week since Yasser Arafat was reported ill. Then he turns around and demands that others bring their suggested changes to Talk before he will accept them! His hypocrisy is astounding. Jayjg seems to think his POV is fact and others need to explain their edits to him. --Alberuni 16:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article was stable before HistoryBuffEr began POVing it, the responsibility to propose edits sits with him. So far he has proposed exactly 0 in Talk:. As for me, I've listed my proposed edits above, and retracted any that weren't agreed to. Your version of events is at serious odds with the facts. And by the way, insisting that a paragraph that has not been changed in a year and a half still not be changed without consensus, is not an "edit" on my part. Jayjg 17:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You made 60 edits and very few of them were discussed. Even when discussed, you assume agreement when there has been no agreement with your edits. You reverted my edits and HistoryBuffErs edits because your POV is offended even when they are brought to Talk. You simply refuse to accept edits that offend your pro-Israeli POV. For instance, Aburish discussion of al-Husseini clan is so arcane and poorly written as to be a non-sequitor. It is inserted only to smear Arafat. Your usual tactic but you insist that it belongs despite opposition. You are not an honest discussant or editor. It is obvious by comparing your pro-Sharon edits with your anti-Arafat edits. You are just a partisan pro-Israeli POV pusher. --Alberuni 17:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Most of those 60 edits were either returning parts of the article to it's stable version, or adding in Wikilinks, removing excess Wikilinks, adding outside sources, deleting broken ones. The rest, so far as I know, are all described above. The Aburish discussion of the al-Hussini clan has been there for months, and only you and HistoryBuffEr think it needs to go, other editors disagree. I tried compromise, leaving out two of the three quotes that were formerly in there, but that is never good enough, it's "all or nothing" with you guys. Yours and HistoryBuffEr's consistent attempts to censor the information without consensus, and my resistance to that POV pushing, does not constitute an "edit". Jayjg 18:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't expect your POV pushing deceit to be met with kindness and thanks. You should work on the Hebrew version of Wikipedia where your Israeli slant on everything will no doubt be welcome. It is not welcome here. Compare your edits on Ariel Sharon article with your edits here. here, you are constantly promoting Israeli allegations and smears. there you are constantly defending the history and policies of a statesman you like. It's disgusting what you do to these articles. For instance, "Persistent attempts by the Israeli government to identify another Palestinian leader to deal with had failed; and Arafat was enjoying the support of groups that, given his own history, would normally have been quite wary of dealing with him or of supporting him." What kind of editor thinks the Israeli government has the right to pick the Palestinian leader who represents the Palestinian people? A Zionist editor does. "Some contend that this diagnosis does not adequately explain all the symptoms." You are trying to inject your right-wing smears from Free Republic and David Frum. "However, some critics allege that because most of the opposition movements chose not to participate in the elections the elections were not truly democratic. Further elections were announced for January 2002, but were later postponed, purportedly because of inability to campaign due to Israel Defense Force incursions and restrictions on freedom of movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Who are these "some people" you are always quoting? It's your own POV couched as some objective assessment. How about this one, "Arafat was finally allowed to leave his compound on May 3, 2002 after intensive negotiations led to a settlement[19]; six terrorists wanted by Israel, who had been holed up with Arafat in his compound, would not be turned over to Israel, but neither would they be held in custody by the Palestinian Authority." Why is the article written as if the Israelis have a right to not allow Arafat to leave his office? "Six terrorists" assumes the Israeli government POV as true. This is your standard operating procedure throughout all your edits. Slanted, biased, pro-Israeli, sleaze. Don't expect anything but reversion. --Alberuni 19:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, none of the sentences and phrases you listed were mine. I wrote none of them. Understand? None. Nor have I injected any "smears" from the Free Republic or David Frum into the article. None. Instead, I have consistently insisted that POV changes to stable articles be agreed to in Talk: first; this is not my idea, something I suddenly came up with, but Wikipedia standard practice. Jayjg 21:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Give me a break. The edit histories for your 60 edits in the past week are there for all to see. Your edits weren't all typo corrections. You are pushing your extremist anti-Arab, pro-Israeli POV at every opportunity, you do not bother to discuss your edits in Talk, and then you pretend that you have done nothing unusual - just defending "Wikipedia standard practice". It is difficult to believe anything you write in your defense because of your history of deception and deceit. That's the problem when editors lose confidence in your personal integrity. --Alberuni 02:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The record of my edit is clear, and it shows that none of the sentences you complained about were authored by me. If you have an issue with a sentence you consider POV that I've actually written and haven't brought here first for consensus, please bring it forward. And please re-read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jayjg 15:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The record of your edits shows you to be the author of the changes I cited. You claim that you are simply maintaining previously written POV material. When I try to NPOV the material, you revert it. There's no potential progress working with you. --Alberuni 16:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. Bring the evidence that I am the author of those sentences. Jayjg 17:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasir Arafat is not dead

H.E. Yasir Arafat is reported to have died on 4 November 2004 in Paris. Jakro64 16:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--According to Radio Monte Carlo in France, Arafat has died: 4 Nov 2004 (HaAretz) [20]

9 years to the day as Yitzhak Rabin !? -- 65.95.106.4 17:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Other reports disagree. Let's hold on until official confirmation. Jpatokal 16:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it would appear that Israel are heavily pushing the fact that Arafat is dead for obvious reasons, whilst almost all other sources are saying he is critically ill. I think we should wait until there is some official confirmation from an unbiassed source, like the doctors in Paris.
BBC reports that the doctors in Paris say he's not. Not that it's probably too far off, but we should call this off for the time being. -- Kizor 17:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am very sorry. It was reported on Norwegian state TV. It is usually very reliable. Jakro64 17:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Today Arafat has died. Please somebody edit the page and write that he has died today, November 4, 2004. News sources will soon be speaking of it. Take off the editing block and edit that.

No, reports of Arafat's death are false. If you have a reliable source to the contrary, please post the link. --Alberuni 17:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
According to a french TV source France 5, and from unofficial sources, he is in state of mort cérébrale, at a stade 4 level, at 19 hours, on 4 november 2004, so he is not dead yet, but will not be alive again.
The French Health Services of the Armies have reported that he is not dead. The rest seems to be speculations, "leaks" from unspecified sources, etc. David.Monniaux 19:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert. When I saw your edit, the page was still protected, but my revert went through after you had unprotected it. I've reversed it. —No-One Jones (m) 19:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like the information migth be true but no official, due to political, diplomatic, religious end ethic reasons. So we need to wait; one day, it will be true! but now, it is not official. 84.4.41.191 19:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So it should probably be reported, but only as "rumors". David.Monniaux 20:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Or just wait till tomorrow? 84.4.41.191 22:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yasser Arafat is brain dead! http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&u=/afp/20041104/ts_afp/mideast_arafat_041104205203&printer=1

While I appreciate the enormous effort that a number of people put in to include the latest events in the wikipedia, this does seem to be a case where the quest for timeliness comes at the expense of accuracy. Another example would be the recent US election in progress page kerfuffles. Do we really need to be the first reference source to include breaking news like this? Surely its better to wait until the dust settles in situations like this where there's quite a bit of confusion. I agree with the anonymous user above, let's just wait until tomorrow. Lisiate 22:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is an excellent situation if Wikipedia is the first place where you can learn about various news! Wikipedians should definitely try to inform about important events and changes as soon as possible, and they're doing it pretty well, it seems to me. I would probably agree that Arafat's brain death is an unofficial, unreliable information.--Lumidek 02:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Although you believe this would be a good thing, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a news portal. In addition to wasting hardware resources (yes, they are finite), such constant updates would tend to produce articles that are not "digested" into coherent prose. Gazpacho 04:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MNBC Just aired a report with an expert in Middle Eastern politics. He said that reports of Arafat's death are being supressed until they can a) establish a new leader, b) get access to the bank accounts and c) conclude a post-arafat agenda. He said that leaders in Palestine are hard at work right now trying to decide on a leader. After everything is concluded they will remove him (he is braindead right now) from life support and announce his death.

Just more speculation by someone with no direct information. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Alberuni 21:25, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For all it's worth, here's a possible (albeit only partial) explanation for the controversy on the date of what now looks like a certain death. A Muslim should be buried as soon as possible after his death, generally within 24h. Since there's controversy on where Arafat could be buried, the French are careful to avoid the Muslim outrage that would certainly happen if Arafat was to be pronounced dead only to have his coffin end up in a morgue until an agreement can be found. Even if he's brain dead, he's not clinically dead until someone switches the life support machine, so the consensus is probably to let the machines run until it become certain he can be buried, with dignity, in accordance to his beliefs.

Interwiki Links

Could an admin or someone else with the ability please add links to ga:Yasser_Arafat and simple:Yasser_Arafat?

Cheers. Lankiveil 04:44, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Suha Arafat

I am writing an article on Suha Arafat. I hope you all like it. Would appreciate the input. TerryWhitlam 10:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat did not brandish a gun at the United Nations and Black September links

This myth is false information and it was deleted from the article. [21]. Also, there is no evidence provided to support allegations that Arafat led Black September. This was also deleted. --Alberuni 21:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence re: Black September was provided in the section discussing it above. Jayjg 02:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Britannica article doesn't say that Arafat led Black September. It says that Black September emerged from Fatah. That indicates that it was not part of Fatah but was a splinter. The other link is to sony.pictures.com, not a reliable historical reference. If Arafat was the leader of Black September, there should be better evidence than Sports Illustrated and Sony Pictures. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --Alberuni 19:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Arafat was the leader of Fatah, it was the organization he formed. Exactly which Wikipedia policy states that Sports Illustrated and documentaries are not "encyclopedic"? Jayjg 20:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Arafat was leader of Fatah but not the splinter group Black September. --Alberuni 21:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And the sources which say he was, but disavowed knowledge to keep his hands clean? Jayjg 01:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oddeh, known as Abu Daoud, wrote that he was the mastermind of Munich, which was carried out by the so-called Black September organization. He recalled that the plan was concocted in Rome at a meeting he held with senior PLO official Salah Khalaf, better known as Abu Iyad, and another colleague. Soon after, Abu Daoud began planning the operation. The only people he dealt with on the matter were Abu Iyad and Abu Mazen, who, Abu Iyad said, was to secure the funding. Abu Daoud's account was surprising. For years the man held responsible for Munich was Ali Hassan Salameh, a flamboyant PLO official who was assassinated by Israeli agents in 1979. Salameh was always thought to be Black September's leader. Abu Daoud confirmed that Salameh had headed a group by that name, but he claimed it was a counterfeit version. It was the "real" Black September, set up by Abu Iyad, Abu Daoud, and Abu Mazen as a tributary to Fatah, that was responsible for Munich." [22]
  • Abu Daoud rather proudly described himself as the mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics hostage takeover. He wrote that he was with Salah Khalaf, better known as Abu Iyad, and another PLO official, Faqri al-Omari, at the Piazza della Rotonda in Rome when Omari concocted the idea. Soon after, Abu Daoud began planning the operation and recalled that the only officials he dealt with on the matter were Abu Iyad and Abbas, who was to secure the funding. Arafat himself gave the green light for Munich. [23]
  • Munich was carried out by the Black September organization, a secret tributary of Fatah, the PLO's largest faction. It was established in 1972 by Abu Iyad, Abu Daoud and Abu Mazen. Even before its founding, however, a major operation ordered by Abu Iyad was carried out in its name: the assassination in November 1971 of Jordanian prime minister Wasfi al-Tal. Al-Tal had not only masterminded the PLO's ouster from Jordan--in the process manipulating and antagonizing Abu Iyad--he was trying to set up a pan-Arab structure that would have limited the military autonomy of the Palestinian organizations.[24]

--Jayjg 20:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All of these references are to Abu Daoud's 1999 autobiography that has not been validated by any other evidence. Yet the article states there is a connection between Arafat and Munich massacre as if it is known fact (from Sony Pictures, no less): "In September of 1972, Black September, believed to be the terrorist arm of Arafat's Fatah[7] (http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/oneday/html/blacksept/), kidnapped 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games and eventually killed them all." Again, this is the Israeli "Arafat is a terrorist" POV. You are quite eager and willing to smear Arafat with these accusations but you take great pains to distance Ariel Sharon from his complicity in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Your constant pro-Israeli POV pushing is disgusting. --Alberuni 21:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so there are sources, but it turns out that they're unreliable, because Sony pictures is a branch of the government of Israel - who woulda thunk it? And it is just a coincidence that the leaders of Fatah happened to be the leaders of Black September; and even if it is no coincidence, they were very careful to segment their minds so as never to think Fatah thoughts when carrying out Black September attacks, and vice versa. Here's another source:

Black September Aliases: Black September Organization (BSO) Base of Operation: Israel; Jordan; Lebanon Founding Philosophy: The Black September Organization (BSO) was formed in 1971 as a clandestine wing of al-Fatah. BSO was founded with the objective to avenge the expulsion of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Jordan in September of 1970. This time was referred to as “Black September,” hence the name chosen by the Black September Organization. While Black September was originally described as a splinter group of al-Fatah, direct linkages between the groups were revealed with the arrests of BSO agents. Al-Fatah formed Black September in order to circumvent an al-Fatah declaration that they would not interfere in the domestic policies of Arab nations. However, some al-Fatah members planned to assassinate King Hussein, ruler of Jordan from 1953 to 1999. Hence, Black September was partially formed in order to pursue this specific objective. While Black September failed several times to assassinate King Hussein, the group is notorious for a number of brutal, high-profile terrorist incidents. Black September expanded their list of targets from the Jordanian government to include Israeli and U.S. citizens and facilities. The group also carried out attacks against general “Western” targets. Black September is infamous for its attack against Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Munich Olympics. In retaliation for the attacks against Israel citizens and facilities, Israel launched a significant response to eliminate the terrorist organization. Israeli security forces retaliated against BSO terrorists in Western Europe and Lebanon. Following the Israeli response, al-Fatah dissolved Black September in December 1974. [25] Here's more sources for you to dismiss, both on Black September and Sudan: [26] Black September "Many terrorist experts speculate that Arafat controlled the BSO and utilized it as his primary military force. Arafat attempted to keep the association at arm's length to provide a factor of plausible deniability." [27] More sources for dismissal: [28] [29] Oh, and in the future, please restrict your comments to article content, not me. Jayjg 01:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Why didn't you cite Israel Hasbara Committee: "30 years ago the massacre of the eleven Israeli athletes in Munich September 1972 Olympics had been perpetrated by the black September secret terrorist group of Al Fatah. Three terrorists had conspired together to perpetrate the attack: Yaser Arafat, the founder and the leader of the black September, Abu Iyad, Arafat’s right hand in Al-Fatah and the black September military commander, and Ali Hasan Salame, the head of Al Fatah intelligence....Arafat the monster of Munich has thought otherwise. 30 years on, since the murder of the Israeli athletes, Arafat has never been indicted for their murder by the international court for war criminals." Because it is obviously biased? Alberuni 03:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Huh? No, I didn't cite it because my Google turned up hundreds of links, and in my five minute investigation I didn't have time to view each one. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Your best source is the first one, and you realize that so you quote it extensively. It doesn't give the source for its summary information. Who are they quoting? It is internally inconsistent because it claims that the group was dissolved in 1974 but its last attack was Apr. 18, 1988. "While Black September was originally described as a splinter group of al-Fatah, direct linkages between the groups were revealed with the arrests of BSO agents." What is that supposed to mean? It means that they were a splinter group with some common members, not that Arafat was their leader. "Upon al-Fatah’s decision to dissolve Black September, many of the BSO members joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and other active terrorist organizations." Why would they join al-Fatah rival groups if they were an al-Fatah wing? "Attacks in the name of Black September continued long after the official dissolution. Black September is linked to attacks that occurred as late as 1988. Some terrorism officials believe these attacks were actually carried out by terrorists affiliated with other groups." It doesn't sound like the "experts" know what's going on. If they were under al-Fatah or Arafat command, why did they continue after they were supposedly dissolved by al-Fatah? I think these accusations remain speculative. It's like the Israelis accusing Arafat of not controlling Hamas. Hamas is not under Arafat command either. Alberuni 03:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the article is clear to distinguish between Black September itself, and attacks made in its name. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't have to dismiss the other sources because they dismiss themselves. They are your usual trash resources: "Some sources speculate that Arafat utilized the name to distance himself and the PLO from the actions of the BSO. Many terrorist experts speculate that Arafat controlled the BSO and utilized it as his primary military force" An unpublished Marine Corps master's thesis. Accuracy in Media is a great source - if you are a conservative extremist hack: "AIM claims to be politically neutral but nonetheless has many intimate ties with neoconservative movements. It regularly attacks journalists that write about and seem sympathetic to leftist and even centrist causes. AIM supported Nicaraguan Contra leaders such as Jose Francisco Cardenal. AIM also supports the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, a US group that has backed the Afghan rebels beginning in 1981." [30] [31] [32] Alberuni 03:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I understand you believe these sources are "trash"; thanks for sharing. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The extent of evidence provided in this link is this: "In September of the same year, a commando squad made up of members of Yasser Arafat's Fatah calling themselves "Black September" launched a pre-dawn raid on the Israeli dormitory at the Munich Olympics" (Court TV! Story about Carlos the Jackal.) You know these sources are weak. Why bother providing them? Alberuni 03:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You persist in promoting the highly implausible thesis that although the membership and leadership of Black September came entirely from Fatah, that they were nevertheless unconnected. That, indeed, is "weak". Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The connection between Arafat and Black September remains weak. Do you really think that if he was the leader of the Munich massacre the US and Israel would have let him live while killing everyone else involved? Do you think they would stand by and watch him receive a Nobel Prize? Do you think the US would not arrest or kill him if he was involved in Munich massacre and the Khartoum killings of US diplomats? It's just propaganda and disinformation. But you can go ahead and "restore" it into the Wikipedia article if it makes you happy. Cite your source and quote it accurately. --Alberuni 03:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So Arafat was not the mastermind of the Munich massacre because the US and Israel didn't kill him, and Arafat had nothing to do with Khartoum because the US didn't arrest him? This kind of negative reasoning is highly hypothetical. I don't pretend to understand why governments (and especially their secret branches) do or don't do things. However, the information in question is available from many sources, and Wikipedia standard is simply to quote and source them. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's all I asked you to do. Cite your source and quote it accurately. --Alberuni 19:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maariv version of FBI investigation

If the FBI was going to charge Arafat for crimes that were committed in Sudan 30 years ago, I think they would have done so by now. Maariv is an Israeli newspaper and not a reliable source for information about Arafat and the FBI. The blatant smear campaign was deleted from Wikipedia. If a neutral source (preferably the FBI itself; not speculation by right-wing partisans like World Net Daily, Free Republic, and Israel Insider) for this information can be found, I'd like to see it. --Alberuni 21:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you returned this false material to the text without discussing in Talk. --Alberuni 19:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whoops, wasn't that information present in the article for months before you deleted it? Perhaps the discussion should have come before the arbitrary deletion. Jayjg 20:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, in other words, you have no evidence to support the claim. You are just preserving false information on principle. Your double standards are amazing. When you want to edit the article, you feel as though you have every right to do so without bringing your proposed changes to Talk. When anyone else edits the article, you claim they must bring edits to Talk for YOUR approval first. So where is the reliable information to support this claim about Arafat and the FBI? --Alberuni 21:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You know where the story comes from, you've just listed all the sources in your first comment. Of course, you've decided that you're now the arbiter of all sources on Wikipedia as well; thus you get to dismiss any that don't match your viewpoint. Jayjg 01:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, well, well. You don't like to discuss your sources? Why is that? If you make any edits, especially your wild accusations against Arafat, you should expect to have your sources examined. You usually don't bother to cite your sources and then whine on your User page about people asking you for references to substantiate your smears and accusations. Then when your sources turn out to be blatantly biased Israeli sites (Maariv, Israel Insider), weak (Sports Illustrated on political history? A Sony.com movie director's essay hyping his film?) or notorious right-wing extremists like Joseph Farrah's WorldNetDaily [33], and the other most conservative websites such as News Max, Free Republic, National Review Online [34], you get upset that people recognize them as unreliably biased. These sources are of dubious quality because they are pushing an extremist right-wing agenda. The accusations you want to insert are not available from more reliable sources because the information is not accurate. It is only available from biased sources willing to distort the truth for the sake of their extremist readers. Why isn't there an FBI press release about this 30 year old "investigation" against Arafat? Why hasn't it been reported by mainstream news agencies like CNN, ABC, BBC or even conservative Fox News? Because it is false disinformation spread by Arafat's enemies, foremost among them the Israelis, who understandably hate Arafat for representing Palestinian nationalist aspirations that Israelis would rather see disappear so that their occupation of Palestine can proceed without worrying about the human costs to their victims. That's the source of these biased and false allegations and it's also the motivation for your POV pushing edits. Don't complain about being exposed for using biased sources. You are free to push your POV. But we are also free to point it out and NPOV it. --Alberuni 02:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You keep mistaking this Talk: page for a discussion of me, and keep confusing me with the author(s) of the section in question. I didn't create the information, nor any sources on it, so by definition I can't "insert" it, at best I can "restore" it after you censor it without discussion. What you imagine my mental state to be, and what you imagine "people recognize" about these sources, and your elaborate conspiracy theories are incorrect and irrelevant. If you feel the section needs NPOVing, that's quite reasonable, as long as the NPOV is truly NPOV. Let's talk about that. Jayjg 03:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My elaborate conspiracy theories? You are "restoring" sections of the article accusing Arafat of ordering the execution of US diplomats using Israeli newspaper Maariv as the source. And I am the one perpetuating conspiracy theories? haha. Give me abreak. Pointing out biased news sites and editors is hardly a conspiracy theory. It;s plain as day with every edit you make. --Alberuni 03:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The FBI investigation material has been in the article for almost three months, and was not inserted by me. Does Maariv have a reputation for bias? What makes you think so? Are there other sources which describe Maariv that way? Jayjg 17:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, actually, the Israeli press is biased against Palestinians, especially Yasser Arafat. SURPRISE! I know you are shocked, just shocked, that the major Israeli dailies could be biased against the Palestinians and Arabs with whom Israel has been in heated conflict for 50 years. It is really hard to believe. [35]. --Alberuni 19:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Did that position paper actually specifically state anywhere that Ma'ariv was biased against Arafat? Because of odd formatting errors I found it very hard to read in my browser, but I couldn't find that actual claim anywhere. Jayjg 19:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You need to read the entire report. For instance, "On 13.03.2001, Ma’ariv published the news that details of corruption in the Palestinian Authority may be published soon. Among the alleged discoveries are tax debts paid through “bribe” to senior officials and the debts erased, aid money used to build luxury apartments and senior officials collecting the profits on them. The information was supposedly collected by “senior [Israeli] political figures, and the figures are to point especially to Yasir Arafat:" [36] --Alberuni 17:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(De-indenting). As I said, I couldn't read most of the report in my browser. Using a different browser I was able to find the section in question, which didn't state that Ma'ariv was biased against Arafat at all, or even that the reports were un-true, but rather went on to state "The article described in detail examples of corruption. The fact that this was the first time the Israeli government went public with such information in a time where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was seriously escalating was not addressed in the mainstream Israeli media." It was simply used the timing of the revelations as one of its "examples" that the Israeli government or perhaps media at times attempted to "incite violence", though in relation to this example the charge is rather bizarre. Jayjg 17:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The report points out that disinformation about Arafat finances is leaked to the Israeli press, including Ma'ariv, when the Israeli government wants to smear the Palestinian leader during periods of escalating tension. Kind of like your dozens and dozens of POV edits and long accusatory diatribes against Arafat in Wikipedia while the world's attention is focused on his health. --Alberuni 17:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But the issue here was whether Ma'ariv was biased against Arafat or not, and the link does nothing to show that. Newspapers print government leaks, and if the government's timing is seen by some as "inciting", that's interesting, but nor relevant to the question. As for the rest, please point to the "dozens and dozens of POV edits" or "long accusatory diatribes against Arafat" that I have authored in Wikipedia. Jayjg 18:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You asked if Ma'ariv has a reputation for bias. I showed you a report stating that it does. If they print israeli government leaks, they are purveyors of disinformation. That's why ABC, BBC, CNN, and other reputable news sources are more reliable than the Israeli press, World Net Daily, FrontPageMag, and your other heavily biased Zionist sources of information about Arafat and the Middle East. Your endless tendentious argumentation is just typical troll behavior. --Alberuni 18:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Every newspaper prints government leaks; this is not a sign of "bias". And your opinions of these sources is interesting, but not relevant. The question here is if any reliable source has accused Ma'ariv of bias against Arafat; so far you have failed to provide one. Jayjg 18:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, I again invite you to the Talk: page

Please propose your dozens of controversial edits to this article here first please, rather than inserting entirely new versions of the article and then continually reverting to them. Any sign that you are willing to work towards consensus would be welcome. Jayjg 04:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Financial dealings

in the section "Financial dealings" an IMF report from 2003 is mentioned. I believe that the report is located at [37]. Shouldn't we add it to the article as a source in the appropriate place. Obviously it has more credibility, than some possibly biased newspaper. Iorsh 06:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good find. Jayjg 17:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why is Arafat worth $4.2 to $6.0 BILLION dollars? That's DOUBLE or TRIPLE the entire GDP of the West Bank. It doesn't seem possible. Terrapin 19:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why not? No one claims that his funds come from the GDP of the West Bank or both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He has been collecting funds for decades from Arab governments, the Soviet Union, European goverments and the European Union. His message has been that the money is of the struggle of the Palestinian people. Basic accounting for the money has not taken place. His wealth is in no way related to the poverty of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Lance6Wins 15:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"His wealth is in no way related to the poverty of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." - Huh, with a personal accounts of triple the West Bank's GDP, I seriously question that fact. Terrapin 15:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, the claim that Arafat is worth that much comes from Al-Jazeera, the well known "Israeli media source". Jayjg 15:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a start: From the onset of the Oslo peace process and the early empowerment of the PA in Gaza and Jericho, clearance revenues did not fully accrue to the PA. While VAT and customs revenue were transferred to the Ministry of Finance (MoF), petroleum excises were transferred to a special account in an Israeli bank63 under the control of President Arafat and his financial advisor Mohammad Rachid. In addition, tobacco and alcohol excises domestically collected by the PA as well as revenues from PA monopolies and other commercial activities were channeled to accounts outside the MoF. Yet in the context of the Tripartite Action Plan agreed to by the PA, Israel and donors (April 27, 1995), there was a strong directive to “consolidate” all income and expenditure under the direct control of MoF. Later on, the Minister of Finance committed himself in the first quarterly report to the AHLC to “consolidate” all accounts at the Single Treasury Account (STA) by August 31, 1996. None of these commitments were implemented and this diversion of tax revenues lasted for six years until April 2000 when consolidation of revenue finally took place, under the implementation of the Economic Policy Framework (EPF) (See Box 5.1). Diversion of excise tax revenue Yearly excise revenue diversions are shown in Table 5.2. In 1997, revenue diverted outside the MoF reached US$164 million. In 1998 and 1999, the PA experienced liquidity crises as a result of these diversions, which combined with rapid increases in payroll and other expenditures. Moreover, the budgets for these years were predicated on accrued (rather than cash) revenues. Faced with severe liquidity problems and rising indebtedness from the banking system, the MoF managed to recover about US$119 million of diverted revenues over these two years. But all in all, a net US$591 million of excise tax revenues were diverted from the MoF during 1995–2000. Diversion of profits from PA commercial activities Most of the diverted tax revenue was used for investment in PA commercial operations through the PCSC. Together with the lucrative monopolies on cement and petroleum acquired early on, these commercial activities started generating substantial profits which were also being diverted away from the budget. Because of lack of transparency and accountability for these activities (no balance sheets or annual reports were published), it is difficult to estimate the profits which they generated between 1995 and 2000. However, an audit conducted on PCSC operations in 1999 by Saba company (a subsidiary of Deloitte, Touche and Tohmatsu), in the context of the EPF, revealed that the PCSC made net profits of US$77 million of which US$18 million came from the sale of cement. Since PCSC assets were evaluated at that time at US$345 million, this would be a hefty rate of return on equity of 22.4 percent. Extrapolating these profits back to 1995 and forward to 2000, it is possible to reach a rough but conservative estimate of about US$300 million in profits channeled outside the budget over this period. All in all, excise tax revenue and profits from commercial activities diverted away from the budget may have exceeded US$898 million. --Jayjg 19:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A reminder of civility

Let's try to keep things a bit more civil here. If a person with a POV thinks a particular edit has a POV than it probably does. NPOV requires that for this article only edits that both sides can agree to should occur. If there is a dispute about the facts than the facts should be presented in dispute with both sides told and both sides attributed accordingly. Try to remember that creating an informative article that both sides agree with is the solution that is always strived for.16:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)~

Amen. Jayjg 17:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat IS a terrorist - that has nothing to do with POV.

One problem with words such as "terrorist" is not so much that you can dispute that who they are applied to is really a terrorist or not; it is also that you can dispute why some others are not called "terrorist" as well. Depending on one's point of view on the Middle East conflict, one party may be seen as the terrorist, and the other as the rightful defender of its population against the terror of the other party.
It is very possible that, according to some definition of "terrorist", Yasser Arafat is a terrorist. It is also possible that, by the same objective definition, Ariel Sharon is a terrorist, but you may disagree with this. Unless we agree on a common objective definition, I think that all labels such as "terrorist" should be used with caution, and with proper attribution. David.Monniaux 10:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Anybody else see the parallel between the discussion here and the wider conflict in the Middle East? It's astounding to me how polarized the talk has been, and how quickly it devolves into accusations of bias or worse. It's exactly for controversial topics like this that we strive for a NPOV, and for a truly NPOV all sides have to concede that even "facts" are contested, and have to be written about as such. Remember, compromise is the name of the game. But also, thanks to all the active people who do want to make the article better. Now, if we can just arrive at some consensus of what "better" is... --Jerde 07:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

    • You have to understand, Jerde, that many of the anti-israel writers are essentially also holocaust deniers (and even admit to it), etc. ("the jews control the world economy"-type of thing). These people can't - and shouldn't be -- reasoned with, just reverted. Terrapin 16:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is a needlessly offensive term. Instead, I recommend "wannabe-Hitler", "anti-semite", "sadist" or the like, that doesn't mix Arafat with honorable freedom-fighters that use terrorism in their struggle. --bas

Why is the article protected at the moment?

When an article is protected, it would be useful to note exactly why. Revert wars? On what section? Who's responsible? Tempshill 23:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Specifically, I'd like to insert a line at the beginning directing the reader to Illness of Yasser Arafat for the latest, since most readers are reading this article because they clicked the link on the Wikipedia main page. Tempshill 00:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You can look at the edit history to see the revert and POV wars. I'll edit the article to make the link more apparent. David.Monniaux 09:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page needs the protection removed. Reports of Yasser Arafat's death[38] are starting to become prevalent. End the revert wars and work on fixing the system instead of halting information. You've had 3 days so end it and lets go on. 16:39, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
There a whole Illness of Yasser Arafat page for reporting on his illness and purported death.
This protection is not "halting information"; it's halting neverending POV and revert wars between people that should learn how to behave. David.Monniaux 19:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Typo

I would like to point out a small typo:

The National Security Agency intercepted direct communications between Arafat and his operatives in the Khartoum office of Fatah that indicate Arafat had both planned the March 1973 Black September attack on the Saudi embassy in Sudan, and ordered the subsequent executions of US Ambassador Cleo Noel, Deputy Chief of Mission George C. Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, who were taken hostage at a reception; Arafat *pubically* denied any involvement.

I guess you meant *publically*

Alex.

or "publicly". Gazpacho

Wife is Greek Orthodox

I am pretty sure that his wife is a Greek Orthodox Christian, not a Palestinian Catholic.

  • half correct. She WAS greek orthodox christian, but converted to Islam. That should be changed in the article, its patently false, all sources say Greek Orthodox. Terrapin 16:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Query on WP:RD

I've posted a query about Arafat at WP:RD#Yasser_Arafat and would appreciate Wikipedians taking a look. PedanticallySpeaking 18:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Arafat is dead

Can someone unlock the page so I can say that Yasser just died?

WikiFan04 20:01, 10 Nov 2004 (CST)

Done. silsor 04:28, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

«M. Yasser Arafat, président de l'Autorité palestinienne, est décédé à l'hôpital d'instruction des armées Percy à Clamart le 11 novembre 2004 à 3h30», a déclaré Christian Estripeau au cours d'un bref point de presse.

Hi! The passage about Arafat's Illness and Death did not mention the date when he had slipped into coma. It was November 3, 2004. I have verified it from ABC News. I just updated it and mentioned that he was on life support since. Jam2k 12:48, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Fish monger?

In section 1.1 early life, Arafat's mother suddenly seems to have descended from a prominent Palestinian fish monger, instead of a family.

I have reverted it back to family. I haven't come across any other material indicating such a profession was in the family, and I dont think fishmongers generally rise to prominence... Chuck Adams 18:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keffiyah

Something along:

In year X, he started donning a keffiyah, a traditional Bedouin headwear. This scarf has since become a symbol of Palestine resistance around the world.

should be added to the article. One could also add that it hid his later baldness, but some will construct that as POVish. I'd add that myself, but I don't find a good place for it.

Kaffiyeh is not a Bedouin headware, but a general Arab headware for ages. Those who think of it as a symbol of "Palestinian resistence" are just ignorant.

Maybe Controversial Question

I was thinking about Nelson Mandela, and I began to wonder: would Arafat have achieved his dream if he'd led the Palestinian people from prison? (Please don't read any hidden agenda into my question - I'm only putting this here because I know that there are many wikipedians who know much more about this subject than me. If this isn't the place for such questions feel free to edit this out!!)

No, this is the right place :) Glad you asked here. No, I don't think this should go in the article - Wikipedia is (supposed to be) a neutral encyclopedia that catalogs known facts, and discussion only where it's widespread and relevant to the original topic. --bas
Cheers :) Adambisset 00:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Early Life

The following sentence, "Arafat was outside the Palestinian area when the nakba occured in 1948, but had long realised the zionist intentions (as evidenced by his essays in the magazine he helped publish, "our palestine") and as early as 1946 the 17 year old Arafat was organising smuggling weapons to Palestinians and encouraging others to take the fight to the hagannah as the British were "feeble", is very awkward and seems out of place. Plus it attributes feelings and intentions to both Zionists and Arafat, which is subjective and irrelevant in an encylopedia article. I recommend removing, or editing. MPerel 00:30, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think the attributing of feelings to Arafat could be correct (if it's based on his articles), otherwise, I agree. Especially the "had long realized the zionist intentions" seems out of place. --bas
i think this has been discussed further up this talk page... Mrfixter 11:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pointless sentence?

"It has been remarked that he exemplified the charteristics of stick with your first idea and not flip-floping that George W Bush so admires in himself, yet found unaccptable in Mr Arafat."

What is this sentence doing here? A swipe at George Bush attributed to nobody in particular shouldn't be on a page about Yasser Arafat.

I agree. It should be removed. Mrfixter 11:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Needs archiving

This discussion page could do with some archiving. For example, most of us agree that he's really dead now, and some threads haven't been touched in some time. Is there generally a consensus decision on this, or should one just go ahead and move discussions?

I agree that this needs archiving, but I say that we should leave it until the NPOV header is removed. We don't want to have people clicking on the link to find a fairly empty page! -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it needs archiving. Even if this page is halved there will still be a substantial amount of discussion, it will just be less bloated. Mrfixter 00:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

I am proposing that this talk page be archived, up to and including 33. Suha Arafat as listed on the contents. I am trying to be bold, but don't bite me, I'm a newcomer and check out the Talk Page yourself. --Mrfixter 15:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine. You could probably archive even more. Jayjg 15:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/a/s/Talk%7EYasser_Arafat_Archive_2_8d6e.html"