Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 3

Controversial
The page needs the Controversial Tag. I'm sure, given it's history, this is something we can agree on?

Personally, I think it also needs a tag.

Place of Birth
Reuters:CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt, where Yasser Arafat began his political life and where biographers say he was born, on Thursday prepared a funeral for the Palestinian president, who was declared dead in Paris in the early morning. 

Nobel Prize:Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini was born on 24 August 1929 in Cairo**,
 * The place of Arafat's birth is disputed. Besides Cairo, other sources mention Jerusalem and Gaza as his birthplace.

New York Times: The mystery surrounding Mr. Arafat starts early, as accounts of his origins vary. The man who became "Mr. Palestine" was probably not born there

Wikipedia:According to Arafat and other sources, he was born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929, 2004[1] (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/arafaty1.asp). His date and place of birth have been disputed; some sources contend that he was born in Cairo or the Gaza Strip [2] (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html). According to a birth certificate registered in Cairo, Arafat was born there on August 24, 1929. [3]

What information does Wikipedia have that the New York Times, Reuters, and the Nobel Prize committee are missing? At a minimum we should change to page to agree with the New York Times, Reuters, and the Nobel Prize committee.

Basis for added "Factually Disputed" ? Lance6Wins 16:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat Calling for Israel's Destruction
I've seen many references and direct quotes where Arafat calls for the destruction of Israel. Even *after* signing the peace treaty saying something along the lines of "peace to us, means the destruction of israel". What are your comments on this? -- as an example, here are 2 links with references to various third party sources on them: http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/orbittv.htm http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/stockhlm.htm


 * It's a matter of interpretation really. he does not explicitly call for the destruction of Israel, and the article simply slanders the prophet Muhammad and Saladin.  Don't believe the Bull.


 * Why slander? Hudna is a recognized and honored Islamic method of dealing with a (temporarily) stronger enemy.  Lance6Wins 19:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's slander, the article highlighted by user 81.86.159.146 simply lies about Saladin and the Prophet Muhammad, discrediting them in a further attempt to discredit Yassir Arafat and can only be described as insulting to Muslims.


 * Sorry, I'm 81.86.159.146 -- didnt notice I wasnt logged on -- Hackeron 22:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What about this: http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may98/arafat.htm
 * Or This: http://www.likud.nl/extr44.html


 * We all know he devoted his life to bring the destruction of the Jewish state, or am I missing something? --Hackeron 22:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't speak for everyone. President Arafat devoted his life to bring freedom and statehood to his people. If anything, "we" all know that Israel has dedicated to the destruction of the Palestinian people.

Place of Birth
Reuters:CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt, where Yasser Arafat began his political life and where biographers say he was born, on Thursday prepared a funeral for the Palestinian president, who was declared dead in Paris in the early morning. 

Nobel Prize:Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini was born on 24 August 1929 in Cairo**,
 * The place of Arafat's birth is disputed. Besides Cairo, other sources mention Jerusalem and Gaza as his birthplace.

New York Times: The mystery surrounding Mr. Arafat starts early, as accounts of his origins vary. The man who became "Mr. Palestine" was probably not born there

Wikipedia: Corrected to match they above sources. Lance6Wins 19:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade
I see that the Al Aqsa edit was reverted. I didn't put it in, but I did hear on ABC news last night that they HAD renamed themselves the Yasser Arafat Martyrs' Brigade. RickK 23:25, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr warnings
User:HistoryBuffEr is constantly vandalizing the article and inserting biased false information. I ask anyone who sees his changes to revert to the previous version.

Examples of HisBuf's vandalism:
 * In September of 1972 the Palestinian group Black September kidnapped 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games;  all hostages and most hostage takers were eventually killed.  Try to whitewash the fact that the kidnappers slaughtered the 11 athlets.
 * The Fatah movement continued to launch attacks against Israeli targets. In the late 1970s several new leftist organizations were formed in Palestine and carried out attacks on Israel and Israeli occupation colonies. Israel claimed that Arafat was in ultimate control over these organizations, but Arafat denied responsibility for acts of other groups. Highly biased and POV term.
 * Israel claimed that the PLO had played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War. Some Lebanese Christians claimed that the PLO was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens killed by Israel. Unbased accusation. And again, trying to cover PLO involvement in the Lebanese violence.
 * During this invasion Israeli army killed about 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and helped the Christian Phalangist militia massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps about 2,750 Palestinian refugees, mostly civilians. Ariel Sharon, Israeli Minister of Defense at the time, was found by the Israeli Kahan Commission "personally responsible" for the massacre and was dismissed from his post; he is now Prime Minister of Israel. Full of lies and missinformation:
 * Israel did not helped the Christian Phalangists in Sabra and Chatila. HisBuff accuses the IDF in direct involvement, which is, of course - a brute lie.
 * The Kahan committee found Sharon "indirectly responsible" and blamed him in not anticipating that the Phalangists will massacre the Palestinians. It never said Sharon was involved in that, or that took active part in the massacre.
 * Since HisBuff caught lying on this, I dispute the casualties toll he brings and the assertion the most were civilians.


 * However, Israel made no visible attempts to live up to either the Oslo or the Wye River agreements; to the contrary, Israel steadily expanded its occupation, doubled the population in occupation colonies and kept obstructing Palestinian self-rule. Again, the incitement and POV terming.

If you find more of these, please report them here. MathKnight 21:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Report them here and here. Mrfixter 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My dictionary has for colony "a body of settlers living in a new territory but subject to control by the parent state". How does this not apply to the settlers in the West Bank? If Israel was occupying the West Bank, was there not an "occupation"? Calling them "settlements" implies they are no more than ordinary townships. It has a particular connotation of newness, implying that the settlements are built in otherwise virgin territory. NPOV means "all points of view" not "the point of view of whoever shouts loudest". HistoryBuffEr's edit of the Black September hostage crisis is correct. If it is disputed how the hostages died, we must write only that they died. It is impossible that any page on Israeli subjects can ever be NPOV if POV patrollers on both sides continue to seek to impose their views. But neither side ought to pretend that it is actually trying to restore neutrality, not HistoryBuffEr nor his opponents.Dr Zen 01:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Poisoning
Arafat's likely cause of death, heavy metal poisoning, either Thallium or Arsenic, should be addressed.


 * Here ya go. conspiracy theory    Terrapin 17:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Updated neutral version
I keep posting the neutral version (the one not written solely by Arafat's enemies). I try to incorporate as many useful edits as I can spot, but due to many reverts and vandalist edits it is hard to keep track of each and every real post. Please post here:
 * 1) Important additions that are missing from this version, and
 * 2) Any objections you may have.

Some diffs in this version are (in random order): HistoryBuffEr 06:08, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
 * Obit quotes by UN, US, Russia, China, UK and France (with all due respect, Australia, Pakistan, Burundi, etc. are not world powers).
 * The factoid that Arafat died at this or that le hospital is really not important enough to be placed at top (and when he died is obvious from first sentence.)
 * The controversy about date and place of birth is simply not deserving of half a page. Look at it from readers' perspective: what's the big deal? Arafat would be equally notable even if he was born in Peoria, Illinois, so note the dispute and move on.
 * Quotes: Leave notables in, send the rest to Wikisource.
 * Etc. Please post what other changes need to be explained.


 * No, you haven't discussed or attempted consensus on this page, and your version is certainly not neutral. It's just another wholesale replacement of what other editors have worked hard to come to agreement.  You even keep deleting the bibliography.  You can't just keep replacing the entire article with your own ethnocentric POV version and then ask for discussion afterward.  Even the previous version before yours by Alberuni is questionable because it has too many changes without discussion and consensus first, not to mention POV, but his was the last version by an editor who participates (albeit with too many personal attacks) on the talk page. MPerel 06:33, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I won't take your attack personally. By the way, POV is in the eye of the beholder. --Alberuni 06:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Alberuni, truly. I intended it more as a side comment protest, not as an attack against you.  I agree that POV is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it is valuable for people from different backgrounds and perspectives to come together, discuss and iron out disagreements, and maybe even learn from each other.  I don't see any value in making or keeping enemies, do you? MPerel 07:13, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I try to assume good faith until I am disappointed repeatedly. --Alberuni 07:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr, a biography about anyone written solely by a loyalist is hardly true or believable by anyone but other loyalists. A truly balanced article will represent multiple perspectives.  My favorite Arafat biographer is Said Aburish because he is neither loyalist nor enemy, but a historian dedicated to honest critical analysis, not propaganda (either for or against).  Here is some of what Aburish says in the intro of his book explaining the perspective of his writing, which I think is a good explanation of why it would be dishonest to only present in this article Arafat's "authorized" version (btw, even the "authorized" versions are contradictory):
 * "I had to decide whether to write this biography with or without Arafat's assistance. I opted for the latter after meeting him and receiving his offer of help.  My knowledge of the man excluded cooperating with him in person unless I was ready either to assume unnecessary risks or to accept constraints on the resulting work.  Biographies by writers who have depended on Arafat and his loyalists for help and accepted their version of events tend to be more misleading and lacking than most.  Even biographers disinclined to accept the Arafat version of events have wasted too much time in debunking what he said.  When interviewing him, as a Palestininan writer I would have been under pressure to reveal more of my purpose and direction than an outsider, and I would have been subjected to attempts to recruit me as part of 'the cause'.  This would have offered two unpalatable choices.  Either I would succumb to his charm and demands on my Palestinianness, or I would betray him through refusing his call on my identify and 'responsibility' or pretending to accept this call and then lying to him.  For example, despite evidence to the contrary, Arafat still insists that he was born in Jerusalem.  Accepting his version of the story, to him the duty of all loyal Palestinians, would have cancelled my independence and vitiated my purpose.  Rejecting his account of history either openly or after feigning the opposite, would--according to his logic--have represented a betrayal worthy of punishment.  It would have made writing this biography far more dangerous....  For the first time many of his old friends and associates are beginning to speak, both in his defence and against him.  On and off the record and on a non-attribution basis I have spoken to dozens of them: members of his cabinet, Arabs, Israelis, outsiders, writers, journalists, diplomats, CIA agents, shop owners, police officers and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
 * MPerel 08:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Btw, the birth controversy IS important because it explains Arafat's need to establish his leadership position by myth if necessary. Here's what Aburish says about it:
 * On the subject of his birth, loyalist biographer Alan Hart admits Arafat was born in Cairo; but he did so only after Janet and John Wallach had unearthed an Egyptian birth certificate and Andrew Gowers and Tony Walker had discovered Arafat's personal files at the University of Cairo. The rest of the material on his early years, which once obscured his origins, has also been amended by those who have written about him.
 * MPerel 08:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

HBE, you might have better luck if you try revising a paragraph at a time. At the very most, a section. Replacing the entire article wholesale is not constructive, regardless of the merits of your particular version. Is that a point you can agree on? Chuck Adams 18:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent news and commentary
The recent news and commentary section is really POV, poorly written and mostly unsubstantiated. Examples:
 * Arafat's long personal and political survival was taken by most Western commentators - Which commentators? And why do they matter in this encyclopedia article?
 * Others point to the constraints - Again, what others?
 * Supporters of this declaration
 * critics of this offer

Also a quote from Ariel Sharon, but from where? Recent news and commentary is just too vague and too POV to be in this article, or at least needs a whole lot of work done to it. --Mrfixter 14:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This entire article is probably beyond saving, and will remain so probably about as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues or the community grows up. I think I'll stick to edits on pages like the the average biomass of south american fungus and stuff like that and stay away from anything to do with politics. Chuck Adams 18:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Shortened Neutral version
The article has become too big. I have:
 * Removed bibliography (this info is available in many places).
 * Removed various superfluous analyst opinions and speculations about Arafat's skills.
 * Rephrased some parts for brevity.
 * Added useful edits by others (persistently biased edits by the anon IP have been ignored.)

P.S: Chuck Adams asks above to edit a little bit at a time. Then he says in the next reply that the current (biased) version is totally beyond repair. I agree with the latter. The goal is to produce a neutral and useful article; given the state of the article bold steps are required to fix it.

HistoryBuffEr 20:34, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * As usual, your edit was a complete re-write. . Jayjg 20:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, please review the "But don't be reckless" section of Be bold, which deals with exactly this situation. Jayjg 20:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk page comments being edited
It appears people's talk page comments have mysteriously been changed by 68.111.73.118 --MPerel 22:11, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, they make no sense now. I'll try to fix. Jayjg 22:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, Alberuni, I just took the old sections that the anon vandalized and put it back in the Talk: page, I didn't realize you'd fixed typos there too. Lighten up, will you? Jayjg 23:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll lighten up when I start to see evidence of good faith editing instead of constant Zionist revisionism POV pushing. --Alberuni 23:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How was it Zionist revionism POV pushing for Jayjg to attempt to fix vandalism to your talk comments? It's getting so wearisome, your personal war against Jayjg and others who don't hold your exact viewpoint.  It strains the nerves of many, and makes such a hostile environment.  Please consider the negative effects of your hostility.  Is that really the contribution you want to make?  MPerel 23:23, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * My Talk page comments had been corrected - by me. Jayjg reverted them. OK? And the incessant efforts at Zionist revisionism are in full evidence on Israel, Hasbara, Zionist revisionism, Yasser Arafat, Munich Massacre and countless other pages. Just visit User:Jayjg to see the pages where the gang is currently pushing its POV. And I don't really care if you find it tiresome and strains your nerves. You would rather that everyone just goes along with the Zionist slant so of course you are irritated. This isn't another Zionist controlled media network so you will have to get used to divergent opinions for a change. --Alberuni 23:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * MPerel point out vandalism, I went and got the originals and put them back in the sections. I hadn't realized that you had already fixed some or all of them, much less made further spelling corrections on top of that.  I recommend re-reading Assume good faith. Jayjg 23:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is, Alberuni, as you said, you don't care. Your lack of concern for other people is quite evident.  You don't just strain my nerves, many people repeatedly have noted your disrespectful behavior.  You don't follow Wiki civility rules and it ruins the wiki environment.  You're the one who can't tolerate divergent opinions.  Why can't you speak civilly to people with different viewpoints than yours?  Nobody deserves to be treated the way you treat people.  I don't know what you think you're actually accomplishing here by being so hostile to everyone.  MPerel 23:56, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I couldn't care less if a bunch of thugish Zionist bigots are offended. --Alberuni 00:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Who's the real bigot here? MPerel 00:03, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * The Zionists who think that Jews deserve more rights than non-Jews. --Alberuni 00:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to move all "Statements regarding Arafat's death" to WikiQuote
I just noticed that on Nov 10 editor Jiang moved all the Arafat quotes to WikiQuote with a tag placed in the main article that states, "Wikiquote has a collection of quotations by or about Yasser Arafat" linked to the appropriate quote page. I think it would also be a good idea to move all the quotes under "Statements regarding Arafat's death" to this Arafat WikiQuote page here. It would make the main article less cumbersome. Comments on this proposal anyone? MPerel 18:44, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. It should at least be moved to the Death_of_Yasser_Arafat page. I am not sure about wikipedia policy on this, though. --Mrfixter 18:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see there's quite a list of quotes under "World Reaction" on the Death page as well. Well maybe the quotes here should be merged with the quotes there and put on a separate linked Death of Yasser Arafat Wikiquote page. MPerel 19:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible, I have no objection. --Mrfixter 14:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For now, I moved the death quotes that aren't already duplicated to Death of Yasser Arafat. Eventually the quotes on that page should probably be moved to Wikiquote. --MPerel 03:12, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Arafat's billions?
Seems its possible Arafat has up to 20 billion USD that came from the US, Europe as well as possible illegal actions. What was supposed to be done with this huge sum of money? How much of it was taken from taxes we all pay? Was any good done for the arab people with all the money spent aleady? --Hackeron 23:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That number seems highly unlikely, it's far too high, and probably off by an order of magnitude. Jayjg 02:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alan Hart documents are bogus
The accusatory allegations against Arafat's "claims" about his birthplace and how "even his personal biographer Alan Hart" admits that he was born in Cairo come from a typical Israeli smear site that seeks to undermine Arafat's credentials as a leader of the Palestinian struggle against Israel. . This kind of partisan trash should not be used as source material for an encyclopedia. --Alberuni 02:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Chill, dude. The BBC, a very friendly outfit to Arafat and the Palestinians, says Cairo, with no ifs, ands or buts.  If there were a true chance it was Jerusalem, they would mention it prominently.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/890161.stm   A2Kafir 02:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The accusatory tone of the smear that Arafat is a liar comes from the Israeli site. NPOV is to state that the birthplace/date is disputed and give the different places and dates. POV is to give credence to one version over the other, as if Wikipedians know best (after reading some Israeli smear site). "as his date of birth, as confirmed by Arafat's personal biographer (Hart, 1994). Some sources support Arafat's claim to have been born in Jerusalem". By the way, has anyone read Hart's biography? Or are you all going off these unreliable secondary sources? This is an encyclopedia not a rumor mill. --Alberuni 02:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No reputable sources support Arafat's claim. Biographers of Arafat agree: Arafat was born in Cairo.  Alan Hart as well as Palestinian biographer, Said K. Aburish, in his book, Arafat: From Defender to Dictator, says Arafat was born in Cairo. 69.59.178.228
 * I would add, just because a site you don't approve of says something doesn't mean it isn't true. The BBC is considered by many Israelis to be biased against them, and yet the BBC lends no credence to the Jerusalem claim.  Also, it is common for a controversial leader to make such claims about birthplace; Kim Jong Il of North Korea claims to have been born at a particularly picturesque mountain, rather than in a town in Soviet Siberia (the truth)/  So, Arafat would not be unique in his desire to embellis his birth record. A2Kafir 02:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * See my Aburish quote above. Aburish is a Muslim Palestinian.  Hart's version is actually considered by many to be too loyalist to be a reliable record (see this review, for example ).  That's why it's amazing that even *he* has amended what he's written about Arafat's birthplace since biographers Janet and John Wallach discovered the Egyptian birth certificate, and biographers Andrew Gowers and Tony Walker discovered Arafat's personal files at the University of Cairo.  However, since there are still sources that insist on the Jerusalem birthplace, that should stay in the article also, along with the sentence about his birthplace being disputed.  Alberuni, what sources are reliable in your view? MPerel 02:48, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't find any current reputable biographical sources that insist on the Jerusalem birthplace for Arafat. You just posted links that repeat Arafats allegations. 69.59.178.228

"Arafat's allegations"? This just about sums up the level of discussion here. I say the most reliable source for Arafat's claims is, well, Arafat! The guy himself said he was born in Jerusalem. The birth certificate should be noted but let's face it, you could fake one easily if you had a point to prove. The rest is just blather, pumped up by the POV pushers to muddy the water.Dr Zen 03:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The dispute is perpetuated by Israelis and while the plagiarized claim (above) that his Nobel Prize biography states that his birthplace is disputed, the actual source is an encyclopedia article by Irwin Abrams. "Since there is no biographical description of Yasser Arafat in Les Prix Nobel for 1994, this account was written by the editor of Nobel Lectures, Peace 1991-1995, published by World Scientific Publishing Co. From Nobel Lectures, Peace 1991-1995, Editor Irwin Abrams, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1999. This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above." --Alberuni 04:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Both his official and unofficial biographers say he was born in Cairo. None of the people listed who state he was born there are Israeli. Jayjg 20:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I said the dispute was perpetuated by Israelis, of that there is little question. Who else cares so much to deny where Arafat was born? Why is this an issue for Wiesenthal Center?  . Don't be so disingenuous. Israeli hasbara campaigns against Arafat have been running full-tilt for decades.  Why deny it? --Alberuni 21:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * But the dispute over Arafat's place of birth has been perpetuated by his biographers, not Israel. You are just appealing to distractions.  Arafat's claim is not supported by the evidence.  Alan Hart and Said K. Aburish agree that Arafat was born in Cairo.  Hart is not Israeli, and Aburish is a Palestinian.  Please refrain from changing the subject. --Viriditas 21:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is wasting time here?
I keep posting the neutral version but some insist on reverting to a rumors-and-smear version, and then keep piling on more and more irrelevant controversies. This article is really not a place to fight over the Temple and various other issues which should be taken to their articles.

Then many other editors spend valuable time fixing spelling errors, links, etc. all in vain, because the rumors-and-smear version simply can't survive for long.

Instead of every time painstakingly poring over each word of a largely useless version, I prefer to repost my previous version. If there is any issue with it, state it here. If you refuse to Talk, then modify only a specific claim you disgree with. Your approach will be returned in kind, be it edit or revert. HistoryBuffEr 04:56, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * You are wasting time with endless attempts to insert your POV version without getting consensus. Please follow Wikipedia norms and policies instead. Jayjg 05:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr's version is a great NPOV improvement over the biased Zionist trash that you consistently insert on every page. There is never a possibility for consensus when there's a fanatic Zionist deliberately obstructing progress so that he can impose his extremist POV on Wikipedia. --Alberuni 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You know, I'm personally more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to the Israeli point of view, and lord knows that pro-Zionist/pro-Israeli apologists are legion. But great googily moogily, Alberuni, screaming WOLF WOLF WOLF over practically every edit isn't doing your cause ANY good. You've pretty much blown your credibility with me, and any dispute you bring up gets NO benefit of the doubt at this point.


 * Your opinion is duly noted. I really am terribly upset that I've blown my credibility with Calton. Whatever will I do? I'm sure Jayjg, Humussapiens, MathKnight, lance6Wins, Masterhomer and Viriditas will welcome you with open arms into their cabal. Shalom! --Alberuni 06:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey Sparky, you're missing the point: I'm not part of any cabal or conspiracy or whatever shadowy group you are imagining: I'm just a guy who looked up "Yasir Arafat" because, after all, he was in the news (dying more often than Generalissmo Francisco Franco), and stumbled over this controversy. I am, in effect, speaking up for the average reader, an average reader whom you've blown any credibility with. I have no personal dog in this fight except as an observer of bad behavior, and if you think that to the average observer that you're displaying your shining virtue against the shadowy political axe-grinders, well, you're sadly mistaken. --Calton 05:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And HistoryBuffEr? Nobody died and left you in charge of things. You got a problem with entries, then do what everyone else does and go through the process instead of being Mr. Unilateral. Otherwise you should get yourself a blog and then you write whatever you please. --Calton 07:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You make it sound as if everyone else is saintly following the process, when most here are actually constantly reverting.
 * (P.S: I hope you realize the irony of your dictate to be humble)
 * HistoryBuffEr 22:59, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * And what irony would that be? Do you even know what that word means?


 * And as long we're discussing words whose meanings you seem to be unclear on, let me ask if you understand the meaning of unilateral: in what way is your edit history NOT a trail of unilateral edits? --Calton 05:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You do seem to be a valuable contributor. In just 3 edits you've managed to add one "of" and one ";", then in another valuable edit removed one ''"'.
 * Your claim that you are not pro-Israel is interesting considering:
 * You did not say one word about the much more numerous transgressions of the pro-Israel extremists,
 * The praise you received from them, and
 * That you edit articles they do (such as David Irving and Mordechai Vanunu).
 * Your interest in Power Rangers Turbo characters explains your level of discourse. As you spend plenty of time in Sandbox, I suggest you stay there until you grow up beyond snotty remarks. This is my last reply to you.
 * HistoryBuffEr 06:20, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr, your tactic of telling lies about me in a move to discredit me pretty much tells me how little intellectual honesty you bring to the table. Your stunning act of mind-reading in divining my views on Israel, for instance: what part of pro-Zionist/pro-Israeli apologists are legion escaped your notice? (For that matter, what part of And what irony would that be? Do you even know what that word means? also escaped your notice?)


 * Then there's your smear about my editing track record. I've been doing this Wikipedia editing stuff for about a week-and-a-half, and going back and counting, I've made 356 edits (excluding Talk pages and Sandbox entries), on topics ranging from Japanese railroad stations to California community colleges to World War II submarines to, yes, one Power Ranger entry. Since this track record is easily available, then your peculiar characterization of it can only be deliberately dishonest, not mistaken.


 * As to what gets edited: You see those links to the left labelled "Random Page" and "Recent Changes"? I click on them sometimes when I'm at the office and need a break, and when I do, I see entries with typos, bad links, weird grammar, and missing information. And because it's easy to fix them, I fix them. Which is, you know, kind of the point of having those links.


 * This is my last reply to you. I can certainly see why: not having a leg to stand on would move anyone to retreating. --Calton 05:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have worked with HistoryBuffEr is a collegial way because he is intent on NPOVing these highly biased articles. I don't agree with all his edits and he disagrees with some of mine but he has respected my contributions. So, you accusations of unilateralism are false. Some editors are not worth discussing issues with because they are simply Zionist POV pushers who cannot be reasoned with. Their intention is to deliberately push an Israeli agenda and to hell with NPOV. That forces other editors to treat them harshly because they don't behave reasonably. Thanks for your input.    --Alberuni 06:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Two editors vs. every other editor on the page do not make for a "consensus", particularly when those editors insist on attributing conspiracy theory related motivations to all those who disagree with them, consistently violate Wikipedia policies such as No personal attacks and Civility, and most importantly try to force change on controversial articles without first gaining consensus. Jayjg 19:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No matter how overwhelming the facts and substantiation, there is never consensus when extremist Zionist fanatics (who think WorldNetDaily is a legitimate source) are present. No point discussing NPOV with fanatic pro-Israeli propagandists. --Alberuni 20:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So, you accusations of unilateralism are false. Changing things without consensus or discussion is pretty much the DEFINITION of unilaterism, irrespective of whatever hand-waving you do. You want to practice self-righteous zealotry, be my guest; just don't pretend it's anything else.


 * Thanks for your input. Since you've been operating in write-only mode throughout, I find this bit of fig-leaf amusing. --Calton 05:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I hate to mention it, but your comment seems personal and highly political in nature, rather than directed towards article content. It might be easier to discuss these matters if we just stuck to the purpose of the Talk: pages, which is discussing article content. Jayjg 21:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, the Talk page would be useful for achieving consensus and editing articles if we were all reasonable people. Unfortunately, there are a few pro-Zionist extremists who do not understand the concept of NPOV and one in particular who engages in endless sophistry to obstruct consensus and impose hi pro-Zionist POV on Wikipedia. If that's not an issue for the Talk pages, where should we take it? --Alberuni 00:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffer
At present, I don't find your edits to be horrendously NPOV. However, I cannot endorse your version at the moment, but I will not revert it either. So I will make comments for both versions.

HistoryBuffer, I still see "occupation colonies." This is a loaded term; it should be removed from your version of the article. A government occupies; these colonies are mostly civilians. It's difficult to say the colonists are occupying. Trespassing perhaps, but not occupying.

As for the other, Non-historybuffer version of the article, it really needs the quote from Arafat's address to the UN, about the olive branch.

That's all for now. --Golbez 08:24, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am open to discussing "occupation colonies":


 * There is occupation, right?
 * These colonies were created by the government for the purpose to hold onto the occupied territory, were they not?
 * The colonies are protected and subsidized by the government, right?
 * Pretty much all other colonies in history were called colonies.
 * Even American "settlements" were (and still are in history books) often called colonies.
 * "Loaded" is in the eye of the beholder. Facts are implicitly NPOV.
 * Occupation and colonies are facts. Euphemisms are egregiously POV.
 * If some consider these facts "loaded", we should simply state so, rather than making Wikipedia into a propaganda outlet.
 * Your turn.
 * HistoryBuffEr 09:57, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is.
 * I wouldn't say that. Furthermore, that does not speak to the motives of the colonists.
 * Yes, all colonies are.
 * Erm, yeah. I'm not challenging the terminology "colonies" and I'm not challenging that there is an Israeli occupation; I'm challenging the repeated use of "occupation colonies". That is a deliberately loaded term and is used four times.
 * Asked and answered.
 * Loaded means they are not quite NPOV because someone sees POV in them. Facts are explicitly NPOV; how they are expressed is not.
 * You lack consensus for these changes. They are apparently not NPOV, no matter how much you say they are. Your own obvious anti-Israeli POV clouds your judgment. --Golbez 18:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Golbez, thanks for answering all questions, except for the most important one :)
 * Yes, there are sources (Israeli govt, Sharon's "fingers" quote) about the intent of colonies.
 * Motives of civilians are irrelevant here. If, say, a bunch of Englishmen moved to India just to enjoy fresh air, that wouldn't have made India any less of a colony, right?
 * What does "deliberately loaded" mean? Do you have the unique ability to peer into someone else's mind?
 * As for consensus, we have just started the debate, so your judgment that there isn't any is premature.
 * You say "not NPOV" without explaining to whom and why.
 * The standard principle of handling disputed terms is to cite all relevant POVs on the subject. Why do you insist on removing the POV you dislike from the article?
 * Why is stating obvious and neutral facts (which counter Israel's POV) "obviously anti-Israel"? What is obvious about it? Are you saying that anything countering Israel's POV is automatically anti-Israel? Even if it was, this is Wikipedia, not an Israeli PR outlet, right?
 * Awaiting your explanation why an important POV should be removed from the article.
 * HistoryBuffEr 19:59, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * You're drawing uncalled for conclusions - I have removed nothing. I do not plan to remove anything; this is not my fight. So please stop being so defensive about me removing content.
 * Okay. One comment is sufficient; repetition is unnecessary. I could go to John Kerry and add that he's a liberal every single place I could, and that would be reverted, because while once it might be a statement of fact, in repetition it becomes POV.
 * If they were the only Englishmen in India, then yeah, it would have.
 * Some things just seem obvious.
 * We have just started the debate, yes - but that didn't keep you from constantly readding the changes that were being reverted prior to the debate. Don't ignore your actions that occurred prior to being mentioned here.
 * "NPOV" to those who keep reverting you.
 * I haven't insisted on removing anything. I said it should be removed, and I haven't touched it. Again - if you like the term, saying it once is sufficient, but any other mention should simply be "colonies" because it adds nothing to constantly remind the reader that they are occupation colonies. I could remind the reader that Arafat was a terrorist at every turn, but that would be removed.
 * I didn't say the article was anti-Israel; I said you were. ;)
 * Because it's a POV. Neutralize it. For every mention of "occupation colonies", add a mention of Arafat as a terrorist. At present, your version of the article has no such statement, simply two quotes.
 * Furthermore, you have reverted the article three times in 24 hours, and contrary to what you say, it was not over vandalism. If you continue to revert the article, it may be protected, and not perhaps on the copy you want. Respect the Three revert rule at all times. The mere fact that the other version has more reverters than you is a sign of consensus. So please respect their choices as much as you would like them you respect yours. What you need to do is justify your edits here, rather than overwrite the article repeatedly. --Golbez 20:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being reasonable (except for "anti-Israel", an obviously loaded term, which you keep repeating without any explanation.)
 * It looks like we agree that "occupation colonies" is a fair term which should be included. I'll make sure to note that Israel uses the term "settlements". I agree that repetition of a disputed term is excessive and will replace dupes with just "colonies". So, you win one.
 * But now, you owe it to the NPOV side to go into Munich massacre and replace some 13 repetitious refs to "terrorists" with a less disputed term.
 * The constant anon IP reverts are an evasion of personal responsibility and rules. Most of these are very likely the POV pushers' sock-puppets because they follow the same revert pattern and article history. So, I do not consider my reverts of anon reverts as something to write home about.
 * As for justifying edits, there is no rhyme or reason for other editors not to justify their edits also, right? So, I am looking forward to your incisive questions to them as well. Peace.
 * HistoryBuffEr 20:52, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * We do not agree that "occupation colonies" is a fair term; however, I will not object to it being included once, but only once. Others might, but I'm accomodating. :P "settlements" does seem a lot more NPOV, since it offers no political overtones.
 * As if "Massacre" isn't itself POV? ;) And anyway, it looks like a discussion is already underway there.
 * That doesn't matter. They are not vandalism. The three revert rule applies for all, unless clearly used to combat vandalism.
 * Their version was the original one, best I can tell; therefore, it is edits to that that should be justified, not the other way around. At best, they should have to justify their reverts as well. But again, I'm not getting in to this fight. :) My only expressed complaint at this time is "occupation colonies" and we seem to have reached an arrangement on that. Any other aspect is not brought up by me at this time, and should be dealt with and by others. --Golbez 21:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * So, you are bailing out when NPOV editing would involve revising the POV agreeable to you :(
 * I'll let you go, with a reminder that everyone is subject to justifying edits, not only editors you oppose. If older versions were implicitly more NPOV we could simply protect all pages and go home.
 * Hoping some day you'll find time for both sides of NPOV, HistoryBuffEr 21:42, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * NPOV editing would be lovely - unfortunately, no one's doing it. --Golbez 22:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) has a term for these places, they are called Israeli settlements. "Occupation colonies" is a POV term essentially invented by HistoryBuffer, in the context of Israel gets under a dozen Google hits (in the singular or the plural), and most of them are from Wikipedia Talk: pages discussing HistoryBuffEr's POV invention.  On the other hand, "Israeli settlement" and "Israeli settlements" get over 200,000 hits.  Wikipedia is neither the place for neologisms nor the place for POV. Jayjg 21:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. Very good point. I didn't think about the Google test. Historybuffer? --Golbez 22:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Funny how deniers of Palestine fought Google hits on "occupation of Palestine" tooth and nail as "silly", but Google hits are now cool.
 * Funny, too, how extremists dismissed my "generally agreed term" argument in re "occupation of Palestine", but now use the same argument themselves.
 * Anyway, if everyone here bows to Google, I'll change to "occupied colonies", which gets 381,000 hits. Of course, this also means that we finally have an agreement that "Occupation of Palestine", as Google's favorite term, is now accepted as the title for the subject matter.
 * HistoryBuffEr 01:41, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr, why are you still making this erroneous claim when Pir explained your error on Oct 11, 2004 at 15:14. I find it very strange that you continue to post misinformation about Google searches even after your mistake has been explained to you.  "Occupied colonies" gets a total of 568 hits on Google, not 381,000.  On the other hand, the term, "Israeli settlements" gets 144,000 hits. This has been explained to you, yet you continue to make the same false claims.  I am going to add this example to your current arbitration as a violation of Check your facts. --Viriditas 02:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What's more, the few uses of the phrase "Occupied colonies" on the Internet don't seem to refer to the Israeli settlements at all. As well, "Israeli settlement" gets an additional 61,300 hits (on top of the 144,000 for Israeli settlements). Jayjg 03:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * HB, Jayjg is right, the "occupation colonies" term you want to use doesn't seem to be common usage used by anyone in the context of Palestine. It's a pejorative and POV term, nothing more.  Now if you want to mention the two most widely used terms by opposing sides, there is "Israeli settlements", and many Palesinian advocates use the term "illegal settlements".  Google it and you'll see about 36,000 sites (like Aljazeera) using "illegal settlements".  But nobody really seems to use the term "occupation colonies". MPerel 22:34, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if we were to follow HistoryBuffEr's preferred way of describing things, we would say "Most of the world describes them as Israeli settlements, but extremists prefer illegal settlements, and radical extremists prefer occupation colonies" :-) Jayjg 23:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * They are known to most of the world (excluding your hasbara colleagues) as illegal Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory because that differentiates them from Israeli settlements, towns in Israel. --Alberuni 04:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Golbez, just a note on the olive branch quote: one editor moved all the quotes to Wikiquote and put a tag at the bottom of the article linking to all the Arafat quotes here: . It includes the olive branch quote.  I suggested somewhere earlier in this talk page that we should move all the other quotes about Arafat's death to Wiqiquote too, but I haven't had time to pursue doing it.  There's a Death of Arafat article that has even more quotes that will have to be merged etc.  Anyway, moving the quotes to Wiqiquote makes the article less cumbersome, IMO, as long as the article has a clear link to the quotes. MPerel 19:00, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Still, that's his most famous quote, and actually pertains to an action he did, speaking before the UN.
 * True, where do you think the quote would best fit in the article itself? I agree that it's a good idea to put it in there. MPerel 21:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * If your version of the article doesn't mention his address to the UN, it should, and the quote could go there. --Golbez 21:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Arafat met Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) at Cairo University?
The article now states that Arafat met Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) at Cairo University, but the link doesn't say that, it only says that they met in Cairo, and doesn't give a date, and al-Wazir never attended Cairo University. Jayjg 03:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I shall remove it. --Viriditas 03:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat's death certificate cites his birthplace as Jerusalem; Wiesenthal Center objects!
"The death certificate issued for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat by French authorities last week indicates his place of birth as Jerusalem and not Cairo, officials said today. Municipal officials at Clamart, the suburb of Paris where Arafat died last Thursday, said they issued the document on the basis of a family record book itself issued by the French foreign ministry in 1996. The issue is symbolically important because Israel considers Jerusalem as its eternal capital, while Palestinians want to make east Jerusalem, occupied by the Jewish state since 1967, the capital of their promised state. Arafat was born Mohammed Abdel-Rawf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Hussaini, on August 4, 1929. The official version of his life history records he was born in Jerusalem. However numerous biographers agree that he was, in fact, born in Cairo, where his father, from Gaza, owned a business."  "The Paris branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a U.S.-based Jewish rights group, said it had written to French Justice Minister Dominique Perben on Monday asking him to correct the death certificate. Arafat was born Aug. 24, 1929, to a modest trading family. Leading biographies say he was born in Cairo, where his father settled. Arafat said he was born in Jerusalem and that his father forged a birth certificate for him in Egypt so he could attend school for free." --Alberuni 04:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What does this information add that we didn't already know? His birth certificate says Cairo, leading biographers agree.  Arafat claims Jerusalem, and claims that the Cairo birth certificate was a forgery. Jayjg 11:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What's new? The Simon Wiesenthal Center, "an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust by fostering tolerance and understanding through community involvement, educational outreach and social action" protests France's certification of Arafat's death. Where's NGO Monitor when you need them to question the partisan political machinations of groups posing as human rights organizations? Oh, that's right, as a hasbara propaganda tool, NGO Monitor only attacks Palestinian human rights groups, never Zionist ones. Can I spell anything else out for you? --Alberuni 15:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Apparently the Paris branch of the Wiesnthal Center objected, but I'm not sure what your point is. Did the Wiesenthal Center bring any new information regarding his birthplace forwards? Jayjg 16:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Apparently the entire organization known as the Simon Wiesenthal Center protested, not just the Paris branch. . My point is that the "dispute" about Arafat's birthplace is fueled by vile Zionists who wish to undermine Palestinian claims to their native lands by every sordid means they can muster. --Alberuni 17:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually that could be a very feasible scenario (a forged birth certificate for the sake of free schooling), especially since his birthdate in Jerusalem is listed as Aug 4 and his birthdate in Cairo is listed as Aug. 24. The family did move from Gaza to Cairo right about the time Arafat was born, and his five older siblings (which is why I think he's actually the sixth not fifth of seven children, btw) were born in Gaza: sisters Inam, Khadija, Yusar, and brothers Khalid, and Mustapha.  Arafat and his younger brother Fathi were said to be born in Cairo.  I think the article should be changed to something like this to reflect this information:


 * Arafat was the fifth of seven children born to a Palestinian textile merchant. A birth certificate registered in Cairo, Egypt gives August 24, 1929 as his date of birth, as confirmed by Arafat's biographer Alan Hart and Palestinian biographer, Said K. Aburish. Some sources have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace. Arafat's death certificate, however, supports his claim that he was born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 and that his father forged a birth certificate for him in Egypt so he could attend school for free.  [1] (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/30_1.html)[2] (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html) His father’s family includes Egyptian ancestry and his mother descended from a prominent Palestinian family in Jerusalem.
 * --MPerel 16:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * p.s. to Alberuni, the discussion would go a lot better without your insults (i.e., "blind deaf and dumb") --MPerel 16:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * In general your proposal seems fine; however, why would the French death certificate be relevant? Did the French coroner have new information that other sources did not have? Jayjg 16:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * well I think it's relevant because the death certificate is an official document, like the birth certificate. There's actually no guarantee that either official document is accurate, obviously one of them is incorrect, but still there is currently no way to know with certainty which one is true.  All we can do is list what both official documents report MPerel 16:57, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's irrelevant and gives far to much weight to the document, which is based on no new information. But fine. Jayjg 17:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * MPerel wrote, Some sources have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace. I would have no problem with that statement, if it was true.  The only "sources" seem to be Arafat. Links repeating the claim do not substantiate it.  I would welcome any evidence to the contrary. --Viriditas 19:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a point. The Britannica link reads "others have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace" but no source is actually cited.  The Cairo birthplace has a birth certificate and biographers as a source.  The Jerusalem birthplace has a death certificate and Arafat himself for a source.  He very well could have been born in Gaza like his older siblings, but until there is an explicit first-hand source to cite, I agree the Gaza hypothesis should probably be removed.  MPerel 19:40, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to compromise. Let's make mention of the "Gaza hypothesis", as well as it's lack of evidence.  I'm strongly in favor of inclusion rather than exclusion.  I think your original proposal in response to Alberuni was a good one, although we could make a few minor adjustments to reflect the actual state of the claims.  You've done good work. --Viriditas 19:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I think you should go ahead and do some refinement.  MPerel 20:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Since he is without question the most reliable source of a bunch of unreliable sources, his own claim should come first. Clearly, it is anti-Arafat to put both the Cairo and Gaza claims before the Jerusalem claim. BTW, Jayjg, you are once again applying a double standard. You put enormous weight on a birth certificate but claim the death certificate has none. Yet the death certificate was made in good faith by a living witness and the birth certificate is clouded in controversy. I'm making an edit to reflect this. I will not revert it if the POV pushers seek to change it. I'm happy simply to make it in good faith. Dr Zen 22:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is nothing "anti-Arafat" about quoting two biographers, one of which was his official biographer (Hart), and the other which is Palestinian (Aburish).  Please explain the controversy over the birth certificate.   You claim that the evidence for his birth in Gaza is supported by his death certificate.  Do you believe that makes logical sense?  Ipse dixit is not evidence, and claiming that "Arafat said so" is an appeal to authority. --Viriditas 23:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course you disagree. When sources agree with your bias, they are of course reliable. When they do not, they are without question unreliable. Clearly the French authorities have more faith in ipse dixit than someone else dixit, don't you think? You know, I'm going to chuckle all day over the idea that "Arafat said so" is an appeal to authority and "his biographers said so" is not. Now, the point was that Arafat's claim about himself should come first, because the article is about him not his biographers. I don't see anything in your remarks that addresses that. It is quite simply intolerably POV to put others' views on the subject of the article's birthplace before those of the subject of the article himself. Neither of them were present after all. Dr Zen 23:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no double-standard. The birth certificate is an official government document issued at birth, about the birth; the death certificate was issued in France 75 years later by a coroner's office which had little, if any, knowledge of where Arafat was actually born.  The death certificate is a great authority if you want to know when and where he died, but is of little relevance to when and where he was born, since its role is not to determine that, but rather to state when and where he died.  The birth certificate tells us about the birth, the death certificate tells us about the death.  And please do not fall into the trap of using these Talk: pages for personal attacks, for example, making statements such as "when sources agree with your bias".  Rather, please use the Talk: pages to discuss article content. Jayjg 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack to suggest that someone has a bias. As I pointed out to Viriditas, it is an item of policy that we should recognise that we all do. It is, though, rather uncivil to characterise a difference of opinion as a "personal attack". All I have suggested is that the subject's own claim as to his place of birth should take precedence, especially since he has plausibly explained why his birth certificate differs. A birth certificate is proof only that someone registered his birth in Cairo, not that he was actually born there. So far as I know, there are no living witnesses to Arafat's birth, nor any statements from witnesses that contradict Arafat's own position. My reward for this attempt to restore neutrality to this article has been to be attacked on other pages, called stupid and, in the case of Viriditas, for him to involve himself elsewhere in matters that do not bear on this issue. It's extremely disheartening. Dr Zen 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Ziopedia. --Alberuni 04:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * While stating that a person has bias might not be a strong personal attack, it is more than just a "difference of opinion", and stating that they essentially make their decisions based on bias (as opposed to logic or facts) is without doubt a personal attack. Moreover, no-one appreciates being strawmanned ("When sources agree with your bias, they are of course reliable. When they do not, they are without question unreliable.")  Regarding your arguments, you are correct that Arafat's story cannot be 100% ruled out, which is why the article has always given it prominent play, and has recently included his claim that the birth certificate was falsified to allow for free education.  However, whoever registered his birth was much closer to the time and events in question, and was charged with accurately determining that birth information.  On the other hand, the person registering his death was not charged with accurately determing the birth information, only the death information.  Again, birth certificates are relevant to births, death certificates are relevant to deaths; this is not about "bias", but about facts, relevance, and common sense. Jayjg 04:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO, it's only a personal attack when the bias cannot be demonstrated. If I say User X is biased, and I can demonstrate that bias, it's not an attack as long as I stick to demonstrating the bias of User X's comments and not commenting on the User X itself.  Otherwise, it's ad hominem, which is exactly how Dr. Zen phrased it, even though he later attempted to demonstrate alleged cherry-picking, which upon closer examination was merely a weak straw man coupled with a false analogy.  If a claim of user bias is made, it should be demonstrated in a logical manner.  Dr. Zen failed to do this. --Viriditas 05:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I love this. At no point has either of these fine logicians explained why the biographers' explanation of the birth certificate is more acceptable than Arafat's own. I say that any decision whose version you will accept is purely down to what those in question say, because there are no other criteria for judgment. This is precisely what "bias" is. I say that where there are no facts, but only one claim and another, the claim of the subject of the article might come first. I also suggest that what a person says about their own birth is worth more than what anyone else says in the absence of any other evidence. For this, I am gratuitously insulted, my comments described as "straw man" arguments and "fallacies" (in terms that would make it an "argument from authority" to suggest that witness evidence should be allowed at a trial!). As I say, it's very disheartening. It seems that a good-faith attempt to make a disputed article a little more neutral is completely unwelcome.Dr Zen 05:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * People don't actually remember their own births; biographers examine available evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. An official birth document is significant evidence about a birth, and more than just a "claim".  And your continued claim that you are the only editor here editing in good-faith and attempting neutrality is both false and also "completely unwelcome". Jayjg 17:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some factual information
First, France has no "coroner's office". In each commune (city, town, village), the registrar of the état-civil maintains the lists of births and deaths. This registrar is operated by the local government. Normally, they register deaths using information from official documents. The city government of Clamart issued this certificate in view of a livret de famille, which listed Jerusalem as Arafat's birth place. This livret was presumably filled by some other municipal authority elsewhere in France in view of some official foreign certificate.

A city government will not by itself doubt the validity of legit official documents.

If the Simon Wiesenthal center disagrees with this administrative decision, they can always sue in administrative court (provided they can give a reason to act). Have they attempted to do so? David.Monniaux 20:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What is a livret de famille? What kind of official foreign certificate would be needed to influence its contents? Jayjg 20:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A livret de famille ("family booklet") is an official booklet delivered by a French local government to a married couple. It just summarizes information obtained from previous documents about the filiation, birth of the couple and the children, as far as I know; it is meant to simplify bookkeeping, in lieu of having a bunch of disparate birth and marriage certificates.
 * This booklet was most probably established by a local government in view of foreign documents on Yasser Arafat and his wife Suha (Suha Arafat, residing in Paris, has obtained French citizenship). As far as I know, local governments will recognize any official foreign document with proper certification.David.Monniaux 08:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The Simon Wiesenthal center says that Arafat's documents shown to obtain the livret de famille were issued by UNRWA, the UN agency dealing with Palestine refugees. David.Monniaux 10:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Dr. Zen's attack and accusation of bias
I am going to assume good faith and ignore your explicit ad hominem attack, which you have clearly made as a distraction, to avoid having to discuss your fallacious argument, which ironically, you continue to make in your second reply. I will comment, however, that following the policy of verifiability is not a form of bias. Also, I have stated that I am willing to compromise on this issue by including both claims, provided they are accurate and not misleading. Now, back to your comments: You claimed that Arafat was a more reliable source than his biographers, who relied on actual evidence for his place of birth. I explained that you were presenting an appeal to authority. You also claimed that the evidence for Arafat's birth in Gaza is supported by his death certificate. That appears to be a fallacy of wrong_direction as well as another appeal to authority. Just because his death certificate says he was born in Gaza does not in any way substantiate his claim. You have also confused the distinction between unreliable sources (a claim I never made) with unsubstantiated sources. They are not the same thing. (But, that didn't stop you from making a straw man argument which provided the central thrust for your ad hominem). You then went on to make another appeal to authority, when you argued that the French authorities were substantiating Arafat's claim by issuing a death certificate with his alleged place of birth. After that, you made a brazen false analogy when you compared Arafat's claim of birth, which lacks evidence, to the claims made by biographers, which is based solely on evidence. That is to say, the biographers claims are not based on an appeal to authority, but on the evidence itself. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of Arafat's birth claim. You wrote, I don't see anything in your remarks that addresses that, and I have addressed your false analogy in this reply. You then followed up with another straw man and yet another appeal to authority when you claimed that it was POV to put others' views on the subject of the article's birthplace before those of the subject of the article himself. This flaw in your reasoning (Ipse dixit)has been explained to you several times, so there is no need to discuss it again. Finally, you concluded your litany of fallacies with an argument from ignorance, as well as an appeal to negative proof when you wrote, Neither of them were present after all. Nevertheless, we do not have an absence of evidence. We have an Egyptian birth certificate for Arafat. It is certainly possible that the certificate has been falsified, but is it probable? Occam's Razor might be a good tool to use in questioning the veracity of both Arafat's birth claims, and the Egyptian birth certificate. --Viriditas 04:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Zen's reply to Viriditas
Note: Dr. Zen replies in plain text, Viriditas comments in italics

I am going to assume good faith and ignore your explicit ad hominem attack, which you have clearly made as a distraction, to avoid having to discuss your fallacious argument, which ironically, you continue to make in your second reply.
 * Because, entirely without irony, I do not believe it to be fallacious simply because you say so''

I will comment, however, that following the policy of verifiability is not a form of bias.
 * No. But prejudicing one explanation of the facts over another most certainly is, Occam's Razor notwithstanding.

Also, I have stated that I am willing to compromise on this issue by including both claims, provided they are accurate and not misleading.
 * I have at no time suggested that any claim should be removed. Nor did I remove any in my edit. There is no compromise involved in allowing both claims.

Now, back to your comments: You claimed that Arafat was a more reliable source than his biographers, who relied on actual evidence for his place of birth.
 * I claimed that neither is any more or less reliable if looked at neutrally, but that each became more or less reliable depending on your a priori POV.

I explained that you were presenting an appeal to authority.
 * And I explained that you are doing exactly the same.

You also claimed that the evidence for Arafat's birth in Gaza is supported by his death certificate.
 * No. I said that the French authorities had clearly accepted that Arafat's explanation of the facts was correct.

''That appears to be a fallacy of wrong_direction as well as another appeal to authority. Just because his death certificate says he was born in Gaza does not in any way substantiate his claim.''
 * And yet his birth certificate's saying he was born in Cairo proves him a liar. Ho hum. I remind you that I state clearly that his birth certificate is not proof of where he was born, but proof that someone registered his birth in Cairo. The death certificate is not proof that he was born there either; merely, proof that someone registered in France that he was born in Palestine.

You have also confused the distinction between unreliable sources (a claim I never made) with unsubstantiated sources.
 * Indeed I do not. You seem to believe that any method of substantiation will do, even when what is substantiated is a wholly different fact from what is claimed. The biographers would have been correct to claim that his birth was registered in Cairo (which the certificate shows) but their claim that he was actually born there is not substantiated). I think I am quite clear that neither can substantiate his claim but that Arafat, since he is describing the events of his own birth, in the absence of other witnesses, must be taken to be the most reliable of a set of unreliable witnesses. Had the registrar attended the birth, or claimed to have witnessed a statement by someone who had, perhaps the claim would have more foundation (it is not for nothing that here in Australia the delivering obstetrician must verify your being born in the hospital your mother claims you were born in!).

''They are not the same thing. (But, that didn't stop you from making a straw man argument''
 * Sorry. I note you throw the term around, but of course I have not done any such thing. This is simply a personal attack, couched in language you hope is erudite enough that your peers will be sufficiently impressed not to note its substance.

which provided the central thrust for your ad hominem).
 * Suggesting that all contributors to Wikipedia have personal bias is not an attack. It is an item of policy.

You then went on to make another appeal to authority, when you argued that the French authorities were substantiating Arafat's claim by issuing a death certificate with his alleged place of birth.
 * I think you mean to say that it is a secondhand appeal to authority, because all I suggest by it is that the French registrar accepted Arafat's own explanation of the facts. I have not at any point suggested that Arafat's explanation is substantiated, but you ignore this, so keen are you on categorising my argument one way or the other.

After that, you made a brazen false analogy when you compared Arafat's claim of birth, which lacks evidence, to the claims made by biographers, which is based solely on evidence.
 * Arafat's claim quite clearly is based on evidence. The testimony of witnesses is evidence per definitionem! Both he and the biographers explain a text, each in a different way. I ask, and I repeat my question, why the biographers' reading of it should take precedence. I understand that you believe that Occam's Razor should apply. However, I say again that the fact requiring explanation is that his birth was registered in Cairo. Each explanation requires one "entity", if you like, in the first case that he was actually born there and in the second that his father claimed it for purposes of obtaining free education. How you think Occam's Razor can slice that into being a proof of where he was actually born, I don't know. I repeat once more that the fact under dispute is not where his birth was registered but where he was actually born.

That is to say, the biographers claims are not based on an appeal to authority, but on the evidence itself.
 * Indeed they are no more so than Arafat's own claims. He does not dispute that his birth was registered in Cairo. He disputes why. The biographers present absolutely no other evidence.

On the other hand, the same cannot be said of Arafat's birth claim.
 * You have not even begun to show why not.

''You wrote, "I don't see anything in your remarks that addresses that", and I have addressed your false analogy in this reply. You then followed up with another straw man and yet another appeal to authority when you claimed that it was POV "to put others" views on the subject of the article's birthplace before those of the subject of the article himself''.
 * How is it a straw man? I believe it is precisely POV to put either claim first. One must be preferred and I believe it should be that of the subject of the article. An appeal to authority, I ought to remind you, is only a fallacy if it is made unduly. I say that neither claim can be substantiated and consequently the subject's own views should be placed first, because quite simply the article concerns him and not his biographers.

This flaw in your reasoning (Ipse dixit)has been explained to you several times, so there is no need to discuss it again.
 * And I have explained to you just as many times that it is not in this case a flaw in reasoning. Neither biographer has any knowledge of Arafat's birth outside the birth certificate. Arafat clearly does. Each explains the birth certificate in a particular way, with no supporting evidence, so that one cannot prefer either argument. So. It is not an argument from authority to suggest that a person knows where they themselves were born! You might make an argument that Arafat is lying (and of course you are seeking to do exactly that) but you present absolutely no evidence that he is.

Finally, you concluded your litany of fallacies with an argument from ignorance, as well as an appeal to negative proof when you wrote, "Neither of them were present after all".
 * It is a fact that neither witnessed Arafat's birth. It is a fact that no witness claims to have been present at his birth. It is a fact that the only person who was present and has made a claim says that the birth was in Jerusalem. He may very well have been lying but it is not for Wikipedia to make judgments about that, nor for any one of us to use our prior understanding (if you so don't like the word "bias") to so judge.

''Nevertheless, we do not have an absence of evidence. We have an Egyptian birth certificate for Arafat.''
 * Registrars do not attend births, even in Egypt, or so I believe. As I mentioned above, here in Australia they must be presented with proof from an obstetrician (or midwife, I believe) that a birth did in fact take place. Do you know this to be the case in Egypt?

It is certainly possible that the certificate has been falsified, but is it probable?
 * I believe it is perfectly likely. Arafat's family did live in Palestine. They did move to Egypt. They could well have forged documents to gain him free education. It is impossible, absent other testimony, to judge.

Occam's Razor might be a good tool to use in questioning the veracity of both Arafat's birth claims, and the Egyptian birth certificate.
 * Simply not making a judgment might well be the best tool of all.Dr Zen 05:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (I have fixed your reply above) As far as a judgement, it appears that you are the one who has judged Arafat's biographers. I have merely compared and contrasted opposing sources and evidence, of which there appears to be none in Arafat's favor except for anecdotal testimony. That is not an opinion, nor a judgement: it is an observation.  --Viriditas 06:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with how I laid out my reply, you are entirely welcome to edit it as you see fit. Yes, there is no evidence in Arafat's favour bar anecdote, and I have never claimed there is. But there is also no evidence in his biographers' favour, not even anecdote! I have not of course judged his biographers. I explicitly noted that one ought not to make a judgment either way. In my first comment on this issue, I said that all the sources were unreliable as to the place of his birth, but that he ought to take precedence because the only evidence we have for where he was born is his own testimony. The certificate, I note once more, is evidence that his birth was registered in Cairo, which is not disputed, not that it took place there, which is.Dr Zen 05:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If I have the time, I may edit your reply to fix the italization. I want you to also notice, in the spirit of compromise and collaboration, that I have not changed your version of the article, even though I disagree with its current form.  --Viriditas 05:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Viriditas. I want to be clear that I too believe in compromise and collaboration. I appreciate your reverting HistoryBuffEr's edit, which he has not argued for here on the talk page, and I support your action. I have made my case and I do not have anything further to add to this page. Because I believe you are acting in good faith, I am going to remove this page and the article page from my watchlist, so you need not fear that you will be dragged into an edit war should you decide to make further edits.Dr Zen 05:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If that is how you truly feel, then I encourage you to stay. Please reconsider keeping this page on your watchlist.  Your criticism is valuable. --Viriditas 11:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note that I too did not revert your edit, though I strongly felt it placed undue weight on both Arafat's claim and the death certificate. Jayjg 17:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Made some minor adjustments. Using "claims" 3x seems awkward, changed to following:
 * Arafat was the fifth of seven children. His father was a Palestinian textile merchant and his mother came from a prominent Palestinian family. Arafat's claim to have been born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 is supported by his death certificate. However, A birth certificate registered in Cairo, Egypt gives August 24, 1929 as his date of birth, as confirmed by Arafat's biographer Alan Hart and Palestinian biographer, Said K. Aburish. Arafat maintained his father forged the birth certificate for him in Egypt so he could attend school for free. Other sources have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace.
 * --MPerel 18:21, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Zionists who hate Arafat should edit an article on Arafat the Monster
All the Zionist hyena-like vitriolic smears against Arafat, his father the forger, his embezzling wife, etc. all the Ziocentric news about the AIDS ridden homosexual terrorist drinking the blood of Jewish children at Maalot and the Munich Olympics can go there. I'm sure it will be very popular. You can use your usual reliable hasbara sources like Jerusalem News Wire, Israel Insider, Dore Gold NGO Monitor Frontpagemag, Free Republic, WorldNetDaily, etc. When you are done, we will match it with an Ariel Sharon the Butcher article. OK? --Alberuni 05:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, thanks for sharing. Jayjg 17:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni, you're throwing logs on an already nicely burning arbitration case. JFW | T@lk  18:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Is "Ziocentric" a word? Or did he just make it up? A2Kafir 03:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe he invented it; Google gets no hits on the term. It's certainly an attempt at a neologism and an insult, much like Zionista, Ziopedia, etc.  Its use also violates Civility rules, among others. Jayjg 15:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Guy was 70-sth. - It's not Israel's fault
Yasser Arafat was more than 70 years old when he died. It is extremely unlikely that Israel had something to do with his death. In fact, the Palestinians are those who'd be wanting his money, and his seat as a monarch of Palestine. It is sure enough the Israelis didn't poison him in any way, for many of them actually thought he'd be better than what would come next. Therefore, If Arafat had been actaully killed, it's the Palestinians who killed him, or, if it was indeed an Israeli, then it's not a government organization but a private person (&#1513;&#1492;&#1493;&#1488; &#1494;&#1497;&#1497;&#1503;)
 * Huh? There were several Isreali attempts at him in the past and recent utterances by Sharon and prominent members of his cabinet that can be interpreted as a manifest decision to kill him. Futhermore, there seem to be not only those Israelis who preferred him, actually, they seem to be a small minority - there is a lot of very outspoken hatred even now after his death. --217.231.27.125 04:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

publically "disassociated"
Hello, in the section on Lebanon, I would argue strongly for removing the " (inverted commas) from around disassociated. It (disassociated) is already qualified with publically; so I think that it is silly to write 'publically "disassocieted"'. Either one publically disassociates or one doesn't. Clearly Arafat *publically* did; whether he really did or not is another question. Anyway, those extra inverted commas really feel like a little too much pov.

Secondly, what is the meaning of '"ordered"'? Either he did order it or not. Perhaps he claimed to have ordered it while he actually didn't? This needs to be explained, or those ambiguous " need to be dropped.

What are 'security forces'. We are talking here about an occupying army here, are we not? What about a mention of Isreali forces killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank -- usually as "collateral" damage? I feel that this whole section is tilted towards an Isreali pov.

NJC 16:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right regarding the quotation marks, I think you should remove them. Regarding the security forces, I think that the term was meant to indiciate various non-civilian groups, including police, but I'm not sure. Regarding "collateral damage", this was pre Intifadeh, when such incidents were rare, if they happened at all. Jayjg 16:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed ambiguous quotation marks. NJC 17:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat and Munich
I added some material this morning regarding Arafat's distancing of himself and the PLO from Munich. I quoted three sources which I hope are acceptable: (1) Mohammad Douad's autobiography, which states that Arafat knew about Munich in advance; (2) al-Dustur, the Jordanian newspaper, in which Daoud is quoted as saying Fatah and Black September were the same organization; and (3) Benny Morris, history professor at Ben-Gurion, who has often been accused of being pro-Palestinian, and who states that Black September was an offshoot of Fatah. I felt that, because of his perceived pro-Palestinian inclinations, Morris was an Israeli author that all sides might agree to trust on this issue. I hope that's enough attribution. Slim 13:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks good to me, but some authors here feel that no information that could be perceived in any way as negative about Arafat should be placed in this article, regardless of the source, so you might have a bit of a fight on your hands. Jayjg 14:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr, could you explain why you removed the material I inserted about Arafat's alleged links to Munich? I provided three published sources, two secondary and one primary: a respected Arab newspaper, which I believe is regarded as Jordan's main news source; an Israeli historian (regarded as on the left and, by some in Israel, as pro-Palestinian; and as a primary source, a Palestinian who says he was the commander of the Munich operation. I feel that, in providing three disparate sources, the material should be acceptable for a Wikipedia entry. If you know of reputable sources on the other side, by all means add that, but I feel you shouldn't simply delete material like this, especially without an entry on the Talk page. Slim 22:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, you have removed my material again without an explanation, so I have reverted to the last edit by Jayjg. Please explain your objections rather than removing carefully researched material without explanation. Slim 08:59, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * When your repeated posts are ignored it's a hint to rethink your argument. As you keep recycling the same trash here and on my user talk, here are more clues:
 * In view of your 750+ edits, your "question" on "removed" material is obvious trolling and will be ignored.
 * Your assertion that 1 unsubstantiated rumor printed in a newspaper counts as 2 "disparate" sources is laughable.
 * Your presentation of Morris, who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and calls them "a very sick society", as "pro-Palestinian" is worse than a bad joke.
 * Have a nice day, and stop spamming and reverting my user page.
 * HistoryBuffEr 18:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There is no need to be aggressive. I did quote two sources. The first source was Daoud, the Palestinian commander of the operation. The second source was Morris, an Israeli academic. Morris does not say he took his information from Daoud, so this does not appear to be circular sourcing. I provided three citations -- the Jordanian newspaper article from 1972 in which Daoud was first attributed with the claim that Arafat had approved Munich; Daoud's autobiography; and one of Morris's books. As for Morris's politics, he was always regarded as very pro-Palestinian within Israel, and was in fact often attacked for his views because of that. It is true that, in recent years, because of the suicide bombings, he has become less sympathetic. But not everyone distorts facts just because of their politics. I believe that historians like Morris try to present historical facts even when they don't fit his arguments. Please do not remove the material again. It is correctly sourced according to Wikipedia's guidelines. You are quite welcome to find a source on the other side who disputes what Daoud and Morris say. Slim 18:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is nothing NPOV or "correctly sourced" or useful to readers about your adding another half a page of unsubstantiated rumors and speculations about the already mentioned fact that Israel considered Arafat a terrorist.
 * Why don't you for a change try some NPOV editing using substantiated facts: You could start with adding to the dozens of articles about Israel and Palestine the well documented info (by Morris and others) about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
 * HistoryBuffEr 20:10, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * The reason I think these things matter is that the Arab-Israeli dispute springs in part from a failure to record events properly as they were happening i.e. a failure to respect history. For example, the Palestinians can now say they were threatened, attacked and killed in order to force them to leave their villages, which the Israelis then took over. But the Israelis can say this is not true, it is not recorded, and that in fact, these so-called villages were mostly empty. There is precious little documentation on either side and what does exist, the interpretation or authenticity of it is disputed. Therefore, it seems to me vital not to keep on making that mistake, and particularly not with Arafat, who is an iconic figure. I believe there is sufficient evidence that he made a habit of being all-knowing when it suited him and turning a blind eye when it suited him. If he didn't know about Munich in advance, then he was an incompetent leader and was not, in fact, in charge of the PLO. I don't think you can argue he was a glorious statesman and then say he didn't know what was being planned under his nose, and that goes for the suicide bombings too that he claimed ignorance of. Whatever the truth, it's important to document who-said-what-when. Slim 20:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your continued weaseling out of posting well documented facts (based on Israel's own documents) about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, while insisting on posting undocumented rumors about Arafat, tells us all we need to know about your POV and your methods. Case closed. HistoryBuffEr 20:56, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Impossible to edit
I am getting furious with the peoplee around here in Wikipedia. I did a small edition to the article Yasser Arafat - nothing big, I just wrote that he started his activities as a guerilla leader who led some terrorist acts, and then achieved enough power to lead the palestinian through a serious process of peace negotiations with the israelis.

Well, my edition was reverted by somebody who did not like my text. A very neutral text, indeed. I found the page with some POV and just did a very sincere attemp to fix it up.

Wll, I did not bother, and did my edition again - maybe the reversion maniac would leave the text alone this time. I was wrong. The old POVed text just came back again!!!!! (the POV text says Arafat is a terrorist for most of the western world).

I just can not understand why does some one wastes time destroying the work of people who really try to improve the articles! And I am starting to ask myself if it is worth the work of fixing anything when a damned brat keeps reverting the articles to their old texts!

Fabio Burch 23:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) - A very angry man now


 * The text does not say he is a terrorist to most of the Western world. The Western world stuff was apparently entered minutes before by an anonymous editor, and it disappeared just as quickly.  The text says "As a guerrilla and a Fatah leader, he was regarded as a freedom fighter by supporters, but a terrorist or collaborator by his opponents."  What do you not like about that?  Also, your edits cut off the whole bottom of the article, perhaps 20% of it. And your edits were apparently reverted by two very different people. Jayjg 23:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I explained to you what was wrong with "As a guerrilla and a Fatah leader...", Jayjg. You and your fellow POVistas omitted to comment. Only my unwillingness to enter another long discussion with you has prevented me from editing it to something more NPOV. But once more for your consideration: Arafat was regarded first and foremost by many as a statesman of note, the Father of Palestine, and as a proponent of peace, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize, rather than as any of the things you list him as. It might be worth your while to try considering that HistoryBuffEr, though he errs in so many ways, is motivated by the fact that this article is biased. This is a very good example of how biased language is used to paint a picture, while claiming to be NPOV because it includes more than one POV. Dr Zen 06:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dr. Zen, can you provide a reputable cite for your comment, Arafat was regarded first and foremost by many as a statesman of note, the Father of Palestine, and as a proponent of peace, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize, rather than as any of the things you list him as. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 10:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I can, but I am not going to be dragged into a dispute with you and your crew over who is or is not "reputable". As for his being a statesman? Even those who hated him can hardly claim he wasn't one. Dr Zen 00:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In addition to Viriditas's comment, I would like to point out that personal attacks like "you and your fellow POVistas" make it difficult to work in a collegial atmosphere, as do your constant claims that only you are working for NPOV, while everyone else is not. Let's please just work on the text of the article, and leave the personal comments out. Jayjg 19:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You're not in the least bit interested in a "collegial atmosphere", as your editing record, both in terms of the pages you focus on and the conflicts you have entered, shows. Making extremely biased pages merely biased is not "working for NPOV". Here, you are fighting for an edit that describes Arafat first as a guerrilla. He was the equivalent of a head of state! Begin is not described in similar terms (and rightly so) and yet he began his career in a similar way. Dr Zen 00:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me what I am or am not interested in. Let's just use the Talk: pages to discuss the article contents, ok? Jayjg 00:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely nothing in your comment about the article.Dr Zen 01:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Zen, I can't seem to find your explanation of what was wrong with "As a guerrilla and a Fatah leader...", could you point me to where that discussion is? MPerel 19:09, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I repeated it above, substantially. I can't remember where the original is. Maybe it has been refactored. That has a habit of happening on these pages. Dr Zen 00:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I searched through the edit histories and couldn't find it anywhere. Perhaps you could look through them and find it, edit histories do not get lost or re-factored. Jayjg 00:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have repeated it here. Perhaps you could answer it rather than try to attack me personally? Dr Zen 01:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how asking you to show any previous reference to this constitutes a personal attack; I'm asking for your assistance, as I've looked yet again and still failed to find it. Jayjg 03:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely nothing in your comment that refers to the article. Dr Zen 03:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Fabioburch, I reverted your changes once here because the second half of the article was deleted (probably by accident I now realize).  Please don't be angry, and do come back : )  The first person who replaced you was HistoryBuffEr who regularly wholesale replaces the Arafat article and several other articles with his personal version.  We also get regular vandals who replace the article with profanity, so between HB and other vandals, this article does get reverted a lot, and yes it does make progress difficult and somewhat frustrating.  MPerel 18:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

People, people.... the article is too big. When I edited it, the article just deleted some partas - automatically, I believe - and then, some people decided to revert it. But hey! The article DOES have some POV - and if someone can change this without deleting several pieces of the article, please do so. Thanks for the people who told me about the disappearing text stuff. Now, about POV. I really don´t understand why does some people want to change history - the truth is the truth, and no POVed Wikipedia article will change the world. We must agree that Arafat was, in the beginning, the leader of a movement whose members were forced into many exiles and exodus all over the Middle East. Later, he achieved enough power to be the leader of the palestinians in the peace negotiations. This is not a bad thing for him, and it´s not a good one too. It´s simply History. We can say the same thing about Tito of Yugoslavia, and some other leaders, who started as simple guerilla warlords and then conquered real power over their nations. I don´t see any point on accusing Arafat of being a terrorist - and I don´t see any point in zionism too. I can´t see why does people fight for points of view in Wikipedia. It´s just a stupid thing to do. I won´t get famous, I won´t get rich by fighting those "Wiki-wars"... I just wanted to see neutral articles in an ecyclopedia! Fabio Burch 22:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fabio you're right in principle, but maybe it's not as simple as that in practice. People can't agree on what the neutral point of view is, because the truth (what counts as a fact, and which facts count as significant) is not clear in many cases. For example, many people would disagree with your statement that Arafat was the leader of a movement "whose members were forced into many exiles and exodus all over the Middle East." There's a sense in which that's true, and there's a sense in which it's false. That's the problem.  It's all a question of nuance. If all the editors were acting in good faith, the right words could be found. But there are people editing this article who will not take part in a sensible discussion. That's what's making it hard. Slim 23:20, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, Fabio, I read somewhere about Internet Explorer sometimes causing Wikipedia articles to disappear if they're over a certain length. Someone recommended using Netscape or Safari instead. Sorry, I can't say who, what or when, because I was only half paying attention. Slim 23:35, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

As the word "guerrilla" is rejected by some, incl Dr. Zen, at least for this intro, could we say "As the father of Palestinian nationalism who became an international statesman, Arafat was a controversial figure who defied categorization. His supporters saw him as a hero, a freedom fighter and a peacemaker.  Others saw him as a corrupt and venal terrorist, who presided over the destruction of the peace process.

Here's the start of the Sharon article, which I thought we could compare as he causes equally strong feelings:

"Sharon is a controversial figure both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Many Israelis and supporters of Israel regard Sharon as a strong leader battling terrorism. However, critics, particularly in the Arab world, refer to him as "the Butcher of Beirut" and have sought his prosecution as a war criminal. A number of Israelis and foreign observers believe that his recent efforts have been damaging to the peace process."

I think the key is to supply lots of links to articles making sure that each side is represented, except where the issue is factual, or where there's an overwhelming agreement. Slim 00:52, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that Arafat "defies categorisation". It is entirely objective to note that he was a freedom fighter (or terrorist, whatever) and became a statesman. It is purely objective to note that he was the head of the Palestinian Authority. Discussing him "as" this or "as" that is POV incarnate and has absolutely no place in the introduction. If it is done, it should be done in the most neutral terms. Like Begin, Arafat was a statesman who had been a freedom fighter.Dr Zen 01:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dr. Zen, I disagree. I would say that the disputes over this article are in themselves evidence that he defies categorization, as are all the newspaper reports of his illness and death, which painted many different pictures of the man. If you don't like the phrase "defies categorization," that's fine, but it needs to be something like that to reflect the disagreement over his legacy. I don't see at all how discussing him as "this" or "that" is POV incarnate. People all over the world have strong and differing views about him, including within the Arab community. The Sharon introduction is written in similar terms.
 * Would you care to make a suggestion for the Arafat intro to see how far removed your suggestion would be from mine? Slim 02:14, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * He does not "defy categorisation". He is categorised one way by Zionists (heavily represented here) and another by practically everyone else.
 * This would suffice in my view for the introduction:
 * Yasser Arafat (Arabic: &#1610;&#1575;&#1587;&#1585; &#1593;&#1585;&#1601;&#1575;&#1578; Y&#257;sir `Araf&#257;t) (4 August or 24 August 1929 – 11 November 2004), born Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ar-Rauf al-Qudwah al-Husayni or Mohammed Abdel-Rawf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Hussaini and also known as Abu Ammar, was co-founder and Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (since 1969) and President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) (since 1993); and a co-winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize.
 * Bare facts. No need of interpretation. I accept that there is absolutely no way that the POV pushers will allow the entire article to be so constituted, but why kick off with it? Put in a section called "Views on Arafat's character" and let them play with that, where it will not be mistaken for objective reporting of the man.Dr Zen 02:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If you read the books and articles of Said Abu-Riche, who is Palestinian, particularly his biography of Arafat, you'll see from these alone that people other than Zionists were also highly critical of Arafat, including from within the Palestinian movement, as evidenced by the splits. If we went with your first paragraph, would you agree to the second paragraph alluding to the divergent views? Slim 03:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've said what I think is acceptable. There is absolutely no need for the smear campaign not to be clearly marked as such. Dr Zen 03:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Even members of Arafat's own cabinet have been highly critical of him, and I don't think any of them were Zionists. I note that the opening section of the Ariel Sharon article contains the following paragraph: "Sharon is a controversial figure both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Many Israelis and supporters of Israel regard Sharon as a strong leader battling terrorism. However, critics, particularly in the Arab world, refer to him as "the Butcher of Beirut" and have sought his prosecution as a war criminal. A number of Israelis and foreign observers believe that his recent efforts have been damaging to the peace process."  Is this the kind of thing you mean by a "smear campaign"? Jayjg 04:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not defending the Sharon article. If you want me to go there to voice the same concerns, I will gladly do so. But we are talking about this article on this talk page. I am not discussing who has or has not been critical of Arafat but whether we ought to note criticisms up front in an article, and if so, in what terms.Dr Zen 08:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to get a sense of what Wikipedia standards are. Controversial figures do seem to get a taste of the controversy in the intro.  For example the intro of Adolph Hitler includes "A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of World history, although he has become, especially in the United States and Western Europe, emblematic of tyranny and evil.".  The intro of Joseph Stalin includes "While his economic policies resulted in the Soviet Union's development into a major industrial world power, his rule was marked by liquidation of perceived opposition, and social groups perceived as enemies of the people. Soon after his death, his successors in the leadership of the Soviet Union repudiated his excesses."  The intro to Mao Zedong says "Mao is widely credited for creating a mostly unified China that was free of foreign domination for the first time since the Opium War, while at the same time criticized for the famine of 1958–1961 and the violence of the Cultural Revolution."  The intro of Richard Nixon says "He may always be remembered, however, as being the only U.S. President to have resigned from office. His resignation came in response to the complex of scandals called the Watergate conspiracy."  The intro of Augusto Pinochet says "Once in power, Pinochet and his government quickly moved to suppress leftist opposition. Constitutional civil liberties and human rights were curtailed, resulting in the deaths of approximately 3,000 Chileans, 200,000 tortured civilians, and thousands of political refugees being received abroad. His supporters credit him with staving off what they saw as a beginning of communism, and for implementing neoliberal market policies that laid the groundwork for rapid economic growth that continued into the '90s. His opponents charge him with having destroyed Chile's democracy, catering exclusively to private interests, and adopting economic policies that favored the wealthy and made enduring damage to the middle and low class sectors in Chile."  Need I go on? Jayjg 16:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What sort of person would compare Arafat with Hitler! He is the only figure among those you quoted who is described *as* anything, and, you'll note, that even he is not described in these terms: "As a mass-murderer and a leader of the Nazis, Hitler is thought by his supporters to be..." Why is that, Jayjg? Ah! It's because Hitler was *by anyone's standards* a gifted orator. You don't need to go on. You are not discussing this article. You are discussing *other articles* in an attempt to muddy the water over this one. Wikipedia's "standard" is clearly described in the NPOV policy. Dr Zen 23:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You're way out of line with your "rabid Zionist" comment. Other articles about controversial figures are being compared to see how they've been handled, and that's all. I noticed today that even the Tony Blair article (and he was Mr. Nice until recently) mentions near the top the controversies over his relationship with America. Anyway, you've made it clear you don't want to be part of this discussion, so we'll plough on without you. Slim 23:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Controversial figures"? Arafat is compared with Hitler and Stalin and that's all? I don't know what to say to you, Slim, about that. Hitler and Stalin are a bit more than "controversial figures". They are the two looming bogeymen of the twentieth century.
 * I note that having made little effort to find a real consensus, you have decided the best course is to ignore what I have to say and "plough on". That attitude is what has caused the problems on this page in the first place. Two sides who do not listen to one another and each just ploughs on. Why should a neutral editor even bother? Dr Zen 00:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DrZen, please stop with the hostile remarks and namecalling and focus on discussion of the article content. --MPerel 01:14, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is typical of your contribution to discussions, MPerel. You make the discussion entirely about the editors involved, accusing them of being "hostile" and not discussing the article. Peculiarly, you do not add such remarks to comments by editors whose views you share, even when they are far from discussing the article. Dr Zen 01:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To Zen, I comment to any editors who make repeated ad hominum attacks and simply ask it to stop. Instead of making negative broad strokes about any particular editor or assuming people who speak civilly with one another have monolithic views, wouldn't it be more productive to just be civil, focus on the article content and work together for consensus?
 * Meanwhile, I asked you above, what exactly are your concerns with "As a guerrilla and a Fatah leader..."? "Guerrilla leader" is a term used in reference to Arafat by news agencies worldwide.  Just to point out a few examples from the 160,000+ that came up on google: Dar Al-Hayat from Lebanon, China Daily, Telegraph India, New Zealand Herald, Daily Times from Pakistan, The Times from the UK, Swissinfo, CBC News, Reuters,MSNBC, CBS News, Washington Post --MPerel 03:29, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

The Times (by no means neutral!) says he failed to convince Israel that he had become a statesman. The NZ Herald says he "rose from guerrilla icon to Nobel prize-winning peacemaker" (I couldn't identify what agency they got that from -- it wasn't their own work). The Telegraph of India quotes another source (you should read what you cite rather than just google for support). China Daily says he was a "former guerrilla leader". I note that the article was actually about Abbas. The Post calls him a former guerrilla leader but quotes Mubarak calling him a "historic leader". I note that you do not suggest changing the wording to that. Reuters gives the olive branch and machine gun incident. That was 30 years ago, dude. Arafat died two weeks ago. The Pakistani paper got its story from the same source as the NZ one. You really ought to read the "sources" you give, MPerel. A syndicated story does not count double because it appears in two papers ;-) But how about the accolade of the Indian parliament? Wen Jiabao. ABC describes him as a statesman. Chairman Hu says he was a great leader, Chirac concurs, Putin notes his leadership. Even Blair says he came to symbolise the Palestinian national movement. I'd suggest that the majority view, shared by the world's leaders and most of its press outside the USA and Israel, should be given prominence. However, because I view consensus as the most important aim of a wiki, I have suggested that we don't even have the majority view in the intro, but include all views in a separate section. Dr Zen 04:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In the interests of toning it down, I have removed the comment that upset SlimVirgin. I allowed my dismay that an editor chose Hitler and Stalin to compare Arafat with to overcome me. I do not, though, withdraw my comment to MPerel, who I do not believe is attempting to be constructive. Dr Zen 01:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith --MPerel 03:29, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I simply cannot think of a good-faith reason for comparing Arafat with Hitler. Dr Zen 04:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I compared the introduction of his biography, not him, to that of Ariel Sharon as well, and those of other controversial world leaders. The issue here is style of biography, not traits of the individuals.  Mind you, I can't think of a good-faith reason for pretending Arafat was some sort of saint, particularly in light of events like the Ma'alot massacre.  You might be familiar with that incident, you recently edited the article extensively. Jayjg 04:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your choice of whose biography to compare Arafat's with was instructive. Yes, I'm familiar with the Ma'alot massacre. I helped make it NPOV. Thanks for bringing it again to my attention. I note that an anon has made edits to it that we did not agree. Arafat had nothing to do with Ma'alot. I do not believe we need to paint Arafat as a saint. I don't think David Hirst's obit in the Guardian was far away from the truth of it. Dr Zen 04:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Instructive in what way? I chose leaders who had intros similar to Arafat's.  Would you like others? Suharto:"General Suharto (born June 8, 1921) was an Indonesian dictator and military strongman. He was the second President of Indonesia, from 1967 to 1998. During the 1980s, Suharto was an adherent of the concept of Asian values, but the Asian financial crisis of 1997 severely weakened his position. After being forced out of office, his family fortune was estimated at US $15 billion, placing him in the exclusive pantheon of billionaire kleptocrats, along with Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire."  Léopold II of Belgium:"Léopold II, King of the Belgians (Louis Philippe Marie Victor) (April 9, 1835 - December 17, 1909), succeeded his father, Léopold I of Belgium, to the Belgian throne in 1865 and remained king until his death. Outside of Belgium, however, he is chiefly remembered as the founder and sole owner of the Congo Free State, a secret private enterprise scheme to extract rubber and ivory which was responsible for the death of an estimated 5-15 million Africans."  As for the Ma'alot massacre, it was carried out by PLO members.  Arafat was the head of the PLO.  QED.  And finally, I'm not surprised that The Guardian printed that hagiography of Arafat; here's an opposing view from the the Boston Globe . Jayjg 04:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that summary. I see that the Léopold II of Belgium article needs to be corrected.  The estimated death of Congolese at the hands of the Belgians is between 5-21 million, not 15. --Viriditas 12:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think asking in which way it was instructive is tantamount to asking for it. I won't bite. You chose leaders who are almost universally reviled. The Ma'alot massacre was carried out by a group affiliated with the PLO, as we have already discussed. Arafat had nothing to do with it. You would not say the UN invaded Iraq, just because nations affiliated with it did. You clearly did not read the obituary in question. It's far from a hagiography. My point was that even those sympathetic to him, which Hirst without question was, believe he was deeply flawed. And please, Jayjg, I do credit you with some intelligence. I don't believe even you subscribe to the hateful nonsense you linked to.Dr Zen 05:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I already explained why those biographies were chosen; they were chosen because they were about heads of state and their opening paragraphs had praise and criticism, much like Yasser Arafat's. The U.N. (a debating and politicking forum for independent states), and the PLO (a terrorist organization tightly controlled for 40 years by Yasser Arafat) have little in common, so comparisons like the one you used are specious.  Arafat was firmly in charge of the PLO when his forces committed the Ma'alot massacre, one massacre among many.  I suppose he had nothing to do with the Damour massacre either?    Or for the May 8, 1970 PLO attack on an Israeli schoolbus with bazooka fire, killing nine pupils and three teachers from Moshav Avivim?  Or for the November 1974 PDFLP's Beit She'an murders in which 4 Israelis were killed? Or for the March 1975 Fatah attack on the Tel Aviv Savoy hotel in which three three civilians were killed?  Or the March 1978 Coastal Road Massacre in which Fatah took over a bus on the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway and killed 21 Israelis?  Was Arafat sleeping when all these actions and many more were being planned, paid for, and executed?  As for the Jacoby column, I found it as balanced as the Hirst column, and I still fail to see the need for personal comments. Jayjg 16:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence inclines me to close this conversation. Your flag has been well and truly run up the mast. I'm sorry for the suggestion about your intelligence.Dr Zen 00:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Still looking forward to a response regarding Arafat's many terrorist operations. And please restrict use of the Talk: page to discussion of article contents, and not personal attacks. Jayjg 01:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "With victory impossible in a head-to-head clash with Israel, the P.L.O. in the early 1970s embarked on a bloodthirsty campaign of terrorism, including hijackings, hostage-takings and massacres of Israeli civilians. Two of the more gruesome acts were a raid on an Israeli school in Maalot in which 21 children were killed, and the infamous attack on Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics that left eleven dead." from A Life in Retrospect: Yasser Arafat, by Time Magazine . Jayjg 03:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If he's inclined to close the conversation, let him. He's only here to engage in personal attacks. Slim 03:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

That's a thoroughly unpleasant attitude to take. I have discussed at great length several points with editors here. Just because I disagree with your POV, you say this. I have never disputed with Jayjg that Arafat was a freedom fighter, just as Begin was, just as Mandela was. I do dispute with him which instances Arafat was personally involved in, just as some supporters of Begin dispute what he was involved in. There is no evidence Arafat was involved in either incident that Time suggests, barring the testimony of Israeli government members. I haven't attacked you, Slim. I disagreed with one of your edits on another article -- actually, truth to tell, you disagreed with mine and I explained why I had made it. Have you read the Jacoby article? It's repulsive rabble-rousing. Hirst gives a measured view of Arafat's life. He is critical, agreeing that Arafat had many flaws and failed more than he succeeded. To suggest that they are similarly balanced speaks volumes about a person's view on what "balance" is. There is no personal attack involved. If the cap fits, Jayjg can wear it. Dr Zen 06:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"a growing number of Zionist immigrants were agitating to gain control of the Temple Mount"
The article currently says " During this time, local Muslim authorities had effective control of these two sites, but a growing number of Zionist immigrants were agitating to gain control of the Temple Mount". What is the source for this claim and why is it relevant to Arafat's history? Jayjg 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, "agitating to gain control" is subjective and POV. I like how anon 66.213.227.34 worded it in some changes that got lost in the reverts : "but a growing number of Zionist immigrants were requesting access to the Temple Mount - which was denied by the local Muslim authorities -"


 * Btw, Anon had some other interesting changes, some which were good NPOVing, although some I think were actually POVing existing NPOV:
 * "most of the Western World" is too subjective and POV
 * taking out the death certificate is not a good idea
 * changing "an engineer" to "a civil engineer" seems good
 * removing "what it viewed as" from "After the Six-Day War, Israel started an offensive against what it viewed as Palestinian terrorist organizations" only POVs it.
 * changing "Amid the post-war gloom" to "Amid the post-war environment" is a good NPOV
 * putting quotes around "disassociated" in "Arafat publicly disassociated himself" is too POV.


 * So in summary, NPOVing the sentence you mentioned, plus modifying "civil engineer" and "post-war environment" are changes I could live with. Let's see what others think. --MPerel 00:12, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't even see how the statement about the Temple Mount was relevant. Did Arafat complain about it?  Did he say it was influential on his thinking or actions?  Was he even aware of it?  This is a biography of Arafat, not a history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, so only items relevant to him should be mentioned.  The rest of your comments seem reasonable. Jayjg 18:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Of Course it's relevent! Arafat lived, as a child in somewhat formulative years, watching as Zionists tried to take control of the Al Aqsa Masjid.  HOw could this not be relevent? --195.7.55.146 15:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Did some biographer say it was relevant to him? Did he say it had an effect on him?  Was this even documented anywhere?  Please recall that Wikipedia is not the place for original research; rather, it is a place for quoting recognized works. Jayjg 16:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, several have, including David Hirst and that well known Palestinian sympathiser Thomas Friedman. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 23:50, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting somewhere. O.K., what did they say about it, and where did they say it? Wikipedia strongly encourages quoting sources. Jayjg 21:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

 * I also couldn't see the relevance of the Temple Mount sentence. It seemed to come out of nowhere and didn't lead to anything either.
 * I just noticed the introduction has been changed again, and will doubtless be changed back. What about something like this as a compromise:
 * "In life, as in death, Arafat was an enigma. Regarded variously as a statesman, hero, freedom fighter; terrorist, killer and thief, he continues to defy any categorization his friends and enemies could agree upon." Slim 20:07, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that's very literary, but doesn't really sound encyclopedic to me. Also, most people defy categorizations that both friends and enemies can agree on. Jayjg 20:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the version that changed "opponents" to "others" isn't bad necessarily, but there should be word match. Either supporters-opponents or some-others.  Right now it's a mix, supporters-others. MPerel 20:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

He quite simply does not need to be "categorised". Besides, the people who regard him as a "terrorist, killer and thief" are very much the minority. The overwhelming majority of world sentiment was that he was a (not entirely successful) statesman and a nationalist, who had been a guerrilla leader but had become a man of peace (as recognised by the Nobel committee, although, yes, they awarded Nobels to some dodgy characters in the past). In keeping with the NPOV policy, the minority view does not deserve the same coverage. It's not "supporters-opponents"; it's "Zionists-everyone else". Dr Zen 23:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would personally not be so sure of what the majority thinks. David.Monniaux 06:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No? That's fine. No one is asking you to vouch for it.Dr Zen 07:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If I may say it bluntly, Wikipedia should not base its policies upon your own personal point of view as to the prevalence of certain opinions in the general population. You are asserting certain things (Besides, the people who regard him as a "terrorist, killer and thief" are very much the minority.). You do not provide any evidence for this. In short, we don't care much for your personal point of view; we would rather care about actual evidence. David.Monniaux 12:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, let me be equally blunt, David. The heads of state of the UK, France, Russia and China, and the Indian parliament hailed Arafat as a great leader and a fine statesman, and I have cited their doing so. The citation I gave also quoted other world leaders expressing similar sentiments. Those I have quoted alone represent not far short of half the world's population. Add to their views those of the overwhelming majority of the world's press, including that of your own nation (sorry, couldn't find anything from Figaro, but you doubtless know that its views coincide largely with Chirac's), over recent years, those of President Clinton and Senator Kerry and other commentators in the United States, those of the Nobel Committee and of the United Nations; and oppose all of them to the views of the Israeli government and a few pro-Zionist newspapers in the United States and elsewhere, and, David, the POV pushers here, and what do we have? We have you telling me what we do and don't do and that we don't care for my personal point of view. But all you are opposing to it is your own and that of, erm, a rabid anti-Arab in the Boston Globe. Dr Zen 01:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please see argumentum ad verecundiam. --Viriditas 06:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Again with this shit, Viriditas? You are under the mistaken impression that throwing a bit of Latin at a discussion makes you right and anyone who disagrees with you wrong. "Categorising" a world figure is naturally a subjective thing. The NPOV policy calls for all views to be included with their due weight. How exactly would you propose to discover the world's views? Poll them? You are surely not deluding yourself that the leaders I mentioned are expressing views that are not supported by their populations? Remind yourself, Viriditas, that an argumentum ad verecundiam is only a fallacy when it is made as an appeal to false authority. Leaders are representatives of their people and speak on their behalf (not always, I agree, to the people's liking). The counterargument to mine is that in fact Zionists' views should weigh as much as those held by the rest of the world. I doubt you would apply that reasoning to the Flat Earth Society. Unless you believe the world to be flat?Dr Zen 07:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My dear, dear friend, Dr. Zen - when you are calm, rested, and ready to discuss the issues without stooping to foul language and attacks, please let me know. Until then, I shall patiently remind you that your argument which seeks to determine the character of Yasser Arafat by appealing to the heads of state of the UK, France, Russia China, the Indian parliament, other world leaders, the overwhelming majority of the world's press, (argumentum ad populum), President Clinton, Senator Kerry, commentators in the United States, the Nobel Committee, and the United Nations is fallacious.  These people are not "experts" on terrorism, on middle-east policy, or even on the history of Yasser Arafat.  In fact, we should consult historians, biographers, terrorism experts, middle-east experts, and the appropriate authorities to determine the character of Yasser Arafat.  Appealing to false authorities, majorities, and making ad hominem attacks is not helping your case. --Viriditas 09:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My own personal opinion on Yasser Arafat is out of the question and was never mentioned; what I'm discussing is your assertion about the appreciation of Yasser Arafat in the general population, especially the point that people who consider Arafat with a negative point of view are in the minority. Since you quote the French press, I remember leading French commentators saying that Arafat was (for a time) a terrorist and never became a statesman, ruling in an environment of violence and corruption. Is RTL is Zionist radio? Is Duhamel a rabid anti-arab?
 * As for Chirac's official declaration, you are very probably well aware that such declarations are written in a "diplomatic" language that does not necessarily reflect the views of the government who says them, whose views are not themselves necessarily representative of the views of the people of their country on that particular issue.
 * "We have you telling me what we do and don't do and that we don't care for my personal point of view." - yes, I'm stating the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 09:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Duhamel is just one guy. Is he an "authority" on Arafat? In any case, it seems to me that he suggests he changed from terrorist to negotiator and that we cannot consider him a statesman because he let slip a great opportunity. I think that's a fairly common opinion, David, but it's by no means the same thing as saying he continued to be a terrorist. You are growing desperate, David, when it comes to Chirac. Chirac has been a warm supporter of Arafat for many years. He's not a good choice for closet Zionist. David, I suggest you read the the NPOV policy yourself. It does not in fact say that all points of view get equal coverage if you can find some rabid spew in the Boston Globe that supports it.Dr Zen 23:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * " . . . argumentum ad verecundiam is only a fallacy when it is made as an appeal to false authority." Wrong. Slim 07:45, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you just don't understand what it is. Elsewhere, you claim that an MP is a good source for the Ma'alot massacre because he had access to reports etc on it. If he did, that would indeed make him an authority, although he might simply lie about it. In fact, you made an argumentum ad verecundiam yourself. You claim he has special knowledge in one sphere because he is an authority in another. While Mr Olmert can be taken to be authoritative on the doings of the Knesset at that time, he doesn't have any privilege in other areas. Dr Zen 23:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say an MP is a "good source" because he is an MP. I said Olmert is the closest we have found to a PRIMARY source on the Ma'alot massacre. I say this because the Knesset held an emergency debate to decide whether to negotiate, and he was a member of the Knesset at the time, unlike you. I say this also because the Knesset probably (note: probably) had access to government reports on the outcome of the attempted rescue of the hostages -- again, unlike you. Dr Zen, I have to say that I have some concerns about the extent to which you're tying several editors up here with this debate. There are around 28,000 entries for you on Usenet, according to Google; 10,400 of which appear to have been authored by you, using the most foul language. I appreciate that Usenet is a particular culture, where posts like that are not necessarily unacceptable and may be intended as ironic. But Wikipedia is a very different beast. The point here is not to get into online fights with people, but to produce an encyclopedia, and to discuss differences in a civil tone. You, on the other hand, misquote people; frequently use sophistry; misunderstand logical fallacies; throw up straw-man arguments; and so on. It's a pointless waste of time and it's upsetting people. Please stop. Slim 00:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

"The controversial, influential bearded man in the checkered headdress who paraded across the world political stage for more than three decades was both praised as a freedom fighter and reviled as a bloody terrorist." - from the United Press International retrospective. Jayjg 03:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

66.213.227.34
Anon 66.213.227.34, please be a respectful user and discuss your changes in the Talk page. The death certificate and intro have been discussed at length in the Talk page but I don't see any of your comments here. Instead of repeatedly reverting to your edits, please work for a consensus agreement and discuss these changes in Talk. --MPerel 21:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

5th or 6th of 7 children?
Mperel stated above that he thought Arafat was the 6th of seven children. This article from UPI seems to confirm that: "Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini was born in August, 1929 -- Aug. 24 is the generally accepted date but some sources give it as Aug. 4 -- in Cairo, Egypt. Called Yasser from an early age, he was the sixth of seven children of Abd al-Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini, a wholesale merchant who ran businesses in Jerusalem and Cairo, and his first wife, Zahwa Abu Saud, a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families." Jayjg 03:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Zen and the Boston Globe
It's a "fact" that the Boston Globe calls it an op-ed not that it *is* an op-ed.-Dr.Zen
 * Precisely, and since we are concerned with facts, and not your opinion of the facts, the external link to the Boston Globe article is accurately labeled: Boston Globe Op-ed. --Viriditas 09:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That point was entirely lost on you, hey? Next, Viriditas argues that doing a crossword is sport, because the crossword appears in the sports section.Dr Zen 23:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography again
Dr. Zen, I think I may have inadvertently deleted your new bibliography, if it was yours, when I reverted HistoryBuffEr's latest reversion. If that's meant to be in the article, I apologize for deleting it. One thing about ISBN numbers, I read on someone's talk page that Wikipedia prefers not to give ISBN numbers because they can refer to an out-of-print edition. I won't leave them out, but you may want to take a look at policy. Slim 10:02, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * MPerel, thank you for putting the bibliography back in. We were editing at the same time. I thought I was going nuts for a minute there and had only imagined that I had deleted it . . . :-) Slim 10:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the bibliography has been in there for awhile. It seems useful; on the other hand, I'm not sure how standard it is to include it.  I saw your note after I restored the bibliography.  But whether any or all of it remains is definitely up for discussion.  (now it appears I'm adding this comment as you're commenting too, ha!) --MPerel 10:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's been there for awhile I have no idea how I managed to delete it. I like bibliographies myself. The more references we provide, the more help Wikipedia is to the reader, I'd guess. Anyway, thanks again. Slim 10:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh btw, I just discovered that if you click on the ISBN link in the article, it brings you to a Wikipedia Book Sources page which lists places that particular book is available. There's instructions on the Book Sources page once it comes up.  The original person who put in the bibliography (search on "ISBN" in this talk page to find the message about it) mentioned this feature, but I didn't understand what Wiki ISBN feature he was talking about until I tried clicking on one of the ISBN links just now.  It's a nice feature. --MPerel 11:04, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see that this page has been protected. If there was an edit war over his date of death, then that was one of the best actions I've seen out of an admin because the controversy surrounding when he died doesn't have to spread to the Internet. I know the date of death supplied is correct, but there are two possibilities for his date of birth.Scott Gall 11:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No need to discuss anything in Talk anymore
Jayjg decided that Zionist revisionism should be redirected to an irrelevant page. he did not bother to use the Talk page. He just reverts and redirects to suit his Zionist propaganda whims. Why should I be held to a different standard? The hypocrisy and deceit of the Zionists knows no bounds. --Alberuni 05:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint about something Jayjg did on another article, why are you taking your frustration out on this article? Have you communicated with Jayjg on his talk page?  I would love to help you resolve this issue, but I don't have the slightest idea what you are referring to, here.  If you would like, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page.  --Viriditas 05:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Alberuni didn't communicate with me, though he did direct some comments to "Zionist Revisionists". Perhaps they will respond, though it's not clear if they even exist, much less edit here on Wikipedia. Jayjg 14:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked you clearly on the Talk page why you redirected Zionist revisionism when there was no consensus to redirect. You are just engaging in your usual deceitful and dishonest editing practices. --Alberuni 17:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 17:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you quite clearly asked "Why are the Zionist revisionists redirecting?"  I am not a Zionist revisionist, so your comments were clearly directed to someone else.  If you meant me, you should have addressed me. Jayjg 17:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please, add pt:Yasser Arafat.

Please again. 08:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please, please. 15:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
Goldberg or whoever you are, please stop deleting large sections of information. If there is something you feel requires a rewrite, or should be better referenced, please say so here, or trying rewriting it to remove POV &mdash; bearing in mind that substantial revisions should be discussed here first. Alternatively, if you have referenced material that you would like to add, you are free to do that too, but editors don't have the right to remove relevant, properly referenced material. Slim 01:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also bear in mind that anything you say must contain a Zionist POV, otherwise it will be quickly removed. --195.7.55.146 15:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The Zionist POV gangsters are thick like flies on Wikipedia articles like this. If you don't toe their propaganda line, they quickly gang up and beat you down. They are little more than virtual brownshirt thugs. --Wiesenthaler 19:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Zionist POV? Thugs, you say? Interesting word choice:
 * Goldberg 01:16, 21 Dec 2004 AIPAC (Revert anti-semite Jewbacca. This thug needs to be blocked. He has zero contribution and all of its are anti-semitic) BS.
 * Goldberg 17:57, 3 Dec 2004 AIPAC (add lines vandalized by anti-semitic and anti-african american Likud thugs)
 * Goldberg 02:57, 26 Nov 2004 Yasser Arafat (to npov version and remove vandalism by Likud thugs)
 * Alberuni 19:56, 25 Oct 2004 Talk:Ariel Sharon That he is known as a mass murdering terrorist thug is an important and widespread POV that should be included in his bio despite the bad faith edits and duplicitous efforts at censorship engaged in by his extremist fans.
 * Alberuni 01:03, 14 Oct 2004 Talk:Al Mezan Center for Human Rights ...Yet, you persist in trying to neutralize their legitimacy simply because your Zionist POV is offended...
 * Thanks for clearing up any doubts we may have had about who you are. --Viriditas | Talk 23:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually the article needs to be NPOV, which means it should be in the voice of a neutral observer, not from the perspective of pro- or anti- anything driven by an agenda or emotions. So while every editor has a POV, we have to work together to make sure no one can detect any particular POV slant in the article.  Make it balanced.  About your recent edits:
 * "Mr. Palestine" only gets a few hundred google hits (as opposed to "Abu Ammar" which gets over 29,000), so it doesn't seem to be a widely use nickname.
 * Adding "Zionist" to collaborator clarifies.
 * Adding "birthplace is disputed" is not necessary since it's self evident by listing the various birthplaces and Arafat's explanation.
 * Adding "There he personally witnessed Zionist immigrants looking to take control of the site" is unverified and irrelevant.
 * the finances info you wrote doesn't match the references at all, sounds too whitewashy and is quite POV. I don't have time at the moment to address it, but it needs work.
 * --MPerel 18:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are wrong MPerel on two counts. One, this article reeks of Zionist POV but you can't smell it because Zionism smells so good to you that you could wallow in it without vomiting like a normal human would. Two, NPOV does not mean there is no detectable POV slant in the article. It means that all POV perspectives should be equitably described without giving prominence to one POV over another. As for your garbage about working to gether to remove the POV slant, you are full of it. Whenever an editor tries to make an edit, the Zionist gangs come outr of the woodwork to beat that editor to a pulp. You are just another one of the Zionist gang members. --Wiesenthaler 19:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to discuss with you when you are able to bring objective comments, and not emotional-laden attacks. Be well, --MPerel 19:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Garbage? Gangs, you say? Interesting word choice:
 * Alberuni 05:54, 12 Oct 2004 USS Liberty incident (delete apologist garbage)
 * Alberuni 16:47, 14 Oct 2004 Requests for comment/Alberuni Wikipedia's objectivity in controversial areas is being compromised as pages become dominated by gangs of aggressive partisan ideologues...
 * --Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Important! Wikipedia asks to assume good faith, but please check Vandalism_in_progress, not that his reactions here leave much a place for a doubt. I recommend to switch to "DefCon" and ask SysOp to deal with him. MathKnight 19:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Speaking of Zionist gang members trying to silence others....here is one of the worst, coming out of the woodwork just as expected. --Wiesenthaler 20:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wiesenthaler is making personal attacks here and should be blocked. It was fairly well established yesterday that he and Goldberg are sockpuppets for another user (see User talk:SWAdair under "Edit war will get me blocked.")


 * On this page alone, W. says: "The Zionist gang membes are thick like flies . . . " "They are little more than virtual brownshirt thugs . . ."  "this article reeks of Zionist POV but you can't smell it because Zionism smells so good to you that you could wallow in it without vomiting like a normal human would . . . " and "here is one of the worst, coming out of the woodwork just as expected."  No one can assume good faith with this offensive nonsense flying around. Slim 22:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Virginia Slim, your brand of toxic good faith was established yesterday when you vandalized my User page. --Wiesenthaler 04:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

link
http://www.google.ie/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWH,RNWH:2004-29,RNWH:en&q=The+Palestinian+Authority%E2%80%99s+budgetary+system+requires+that+all+revenues+and+expenditures+are+channelled+through+the+Ministry+of+Finance%E2%80%99s+Single+Treasury+Account+at+the+Arab+Bank+in+Gaza%2C+including+payments+made+by+Israel%2C+the+EU+and+other+international+donnors%2E+All+revenues+and+expenditures+are+reflected+in+the+overall+PA+budget%2E+The+IMF+continuously+monitors+the+implementation+of+this+budget%2E+It+is+therefore+virtually+impossible+that+the+PA+could+maintain+an+unofficial+shadow+budget+based+on+a+system+of+double+bookkeeping%2C+and+the+Commission+has+no+evidence+to+support+claims+to+that+effect