Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 4

Arafat's finances
Fascinating new article about Arafat's finances:. A quote from the article: "Getting Mr. Arafat to hand over the holdings was like pulling teeth, says Ms. Ashrawi, 58, a former member of his cabinet. Mr. Arafat gave in to pressure from aid donors such as the European Union and from his finance minister, Salam Fayyad, the IMF's former representative in the territories, she says. They demanded that Mr. Arafat turn over the investments as a condition of further aid, she says." Jayjg 02:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Thanks for posting it, Jay. Slim 02:08, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it speaks to the question of the disputed wording, in which I stated the EU made further aid conditional on Arafat reforming, whereas Irishpunktom insisted that the EU had in fact commended Arafat. The entire article is interesting. Jayjg 02:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this 'speaks to the question of the disputed wording', considering it actually comes from the EU. (European Union)
 * Also, the actual report, if you had bothered to read it (It's gone from the re-structured EU site, but untill recently it was there) spends most of it's time Debunking myths and complementing the reforms put in place by the Finance minister Mr. Salah. --195.7.55.146 12:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Which sections in particular do you feel it debunks, and how? Also, why do you object to direct quotes from the report, and prefer to paraphrase it in a way that reverses the meaning of the quote? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  12:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The quotes are not direct quotes from the report, they were quotes from a Web-page which in part spoke of the report. The Report was set up because the PA had been accused of channelling EU Aid and funds to Terrorists and terrorist activities, Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade in particular, but also, it was alleged, to Hamas.  The Report investigated these claims, It set out to explicitly clarify where the Money which came from the EU went to.  It did this and was able to debunk all myths about EU funds aiding attacks against Israel and it's people.  What is more, the EU during the Report, changed it's Dealings with Arafat, and instead of wanting different Bank accounts for different Funds, it wanted arafat to Consolidate the Funds, so as to end any chances of any funds going to the wrong places, so to speak.  Arafat was then obliged to hire a Finance Minister to send to the EU a detailed report of how much money he was going to give to each Department, etc.  The EU also began helping the PA to privitise certain Utilities and services, Such as Gambling, Waste Disposal, Mining and some others.  Mr Salah was this Finance Minister.  The Report details the information given to the EU by Mr Salah and thanks his many times over for clearing up the exact amount ("to the Shekel") given by the PA to varying Persons, Departments, works, etc.  The EU promised that if this Good work were to continue it would increase it's aid to certain Sections of the PA, but stressed that it needed assurances that the EU funding would remain transparent, and that the reports by Mr Salah were to be sent every Quarter of the year.  --195.7.55.146 14:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think quotes from the report make more sense than quotes from a webpage about the report, don't you? Who wrote the webpage, is it the one you linked to?  In any event, you didn't quote from a webpage either, at least you didn't use quotation marks.  And finally, Fayyad was brought in to clean up Arafat's mess, and as other talk: on this page has shown, only after Arafat was forced to do so, so Fayyad's reforms are not a positive reflection on Arafat, but rather a negative one. And I believe you mean Salam Fayyad, not Mr. Saleh. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for editing this controversial article
Collaboratively. --Pravda 04:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Pravda, I've just reverted your recent edits because you seem to have deleted a lot of material. Adding material is fine, but please don't delete it unless you feel it's POV, wrong or needs a reference, in which case it would be appreciated if you could mention it on Talk so that others have a chance to agree or disagree. There's been quite a bit of vandalism on this page in the past, so it can be hard to keep track. Many thanks, Slim 05:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is hard to keep track. I noted a section on the Talk page (below) that appears to have been edited badly. I moved all of the material that you reverted related to Black September to the Black September page as the edit summary indicated. I think there was far too much clutter on that one topic and it is somewhat ancillary to the subject of this page. Jayjg seemed OK with it as he didn't revert but we could ask his opinion. --Pravda 05:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Pravda, I think the Black September material was here because there are conflicting opinions about the extent to which Arafat knew about and endorsed the activities of Black September, and in particular the Munich operation. By all means check with Jay to see what he thinks. My own opinion is that it should stay, especially with Abu Daoud having said that Arafat was aware of Munich. Wikipedia has been treacle slow for me today; I think I may have to give up for now and try again tomorrow. Slim 05:51, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the Black September information should be summarized in a sentence or two at most, and the rest left in the relevant article. As for the rest of the edits, they're generally reasonable, though, of course, there are some POV insertions and deletions.  What I don't appreciate, however, is Alberuni's use of multiple sockpuppets to push his POV and edit war. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I like Pravda's edits except for two POV issues that can be easily fixed: 1) I disagree with removing "following multiple suicide bus bombings, in which scores of Israeli civilians were killed," which is relevant in relation to why Netanyahu got elected and 2) I disagree with the addition of the latter part of this sentence, "Israel, allying itself with the Lebanese Christians, conducted two major offensives into Lebanon killing about 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians" because it makes it sound like Israel went in and killed 18,000 people. --MPerel 22:58, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * First complaint, OK, I'll go along. Second complaint, Source: "Nearly 18,000 Lebanese, in addition to many Palestinians and Syrians, were killed in the Israeli invasion." --Pravda 23:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * But your wording doesn't mirror the Encarta wording, which attributes most deaths to the Lebanese. And Lebanese killed by Israel aren't relevant to an article on Arafat. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The Encarta article seems to state that 18,000 Lebanese were killed, in addition to many Palestinians and Syrians, in the Israeli invasion. If the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was related to Arafat, as the article describes, then I think the impact of that invasion on the Lebanese and Palestinians is relevant to Arafat's legacy. Oddly enough, the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon article does not mention any Lebanese Israeli or Palestinian casualties - except Sabra and Shatila. --Pravda 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As Pravda and Jay both feel the Black September section should be shorter, I've reduced it to one paragraph, now reading:


 * "In September 1972, Black September killed 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. The killings were internationally condemned and Arafat publicly disassociated himself and the PLO from such attacks. However, according to a 1972 article in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Dustur, Mohammed Daoud, who said he was the commander of the Munich operation, told Jordanian police that Black September was just a name Fatah used for certain operations. A Fatah congress in Damascus in August-September 1971 agreed to establish Black September based on Fatah's intelligence and security apparatus, according to Benny Morris, Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University. There was a "problem of internal PLO or Fatah cohesion," writes Morris, "with extremists constantly demanding greater militancy. The moderates apparently acquiesced in the creation of Black September in order to survive," (Morris, 2001)."


 * The next paragraph then leads into the closure of Black September and Arafat's decision to abandon operations outside Israel and the disputed territories. Slim 23:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm asking a lot, but could it be shortened even more? Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Jay, by all means, shorten it, or I will if you indicate which bits you think should take priority. However, my own view is that it was an essential feature of Arafat that he controlled a number of militant/terrorist groups while condemning their actions in public, and Black September is an early example of that. Slim 23:13, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I took out several paragraphs to the Black September article. You could just go to that edit. --Pravda 23:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell you took it all out. There has to be some compromise between removing it entirely and putting in too much. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You yourself wrote above that "I think the Black September information should be summarized in a sentence or two at most, and the rest left in the relevant article. " I agree with you. --Pravda 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

O.K., I further shortened the paragraph to one sentence. Thoughts? Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. Slim 00:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Recent news and commentary
It appears that some text has been inadvertently deleted between these two paragraphs: "Persistent attempts by the Israeli government to identify another Palestinian leader to represent the Palestinian people failed; and Arafat was enjoying the support of groups that, given his own history, would normally have been quite wary of dealing with him or of supporting him. Marwan Barghouti emerged as a leader during the Al-Aqsa intifada but Israel had him arrested and sentenced to 4 life terms.

Arafat was finally allowed to leave his compound on May 3, 2002 after intensive negotiations led to a settlement[11] (http://english.people.com.cn/200205/03/eng20020503_95112.shtml); six militants wanted by Israel, which considers them terrorists, who had been holed up with Arafat in his compound, would not be turned over to Israel, but neither would they be held in custody by the Palestinian Authority. Rather, a combination of British and American security personnel would ensure that the wanted men remained imprisoned in Jericho. With that, and a promise that he would issue a call in Arabic to the Palestinians to halt attacks on Israelis, Arafat was released. He issued such a call on May 8, 2002, but, as was the case before, his public call to halt attacks was ignored."


 * Apparently there was no text lost; it was entered into the article pretty much like this on May 12, 2002 . Perhaps it made more sense at the time. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert war
Guys, talk it out... there are severe problems with HistoryBuffer's version, namely terrible paragraph and line breaks... ugen 64 00:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * agreed, but the version promoted by MPerel and Jayjg is certainly not NPOV. Rather, it reads like a thinly veiled character assasination. I'm not necessesarily disputing the validity of any particular section, but the wording and choice of anecdotes are obviously intended to portray Yasser Arafat in a negative light. At least HistoryBuffer's version seems more neutral. Kaldari 00:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The "version promoted by MPerel and Jayjg" was written by dozens of editors over several years, using the Talk: pages to achieve consensus. The version written by HistoryBuffEr is a hagiography written only by him that he has been unilaterally been attempting to impose on the article for months now.  Attempting to show Arafat in only a bad light is not neutral, but neither is removing any and all negative information about him. And Wikipedia does have a process. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thats not true. All that was written was what was allowed by you to be written.  If your Extreme POV on the subject was not satisfied, you reverted it.  You've done this so many times it's ridiculous.  Again, I call on you, considering you obviously have such a Strong And perverse POV on this Man, leave it alone.  You are ruining it for all. --195.7.55.146 09:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note, 195.7.55.146 has been confirmed as user Irishpunktom (and he admits it on his user page) and this user might also be 81.129.16.7. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Err, I've never denied that, but I'm not 81.129.16.7. Thanks. Jayjg knows who I am. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:19, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to Jayjg. I was making a statement to the general Wikipedia audience who may not be familiar with your tactics.  And since you have a registered account, why do you continue to use both accounts to edit?  Your edit history on this page alone demonstrates that you engage in revert wars and violate the 3RR, like when you were blocked for 24 hours at 06:08, on Dec 23, 2004.  Don't tell Jayjg he is "ruining" this page or pushing his POV when you can't control your own POV.--Viriditas  | Talk 10:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am in work. Normally I cannot log in in work, but for some reason today I can. I can easily "Control" my own POV, and if Jayjg agrees to lewave this page the hell alone I would do likewise, but the fact is that he clearly is ruining the page. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 11:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your inserts are clearly your own personal pro-Arafat POV, and that of no-one else. You have been asked again and again to provide some shred of evidence for your POV insertions regarding Arafat, a quote, reference, something like that, and the best you have been able to come up with is some names of people you claim agree with you.  Not even the name of a work, or link to a website.  Moreover, you have removed direct quotes from easily accessible sources, and "paraphrased" them instead to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say.  You edits are the height of POV, and are clearly ruining the page. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  14:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have always provided sources, yet they are not to your liking. You are referring yet again to quoting from a secondary source which I replaced with a reference to the Primary source.  this did not fit your agenda so you removed it.  get this-- I am not Pro-Arafat!  Personally I think him to have been a terrible leader of his people and a man who gained noteriety via circumstance and failure more than aiding his people and strugling for freedom.  But that does not permit either of us to flatly insert what amounts to lies of ommission, or wording facts incorrectly, so as to promote a negative view of him. If you are so sure that you do not have an extree POV against the man, why can't  you bear to leave it the hell alone? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 18:51, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, I'm confused about what sources you say you've provided. For example, these are not helpful edits: that Arafat's father was a gay pornography merchant (which you added, then deleted, using your 195.7.55.146 IP address); that the battle of Karameh was covered in Detail [sic] and that Arafat's Face [sic] ended up on the cover of Time; and the reference to a letter written by Chris Patten to an MEP doesn't say who Patten is, doesn't say which MEP he wrote to, and doesn't give a link to where the letter was published. The point of making the article better is not to be pro- or anti-Arafat, but to make informative and relevant edits with references to reputable publications so that readers and other editors can verify what you've written. If you provide relevant information backed up by a reputable reference, it's unlikely that anyone will delete it. Slim 19:21, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * In addition to the many unsourced claims that SlimVirgin has pointed out, a classic example is this sentence: "There he personally witnessed Zionist immigrants looking to take control of the site." You have inserted this claim many times, yet refused to provide any source for it, much less someone explaining that it was meaningful for Arafat. In addition you keep removing this direct quote of the EU position: "The reform of the financial management of the PA is the objective of several key conditions attached to the EU financial assistance.", and instead insist on paraphrasing it as "However, the EU has congratulated the PA on it's reforms, etc."  I have no issue with sources, if only you'd provide some, but I do have an issue with someone removing direct quotes, and instead paraphrasing them to mean the opposite of what they say. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Kaldari", I disagree with your assessment and in fact, I consider the complete opposite of what you have stated to be the case. Please provide examples of "character assasination" and negativity in the version you dispute.  Also, I find it strange that you have been editing since April 19, 2004, with less than 400 edits, and only two brief comments on your talk page, and yet you have reverted to HistoryBuffEr's version of this page, a version that is only supported by HistoryBuffEr and a virtual fleet of sock puppets. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Viriditas, what exactly do my number of edits and number of comments on my talk page have to do with supporting a particular version of this article? If you are implying that I am a sockpuppet of Historybuffer, you're certainly going to have to come up with some better evidence than the fact that I only have 400 edits. I find your accusation quite offensive and your tactic of trying to smear my credibilty rather than address my complaint as childish. Here is a small sample of the problems I see with the version of the article I reverted: Kaldari 23:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * refering to Arafat as a "terrorist" in the intro. I'm sure the British considered George Washington to be a "terrorist", but you don't see that in his intro. The introductory paragraph of a biography article is not the appropriate place to talk about extreme opinions of someone. The introduction should establish the basic facts about their life, i.e. when they were born, when they died, what they accomplished, etc. Save the opinions for another section, not the intro.
 * the quote about Arafat's behavior as a child doesn't seem appropriate and seems to be inserted only to contribute to the demonization of Arafat in this version of the article. There are many anecdotes about Hilter being a bossy child and always giving his childhood peers orders, but you won't find mention of it in Hilter's wikipedia article. This is because such anecdotes do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Notice that wikipedia's article on Hitler (who was certainly more controversial than Arafat) portays him in a much more neutral light, sometimes even erring on the side of flattery: "A highly animated, charismatic and gifted orator, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of World history." Why is Jayjg so concerned about Arafat's article not being negative enough, but he doesn't care that wikipedia makes Hitler sound respectable?
 * "Black September Green March" is cited twice. The name of the book is "Green March, Black September: The Story of the Palestinian Arabs". If the name of the book isn't even right, how can I have any confidence in the accuracy of the citations.
 * There is an obvious emphasis on the deaths of Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian militants in the version that I reverted, but conversely, any mentions of Palestinian civilian deaths caused by Isrealis are downplayed, for example, in the section about the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. The discussion of civilian deaths should either be presented on more neutral terms or removed from the article entirely. Really, I think a large portion of this article is not appropriate for a biographical article and should be moved to other articles about the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. All of these minute historical details are unneccessary in a biographical article. We should be painting with broader strokes here (regarding the historical context) and talking more about Arafat, less about military trivia (especially disputed trivia).
 * Really, I could go on and on, but I have to go get ready for a New Years party that I'm hosting, but I think you get the idea. Go ahead and compare the two versions for yourself and the negative bias becomes astoundingly obvious. You guys should stop playing tit for tat and work on making a neutral encyclopedia article. If you have trouble, invite other people in who have experience with biographical articles. It seems to me there is way too much ideological posturing going on here.

Kaldari, two points:

(1) The Black September Green March error must be mine, as I was the one who first inserted that book. My apologies for that. I'll change it as soon as the page is unprotected. You're right that it's Green March Black September (without a comma). I can assure you that I've quoted accurately, but I can only find one reference, which is: "[Fatah] means "victory" and is also an acrostic taken from the initials, read backwards, of Harahkat al-Tahrir al Filistini (FTH), meaning the Palestine Liberation Movement." Do you find this objectionable? Please let me know what the other reference is, and I will check it too.
 * The other reference from that book (which is not quoted, but is cited) is: "Arafat worked hard in Kuwait to establish the groundwork for Fatah's future financial support by enlisting contributions from the many Palestinians working there, who gave generously from their high salaries in the oil industry (ibid., p.91)". Please check the accuracy of this citation as well. If you could provide the exact quote here in Talk, that would be useful for facilitating the debate. Kaldari 00:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, I'll check this reference too, probably not tonight, but over the weekend, and I'll quote from it as you ask, rather than paraphrasing. Slim 00:57, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, the entire quote from Cooley is: "Arafat recognized the importance of a secure financial and logistical base for his future organization. He laid the groundwork by founding his own engineering firm in Kuwait in 1955. There, with the help of his friend Yahia Ghavani, he founded a local section of al-Fatah. The name, which means 'victory,' was also an acrostic taken from the initials, read backward, of Harahkat al-Tahrir al-Filistini (F-T-H), the Palestine Liberation Movement." The part about Abu Jihad also founding Fatah was added by another editor, which is why I didn't quote Cooley, as Cooley only mentions Yahia Ghavani.  Slim 03:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

(2) Re: Hitler. It is true and highly relevant that he was a gifted orator. Indeed, that was part of the problem. And indisputably true that he's regarded as one of the most significant leaders in history. That's not to make him respectable; it's just a fact. Slim 23:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but surely you must recognize that the choice of facts and wording makes a huge difference. As a rather poor example, consider the difference: "A highly animated, charismatic and gifted orator, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of World history." ...versus... "A highly charismatic and zealous propagandist, Hitler is regarded as one of the most maniacal leaders of World history." Everything in that sentence is technically true, but the implications are a world apart. To not recognize that is disingenuous. Kaldari 00:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do recognize that difference. I think the problem here is not so much that you want to change things, but that you reverted to a previous version written or favored by HistoryBuffEr, who has caused quite a few problems on this page in the past. Perhaps if you were to go through the non-HistoryBuffEr version, and were to make some edits, it would cause less trouble, and possibly no trouble at all. I realize that's a lot of work though. Slim 00:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Kaldari, regarding Sabra and Shatila, surely you mean that the Palestinian civilian deaths were caused by the Phalange. In what way were they "downplayed"? And the opinion that Arafat was a "terrorist" is hardly "extreme", but rather widely held, particularly after a number of incidents involving deliberate civilian deaths. As for autobiography comparison, I suggest you look at Ariel Sharon instead. Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Strange that you would prefer to use an npov-disputed article as a point of comparison rather than an article which is cited in the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View article as an example of an NPOV article. Kaldari 22:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I cite the Sharon article, since Sharon was Arafat's most recent counterpart, and because Sharon's destractors often state he is far "worse" than Arafat (e.g. terrorist, bloodthirsty, etc.). And the Sharon article is listed as NPOV because Sharon detractors think it is too positive about him. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first point, actually I meant the 2nd Israeli invasion of Lebanon rather than Sabra and Shatila specifically. "Historybuffer's version" states that 18,000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed in the 2nd invasion and that Israel assisted the Phalange. Your version omits the 18,000 civilian deaths completely and mentions the Phalangist massacres without noting any ties to Israel as if they were isolated from the Israeli offensive entirely. The Phalangists were trianed, equipped, and often even uniformed by Israel. Your version is misleading and most certainly downplays the Palestinian civilian deaths. Normally, I wouldn't care, except for the fact that your version emphasizes Israeli civilian deaths. Thus the appearance that you are pushing a particular POV. Kaldari 23:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The Israelis have certainly been accused of responsibility for many Lebanese deaths in that invasion, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to Arafat; he wasn't Lebanese, nor were the Palestinians. Information about deaths attributed to Israel in the 2nd Invasion are found in the relevant articles about those conflicts. As for the Phalange, their relationship with Israel wasn't nearly as close as that of the South Lebanese Army, who you may be thinking of.  Furthermore, HistoryBuffEr's new POV article stated that Israel "helped the Christian Phalangist militia massacre in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps about 2,750 Palestinian civilians."  Even if you ignore the fact that estimates of the deaths varied from 460-3500, and the claims that some of the killed were armed fighters, did you imagine a version stating that Israel "helped... massacre 2,750 civilians" was NPOV?  Finally, the particular "POV" that I am "pushing" is that controversial edits on controversial articles should be discussed in Talk: first, just as the Be bold policy states. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, Lebanon was flooded with Palestinian refugees at the time of the 2nd invasion, so your suggestion that the 18,000 killed by Isreali forces consisted entirely of Lebanese is absurd. Regardless, I actually prefer the current version of the Lebanon section as it relates things more closely to Arafat himself. However, the 2nd to last paragraph of the Lebanon section is confusing in that it concludes that "The Israeli offensive into Lebanon and the Phalangist massacre of Palestinian civilians amplified the deep bitterness and mistrust between Palestinians and the then-Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon", but it doesn't explain why this would be the case, since any connections between Palestinian deaths and Israel have been erased. If Israeli forces were just killing thousands of Lebanese and if the Sabra and Shatila massacres were committed solely by Lebanese Christians without any assistance from Israel, then why would this amplify bitteness and mistrust between Palestinains and Israelis? The body of the paragraph and the conclusion don't fit. The conclusion makes it obvious that something is missing. That something is the connection between the Isreali invasion and thousands of Palestinian civilian deaths. I agree that this is mostly irrelevant to Arafat, but it does provide necessary background information for the next section, i.e. explaining why the PLO fled Lebanon. Either some type of information needs to be provided about why the Palestinians considered Isreal responsible for thousands of Palestinian civilian deaths during the 2nd invasion, or the last few paragraphs of the Lebanon section need to be rewritten so that they make sense. Kaldari 19:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't suggested that the Israeli forces killed only Lebanese. That said, a large majority of those killed were Lebanese, and, as such, were not relevant to this particular article.  As for the number of Palestinians killed, it would be good to have some sort of estimate. Regarding the sentence in question, how about "Between 460 and 3,500 Palestinian refugees were killed by Lebanese Maronite Christian Phalangist militias, sent into the camps by the then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon to clear out PLO militia.  The Israeli offensive into Lebanon, which killed many Palestinians, and the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila, amplified the deep bitterness and mistrust between Palestinians and Ariel Sharon." Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement, although since this is the first time that Ariel Sharon is mentioned in the article it should be noted that he was Israeli (and not Lebanese), as not everyone knows who he is. How does this sound for the paragraph: "The Sabra and Shatila Massacre occurred during the second Israeli offensive into Lebanon. Between 460 and 3,500 Palestinian refugees were killed by Lebanese Maronite Christian Phalangist militias, sent into the camps by Israeli Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon to clear out PLO militia. The Israeli offensive into Lebanon, which killed many Palestinians, and the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila, amplified the deep bitterness and mistrust between Palestinians and Ariel Sharon." Kaldari 02:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * O.K., that looks good, but I think you should say "then Israeli Minister of Defense..." as he is (obviously) no longer the Minister of Defense. Would you like to insert it, since you're the one who found the original wording problematic and came up with this wording? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  16:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protected
The protected version is The wrong version. JFW | T@lk  06:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that the protected version should include terms like "occupation colonies"? This is not a regular revert war, but HistoryBuffEr enforcing a wholesale biased rewrite - which most finding unaccepteable - while ignoring every disagreement about his version (most note-worthy, the use in the term of "occupation colonies". HistoryBuffEr abusive behaivor was noted by many, and I warmly suggest you to check Evidences of HistoryBuffEr abusive behaivor . Also to note that HistoryBuffer attack the Rachel Corrie article in a similiar manner , after extensive and productive work of NPOVing the article was done by User:SlimVirgin, User:Pravda and me. MathKnight 10:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "This is not a regular revert war, but HistoryBuffEr enforcing a wholesale biased rewrite". Actually, I was one who reverted to the protected version, so I'm afraid your statement is not accurate. Kaldari 23:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But you reverted to the HistoryBuffEr version, I believe. As a matter of interest, why did you choose that version to revert to, and not some other? Slim 04:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I chose it because it was the previous version and was better written than Jayjg's revert, IMO. I don't have a nefarious agenda here to support historybuffer's "army of sockpuppets". I am in fact an autonomous individual capable of making my own decisions, and I stand by my opinion that the version I reverted to is less POV than the current version. I am certainly willing to work with the current version, however, if that is the "prefered" version. It will just take a lot more work and discussion. Kaldari 23:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverting edit by 198.54.202.115
The Fedayeen in Jordan was an organized and open militia force of displaced Palestinians. Labeling them simply as "terrorists" isn't helpful. The PFLP, yes, the entire Fedayeen, no. Kaldari 17:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the PFLP weren't fedayeen? Slim 00:40, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't say that the PFLP weren't fedayeen. Kaldari 04:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What distinction are you making between the PFLP and the fedayeen, when you say the former are terrorists (or may be labeled as such) but not the latter? Slim 07:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Palestinian Fedayeen in Jordan included at least 7 different groups. The PFLP was simply the most influential. I'll quote some sources if you're interested. Kaldari 02:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Getting to NPOV
It appears that everyone who has not displayed strong pro-Israeli bias agrees that HistoryBuffEr's version is more NPOV.

It makes more sense to start from, and improve on, the more neutral version, rather than constantly reverting to an obviously POV anti-Arafat version, which is unlikely to ever become NPOV, doesn't it?

HistoryBuffEr 21:39, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)


 * It only appears to those who have a strong anti-Israel bias that HistoryBuffEr's version is more NPOV; to all others editors it is clear that the current version is reasonably NPOV. It makes sense to improve on the current version, which has involved the work of dozens of editors working towards the valuable content and NPOV it currently displays, rather than trying to NPOV a POV article created by one editor with an obvious political agenda. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quality of writing
Could people please watch the quality of the writing when they make an edit? POV issues apart, there's some poor writing in this article, and some of it makes no sense. For example this, which I've just rewritten): "Arafat's claim to have been born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 is supported to a very small extent, if any, by his death certificate, which was issued in France shortly after his death, and which contains no references to any evidence for this claim."

How can his claim to have been born in Jerusalem be supported to very small extent, if any, by his death certificate if the latter contains no references to the claim? And "contains no references to any evidence for this claim" is an odd way to write it, because death certificates don't contain "references to evidence". I think a lot of this haphazard writing has been caused by HistoryBuffEr's long-term disruption of the page, with material being deleted and reverted until everyone's head was spinning trying to work out which version was which. Also, no one now wants to do a rewrite in case it starts up again, and this only goes to show that behavior like HistoryBuffEr's benefits no one: not himself, not Wikipedia, and not the memory of Yasser Arafat, if that's what he was trying to work for. SlimVirgin 00:07, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nice one. Point the finger at HistoryBuffEr and all those on the other side who have also edited to their POV, mangling the article, walk scot free.

The death certificate stuff, which we haggled over at great length, was included because his death certificate said he was born in Jerusalem, in contrast to his birth certificate, which said he was born in Cairo. You are right that neither provides evidence of his birth (as I pointed out at the time to some of the Zionist POV pushers, who insisted that it was good evidence) but the death certificate at least shows that the French authorities chose to enshrine his claim and not the "evidence" of his birth certificate. I argued at the time of its inclusion that it should be included as "evidence" if the disputed birth certificate was. Now you have removed the death certificate. Perhaps you forgot the discussion; perhaps you didn't pay it much mind; perhaps you didn't read it. Still, in sum the point was that if you include one, you must include the other. We all know what's at stake and why it is POV to mention the birth certificate.Dr Zen 06:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Who cares about POV? What do the relevant documents say? What does he say? Report it; end of story. It seems odd to include the death certificate in the "early life" section. I do blame HistoryBuffEr, Alberuni and the various sockpuppets, because they virtually held this page to ransom, so that every point had to be endlessly analysed, and that's what leads to bad writing and sentences that make no sense. Then you get a "let sleeping dogs lie" mentality when the trouble finally blows over, meaning no one wants to go back and do a copy edit; and the reader, not knowing the history and reasons, just thinks Wikipedia isn't very good. It's too annoying. SlimVirgin 07:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who cares about POV? Who cares whether one document that says one thing is included, and another, which says another, is not? Who cares whether one eyewitness, who says one thing, is quoted, and another, who does not, is not? Who cares whether one description is included, and another is not? Without HB and Alberuni and others who have tried to negate the fierce POV pushing of Zionists and their supporters, these pages would be even more POV than they are. Given that the most "neutral" editor the Zionist side can find claims that "Palestinian" is a "propaganda term" for the Arab people who are currently to be found in the West Bank and other territories described as "occupied" by Israel by among others the United Nations and are so described by even the Jerusalem Post, perhaps you can see why some feel that there is a need for balancing voices? Believe you me, if HB's version stood and you were fighting for that, I'd be trying to NPOV that just as fiercely.
 * Go ahead and "copy edit" it, Slim. You've already rid us of the death certificate. I expect there are plenty of other unfortunate pieces that we could do without.Dr Zen 09:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right about the "let sleeping dogs lie" syndrome. However, since Zen has decided that that phase is over, I'll be putting in information that has long been on the Talk: page. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  15:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You should edit as you see fit, Jay, as should Slim. No one is preventing you. Indeed, because you are the majority here, no one can prevent you.Dr Zen 04:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. The authorities of the city of Clamart delivered a death certificated based on a livret de famille (some document for married couples), which was established according to foreign legal documents. Apparently, Arafat had official foreign legal documents, which the French authorities were supposed to accept. I really do not think that the mayor of Clamart or, rather, the head of his état civil service would play international politics. David.Monniaux 09:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Which part of what I said was "nonsense"? Or is that just the standard-issue insult? I'm afraid people who share your POV have become very fond of describing other POVs as nonsense without usually bothering to think about what they actually express. You have explained why the authorities did as I suggested. So Arafat apparently had official foreign legal documents? The birth certificate is also apparently an official foreign legal document, cher David! That is my point, right there.Dr Zen 09:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know who's being accused of talking nonsense, but I hope it isn't me, because I have said nothing about the validity or otherwise of the death certificate. My point was about the writing, and that, at least in the "early life" section, reference to the death certificate is premature and arguably inappropriate (but if it has to be there, let it be part of a well-written sentence). The truth is that one knows whether the death certificate is accurate. The French based it on documents obtained from the family when the Arafats' daughter was born in Paris. They have no way of verifying the information they were given, and it really doesn't matter now anyway. But do you see what I mean? I did a simple copy edit to get rid of a meaningless sentence, and whoosh! Now I'm accused of POV for removing the death certificate reference from the (clearly misnamed) "early life" section. SlimVirgin 09:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fear not, I'm sure David will confirm that he thinks I am talking nonsense. We do not share a POV, as we have confirmed elsewhere.


 * Arafat's claim is about where he was born. I'd argue that your birth is part of your early life. You may differ on that.Dr Zen 11:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The birth certificate's information is equally unverified. As I pointed out when we discussed it, a birth certificate is proof that a birth was registered in a place, not that a birth happened in a place. Do you see? Neither is "evidence" of anything but the authorities' willingness to accept one version or the other of his place of birth.Dr Zen 11:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you insist that the birth certificate indicates that Arafat's birth was registered, rather than happened in Cairo? This sounds like unsupported (and fanciful) speculation to me; birth certificates I am familiar with indicate place of birth', along with place of registration. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Jay, you need to try reading before fuming. I said that the birth certificate was proof that his birth was registered, not proof of where it occurred. This should be obvious. Birth certificates, by nature of being pieces of paper, cannot witness births, nor do they.Dr Zen 23:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You must be using the word proof in an uncommon way; relevant official government documents are used as proof of all sorts of things. If the Birth Certificate says he was born in Cairo, it can certainly be used as proof he was born there.  And please try to control the personal attacks. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No one has attacked you. I can only assume you accuse me of it so that when you bring an RFC against me, you can pretend that I breached a policy. I am using "proof" in the usual way. A birth certificate is proof that a birth was registered in a particular place but does not say anything of the truth of where he was born. This is obvious, and has been discussed at great length, but perhaps I say that because I am not looking at it through the lens of extreme bias.
 * To help you approach the truth about birth certificates, consider this: to register the birth of a child in a Brisbane hospital, you must have the obstetrician certify that it was in fact born there. They do so on a label that is affixed to the form you use to register the child.
 * Why would they do that? Well, it's a safeguard to prevent people from registering children as born in Brisbane who were in fact not born there.
 * Why would anyone do that? Well, they might do it to gain certain benefits of Australian citizenship.
 * So the certificate alone does what? It certifies that a child was registered as born in Brisbane. That it was born there is endorsed by

the label affixed by the paediatrician. Was there such a label on Arafat's registration? Was there a sworn statement that he was born in Cairo? Dr Zen 04:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've attacked me, and many other users. I can only assume you deny it so that when the invitable RFC is brought  against you for your persistent attacks, you can pretend you were unaware you breached policy.  You must be using "proof" in an unusual way, since a birth certificate is proof both that a birth happened at a certain location, date, and time, and that is was registered as well.  This is obvious and has been discussed at great length, but perhaps I say that because I am not looking at it through the lens of extreme bias.
 * To help you approach the truth about birth certificates, consider this: to register the birth of a child, you must provide evidence to an official government body that the information provided regarding the birth is true and factual.
 * Why would this government body be extremely careful about this? Because otherwise the birth certificate could be use fraudelently; for example, to gain certain benefits of citizenship, such as a free education.
 * So the certificate alone does what? It certifies that an official government body, representing a nation, took and accepted evidence soon after the birth that a child was born in a certain place. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the edit I made has not shown up in the edit history, in case it matters, though I definitely did save it. SlimVirgin 10:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I consider that the people who see more into this death certificate question than what it's really about are talking nonsense. DrZen claims that "the death certificate at least shows that the French authorities chose to enshrine his claim and not the 'evidence' of his birth certificate.". The first question is – which French authorities? And the second – what does this mean, "chose to enshrine"? First of all, it's not even certain that the people that record the deaths in the city of Clamart were aware of any controversy. For some people in the Middle East, the birth place of Yasser Arafat may be a hot topic, but for the vast majority of the French population, it's a total nonissue. In that context, "chose to enshrine" is nonsense – they just accepted the official document put before them, that's it.

Even in the case that the local government of Clamart knew about a controversy, what were they supposed to do? Deny Arafat a death certificate?

My understanding is the following: Yasser Arafat had official foreign documents enabling him to request a livret de famille, which specified that he was born in Jerusalem. Of course, he or his wife chose to give those documents instead of a birth certificate saying that he was born in Cairo. But does that imply that the French authorities chose anything? No. The procedures call for legal foreign documents, Arafat had these, so was the French government supposed to deny Arafat's wife a livret de famille?

It is, as far as I know, possible to sue in court if one disagrees with some état civil registration. (Though I suspect one would have to show a legal motivation to act.) Has any person or organization challenged Arafat's death certificate in court? As far as I know, nobody has. (And the reason is probably that the French government didn't have any choice in the matter, and had to accept Arafat's documentation.) David.Monniaux 17:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * David, I don't read anything into the death certificate. All I have said is that the French authorities accepted his claim that he was born in Jerusalem. You say they did so because he produced documentation. Excellent.


 * Personally, I don't think certificates of any kind prove anything. Were they sworn statements that a person was born in one place or another, then maybe. But they are not. Birth certificates are simple registrations of birth. They are not affidavits.Dr Zen 23:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rather than remove the POV description of Arafat as a "guerrilla" and "Fatah leader", I have added "statesman". We had a long discussion of this, where I cited various sources describing him as a statesman, including other heads of state. People didn't have views of him as a this, that or another -- it's not even good English -- so I have adapted the sentence. Of course, the POV gang will revert it without giving good cause but the justification for making the edit is no less sound for all that.Dr Zen 11:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This last sentence of yours was an unnecessary gratuitous attack. Your constant rambling negative personal opinions about other editors gets old and boring.  --MPerel 08:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * "The POV gang"; are you saying you have a "gang", then? Jayjg |  (Talk)  14:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. But I was absolutely right that one of yours would revert it. I note that you have no problem with his doing so either. You are content for the piece to say that there is a birth certificate suggesting that he was born in Cairo, which supports the Zionist POV that he was not really Palestinian, and you wish left out the note that his death certificate said he was born in Jerusalem, which supports the POV that he was Palestinian by birth (which I edited to a plain statement of fact -- yet again you claim to be an NPOV editor even though you support the selective treatment of facts -- NPOV does not mean push your POV but do so only with facts!(. You'll note, Jay, that I say it's a POV. I don't know where he was born and I don't care. But only one POV is allowed in this document, isn't it?Dr Zen 23:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There are none of "mine", and you're quite wrong, no-one reverted anything. The Birth certificate is meaningful regarding his birth, the death certificate is a secondary document that is irrelevant.  Please don't lecture about NPOV until you learn what it means. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * They did not revert it this time, Jay, but I'm sure it can be "copyedited" out at a later date. Dr Zen 04:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies. The POV pushing gang has not yet reverted the addition of statesman (they will, just as they removed the note about the death certificate some time after it was added after long discussion). I referred to the death certificate, of course.Dr Zen 23:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So you expect your gang to revert the statement about statesman? Why? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding David's recent edit about the death certificate, he has written that the French authorities wrote Jerusalem because that was the information they obtained when Arafat's wife obtained French citizenship. However, here, for example, it says that it was when Arafat's daughter was born that her father's birthplace was listed as Jerusalem, and this was the document the French authorities used to complete the death certificate. Does anyone know which is correct? SlimVirgin 08:21, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure. What is known is that the information was in Arafat's Livret de Famille, which is a kind of booklet for official records given to French married couples. I'm unsure whether it was given to Arafat's wife when she acquired French citizenship (this is corroborated by the livret being delivered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) or when she gave birth. David.Monniaux 08:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the article uses the phrase "his native Cairo" which is not a statement of fact, but rather a disputed supposition, and thus not appropriate in the context of a Wikipedia article. I'm going to change this to simply "Cairo" for now. If the issue of Arafat's birthplace is ever resolved, feel free to revert it back. Kaldari 19:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dictator
There is no POV in describing Arafat as a dictator is there? If you google both you get over 111k hits, there are books and tomes with this thesis? It is pretty objective that admitting he was a dictator, by all sides, is the best way forward.


 * Obviously controversial edits should be discussed prior to implementing them, not before. Please refrain from adding "dictator" to the article until the idea has been discussed and agreed upon. Also, please sign your comments. Kaldari 23:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, your use of the term dictator in the particular sentence you are trying to add it too is inappropriate. That sentence is about how Arafat's supports view him. It is rediculous to imply that his supporters viewed him as a dictator. Second, the term "dictator" is a very negatively charged term that is difficult to use in a neutral context. Dictionary.com defines dictator as "an absolute ruler; a tyrant; a despot." Calling Arafat a tyrant is hardly NPOV. And the fact that there are books published which refer to Arafat as a dictator does not negate the fact that this expresses a particular POV which is hotly contested. Thirdly, it seems rather rediculous to even use the term dictator in reference to Arafat as I don't see how you can be the absolute ruler of an occupied territory. Kaldari 23:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, he did avoid elections for many years, and he was in charge of P.A. controlled areas. Don't forget, the P.A. controlled over 90% of Palestinians before the Second Intifada. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  02:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So you think we should refer to Arafat as a dictator? Kaldari 05:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's at least as legitimate as "statesman", another highly POV description pushed into the article. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps his supporters viewed him as a kindly despot, but that would not negate his despotism. It would seem that we would move beyond POV by coming up with clear terms, not just party-line spin. Second, the book I was thinking of is by Abourish, the Palestinian with better credentials than Arafat! Plus there is the hundred thousand plus googlings.

By admitting he was a dictator moves us far closer to NPOV and away from party-line obscurantism. Also, your threats to block me and my citation, as a neophyte here, smack of heavy-handed point-of-viewism.'''


 * If you have something constructive to add to the article, speak up. If you're only interested in making sure the word "dictator" is inserted randomly somewhere in the article, you should find something better to do. Also, please sign your comments. Kaldari 05:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Not randomly, foundationally. And why slam me? One could just as easily ask if YOU have something better to do, Ad Hominus Maximus! But letting your jabs go, my point is that using the term dictator provides clarity. He was no Jeffersonian democrat; Oliver Cromwell was probably of similar office. So can we call Arafat "Lord Protector" then?

BTW, citing the dictionary can be fallacious. E.g., not every descriptor of the term "dictator" has to apply. Tyrant maybe too strong. Despot may be closer. Also, this has me thinking that the parallels with Cromwell might be illuminating ....

User:HaroldJoe

Well, from my point of view, the claim that he was a "statesman" is at least a POV as the claim that he was a "dictator". Can anyone defend "statesman" as NPOV? Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Any takers on this? Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4 days seems long enough. I'll remove that particular POV that was pushed on the article. Jayjg |  (Talk)  00:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I entirely agree. I can't see anything wrong with calling Arafat a "statesman".  If there are good sources that use that term, I see no problem with it (DrZen may have had a source for the "statesman" claim). However, calling Arafat a dictator seems to be a bit extreme.  One of the editors claims that Aburish uses the term to describe Arafat, but I would like to see the context of that claim to fully consider the implications.  If only one author on both sides refers to Arafat in these terms, then perhaps we should just attribute the claims, instead.  Either way, both words can be allowed into the article if they are reputable claims.  That seems to be the real question.  At this point, I can only say that I don't know the answer. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not avoid the debate and just call him a "politician"? That should be sufficiently NPOV.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That resolves the issue with "statesman" to my satisfaction, but what about "dictator"? Any ideas? --Viriditas | Talk 10:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Politician" is indeed NPOV, "statesman" is POV regardless of the source. And once you start including POV labels, then it opens up the Pandora's Box of many other POV labels that have been applied to Arafat. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the current collaborative modifications by Palestine-info, Kaldari, Jayjg, with input by Viriditas isn't bad, and is an improvement to what it was before: "Arafat was a controversial figure throughout his political career. Arafat's supporters viewed him as a freedom fighter who expressed and symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people for forty years. Some opponents, particularly Israelis and their supporters, considered Arafat a terrorist, while some Palestinian leaders criticized Arafat for corruption, and accused him of making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." --MPerel( talk 17:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here's ABC calling Arafat a statesman. They clearly weren't alone in doing so. Here's Robert Fisk, no friend of Israel, whining about others calling Arafat a "super-statesman". John Kerry famously called him a statesman. The world's leaders hailed him as an equal. You'll note that Turkey's describes him as a statesman. Even the laughable Free dictionary is more honest than we are. Anyone who was bothered could find hundreds and hundreds of sources for describing him so. Almost the only people who *don't* so describe him are pro-Zionist Americans and Israelis. And guess what? The NPOV policy says that minority views (yours, in this case) must be "fairly represented" but not overstated.

So, you guys have argued yourselves into agreeing that it's "POV" to suggest that Arafat was regarded by many as a statesman -- even though that is a fairly neutral term for a man who is involved in international politics at a certain level, which Arafat certainly was. Surely you can sneak "dictator" in? Give it a few months and I'm sure you can get murderer, thief and liar in too. Still, at least you're creating endless amusement for those watching you. -- Zen


 * Yes, and there are hundreds of links calling him "dictator" and all sorts of other things. Regardless, statesman is a highly POV term, as the definition makes clear, and as any honest person who was not pushing a minority POV would admit. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  03:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)