Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 1

message: I deleted and a relative of Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the  grand mufti of Jerusalem (d. 1974) because I don't think it is true.  It can go back if someone provides a solid reference. -- zero 10:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Encyclopedia Britannica solid enough? --Roger 10:17, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it just repeats the same vague statement that his mother "was related" to al-Husayni without saying where this information comes from or what "related" means.  She was a member of the same very large branch of the Husseini clan and that would be enough for some people to say she was "related" but it wouldn't necessarily make her closer related than hundreds of others.  One reason I'm suspicious about this is that I saw an Arab site that attacked Arafat for "inventing" this relationship.  It might be in the same category as many other doubtful claims about Arafat.  In any case, if there was a relationship but it was distant, why mention it except as a silly attempt to discredit by association? --zero 01:54, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Relative?

message: Should we really be listing claims made by Israeli generals?  We're not exactly talking journalists or international organizations.  Daniel Quinlan 06:56, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)
Quinlan,
And who says that journalists and international organizations are any more honest than generals? Ever hear of yellow journalism? Ever here of the "Oil Crisis? --Numerousfalx 04:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli honesty?

message: I removed the following sentence from the article: 
:It is said that he has studied organizations such as the Haganah, Irgun and the Stern Gang.
"It is said" is a bit general. Anybody care to provide a reference? -- uriber 17:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: removal?

message: Ok, Jayjg, I can live with those changes you made, it is OK.
I read the whole article again, and noted a few minor, and some major issues. I will post them here first, and we can try to reach a consensus on them then make changes, how does that sound?
Not know, I am a bit too busy, but soon.
Let me know, thanks.Joseph 04:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. Jayjg 04:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon 

message: you people are all having a go at each other. whats the point you will all end up getting angrier.
\put your anger into something a little bit constructive why dont you
you are all very angry and not using this anger for any good. you should use this anger for something constructive.
:Um, have a nice day? Jayjg 03:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong 

message: When the phrase, "It is alleged" is used, the source should be provided. Otherwise, the phrase appears to be used as a convenient way to insert the writer's point of view. If the writer can cite the source of the allegation, the reader will be better able to judge its potential bias. Alberuni 18:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is alleged" 

message: Is Arafat a terrorist, as many Israelis and Zionists claim? The charge of terrorism reflects a point of view. It is not a fact. It is defined by the user. Is Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize laureate? Yes, that is a fact, not a point of view.  I think the charge of terrorism should be included in the article with a description of who is making the charge and the basis for the accusation, for what specific crime(s). I think a strong case can be made for Arafat but it's still just a point of view. And if Arafat is labelled a terrorist then so too should Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and countless other militants who killed civilians in the course of their careers. It is also a point of view and they should be described the same way. NPOV. George W. Bush is also responsible for using violence to effect political changes, the definition of a terrorist, and Bush's orders have killed tens of thousands of civilians, probably many more than a lifetime of Arafat and Sharon combined. But the label is still just a Point Of View. Bush's advantage is an army of lawyers to excuse and justify his "collateral damage", "self defense", etc. The most successful "terrorists" need good lawyers and media consultants. It helps them mold the public's point of view.  --Alberuni 04:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist is a POV label 

message: Arafat collapsed after vomiting during a meeting, and he lost consciousness for ten minutes. He remains in serious condition. Although confined to his Ramallah compound, he is free to leave for medical treatment but has refused to go because Israelis have not agreed to let him return.
Arafat's top adviser, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, said doctors examining the 75-year-old Palestinian leader Thursday were still deciding whether he needs to be hospitalized. Arafat has been confined by Israel to his compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah since 2002. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a telephone conversation with his Palestinian counterpart, Ahmed Qureia, agreed to allow Arafat to be flown abroad for treatment if necessary. However, Israeli security officials said the Palestinians have only requested, for now, to take Arafat to a local hospital. (AP: )
:Added the CurrentEvents template msg to the Recent Events section, to flag the rapidly-changing situation surrounding Arafat's health. -- Penta 19:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: More news: CNN is reporting that Yasser Arafat is going to be moved to Paris for treatment. -- Penta 19:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The claim that Arafat lost consciousness is disputed. I heard Nabil Shaath deny that it happened.--Alberuni 23:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The most likely diagnosis given his long history of ill health is probably one of the leukemias, nonetheless, ITP was the diagnosis offered by his physician (for public consumption, anyway). I agree with JFW that it's not an adequate diagnosis. - Nunh-huh 01:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Illness of late October 2004