Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 2

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

message: The Zionist POV edits are largely a series of biased smears. I guess he wants to get his kicks in while Yasser Arafat is in the news. A rat gets excited when it smells blood.--Alberuni 06:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: POV edits made to a stable article before bringing the suggested edits to Talk are rejected. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; glad we agree. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionist POV editor smearin Yasser Arafat article 

message: A sentence was inserted stating
An investigation by European Union of claims of financial improprieties also found no improprieties.
However, if you read the link provided, it is clear that the investigation was about misuse of EU funds to the PA for the purposes of terrorism, not an investigation of Arafat's personal finances, and their statement was restricted to that claim.  Moreover, the report insisted that finances had to be reformed in the PA to avoid "misuse of funds and corruption", and that further funding was contingent on that.  As it stood, the summary was not an accurate representation of the report and its conclusions.  The accurate statement substituted is as follows:
An investigation by European Union of claims of misuse of EU funds by the Palestinian Authority has, until now, found no evidence EU funds being diverted to terrorist activities.  However, the EU has insisted on "deepening reform in the PA and improving its financial management and audit capacities" as "the best preventive strategy against the misuse of funds and corruption in the PA", and has made further funding contingent on these reforms.
--Jayjg 15:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The original version was sufficient to get the point across. The POV editor uses "yet" to imply that there are financial improprieties that have yet to be uncovered. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself uses the word "yet".  The original version was misleading, as the investigation had nothing to do with Arafat's finances, but was actually about the PA misusing EU funds for terror. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: More Israeli accusations.--Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have a disconnect here; I'm talking about EU statements and investigations of PA misuse of EU funds for terrorist purposes, as listed in the article, not about Israeli accusations. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU investigation 

message: Recent edits have described Forbes as a "pro-Israel" magazine.  Are there any reasonable sources out there that described the magazine this way?  Or is this merely the POV of the editor in question or original research? Jayjg 15:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "Attribution of the charges should be available on Arafat page"? Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

message: Recent edits summarized this article  as follows:
However, as Arafat lives frugally and has no known major possessions, these claims appear to be based solely on Arafat's control over Palestinian public-funds.
From reading the article, it would seem to be a woefully adequate and highly misleading summary; one might might say a whitewash.  In fact, the article discusses a team of investigators hired by the PA Finance Ministry to examine Arafat's finances, which has uncovered a number of secret portfolio worth hundreds of millions, and that the head investigator pointed out that the public funds were not used for the Palestinian people.  Also, the article described other secret accounts, and pointed out that Arafat used his money to gain influence and prestige in a number of ways.  It did also mention that he lived frugally, but this was hardly the thrust of the article.  I've changed it to this:
In 2003 a team of American accountants - hired by Arafat's own finance ministry - began examing Arafat's finances.  The team determined that part of the Palestinian leader's wealth was in a secret portfolio worth close to $1 billion -- with investments in companies like a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah, a Tunisian cell phone company and venture capital funds in the U.S. and the Cayman Islands. The head of the investigation stated that "although the money for the portfolio came from public funds like Palestinian taxes, virtually none of it was used for the Palestinian people; it was all controlled by Arafat. And none of these dealings were made public".  Arafat appears to use his wealth to improve his standing and influence; he has always lived frugally, and continues to do so.
which I believe is far more representative of the article's contents. Jayjg 15:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The original version was sufficient to get the point across that critics of Arafat accuse him of financial improprieties. Your depiction of the "American accounting team" (as if Americans are more reliable) findings are selective and biased. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself describes it as an "American accounting team"; this description is entirely neutral, and any other description rather bizarre.  The sentence describing what the funds were used for, and in particular the statement that they did not go to the Palestinians, were important in the context of the charges.  Also, the statement that he lived frugally alone was misleading, since no-one alleged he lived any other way, but rather used the money to increase his standing and influence. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant investigations designed to defuse incessant and annoying Israeli disinformation and accusations. Deserves one line at most. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinian authorities themselves have expressed grave concerns about the lack of transparency in PA finances; it is the PA Finance Ministry which is conducting this investigation, not Israeli "disinformation and accusations"; when the PA investigates Arafat that surely is significant.  Or are you alleging that Israel is running the PA Finance Ministry? Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBS report on Arafat's finances 

message: A long stable line in the Lebanon section of the article stated
The Fatah movement continued to launch terrorist attacks against Israeli targets; moreover, in the late 1970s numerous leftist Palestinian organizations appeared which carried out further attacks both within Israel and outside of it. 
This was changed to:
The Fatah movement continued to launch attacks against Israeli targets. In the late 1970s several new leftist organizations appeared and carried out attacks on Israel and Israel's occupation colonies.
The attacks by Fatah were against civilian targets; while I think any reasonable individual would agree that deliberate attacks on civilians for political purposes are terrorist, I've replaces the phrase "terrorist attacks" with the less contentious "attac on civilian targets" for the sake of compromise.  However, does anyone really imagine that "occupation colonies" is a NPOV term for the Israeli communites in the West Bank and Gaza?  Wikipedia, in line with most of the world, describes them as Israeli settlements); shouldn't we be using the standard and NPOV Wikipedia term?  Moreover, these attack were not even against Israeli settlements, but rather against civilians in cities inside the "Green Line", such as Haifa, Tel Aviv, Avivim, Ma'alot, Kiryat Shemona, as well as against Israeli civilian targets in foreign countries such as Athens and Munich; I'm not aware of any against settlements.  Thus it is inaccurate as well.  I've changed it back to its original form, substituting "attacks against civilian targets" for "terrorist attacks". Jayjg 16:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response does not deal with the salient points; the attacks were on civilian targets, and they were not on Israeli settlements, which in any event are neutrally described by Wikipedia as "Israeli settlements". Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Israelis build colonies to occupy territory that is not Israeli. The settlements are on Arab land to expand Israeli hold on militarily occupied territory. They seized Lebanese territory to protect Jewish settlements and then seized more Lebanese territory to protect the previously seized territory. Israel's policy of expansionism is military aggression hiding behind defense of civilian settlements. Your depictions are the typical, "Israel is always the victim" POV. Hasbara. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your political views are interesting, but they fail to address the point; the attacks were not in the West Bank or Gaza, but were in Israel as defined by the 1949 Armistice agreements, within the so-called "Green Line", or in foreign countries altogether.  How do the Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank even come into it?  We could return to the original text, which is even more negative about the PLO (in my view); those statements have been there little changed for over a year now, another eternity in Wikitime. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation colonies? 

message: In the Lebanon section of the original article it stated
The operations of the PLO within Lebanon did not receive much news coverage. It is certain, however, that the PLO had played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War. 
This was changed to 
There were claims that the PLO had played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War. 
Aside from this being a grammatically incorrect sentence stub, who disputes that the PLO playes an important part in the war?  The PLO was involved in a great deal of fighting, and accused of a number of massacres.  I'm not aware of anyone thinks any different.  I've changed it to
The PLO played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War
-- Jayjg 16:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, we agree that the PLO played an important part in the Lebanese Civil war. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that you ignore Israeli aggression and portray Israeli militarism in a defensive light. Your POV is showing. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean; I'm just talking about this small section of text, which states that the PLO played an important part, as we both agree.  That particular statement has been in the text for a year and a half (I guess that's two eternities in Wikitime), and I've actually watered it down to accomodate NPOV concerns. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLO played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War? 

message: The article originally read
The PLO then began to use this territory to launch artillery strikes on and infiltrate into Israel, attacking and killing Israelis. These attacks occurred in the context of far more destructive Isreali attacks on Lebanon; sometimes retaliatory, often not. 
This was changed to 
The PLO then began launching artillery and guerilla strikes on Israel from there. These PLO attacks occurred at the time of far more destructive Isreali attacks on Lebanon, some of which were retaliatory, but most were offensive.
I've already discussed the absurdity of describing deliberate attacks on civilians as "guerilla strikes" rather than "terrorist attacks"; moreover, the edit removes the information that the terrorists were entering Israel from Lebanon.  However, as stated earlier, I've change the wording from "guerilla strikes" to "attacks on Israeli civilians".  Also, what is the source for the POV statement that the attackes were "sometimes retaliatory, often not"?  I've excised it pending some reliable documentation.  Thus the sentence now reads:
"the PLO began launching artillery strikes on Israel and attacks on Israeli civilians from there; Israel responded with far more destructive attacks on Lebanon.
-- Jayjg 16:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your constant depiction of Palestinians as attacking civilians is POV and incorrect. Israeli military were targets. You ignore Israeli brutality and slaughter of thousands of Lebanese and palestinian civilians, as usual. Your edits are POV, biased and unbalanced. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide evidence of the military targets. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making the revisions to a stable article so you have to prove that Palestinians only attacked civilians. It is absurd that you believe no Israeli military targets were attacked. It just shows the extent of your bias.  According to : "Palestinian fighters mounted intermittent cross-border attacks against civilian and military targets in Israel." Another example is the 1987 Palestinian hang glider attack on the Israeli military base killed six IDF soldiers. The attacks on Israeli military bases, convoys and outposts were numerous but your pro-Israeli view just wants to delegitimize Palestinian resistance as terrorist. Your POV is showing.   --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing evidence, I'll incorporate that into the article, using the exact wording you have provided.  Please restrict your comments to discussion of article contents, not me. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retaliatory strikes? 

message: I've added a little more information about Arafat's parents; specifically that 
Arafat was one of seven children born to a textile merchant father who was a Palestinian with some Egyptian ancestry; his mother from an old Palestinian family in Jerusalem. According to Arafat and other sources, he was born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 . His date and place of birth have been disputed; according to other sources he was born in Cairo or even Gaza
This is in line with the information given in the second bio, which is from the Nobel prize website. Jayjg 16:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was in the original stable version of the article before you started editing it. You added nothing. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, I added all these facts.  The original merely described his father as a merchant, nor did it list his parents origins.  Please examine the histories next time. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does "some Egyptian ancestry" mean? --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the exact phrase the Nobel prize site uses; I assume it means that his father's ancestors were primarily from the region of Palestine, but that some were from Egypt as well - that would be the logical way of understanding the sentence. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents 

message: I've added some more information about Suha Arafat, specifically that she had a maiden name (Tawil), that she was a Palestinian Catholic who worked for the PLO in Tunis, that she married him in 1990, that she was more than 30 years his junior when marrying, that she converted to Islam before marrying him, that they had a daughter Zawha in 1995, that they moved to Paris to be with her mother after the start of the second infitadeh.  These statements are confirmed by many sources including this: . Jayjg 16:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This information belongs in an article about Suha Arafat. Her age is irrelevant and simply reflects your POV attempts at describing Arafat in a negative light whenever possible. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All information reverted because she was much younger than him?  And why is this something negative about Arafat?  It's a simple fact; is there a stigma against significant age differences in marriages?  Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This information belongs in an article about Suha Arafat. Her age is irrelevant. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I'll remove the statements about her age pending agreement here. On the point, I actually thought it might be considered a positive point; isn't having a younger wife actually often seen as a positive thing, a sign of virility, manliness etc.? Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

message: I've changed the numbers in the Sabra and Shatila section to "between 460 and 3,500" killed from "between 800 and 3,500" killed, to put it in line with the sources provided in the Sabra and Shatila massacre article. Jayjg 16:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed the wording to reduce apparent complicity of Israeli forces. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit reflects the existing facts in other articles; please deal with the edits and do not attribute motive. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes to this section were carried over in the reversion. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean.  If you mean they "accidentally" got reverted in HistoryBuffEr's massive revert, I think it would be safer to go through each edit and examine it for validity; that's certainly what I've done with HistoryBuffEr's edits, regardless of the fact that he should have proposed them in Talk: first, and still should do so. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  460 to 3,500 Palestinians killed 

message: I've ordered Arafat's biographical section chronologically as far as possible.  The new organization introduced last night led to facts being repeated in more than one section, and a chronological order gives a good overview of his life. Jayjg 16:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring changes to Talk before editing as you demand on other pages. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been brought here; the original article was also differently ordered, it's rather hard to tell what the order was with the massive changes HistoryBuffEr wrought, but I believe the article now reflects the original ordering. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring your changes here first for discussion. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are any changes from the original order that I've made. Do you have an issue with chronological ordering? Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order 

message: The statement 
As the leader of Palestinian resistance Arafat has been subject of Israeli campaigns to discredit him.
was inserted at the top of the Financial sections by last night's editor.  Aside from being an unsourced claim, it's relevance was not readily apparent, since the information listed was the most part from the IMF, EU, PA Finance Ministry investigators, 60 Minutes, French government, etc. I've removed it pending discussion of relevance and sourcing.  Jayjg 16:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You may bring suggested changes to Talk before deleting sections from a stable article. Reverted. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The insertion of this statement was the change in question to the stable article; please propose why it is valuable here in Talk: Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Arafat has been the subject of Israeli disinformation campaigns for the past 40 years. You are just a minor example. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restrict comments to discussion of article content, not me, as this violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be offended. I'm sure that once you grow up, you will become a major annoyance. --Alberuni 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not offended, but I am concerned that your comments continue to violate the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 06:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli campaigns to discredit him 

message: I've gone through the many changes made last night to what was for a while a fairly stable article, and kept a number that I could see were uncontroversial or NPOV.  However, as the editor in question has been informed on numerous occasions, it is Wikipedia policy that significant changes to controversial articles be discussed in Talk:, as the NPOV text at the top of the article says.  For the many controversial or NPOV edits and deletions, I've generally reverted to previous wordings, sourced from linked articles, or tried to NPOV them pending discussion here.  Please bring any changes not listed above here for discussion first.  Thanks. Jayjg 16:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have it backwards. You can bring your editing suggestions to Talk before editing a stable article. Your perception of what is NPOV is not acceptable to many other editors. You should try to reach a consensus with other editors before making your POV editing changes. Thanks. --Alberuni 18:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was stable until 24 hours ago when HistoryBuffEr wrought massive changes without consulting other editors.  Please desist from trying to revise history in Talk:.  Serious discussion on yours or HistoryBuffEr's part would be appreciated. Jayjg 18:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone should work to achieve consensus for changes to this article befre making edits. Read the NPOV notice at the head of the page. --Alberuni 19:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what we're doing here.  Thanks for working with me on that. :-) Jayjg 21:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many changes made to the article 

message: Why is that missing from this article?
What about the Israeli air raid on Tunis that almost killed him in 1985?
What about the 1968 Israeli attack on PLO in Jordan, the siege of Beirut, the Israelis assassinating his deputy Abu Jihad in Tunis in 1988, bombing his offices in Gaza and Ramallah 2001, 2002, de facto house arrest by Sharon since then, etc? 
Lots of important facts missing or glossed over but impressive detail from Aburish concerning irrelevant details about Husseini clan allegations, EU and US accountants review of PA financial dealings, and many other accusations made popular by Israeli propagandandists. This article needs more NPOV fact details and less National Enquirer Hebrew edition speculation. --Alberuni 04:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Aburish has ever written for the National Enquirer, and I don't think it has a Hebrew edition.  As for the other details about Arafat's life, any significant details of his life should be included.  I'm not sure information about his lieutenants belong in an article about Arafat, though certainly in an article about the lieutenant.  Let's try to make sure that any information proposed to be inserted in the article is about Arafat himself, rather than another re-hash of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of which far too many already exist on Wikipedia. Jayjg 17:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think his wife (and her age) and child are more important than the Israeli assassination of his second-in-command, Abu Jihad? Because Israel assassinated him and ghoulishly videotaped the assassination for later review and enjoyment? --Alberuni 02:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people's spouses and children are more important to them than their work associates; at least I hope they are. Jayjg 05:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Arafat writing this article? Is it about what HE finds more important?  He wasn't even married when his lieutenant was assassinated. It was an important event in his life, more important than the financial investigations that interest you so much. Again you argue dishonestly and from an Israeli POV. --Alberuni 02:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can decide what Arafat finds more important, but most of the biographies I've seen on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) do talk about family, and financial details(if applicable) - see Dick Cheney for example, which includes a whole paragraph on his wife (including the fact that she was elected "Mustang Queen"), a whole paragraph about his children (including his daughter's sexual orientation), and two paragraphs about his questionable financial dealings with Halliburton. Jayjg 15:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arafat survived a plane crash in the Libyan desert in 1992 

message: So much information was lost from this article in recent edits.  I have restored much of it.  Added a section of See aslo which somehow was missing. Please bring additional information with citations.  I would particularly like to see citations for the various Israeli attempts to kill Arafat that Alberuni mentions above.  That and the Hebrew edition of the National Enquirer and how Israel propagandanists determine the results of US and EU financial audits which Alberuni mentions above. Lance6Wins 18:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lance6Wins, I realize that you've done a more extensive revert than that.  I've restored the version agreed to in Talk:, with some other small fixes.  Please work with the process in Talk: here; HistoryBuffEr's continual reversions to his own new and unique version are bad enough. Jayjg 18:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost information 

message: Why do we prefer a version of his birth different from the birth certificate issued by the Government of Egypt and published by the Nobel Prize committee.  What do we base our preference on?   We should have citations for this unusual preference.
:Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini was born on 24 August 1929 in Cairo**, his father a textile merchant who was a Palestinian with some Egyptian ancestry, his mother from an old Palestinian family in Jerusalem. 
Lance6Wins 20:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some controversy over his birth; I think the current version reflects the version of the Nobel Prize organization and others as well as Arafat's, what do you think? Jayjg 20:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth 

message: Alberuni, I thought we were working through a series of agreed to edits here.  Why have you removed or changed many sections of the article that have been stable for months, and possibly years?  Please bring proposed controversial changes to Talk: Jayjg 20:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The edited sections contained the usual Israeli POV and they have been NPOVed. If you want to discuss returning POV material, like the following,  start discussing. This is irrelevant and POV: "badly battered PLO" and "Claims that Arafat was related to the Jerusalem Husseini clan through his mother have been disputed by the Palestinian historian Said Aburish, given that the Husseini clan designation comes from his father's side. In a unauthorized biography (Arafat: From Defender to Dictator, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1998), Aburish claims that "The young Arafat sought to establish his Palestinian credentials and promote his eventual claim to leadership... [and] could not afford to admit any facts which might reduce his Palestinian identity. ...Arafat insistently perpetuated the legend that he had been born in Jerusalem and was related to the important Husseini clan of that city." (Ibid, p. 8)" and "Black September which is generally believed (although not proved)to have been an operational cover for Fatah" and "Israel claimed that Arafat was in ultimate control over these organizations and hence had by no means abandoned terrorism as a means of policy, but Arafat has steadfastly denied responsibility for acts committed by these groups." etc --Alberuni 20:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if you think these longstanding sections were POV, the place to discuss changing them is here; that is Wikipedia standard practice. Jayjg 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Why don't you start sections on "badly battered", Black September, "abandoned terrorism" and we'll work out something.  The Aburish section already exists above. Jayjg 21:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have supported my very mild NPOV version that we all could have agreed on. But out of stubborness and spite, you were unable to agree to reasonable changes. Now you are stuck in an edit war with with HistoryBuffEr. Good luck to the both of you. If you wanted to ruin the article, you have succeeded. --Alberuni 01:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did agree to all your NPOV edits, and didn't revert any of them.  Of course I did insist that the POV edits to longstanding article sections be justified in Talk:, first something you should have done before even entering them.  And I still encourage dialogue on any of the remaining edits you think need to be made; that is the Wikipedia way.  HistoryBuffEr's vandalism is not relevant to the discussion, since he is not present on the Talk: page. Jayjg 02:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest changes by Alberuni 

message: Lance6wins, your insertion created two links to Black September in the same sentence, and goes to a disambig page, rather than the actual article.  I think it should be removed. Jayjg 21:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally believed that Black September and Arafat were linked; senior members of Black September were also senior members of Fatah, Arafat's organization. "Even today, Fatah and the PLO deny involvement in Black September and all its operations, but this claim now seems highly improbable. Abu Daoud, the Black September commander most closely involved with setting up the Munich operation, admitted to the filmmakers that Black September was merely the cover name adopted by members of Fatah when they wanted to carry out terrorist acts, but did not want the party's name besmirched. Daoud even recalled how Arafat and Abu Mazen (now seen as Arafat's natural successor) both wished him luck and kissed him when he set about organising Munich. The de facto leader of Black September (and the man who personally carried the arms into Germany that were used in Munich) was Abu Iyad, Arafat's long-time deputy."  Jayjg 15:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: "An extremist, militant corps of Fatah called Black September (Aylul Aswad) subsequently emerged, first proclaimed in November 1971." [www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9033809] Jayjg 01:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Black September 

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

message: Alberuni, I don't quite get the meaning of the following sentence:  "Despite the high Palestinian death toll, the battle was considered a victory for Fatah because the Israeli army was repulsed." A victory because the army was repulsed? Could you clarify what you're trying to say? MPerel 00:49, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
:Maybe they saw something disgusting and found it repulsive. Jayjg 01:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Repulsed means repelled, rolled back, defeated. --Alberuni 01:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks.  Well on looking up the word I see you are right, it is technically correct usage, however I don't think it's common usage.  You may want to consider replacing it with the word "repelled" since most readers may be more likely to interpret it in the more colloquial sense.  Here's what my dictionary says about the usage: USAGE NOTE   A number of critics have maintained that repulse should only be used to mean “to drive away, spurn,” as in He rudely repulsed their overtures, and not to mean “to cause repulsion in,” as in Their hypocrisy repulsed me. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing tendency to use repulse in the latter sense. Reputable literary precedent exists for this usage, and given that the stigmatized use of repulse is parallel to the unexceptionable uses of repulsion and repulsive, the frequency of its appearance is not surprising. Still, writers who want to avoid repulse may choose repel, a synonym that is perfectly acceptable.
MPerel 04:43, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Use of 'repulsed' remains quite common in a military context. Attackers are generally said to be 'repulsed' rather than 'repelled.'--Monupics 15:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

message: According to the AP biography, "Arafat's ties to fundamentalists led to a warrant for his arrest in early 1957 while he was attending a student conference in Prague, Czechoslovakia.  He fled to Kuwait...".  I think this information is valuable in explaining his sudden move to Kuwait.  Objections? Jayjg 01:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the www link? Who issued the warrant? More derogatory material for / from people with a POV to push. Compare to your highly defensive description of Sharon escaping his warrant for war crimes. Your POV is showing.  --Alberuni 01:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see it as derogatory; it actually reflects poorly on the Egyptian government, and it is why he fled to Kuwait.  The link is at the bottom of the page, it's the biography by AP. Jayjg 02:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest warrant and flee to Kuwait 

message: I object to the rewrite of my edit that Arafat has been acting president since 1999.  His term (elected in 1996) expired and he has refused to hold further elections (always delaying them under one pretense or another for five years now).  He is serving without a "renewed mandate" from the Palestinians, which was the edit I had put and was changed inappropriately.  Please reinsert ", serving without a renewed mandate since 1999" in the introduction in place of "acting President since 1999".  Jewbacca 08:09, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
How is he not acting President? He calls himself president, and the PA accepts him as president. I'm not claiming this is his official title (hence "acting" is not capitalized). The purpose is just to avoid taking sides on legitimacy questions in the intro. Gazpacho 11:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He is acting President, but he has also been serving without a renewed mandate since 1999, 5 years now.  Acting President usually implies someone who was appointed President by another body for a limited period of time, none of which I think apply to Arafat. Jayjg 11:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Ariel Sharon's policies of invading and bombing Palestinian areas and enforcing Arafat's virtual house arrest has ensured that conditions would be too volatile for elections. Serves his right-wing Likud followers well. You don;t see that mentioned in the article. Of course, right-wing Likud Wikipedian editors can never attribute any wrong-doing to Israel. Ever. That's why they are here. To protect Israel from the facts.  --Alberuni 16:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how does your statement relate to the simple fact that he has been serving without a renewed mandate since 1999? Jayjg 17:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It relates to your POV description. He has been serving as acting president. Period. Your attempts to frame it as Arafat's fault "without renewed mandate since 1999, 5 years now" disregards, as usual, the context of Israeli attacks, closures, and oppression. --Alberuni 17:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A) It's not my description b) While Arafat has advanced that as the reason he has not held new elections, critics both outside and inside the Palestinian Authority have stated that that is a sham. Jayjg 17:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Those anonymous "some people" backing up your POV again, huh? They are so reliable for you. --Alberuni 02:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your comment; it seems to be about me again, rather than the page content. Jayjg 15:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting President?  NOT! 

message: Which parts of the article do you want to change, and why? Jayjg 22:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg made 60 edits, almost every single one intended to insert his pro-Israeli POV, to this article over the past week since Yasser Arafat was reported ill. Then he turns around and demands that others bring their suggested changes to Talk before he will accept them! His hypocrisy is astounding. Jayjg seems to think his POV is fact and others need to explain their edits to him. --Alberuni 16:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: This myth is false information and it was deleted from the article. . Also, there is no evidence provided to support allegations that Arafat led Black September. This was also deleted. --Alberuni 21:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence re: Black September was provided in the section discussing it above. Jayjg 02:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica article doesn't say that Arafat led Black September. It says that Black September emerged from Fatah. That indicates that it was not part of Fatah but was a splinter. The other link is to sony.pictures.com, not a reliable historical reference. If Arafat was the leader of Black September, there should be better evidence than Sports Illustrated and Sony Pictures. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  --Alberuni 19:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Arafat was the leader of Fatah, it was the organization he formed.  Exactly which Wikipedia policy states that Sports Illustrated and documentaries are not "encyclopedic"? Jayjg 20:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Arafat was leader of Fatah but not the splinter group Black September. --Alberuni 21:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And the sources which say he was, but disavowed knowledge to keep his hands clean? Jayjg 01:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: All of these references are to Abu Daoud's 1999 autobiography that has not been validated by any other evidence. Yet the article states there is a connection between Arafat and Munich massacre as if it is known fact (from Sony Pictures, no less): "In September of 1972, Black September, believed to be the terrorist arm of Arafat's Fatah[7] (http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/oneday/html/blacksept/), kidnapped 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games and eventually killed them all." Again, this is the Israeli "Arafat is a terrorist" POV. You are quite eager and willing to smear Arafat with these accusations but you take great pains to distance Ariel Sharon from his complicity in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Your constant pro-Israeli POV pushing is disgusting. --Alberuni 21:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  No, I didn't cite it because my Google turned up hundreds of links, and in my five minute investigation I didn't have time to view each one. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think the article is clear to distinguish between Black September itself, and attacks made in its name. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I understand you believe these sources are "trash"; thanks for sharing. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You persist in promoting the highly implausible thesis that although the membership and leadership of Black September came entirely from Fatah, that they were nevertheless unconnected.  That, indeed, is "weak". Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: So Arafat was not the mastermind of the Munich massacre because the US and Israel didn't kill him, and Arafat had nothing to do with Khartoum because the US didn't arrest him?  This kind of negative reasoning is highly hypothetical.  I don't pretend to understand why governments (and especially their secret branches) do or don't do things.  However, the information in question is available from many sources, and Wikipedia standard is simply to quote and source them. Jayjg 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all I asked you to do. Cite your source and quote it accurately. --Alberuni 19:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arafat did not brandish a gun at the United Nations  and Black September links 

message: If the FBI was going to charge Arafat for crimes that were committed in Sudan 30 years ago, I think they would have done so by now. Maariv is an Israeli newspaper and not a reliable source for information about Arafat and the FBI. The blatant smear campaign was deleted from Wikipedia. If a neutral source (preferably the FBI itself; not speculation by right-wing partisans like World Net Daily, Free Republic, and Israel Insider) for this information can be found, I'd like to see it. --Alberuni 21:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, you returned this false material to the text without discussing in Talk. --Alberuni 19:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, wasn't that information present in the article for months before you deleted it?  Perhaps the discussion should have come before the arbitrary deletion. Jayjg 20:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in other words, you have no evidence to support the claim. You are just preserving false information on principle. Your double standards are amazing. When you want to edit the article, you feel as though you have every right to do so without bringing your proposed changes to Talk. When anyone else edits the article, you claim they must bring edits to Talk for YOUR approval first. So where is the reliable information to support this claim about Arafat and the FBI? --Alberuni 21:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You know where the story comes from, you've just listed all the sources in your first comment.  Of course, you've decided that you're now the arbiter of all sources on Wikipedia as well; thus you get to dismiss any that don't match your viewpoint. Jayjg 01:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well, well. You don't like to discuss your sources? Why is that? If you make any edits, especially your wild accusations against Arafat, you should expect to have your sources examined. You usually don't bother to cite your sources and then whine on your User page about people asking you for references to substantiate your smears and accusations. Then when your sources turn out to be blatantly biased Israeli sites (Maariv, Israel Insider), weak (Sports Illustrated on political history? A Sony.com movie director's essay hyping his film?) or notorious right-wing extremists like Joseph Farrah's WorldNetDaily , and the other most conservative websites such as News Max, Free Republic, National Review Online , you get upset that people recognize them as unreliably biased. These sources are of dubious quality because they are pushing an extremist right-wing agenda. The accusations you want to insert are not available from more reliable sources because the information is not accurate. It is only available from biased sources willing to distort the truth for the sake of their extremist readers. Why isn't there an FBI press release about this 30 year old "investigation" against Arafat? Why hasn't it been reported by mainstream news agencies like CNN, ABC, BBC or even conservative Fox News? Because it is false disinformation spread by Arafat's enemies, foremost among them the Israelis, who understandably hate Arafat for representing Palestinian nationalist aspirations that Israelis would rather see disappear so that their occupation of Palestine can proceed without worrying about the human costs to their victims. That's the source of these biased and false allegations and it's also the motivation for your POV pushing edits. Don't complain about being exposed for using biased sources. You are free to push your POV. But we are also free to point it out and NPOV it. --Alberuni 02:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep mistaking this Talk: page for a discussion of me, and keep confusing me with the author(s) of the section in question.  I didn't create the information, nor any sources on it, so by definition I can't "insert" it, at best I can "restore" it after you censor it without discussion.  What you imagine my mental state to be, and what you imagine "people recognize" about these sources, and your elaborate conspiracy theories are incorrect and irrelevant.  If you feel the section needs NPOVing, that's quite reasonable, as long as the NPOV is truly NPOV.  Let's talk about that. Jayjg 03:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My elaborate conspiracy theories? You are "restoring" sections of the article accusing Arafat of ordering the execution of US diplomats using Israeli newspaper Maariv as the source. And I am the one perpetuating conspiracy theories? haha. Give me abreak. Pointing out biased news sites and editors is hardly a conspiracy theory. It;s plain as day with every edit you make. --Alberuni 03:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The FBI investigation material has been in the article for almost three months, and was not inserted by me.  Does Maariv have a reputation for bias?  What makes you think so? Are there other sources which describe Maariv that way? Jayjg 17:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually, the Israeli press is biased against Palestinians, especially Yasser Arafat. SURPRISE! I know you are shocked, just shocked, that the major Israeli dailies could be biased against the Palestinians and Arabs with whom Israel has been in heated conflict for 50 years. It is really hard to believe. . --Alberuni 19:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did that position paper actually specifically state anywhere that Ma'ariv was biased against Arafat?  Because of odd formatting errors I found it very hard to read in my browser, but I couldn't find that actual claim anywhere. Jayjg 19:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the entire report. For instance, "On 13.03.2001, Ma’ariv published the news that details of corruption in the Palestinian Authority may be published soon. Among the alleged discoveries are tax debts paid through “bribe” to senior officials and the debts erased, aid money used to build luxury apartments and senior officials collecting the profits on them. The information was supposedly collected by “senior [Israeli] political figures, and the figures are to point especially to Yasir Arafat:"  --Alberuni 17:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: in the section "Financial dealings" an IMF report from 2003 is mentioned. I believe that the report is located at . Shouldn't we add it to the article as a source in the appropriate place. Obviously it has more credibility, than some possibly biased newspaper. Iorsh 06:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find. Jayjg 17:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not?  No one claims that his funds come from the GDP of the West Bank or both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  He has been collecting funds for decades from Arab governments, the Soviet Union, European goverments and the European Union.  His message has been that the money is of the struggle of the Palestinian people.  Basic accounting for the money has not taken place.  His wealth is in no way related to the poverty of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Lance6Wins 15:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  "His wealth is in no way related to the poverty of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." - Huh, with a personal accounts of triple the West Bank's GDP, I seriously question that fact. Terrapin 15:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: By the way, the claim that Arafat is worth that much comes from Al-Jazeera, the well known "Israeli media source". Jayjg 15:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial dealings 

message: I am pretty sure that his wife is a Greek Orthodox Christian, not a Palestinian Catholic.
* half correct.  She WAS greek orthodox christian, but converted to Islam. That should be changed in the article, its patently false, all sources say Greek Orthodox.  Terrapin 16:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife is Greek Orthodox 

message: In section 1.1 early life, Arafat's mother suddenly seems to have descended from a prominent Palestinian fish monger, instead of a family.
:I have reverted it back to family.  I haven't come across any other material indicating such a profession was in the family, and I dont think fishmongers generally rise to prominence... Chuck Adams 18:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish monger? 

message: I was thinking about Nelson Mandela, and I began to wonder: would Arafat have achieved his dream if he'd led the Palestinian people from prison? (Please don't read any hidden agenda into my question - I'm only putting this here because I know that there are many wikipedians who know much more about this subject than me. If this isn't the place for such questions feel free to edit this out!!)
:No, this is the right place :) Glad you asked here. No, I don't think this should go in the article - Wikipedia is (supposed to be) a neutral encyclopedia that catalogs known facts, and discussion only where it's widespread and relevant to the original topic. --bas
::Cheers :) Adambisset 00:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe Controversial Question

message: The following sentence, "Arafat was outside the Palestinian area when the nakba occured in 1948, but had long realised the zionist intentions (as evidenced by his essays in the magazine he helped publish, "our palestine") and as early as 1946 the 17 year old Arafat was organising smuggling weapons to Palestinians and encouraging others to take the fight to the hagannah as the British were "feeble", is very awkward and seems out of place.  Plus it attributes feelings and intentions to both Zionists and Arafat, which is subjective and irrelevant in an encylopedia article.  I recommend removing, or editing. MPerel 00:30, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
:I think the attributing of feelings to Arafat could be correct (if it's based on his articles), otherwise, I agree. Especially the "had long realized the zionist intentions" seems out of place. --bas
::i think this has been discussed further up this talk page... Mrfixter 11:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: "It has been remarked that he exemplified the charteristics of stick with your first idea and not flip-floping that George W Bush so admires in himself, yet found unaccptable in Mr Arafat."
What is this sentence doing here? A swipe at George Bush attributed to nobody in particular shouldn't be on a page about Yasser Arafat.
I agree. It should be removed. Mrfixter 11:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless sentence? 

message: This discussion page could do with some archiving.  For example, most of us agree that he's really dead now, and some threads haven't been touched in some time.  Is there generally a consensus decision on this, or should one just go ahead and move discussions?
:I agree that this needs archiving, but I say that we should leave it until the NPOV header is removed.  We don't want to have people clicking on the link to find a fairly empty page! -Frazzydee|✍ 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it needs archiving. Even if this page is halved there will still be a substantial amount of discussion, it will just be less bloated. Mrfixter 00:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs archiving 

message: I am proposing that this talk page be archived, up to and including 33. Suha Arafat as listed on the contents. I am trying to be bold, but don't bite me, I'm a newcomer and check out the Talk Page yourself. --Mrfixter 15:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine.  You could probably archive even more. Jayjg 15:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving this talk page