Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 4

message: 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)</sup> 18:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent news and commentary 

message: The protected version is m:The wrong version. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Protected

message: 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)</sup> 00:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting to NPOV