Talk:Yasser Arafat

Older Talk: archived to Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 1, Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 2, Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 3

Arafat's finances

Fascinating new article about Arafat's finances: [1]. 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." [2] --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 [3]. 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... ugen64 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:

• 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 23:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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)

Protected

The protected version is m: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 [4]. Also to note that HistoryBuffer attack the Rachel Corrie article in a similiar manner [5] , 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)

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)