Talk:Yasser Arafat

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

Place of Birth

Reuters:CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt, where Yasser Arafat began his political life and where biographers say he was born, on Thursday prepared a funeral for the Palestinian president, who was declared dead in Paris in the early morning. [1]

Nobel Prize:Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini was born on 24 August 1929 in Cairo**,

• • The place of Arafat's birth is disputed. Besides Cairo, other sources mention Jerusalem and Gaza as his birthplace. [2]

New York Times: The mystery surrounding Mr. Arafat starts early, as accounts of his origins vary. The man who became "Mr. Palestine" was probably not born there [3]

Wikipedia:According to Arafat and other sources, he was born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929, 2004[1] (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/arafaty1.asp). His date and place of birth have been disputed; some sources contend that he was born in Cairo or the Gaza Strip [2] (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html). According to a birth certificate registered in Cairo, Arafat was born there on August 24, 1929. [3]

What information does Wikipedia have that the New York Times, Reuters, and the Nobel Prize committee are missing? At a minimum we should change to page to agree with the New York Times, Reuters, and the Nobel Prize committee.

Basis for added "Factually Disputed" ? Lance6Wins 16:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hello 12.73.223.168, Good idea adding bibliography. If you don't object, I'll modify the format a bit and sort the list alphabetically by author. Sample:

• Hart, Alan, Arafat, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1994. ISBN 0283062207

MPerel 00:24, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I really like the ISBN feature of Wikipedia. :-) I have no particular preference about the format. I've seen several different formats used in various articles, and I only wish there were a single standard for consistency. The original list was in date sequence, which imo is more useful, especially for biographies written while the person is alive, but again I have no strong preference.

Arafat Calling for Israel's Destruction

I've seen many references and direct quotes where Arafat calls for the destruction of Israel. Even *after* signing the peace treaty saying something along the lines of "peace to us, means the destruction of israel". What are your comments on this? -- as an example, here are 2 links with references to various third party sources on them: http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/orbittv.htm http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/stockhlm.htm

It's a matter of interpretation really. he does not explicitly call for the destruction of Israel, and the article simply slanders the prophet Muhammed and Saladin. Don't believe the Bull.

Why slander? Hudna is a recognized and honored Islamic method of dealing with a (temporarily) stronger enemy. Lance6Wins 19:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's slander, the article highlighted by user 81.86.159.146 simply lies about Saladin and the Prophet Muhammad, discrediting them in a further attempt to discredit Yassir Arafat and can only be described as insulting to Muslims.

Sorry, I'm 81.86.159.146 -- didnt notice I wasnt logged on -- Hackeron 22:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about this: http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may98/arafat.htm

Or This: http://www.likud.nl/extr44.html

We all know he devoted his life to bring the destruction of the Jewish state, or am I missing something? --Hackeron 22:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't speak for everyone. President Arafat devoted his life to bring freedom and statehood to his people. If anything, "we" all know that Israel has dedicated to the destruction of the Palestinian people.

Place of Birth

Reuters:CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt, where Yasser Arafat began his political life and where biographers say he was born, on Thursday prepared a funeral for the Palestinian president, who was declared dead in Paris in the early morning. [4]

Nobel Prize:Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini was born on 24 August 1929 in Cairo**,

• • The place of Arafat's birth is disputed. Besides Cairo, other sources mention Jerusalem and Gaza as his birthplace. [5]

New York Times: The mystery surrounding Mr. Arafat starts early, as accounts of his origins vary. The man who became "Mr. Palestine" was probably not born there [6]

Wikipedia: Corrected to match they above sources. Lance6Wins 19:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade

I see that the Al Aqsa edit was reverted. I didn't put it in, but I did hear on ABC news last night that they HAD renamed themselves the Yasser Arafat Martyrs' Brigade. RickK 23:25, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr warnings

User:HistoryBuffEr is constantly vandalizing the article and inserting biased false information. I ask anyone who sees his changes to revert to the previous version.

Examples of HisBuf's vandalism:

• In September of 1972 the Palestinian group Black September kidnapped 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games; all hostages and most hostage takers were eventually killed. Try to whitewash the fact that the kidnappers slaughtered the 11 athlets.
• The Fatah movement continued to launch attacks against Israeli targets. In the late 1970s several new leftist organizations were formed in Palestine and carried out attacks on Israel and Israeli occupation colonies. Israel claimed that Arafat was in ultimate control over these organizations, but Arafat denied responsibility for acts of other groups. Highly biased and POV term.
• Israel claimed that the PLO had played an important part in the Lebanese Civil War. Some Lebanese Christians claimed that the PLO was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens killed by Israel. Unbased accusation. And again, trying to cover PLO involvement in the Lebanese violence.
• During this invasion Israeli army killed about 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and helped the Christian Phalangist militia massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps about 2,750 Palestinian refugees, mostly civilians. Ariel Sharon, Israeli Minister of Defense at the time, was found by the Israeli Kahan Commission "personally responsible" for the massacre and was dismissed from his post; he is now Prime Minister of Israel. Full of lies and missinformation:

1. Israel did not helped the Christian Phalangists in Sabra and Chatila. HisBuff accuses the IDF in direct involvement, which is, of course - a brute lie.
2. The Kahan committee found Sharon "indirectly responsible" and blamed him in not anticipating that the Phalangists will massacre the Palestinians. It never said Sharon was involved in that, or that took active part in the massacre.
3. Since HisBuff caught lying on this, I dispute the casualties toll he brings and the assertion the most were civilians.

• However, Israel made no visible attempts to live up to either the Oslo or the Wye River agreements; to the contrary, Israel steadily expanded its occupation, doubled the population in occupation colonies and kept obstructing Palestinian self-rule. Again, the incitement and POV terming.

If you find more of these, please report them here. MathKnight 21:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Report them here and here. Mrfixter 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My dictionary has for colony "a body of settlers living in a new territory but subject to control by the parent state". How does this not apply to the settlers in the West Bank? If Israel was occupying the West Bank, was there not an "occupation"? Calling them "settlements" implies they are no more than ordinary townships. It has a particular connotation of newness, implying that the settlements are built in otherwise virgin territory. NPOV means "all points of view" not "the point of view of whoever shouts loudest". HistoryBuffEr's edit of the Black September hostage crisis is correct. If it is disputed how the hostages died, we must write only that they died. It is impossible that any page on Israeli subjects can ever be NPOV if POV patrollers on both sides continue to seek to impose their views. But neither side ought to pretend that it is actually trying to restore neutrality, not HistoryBuffEr nor his opponents.Dr Zen 01:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Heavy Metal Poisoning

Arafat's likely cause of death, heavy metal poisoning, either Thallium or Arsenic, should be addressed.

• Here ya go. conspiracy theory Terrapin 17:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Updated neutral version

[Goldberg] One or two Likud thugs keep posting a bias non-neutral version. What a bunch of morons. We don't need or want your felon terrorist/war criminal Ariel Sharon written crap. [Goldberg]

Look at the Likud thug below: typical dumbass NAZI propaganda style...you don't have any imagination do you?

[SockpuppetRevertEr] One or two sockpuppet thugs keep posting a bias non-neutral version. What a bunch of morons. We don't need or want your terrorist Hamas written crap. [SockpuppetRevertEr]

I keep posting the neutral version (the one not written solely by Arafat's enemies). I try to incorporate as many useful edits as I can spot, but due to many reverts and vandalist edits it is hard to keep track of each and every real post. Please post here:

1. Important additions that are missing from this version, and
2. Any objections you may have.

Some diffs in this version are (in random order):

• Obit quotes by UN, US, Russia, China, UK and France (with all due respect, Australia, Pakistan, Burundi, etc. are not world powers).
• The factoid that Arafat died at this or that le hospital is really not important enough to be placed at top (and when he died is obvious from first sentence.)
• The controversy about date and place of birth is simply not deserving of half a page. Look at it from readers' perspective: what's the big deal? Arafat would be equally notable even if he was born in Peoria, Illinois, so note the dispute and move on.
• Quotes: Leave notables in, send the rest to Wikisource.
• Etc. Please post what other changes need to be explained.

HistoryBuffEr 06:08, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

No, you haven't discussed or attempted consensus on this page, and your version is certainly not neutral. It's just another wholesale replacement of what other editors have worked hard to come to agreement. You even keep deleting the bibliography. You can't just keep replacing the entire article with your own ethnocentric POV version and then ask for discussion afterward. Even the previous version before yours by Alberuni is questionable because it has too many changes without discussion and consensus first, not to mention POV, but his was the last version by an editor who participates (albeit with too many personal attacks) on the talk page. MPerel 06:33, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't take your attack personally. By the way, POV is in the eye of the beholder. --Alberuni 06:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Alberuni, truly. I intended it more as a side comment protest, not as an attack against you. I agree that POV is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it is valuable for people from different backgrounds and perspectives to come together, discuss and iron out disagreements, and maybe even learn from each other. I don't see any value in making or keeping enemies, do you? MPerel 07:13, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith until I am disappointed repeatedly. --Alberuni 07:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, a biography about anyone written solely by a loyalist is hardly true or believable by anyone but other loyalists. A truly balanced article will represent multiple perspectives. My favorite Arafat biographer is Said Aburish because he is neither loyalist nor enemy, but a historian dedicated to honest critical analysis, not propaganda (either for or against). Here is some of what Aburish says in the intro of his book explaining the perspective of his writing, which I think is a good explanation of why it would be dishonest to only present in this article Arafat's "authorized" version (btw, even the "authorized" versions are contradictory):

"I had to decide whether to write this biography with or without Arafat's assistance. I opted for the latter after meeting him and receiving his offer of help. My knowledge of the man excluded cooperating with him in person unless I was ready either to assume unnecessary risks or to accept constraints on the resulting work. Biographies by writers who have depended on Arafat and his loyalists for help and accepted their version of events tend to be more misleading and lacking than most. Even biographers disinclined to accept the Arafat version of events have wasted too much time in debunking what he said. When interviewing him, as a Palestininan writer I would have been under pressure to reveal more of my purpose and direction than an outsider, and I would have been subjected to attempts to recruit me as part of 'the cause'. This would have offered two unpalatable choices. Either I would succumb to his charm and demands on my Palestinianness, or I would betray him through refusing his call on my identify and 'responsibility' or pretending to accept this call and then lying to him. For example, despite evidence to the contrary, Arafat still insists that he was born in Jerusalem. Accepting his version of the story, to him the duty of all loyal Palestinians, would have cancelled my independence and vitiated my purpose. Rejecting his account of history either openly or after feigning the opposite, would--according to his logic--have represented a betrayal worthy of punishment. It would have made writing this biography far more dangerous.... For the first time many of his old friends and associates are beginning to speak, both in his defence and against him. On and off the record and on a non-attribution basis I have spoken to dozens of them: members of his cabinet, Arabs, Israelis, outsiders, writers, journalists, diplomats, CIA agents, shop owners, police officers and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

MPerel 08:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Btw, the birth controversy IS important because it explains Arafat's need to establish his leadership position by myth if necessary. Here's what Aburish says about it:

On the subject of his birth, loyalist biographer Alan Hart admits Arafat was born in Cairo; but he did so only after Janet and John Wallach had unearthed an Egyptian birth certificate and Andrew Gowers and Tony Walker had discovered Arafat's personal files at the University of Cairo. The rest of the material on his early years, which once obscured his origins, has also been amended by those who have written about him.

MPerel 08:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

HBE, you might have better luck if you try revising a paragraph at a time. At the very most, a section. Replacing the entire article wholesale is not constructive, regardless of the merits of your particular version. Is that a point you can agree on? Chuck Adams 18:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent news and commentary

The recent news and commentary section is really POV, poorly written and mostly unsubstantiated. Examples:

• Arafat's long personal and political survival was taken by most Western commentators - Which commentators? And why do they matter in this encyclopedia article?
• Others point to the constraints - Again, what others?
• Supporters of this declaration
• critics of this offer

Also a quote from Ariel Sharon, but from where? Recent news and commentary is just too vague and too POV to be in this article, or at least needs a whole lot of work done to it. --Mrfixter 14:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This entire article is probably beyond saving, and will remain so probably about as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues or the community grows up. I think I'll stick to edits on pages like the the average biomass of south american fungus and stuff like that and stay away from anything to do with politics. Chuck Adams 18:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Shortened Neutral version

The article has become too big. I have:

• Removed bibliography (this info is available in many places).
• Removed various superfluous analyst opinions and speculations about Arafat's skills.
• Rephrased some parts for brevity.
• Added useful edits by others (persistently biased edits by the anon IP have been ignored.)

P.S: Chuck Adams asks above to edit a little bit at a time. Then he says in the next reply that the current (biased) version is totally beyond repair. I agree with the latter. The goal is to produce a neutral and useful article; given the state of the article bold steps are required to fix it.

HistoryBuffEr 20:34, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

As usual, your edit was a complete re-write. [7]. Jayjg 20:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, please review the "But don't be reckless" section of Wikipedia:Be bold, which deals with exactly this situation. Jayjg 20:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk page comments being edited

It appears people's talk page comments have mysteriously been changed by 68.111.73.118 [8] --MPerel 22:11, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, they make no sense now. I'll try to fix. Jayjg 22:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sheesh, Alberuni, I just took the old sections that the anon vandalized and put it back in the Talk: page, I didn't realize you'd fixed typos there too. Lighten up, will you? Jayjg 23:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll lighten up when I start to see evidence of good faith editing instead of constant Zionist revisionism POV pushing. --Alberuni 23:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How was it Zionist revionism POV pushing for Jayjg to attempt to fix vandalism to your talk comments? It's getting so wearisome, your personal war against Jayjg and others who don't hold your exact viewpoint. It strains the nerves of many, and makes such a hostile environment. Please consider the negative effects of your hostility. Is that really the contribution you want to make? MPerel 23:23, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

My Talk page comments had been corrected - by me. Jayjg reverted them. OK? And the incessant efforts at Zionist revisionism are in full evidence on Israel, Hasbara, Zionist revisionism, Yasser Arafat, Munich Massacre and countless other pages. Just visit User:Jayjg to see the pages where the gang is currently pushing its POV. And I don't really care if you find it tiresome and strains your nerves. You would rather that everyone just goes along with the Zionist slant so of course you are irritated. This isn't another Zionist controlled media network so you will have to get used to divergent opinions for a change. --Alberuni 23:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MPerel point out vandalism, I went and got the originals and put them back in the sections. I hadn't realized that you had already fixed some or all of them, much less made further spelling corrections on top of that. I recommend re-reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Jayjg 23:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is, Alberuni, as you said, you don't care. Your lack of concern for other people is quite evident. You don't just strain my nerves, many people repeatedly have noted your disrespectful behavior. You don't follow Wiki civility rules and it ruins the wiki environment. You're the one who can't tolerate divergent opinions. Why can't you speak civilly to people with different viewpoints than yours? Nobody deserves to be treated the way you treat people. I don't know what you think you're actually accomplishing here by being so hostile to everyone. MPerel 23:56, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, I couldn't care less if a bunch of thugish Zionist bigots are offended. --Alberuni 00:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who's the real bigot here? MPerel 00:03, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The Zionists who think that Jews deserve more rights than non-Jews. --Alberuni 00:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to move all "Statements regarding Arafat's death" to WikiQuote

I just noticed that on Nov 10 editor Jiang moved all the Arafat quotes to WikiQuote [9] with a tag placed in the main article that states, "Wikiquote has a collection of quotations by or about Yasser Arafat" linked to the appropriate quote page. I think it would also be a good idea to move all the quotes under "Statements regarding Arafat's death" to this Arafat WikiQuote page here[10]. It would make the main article less cumbersome. Comments on this proposal anyone? MPerel 18:44, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. It should at least be moved to the Death_of_Yasser_Arafat page. I am not sure about wikipedia policy on this, though. --Mrfixter 18:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's quite a list of quotes under "World Reaction" on the Death page as well. Well maybe the quotes here should be merged with the quotes there and put on a separate linked Death of Yasser Arafat Wikiquote page. MPerel 19:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, I have no objection. --Mrfixter 14:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat's billions?

Seems its possible Arafat has up to 20 billion USD that came from the US, Europe as well as possible illegal actions. What was supposed to be done with this huge sum of money? How much of it was taken from taxes we all pay? Was any good done for the arab people with all the money spent aleady? --Hackeron 23:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That number seems highly unlikely, it's far too high, and probably off by an order of magnitude. Jayjg 02:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alan Hart documents are bogus

The accusatory allegations against Arafat's "claims" about his birthplace and how "even his personal biographer Alan Hart" admits that he was born in Cairo come from a typical Israeli smear site that seeks to undermine Arafat's credentials as a leader of the Palestinian struggle against Israel. [11]. This kind of partisan trash should not be used as source material for an encyclopedia. --Alberuni 02:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chill, dude. The BBC, a very friendly outfit to Arafat and the Palestinians, says Cairo, with no ifs, ands or buts. If there were a true chance it was Jerusalem, they would mention it prominently. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/890161.stm A2Kafir 02:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The accusatory tone of the smear that Arafat is a liar comes from the Israeli site. NPOV is to state that the birthplace/date is disputed and give the different places and dates. POV is to give credence to one version over the other, as if Wikipedians know best (after reading some Israeli smear site). "as his date of birth, as confirmed by Arafat's personal biographer (Hart, 1994). Some sources support Arafat's claim to have been born in Jerusalem". By the way, has anyone read Hart's biography? Or are you all going off these unreliable secondary sources? This is an encyclopedia not a rumor mill. --Alberuni 02:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No reputable sources support Arafat's claim. Biographers of Arafat agree: Arafat was born in Cairo. Alan Hart as well as Palestinian biographer, Said K. Aburish, in his book, Arafat: From Defender to Dictator, says Arafat was born in Cairo.[12] 69.59.178.228

I would add, just because a site you don't approve of says something doesn't mean it isn't true. The BBC is considered by many Israelis to be biased against them, and yet the BBC lends no credence to the Jerusalem claim. Also, it is common for a controversial leader to make such claims about birthplace; Kim Jong Il of North Korea claims to have been born at a particularly picturesque mountain, rather than in a town in Soviet Siberia (the truth)/ So, Arafat would not be unique in his desire to embellis his birth record. A2Kafir 02:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See my Aburish quote above. Aburish is a Muslim Palestinian. Hart's version is actually considered by many to be too loyalist to be a reliable record (see this review, for example [13]). That's why it's amazing that even *he* has amended what he's written about Arafat's birthplace since biographers Janet and John Wallach discovered the Egyptian birth certificate, and biographers Andrew Gowers and Tony Walker discovered Arafat's personal files at the University of Cairo. However, since there are still sources that insist on the Jerusalem birthplace, that should stay in the article also, along with the sentence about his birthplace being disputed. Alberuni, what sources are reliable in your view? MPerel 02:48, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I can't find any current reputable biographical sources that insist on the Jerusalem birthplace for Arafat. You just posted links that repeat Arafats allegations. 69.59.178.228

"Arafat's allegations"? This just about sums up the level of discussion here. I say the most reliable source for Arafat's claims is, well, Arafat! The guy himself said he was born in Jerusalem. The birth certificate should be noted but let's face it, you could fake one easily if you had a point to prove. The rest is just blather, pumped up by the POV pushers to muddy the water.Dr Zen 03:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The dispute is perpetuated by Israelis and while the plagiarized claim (above) that his Nobel Prize biography states that his birthplace is disputed, the actual source is an encyclopedia article by Irwin Abrams. "Since there is no biographical description of Yasser Arafat in Les Prix Nobel for 1994, this account was written by the editor of Nobel Lectures, Peace 1991-1995, published by World Scientific Publishing Co. From Nobel Lectures, Peace 1991-1995, Editor Irwin Abrams, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1999. This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above." [14] --Alberuni 04:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Both his official and unofficial biographers say he was born in Cairo. None of the people listed who state he was born there are Israeli. Jayjg 20:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I said the dispute was perpetuated by Israelis, of that there is little question. Who else cares so much to deny where Arafat was born? [15] Why is this an issue for Wiesenthal Center? [16]. Don't be so disingenuous. Israeli hasbara campaigns against Arafat have been running full-tilt for decades. [17] Why deny it? --Alberuni 21:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the dispute over Arafat's place of birth has been perpetuated by his biographers, not Israel. You are just appealing to distractions. Arafat's claim is not supported by the evidence. Alan Hart and Said K. Aburish agree that Arafat was born in Cairo. Hart is not Israeli, and Aburish is a Palestinian. Please refrain from changing the subject. --Viriditas 21:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is wasting time here?

I keep posting the neutral version but some insist on reverting to a rumors-and-smear version, and then keep piling on more and more irrelevant controversies. This article is really not a place to fight over the Temple and various other issues which should be taken to their articles.

Then many other editors spend valuable time fixing spelling errors, links, etc. all in vain, because the rumors-and-smear version simply can't survive for long.

Instead of every time painstakingly poring over each word of a largely useless version, I prefer to repost my previous version. If there is any issue with it, state it here. If you refuse to Talk, then modify only a specific claim you disgree with. Your approach will be returned in kind, be it edit or revert. HistoryBuffEr 04:56, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

You are wasting time with endless attempts to insert your POV version without getting consensus. Please follow Wikipedia norms and policies instead. Jayjg 05:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's version is a great NPOV improvement over the biased Zionist trash that you consistently insert on every page. There is never a possibility for consensus when there's a fanatic Zionist deliberately obstructing progress so that he can impose his extremist POV on Wikipedia. --Alberuni 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You know, I'm personally more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to the Israeli point of view, and lord knows that pro-Zionist/pro-Israeli apologists are legion. But great googily moogily, Alberuni, screaming WOLF WOLF WOLF over practically every edit isn't doing your cause ANY good. You've pretty much blown your credibility with me, and any dispute you bring up gets NO benefit of the doubt at this point.

Your opinion is duly noted. I really am terribly upset that I've blown my credibility with Calton. Whatever will I do? I'm sure Jayjg, Humussapiens, MathKnight, lance6Wins, Masterhomer and Viriditas will welcome you with open arms into their cabal. Shalom! --Alberuni 06:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey Sparky, you're missing the point: I'm not part of any cabal or conspiracy or whatever shadowy group you are imagining: I'm just a guy who looked up "Yasir Arafat" because, after all, he was in the news (dying more often than Generalissmo Francisco Franco), and stumbled over this controversy. I am, in effect, speaking up for the average reader, an average reader whom you've blown any credibility with. I have no personal dog in this fight except as an observer of bad behavior, and if you think that to the average observer that you're displaying your shining virtue against the shadowy political axe-grinders, well, you're sadly mistaken. --Calton 05:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And HistoryBuffEr? Nobody died and left you in charge of things. You got a problem with entries, then do what everyone else does and go through the process instead of being Mr. Unilateral. Otherwise you should get yourself a blog and then you write whatever you please. --Calton 07:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You make it sound as if everyone else is saintly following the process, when most here are actually constantly reverting.

(P.S: I hope you realize the irony of your dictate to be humble)

HistoryBuffEr 22:59, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

And what irony would that be? Do you even know what that word means?

And as long we're discussing words whose meanings you seem to be unclear on, let me ask if you understand the meaning of unilateral: in what way is your edit history NOT a trail of unilateral edits? --Calton 05:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You do seem to be a valuable contributor. In just 3 edits you've managed to add one "of" and one ";", then in another valuable edit removed one "'.

Your claim that you are not pro-Israel is interesting considering:

• You did not say one word about the much more numerous transgressions of the pro-Israel extremists,
• The praise you received from them, and
• That you edit articles they do (such as David Irving and Mordechai Vanunu).

Your interest in Power Rangers Turbo characters [18] explains your level of discourse. As you spend plenty of time in Wikipedia:Sandbox, I suggest you stay there until you grow up beyond snotty remarks. This is my last reply to you.

HistoryBuffEr 06:20, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, your tactic of telling lies about me in a move to discredit me pretty much tells me how little intellectual honesty you bring to the table. Your stunning act of mind-reading in divining my views on Israel, for instance: what part of pro-Zionist/pro-Israeli apologists are legion escaped your notice? (For that matter, what part of And what irony would that be? Do you even know what that word means? also escaped your notice?)

Then there's your smear about my editing track record. I've been doing this Wikipedia editing stuff for about a week-and-a-half, and going back and counting, I've made 356 edits (excluding Talk pages and Sandbox entries), on topics ranging from Japanese railroad stations to California community colleges to World War II submarines to, yes, one Power Ranger entry. Since this track record is easily available, then your peculiar characterization of it can only be deliberately dishonest, not mistaken.

As to what gets edited: You see those links to the left labelled "Random Page" and "Recent Changes"? I click on them sometimes when I'm at the office and need a break, and when I do, I see entries with typos, bad links, weird grammar, and missing information. And because it's easy to fix them, I fix them. Which is, you know, kind of the point of having those links.

This is my last reply to you. I can certainly see why: not having a leg to stand on would move anyone to retreating. --Calton 05:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have worked with HistoryBuffEr is a collegial way because he is intent on NPOVing these highly biased articles. I don't agree with all his edits and he disagrees with some of mine but he has respected my contributions. So, you accusations of unilateralism are false. Some editors are not worth discussing issues with because they are simply Zionist POV pushers who cannot be reasoned with. Their intention is to deliberately push an Israeli agenda and to hell with NPOV. That forces other editors to treat them harshly because they don't behave reasonably. Thanks for your input. --Alberuni 06:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two editors vs. every other editor on the page do not make for a "consensus", particularly when those editors insist on attributing conspiracy theory related motivations to all those who disagree with them, consistently violate Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility, and most importantly try to force change on controversial articles without first gaining consensus. Jayjg 19:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No matter how overwhelming the facts and substantiation, there is never consensus when extremist Zionist fanatics (who think WorldNetDaily is a legitimate source) are present. No point discussing NPOV with fanatic pro-Israeli propagandists. --Alberuni 20:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, you accusations of unilateralism are false. Changing things without consensus or discussion is pretty much the DEFINITION of unilaterism, irrespective of whatever hand-waving you do. You want to practice self-righteous zealotry, be my guest; just don't pretend it's anything else.

Thanks for your input. Since you've been operating in write-only mode throughout, I find this bit of fig-leaf amusing. --Calton 05:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hate to mention it, but your comment seems personal and highly political in nature, rather than directed towards article content. It might be easier to discuss these matters if we just stuck to the purpose of the Talk: pages, which is discussing article content. Jayjg 21:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well, the Talk page would be useful for achieving consensus and editing articles if we were all reasonable people. Unfortunately, there are a few pro-Zionist extremists who do not understand the concept of NPOV and one in particular who engages in endless sophistry to obstruct consensus and impose hi pro-Zionist POV on Wikipedia. If that's not an issue for the Talk pages, where should we take it? --Alberuni 00:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffer

At present, I don't find your edits to be horrendously NPOV. However, I cannot endorse your version at the moment, but I will not revert it either. So I will make comments for both versions.

HistoryBuffer, I still see "occupation colonies." This is a loaded term; it should be removed from your version of the article. A government occupies; these colonies are mostly civilians. It's difficult to say the colonists are occupying. Trespassing perhaps, but not occupying.

As for the other, Non-historybuffer version of the article, it really needs the quote from Arafat's address to the UN, about the olive branch.

That's all for now. --Golbez 08:24, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I am open to discussing "occupation colonies":

• There is occupation, right?
• These colonies were created by the government for the purpose to hold onto the occupied territory, were they not?
• The colonies are protected and subsidized by the government, right?
• Pretty much all other colonies in history were called colonies.
• Even American "settlements" were (and still are in history books) often called colonies.
• "Loaded" is in the eye of the beholder. Facts are implicitly NPOV.
• Occupation and colonies are facts. Euphemisms are egregiously POV.
• If some consider these facts "loaded", we should simply state so, rather than making Wikipedia into a propaganda outlet.

Your turn.

HistoryBuffEr 09:57, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

• Yes, there is.
• I wouldn't say that. Furthermore, that does not speak to the motives of the colonists.
• Yes, all colonies are.
• Erm, yeah. I'm not challenging the terminology "colonies" and I'm not challenging that there is an Israeli occupation; I'm challenging the repeated use of "occupation colonies". That is a deliberately loaded term and is used four times.
• Asked and answered.
• Loaded means they are not quite NPOV because someone sees POV in them. Facts are explicitly NPOV; how they are expressed is not.

You lack consensus for these changes. They are apparently not NPOV, no matter how much you say they are. Your own obvious anti-Israeli POV clouds your judgment. --Golbez 18:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Golbez, thanks for answering all questions, except for the most important one :)

• Yes, there are sources (Israeli govt, Sharon's "fingers" quote) about the intent of colonies.
• Motives of civilians are irrelevant here. If, say, a bunch of Englishmen moved to India just to enjoy fresh air, that wouldn't have made India any less of a colony, right?
• What does "deliberately loaded" mean? Do you have the unique ability to peer into someone else's mind?
• As for consensus, we have just started the debate, so your judgment that there isn't any is premature.
• You say "not NPOV" without explaining to whom and why.
• The standard principle of handling disputed terms is to cite all relevant POVs on the subject. Why do you insist on removing the POV you dislike from the article?
• Why is stating obvious and neutral facts (which counter Israel's POV) "obviously anti-Israel"? What is obvious about it? Are you saying that anything countering Israel's POV is automatically anti-Israel? Even if it was, this is Wikipedia, not an Israeli PR outlet, right?

Awaiting your explanation why an important POV should be removed from the article.

HistoryBuffEr 19:59, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

You're drawing uncalled for conclusions - I have removed nothing. I do not plan to remove anything; this is not my fight. So please stop being so defensive about me removing content.

• Okay. One comment is sufficient; repetition is unnecessary. I could go to John Kerry and add that he's a liberal every single place I could, and that would be reverted, because while once it might be a statement of fact, in repetition it becomes POV.
• If they were the only Englishmen in India, then yeah, it would have.
• Some things just seem obvious.
• We have just started the debate, yes - but that didn't keep you from constantly readding the changes that were being reverted prior to the debate. Don't ignore your actions that occurred prior to being mentioned here.
• "NPOV" to those who keep reverting you.
• I haven't insisted on removing anything. I said it should be removed, and I haven't touched it. Again - if you like the term, saying it once is sufficient, but any other mention should simply be "colonies" because it adds nothing to constantly remind the reader that they are occupation colonies. I could remind the reader that Arafat was a terrorist at every turn, but that would be removed.
• I didn't say the article was anti-Israel; I said you were. ;)

Because it's a POV. Neutralize it. For every mention of "occupation colonies", add a mention of Arafat as a terrorist. At present, your version of the article has no such statement, simply two quotes.

Furthermore, you have reverted the article three times in 24 hours, and contrary to what you say, it was not over vandalism. If you continue to revert the article, it may be protected, and not perhaps on the copy you want. Respect the Three revert rule at all times. The mere fact that the other version has more reverters than you is a sign of consensus. So please respect their choices as much as you would like them you respect yours. What you need to do is justify your edits here, rather than overwrite the article repeatedly. --Golbez 20:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable (except for "anti-Israel", an obviously loaded term, which you keep repeating without any explanation.)

• It looks like we agree that "occupation colonies" is a fair term which should be included. I'll make sure to note that Israel uses the term "settlements". I agree that repetition of a disputed term is excessive and will replace dupes with just "colonies". So, you win one.

But now, you owe it to the NPOV side to go into Munich massacre and replace some 13 repetitious refs to "terrorists" with a less disputed term.

• The constant anon IP reverts are an evasion of personal responsibility and rules. Most of these are very likely the POV pushers' sock-puppets because they follow the same revert pattern and article history. So, I do not consider my reverts of anon reverts as something to write home about.
• As for justifying edits, there is no rhyme or reason for other editors not to justify their edits also, right? So, I am looking forward to your incisive questions to them as well. Peace.

HistoryBuffEr 20:52, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

• We do not agree that "occupation colonies" is a fair term; however, I will not object to it being included once, but only once. Others might, but I'm accomodating. :P "settlements" does seem a lot more NPOV, since it offers no political overtones.
• As if "Massacre" isn't itself POV? ;) And anyway, it looks like a discussion is already underway there.
• That doesn't matter. They are not vandalism. The three revert rule applies for all, unless clearly used to combat vandalism.
• Their version was the original one, best I can tell; therefore, it is edits to that that should be justified, not the other way around. At best, they should have to justify their reverts as well. But again, I'm not getting in to this fight. :) My only expressed complaint at this time is "occupation colonies" and we seem to have reached an arrangement on that. Any other aspect is not brought up by me at this time, and should be dealt with and by others. --Golbez 21:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

So, you are bailing out when NPOV editing would involve revising the POV agreeable to you :(

I'll let you go, with a reminder that everyone is subject to justifying edits, not only editors you oppose. If older versions were implicitly more NPOV we could simply protect all pages and go home.

Hoping some day you'll find time for both sides of NPOV, HistoryBuffEr 21:42, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

NPOV editing would be lovely - unfortunately, no one's doing it. --Golbez 22:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) has a term for these places, they are called Israeli settlements. "Occupation colonies" is a POV term essentially invented by HistoryBuffer, in the context of Israel gets under a dozen Google hits (in the singular or the plural), and most of them are from Wikipedia Talk: pages discussing HistoryBuffEr's POV invention. On the other hand, "Israeli settlement" and "Israeli settlements" get over 200,000 hits. Wikipedia is neither the place for neologisms nor the place for POV. Jayjg 21:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Very good point. I didn't think about the Google test. Historybuffer? --Golbez 22:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Funny how deniers of Palestine fought Google hits on "occupation of Palestine" tooth and nail as "silly", but Google hits are now cool.

Funny, too, how extremists dismissed my "generally agreed term" argument in re "occupation of Palestine", but now use the same argument themselves.

Anyway, if everyone here bows to Google, I'll change to "occupied colonies", which gets 381,000 hits. Of course, this also means that we finally have an agreement that "Occupation of Palestine", as Google's favorite term, is now accepted as the title for the subject matter.

HistoryBuffEr 01:41, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, why are you still making this erroneous claim when Pir explained your error on Oct 11, 2004 at 15:14. I find it very strange that you continue to post misinformation about Google searches even after your mistake has been explained to you. "Occupied colonies" gets a total of 568 hits on Google, not 381,000. On the other hand, the term, "Israeli settlements" gets 144,000 hits. This has been explained to you, yet you continue to make the same false claims. I am going to add this example to your current arbitration as a violation of Wikipedia:Check your facts. --Viriditas 02:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's more, the few uses of the phrase "Occupied colonies" on the Internet don't seem to refer to the Israeli settlements at all. As well, "Israeli settlement" gets an additional 61,300 hits (on top of the 144,000 for Israeli settlements). Jayjg 03:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HB, Jayjg is right, the "occupation colonies" term you want to use doesn't seem to be common usage used by anyone in the context of Palestine. It's a pejorative and POV term, nothing more. Now if you want to mention the two most widely used terms by opposing sides, there is "Israeli settlements", and many Palesinian advocates use the term "illegal settlements". Google it and you'll see about 36,000 sites (like Aljazeera) using "illegal settlements". But nobody really seems to use the term "occupation colonies". MPerel 22:34, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we were to follow HistoryBuffEr's preferred way of describing things, we would say "Most of the world describes them as Israeli settlements, but extremists prefer illegal settlements, and radical extremists prefer occupation colonies" :-) Jayjg 23:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They are known to most of the world (excluding your hasbara colleagues) as illegal Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory because that differentiates them from Israeli settlements, towns in Israel. --Alberuni 04:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Golbez, just a note on the olive branch quote: one editor moved all the quotes to Wikiquote and put a tag at the bottom of the article linking to all the Arafat quotes here: [19]. It includes the olive branch quote. I suggested somewhere earlier in this talk page that we should move all the other quotes about Arafat's death to Wiqiquote too, but I haven't had time to pursue doing it. There's a Death of Arafat article that has even more quotes that will have to be merged etc. Anyway, moving the quotes to Wiqiquote makes the article less cumbersome, IMO, as long as the article has a clear link to the quotes. MPerel 19:00, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Still, that's his most famous quote, and actually pertains to an action he did, speaking before the UN.

True, where do you think the quote would best fit in the article itself? I agree that it's a good idea to put it in there. MPerel 21:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

If your version of the article doesn't mention his address to the UN, it should, and the quote could go there. --Golbez 21:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Arafat met Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) at Cairo University?

The article now states that Arafat met Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) at Cairo University, but the link doesn't say that, it only says that they met in Cairo, and doesn't give a date, and al-Wazir never attended Cairo University. Jayjg 03:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. I shall remove it. --Viriditas 03:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat's death certificate cites his birthplace as Jerusalem; Wiesenthal Center objects!

"The death certificate issued for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat by French authorities last week indicates his place of birth as Jerusalem and not Cairo, officials said today. Municipal officials at Clamart, the suburb of Paris where Arafat died last Thursday, said they issued the document on the basis of a family record book itself issued by the French foreign ministry in 1996. The issue is symbolically important because Israel considers Jerusalem as its eternal capital, while Palestinians want to make east Jerusalem, occupied by the Jewish state since 1967, the capital of their promised state. Arafat was born Mohammed Abdel-Rawf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Hussaini, on August 4, 1929. The official version of his life history records he was born in Jerusalem. However numerous biographers agree that he was, in fact, born in Cairo, where his father, from Gaza, owned a business." [20] "The Paris branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a U.S.-based Jewish rights group, said it had written to French Justice Minister Dominique Perben on Monday asking him to correct the death certificate. Arafat was born Aug. 24, 1929, to a modest trading family. Leading biographies say he was born in Cairo, where his father settled. Arafat said he was born in Jerusalem and that his father forged a birth certificate for him in Egypt so he could attend school for free." [21] --Alberuni 04:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does this information add that we didn't already know? His birth certificate says Cairo, leading biographers agree. Arafat claims Jerusalem, and claims that the Cairo birth certificate was a forgery. Jayjg 11:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's new? The Simon Wiesenthal Center, "an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust by fostering tolerance and understanding through community involvement, educational outreach and social action" protests France's certification of Arafat's death. Where's NGO Monitor when you need them to question the partisan political machinations of groups posing as human rights organizations? Oh, that's right, as a hasbara propaganda tool, NGO Monitor only attacks Palestinian human rights groups, never Zionist ones. Can I spell anything else out for you? --Alberuni 15:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the Paris branch of the Wiesnthal Center objected, but I'm not sure what your point is. Did the Wiesenthal Center bring any new information regarding his birthplace forwards? Jayjg 16:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the entire organization known as the Simon Wiesenthal Center protested, not just the Paris branch. [22]. My point is that the "dispute" about Arafat's birthplace is fueled by vile Zionists who wish to undermine Palestinian claims to their native lands by every sordid means they can muster. --Alberuni 17:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually that could be a very feasible scenario (a forged birth certificate for the sake of free schooling), especially since his birthdate in Jerusalem is listed as Aug 4 and his birthdate in Cairo is listed as Aug. 24. The family did move from Gaza to Cairo right about the time Arafat was born, and his five older siblings (which is why I think he's actually the sixth not fifth of seven children, btw) were born in Gaza: sisters Inam, Khadija, Yusar, and brothers Khalid, and Mustapha. Arafat and his younger brother Fathi were said to be born in Cairo. I think the article should be changed to something like this to reflect this information:

Arafat was the fifth of seven children born to a Palestinian textile merchant. A birth certificate registered in Cairo, Egypt gives August 24, 1929 as his date of birth, as confirmed by Arafat's biographer Alan Hart and Palestinian biographer, Said K. Aburish. Some sources have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace. Arafat's death certificate, however, supports his claim that he was born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 and that his father forged a birth certificate for him in Egypt so he could attend school for free. [1] (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/30_1.html)[2] (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html) His father’s family includes Egyptian ancestry and his mother descended from a prominent Palestinian family in Jerusalem.

--MPerel 16:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. to Alberuni, the discussion would go a lot better without your insults (i.e., "blind deaf and dumb") --MPerel 16:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

In general your proposal seems fine; however, why would the French death certificate be relevant? Did the French coroner have new information that other sources did not have? Jayjg 16:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well I think it's relevant because the death certificate is an official document, like the birth certificate. There's actually no guarantee that either official document is accurate, obviously one of them is incorrect, but still there is currently no way to know with certainty which one is true. All we can do is list what both official documents report MPerel 16:57, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant and gives far to much weight to the document, which is based on no new information. But fine. Jayjg 17:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MPerel wrote, Some sources have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace. I would have no problem with that statement, if it was true. The only "sources" seem to be Arafat. Links repeating the claim do not substantiate it. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary. --Viriditas 19:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a point. The Britannica link reads "others have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace" but no source is actually cited. The Cairo birthplace has a birth certificate and biographers as a source. The Jerusalem birthplace has a death certificate and Arafat himself for a source. He very well could have been born in Gaza like his older siblings, but until there is an explicit first-hand source to cite, I agree the Gaza hypothesis should probably be removed. MPerel 19:40, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise. Let's make mention of the "Gaza hypothesis", as well as it's lack of evidence. I'm strongly in favor of inclusion rather than exclusion. I think your original proposal in response to Alberuni was a good one, although we could make a few minor adjustments to reflect the actual state of the claims. You've done good work. --Viriditas 19:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think you should go ahead and do some refinement. MPerel 20:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Since he is without question the most reliable source of a bunch of unreliable sources, his own claim should come first. Clearly, it is anti-Arafat to put both the Cairo and Gaza claims before the Jerusalem claim. BTW, Jayjg, you are once again applying a double standard. You put enormous weight on a birth certificate but claim the death certificate has none. Yet the death certificate was made in good faith by a living witness and the birth certificate is clouded in controversy. I'm making an edit to reflect this. I will not revert it if the POV pushers seek to change it. I'm happy simply to make it in good faith. Dr Zen 22:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. There is nothing "anti-Arafat" about quoting two biographers, one of which was his official biographer (Hart), and the other which is Palestinian (Aburish). Please explain the controversy over the birth certificate. You claim that the evidence for his birth in Gaza is supported by his death certificate. Do you believe that makes logical sense? Ipse dixit is not evidence, and claiming that "Arafat said so" is an appeal to authority. --Viriditas 23:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course you disagree. When sources agree with your bias, they are of course reliable. When they do not, they are without question unreliable. Clearly the French authorities have more faith in ipse dixit than someone else dixit, don't you think? You know, I'm going to chuckle all day over the idea that "Arafat said so" is an appeal to authority and "his biographers said so" is not. Now, the point was that Arafat's claim about himself should come first, because the article is about him not his biographers. I don't see anything in your remarks that addresses that. It is quite simply intolerably POV to put others' views on the subject of the article's birthplace before those of the subject of the article himself. Neither of them were present after all. Dr Zen 23:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no double-standard. The birth certificate is an official government document issued at birth, about the birth; the death certificate was issued in France 75 years later by a coroner's office which had little, if any, knowledge of where Arafat was actually born. The death certificate is a great authority if you want to know when and where he died, but is of little relevance to when and where he was born, since its role is not to determine that, but rather to state when and where he died. The birth certificate tells us about the birth, the death certificate tells us about the death. And please do not fall into the trap of using these Talk: pages for personal attacks, for example, making statements such as "when sources agree with your bias". Rather, please use the Talk: pages to discuss article content. Jayjg 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to suggest that someone has a bias. As I pointed out to Viriditas, it is an item of policy that we should recognise that we all do. It is, though, rather uncivil to characterise a difference of opinion as a "personal attack". All I have suggested is that the subject's own claim as to his place of birth should take precedence, especially since he has plausibly explained why his birth certificate differs. A birth certificate is proof only that someone registered his birth in Cairo, not that he was actually born there. So far as I know, there are no living witnesses to Arafat's birth, nor any statements from witnesses that contradict Arafat's own position. My reward for this attempt to restore neutrality to this article has been to be attacked on other pages, called stupid and, in the case of Viriditas, for him to involve himself elsewhere in matters that do not bear on this issue. It's extremely disheartening. Dr Zen 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Ziopedia. --Alberuni 04:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While stating that a person has bias might not be a strong personal attack, it is more than just a "difference of opinion", and stating that they essentially make their decisions based on bias (as opposed to logic or facts) is without doubt a personal attack. Moreover, no-one appreciates being strawmanned ("When sources agree with your bias, they are of course reliable. When they do not, they are without question unreliable.") Regarding your arguments, you are correct that Arafat's story cannot be 100% ruled out, which is why the article has always given it prominent play, and has recently included his claim that the birth certificate was falsified to allow for free education. However, whoever registered his birth was much closer to the time and events in question, and was charged with accurately determining that birth information. On the other hand, the person registering his death was not charged with accurately determing the birth information, only the death information. Again, birth certificates are relevant to births, death certificates are relevant to deaths; this is not about "bias", but about facts, relevance, and common sense. Jayjg 04:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO, it's only a personal attack when the bias cannot be demonstrated. If I say User X is biased, and I can demonstrate that bias, it's not an attack as long as I stick to demonstrating the bias of User X's comments and not commenting on the User X itself. Otherwise, it's ad hominem, which is exactly how Dr. Zen phrased it, even though he later attempted to demonstrate alleged cherry-picking, which upon closer examination was merely a weak straw man coupled with a false analogy. If a claim of user bias is made, it should be demonstrated in a logical manner. Dr. Zen failed to do this. --Viriditas 05:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I love this. At no point has either of these fine logicians explained why the biographers' explanation of the birth certificate is more acceptable than Arafat's own. I say that any decision whose version you will accept is purely down to what those in question say, because there are no other criteria for judgment. This is precisely what "bias" is. I say that where there are no facts, but only one claim and another, the claim of the subject of the article might come first. I also suggest that what a person says about their own birth is worth more than what anyone else says in the absence of any other evidence. For this, I am gratuitously insulted, my comments described as "straw man" arguments and "fallacies" (in terms that would make it an "argument from authority" to suggest that witness evidence should be allowed at a trial!). As I say, it's very disheartening. It seems that a good-faith attempt to make a disputed article a little more neutral is completely unwelcome.Dr Zen 05:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People don't actually remember their own births; biographers examine available evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. An official birth document is significant evidence about a birth, and more than just a "claim". And your continued claim that you are the only editor here editing in good-faith and attempting neutrality is both false and also "completely unwelcome". Jayjg 17:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Dr. Zen's attack and accusation of bias

I am going to assume good faith and ignore your explicit ad hominem attack, which you have clearly made as a distraction, to avoid having to discuss your fallacious argument, which ironically, you continue to make in your second reply. I will comment, however, that following the policy of verifiability is not a form of bias. Also, I have stated that I am willing to compromise on this issue by including both claims, provided they are accurate and not misleading. Now, back to your comments: You claimed that Arafat was a more reliable source than his biographers, who relied on actual evidence for his place of birth. I explained that you were presenting an appeal to authority. You also claimed that the evidence for Arafat's birth in Gaza is supported by his death certificate. That appears to be a fallacy of wrong_direction as well as another appeal to authority. Just because his death certificate says he was born in Gaza does not in any way substantiate his claim. You have also confused the distinction between unreliable sources (a claim I never made) with unsubstantiated sources. They are not the same thing. (But, that didn't stop you from making a straw man argument which provided the central thrust for your ad hominem). You then went on to make another appeal to authority, when you argued that the French authorities were substantiating Arafat's claim by issuing a death certificate with his alleged place of birth. After that, you made a brazen false analogy when you compared Arafat's claim of birth, which lacks evidence, to the claims made by biographers, which is based solely on evidence. That is to say, the biographers claims are not based on an appeal to authority, but on the evidence itself. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of Arafat's birth claim. You wrote, I don't see anything in your remarks that addresses that, and I have addressed your false analogy in this reply. You then followed up with another straw man and yet another appeal to authority when you claimed that it was POV to put others' views on the subject of the article's birthplace before those of the subject of the article himself. This flaw in your reasoning (Ipse dixit)has been explained to you several times, so there is no need to discuss it again. Finally, you concluded your litany of fallacies with an argument from ignorance, as well as an appeal to negative proof when you wrote, Neither of them were present after all. Nevertheless, we do not have an absence of evidence. We have an Egyptian birth certificate for Arafat. It is certainly possible that the certificate has been falsified, but is it probable? Occam's Razor might be a good tool to use in questioning the veracity of both Arafat's birth claims, and the Egyptian birth certificate. --Viriditas 04:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Zen's reply to Viriditas

Note: Dr. Zen replies in plain text, Viriditas comments in italics

I am going to assume good faith and ignore your explicit ad hominem attack, which you have clearly made as a distraction, to avoid having to discuss your fallacious argument, which ironically, you continue to make in your second reply.

Because, entirely without irony, I do not believe it to be fallacious simply because you say so

I will comment, however, that following the policy of verifiability is not a form of bias.

No. But prejudicing one explanation of the facts over another most certainly is, Occam's Razor notwithstanding.

Also, I have stated that I am willing to compromise on this issue by including both claims, provided they are accurate and not misleading.

I have at no time suggested that any claim should be removed. Nor did I remove any in my edit. There is no compromise involved in allowing both claims.

Now, back to your comments: You claimed that Arafat was a more reliable source than his biographers, who relied on actual evidence for his place of birth.

I claimed that neither is any more or less reliable if looked at neutrally, but that each became more or less reliable depending on your a priori POV.

I explained that you were presenting an appeal to authority.

And I explained that you are doing exactly the same.

You also claimed that the evidence for Arafat's birth in Gaza is supported by his death certificate.

No. I said that the French authorities had clearly accepted that Arafat's explanation of the facts was correct.

That appears to be a fallacy of wrong_direction as well as another appeal to authority. Just because his death certificate says he was born in Gaza does not in any way substantiate his claim.

And yet his birth certificate's saying he was born in Cairo proves him a liar. Ho hum. I remind you that I state clearly that his birth certificate is not proof of where he was born, but proof that someone registered his birth in Cairo. The death certificate is not proof that he was born there either; merely, proof that someone registered in France that he was born in Palestine.

You have also confused the distinction between unreliable sources (a claim I never made) with unsubstantiated sources.

Indeed I do not. You seem to believe that any method of substantiation will do, even when what is substantiated is a wholly different fact from what is claimed. The biographers would have been correct to claim that his birth was registered in Cairo (which the certificate shows) but their claim that he was actually born there is not substantiated). I think I am quite clear that neither can substantiate his claim but that Arafat, since he is describing the events of his own birth, in the absence of other witnesses, must be taken to be the most reliable of a set of unreliable witnesses. Had the registrar attended the birth, or claimed to have witnessed a statement by someone who had, perhaps the claim would have more foundation (it is not for nothing that here in Australia the delivering obstetrician must verify your being born in the hospital your mother claims you were born in!).

They are not the same thing. (But, that didn't stop you from making a straw man argument

Sorry. I note you throw the term around, but of course I have not done any such thing. This is simply a personal attack, couched in language you hope is erudite enough that your peers will be sufficiently impressed not to note its substance.

which provided the central thrust for your ad hominem).

Suggesting that all contributors to Wikipedia have personal bias is not an attack. It is an item of policy.

You then went on to make another appeal to authority, when you argued that the French authorities were substantiating Arafat's claim by issuing a death certificate with his alleged place of birth.

I think you mean to say that it is a secondhand appeal to authority, because all I suggest by it is that the French registrar accepted Arafat's own explanation of the facts. I have not at any point suggested that Arafat's explanation is substantiated, but you ignore this, so keen are you on categorising my argument one way or the other.

After that, you made a brazen false analogy when you compared Arafat's claim of birth, which lacks evidence, to the claims made by biographers, which is based solely on evidence.

Arafat's claim quite clearly is based on evidence. The testimony of witnesses is evidence per definitionem! Both he and the biographers explain a text, each in a different way. I ask, and I repeat my question, why the biographers' reading of it should take precedence. I understand that you believe that Occam's Razor should apply. However, I say again that the fact requiring explanation is that his birth was registered in Cairo. Each explanation requires one "entity", if you like, in the first case that he was actually born there and in the second that his father claimed it for purposes of obtaining free education. How you think Occam's Razor can slice that into being a proof of where he was actually born, I don't know. I repeat once more that the fact under dispute is not where his birth was registered but where he was actually born.

That is to say, the biographers claims are not based on an appeal to authority, but on the evidence itself.

Indeed they are no more so than Arafat's own claims. He does not dispute that his birth was registered in Cairo. He disputes why. The biographers present absolutely no other evidence.

On the other hand, the same cannot be said of Arafat's birth claim.

You have not even begun to show why not.

You wrote, "I don't see anything in your remarks that addresses that", and I have addressed your false analogy in this reply. You then followed up with another straw man and yet another appeal to authority when you claimed that it was POV "to put others" views on the subject of the article's birthplace before those of the subject of the article himself.

How is it a straw man? I believe it is precisely POV to put either claim first. One must be preferred and I believe it should be that of the subject of the article. An appeal to authority, I ought to remind you, is only a fallacy if it is made unduly. I say that neither claim can be substantiated and consequently the subject's own views should be placed first, because quite simply the article concerns him and not his biographers.

This flaw in your reasoning (Ipse dixit)has been explained to you several times, so there is no need to discuss it again.

And I have explained to you just as many times that it is not in this case a flaw in reasoning. Neither biographer has any knowledge of Arafat's birth outside the birth certificate. Arafat clearly does. Each explains the birth certificate in a particular way, with no supporting evidence, so that one cannot prefer either argument. So. It is not an argument from authority to suggest that a person knows where they themselves were born! You might make an argument that Arafat is lying (and of course you are seeking to do exactly that) but you present absolutely no evidence that he is.

Finally, you concluded your litany of fallacies with an argument from ignorance, as well as an appeal to negative proof when you wrote, "Neither of them were present after all".

It is a fact that neither witnessed Arafat's birth. It is a fact that no witness claims to have been present at his birth. It is a fact that the only person who was present and has made a claim says that the birth was in Jerusalem. He may very well have been lying but it is not for Wikipedia to make judgments about that, nor for any one of us to use our prior understanding (if you so don't like the word "bias") to so judge.

Nevertheless, we do not have an absence of evidence. We have an Egyptian birth certificate for Arafat.

Registrars do not attend births, even in Egypt, or so I believe. As I mentioned above, here in Australia they must be presented with proof from an obstetrician (or midwife, I believe) that a birth did in fact take place. Do you know this to be the case in Egypt?

It is certainly possible that the certificate has been falsified, but is it probable?

I believe it is perfectly likely. Arafat's family did live in Palestine. They did move to Egypt. They could well have forged documents to gain him free education. It is impossible, absent other testimony, to judge.

Occam's Razor might be a good tool to use in questioning the veracity of both Arafat's birth claims, and the Egyptian birth certificate.

Simply not making a judgment might well be the best tool of all.Dr Zen 05:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(I have fixed your reply above) As far as a judgement, it appears that you are the one who has judged Arafat's biographers. I have merely compared and contrasted opposing sources and evidence, of which there appears to be none in Arafat's favor except for anecdotal testimony. That is not an opinion, nor a judgement: it is an observation. --Viriditas 06:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with how I laid out my reply, you are entirely welcome to edit it as you see fit. Yes, there is no evidence in Arafat's favour bar anecdote, and I have never claimed there is. But there is also no evidence in his biographers' favour, not even anecdote! I have not of course judged his biographers. I explicitly noted that one ought not to make a judgment either way. In my first comment on this issue, I said that all the sources were unreliable as to the place of his birth, but that he ought to take precedence because the only evidence we have for where he was born is his own testimony. The certificate, I note once more, is evidence that his birth was registered in Cairo, which is not disputed, not that it took place there, which is.Dr Zen 05:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I have the time, I may edit your reply to fix the italization. I want you to also notice, in the spirit of compromise and collaboration, that I have not changed your version of the article, even though I disagree with its current form. --Viriditas 05:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Viriditas. I want to be clear that I too believe in compromise and collaboration. I appreciate your reverting HistoryBuffEr's edit, which he has not argued for here on the talk page, and I support your action. I have made my case and I do not have anything further to add to this page. Because I believe you are acting in good faith, I am going to remove this page and the article page from my watchlist, so you need not fear that you will be dragged into an edit war should you decide to make further edits.Dr Zen 05:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If that is how you truly feel, then I encourage you to stay. Please reconsider keeping this page on your watchlist. Your criticism is valuable. --Viriditas 11:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I too did not revert your edit, though I strongly felt it placed undue weight on both Arafat's claim and the death certificate. Jayjg 17:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Made some minor adjustments. Using "claims" 3x seems awkward, changed to following:

Arafat was the fifth of seven children. His father was a Palestinian textile merchant and his mother came from a prominent Palestinian family. Arafat's claim to have been born in Jerusalem on August 4, 1929 is supported by his death certificate. However, A birth certificate registered in Cairo, Egypt gives August 24, 1929 as his date of birth, as confirmed by Arafat's biographer Alan Hart and Palestinian biographer, Said K. Aburish. Arafat maintained his father forged the birth certificate for him in Egypt so he could attend school for free. Other sources have given Gaza, Palestine, as his birthplace.

--MPerel 18:21, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Zionists who hate Arafat should edit an article on Arafat the Monster

All the Zionist hyena-like vitriolic smears against Arafat, his father the forger, his embezzling wife, etc. all the Ziocentric news about the AIDS ridden homosexual terrorist drinking the blood of Jewish children at Maalot and the Munich Olympics can go there. I'm sure it will be very popular. You can use your usual reliable hasbara sources [23] like Jerusalem News Wire, Israel Insider, Dore Gold NGO Monitor Frontpagemag, Free Republic, WorldNetDaily, etc. When you are done, we will match it with an Ariel Sharon the Butcher article. OK? --Alberuni 05:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, thanks for sharing. Jayjg 17:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, you're throwing logs on an already nicely burning arbitration case. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is "Ziocentric" a word? Or did he just make it up? A2Kafir 03:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Guy was 70-sth. - It's not Israel's fault

Yasser Arafat was more than 70 years old when he died. It is extremely unlikely that Israel had something to do with his death. In fact, the Palestinians are those who'd be wanting his money, and his seat as a monarch of Palestine. It is sure enough the Israelis didn't poison him in any way, for many of them actually thought he'd be better than what would come next. Therefore, If Arafat had been actaully killed, it's the Palestinians who killed him, or, if it was indeed an Israeli, then it's not a government organization but a private person (שהוא זיין)

publically "disassociated"

Hello, in the section on Lebanon, I would argue strongly for removing the " (inverted commas) from around disassociated. It (disassociated) is already qualified with publically; so I think that it is silly to write 'publically "disassocieted"'. Either one publically disassociates or one doesn't. Clearly Arafat *publically* did; whether he really did or not is another question. Anyway, those extra inverted commas really feel like a little too much pov.

Secondly, what is the meaning of '"ordered"'? Either he did order it or not. Perhaps he claimed to have ordered it while he actually didn't? This needs to be explained, or those ambiguous " need to be dropped.

What are 'security forces'. We are talking here about an occupying army here, are we not? What about a mention of Isreali forces killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank -- usually as "collateral" damage? I feel that this whole section is tilted towards an Isreali pov.

NJC 16:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right regarding the quotation marks, I think you should remove them. Regarding the security forces, I think that the term was meant to indiciate various non-civilian groups, including police, but I'm not sure. Regarding "collateral damage", this was pre Intifadeh, when such incidents were rare, if they happened at all. Jayjg 16:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed ambiguous quotation marks. NJC 17:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat and Munich

I added some material this morning regarding Arafat's distancing of himself and the PLO from Munich. I quoted three sources which I hope are acceptable: (1) Mohammad Douad's autobiography, which states that Arafat knew about Munich in advance; (2) al-Dustur, the Jordanian newspaper, in which Daoud is quoted as saying Fatah and Black September were the same organization; and (3) Benny Morris, history professor at Ben-Gurion, who has often been accused of being pro-Palestinian, and who states that Black September was an offshoot of Fatah. I felt that, because of his perceived pro-Palestinian inclinations, Morris was an Israeli author that all sides might agree to trust on this issue. I hope that's enough attribution. Slim 13:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it looks good to me, but some authors here feel that no information that could be perceived in any way as negative about Arafat should be placed in this article, regardless of the source, so you might have a bit of a fight on your hands. Jayjg 14:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, could you explain why you removed the material I inserted about Arafat's alleged links to Munich? I provided three published sources, two secondary and one primary: a respected Arab newspaper, which I believe is regarded as Jordan's main news source; an Israeli historian (regarded as on the left and, by some in Israel, as pro-Palestinian; and as a primary source, a Palestinian who says he was the commander of the Munich operation. I feel that, in providing three disparate sources, the material should be acceptable for a Wikipedia entry. If you know of reputable sources on the other side, by all means add that, but I feel you shouldn't simply delete material like this, especially without an entry on the Talk page. Slim 22:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, you have removed my material again without an explanation, so I have reverted to the last edit by Jayjg. Please explain your objections rather than removing carefully researched material without explanation. Slim 08:59, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

When your repeated posts are ignored it's a hint to rethink your argument. As you keep recycling the same trash here and on my user talk, here are more clues:

• In view of your 750+ edits, your "question" on "removed" material is obvious trolling and will be ignored.
• Your assertion that 1 unsubstantiated rumor printed in a newspaper counts as 2 "disparate" sources is laughable.
• Your presentation of Morris, who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and calls them "a very sick society" [24], as "pro-Palestinian" is worse than a bad joke.

Have a nice day, and stop spamming and reverting my user page.

HistoryBuffEr 18:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There is no need to be aggressive. I did quote two sources. The first source was Daoud, the Palestinian commander of the operation. The second source was Morris, an Israeli academic. Morris does not say he took his information from Daoud, so this does not appear to be circular sourcing. I provided three citations -- the Jordanian newspaper article from 1972 in which Daoud was first attributed with the claim that Arafat had approved Munich; Daoud's autobiography; and one of Morris's books. As for Morris's politics, he was always regarded as very pro-Palestinian within Israel, and was in fact often attacked for his views because of that. It is true that, in recent years, because of the suicide bombings, he has become less sympathetic. But not everyone distorts facts just because of their politics. I believe that historians like Morris try to present historical facts even when they don't fit his arguments. Please do not remove the material again. It is correctly sourced according to Wikipedia's guidelines. You are quite welcome to find a source on the other side who disputes what Daoud and Morris say. Slim 18:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing NPOV or "correctly sourced" or useful to readers about your adding another half a page of unsubstantiated rumors and speculations about the already mentioned fact that Israel considered Arafat a terrorist.

Why don't you for a change try some NPOV editing using substantiated facts: You could start with adding to the dozens of articles about Israel and Palestine the well documented info (by Morris and others) about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

HistoryBuffEr 20:10, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

The reason I think these things matter is that the Arab-Israeli dispute springs in part from a failure to record events properly as they were happening i.e. a failure to respect history. For example, the Palestinians can now say they were threatened, attacked and killed in order to force them to leave their villages, which the Israelis then took over. But the Israelis can say this is not true, it is not recorded, and that in fact, these so-called villages were mostly empty. There is precious little documentation on either side and what does exist, the interpretation or authenticity of it is disputed. Therefore, it seems to me vital not to keep on making that mistake, and particularly not with Arafat, who is an iconic figure. I believe there is sufficient evidence that he made a habit of being all-knowing when it suited him and turning a blind eye when it suited him. If he didn't know about Munich in advance, then he was an incompetent leader and was not, in fact, in charge of the PLO. I don't think you can argue he was a glorious statesman and then say he didn't know what was being planned under his nose, and that goes for the suicide bombings too that he claimed ignorance of. Whatever the truth, it's important to document who-said-what-when. Slim 20:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Your continued weaseling out of posting well documented facts (based on Israel's own documents) about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, while insisting on posting undocumented rumors about Arafat, tells us all we need to know about your POV and your methods. Case closed. HistoryBuffEr 20:56, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Impossible to edit

I am getting furious with the peoplee around here in Wikipedia. I did a small edition to the article Yasser Arafat - nothing big, I just wrote that he started his activities as a guerilla leader who led some terrorist acts, and then achieved enough power to lead the palestinian through a serious process of peace negotiations with the israelis.

Well, my edition was reverted by somebody who did not like my text. A very neutral text, indeed. I found the page with some POV and just did a very sincere attemp to fix it up.

Wll, I did not bother, and did my edition again - maybe the reversion maniac would leave the text alone this time. I was wrong. The old POVed text just came back again!!!!! (the POV text says Arafat is a terrorist for most of the western world).

I just can not understand why does some one wastes time destroying the work of people who really try to improve the articles! And I am starting to ask myself if it is worth the work of fixing anything when a damned brat keeps reverting the articles to their old texts!

Fabio Burch 23:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) - A very angry man now

"a growing number of Zionist immigrants were agitating to gain control of the Temple Mount"

The article currently says " During this time, local Muslim authorities had effective control of these two sites, but a growing number of Zionist immigrants were agitating to gain control of the Temple Mount". What is the source for this claim and why is it relevant to Arafat's history? Jayjg 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)