Talk:Yasser Arafat

Template:WP1.0

Swiss forensic report on polonium-210 found in Mr. Arafat's remains

Dear Sir, Madam,

I miss in your article,where the topic is the illness and death of Arafat the mentioning of the swiss report of Mr Francois Bochud and his team of the forensic laboratory of the University of Lausanne. The Wiki story tells only about the French and the Russian conclusions.This way it does not seem to me an objective account here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van Mokum (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016

Change nationality to Egyptian. Born in Egypt yet Palestinian? Makes no sense. Avi1231 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: @Avi1231: He does not have Egyptian citizenship. If you are born in a country like the UK or France, you are not automatically a citizen of that country; you are only a citizen if your parents are citizens (see jus sanguinis). Countries like the USA grant citizenship to everyone born in their territory (see jus soli). In the case of Egypt, Egypt only grants citizenship to people born in Egypt if their father was also an Egyptian citizen. In this case, Arafat's father was Palestinian so Egyptian nationality was not conferred. He is, instead, Palestinian. st170e^talk 12:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Arabic name

It doesn't look like the al-Qudwa part of his name is in the Arabic translation, why is that? -KaJunl (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding quote to lede

The present lede has problems of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. For a man who is/was regarded as both a leader and an innovator of modern terrorism, the lede singularly profiles Arafat's peace efforts while Wikiwashing his terrorist history. The first use of the word "terrorism" is the last word in the lede, but associating it only that "Israelis described him as an unrepentant terrorist", in other words, that's only what Israelis feel/think.

I am adding the following line into the lede to give equal weight: As History's biography wrote, "For two decades the PLO launched bloody attacks on Israel, and Arafat gained a reputation as a ruthless terrorist". KamelTebaast 18:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Equal weight, the view of him as a leader of a resistance movement, and the leader of a terrorist group is in the final section. He wasn't an innovator in modern terrorism, most of the tactics there, from carbombing markets to hijacking planes, and massacres of civilians existed earlier, esp. with the Irgun and Lehi gangs. The first hijack of a civilian airliner to extract a deal was performed by Israel. Note that your edit, apart from repeating higher up in the lead a POV provided below, is also editorializing for one POV:

As History's biography wrote, "For two decades the PLO launched bloody attacks on Israel, and Arafat gained a reputation as a ruthless terrorist.'

I.e. one poor source (we have many Rs biographies of Arafat) states an opinion, and you, as editor, endorse it. So I am removing it.

One further point. Do not make a declaration per talk, and then make the edit, and then use the edit summary 'as per talk', as if some conversation had occurred. Make a proposition on the talk page and wait for someone, if anyone, to discuss its merits. If no one does in a day or two, then by all means you can use that gambit. But not simultaneously. Compare the leads of Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, all 3 terrorists at one time in their lives.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My comment that Arafat was an "innovator of modern terrorism" was contextual for the Talk page only. I'm not going to educate you further about his innovations. I'm not surprised that you discredit History as a source. In viewing your history, I believe you will discredit any source that states Arafat was a terrorist. I won't rebut your strawman arguments regarding Israel, Begin, Shamir, et al. Lastly, you have a habit of dictating how to edit on Wikipedia. I believe that I followed WP:BRD and the discussion can ensue here, as it has. KamelTebaast 00:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been there for 1 month and you write sentences such as "you have a habit of dictating how to edit on wikipedia".

Who are you the sock of ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Really, it takes months to formulate an opinion? Try two interactions: above and here (among other places). KamelTebaast 13:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Many have that impression of 2 editors here, Pluto. I've thought for some months at least 2 old hands have returned, personally, but I have no proof, and therefore my 'feel' for this is immaterial to wikipedian judgments. We really should just abstain from asserting what is, so far, just an impression. Hope all's well there. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

people world wide

Look KT. You don't 'clarify' a lead that is limpid in its summation, esp by adding this stuff. people world wide think America is the greatest threat to peace;idem for Donald Trump; idem Israel. Check those articles. We don't put this into leads, and often not in articles either. Demonization is not acceptable here per WP:NPOV. Further attempts (this is your third try) to 'plant' this will be considered disruptive.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I appreciate the "KT" moniker. Thank you. Regarding your points, that is your contention that this is "disruptive" and maybe other "people think" it as well. As the sentence presently reads: "The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people..." Really? Please explain how that works in the context and detail with your explanation above. In the end (literally), the sentence was a check and balance between two divergent opinions of Arafat. However, one (the Palestinian) was fully weighted while the other was a throw away phrase that, insidiously limited his role as an international terrorist by only bringing in the Israeli view. Either take out the "heroic freedom fighter and martyr" or we need to give more context and detail to his actions on the other side. KamelTebaast 19:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

)(POV 1)'The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people'(POV 2)while many Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist

The POVs are balanced. I thought about this before you raised it. The problem with an expansion of POV2 is that it would mean stating that many Israeli senior figures, from Rabin to Peres, signed peace agreements with him, and did not treat him as a terrorist after 1992, but underwrote that he was a political head of the Palestinians. I couldn't add that because it would only favour POV 1. It is true that many Israelis regard him as an unrepetent terrorist. The Israeli government did not hold that view. I will change 'many' to 'most' however, since I have a source for it.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you changed something based on my original edit, would that not justify--at a minimum--that my edit was substantive in nature and therefore not "disruptive editing"? Although I have zero hope that you would admit to that, I do have hope that you can continue the discussion here and leave AE as it is.

The problem is that your equation is not properly weighted. What you call (POV 1) is actually five different thoughts: 1) "The majority of the Palestinian people" [NOTE: It really should be "Palestinians" not "the Palestinian people"] 2) (subset details) "regardless of political ideology or faction" 3) "viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter" 4) (added detail) and martyr", and 5) "who symbolized the national aspirations of his people". Your (POV 2) has two: 1) "while many Israelis", and 2) "described him as an unrepentant terrorist". Your sentence would have been neutral had it been constructed like this: "The majority of Palestinians view him as a heroic freedom fighter while most Israelis view him as an unrepentant terrorist." That is why it is laughable when you accuse me of POV-pushing by just trying to even the field. KamelTebaast 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me see how you work here. I gave you a range of examples of wiki I/P biographies where, unlike this, there is simply no attempt at a so called POV balance. They dealt with Israeli leaders who had an extensive record for having engaged in terrorism. This sort of thing:-

Sharon was considered the greatest field commander in Israel's history, and one of the country's greatest military strategists.[4] After his assault of the Sinai in the Six-Day War and his encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army in the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli public nicknamed him "The King of Israel".

How would you balance that? Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't respond to your straw man attempts to balance Israeli leaders because that's not what is being discussed. Further, if any of them had 30 year careers of torture, murder, kidnapping, hijackings, and terrorism predominantly against civilians, as Arafat had, then, yes, that should not be in the last sentence of their lede, but in the first. You are credited with doing a brilliant job altering Arafat's history by Wikiwashing the facts of his life. Good for you. KamelTebaast 08:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The use of 'strawman' in the I/P area was a great vogue among several editors for years: it was the default term for not answering anybody one disliked. I haven't seen it regularly for the last 2. Your last remark shows that you lack detachment and wish to skewer the subject of the article. I cited Sharon because as a boy:

In units of thirty men, they would hit constantly at Arab villages, bridges and bases, as well as ambush the traffic between Arab villages and bases.

Had that group of 30 been 'Arab' it would be described as 'hit constantly Jewish villages, bridges and bases, as well as ambush the traffic between Jewish villages and bases,' and the implication would be wholly different.

at the Qibya massacre he superintended the murder of 69 Arab villagers after giving orders to his squad to execute "maximal killing and damage to property".

Had Arafat personally gone to a Jewish village ordering "maximal killing' and superintending the murder of 69 Jews, he would never have been a 'partner for peace'.

Sharon is considered the architect of the 1982 Lebanon War in which an 8th month truce with the PLO was broken on a shallow pretext, and 19,000 civilians died. Sharon was directly in command and did not order his troops, some metres away from the day long massacre, to intervene in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The Arabs called hi m 'the butcher of Beirut'.

I won't go into all the other details, but it would appear that the evidence of his active involvement in the murder of innocents is far stronger than for Arafat. That is not to exculpate Arafat. It is simply to note that how we describe these figures must be basically factual, by simply setting down the record, and not by trying to predetermine the outcome of a reader's reactions, as you have been trying to do here. It is a fact that Palestinians generally idealize Arafat, and a majority of Israelis hate him. It is a fact that Israelis lionize Sharon, and Palestinians think of him as a murderous butcher, who loved sticking his finger into the wounds of their memory, as he did at Al Aqsa, close to the commemoration of the Shatila massacre. We hsve a fair statement of Arafat's ambiguity in his lead, we have a one-sided apotheosis of Ariel Sharon in his lead. Doesn't this worry you?Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)