Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Yasser Arafat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

This is better than the current wording:

Others, among them Palestinian leaders, criticized him for corruption and for negotiating an agreement with Israel in the Oslo Accords that did not include the Palestinian refugees right to return.

which is:

Others, among them Palestinian leaders, criticized him for corruption, and hard-line Palestinian opponents denounced Arafat for engaging in negotiations with Israel to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Because Edward Said agrees with me [1]. Palestine-info 22:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That link doesn't refer to the "Right of return", as far as I can tell. Can you point out the passage? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The vision here is not a manufactured provisional state on 40 per cent of the land, with the refugees abandoned and Jerusalem kept by Israel, but a sovereign territory liberated from military occupation by mass action involving Arabs and Jews wherever possible.

Palestine-info 10:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The wording is certainly ambiguous, it doesn't even mention a "Right of Return" (perhaps he is talking about compensation), and talks about other issues as well. In any event, are you saying that Said is a Palestinian leader, or a hard-liner? Jayjg | (Talk) 15:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A leader. I've revised my sentence:

Others, among them Palestinian leaders, criticized him for corruption and for signing the Oslo Accords with Israel which they felt amounted to abandoning basic rights of the Palestinian people.

Palestine-info 18:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current version, worked out in consensus with several editors, seems more NPOV, informative, and accurate. Other editors agree. What specific objections do you have to it? Jayjg | (Talk) 19:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source to those "hard-line Palestinian opponents" who "denounced Arafat for engaging in negotiations with Israel?" Your "appeal to the elders" also need a source. Palestine-info 19:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you looking at the article itself? It says none of those things. This is the second time in less than a day that you've "quoted" things you object to that aren't actually in the article. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess, after being proved wrong again, you gave up talking. It's amazing how your "better language" actually turned the sentence into something nonsensical and ungrammatical. Perhaps you should let people with a better knowledge of English make the "better language" changes in the future. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Watch it with the personal attacks. Let's try to keep the discourse civilized if possible. Kaldari 05:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can someone provide a source for the "Palestinian leaders criticized him for corruption" part? If we're going to put that in the intro, I want to make sure it's accurate. Frankly I think that whole paragraph is problematic, but I guess it'll work for now. Kaldari 07:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was Palestine-info's claim, I was trying to accomodate him by leaving it in. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's sweet of you, Jayjg. Kaldari 17:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm very sweet, but rarely appreciated for it. Isn't that sad? Jayjg | (Talk) 17:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That said, here are some possible links: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], Jayjg | (Talk) 07:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, those are some good sources. Kaldari 17:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PI, could you explain this edit of yours? "Arafat was a controversial figure throughout his political career. Arafat's supporters viewed him as a freedom fighter who expressed and symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people for forty years. Some opponents, particularly Israelis and their supporters, considered Arafat a terrorist, while supporters accused him of corruption, or of making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see the Oslo Accords)."

Supporters accused him of corruption? SlimVirgin 17:07, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was bizarre. I changed it to something more sensible. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here [10] for Bush quote. Cites Le Figaro. Took five seconds to find. SlimVirgin 17:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hm.. I didn't think of that. Prominent Palestinians accused him of that [11]. Whether they were his supporters or not is another issue. Better to remove the "supporters" and "opponents" from the sentences. I'll come up with a rewrite. That source is the only' non-Wikipedia link I found for the Bush quote. That is very strange since he is the most powerful person in the world. Palestine-info 17:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But if you know anything about the conflict, you'll know Edward Said was not an Arafat supporter, so why did you use an article about him as your reason for using the word "supporter"? SlimVirgin 18:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

PI, if you had in fact found the Le Figaro reference on Google, can I ask why you wrote: "Google doesn't reveal any non-Wikipedia mirror that carries it . . . "? SlimVirgin 17:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suspected by their language that they got their information from Wikipedia. Have you found any other link yet? Palestine-info 17:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You suspected by their language that they got it from Wikipedia. But Wikipedia didn't mention Le Figaro, so where do you believe they took that from? SlimVirgin 18:06, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "supporters" and "opponents". Whatever "re-write" you come up with, please propose it here first, so we can avoid the inevitable edit wars. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say that "Some opponents, particularly Israelis and their supporters" implies that ALL Israelis were opposed to Arafat, which is a plainly ridiculous statement and renders "and their supporters" totally meaningless as well. It would be silly to put "Arafats supporters, particularly Palestinians and their supporters, viewed him...". I say dump those 5 words (...particularly Israelis and their supporters...) from the intro. --Nasrallah 18:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We've been though this a thousand times with the intro, Nasrallah. We went through a "some believe this, others believe that" stage. Then we briefly had that he was a controversial figure who inspired admiration and criticism in equal measure, or words to that effect, but that wasn't allowed either. How would you express that sentence? SlimVirgin 18:09, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's trying; a long series of negotiations produces a compromise text, then 2 months later new editors come along and fight the whole thing out again. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arafat was a controversial figure throughout his political career. By some viewed as a [[freedom fighter]] who expressed and symbolized the national aspirations of the [[Palestinian]] people for forty years. By others as a [[terrorist]] attempting to destroy Israel.

The useless cruft can be dropped. Palestine-info 18:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's excellent English, I'll say that for it. SlimVirgin 18:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's terrible English, as "by" should not start a sentence; if anything, the sentence should say "He was viewed by some as..., and by others...". However, that's minor compared to the content problems. The praise is huge, long, and POV "expressed and symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people for forty years". The cricism, as always, is whitewashed. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Palestine-info 18:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PI, please don't make these major changes without discussing them here first. Posting it isn't the same as discussing it. I'd like to hear what Nasrallah and Jay would suggest. SlimVirgin 18:32, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think he understands that posting "I'm making this change", and then doing it, isn't the same as actually working on the Talk: page to build consensus. There's no emergency here, the original text isn't bad, and we can work out any changes over a day or two. I'd like to hear what Kaldari has to say. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'd also like to hear what you think about the Bush quote. So far we have found only one source of mediocre quality. To me, that seems suspicious. I'd like to remove it and place it here until it can be better referenced. Palestine-info 18:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that source (why do you feel it's of mediocre quality?), but you're welcome to contact Le Figaro. You have the date, and I believe it was in their magazine, so you could check their online archive, or contact them if it's not there. They are usually quite helpful. SlimVirgin 19:11, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Current version:

Arafat was a controversial figure throughout his political career. Arafat's supporters viewed him as a freedom fighter who expressed and symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people for forty years. Some opponents, particularly Israelis and their supporters, considered Arafat a terrorist, and some Palestinians accused him of corruption, or of making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see the Oslo Accords).

My proposed version:

Arafat was a controversial figure throughout his political career. Arafat's supporters viewed him as a freedom fighter who symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Opponents viewed Arafat as a terrorist, accused him of corruption, and of making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see the Oslo Accords).

?

--Nasrallah 20:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see the opponents as three different groups. Obviously the ones who thought of him as a terrorist didn't think he made too many concessions at Oslo. Also, I don't think we need "Arafat" in every sentence, it's clear who we're talking about. How about "Arafat was a controversial figure throughout his political career. His supporters viewed him as a freedom fighter who symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Some opponents viewed him as a terrorist, others accused him of corruption, and others of making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Jayjg | (Talk) 20:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like it, much less blah blah blah IMO. I would not revert it. --Nasrallah 20:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like it too, and the way you linked to the Oslo Accords is elegant and less wordy. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 21:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's give it some time to see what others think. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like it. SlimVirgin 22:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested to know whether it addresses Palestine-info's concerns. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:50, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. The less wordy and convoluted the better. Kaldari 19:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg's last sentence is convoluted. "Opponents viewed him as a terrorist, others accused him of corruption and for making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." would be enough. Otherwise it is decent. Palestine-info 19:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's much clearer. His critics were not a monolithic block; those who accused him of corruption were typically moderates, whereas those who accused him of too many concessions were typically hard liners. The proposed version separates groups which were not mixed in real life. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On that last sentence, how about "Some opponents viewed him as a terrorist, others accused him of corruption or of making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 19:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, better. --Nasrallah 19:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good. Even shorter. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ra'ees is not an English word. President is, and that is the word that all mainstream media use for the leader of the Palestinian Authority. I suggest that those who which to change the common usage policy either visit that page, or the very least, take their newspeak crusade to the article that deals with this issue - President of the Palestinian Authority. Palestine-info 18:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As the link makes clear, Ra'ees means president or chairman, and is used in official English documents. The current version is accurate, and doesn't take sides. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with using the term "president". It certainly seems preferable to using a non-english term. "President" seems to be the usual translation, and we use "president" in the articles for Rauhi Fattouh and Mahmoud Abbas. Why is this so controversial? Kaldari 19:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to Google, Ra'ees can be translated as any of the following: leader, head, chief, chairman, president, etc. As this is a Palestinian office, doesn't it make sense to defer to the translation prefered by Palestinians? It looks like the US State Department used the term 'Ra'ees' in one document in 1995 (immediately after the office was created) in an apparent effort to appease Israeli criticism of the office. The term "President" is now overwhelmingly prefered as the name of this office. Google hits: "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" = 6,930; "Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas" = 945; "Palestinian Authority Ra'ees Mahmoud Abbas" = 0; I don't see any justification for using the term "Ra'ees". Kaldari 20:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with using the term "president" - It's not neutral.

Please explain why the term 'president' is not neutral. I am legitimately ignorant of why this would be controversial. Why is the title disputed by Israelis? Kaldari 21:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

we use "president" in the articles for Rauhi Fattouh and Mahmoud Abbas. - that's because "we" changed it from the neutral term to "president", without achieving concensus.

I don't see any justification for using the term "Ra'ees". - how about "neutrality"? When two sides have conflicting views on a subject, neutrality does not mean "choose the POV which has more Google hits". Rather, it means, try to represent both views, and when that's impossible (such as in an article title), try to find a solution which is acceptable by both sides. This is, e.g., why Republic of Macedonia is using this title, and not Macedonia (as the Macedonians would have liked it) or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (as the Greeks would have liked it). -- uriber 21:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the reasonable route is to use the Arabic term used by Palestinians since the translation is disputed. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 21:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Show me some sources for this "dispute". The only "dispute" I can find is that Israeli news sources prefer to use the term chairman. Kaldari 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm referring to previous disputes on this article about it. I'm not that aware of what exactly is behind the English terminology problem, others who are concerned about it can fight that battle. I only vaguely recall that this issue has been mulled over previously and that the solution was to stick with the Arabic term which seemed to satisfy the dispute. That's all I suggest now, is that if the English terminology is a problem, it seems reasonable to leave it alone and stick with the original Arabic title. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the controversy here, Palestinians and their supporters prefer "President", as the term adds legitimacy to their claim that they have (or should have) their own country. Israelis and their supporters prefer "Chairman", for the exact same reason. In order to avoid bias to either side, the actual term itself was used, with both translations given. It seems to me like a NPOV way of solving the problem. Am I missing something here? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems more accurate that the entire world outside of Israel prefers the term "president", while Israel prefers the term "chairman". Even pro-Israeli mainstream media sources use the term "president". I don't see how the word 'president' could "add legitimacy" to claims of a Palestinian state as the term does not require the existance of a state. Actually, the opposite of what you are suggesting is true: 'President' is actually a neutral term as the word means the head of any "organized body" (which can include a state). Chairman is not neutral, as the word chairman means the head of an "assembly, meeting, committee, board, or department" (basically any organization besides a state). Thus when the Washington Post uses the term "Palestinian Authority President" they are not taking a position on whether or not Palestine is a state, but when Haaretz uses the term "Palestinian Authority Chairman" they are subtly espousing a specific point of view that Palestine is not a legitimate state. The POV dispute is not really about translation, it's about the status of Palestine as a state. On that point, the term 'president' is NPOV, while the term 'chairman' is not. Thus it seems we should be using 'President' like everyone else does. The term 'Ra'ees' isn't an english word, so I don't see how that can even be an option for the english version of this article. Kaldari 23:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You make a compelling argument for "President". --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 00:31, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here's what a native arabic speaker (not me) has to say on the matter:
"Ra'ees" is leader, head, president, or even Premiere. Chairman is "ra'ees al majlis". Prime Minister is "ra'ees wuzara". When we state that President Basheer of Sudan has done so and so we say "ra'ees Basheer". It's the correct term in both coloquial or Classical Arabic. Ariel sharon is referred to as "ra'ees wuzarat Isra'eel" (Prime Minister of Israel). Chairman Mao would be "ra'ees al majlis mao".
Kaldari 01:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously a Chairman can be the head of a country, and in the case of Chairman Mao, the head of the largest country in the world. That said, your arguments for "President" are strong. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for nitpicking, but I believe you mean the world's largest population. China is the fourth largest country in area, after Russia, Canada, and the US. English can be ambiguous. --Viriditas | Talk 05:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I meant the world's largest country in terms of numbers of Mandarin speakers. ;-) Jayjg | (Talk) 05:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually Mao Zedung was only State President until 1959, but he remained Chairman of the People's Communist Party until his death - thus his enduring title of "Chairman Mao". Yasser Arafat was Chairman of the PLO, but also President of the Palestinian Authority. If the term were "Head of State" or "President of Palestine" I could understand the controversy, but it's standard practice to use the term "President" when refering to the elected head of any type of governing organization. If 'Ra'ess' were more commonly used, I would be comfortable with that, but as it stands the term is not listed in any English dictionary, nor is it commonly used on english language sites when referring to the office. I don't think it's the place of Wikipedia to set the precedent. "President" is the worldwide convention, with exceptions that should be noted, but I think this article should reflect the general convention. Using a footnote in the manner demonstrated on the Republic of Macedonia page would be appropriate, IMO. Kaldari 15:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone not convinced that Kaldari has made the case to proceed with changing the title to "President"? Also, Kaldari, your feedback (and that of anyone else, please) would be appreciated on Jayjg's proposed change to the intro, discussed at the end of the Talk section previous to this one. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 18:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the following change to the intro per the consensus in the previous Talk section: "Arafat was a controversial figure throughout his political career. His supporters viewed him as a freedom fighter who symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Some opponents viewed him as a terrorist, others accused him of corruption or of making too many concessions to Israel in efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Perhaps the other change Palestine-info and Kaldari brought up about "President" is ready to be implemented as well? --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Plus we might want to add to the list of his positions, co-founder of Fatah. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the title edit. If it doesn't suite anyone, let me know. Kaldari 02:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What an improvement, so much less gloppy! --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 19:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's really necessary to have both transliterated versions of his name in the intro. Do you think it might be cleaner to stick with whichever one is more standard? And if so, which one is the more standard transliteration? I think I'll go ask User:Mustafaa to comment on this. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:19, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

The first transliteration is the usually accepted standard. However, Arabic has no official general standard for transliterations. Therefore, if Yasser Arafat preferred the latter transliteration it should be used. Note that the names are not identical. The first version looks like a genuine name, the second looks a little odd. Apart from the addition of Arafat, I'm not sure about Abdel-Rawf. I think the first version reads far better, and I would use that unless there is some good evidence to support the other version. Gareth Hughes 23:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I point out in the next section, UPI used "Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini", which is closer to the second version. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The transliteration got to me: Abd ar-Rawf makes complete sense. It seems to be an abbreviation of Abd ar-Rahman Abd ar-Rawf. He may have been given the long name at birth, or lengthened it during his lifetime: the former is more likely. It may be good to say something about his kunya Abu Ammar, the role of kunya names in the PLO and the meaning of Yasser Arafat. Gareth Hughes 00:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to an obit, it should be و "محمد ياسر" عبد الرؤوف عرفات القدوة الحسين, Muhammad Y‰sir `Abd ar-Ra'žf `Araf‰t al-Qudwah al-Husayni. According to the Google cache of pnic.ps, it should be محمد ياسر عبد الرؤوف القدوة الحسيني Muhammad Y‰sir `Abd ar-Ra'žf `Araf‰t al-Qudwah al-Husayni (see [12]). So the "Abd ar-Rahman" seems spurious. But please, don't spell it "Abdel-Rawf"; it's a diphthong, and the u is long. Raouf or Rauf is much preferable. - Mustafaa 01:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mustafaa (and Gareth too) for your response. I notice the Arabic names from the obit and Google differ slightly, but both apparently transliterate the same, is this correct? Another question I have for you is which Arabic version of the name do you think should be in the article, the existing version, the obit version, or the google version? --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 02:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa's transliteration is far better. I found the original ones unhelpful. Actually, Abd ar-Rahman may be a mistake for Abd ar-Rauf that found itself merged into a new version of the name. It may be best to give the birth name, and then to add information about Abu Ammar and Yasser Arafat, which are not part of his birth name. I would suggest that the article says that محمد عبد الرؤوف القدوة الحسيني (Muhammad `Abd ar-Ra'uf al-Qudwa al-Husayni) is his birth name, know also as ياسر عرفات (Yasir `Arafat) or اتو عمّار (Abu `Ammar). Gareth Hughes 13:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the use of shadda in the names ياسر and الحسيني. Does anyone know if there should be shadda? Gareth Hughes 18:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote اتو when I meant ابو: I'll correct the article. Gareth Hughes 18:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No shadda. - Mustafaa 23:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mperel stated about 10 weeks ago that he thought Arafat was the 6th of seven children. This [13] article from UPI seems to confirm that: "Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini was born in August, 1929 -- Aug. 24 is the generally accepted date but some sources give it as Aug. 4 -- in Cairo, Egypt. Called Yasser from an early age, he was the sixth of seven children of Abd al-Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini, a wholesale merchant who ran businesses in Jerusalem and Cairo, and his first wife, Zahwa Abu Saud, a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families." I first brought this up about 2 months ago, but at the time we were under a seige conditions, and I guess no-one noticed. Also, it gives a third transliteration for his name. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CNN[14] obit. says six of seven as do a handful of other sources. I wonder what the earliest reference for this is. I've only found one from before he died so far, also UPI[15]. Kaldari 01:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This AP source [16] from before he died says 5th. This Fox source [17] from after the death says 5th as well. So do a number of other sources [18] [19] :-( Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've put both numbers in there, with a note that sources differ on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've prepared a replacement paragraph for the intro paragraph of the Aftermath section here, User:Palestine-info/Arafat. Because there were much more to the controversy than the current text says. Palestine-info 00:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would really prefer that we reduce the Aftermath section rather than expend it. The section is too detailed for an encyclopedia article as it is. So is the section on Arafat's death, which was dumped from it's own article. We really need to work on pruning this article rather than adding to it. It's already well over the suggested maximum size for a Wikipedia article. Kaldari 01:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree; there is far too much detail already in this section. It is perhaps the largest section in the article, yet it deals with approximately two weeks of his life, and a week afterwards. Surely this is disproportionate attention to a tiny fraction of the man's life, particularly as he even wasn't conscious for almost all of it - it's mostly about other players, not about him. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We now have three different birthdays listed for Yasser Arafat - August 4 (Arafat's claimed birthday), August 24 (listed on birth certificate), and August 27. The August 27th date was added by an anonymous contributor who did not elicidate on their justification for adding it. A Google search turns up several sites listing August 27 as Arafat's birthday, although strangely they seem to all be astrology sites. Unless someone can come up with a credible (and more primary) source for this date, I am inclined to delete it. Kaldari 18:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought they were all astrology sites as well, or Wikipedia mirrors, but eventually I found one that was not: [20] That said, I agree with you, and am inclined to delete it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that site lists its source as Wikipedia, so it's not much help. I'll go ahead and delete the 27th then. Kaldari 00:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JJ, I reverted your changes to the intro because this intro has been stabilized after a consensus on this page, and your edits would likely have destabilized it again. The unrepentant terrorist with the long history of of promoting violence, for example, would probably not have gone down well with some editors. Best, SlimVirgin 08:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I know this article is controversial but it is also at 43KB an overweight article and therefore must be separated into 2 different articles, even if they are both controversial. This must be done in order to allow people to freely edit this article. I will wait till Sunday to hear people's proposals about how they would like to see this article split. I actually know very little about Yasser Arafat, and feel I come from a neutral point of view in regards to this article. I am happy to do a split according to a consensus here, and I imagine this will be my only input into the article. My only interest is to see the overweight problem resolved, and quickly. I have put a note at the top of the article so that readers of the article can participate in the discussion. Squiquifox 20:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, although another alternative is to simply reduce the existing article, which contains much irrelevant minutia. Fortunately, the environment here has calmed down sufficiently over the last month or so to enable editors to do work. So your involvement is certainly welcome. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 20:31, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think cutting it down a little first would be better. Also, more that 32K is not great, but not an emergency. For example, here are 3 pages that are 80-115K, and have been around for a while: Isotope_table_(divided), Isotope_table_(complete), November_2003 Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even getting it down to 32K would be a good goal though. Basically it would entail paring 25% off the article, which seems entirely feasible. We could either go section by section starting from top to bottom, or perhaps start with the most bloated section, for example, all the material about Arafat's death. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

That is pretty bloated. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest pruning the external biographies list. A sampling of 5 or 6 biographical links would be sufficient, IMO. Wikipedia isn't a web directory after all. We should favor the more well-known and reputable sources such as Time Magazine, the BBC, etc. I don't think the inflammatory op-eds are especially useful here. We should probably prune the Bibliography as well, although I don't have any specific suggestions for how to do that. Kaldari 05:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the bibliographies, there are four that I believe are the most cited: Hart (he's the "official" biographer), Aburish (he's the Palestinian biographer), Gowers & Walker, and Wallach & Wallach. I suggest we keep only the most recent of each of these four, unless someone thinks any of the others are especially relevant. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 08:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Although, now that I do some googles on the authors and Arafat, I get a lot of google hits for Rubinstein and Rubin, even more than for Gowers or Wallach. Maybe we can pare it down to those six. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 08:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

contrib) 08:13, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) I agree that the article is too long, but is it still true that articles should be under 32 kb for editing purposes? I understood this length limit had to do with old versions of IE, but don't apply to new versions. SlimVirgin 05:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer for Mac (including the most recent version) has a hard limit of 32K on text fields. So if someone edits the article and saves it using IE for Mac, half of the article will disappear. I don't know if there's a limit on any of the versions of IE for Windows, nor do I know how many people actually use IE for Mac. Kaldari 19:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft discontinued IE for Mac a long time ago and I don't think we are obliged to support dinosaur browsers, especially when there are so many excellent alternatives such as Safari, Firefox, Opera, etc, etc. --Zero 14:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's only if they edit the whole article, though. If they edit any one section they'll be fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I propose keeping the following biographical links:

• A Life in Retrospect: Yasser Arafat Time magazine retrospective
• Recent BBC profile of Arafat
• Interactive biography of Arafat from the Associated Press
• Life and times of Yassir Arafat, Profile: Yassir Arafat from Times Online, UK
• Obituary, The Guardian

I propose deleting the following biographical links:

• Trailer of a documentary with video clips... This trailer has a brief clip of Arafat saying "Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad". That's it. I don't know why this was ever deemed a relevent link.
• Arafat the monster - Bostonbnbnbnb Globe Op-ed Inflammatory op-ed with very little biographical information
• Quintessential Arafat (Includes statements by world leaders on Arafat's death) biographical profiles of children killed in Israel-Palestinian conflict juxaposed with brief quotes from Arafat about Jihad. No biographical information whatsoever.
• Think Again: Yasser Arafat from Foreign Policy Magazine Another Op-ed piece with little biographical information.

I'm ambivalent about the following entries:

• The Nobel e-Museum - Biography of Yasser Arafat a brief biography, not very extensive
• ICT - Yasir Arafat: Psychological Profile and Strategic Analysis Arafat's terrorist psychological profile. Outdated.
• Yassir Arafat: 1929-2004 a brief biography by honestreporting.com. Many parts are remarkably similar to this Wikipedia article.

Kaldari 23:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the keeps, although the Guardian Obituary is also in the Open Directory links. As for the deletes, these can probably go for the sake of NPOV, although they do illustrate viewpoints of how his critics regard him. Either delete them or perhaps one should stay as long as there's an additional link added for balance that illustrates the viewpoint of his supporters. On the ambivalent ones, the Nobel article is in all four of the directories, although it seems an important one. I'd go for perhaps keeping only that last link from honestreporting, at least it's a source for the article if so much of it is apparently borrowed from it. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 00:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think the honestreporting.com biography would serve as a good example of how his critics view him. It's completely negative, but at least it's biographical. Kaldari 03:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's probably the one to keep then instead of any of the ones on your delete list. I say go with your suggestions if no one else speaks up. I'll probably be offline the next few days. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 07:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion proposals, though I think you should keep the ones you're ambivalent about. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've shaved 2K off so far. Any proposals for reducing the main body of the article? Kaldari 17:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The usual method when an article goes too large is to take whole sections, make them separate articles, and replace them with a summary. For instance, we could remove the section on Arafat's death and the controversy surrounding it and make it a separate article. Etc. David.Monniaux 19:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the "Marginalization" section is flabby and confusing in spots, that would be a good place to go next. I'm opposed to spinning off articles from this, particularly about his death, since I don't think an article devoted to Arafat's death is particularly encyclopedic. The death article was spun off originally to avoid edit wars, and has only recently been re-integrated and cleaned up. By the way, I thought it was against Wikipedia policy to have links to link directories; or was I incorrect about that? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree it would be better not to split off sections of this article, especially since the article on Arafat's death was just reintergrated. Most of the sections just need more summerization and fewer expositions of minute facts and details. I favor removing the directory links entirely, BTW. Does anyone want to keep them? Kaldari 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

.

Controversial sections of articles (e.g. ==Criticism of X== in the article X) should not usually be moved out into separate articles (e.g. Criticism of X) as an attempt to avoid POV wars, since, although it may bring peace to the main article X, the new article Criticism of X is likely to have even graver POV problems. Such sections are best dealt with in the main article in most cases.

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the document you mentioned that Suha converted ti Islam because the Islamic religion prohibits non moslems from marrying moslems. Thisis not true. It only applies if a moslem woman is to marry a non-moslem man. He has to convert to islam so that his children will be moslems. on the other hand, a moslem man can marry a non-moslem woman (only Jewish or Christian) and she is allowed to retain her religeon. BUT she cannont inherit anything from him when he dies. Hakam

I think we should change "He claimed to have sought to understand Judaism and Zionism[..]" to "According to Arafat, he sought to understand Judaism and Zionism[...]". Personally, I find it slightly unrealistic that he has actually done just that, I'm very sure that many of you will agree. Putting it more clearly as 'According to Arafat' should help clear out the fact that it's his claims. Should we do that? Dushkin

I see no distinction in the 2 different wordings. How is "According to Arafat" any different than "Arafat claimed"? They both mean the same thing. Why don't you change it to "He claimed to have sought to understand Judaism and Zionism, but I seriously doubt it". Kaldari 23:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's well known that he was a major leader in this whole middle eastern bloodshed, he called a mass slaughter against Zionism and the US in many ways -- call me biased, but I think we should make it clear that it's only claims. I am afraid that you are biased, my friend. I'm pretty sure that if this article was about Hitler you wouldn't have said what you just did. Dushkin

The wording seems pretty much the same to me, and "Arafat claimed" is shorter. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once we have a proper citation for this statement, this should no longer be an issue. Arafat was a militant populist. He survived for as long as he did by responding to historical developments, both internal (that is, within the Palestinian movement) and external. Of course he tried to understand Judaism and Zionism. Only a fool would attempt to engage rivals or enemies without properly educating himself first. --(Mingus ah um 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

And Dushkin... Hitler was Hitler. Arafat was Arafat. Arafat fought against Zionism, not Judaism. You don't have to respect him, but do try to acknowledge the fact that there was a substantial difference between the goals and actions of these two men. --(Mingus ah um 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Is his name Yassir or Yasser? I'm seeing both of them in this article, and I think only one version should be used in this article for consistency. The alternate version can be mentioned in the introductory paragraph alone, just for sake of completeness. - Nimesh

In the internet edition of Nationalencyklopedin his name is claimed to be only "Rahman 'Abd ar-Rauf al-Qudwa" (and a.k.a. "Abu Ammar"). I don't know proper Arabic transcription, and NE.se has a very odd standard of transcription and fonts of their own that in combination work pretty poorly with most browsers, so please disregard the simplification. The name here is a lot longer. Which one is correct? Is there a reason for NE not mentioning "Muhammad" and "al-Husayni" or did they just forget? - karmosin 09:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

The internet edition of Nationalencyklopedin is wrong: the name Rahman is one of the divine names in Islam, a person has the name `Abd ar-Rahman. I think, because of this slip, it is unlikely that that web page is a good source. Gareth Hughes 13:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NE is generally good, but sometimes oddly substandard. But could you confirm that the name stated here is the correct one? A source would be very nice.

I'd be more than happy to point it out to the NE editors. :-) - karmosin 13:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

We had the discussion at /Archive 5#Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ar-Rauf al-Qudwah al-Husayni or Mohammed Abdel-Rawf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Hussaini. I think it covers a few general point about his name. Gareth Hughes 14:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Should, that 'Abu Ammar' translates as 'father of the virtuous[21]', be added?--195.7.55.146 09:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fatah - I am new to discussing here, but in this article and in the Fatah wikipedia article, they both cite Fatah meaning possibly three different things: Victory, Conquest, and Death. Fatah is the arabic word for Open (as in, open borders). This needs to be fixed. Celebes42 18:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It means "conquest" or more precisely "opening" (among other things, in the context of "opening" a country to Islam). That could also be interpreted as "victory". It does not mean "death", although spelled backwards ("hataf"), it does. It does not mean "open" (adjective) either, since that is "maftuuh"; or "open" (verb), since that is "fataha". Arre 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic, like all semitic languages, consists of word roots made from 3 consonants. The role of tenses, pronouns etc are made by adding vowel sounds. In this case, FATAH derives from the root f-t-r, adding vowels can produce the words for to open, unlock, reveal, conquer

( fattâh, mifatâh, miftâhî, al-fâtiha). [22]Historygypsy (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be very well balanced with impartial attention devoted to divergent opinions of Arafat. Consequently, I am removing the NPOV tag. If someone has a any further problems (related to neutrality) not already covered in Talk, they should start a new section and bring forth their concerns. These perpetual NPOV tags in virtually all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are unreasonable. I hope that when the article is split, the resulting two halves will be as well balanced as this one.--A. S. A. 13:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

In chapter on Arafats Political survival, I propose to add a recent quote by Terje Roed Larsen, UN special envoy to Middle East, to The Atlantic Monthly. The addition would be as following:

As Terje Roed Larsen, the UN Special Coordinator for peace negotiations in the Middle East, put it in an interview with The Atlantic Monthly: "He lied all the time. And he knew it. I'd say, 'Abu Ammar, cut the crap. Let's talk serious.' And then he could either talk serious or not talk serious. He'd say nonsense." [23].

Don't even dream about it. --Zero 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Terje Roed Larsen is a respected diplomat, appointed by UN General Secretary Kofi Anan to be his representative to PLO. One of the architects behind the Oslo Accords in 1993, and an active contributer to the peace process later on. He has been critisized by both sides for working for the opposite side. By Israel for claiming that there were a massacre in Jenin. I don't remember what the PLO was complaining about, but I remember there was a long dispute.

I believe that his opinion of Yasser Arafat is both relevant and important, and should be presented in Wikipedia. Even if disfavorable.

If you have any change suggestions or additions to my proposition, please share them here on the talk page, so we may come to a consensus. --Heptor 04:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing gets done on here without "Zero"'s approval. He's the current self-appointed dictator of this article and will revert anything anyone does or suggests. Seeing him say things like "Don't even dream about it" rather than offering constructive suggestions shows his real face. Let's not get into an "Edit and Revert" battle going on here and just let this guy hijack the article. The article as it is, while biased, is at least acceptable. There are plenty of ideas I have for changing the layout, adding some meaningful information, but I won't suggest it here because of Zero's childish, offensive, responses. I'd say, let sleeping dogs lie.--Bryanmenard 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is how things should work on Wiki. If you have other suggestions for change in the article, do share them here, and we will discuss it. If there is a fact that is proven, important and relevant, then it should be on Wiki. Whether Zero likes this fact or not. I believe this is a good representation of the Wiki way.

By the way, funny you should mention Zero finally showing his face. If you see his profile, you will only see a picture of his feet... ;-P --Heptor 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's not the way Wiki should be. Wiki should involve us forming consenses on the Discussion page, not declaring "don't even dream about it" as though one of us is better than another. I'm not counting Zero out, but he seriously needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. This is not ZERO'S article. It is OUR article and WE will decide what to do with it together...this is not a benevolent dictatorship. --Bryanmenard 22:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I hereby await Zero, or somebody else, to present a well-reasoned explanation for why the mentioned quotation by the UN special envoy to the Middle East should not be included in this article.--Heptor 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of quotations about Arafat easily obtainable, from the most insulting to the most effusive, and there is no special significance to this one except that you like it. Larsen is describing his impression of Arafat's way of talking one-on-one; lots of people have given their impressions of that. Big deal. Putting this in the article will just prompt someone to add a quotation praising Arafat, then someone will put in another negative one, and soon the article will look like it's been used for mud wrestling. Btw, MEMRI didn't even get author's name right. Did you check the quotation at its source? --Zero 00:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is always a concern about article size when adding new information to the Wikipedia. This article is already 42kb long. This is however hard to avoid when writing about such an important, and controversial character as Yasser Arafat. To comparison, the article about Saddam Hussein is 60 kb long, and for Vladimir Ilych Lenin there are two competing versions of the article.

I believe this quotation should be included because it comes from a credible neutral source, and it describes an important character of Yasser Arafat as a politician. As you wrote yourself, lots of people had that impression of Yasser Arafat, and this quotation is illustrative for that impression.

If you want to include a positive opinion of him, I may suggest checking Victor Ostrovsky's infamous book, "By The Way Of Deception". There he writes that Mossad, who considered Arafat its greatest adversary, also considered him to be a man of great integrity, incorruptable and totally devoted to the Palestinian cause. I don’t have the book available, but if you find a relevant quotation from it, I will support its inclusion to the article.

I originally red about the artice in "Atlantic Monthly" in a Norwegian newspaper. The same information is available in Norwegian here: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/midtosten/article1092513.ece. --Heptor 02:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, no protests in five days, I am adding it. --Heptor 20:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasoned arguments do not need to repeated every few days to remain valid. Your addition was POV and unacceptable. --Zero 00:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but unreasonable arguments may be contradicted, as I did here on talk on 12 August. Please do discuss things before applying controversial changes. --Heptor 07:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Arafat's long personal and political survival is remarkable" for one thing is quite editorial-sounding and POV. As for the quote, there are thousands of quotes about Arafat, and this particular one doesn't offer anything to the article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose adding it because it is not notable. That a politician (or diplomat) knowingly lies and talks nonsense all the time is expected. It is their job.  :-) --John Z 08:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, good point there :) But Roed-Larsen is a prominent politician and a diplomat himself. In the context of that interview, I would understand it as that Arafat was actually lying much more than Roed-Larsen was used to - otherwise he would not even notice ;-)

This quote actually adds an important view on Arafat that many people held: that he was lying all the time. He would speak of making peace with Israel to the Western press, and then speak of continuing attacks on Israel to his own people. His organizaton, Fatah, would spawn myriads of terrorist fractions, such as Black September and Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades - and then denying any connection to them.

I will not readd this quote to avoid a reverse war, but I will however readd the NPOV tag. --Heptor 13:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"According to journalist John Cooley, the name means "victory" and is also an acrostic taken from the initials, read backwards, of Harahkat al-Tahrir al Filistini (H-T-F, letters are reversed in FaTaH due to the negative meaning of the H-T-F root in Arabic.), meaning the Palestine Liberation Movement." This sentence is from the article. It would be helpful if someone can explain what H-T-F means in Arabic. Why leave us in suspense? gathima 06:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

H-T-F, or HATAF, means "death" in Arabic. See the Fatah article for detail --Heptor 09:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"According to journalist John Cooley, the name means "victory" and is also an acrostic taken from the initials, read backwards, of Harahkat al-Tahrir al Filistini (H-T-F, letters are reversed in FaTaH due to the negative meaning of the H-T-F root in Arabic.), meaning the Palestine Liberation Movement." This sentence is from the article. It would be helpful if someone can explain what H-T-F means in Arabic. Why leave us in suspense? gathima 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it means "death". [24][25] Hope it was a good climax to your suspense. --Heptor 18:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be separated out into references and further reading by convention? Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your edits did not conform to either the No original research or the NPOV guidelines. Using words such as "duplicitous" or "Politruks" are very POV. Remember this is an encyclopedia. I understand you are new here, so welcome to Wikipedia. However, please be sure to understand the policies here (like I had to when I joined as well, it took me a while). Make sure you do not cut and paste information from copyrighted pages. If you'd like, you can discuss here what concerns you have and editors will be glad to help you. Again, welcome. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The inserted material is anyway a copyvio of this article by an IDF intelligence officer. --Zero 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I was reading this article. The names seemed a little weird "Mushle", when i refreshed it has suddenly changed to "Mohammed". Looking through the history this page has been constantly vandalized which really can't be good for people reading the article. Okay, I realise everyones aware of this, I don't know a solution.