Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Moderate criticism of Arafat

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)

Palestine-info's latest deletions and reversions

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)

President of the Palestinian Authority

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)

Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ar-Rauf al-Qudwah al-Husayni or Mohammed Abdel-Rawf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Hussaini

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)

5th or 6th of 7 children?

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)

Arafat's burial

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)

Arafat's birthday

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)

Intro

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)