Talk:Yasser Arafat

Archives
January 2002 – October 2004 October 2004 – November 2004 November 2004 – December 2004 December 2004 – January 2005 January 2005 – February 2005

Proposed article split

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))

Arafat's name

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[1]', 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). [2]Historygypsy (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

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)

‘Terrorist’ vs. ‘militant’

The term 'militant' should be replaced with 'terrorist' everywhere in the article. Militants are defined by the 4th ed. of the AHD as “[h]aving a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause”—but who stop short of actually killing people like those Palestinians mentioned who killed 135 Israelis.

Would we dare call Timothy McVeigh a 'militant'? If so, then let us call him that instead in his Wikipedia article. Let us apply the same standards to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

• Terrorist is a loaded POV term. The best NPOV word we have is Militant. I am not prepared to call Michael Collins a terrorist. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

So is 'militant' as used here—it is loaded with pro-Muslim bias one would not detect so easily. The term seeks to downplay the actions of killers who happen to be Muslim. Real militants protest, shout slogans, and engage in all sorts of civil disobedience, and using the term to describe what are in reality terrorists who kill innocent civilians distorts human understanding.

Would you rather it be replaced with "Revolutionaries", or "Freedom Fighters", or "Martyrs"? Terrorist is just as loaded a POV term as these. Militant best serves NPOV --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

After giving it some thought, I figured that ‘terrorist’ doesn’t seem to be as loaded a term as people think it might be, because in the end, that’s what terrorists are—terrorists. Just as dictators the world over are dictators and murderers murderers. It’s plain fact. However, I get your point, and I realize this is probably the best compromise we could arrive at for now.

A group of people kills 135 civilians. If this group was Canadian and the civilians Palestinians, there is no doubt that the former would be branded 'terrorists'.

In this case, it doesn't matter whether you or I consider Black September to be a terrorist organization, the sentence is about what Mohammed Daoud and Benny Morris think. Can someone dig up the source so that we're not just making shit up? Thanks! And for the record, I oppose changing every instance of the word 'militant' in this article with the word 'terrorist'. Context matters! Kaldari 15:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I happen to have those sources and much more and I am probably the last person to tell you that you are making things up. I agree with you that context matters, and very much, but not when it means using ‘terrorist’ for non-Muslims and substituting that with ‘militant’ for Muslims. Moreover, by suggesting “context”, one assumes that Israelis are in the wrong here and that the Palestinians are victims of an official and systematic policy of Israeli aggression when it might be argued that in reality the problem lies with their own leaders. However I will not get further into that anymore.

Irishpunktom, would you then call Baruch Goldstein a militant? Aiden 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that one man's patriot or hero is another man's terrorist. I personally believe Arafat was an evil terrorist, but there are many in the world who strongly disagree with that idea. Wikipedia is supposed to be a haven of information, unbiased towards the personal ideals of individuals. Jmlk17 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "militant" is generally associated with stopping short of violence; for example, the Black Panthers were a militant movement but never went into terrorist activities. I don't see what definition of terrorism killing civilians doesn't fit; granted the fact that large numbers of civilians were killed for political causes, why does it matter what nationality either side is? That is terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.193.95 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Would you also consider mentionning State terrorism? It would be something like a terrorist fighting against state terrorism. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me 160.39.193.95 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, to be a terrorist, the goal of your attacks is to deliberately target civilians for the sake of terrorizing the public in order to achieve political goals you cannot achieve through direct military force, therefore Yassir Arafat was a terrorist, even if he was also a militant. IMHO he is now in Hell, because GOD has judged him for the evil in his heart, and no post-mortem sugar-coating is going to change that. TodKarlson 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave god out of this, Arafat killed people to achieve his political end without declaring war, he was a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti dan (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing I do not like most about Wikipedia is the people who love to make comments without having any knowledge. If all it takes is to "kill civilians in order to achieve political goals" in order to be a terrorist, there are thousands of other articles we should edit before this one. Let's start with all US and Israeli presidents for instance. Each of them are responsible for way more civilians deaths compared to Arafat (and there is much more proof too). --85.102.120.201 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Israeli and American leaders didn't targeted civilians, they targeted armed forces (armies, militants and terrorists), civilian were hurt by accidents or because they used as unwitting human shields to the Arab armed forces. Arafat, on the other hand, targeted civilians deliberately. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't even bother to answer this, but maybe you should start reading some real news instead of redneck propaganda. There are hundreds of incidents in recent history where Israeli and American leaders did intentionally target civilians. --78.181.30.45 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who want to avoid the word terrorist, even if that's what we believe they are, it's a very loaded POV term. I think the article could use a little expansion in that area though, lots of notable people/groups have labelled Arafat a terrorist, and I think more should be mentioned on that. Here's a source for some of the policy makers in the USA (Pipes, Perle, Podhoretz, Woolsey, Powell, etc) calling him that in an open letter as part of the PNAC http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty funkhouser (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Rumors/Secret Cause of Death

I think it is definitely worth noting in the article some of the rumors surrounding the specific cause of his death. Numerous questions abound with regard to Arafat's demise. Specifically, it is widely rumored that he had AIDS. Given the fact that neither the Palestinian authorities nor his wife would confirm this gives further rise to the rumors. Further, being that they're leaving his cause of death "wide open" as they are, it would be fair in the article to address theories as to why they're being so secret. The Palestinians, nor Arabs in general, are traditionally shy in disclosing a political figure's cause of death. Why? Why? Why? These are questions the average Wiki user might want addressed and I think at least a small section pertaining to his non-existent cause of death would do this article justice.--Bryanmenard 13:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is definitely worth reverting all attempt to add unsubstantiated and probably malicious rumors to this page, and I undertake to do so. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can post such rubbish. --Zero 13:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be taken the wrong way on this. I'm in no way anti-Arafat. The guy was a great man. I personally believe the guy was infected with AIDS maliciously. Even to the casual observer, one can draw plenty of similarities between Arafat's symptoms and that of full-blown AIDS. I'll leave the fact that he's widely believed to have died of AIDS out of the article for the sake of not offending people afraid that it will tarnish Arafat's image. However, you must ask yourself this: If he had AIDS, would the Palestinians have admitted it? Would they acknowledge that their leader of so many years died of AIDS? What kind of rumors would it fuel? The Israelis go further than saying he had AIDS and add that the guy was a rampant homosexual pedophile. THAT is rubbish and unsubstantiated. What is not unsubstantiated is the fact that there are widespread reports in credible media outlets that the leader had AIDS and NO one in the Palestinian camp goes on record denying it.

Arafat certainly wasn't promiscuous, homosexual, or a drug user. Like I said, I believe the guy was murdered. I just don't think it's doing the objective reader justice to leave it out. All of God's blessings to you.--Bryanmenard 15:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of rumors out there that he was homosexual. Even the Atlantic Monthly article hints at it.

It's a known fact he was gay. check out gaynews before his death: http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110104arafat.htm His sexuallity is a taboo in islamic culture and these roumers are 30 years old. Even his so called "wife" lived in Paris for the last 4 years of his life.

"Ion Pacepa, who was deputy chief of Romanian foreign intelligence under the Ceaucescu regime and who defected to the West in 1978, says in his memoirs that the Romania government bugged Arafat and had recordings of the Arab leader in orgies with his body guards. "

First off (Re: his wife): The fact that Arafat and his wife separated in the latter years of their lives means nothing, considering that: a) Arafat was literally under siege by the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza for the vast majority of that time period; b) Arafat was worth millions, and could easily provide his wife with better living conditions; and, c) there is nothing unusual about a rich couple ending their respective lives with an unacknowledged but de facto separation.

Second (Re: Ceaucescu): No reasonable historian would seriously consider including unsubstantiated evidence which was produced by one of Ceaucescu's cronies--particularly one of his head spies. With the possible exception of Enver Hoxha, Ceaucescu constructed the most abominable "leftist" polity ever to plague a European nation-state. One did not earn the title of deputy chief in his government through meritous action.

Third (Re: sexuality): I'm sorry to say this, but... I do not personally consider 365gay.com to be an authoritative source on Arafat's persuasion. This is a highly controverial topic. If it is going to be pursued, I think many of us would like to see more links (or citations to specific articles or books) which discuss his sexuality.

Fourth (Re: AIDS): Have any of Arafat's associates stated that they noticed potential symptoms? Not to my knowledge. Did the official report include anything that would suggest that he had AIDS? No. Could there have been a conspiracy of silence? Of course, but there's nothing to work with. As such, the rumors have no place in this encyclopedia.

--(Mingus ah um 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

At first I was dumbfounded when I read here in Wikipedia speculation about Arafat's alleged homosexuality or any connection to AIDS. I have not encountered any such speculation in mainstream western media, nor was it at all reported on at his death (as far as I know; and I watch and read a lot of news). However, if this speculation proceeds from a Wall Street Journal article and published books, then it seems to smack of censorship to exclude it altogether. I have returned it, with caveats inserted to make clear these are allegations and claims. I will also remove salacious excerpts from the published allegations as they are profane and unfit for a proper and neutral biography.--AladdinSE 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin, a "proper and neutral biography" MUST include all available information regarding the subject - or must give the reader pointers as to where the information can be found. If some sources claim that Arafat had AIDS, so what? Let the readers decide for themselves: include the offending information, as well as any substantiated doubts about the reliability of the same - Wikipedia should not make judgements, but rather should present information and let the readers judge for themselves. So, yes, let the details be there.

Wanyonyi 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read my post. I was the one who returned mention of the HIV/homosexulaity allegations, because they were published by a reputable source. I only deleted those ridiculous salacious excerpts from the book, which were redundant and undignified.--AladdinSE 09:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, there is no room in an encyclopedia for personal belief, nor for refusing to consider a book written by a senior spy, Arafat’s personal "handler," Ion Mihai Pacepa, head of Romanian military intelligence. I have read Pacepa's book "Red Horizons" and I have never seen or heard of a refutation of the existence of videos of what was called Arafat's "Voracious sexual appeteite". Because the KGB wanted to be sure that they had Arafat for life, they conducted a video surveillance with which to blackmail him if and when needed. Pacepa helped set this up. "Using the good offices of the Romanian ambassador to Egypt, they secretly taped Arafat’s almost nightly homosexual interactions with his bodyguards and with the unfortunate pre-teen orphan boys whom Ceausescu provided for him as part of "Romanian hospitality."" What is the point of all this? Well, pedophilia and homosexuality are illegal in Islamic law, but, like alcohol,they exist. Secondly, the video scenario is entirely plausible, and is employed by many secret services, east and west. Thirdly, the alleged activity provides a plausible reason for Arafat to have contracted A.I.D.S. I am no admirer of Arafat, but I would not wish this disease on anyone, however Wikipedia must be prepared to consider the matter seriously, without indignant, self serving censorship. With videotapes of Arafat’s pedophilia in their vault, and knowing the traditional attitude toward homosexuality in Islam, the KGB must have felt that Arafat would continue to be a reliable asset for the Kremlin.Historygypsy (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Homosexuality refuted: In Gideon's Spies: A Secret History of the Mossad (the Israeli spy service), Mossad sources admit they created and spread the homosexual rumour to discredit their arch-foe, Arafat. At the least, this should now implicate the whole issue as libelous and most likely untrue and difficult to prove. Against this evidence, I believe it should not be part of a wikipedia article. If we need to keep it, it should go in a separate article on rumours or disinformation about Arafat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swilli88 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition of a recent quote by Terje Rød-Larsen

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." [3].

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". [4][5] Hope it was a good climax to your suspense. --Heptor 18:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

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

edited and added "Arafat-Palestinian Authority Involvement in Al-Aqsa Intifada" article

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)

Vandalism

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.

Blatant Double Standards

In the Hamas article, the terrorist group is described as a "Palestinian Islamist movement," Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was merely "considered a terrorist" by the US and EU, in very few of the List of Notable Hamas Members can you even find the word terrorist, in the Hanadi Jaradat article there is not once the word terrorist, Qawasameh members of Hamas are "activists," in this article it's stated that "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians," but the Baruch Goldstein article (about a Jewish terrorist) must contain the word terrorist? Don't get me wrong, they are all terrorists, but the double-standard is blaring.

Please explain to me why every time I change the sentence "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" to "attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" in this article it is reverted? Does the sentence not explicitly state that civilians were killed? Does that not qualify those who massacred the 135 civilians as terrorists?

To further prove my case, I removed the word terrorist from the Baruch Goldstein article so that it just says "physician who killed 29 Muslims" and it was reverted in a matter of minutes. But when I change the word "militant" to "terrorist" in the sentence "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" it is reverted in an equally short period of time.

In the above ‘Terrorist’ vs. ‘militant’ debate, Irishpunktom said terrorist is a "loaded POV word." How? Is a terrorist not one who murders civilians for a strategic or political cause? How is it acceptable that when Muslims kill Jews they're "militant" but when a Jew kills Muslims he's not--he's a terrorist? Are they not all terrorists? Aiden 03:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A valid point (re double standards). I do agree however w/Irishpunktom that it is a loaded POV word that is best left out of WP in any of the articles you listed above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of quick points FYI (not for the article itself): I don't know of any single attack where there were 135 Israeli civilian casualties - perhaps the statement refers to multiple attacks over a period of time in which the cumulative result is 135 deaths (a quick check of Btselem's website should clarify). However, there are usually many more civilian Palestinian deaths during any given time frame than Israeli deaths (not counting armed people on either side) with few exceptions (during the peak of suicide bombings in two separate months from 02/03 I think). Many on the anti-occupation front use the phrase 'state terror' to define the IDF's actions precisely for this reason. Regardless, if you want to talk about double standards, keep in mind that Palestinian civilians deaths are not referred to as freely as Israeli ones. Second, your phrase "when Muslims kill Jews they're "militant" but when a Jew kills Muslims he's not" is a bit misleading; there are quite a few Palestinian Christians who have been killed by the Israelis as well, including a mother shot in the head inside a store while buying milk for her child who was standing next to her, and another 10-year old girl riding in her parent's car, among countless others. Christians are also leading activists in many of the groups that oppose the occupation, including the former longtime leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Don't look at this as purely a Muslim-Jewish issue, but rather a Palestinian-Israeli one. Anyway, back to the subject, I agree with MPerel that things should stay consistent, and I have previously referred to a WP policy page here. Goldstein would be referred to as a 'militant' or 'extremist' under this policy, and referred to as a 'terrorist' only if quoting a direct source. Refer others to this page if you are running into problems elsewhere. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No one denies that there are casualties on both sides. The difference is intent. Many Arab “militants” deliberately target cafes, shopping malls, and buses—soft targets which lack any real military presence. While IDF operations may have resulted in the deaths of Arab civilians, and forces may have acted carelessly or overzealously in retaliations which resulted in those deaths, they do not target civilian populations deliberately as terrorists do. There is a clear distinction between the two—a distinction based on intent. That said, a person like Goldstein, who deliberately targeted and killed civilians (whatever their race or religion), is a terrorist through and through in my book, as are groups like Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hezbollah, etc. I find this politically correct sugar-coating quite disgusting—even more so when it is applied only to articles relating to Arab terrorists. Again, regardless of the race or religion of the attacker or victims, a person who deliberately attacks a civilian population in such means is a terrorist, not a militant, not a freedom fighter. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Yes things should stay consistent, but they should also stay true. Aiden 06:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"they (the IDF) do not target civilian populations deliberately as terrorists do." This is an argument commonly made by Israeli supporters. However, one would be hard pressed to find anybody on the Palestinian side who actually believes it; their experience convinces them otherwise. That is sort of the point I'm trying to make. Ramallite ^(talk) 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If palestinian civilians are indeed deliberately targetted, then either the IDF's personnel is disobeying government's orders by flagrantly killing a handful of civilians every other day and get away with it every time for the last 20 years, OR it is actually implementing the government's policy by doing so. The former is clearly absurd, while the latter would suggest a yearly quota of about 1000 palestinian casualties serves Israel's interest, which is even more absurd.

Correct me if am wrong, targeting civilians to acheive political gains is considered terrorism, doesn't Dan Halutz statement ( we will destroy ten buildings for each rocket attack) fall under this category, the attacks were carried on, the only difference between Terrorism & IDF is that the later lack the courage to admit the war crimes they are committing, doesn't killing lebanese civilians to reduce hezbolla support in lebanon, or destroying homes in Ghaza to intimidate the population fall under terrorism, i think you are the only ones with double standards.

In the first paragraph it says: The majority of the Palestinian people — regardless of political ideology or faction — viewed him as a freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized their national aspirations. However, many Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist

If you give a reason why the Palestinians consider him to be a "freedom fighter and martyr ", it is only fair to give the reason WHY Israelis consider him to be a terrorist, which is that he planned and advocated attacks on Israeli civilians to achieve his political ends. It would also be fair to mention the many who consider him among the fathers of modern terrorism, which uses the media coverage of attacks to magnify its results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.98.223 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point to consider. I was concerned by the particular wording you inserted ("...for his attacks on Israeli civilians.") since it seemed to imply he was directly involved in the attacks. What about something a little more moderate? Say...

Arafat remains a controversial figure: many Palestinian people - regardless of political ideology or faction — viewed him as a freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized their national aspirations, while others have described him as an unrepentant terrorist, planning or encouraging attacks on Israeli civilians.

Good idea? Bad idea? A little more tinkering is probably in order, but I'm hoping that starts to address both of our concerns. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. how do i get a name to make this easier. and how do u indent like that?

Are there those who honestly claim he was not involved in the planning of any of the PLO's attacks?

I have no idea how to do it, but there should a small section on how he fits in with others who have been accused of engaging in terrorism and inspiring other movements to do the same. There may a separate section in Wikipedia which should be linked to.

Egyptian origin - 'Chairman' instead of 'President'

1. There is dispute over whether he was born in Cairo or Jerusalem. There is NO dispute as to where his family origins came from. Husseini is a Palestinian name, and Al-Qidwa (mother's side) is a prominent Gazan name. Changes that are based on original research just won't do.
2. The English version of the Palestinian basic law (the PA constitution, not to be confused with the 'State of Palestine' constitution) clearly states 'president'. See President_of_the_Palestinian_Authority. There is a footnote next to the word 'president' in this article that describes the controversy associated with it. I for one think 'president' is ridiculous at this point in time, but I don't make the rules.

Ramallite ^(talk) 14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Arafat spent much of his childhood in Egypt, was educated in Egypt, served in the Egyptian army. As for his dialect, I have read several sources say this[6] [7] but didn't include it in the article. --Leifern 14:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be true (although he also spent some good time in Jerusalem as a child), but after 1948 that wasn't his choice - his father was a Palestinian merchant going back and forth, and Arafat apparently got stuck in Egypt. The questions here are: 1- Did Egypt consider him an Egyptian (no, he wasn't a citizen nor was he entitled to it), and 2- Did Arafat consider himself an Egyptian? (also no, he used the systems you mentioned to establish Palestinian organizations including guerilla groups). So given all of that, he definitely would not be Egyptian, origin- or nationality- wise. You had mentioned dialect in your edit summary previously, but that would be true of anybody who spends enough time in a foreign country. (Incidentally, he did have some Egyptian-style mannerisms but his dialect was not authentically Egyptian at all). Ramallite ^(talk) 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

p..s Not to make a big issue out of this, but I would trust Daniel Pipes to tell me the truth about Middle East history about as much as I would trust the president of Iran to tell me the truth about Jewish history. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Arafat was clearly not Egyptian even though Egypt played an important part in his early life. --Zero 15:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pipes cites a source, and I still haven't found a factual error in Pipes's writing, even though I disagree with much of it. By all accounts, Arafat's father was Egyptian, not Palestinian. Owning property in a country does not make you a citizen there. So much is uncertain about Arafat. --Leifern 16:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The more reliable accounts I've searched for state that his father may have been both Egyptian and Palestinian (i.e. one parent from each), and his mother was definitely Palestinian. He obviously regarded himself as Palestinian and apparently, he had the correct lineage and genes to have the right to do so. We cannot perform original research and decide for ourselves the criteria for assigning national origin on Wikipedia. Sharon's father was German and his mother was Russian. Shamir was born in Poland. But they have defined their lives in a way that we cannot add a nationality category as anything other than Israeli; that is how they are known as. I am surprised by attempts to add 'Egyptian' to Arafat's entry, the motives of doing so are questionable as it is a right-wing propaganda thing to do. This is really a non-issue. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could understand your umbrage if someone deleted Category:Palestinian people and replaced it with Category:Egyptian people. As you seem to point out, these aren't mutually exclusive categories. There are countless examples of people who are natives of one country and adopt another. What varies is the circumstances under which they move from one to the other. As for right-wing propaganda is concerned, why in the world is it so bad to be an Egyptian? --Leifern 17:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Because it is not true? As said above, both his parents were Palestinian, of old Palestinian families; and he was not considered Egyptian by himself, by the Egyptian government, by Egyptians, or by Palestinians, or, really, by anyone. Also, it would create a lot of work :-)
• This is nationalist, if not necessarily right-wing, propaganda in that it is employed frequently by Israeli rejectionists to create the impression that there is no Palestinian people at all - just a rag-tag bunch of anti-Semitic Arabs who've made up a flag to get a seat in the UN for their terrorist outfit. I'm not saying you agree with that, but this kind of bizarre and racist reasoning is not uncommon, and I'm sure you've encountered it more than once if you're interested in the I/P conflict. Arre 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - there is nothing wrong with being Egyptian, except he wasn't one by anyone's definition except a few who have nationalistic motives in pushing that argument. In Arabic speaking countries (and in fact in most countries of the world with the US being one of the few exceptions), jus soli does not apply. It's always jus sanguinis. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can only have it one way or another - do we determine his "Egyptianness" by virtue of citizenship, birth, upbringing, genetic factors, or what? It isn't clear what the answer is from any sources. But I do know he was probably born in Egypt and spent most of his time there, going so far as to serve in the Egyptian army. To add complexity to it, sovereignty over various areas have changed considerably during his lifetime. As for this point: "This is nationalist, if not necessarily right-wing, propaganda in that it is employed frequently by Israeli rejectionists to create the impression that there is no Palestinian people at all - just a rag-tag bunch of anti-Semitic Arabs who've made up a flag to get a seat in the UN for their terrorist outfit." I don't know how the possibility of Arafat's dual nationality (not uncommon in the Arab, or for that matter the Scandinavian world) lends itself to that kind of extrapolation. I don't hold any candle for Arafat, but it seems to me that with a factual presentation of the man's life and work, readers will be able to make an informed decision of their own view. --Leifern 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you seem misinformed. I don't know how many ways I can explain that he was not an Egyptian national. So 'dual nationality' is not an topic here. Furthermore, 'dual nationality' may be common in Scandinavia (which is a bit surprising since as far as I know, only Sweden allows it and only as of a year ago, Norway and Denmark do not normally allow it), but the Arab League Charter explicitly states that no national of one member country can acquire nationality of another member country as a second nationality. This is common knowledge in the ME. An Egyptian national is not allowed, for example, to hold Jordanian, Algerian, Somali, Palestinian, or Yemeni citizenship. So I have no idea where you got the notion that dual nationality is 'not uncommon' unless you are referring to one Arab and one non-Arab nationality. Finally, you ask "do we determine his "Egyptianness" by virtue of citizenship, birth, upbringing, genetic factors, or what?". Answer: WE don't determine it at all, that is not our job on WP. This is what the No Original Research policy is about. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Ramallite: If I were to apply strictly legal criteria to nationality, then we'd have problems with a Palestinian nationality to begin with, since Palestine isn't an autonomous nation-state. By that narrow definition we could eliminate the entire Palestinian category altogether; something that I actually don't want to do. By that standard, we should also delete the Palestinian category for Queen Rania of Jordan. In Scandinavia, there are people born by Norwegian parents who grow up in Sweden and then move to Denmark while retaining property in Norway; children of parents who have separate nationalities; people who live part of the time in one country and part of the time in another, etc. If you have a person who was born and raised in Sweden, attended Swedish schools, but retained her Norwegian citizenship the whole time, would it make sense to say that she has nothing to do with Sweden? --Leifern 21:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but regarding your example above, the argument was never about whether Arafat has "nothing to do with Egypt" now was it? It was about applying the category of 'Egyptian People' to him. Now your point about Palestinian nationality, while offensive to me, is well taken. But, if you are not talking about 'legal nationality' here, then under what pretext are you adding "Egyptian people"? It's making less and less sense to me... what is your criterion, and is it or is it not OR? Ramallite ^(talk) 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me illustrate the point by way of example: Ludvig Holberg was born and mostly raised in Norway, but moved to Denmark when he was 20. You'll see that in his article, he is claimed as both Danish and Norwegian. This has nothing to do with citizenship, but everything to do with the fact that he had roots and formative experiences in both places. Norwegians and Danes sometimes get into pissing contests whether he was really one or the other, but there is no reason why he can't be both. Based on the facts, I would say that Arafat was a man with Palestinian roots who spent formative years in Egypt, and then took leadership of a nationalist movement, much like say, Simón Bolívar or Che Guevara. With all this talk of pan-Arabism, this should not be an offensive concept. --Leifern 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute over whether Ludvig Holberg is Norwegian or Danish (the 'pissing contests' are probably just too much Bayerøl), but there is no dispute (except here and Daniel Pipes' opinion articles, evidently) whether Arafat is Egyptian or Palestinian. Egyptians are certainly not fighting over him. Now, it appears that your reasoning for adding the Egypt category is that Arafat spent some of his formative years in Egypt. So we have gone from the dual nationality argument to formative years location. Is this a recognized criterion for 'having roots' (not a rhetorical question, I'm really curious). I can tell you from personal experience with my own relatives that it isn't, but that's just me. What about the ten+ years he spent in each of Lebanon and Tunisia, or do they not count because they are not 'formative years'? If this is a widely accepted criterion, then I would only ask that you describe this reason in the edit summary if you decide to re-add it. But I maintain that it's just not relevant, and wouldn't be surprised if it is regarded as inflammatory for the reasons Arre described. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This debate has wisened me to an important issue that can't be resolved by simple categorization, which is the nature of "nationality" in the Middle East. For example, in the Jaffa article, someone distinguishes between "Hebrew (Jewish)" schools and Arabic schools. At the surface, this is correct - there are both Arab and Jewish Israelis, but that doesn't quite work, either, as "Jewish" isn't entirely parallel to "Arab," inasmuch as a) there are Christian and Moslem Arabs; b) Arabs typically define anyone as Arab who has Arab as his/her native language, thereby including lots of Arab Jews, Druze, etc.; c) Hebrew schools are presumably open also to non-Jews. Being Egyptian, Lebanese, Palestinian, or even Israeli is not a clear-cut term. Is someone born in Lebanon to Palestinian parents one or the other? Are Arabs with Israeli citizenship Israelis and Palestinians, or are the two mutually exclusive? Those who claim that Arafat is Egyptian for "nationalistic" reasons do so because they dispute his claim to the victimhood typically associated with Palestinians, i.e., disenfranchisement and a life as refugees. Can we simply say that anyone who claims to be Palestinian is Palestinian? --Leifern 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The middle east is a bit behind the times when it comes to 'nationality', because that word in the modern context is a European-imposed concept, and has yet to fully develop in the middle east. Three points to try to answer your question though: First, very few people would have any incentive to claim 'Palestinianhood' as a choice, foreigners would have no need for constant humiliation and other Arabs are too tribal in their thinking to uproot their origins, even verbally. Second, one must understand that being Palestinian, Jordanian, or whatever normally means belonging to a clan or family that originates in a town, village, or city that corresponds to a present-day country location. For example, the surnames 'Husseini', 'Nashashibi', 'Khalidi' are Jerusalem names, so those families are Palestinian because they are from Jerusalem. 'Masri', 'Shakaa', 'Aloul' are Nablus families. 'Qawasmi' is Hebron. 'Bandak' and 'Shomali' are Bethlehem area surnames. So not only are all those families Palestinian because their town of origin is in Palestine, but within Palestine itself, if 'Qawasmi' families live in Ramallah, they would still be referred to (and regard themselves) as 'Hebronite'. This sense of tribal roots is a deep cultural thing, and is probably very difficult to understand for foreigners who are used to the "home is where you make it" concept. This is why it would be baffling to refer to a Qidwa or a Husseini as 'Egyptian', it is a very foreign concept. Thirdly, this concept I just described got mangled with the European concept of nationality which awards citizenship etc after our lands were made protectorates after WWII. Therefore, to follow your example, if someone is born in Lebanon to Palestinian parents, then they are still considered Palestinian (their last name may betray that fact). Present-day governments rely on tribal definitions of nationality (where the family is originally from) before recognizing citizenship. Remember that there is no jus soli in Arabic-speaking countries at all. Therefore, unless the family has actually acquired Lebanese citizenship (which is rare), such children would grow up as expatriates. They may get attached to their place of upbringing, maybe never wanting to leave it, but would still identify themselves as 'Palestinian' from '(whatever town their tribe originally came from)'. So no, we definitely cannot say that just anyone who wants to claims to be Palestinian is Palestinian, they must have at least one parent with tribal origins in a village or town or land that is/was in modern-day Palestine/Israel. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff that probably requires inclusion in one article or another. This is not that dissimilar from how it was and to some extent still is in Norway. Family names are generally tied to particular geographic communities - in the U.S. to this day there are associations of people who descend from immigrants from a particular place in Norway. I wouldn't venture to comment on the "tribal" element of it all - perhaps a comparison with the clans of Scotland might be interesting? It does seem to me, however, that there is a distinction between declaring one's roots (e.g., the Clan Donald) and the political entity with which one has citizenship. Maybe this will be a trend that helps move things along eventually. --Leifern 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I think Arafat not only was born in Egypt, but also grew up there a fair share of his youth and went to university in Cairo. However, there is no doubt that his strongest identity and his carreer/struggle were focussed on him being Palestinian. There is however no contradiction. Instead getting all worked up, by the principle of "let many flowers bloom", I would suggest to keep his Palestinian identity pronounced at the beginning and add the Enyptian people somewhere at the end. In this case, one does not cancel out the other and everyone can have it his way. Anyone heard of win-win solutions? gidonb 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "add the Egyptian people somewhere at the end"? In what context? If you mean to somehow indicate that he is Egyptian, that would be just wrong wouldn't it? Ramallite ^(talk) 20:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant placing the category towards the end of the category line(s). Why do you think Egyptian would be wrong, I mean in addition to Palestinian politician and all that? gidonb 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

okay, sure... right after "Category: Palestinian people" is added to Ariel Sharon, who grew up in mandate-era Palestine. :-) Arre 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the idea that only Arabs can be Palestinians. --Leifern 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On that, I can completely agree with you. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay, from that angle I agree too. But, imagine the edit war. Why not just use the accepted nationalities of famous people? If Sharon is considered by himself and everyone else Israeli; and Arafat is in the same way Palestinian - fine, enough! Arre 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The KGB's man - Fatah

I changed the last setence of the paragraph from: "The article mentions as a sidenote that Arafat had founded the Fatah in 1957, more than ten years before allegedly having been "formed" by Moscow." to "The article mentions as a sidenote that Arafat had headed the Fatah since 1957." The direct wording from the article is "Arafat had headed al-Fatah since 1957." and there is absolutely no mention in the PDF source, or even the Fatah Wiki, of the KGB having anything to do with the forming Fatah. Redmid17 16:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverted the article prior to my 16:53, 14 July 2006 edit and left no reason on the discussion page as to why. I reverted the article to the way it had been after my edit, and I would like any futures changes to be justified on this page. Redmid17 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part about homosexuality, it states at the beggining that pacepa is a controversal character himself, should we include his judgements in an encyclopedia, plus this biography is about a political leader, dedicating an entire section to an issue that has nothing to do with anything & the language used is not appropriate, I am not a big fan of Arafat myself but if we want to include whatever theories & rumours associated with all presidents & leaders in the world we will end up with loads of crap on each & every page on wikipedia. Template:Fgned

I reverted, and explained my rationale in the section "AIDS Rumors/Secret Cause of Death" above where it was first brought up. I just noticed this section's post, so I am duplicating my entry here as well:

At first I was dumbfounded when I read here in Wikipedia speculation about Arafat's alleged homosexuality or any connection to AIDS. I have not encountered any such speculation in mainstream western media, nor was it at all reported on at his death (as far as I know; and I watch and read a lot of news). However, if this speculation proceeds from a Wall Street Journal article and published books, then it seems to smack of censorship to exclude it altogether. I have returned it, with caveats inserted to make clear these are allegations and claims. I will also remove salacious excerpts from the published allegations as they are profane and unfit for a proper and neutral biography.--AladdinSE 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but shouldn't the article also state that in case the allegations were true, all of his lovers must have been blind, i mean..really..ARAFAT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk) 06:57, September 7, 2006

Be careful

As we know, not only on wiki, all sources must be verified, there is no evidence Arafat was gay or that he had aids, those rumors are unfounded and spread by his enemies and he even had some in his circle...l

What on earth? Are we still so homophobic that we will not dare mention there were many rumors that he was gay or bi? What century is this? I mean really...--Filll 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about homophobia, so much as the fact that people would use this to attempt to further discredit him posthumously, and that there is no evidence. If there is evidence, please post it and please discuss it. If evidence was being suppressed, there's homophobia. Does anyone HAVE any evidence? Or is it just "This Israeli said he was gay." ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.208.36.196 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Poisioning by Israel?

why media dont tell the fact that israel poisoned arafat? is it forbidden to broadcast?

Well, assuming they did poison him, they thought life in israel and palestine especially will be better, how deadly wrong they were... And, the thing that poisoned him was, he did not get much sun... How do his symptoms compare with what happened to Litvenenkov? It is not forbidden to falsely claim that Israel poisonded Arafat. It's an indisputeable fact that he became sickk and died in a hospital in Paris. Some people like to blame Israel for anything-Dendoi March 19, 2007 1:46 AM

Name problem

his name is with one s, not double. Right name should be Yaser Arafat. I request to move the page to Yaser Arafat.

Yes. What is the proper spelling? The article is named "Yasser Arafat" but the article starts with "Yassir Arafat (Arabic: ياسر عرفات‎)." At least, a single spelling should be agreed on, and used consistantly. AaronWL 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Yasser, but some call Yasir, i say, create both links that link to same person.

There is no proper spelling because there is no standardized way of transcribing and transliterating Arabic characters into Roman characters. See Transliteration for an explanation on the difference between the two. --Strothra 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

any way you do it, fine with me, any name as long as it links.

Plagarism

The introductory biography is taken straight of the Nobel peace prize website: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html

Birth and Date

It is important that both dates are on top of the page, not just to say disputed... this official birth certificate says born in Jerusalem, it will stay like that, like it or not, if you are from Israel or a friend of Israel (i have many friends myself), I really do not care, try to put objectivity here, wiki really lacks too much of it. Also, let's not get this name confused... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasir_Arafat_%28cricketer%29

It's important to note

1993 and after 1993, arafat was not at war with israel.

Also hope strothra guy does not screw around more with this article. There are already many complaints about him.

Introduction

This article suffers from a frequent ailment I have seen on Wikipedia. That is, the tendency to try to shove as much material as possible into the first sentence or two, including other names, titles, names in other languages and scripts, proununciation guides, transliterations etc. A lot of it is in bold characters or italic characters or both. The effect of all this "front loading" is that the introduction is almost worthtless and the poor reader has to dig to find out what it is about. I do not think we help ourselves with this kind of introduction. Just my opinion.--Filll 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully proposed trying to clean the first few sentences so the article is more accessible. I do not want to remove any information, just unclutter the introduction so it is readable. What do you say?--Filll 23:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Death certificate

OK... this is what it says here...

A controversy erupted around Arafat's death certificate. While Arafat's own personal biography list Cairo as his place of birth, French authorities chose to note his place of birth as Jerusalem instead.

There is one link about israel protest, but there is no link that french authorities issued the certificate, that's my problem, nothing else, that is what i wanted there, you do not put things like this at the end of an article, reader must know about ambiguities asap, not 10 pages later, that is common logic. If you go under history you will find link.

OK, is it possible to find one same administrator on this lousy place who can check into this problem?

You are one of the 5 administrators who have been causing problems since january 2006,(and thus caused all the things that happened after that) also, look above death certificate, and at least answer me am i right or wrong and how come nobody is doing anything about it? (you don't have to answer since you don't care) Don't you think that is important to establish some credibility, all you know is how to attack, but not to accept responsibility, ok... I might have been wrong with some edits in the past, once explained i corrected that, but most of the time nobody ever explained. And as of today, there is no talk about arafat, in this case, well read above.

Suggestion

To avoid personal attacks as you guys say they are, why don't you administrators think for a change, how about creating a voting poll here, meaning, create a polling place, every time there is a dispute, people simply vote... for example...

Should there be a special link?
Then we have a box, three multiple choices... 1.yes
2.no
3.not sure

I think that it's fairly important to keep fact and not popularity as our primary decision-making guide regarding an encyclopedic article.

Introduction

The introduction is really kind of a mess and definitely needs editing and cleaning up. It is very hard to read with so much detail shoved up so close to the start of the article.--Filll 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I have been trying to fix that for a long time, good to hear from you. There is a lot of info, but a lot is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.152 (talk)

Well if it is organized properly, more information can be included but still keep it readable. I have no problem with more information, but if we do not organize it properly, it is completely inaccessible. I am still a little unhappy with it but maybe it is better now.--Filll 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about guy? My goal was to add nice source about Arafat's death certificate (being born in Jerusalem), I do not mean all the way below, but anyways, they added a bbc link i suggested and that's all i ever wanted...well, i guess it's a good link. I am a historian so I better know my facts, i know how things work, did you mention anything about him being gay? He was not, if he was, we do not have any evidence, 0 proof. Ok, YOU CAN NOT ACCUSE SOMEBODY IS GAY, IT'S WRONG. And it's propaganda. AND I AM GLAD NOW WE HAVE LINK TO HIS DEATH CERTIFICATE, SOMETHING SROTHRA WAS DISPUTING. Then I became vandal, instead of this guy. But yea, good to have that link now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.152 (talk)

Are you kidding me? I added one of those links. Everyone removed the link you put in the article because it was from a bad source. We even said that when we did it right before you decided to engage in an edit war. Stop hiding behind your anonymous IP and register already if you want to be taken seriously. Also, note that there is no link to a death certificate and all of the links state that the allegation of him being born in Jerusalem is false. --Strothra 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I added one of those links. Everyone removed the link you put in the article because it was from a bad source. We even said that when we did it right before you decided to engage in an edit war. Stop hiding behind your anonymous IP and register already if you want to be taken seriously. --Strothra 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a bad source or if it was not, long before that i am the one who first introduced the bbc link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/890161.stm long time ago, you reverted it, i did not include any links from palestine, i spent lots of time asking some administrator just to put a link there... YOU HAVE SOMETHING AGAINST HISTORY AND AGAINST THIS FACT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE ( I NEVER SAID HE WAS) HE WAS BORN THERE, SO I PUT THE LINK... Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume I did put bad links... then you should have known better and included some nice links yourself, i would not object and do not sign after me, i will always revert it, as long as it takes, you are a strange person with your own agenda to hide history. As far as Arafat being gay, there is no evidence, we can not assume just like that, for example... http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/israel/isnews004.htm So, we should live gay thing alone. It's not important for history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.152 (talk)

Once again, if you would like to edit this article then register. --Strothra 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with registering? What is wrong with being gay? Why are you shouting and seemingly upset? Who cares about where he was born? We have some contrary evidence, so we note it and move on. There, all done. No need to get so torqued up, because who really cares?--Filll 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction II

I thought this would happen. You can view the same thing on many other Wikipedia articles. The introductory paragraphs are basically a mess of details, half sentences, multiple names, translations into other languages, names in other scripts, dates, etc. And unreadable.--Filll 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia style manual for biographical introductions can be found at WP:MOSBIO. --Strothra 14:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay rumors

No, i am saying it is not important if he was gay. The BBC link needs to be moved from Gaza under Jerusalem, the links get confusing, also i found this very interesting link, i thought you may look at (the bbc link i found 2 months ago, which you smart people reverted, talks about possibility of his birth, i just want to cover all angles, so do not put words into my mouth)... this is the last photo of Arafat, I presume.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/11/newsid_4292000/4292998.stm should be included under ex links. - Gordon—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.3.26 (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2006

I have no problem with stating that there were rumors that he was gay, with appropriate references. There is nothing precluding gay people from making great political contributions or contributions in any field and we should not deny this fact. He never acknowledged it, which also should be noted. But it should not be hidden as though it were shameful. I have looked at your link you provided, and to be honest I do not see that it includes new information.--Filll 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all dude, do not sign for me, i included my name and that's what I prefer to be here, also, i simply put that link to let you all know, nobody really cares if he was gay, that is and will be a rumor by his enemies, they simply want crazy things to be known, they say he was obstacle to peace, guess what, after him it's worse. Gordon

I apologize, but it is convention to sign for people who do not sign themselves. If you dislike it, you can try to get the policies of Wikipedia changed. Or leave. Ok? Do not argue with me about it. It is not my policy. And I do not care if he was gay or not. I do not want to deny him as being gay, since I have some very good friends that are gay rights lawyers and they would have my head for giving in to this. It is a rumor and not acknowledged, but it is a widely known rumor. So it should be reported as such. It is a matter of great pride for homosexuals to have one of their own be so prominent on the world stage! Do not give into the antihomosexual bigots!!! Why do you hate gay people so much? And I would not claim that no one cares if he was gay. Gay rights people care about these things very much. And many people cared because otherwise the rumor would not have been so prominent? I think that Arafat has a very mixed record, and the article should reflect that, which I believe it does. He did some good things and he did some bad things. Just like Hitler. Hitler did some good things and some bad things. And both should be noted, honestly!--Filll 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are waste of time, you are putting ip, to make me look bad, i will revert that, as long as it takes, i do not like you, do not argue with me about this, where were you in the beginning when i asked you to do few simple things? You have no brains. I signed the name and you will not put ip for me, ip is visible under history, do you understand me, and dont bring in hitler or others here, all of this was about a simple footnote, so now you and others, including srothra, have no comment because wales put it, but it was hard for you to put it there. And do not apologize in sarcastic way. Hitler might have done some good things for his country, but nothing good for the world as a whole, do you know any history? I am wasting time asking these queries. And below, i believe i gave my name, so do not put words into my mouth. Arafat, i do not care when he was born, all i know death certificate is legal document and you can argue until the cows come come, IT WILL NOT CHANGE A DAMN THING, LIKE IT OR NOT! Bottom line is, if there are disputes, if he is gay or not, that belongs under separate artcile or trivia, i do not want others to put words into my mouth. -Gordon

I think you seemed to be getting upset and I have no idea why. Perhaps I should register a complaint about your behavior? So what if he was gay? Why does that upset you? You are not in favor of gay rights? Why do I care where he was born ? It is obviously something with lots of dispute, so it should be noted as such, which it is. What is wrong with that? And why are you so frantic to not sign your name? Are you feeling ok? You should be careful with that sort of attitude. It is not healthy. I know my history, and I know that many figures have both good sides and bad sides. No one is all good and no one is all bad. What is wrong with that? --Filll 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that an article about an important figure who was surrounded by gay rumors for decades should have the rumors mentioned, properly sourced with references, and with a note that they are rumors and unfounded. I am not putting words in your mouth, but you seem very anti-gay rights and seem very hostile to the idea that a homosexual could have risen to such a level and been such an important leader !!--Filll 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Arafat closed Black September down" ... ?

Consider this statement from the "Lebanon" section:

"In 1973-4, Arafat closed Black September down, ordering the PLO to withdraw from acts of violence outside Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, because overseas attacks attracted too much bad publicity."

Firstly, there is no citation. Secondly, the notion that Arafat thought the terrorist attacks were bad publicity is a serious misunderstanding of the man, his methods, and the world's sympathy for the Palestinian cause. I suggest that this entire sentence be deleted (or at least altered) unless someone can find a reliable source that backs up this statement. --GHcool 02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Been tagged since December 2006, so I'm going to alter the sentence. Fatla00 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New Declassified Document

I agree. This section should be deleted. If fact, much of the Arafat page should be trimmed. It is so bloated with details it is difficult to read.

The U.S. State Department recently declassified a document that cites Arafat's direct involvement in the 1973 Kartoum embassy attack and the reasoning behind it. I don't know where to begin to insert this. -- Roenigk 15:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [8]

Yasser, Yaser, Yassir, Yasir?

Using google hits, which is not the best source, but:

• Yasser: 1.66 million
• Yaser: 191,000
• Yassir: 336,000
• Yasir: 592,000

So what name should we use? I think there are a variety of transliterations that are possible, since the real name is Arabic, but we should probably use the most common one, I would think.--Filll 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Consider the Hezbollah article, which is certainly an incorrect English pronunciation, but is most prevalent in the main stream media. --GHcool 18:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For guidance on the issue, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, most of the English language sources seem to refer to him as "Yasser". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally would favor Yasser, but I thought it would be best to discuss it first.--Filll 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yasser is the most prevalent, and even before I read the google hits above, I regard "Yaser" as the least prevalent. However, Britannica and NY Times use "Yasir". Either way, "Yaser" in not the answer? Agree? Say "Yessir". Ramallite ^(talk) 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yasser is by far the most standard. There is no one correct way. Want to put it to a vote in order to gain concensus? --Strothra 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive

What happened to the talk page discussion archives??? --Strothra 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow very strange.--Filll 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the archive may have been connected to the fact that they were connected to "Yasser Arafat" as opposed to "Yaser Arafat". Anyone know how to fix this?--Strothra 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Please stop your edit warring guys. Mnemonic2, it is true that this article is about Arafat but mentioning people who shared the Prize w/ him is encyclopaedic and removing it is a bit of WP:LAME. Please see Yitzhak Rabin#Second term as Prime Minister, Shimon Peres lead Nobel Peace Prize#Laureates where it is stated that both were awarded the Prize "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East". -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never did what you accuse me of, i've never removed that information from the article, i've removed it from the lead. If you check out the article you will see the information was always there but there is no lenghty discussion of arafat's nobel peace prize in the article. Mentioning every little detail of the prize in the lead when the article doesnt even have a section titled 'Arafats nobel peace prize' is out of place. So please do not mis state my position and actions as i never removed said information from the article. To summerize the lead should mention the nobel prize briefly not with every insignificant detail. Mnemonic2 11:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing edits from lead is the same as removing content from the article! The edit in question is encyclopaedic. The article size is not a valid argument to remove that. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that concensus is weighing toward keeping it in the lead for now, so it should stay. --Strothra 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine i just want to stress that i never wanted to censor or remove that information, so its not the same as removing it from the article. It was my estimation that its proper place was in the main article not the lead, but whatever. Mnemonic2 14:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but stating that on the lead gives more positive perspective to the reader. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

As I could have anticipated, the LEAD has again turned into a disaster. I would appeal to people to move his other names in other scripts, as much as possible, to the information box. Do not clutter the lead sentence with a ton of nonsense that makes it unreadable.--Filll 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose we resolve this as was done for Singapore Changi Airport by putting alternative names and scripts in the infobox.--Filll 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check out the new infobox arrangement for his name that I hacked out. I propose we remove as much as we can of pronunciation guides, and other scripts as possible, and other titles etc, and put them all in the infobox if we can, and reserve the lead for English, since this is English Wikipedia. I have given an example in the infobox. Let me know if you like it or not. If I hear nothing bad, I will go ahead and make the lead much cleaner and easier to read, as was done at Singapore Changi Airport. I have nothing against Arabic or pronunciation or multiple names, but I think that the LEAD should be readable English as much as possible.--Filll 03:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace confusion/Life after Arafat

Not sure if this is worth spending too much time on, *and* I am not very familiar with the subject, but isn't it noteworthy that Arafat claimed his birth place to be Jerusalem, when most sources have it as Cairo? This is not mentioned in the main body of the article, the indication of a possible dispute is now removed from the Infobox as well, and only the reference discusses this. Have also restored a statement about Arafat's re-burial which is easily verified through googling for it. Sdsouza 21:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion will always remain. But definitely life after Arafat is hell for Palestinians and many said he was "obstacle" to peace... He was a scapegoat and his enemies used and milked another tragedy- the 911- and other unrest which he could not control. But, look at the side effects now... As some say from every evil some good must come out, I wonder how often does that happen?

Picture?

Why isn't there any picture up there.

Time of death

There is an error in the sentence describing Arafat's time of death: "Arafat was pronounced dead at 03:30 AM UTC French time" It must be either french time (which was UTC+1 at the time) or UTC, not both which is just meaningless. Besides "AM" is superfluous since the time is given as 03:30. 89.8.30.189 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, French time is not Universal.

Why is Ion Mihai Pacepa mentioned everywhere? Poll to separate him in a different section

This article bases many infos on Pacepa's words.

I believe that this is plain wrong from a historian's view. Here is why:

• History is based on indisputable facts and documents. The sayings, the rumors, the autobiographies and other such personal narratives are always used "in context", while trying to de-mystify those facts and documents.

• Further more, it known that secret-service employees are sources of disputable information,since they tend to mix truth with hard-to-detect lies "professionally"; that is their duty after all. Further more, sometimes they are binded with secret agreements for the rest of their lifes.

Therefore, i suggest to poll whether we should evict all information based on Ion Mihai Pacepa naration in a separate section of this page.
Sperxios 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

This sentence doesn't seem to make sense:

Dr. Ashraf al-Kurdi, which also follows the Hashemite kings, lamented the fact that the leader's wife Suha had refused an autopsy, which would have answered many questions in the case.

Is something missing? Anchoress 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Al Ameer son

Upgrade to FA status

I have considerably expanded the article on the sections of Early Life, (created Formation of Fatah from ending portion of Early Life section and expanded on that as well), Jordan, fixed links, grammatical errors, spelling throughout the article and added mid-sized portions of information to the Lebanon and Aftermath sections and all with reference to Said K. Aburish's biography of Yasser Arafat, Arafat, From Defender to Dictator including the references he used.

If someone just adds the reference to this sentence,

According to one of his doctors, Arafat was suffering from Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), an immunologically-mediated decrease in the number of circulating platelets to abnormally low levels[citation needed].

It's really hard to say what happened to him. I know for a fact he was totally exhausted, it's a miracle he lived this long from all that pressure and home imprisonement. -- User: 66.99.1.216 20:58, 19 June 2007

There is also a lack of references and sources for the first half of the section: Political survival, marginalization and controversy I fixed a few internal links and period locations in this section but primarily this one: Palestinian Authority and peace negotiations -- User: Al Ameer son June 19, 2007 23:48 (UTC)

Then I think we should upgrade its status to Featured Article from A-article. -- User: Al Ameer son 02:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What else has been an issue? Tewfik^Talk 04:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The format of the references and links is just awful and nonstandard. This needs attention from someone who is willing to put the painstaking effort into cleaning this up. Also, the text in places needs to be turned into something that more closely approximates English.--Filll 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to so, I have fixed several spelling and grammatical errors in the article and have expanded the article from my source Said K. Aburish. Could you give me an example of where the text in the article needs to be turned into something closer for English so that I may understand exactly what you are talking about. -- Al Ameer son 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The most glaring problem is to replace the links with <ref></ref> throughout the article. Even better is to use Harvard style references.--Filll 00:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The external links section is probably too long. WP is not a link farm, after all. There are almost 30 links of the form [XX] in the article body as well which have to be replaced.--Filll 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix them by replacing all external links with footnotes ( <ref></ref> ). You were right it is quite painstaking. I made several mistakes and the sources just became messy and confusing so I did not save my changes. I will try again though, knowing what I did wrong. -- Al Ameer son 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking and references is a big pain. But if you want to make a readable article that might get a higher rating, you have to do a better job than has been done so far. --Filll 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

mass murderer

most of israeli (jews) see him that way. it's a fact. --TRFA 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

gotta keep things encyclopedic... most arabs are tought by TV that sharon actually did the sabra and shatila murder (and not lebanese arabs) and that people of tel aviv drink blood of arab children instead of milk (there's a really "cute" cartoon going around)... still, we don't write it into the intro of ariel sharon or people of tel aviv because it degrades the level of the encyclopedia.... even if it's got some truth in the case of arafat bearing responsibility for a very large number of deaths. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Credibility

Ion Mihai Pacepa isn't a credible source for this material - he writes for just about every trashy right-wing propaganda rag in the US - and McAuliffe doesn't actually say anything about Arafat's sexuality.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, a Romanian intelligence chief, recorded in his memoir "Red Horizons", that Arafat had homosexual tendencies. He alleged that intelligence on the "Tiger" (an English translation of Arafat's common Arabic nickname, Nimr) gathered in the 1970s indicated Arafat had had frequent sexual trysts with his male bodyguards and protégés. In his autobiography, Terry McAuliffe, former US Democratic Party leader and close aide to President Bill Clinton writes that Arafat made a pass at him by rubbing his leg at a dinner.

If there aren't any better sources this section should be deleted. --Ian Pitchford 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm not really getting into this discussion.. but i've found these two sources... maybe they help, maybe not.

[9] - 'They're Trying to Bury My Husband Alive' (CNSNews)

[10] - Was Arafat HIV-positive? (Haaretz)

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

video

stumbled on this video where Ahmad Jibril, Secretary-General of the PFLP declares he was told by Abu Mazen that Arafat died of AIDS. if i find a little time i may introduce this into the article.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1507.htm -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ion Mihai Pacepa appears to be the source of the CNS story, i.e., it's yet another conservative news service circulating the same innuendo from the same source. The Haaretz story speculates that Arafat was HIV positive, doesn't say anything about his sexuality or whether he had AIDS, and hints that the story has its origins in Jordanian political intrigue. Memri is, of course, an Israeli propaganda outlet and Jibril was one of Arafat's political rivals - a doubly unreliable source. If there's anything in this rumour there must be far more reliable, and less equivocal sources. --Ian Pitchford 12:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

to be honest, you;re rejecting everyone based on your POV giving them all zero credibility for fact checking and source validation... let's be honest.. everyone were talking about huge investigation about arafat and then suddenly not a peep about it... why? i trust Jibril on arab TV more than i trust you.... perhaps you should find a denial by Abu Mazen about this Jibril statement? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to desist from personal comments if you want to continue this discussion. The man lived a long life and knew thousands of people; reliable sources for this aspect of his personal life should be legion if it has any substance at all. --Ian Pitchford 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, let's just not address any bias or POV and only go over your comment:

(1) "Ion Mihai Pacepa appears to be the source of the CNS story", (OR?)

(2) "Haaretz... doesn't say anything about his sexuality" (untrue, it's mentioned and noted as forbidden in the society i.e. could get you killed)

(3) "hints that the story has its origins in Jordanian political intrigue" (any references?)

(4) "Memri is, of course, an Israeli propaganda" (hey, and BBC and Haaretz and the guardian.... arn't they used here on wiki as WP:RS ??)

(5) "Jibril was one of Arafat's political rivals", then surely we can add this link and another stating that he's a rival... wikipedia is not about censorship if the source is considered RS.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to mention that this appeared in several places, and while it may or may not be ultimately true, it is fact that the claim was made by an inside man and that the Daily News printed it, but seemed to have removed it for PC reasons. In July 2007, on Hizballah's Al-Manar television, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command Ahmed Jibril said that P.A. Chairman Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen] had told him that Arafat died of AIDS. The The matter remains under contentionYouTube Video of Ahmed Jibril talking about Arafat’s deathCybercast News Service, By Julie Stahl, July 13, 2007New York Daily News Arafat died of AIDS, says rival chief, Friday, July 20th 2007.

Sorry for late response. I know Jibril's statement has become a somewhat recurring one, but its not enough for an extremely controversial claim especially for such a controversial person. Until the statement is backed (not just recognized) by a major and reputable source like CNN, NBC, a government etc. it could be considered to be included in the article. Al-Jazeera is certainly a reputable source but has not backed the statement just hosted Jibril. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments as part of extensive peer review

I'm going through this article as preparation for an FAC. My comments are being left here. I've left discussion about many of the tags I've added. – Scartol · Talk 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of 4 October

I reverted this edit for a number of reasons:

1. Since Arafat was a Palestinian, I think the opinions of Palestinians and Arabs should come first. An article about Sharon should have Israeli opinion listed fist, in my opinion, and the same should serve here.
2. The edit was made by an anonymous IP with very few edits, making me doubt the use of talk page discussion beforehand.
3. "Most of the civilized world" is highly WP:NPOV, and there was no additional source to accompany it.

Questions or comments can be left here or at my talk page. – Scartol · Talk 19:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick Peer Review

Moved to peer review archives section. --Al Ameer son 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image requests

The article lacks images in two major sections describing Arafat's life in the article. The sections are that of his time in Tunis and one of him ill. Most of the several images I have come across were deleted because they were not free. If anyone could find a government site that has released any images or could provide an acceptable fair use rationale for an unfree image, please do so. Thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection anyone?

While it's on the main page at least. Someone changed "militant and politician" to "murderer and terrorist" not too long ago. Leon 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO. Despite this, I feel sorry for all the users cleaning up the mess. There hasn't been a front page article this controversial in a while. 128.227.87.68 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

During Hanukkah, no less. Was that intentional? ~ UBeR (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this was pretty poor taste. Hard to call such an edit vandalism... Also, the opening of the article includes the statement: "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. However, many Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist." As though Palestinians and Israelis are the only people with opinions on the man, or perhaps whose opinions on the man matter. I'm pretty sure theres other people who both admired and despised the man.65.87.40.177 (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't list everyone's opinion of him. The most relevant to his life and career are those of the Palestinians and the Israelis. So the scope of the sentence seems appropriate. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides that it's probably almost impossible to summarise. As it is, the two viewpoints mostly provide the extremes, everyone else fits somewhere in between Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It was originally Islamic, Arab and Palestinian view vs Israeli view but we only had reliable sources to cite the opinions of the Palestinians and Israelis. See the first FAC nomination discussion in the article milestones at the top of this page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

disambig

Andrew Walker needs disambig. Randomblue (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Family

Was he not married and have children?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.75.14 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mentioned as the article goes on. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wore a gun at peace talks

I think it might be worth mentioning that Arafat holds the distinction of being the only person in modern history to attend peace talks wearing a sidearm (probably a .45 automatic pistol). I remember this as being at the Oct 1993 Oslo Accord signing in Washington D.C. (which might not be correct). But he definitely did so in Nov 1974 when [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937307/posts he spoke] at the United Nations General Assembly. (Some sources say that he wore only the gunbelt and holster, having been required by security to leave the gun itself outside.) — Loadmaster (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither reference supports the stated fact he was the only person in modern history to attend peace talks wearing a sidearm. Indeed I don't believe the UN General Assembly was a 'peace talk' Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting trivia fact if true; can you cite a definitive source for either claim? Tempshill (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With the number of people that wanted him dead, probably a smart move. Anyways, this seems like OR unless a cite is provided. --Tom 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He carried it into the UN Headquarters. "Smart move?" Nonsense68.111.71.197 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, theres plenty of sources that back the fact he carried a gun but whether or not he was the only one in history or the first one would need specific mentioning in a reliable source. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard it was a trivia game question somewhere once, but I don't remember the source. I can't seem to find a reliable reference. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to see what I can find. I have his biography and will look into that shortly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobel prize image in infobox

When somebody removed the Nobel Prize logo from the "name" field of the article's infobox, I wasn't sure what to make of that. Same user restored the image, a short bit later. I don't think I've seen this, before, is it a common practice? Might form a stronger opinion, after some thought, but for now it just seemed worth remarking on. Any thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd sentence structure

His father, Abdel Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini, was a Gazan with an Egyptian mother.

This sentence seems a bit odd to me; is it really necessary to write that his father had an Egyptian mother, and if so, in this fashion? It first appeared to me that there was a typo and the sentence meant to refer to Arafat's mother being Egyptian. But the paragraph this is taken from then goes on to speak of Arafat's mother.

Was Arafat's father a Gazan with an English butler or Siamese cat as well? I mean, there can be so many things that can be added, all of which, perhaps including this as well, seem a tad superfluous. Either way, I think it should be included in another fashion, so as to lend clarity to this sentence and the paragraph as a whole. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been instances where some people claim he is Egyptian. The sentence is to clarify that he is really just a Palestinian with some Egyptian ancestry. I know its a little confusing and I've noticed that for some time but never got any complaints. If you or another user could find a better way to state it, go ahead and do so. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody shifted the wording slightly (haven't looked in history), I shifted it a bit from there. Hopefully the current version is more clear? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I clarified some more. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

More images

There are about 5 images here at Flickr this article can use. They are licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0, so no need to worry about fair use. Have at it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I've actually requested images on this talk page, See the "Image requests" heading of the page. Again, thank you verAl Ameer son (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)y much! --

Date of founding of Fatah

Thanks to Al Ameer son for this edit, which adds Aburish's book to the sources cited by Nishidani, and which clarifies that Fatah was founded "between 1958 and 1959", and not in 1956, as an IP editor had inserted.

I noticed the main Fatah article gives the date as 1954, also citing Aburish (the sole source). Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Aburish to check, but I did look in my copy of Cobban's book, which says:

In his autobiography, Khalaf dates the founding of Fatah very precisely, to a meeting held on 10 October 1959, when 'a small group of us met in a discreet house in Kuwait to hammer out the organisational structures of Fateh'. Hassan, however dated the final unification of the Fateh core only back to 1962, saying that until then all that had developed were independent local groups:

We discovered that wherever there is a concentration of Palestinians at that time, between '58 and '62, there was a Palestinian movement. So Hani [his younger brother Hani al-Hassan], for instance, and his group were forming a movement in Germany. Hamdan was forming a movement in Austria. Kawbaban was forming a movement in Spain. Abdul-Fattah was forming a movement in Saudi Arabia. Abu Mazen, Abu Yusef - they were forming a movement in Qatar. We were forming a movement in Kuwait. There were some others in Iraq and Gaza and Damascus.

But we [the Kuwait group] were the only ones to have a magazine, called Filastinuna [Our Palestine]. It was offered to us by a Lebanese from Tripoli. So through this magazine - and there was a P.O. Box at the magazine - so we became known before the others. So the others started to talk to us, to write to us. So we became the core through the P.O. Box of this magazine. And then we managed to see each other and finally, in '62, we had a conference in Kuwait, and the whole were united in Al-Fateh.

The first man who started Fateh is Abu Jihad (Khalil al-Wazir).

Helena Cobban, The Palestinian Liberation Organisation: People, Power and Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1984, p23-24

Cobban cites the info from Khaled al-Hassan to an October 1982 interview with him, so it would be preferable to have an independent source before mentioning the 1962 date. I won't alter the main text, as I don't have Aburish's book, which supersedes Cobban by 14 yrs, but it does at least confirm that the date was never 1956.

In any case, it is clear that the Fatah article needs correcting.

P.S. In my view, Cobban's Just World News blog is also worth watching.
--NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I looked into the Aburish book; The text on page 40 reads as such:

There is no official date for the setting up of Fatah, and the resulting confusion among historians and news correspondents is justified. ... its Arabic acronym, reversed into Fatah to match the Koranic word for "conquest", came in to being by degrees. This accounts for the absence of a fixed date of birth and the different dates given by some of its founding members. It began to publish the monthly magazine Filastinuna, Nida' Al Hayat (Our Palestine, The Call of Life) in 1959 shortly before it adopted the name Fatah.

It was 1959 all along. He also cites someone named Hassan Khalil Hussein from Abu Iyad Uknown Pages from His Life, p64. I assume now, we could all accept that Fatah was founded in 1959, correct? If so I'll change the text and ref immediately --Al Ameer son (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'm glad my twenty odd years memory of wyhat was written in Cobban's book is still intact and faithful. Late proof that not all of the brain cells have been invested with Altzheimer's!! And Neil, thanks for the link to Cobban's site.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Poisoning

I note that rumours he was murdered by a toxin are mainly associated with the Arab world. The article ignores what some Israelis like Uri Avnery often repeat, based on Sharon's secretary's memoirs. Is this too controversial? Uri Avnery. 'If Arafat were Alive'?

It wouldn't be controversial to include since the section is about the controversy. Go ahead and add what you would like. BTW, sorry for the late reply. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Arafat's personal doctor: He suffered from AIDS

Dr.Ashraf Al-Kurdi confirmed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YBCirT9ydM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.107.136.236 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why don't we have any discussions of his homosexuality and HIV. It doesn't need much, but it should be included. JeffBurdges (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Horizons

In the book Red Horizons by Ion Mihai Pacepa, former chief of Romanian intelligence General Pacepa claims Yasser Arafat was a homosexual.

It is a well known historical fact that Pacepa accused Arafat of being a homosexual in the book Red Horizons.

Anyone who has read the book is aware of the accusation. Google Pacepa Arafat homosexual and you will get "multiple reliable source[s] from notable, independent, published sources."

Wiki editor Gwernol, who has obviously never read Red Horizons or googled the matter, claims this historical fact is "clearly not reliable" but offers no support for his argument.

I think it's obvious Gwernol has something against homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs) 01:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for that personal attack against me. If you have reliable sources that back up this claim, then you are welcome to list them here. Until you have proper verifiable sources for this claim, you may not add it to this or other Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 01:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the book: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Horizons-Ceausescus-Lifestyle-Corruption/dp/0895267462

The quote is there but you are in denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the quote is there. I can find quotes that say the world is flat, that the moon landings were hoaxes and that Yasser Arraft was in fact Jewish. Simply having a quote is not enough to include information in an article. Your source is dubious at best and you only have one. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. When this fact is published in multiple mainstream sources such as the New York Times, then it is possible to include it in the article. Your evidence has not yet risen to the required standards. Gwernol 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is Pacepa "dubious at best"? Because you say so? Go edit his page and call him a liar then.

Pacepa is a liar because Gwernol says so.

Here you go. Here are multiple sources.

http://www.jnewswire.com/article/230

Roaring tiger

Allegations regarding Arafat’s homosexuality have been fueled primarily by evidence provided by his former communist allies in Romania.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, Arafat was a regular in Nicolae Ceausescu’s Bucharest, where Romanian intelligence and its KGB overlords were providing the PLO with the means to gain legitimacy in the West.

Little did Arafat know that Lt.-Gen. Ion Pacepa, the deputy chief of Romania's intelligence service, had rigged his guest suites with surveillance equipment.

In his book “Red Horizons”, Pacepa unveils Arafat as an insatiable homosexual by recalling a telephone conversation with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned to the PLO.

"I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the 'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom, and the squawling almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena."

Pacepa wrote that after reading the full intelligence reports, “I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand."

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/4348.htm

Intelligence on "the tiger" romping with bodyguards Frum pointed to KGB evidence linking Arafat to homosexual activities, citing a 1987 book by Lt.-Gen. Ion Pacepa, the deputy chief of Romania's intelligence service under Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

In his memoirs "Red Horizons," Pacepa relates a conversation in 1978 with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned to teach Arafat and the PLO techniques to deceive the West into granting the organization recognition.

"I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the 'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom, and the squawling almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena."

Guys, this "homosexuality" claim has been discussed several times, look at above sections, archives and I believe one of the FA reviews. It was decided that Pacepa (who was used frequently in this article a year ago) is not a reliable source. He's a former spy, so who could prove that Arafat was gay if only Pacepa supposedly knew about his "homosexuality". --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to debate the homosexuality of Arafat, be my guest. What is not up for debate is that Pacepa made the accusation. I think the censorship on here would be laughable it wasn't so shameful. http://out.com/detail.asp?id=22719

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs) 03:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am blind, but I personally see no problem with including this. The formula should be something like "According to the book Red Horizons, Arafat was homosexual. This claim is widely discredited by (insert source)." Wikkidd would seem to have met the burden of proof for inclusion, I fail to see what this nonsense about RS is. If you don't like it, find a source that says its crap. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)