Talk:Yasser Arafat

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)

Re the AIDS rumour, the only source given is an article in Haaretz by an Israeli doctor 5 years ago that has never been repeated and was refuted soon after. I think it gives Undue Weight to this source to put it in a section heading. There's an argument to be made that it should be removed completely, given the thinness of the source (and if the comment above is anything to go by, it looks like a smear campaign.) At any rate, I'm removing it from the chapter heading.Steve3742 (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the title change. It's more neutral. If you think we need to thin the info on the AIDS rumor even more, go ahead. It was a fringe view anyhow. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (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

Well Pacepa makes some serious allegations which should be addressed in this article. The Soviet Union may have clearly had a role in creating him. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB106419296113226300-H9jeoNjlaZ2nJ2oZnyIaaeBm4.html Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union may have clearly had a role in creating in him? This contradicts all the existing information surrounding Arafat's early life and the creation of Fatah. I think it has been established that this a fringe theory. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not a fringe theory! Read Mitrokhin. Arafat clearly had elite contacts in the USSR, and they helped groom him to leadership. Its well documented.Tallicfan20 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I personnaly thought it was common knowledge that Arafat was treined by the KGB. Shouldn't this at least be mentioned? There are many accounts and the one by Ion Pacepa is one of most important I have seen. Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/arafatkgb.html--201.36.208.129 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)twinlight73

Homosexuality of Arafat

I realize that this may hurtful to islamic/arabic editors but the fact that arafat was pretty much described by dozens of scholars and reputable sources and journalists and researchers to have had homosexual liaisions, is something that must be written in the article. the more you object the more someone will write a whole piece about it probably, so there's no reason to be negative and revert. a good beginning can be The Mystery of Arafat which discusses it, the book that was already cited in the article Presidential leadership, illness, and decision making, Arafat: in the eyes of the beholder, The PLO: the rise and fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization and so on.... every book on arafat mentions it... wiki should too.... obviously. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is section about Poison and AIDS controversy, it really seems sensible - after all, if he really was HIV positive it would be most probable way of taint... MH, 83.208.42.219 (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section on his sexual orientation. I think it's definitely an issue that should be discussed and explored. Given the PAs repression of gays and rumors involving his death from AIDS as well as persistent rumors concerning his sexual orientation, it's a germane issue that ought to be fully addressed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Three verifiable and reliable sources have been provided concerning Arafat's sexual orientation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of talking about his sexual orientation? People read an encyclopedia to get facts, not rumors, and thats exactly whats in the article right now... a rumor. It even states "decade long RUMORS." Rumors are not appropriate for an encyclopedia and I think the whole section should be removed.

Also, the first source is from a homosexual magazine (biased) with no credible evidence and no sources, the second source says nothing about his sexual orientation, and the third source is from a non-nuetral Israeli online magazine!(biased).

Someone remove this section of "rumors" or I will. --CantoV (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh just becuase the source is "Israeli" or "homosexual" doesn't mean it's biased. Why does this issue strike such a nerve?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Me thinks thou doth protest too much--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This "issue'? You mean having a section on someones wikipedia page based completely on rumors? I don't think any more justification needs to be made to remove it. Thanks. --CantoV (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that Arafat, a "devout" Muslim and father of the Palestinian people is going to out himself? There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that he in fact was gay and may have died of AIDS or as another Arab pulication phrased it, "a shameful disease." See Arafat Doctor: Let Us Know Why He Died In sum, a brief section should be dedicated to the issue. I stress brief and you can add your own sources that say he was straight or asexual or whatever.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In the article you linked: "The French refusal to announce the cause of death has prompted many rumors and speculations...."Another rumour making the rounds in the region, especially in the West Bank, yesterday was that Arafat had died of a “shameful disease” that the French did not wish to reveal not to sully his memory. But PLO leaders have dismissed that as baseless.

The last sentence sums it up. The rumors are baseless. Rumors, especially baseless ones, have no reason to be on wikipedia. Also, there is no reason to bring up his sexual preference in the first place. I don't think that it affected history in anyway or brought any significant attention(if it were true) to give it a reason to be in an encyclopedia. --CantoV (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are two reasons to bring it up. First, under his leadership, treatment of Palestinian gays (yes they do exist) was abominable. Second, he considered himself a devout Muslim but yet, he practiced homosexuality. For both reasons, it would make him a hypocrite in the extreme and certainly, Wikipedia readers have the right to know. It's not a matter for the "thought police" to act as a filter. Let the people know!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are basing all of this on rumors. There are no hard facts, nor have you presented any reputable sources for your claims that he is homosexual, nor are there any reputable sources at all. I'm not continuing this conversation and the page shall remain without the section. You can believe what you want whether it's true or not, but when you choose to put it on wikipedia you better have good sources or it will be removed by someone/want to be removed, that someone just so happened to be me lol.

I suggest you read up on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources --CantoV (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no "thought police" here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—not a place for yellow journalism—and there are rules and guidelines that we must follow. Canto pretty much sums it up. These claims are rumors and got little, if any, attention by major news networks. There aren't any reliable sources saying he was gay and the majority of unreliable sources on the subject out there say it was possible he had homosexual affairs. The fact of the matter is that it's not even really a fringe view, but a rumor and has no place in a Wikipedia biography, let alone one that it is of Featured status. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

I've been asked to give a look to this issue and, before I make any comments on the text and the sources, I'd like to hear the thoughts and perspectives of the people rejecting the material and, if they have any, possible compromise suggestions (if that is a possibility; I've not fully inspected the value of the material).
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the rumors are persistent enough that some sort of discussion should be had in the article. There are several mentions of him possibly dying of AIDS, which is bizarre if no reason is given as to how he might have contracted such a virus. IronDuke 00:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, Check out #62 of this page and you'll have all my opinions. There is not substantial enough evidence, no good sources, and no good reason to even have rumors up on the page. It's not our right to suggest or rumor about someones sexual orientation on an encyclopedia page. Maybe this type of talk is suitable for a forum or something, but not for an encyclopedia. All the sources that were used for that section were biased and had no proof or stated no facts, just rumors.

People die of AIDS from many things, but there are no official medial records or sources that state that he did or did not die of AIDS. He may have contracted it(there are many ways of contracting it) and it showed up in his blood, but that's already brought up in the article and has a good source.

Those are my thoughts and I don't think it's necessary to be on wikipedia (it's not mentioned in any other encyclopdia either.. and really it's not mentioned in anything other than Israeli news sites).--CantoV (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just his possibly dying of AIDS, it is frequent and oft-repeated rumors that Arafat was gay. There's quite a bit to support the speculation, though I think it will probably remain just that. IronDuke 16:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Heyo CantoV,

In general I'd agree that we should avoid going deeply into this topic as this project is supposed to put forward the most notable aspects of Arafat into a biographical encyclopedia entry. The slight investigative curiosity started with me when I saw a video of Muhammad Dahlan, saying Arafat died of aids a while back, but I didn't think it was more than a random rumor at the time. However, just a couple days ago, I saw a video where "the Jews" are accused of poisoning Arafat. I probably mis-titled this subsection since it leads people to think I want to see sources about his possible sexual orientation - which is probably, indeed just a pointless rumor mill. Still, after the recent issue I've read about - I'm considering that there might be a room to summarize the poisoning issue into a half-paragraph... it should (if proper sources are used) be written conservatively and without synthesis. Something like "several prominent Palestinian leaders, including X,Y,Z, have stated in interviews that Arafat was sick of H and in other interviews, Palestinian figures such as T, B, and Q charged that "Zionists had poisoned him.""

Maybe I'm building this story up... but I think I have seen a few sources on the matter, and if they really accuse Jews for poisoning him on his commemoration (that's what I recell reading), then it might be a recurring theme that could be addressed... I still need to see proper sources here as well as an attempt to treat the issue in an encyclopedic manner... no fluff or synthesis. mention who is saying what... and only if he's notable... and narrowing it down to a half-paragraph. If there's enough prominent mention (as I've had the feeling, since reading that article a couple days ago) - then yes, it could be included somehow. If not, then not. Its not a very encyclopedic issue if it doesn't have some real echo around him and I need to see some Palestinian or Arab sources about that.

Thoughts/suggestions/sources?

Seems to me that there’s lot’s of emphasis on the poisoning theory and that seems to be okay with folks pushing a certain POV. But the minute there is even a hint that he died of AIDS, it is immediately reverted by the thought police as “rumor” “conjecture” and “speculation.” That’s a gross double standard that needs to be addressed. Moreover, the subject of his sexual orientation is valid and there is a wealth of sources to support this. A paragraph or two on this subject is warranted--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also judging from the discussion page, there seems to be a fair number of editors who wish to include this information but they always seem to be shot down by the same POV pushing crew.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Orwellian rhetoric aside, can you provide any high quality (peer reviewed or published in an academic press) sources that say that this is anything more than a rumor? Anything that says that this is something more than a rumor that numerous sources completely discount? nableezy - 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Nab, welcome back. Concerning your comment, the circumstances of Arafat's death swirl in rumor because we've got nothing to go on. AIDS? Poisoning? Blood disorder? no one knows for sure. If fact, many things about Arafat are steeped in mystery including his sexual orientation. I have sources and will provide them shortly. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the book "Red Horizons" written by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former head of Romanian intelligence and highest level East Block defector to the West. He relates a conversation with Constantin Munteaunu, a general assigned as a case officer and liaison with Arafat.

"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 (sic) almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena." Munteaunu continued: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood and filth all together in one man."

Munteaunu, wrote Pacepa, spent months pulling together secret reports from Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian intelligence agencies as well as Romanian files.

"I used to think I knew just about everything there was to know about Rahman al-Qudwa," Arafat's real name, "about the construction engineer who made a fortune in Kuwait, about the passionate collector of racing cars, about Abu Amman," Arafat's nom de guerre, "and about my friend Yasser, with all his hysterics," explained Munteaunu, handing Pacepa his final report on the PLO leader. "But I've got to admit that I didn't really know anything about him." Wrote Pacepa: "The report was indeed an incredible account of fanaticism, of devotion to his cause, of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss banks, and of homosexual relationships, beginning with his teacher when he was a teen-ager and ending with his current bodyguards. After reading the report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand."

The question is, why is Pacepa discounted? There is absolutely no reason to preclude his view other than blatant POV pushing.

Also, check out

• Was Arafat Gay?

• Arafat died of AIDS, says rival chief--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Daily News piece calls this a "rumor" and that it is "speculation" that Arafat was gay. The Pacepa book is discounted because it is not a RS (published by Regnery Publishing). I again ask, is there a serious source, meaning published in a peer reviewed journal or by an academic press, that treats this as anything more than an unsubstantiated rumor? There are countless high quality sources dealing with Arafat, do any of them raise this issue? Ive been looking through journals and other academic sources and I cannot find one that gives any credence to this story. And, since you did not get the hint about "POV pushing", why exactly do a certain set of users whose views about the conflict and this man are generally well-known insist on trying to put mere rumor and innuendo in an encyclopedia article? Could it possibly be "POV pushing". No, never that, the "other side" is the only ones who do that, right? nableezy - 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Forget the publisher and consider the source. Pacepa was the highest ranking intel officer to have defected to the West during the Cold War. Why would you discount or preclude his view and perspective? As far as the Daily News article is concerned, Arafat's whole life is shrouded in mystery and rumor - from where he was born to the cause of his death. Why should his sexual orientation be any different? So we mention a few words to the effect that he was rumored to be gay, cite a few sources and be done with it. The reader can take it for what its worth. The rumors are persistent enough that it's worth a mention. Moreover, the cause of death was never revealed, which only feeds into the theory that he died of AIDS. That makes the issue of his sexual orientation all the more relevant. Incidentally, the NY Times reported that Arafat experienced a very low blood platelet count, which the paper stated is consistent with advanced AIDS. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The publisher is what counts unless the person is an expert in the field. And the French autopsy makes no mention of AIDS, and independent doctors have said the symptoms reported in his medical records are inconsistent with AIDS. As far as the book of the intelligence officer, his being the "highest ranking intel officer to have defected" has no bearing on his reliability. And if the rumors were persistent we would find them in high quality sources. nableezy - 18:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If reliable sources discuss rumors, they are notable rumors and worthy of inclusion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources discussing this allegation. If some high quality sources are found, please present them here first. Just because someone is dead, it does not give us the right to include unreliably sourced rumor and speculation into his biography. Tiamut^talk 14:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The RSN discussion about Red Horizons (linked below, by Nableezy) surfaced two books, by academic presses, which discuss the rumors of death from AIDS, and homosexuality, and give them the same level of credence as the rumors of poisoning by Mossad. (see ([1] and [2]). If we can discuss one set of rumors (poisoning by Israel) , we can discuss the other (AIDS-caused death). Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

summay reversion - people in glass houses ...

juijitsu guy, who above is advocating that we include unconfirmed rumors that arafat was gay, has summarily reverted an addition i made here, detailing a number of assasination attempts on arafat's life as documented in the political biography yasser arafat by alan hart. his edit summary invoked the need to avoid conspiracy theories better sujited for comic books. i would appreciate hearing the views of others, given that his opinion on what is the stuff of comic books seems to be a little off. thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The book cited is published by Indiana University Press, and while I am no fan of the hoosiers it is without doubt a reliable source. That material should be restored. nableezy - 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of other responses, I've restored the information, which is, as Nableezy points out, reliable, as it is published by an academic press. It is also directly relevant the material preceding it, which I find vague and somewhat weaselly ("Some ....", etc.) Those who wish to delete such information again, are asked to present a coherent rationale here prior to doing so. Tiamut^talk 14:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on this. A single whacked out rumor of poisoned rice crispy cereal is accepted as reliable but persistent and ongoing rumors, from multiple sources, concerning Arafat's sexual orientation is rejected. Ahhh, gotta luv Wikipedia--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is what matters here, the book cited in Tiamut's edit is published by Indiana University Press and does not present it as a rumor. The source contains the following:

p 27: In its attempts to assassinate Arafat, the Mossad never to date used its own Israeli agents for the final act. According to Abu Ilyad the Mossad preferst to 'turn' Palestinians - usually by blackmail - and work through them. The Mossad's speciality is poison.
p 429: In the course of 1976 the Mossad made its most determined attempt to kill Arafat. The Chairman of the P.L.O. was to have died after eating pellets of poison which had been prepared to look like grains of rice.

The difference here is that a high quality source actually says that this more than rumor and innuendo. nableezy - 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me understand your logic here. Because Regnery Publishing publishes books with a conservative bend, that make them unreliable? And your now vetting which pulishers are reliable and which are not?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not vetting anything, WP:RS is clear on this (Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses). Books published by academic presses are reliable sources, full stop. It is not that Regnery publishes things with a conservative bent, their political leaning is irrelevant to a discussion of its reliability. Regnery consistently publishes things that are of questionable reliability and filled with fringe theories and unproven conspiracies. See WP:RS#Questionable sources. nableezy - 19:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I think the difference is not the POV of the publishing house, but whether or not the material is peer reviewed. University presses subject their publications to peer review. Others do not. Tiamut^talk 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to this in regard to Regnery Publishing and tell me why, based on that description, the source is not reliable. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That site has almost no information. So I cannot tell you anything based on that description. But Jiujitsuguy, we do not have to keep arguing about this, we can just ask people to weigh in at the RS/N. nableezy - 18:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Red_Horizons. Let's try to get uninvolved people to comment and not bicker amongst ourselves please. nableezy - 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Horizons RSN archive

Archive of discussion on Ion Pacepa available here. Any additional comments feel free. nableezy - 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumors about his death

I suppressed the following passage:

• Paris deputy Claude Goasguen asked for a parliamentary inquiry commission on the death of Arafat in an attempt to quell rumors. The French government insisted that there was no evidence Arafat had been poisoned; otherwise, a criminal investigation would have necessarily been opened."Debate on the Death of Yasser Arafat". Reuters (in French). Un site auFeminin.com Network. 2004-11-17. Retrieved 2007-09-02.

for the following reasons:

1. Aufeminin.com is a blog
2. Goasguen claim was not followed by any legal or official action.
3. Goasguen demand was not about homosexuality rumours, but about the poisoning. The sentence is surrounded in a paragraph about homosexuality rumours, which is misleading.

TwoHorned (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Arafat spent much of his life fighting against Israel in the name of Palestinian self-determination."

This is the third sentence in this article so it should be an accurate, neutral summary of the entirety of Arafat's life and achievements. Arafat didn't only fight against Israel, he was involved in the Lebanese civil war and also Fatah's civil war with Hamas, of course. So it is not an accurate summary of his participation in war. Secondly, by using the language of his critics and framing him as anti-Israel rather than as pro-Palestinian the article deviates from Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

Here is my proposed alternative - "Arafat spent much of his life struggling for Palestinian self-determination, often in violent conflict with Israel." Factsontheground (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He was struggling for something else I'd say. Maybe we can use less loaded words? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He struggled FOR Palestinian self-detemrination? Hah, good one! I can think of several sentences that would be much more accurate than your proposal, but I think it would be best to keep them to myself. Breein1007 (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.227.38.218, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

122.227.38.218 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC) he is dead.

Thanks you, come again. nableezy - 02:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"terror attacks"

What al-Zahar said was "President Arafat instructed Hamas to carry out a number of military operations in the heart of the Jewish state after he felt that his negotiations with the Israeli government then had failed". The Jerusalem Post calls those "terror attacks", but the Jerusalem Post is not bound by policies such as WP:NPOV. Additionally, we have no idea what type of attacks al-Zahar says Arafat instructed Hamas to carry out. nableezy - 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

While true that the Jerualem Post is not bound by NPOV, we can (and should) describe these things as they are generally described by other reliable sources, as I understand it Here is another source published by Michael Goodwin in the New York Post [3] referring to the attacks as terror attacks. "A report that Yasser Arafat, he of the Nobel Peace Prize, personally ordered terror attacks against Israeli citizens 10 years ago is causing a stir. Especially coming from a leader of Hamas, which carried out those attacks, the report confirms what most Israelis and many Americans suspected all along." Since we are quoting not from Arafat, but from reliable secondary sources, I believe we are permitted to use the words of those sources to describe these attacks. Certain types of events are called terrorism right here on Wikipedia, such as 9-11, even if Al-Qaeda doesn't call it such, or even if it may not be considered NPOV by some people. Just my two cents. JuJubird (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You cant say in the article that al-Zahar said that Arafat instructed Hamas to carry out "terror attacks" when al-Zahar did not say that. He said "military operations". If you would like to use the words from the source you can use "military operations" as the source reports that is what al-Zahar actually said. nableezy - 05:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this has once again been reinserted I will repeat myself. You cannot say that al-Zahar, a living person, said something that he did not say. He did not say that Arafat asked Hamas to carry out "terror attacks" he said Arafat asked Hamas to carry out "military operations". nableezy - 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

The flagged statement cites a reference saying his holster did not contain a gun. However, this article by Mike Hanna states:

There have been some strange events at podiums in the United Nations: Khrushchev banging his shoe, Yasser Arafat appearing with a gun on his waist, Muammar Gaddafi brandishing the UN charter and throwing it contemptuously aside.

I didn't want to change the article as there appear to be conflicting references, so here we are. Does anyone have any further references that may support one side or another? 75.154.90.40 (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

According to C.A.M.E.R.A, " Nov. 13, 1974: Arafat, wearing a holster (he had to leave his gun at the entrance), addresses the U.N. General Assembly." 172.129.106.186 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arafat Diagnosed to be a psychopath

Please don't shoot the messenger, I have been editing an article on a top and highly publicized American psychiatrist, Dr. Michael Welner, and one of Welner's writings "Psychopathy, Media and the Psychology at the Root of Terrorism" devotes 3 pages (beginning on page 7) to outlining Arafat's life in the context of Arafat having been "the most successful psychopath terrorist leader in history"e.g."Yasser Arafat represents, at this writing, the most successful psychopath terrorist leader in history.""Yasser Arafat is a stunningly vivid study in psychopathy, and the life cycle of the psychopath as terrorist leader." The reason this may be notable is that I have never seen any such diagnosis made by a reputable psychiatrist, much less by one of Dr. Welner's status and reputation (as you can see from his Wikipedia BLP). I assume it may not be appropriate content for Arafat's BLP, but I decided the Editors here can best judge that for yourselves. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Born to Palestinian parents

What is the source of it and what does it even mean? There was no Palestinian nationality back then. Also, why is a minority opinion like him being born in Jerusalem is given more weight than what is regarded as a fact by most researchers, which is that he was born in Cairo? It would be like writing in the article about the Earth that "The shape of the earth is disputed, with some people claiming it's flat and others claiming it's round. It may also be cube" TFighterPilot (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Did Arafat receive training from former Nazi Otto Skorzeny?

The article on former Nazi leader Otto Skorzeny says that Arafat received commando training from him in the early 1950s. I notice that this biography article fails to cover that period in time. 71.22.40.31 (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)