Talk:Yasser Arafat/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

Homosexuality and pedophilia of Yasser Arafat

searching the web, I found lots of reliable information about the alleged homosexuality and pedophilia of Mr. Arafat see example:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1pLi3Cy8uQkC&lpg=PA30&ots=4JS4bNLwCD&dq=arafat%20pedophilia%20Pacepa&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=arafat%20pedophilia%20Pacepa&f=false

I have seen the previous discussions and I sincerely think there is a room for this issue in the article about Arafat. the allegations are that the KGB exploited Video films, they put there hands on, to ensure continued cooperation of Mr. Arafat, therefore this is not a matter of private sexual orientation.--Jonathango 09:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

to nableezy: I sow you reverted my short passgae about Arafat sexuality and KGB. your claim, that Pacepa is not a reliable source , is your own fiction. you are the only person who is holding this view. Pacepa is more reputable then you and most of the sources that this article and other terror supporting articles are based on. I'm sorry to say that I conclude you are not acting in good faith. somehow you always tend to passionatly support arab/ Muslim atrocities and fascist mass murderers. please revert it beck or I will start arbitration. --Jonathango 16:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

See here. This very source, this very passage, has already been discussed. I dont much care what you conclude, but Red Horizons is not a reliable source for this material. That has been determined by consensus, not by me alone. nableezy - 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I already have seen that. there is no conclusion/"agreement" about lack of credibility of mr. Pacepa, as you falsely indicated in your revert talk. if you will not revert, I will start arbitration and I will also start procedures to band you from editing in WP. it is highly Importend for WP readers to understand why people that repeatedly elect mass murderers, Nazi supporters and sex offenders as there prime leaders , do not get independence for such a long long time, and the main people that need to understand that are Palestinians themselves otherwise they doomed to repeat the same mistakes for another 100 years. as we see from these weeks events too --Jonathango 16:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

You have seen that? Did you notice nearly every single person agreed this source should not be used for these claims? But if you would like to "start arbitration" or to attempt to ban me from WP (you wouldnt be the first) feel free. I wish you good luck in your endeavors. nableezy - 16:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

how can you say "every single person"? I counted 4 against including you and 4 in favour of this source. and another thing - you need to be real artist, to consider yourself a better judge of reliability of sources and caracters then the CIA. this person was one of the main contributers to the downfall of the eastern block. the funny thing is that non of the other sources in this article and in fact most of WP articles , had to go thru such tough inspection. I suppose Mr. Arafat and his supporters are for you a very reliable sources. --Jonathango 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

1 person said "As long as the book is reliably sourced, it can be used as a print source." Besides that, the 4 others that made comments about the book in particular said it should not be used for this claim. There weren't 8 people who made any comment at all, so finding 4 who agreed and 4 who disagreed would be very impressive. nableezy - 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

please revert this section, before I will have to start arbitration. you made the revert without discussion. if you do so I will consider adding a remark that there are people who contest the author credibility.--Jonathango 18:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I already told you, feel free to start whatever you like. This book is not a reliable source for this material, this has been discussed in the past. There are real sources that say there was a rumor it is true that Arafat was homosexual, but none give it any more credence than that. Your second source goes even further into some extraordinary claims, claims that Pacepa does not even back up, such as the line on preteen boys being provided by Ceausescu for him. You wont find this crap in any serious source about Arafat. Wikipedia aspires to be a serious source, not a place for you to introduce the nonsense pushed forward by such upstanding sources as FrontPageMag, Discover the Networks, and Masada2000 (the three websites that come to the top of the list when looking for information Arafat and this supposed rampant pedophilia he was engaged in). This is an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary sourcing. What you have provided is not that. You can threaten me with arbitration or whatever you want to do, but that crap aint going back in. nableezy - 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pacepa book regarded as highly credible. see on WP:" In 1987, Pacepa published a book, Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief, which was serialized on Radio Free Europe, arousing "huge interest among Romanians". On December 25, 1989, during the closing stages of the Romanian Revolution, Ceauşescu and his wife, Elena, were sentenced to death at the end of a trial where most of the accusations had come word-for-word out of Red Horizons.[6]The next day, the book began being serialized in the new official Romanian newspaper Adevărul, which wrote that the book had "played an incontestable role in overthrowing Ceauşescu" (according to the text on the back cover of the book’s second edition, published in 1990). Red Horizons was subsequently republished in 27 countries, and is still[when?] in print."

as I stated Pacepa book is way way more credible then any other sources this article is based upon. homosexuality is not so "extraordinary" claim. therefore as last resort , I am offering you to take out the paedophilia section at this stage until I recheck it. if you don't agree with this I will understand that I have no honest partner for discussion and will have to take steps accordingly.--Jonathango 20:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

I dont know how many ways I can say this. Red Horizons is not an acceptable source for this material. And yes, the claim that Arafat was homosexual is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary sourcing. As I just wrote, there are real sources that discuss this as a rumor, not as a fact, and they could be used for a sentence that this was a rumor. But Red Horizons is not an acceptable source for this, the RS/N thread previously linked shows a consensus on this point. nableezy - 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

if I understand you well , you agree to add a sentence about this, but want to indicate that this is only a rumour?--Jonathango 21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

this is as much as I can accept. nableezy - 22:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I will consider accepting this ,until further investigation , in 2 terms: 1. you show the exact source on which you base the claim that Pacepa admitted that it was only a hearsay. ("in which Pacepa reported that he had a conversation with a Romanian intelligence officer") . 2. you need to elaborate more about Pacepa and not only link. |Jonathango| 06:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 12:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you can not provide any proof for your claim , that Pacepa's testimony is a hearsay.|Jonathango| 18:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

You can read the cited source. Or you could read the actual passage in Red Horizons. Im done dealing with you. nableezy - 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

pov tag - neutrality problem

Arafat was the one of the meanest mass-murderer terrorist of the second half of 20th century. this article regards him as a statesman or politician and have no clue about his main activity. almost every passage is biassed. I don't see here a fair and honest account on his acts of murder of men women and children.18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

"The meanest mass-murderer terrorist?" You must be aware that's most certainly a pro-Israeli point of view, a relatively extreme one I might add. The fact that the article does not speak of Arafat as a mass murdering terrorist is exactly why there should not be a POV tag. The fact that the article does not speak of Arafat as a heroic freedom fighter is also why there should not be a POV tag. You have stated the article treats him as a politician. He was indeed a politician—he was the president among other high-ranking political posts (one could definitely say he was a dictator, which you could infer from the text btw.) Even in his early life he was involved in politics. He was also, and perhaps with equal prominence, a Palestinian guerrilla and militant leader which the article most definitely demonstrates where appropriate (1948 War, Karameh, fedayeen raids, Black September, involvement in global attacks, Lebanon Civil War, Intifadas... basically throughout the article including its lead.) One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to allow the reader to make his own opinion of the subject without being led in this or that direction. For the above reasons, I am keen on removing the tag. If you feel there are certain areas, passages, sentences, or phrases that could be written in a more neutral manner or improved, please bring examples and/or suggestions forward so we can discuss them. I've noted the above conversation and your reasoning here. Therefore I must ask you to please keep WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:AVOID in mind and also 1RR as this article in under arbitration. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

hello. I can give you one example : the picture called "Arafat in a Palestinian refugee camp in Southern Lebanon, 1978". I find this picture of arafat with an unidentified kid. inappropriate in many ways. will give here only few: first, the purpose of adding pictures in such articles is to best describe the person whom the article is about. an innocent user who see this picture, might wrongfully get the impression that arafat is some kind of Palestinian Santana or Marry Poppins, whom all actions is to help little children, when in fact he has ordered to kill many children and there parents. and also deprived palestinian children of monetary aid from other countries and diverted the funds into his own bank accounts and those belong to his wife. also I think there need to get parental consent of using photos of underaged, or the subject himself, and I'm not sure they got one.|Jonathango| 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

Again, that's not a reason to have a POV tag. The licensing is a different issue. I remember its German author released it to the public domain. If you can get hold of a picture of Arafat on the battlefield or with his guerrillas that would be great and beneficial to the article, but as of now, having a picture of Arafat in a refugee camp in Lebanon is appropriate and not a cause for a POV tag. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ok. another one . pic: "Israeli soldiers raiding a house in Karameh, 1968". this title imply that Israeli army is raiding a peaceful family household. when I assume it is not so much.|Jonathango| 16:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

The information given about the photograph says it was Israeli soldiers raiding a house—that's it and that's all we can write in the caption. It doesn't say it was a militant's house. Therefore, it could mean that Israeli soldiers are raiding a civilian's house or one that is being used by militants or simply just an abandoned/vacant home. Maybe you could investigate and find out more about the picture and determine what kind of house it was. Don't mean to sound arbitrary, but I now fully see that there's no reason to have a POV tag condemning the entire article as biased because it seems to me you are just upset that Arafat is not being vilified. The reasons you have provided backing your move actually help the argument that this article is neutral. It's a featured article, but it's not perfect. It could always be improved, but just slapping a POV tag for the aforementioned reasons is not helpful even if you honestly thought it would be. I am removing the POV tag. Any concerns you have with the content, you could bring them forward here and we could talk about and fix them if necessary. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharon

Could someone tell me the section about Sharon's people bombing Yasser Arafat which he died from? Thank you. --Piledriverwwfmandkind1 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No, since he didn't die of any such bombing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

spelling correction

This is just a very minor request, of anyone who has permission to edit this locked article, to correct a spelling mistake that occurs between the two occurrences of footnote reference 127: "speachwriter" should be changed to "speechwriter". After making this correct, feel free to also delete this request, thank you.67.217.31.180 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done--thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Arafat's personal wealth

The article states that Arafat had a personal wealth of USD 1.3 billion but the source is irrelevant (if it actually exists) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.108.100 (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

New Information

It has been alleged by the retired Mossad agent that the person buried in Ramallah as Yasser Arafat is, in fact, not real Yasser Arafat but the Israeli double. Real Yasser Arafat was "replaced" by the Israeli double in a complicated operation during air crush in Libya on 7th of April, 1992, that was engineered by the Mossad. Many noticed that Yasser Arafat changed markedly in appearance after the crush but it was attributed to the shock and injures he allegedly suffered as the result of the catastrophe. The "replacement" operation was the Mossad inside job. It is not clear what the exact motives were for this operation. Both left wing and right wing arguments can be made for this case. Real Yasser Arafat's body was buried somewhere in Libya. The Israeli double was the formerly Egyptian Jew who looked and talked just like the real Yasser Arafat. It is unclear to what extent he was able to carry his mission assigned by the Mossad. (rorsqlge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.251.141 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No source provided, no reason for us to pay attention or believe. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on. It seems that you have watched too many movies about secret service activities. One would have to be too naive to believe a story like that. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Calin99 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe. 12.46, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Modinyr (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

corrections

The Jordenian (then) village which was the target of IDF's raid in 1966 is called As-Samua and not as is written. The PLO's "victory" in Karameh (1968), was in fact just a claim of victory, without any correlation to reality, at least according to military criteria. IDF won this battle as is written in this very article, just a few lines earlier. Could someone check and correct? I think I am not authorized to correct this article in English Wikipedia. 79.180.241.51 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New info his his death

Please add 'Dahlan involved in poisoning of Yasser Arafat' which implicated Mohammad Dahlan in Arafat's death. I can't edit this article because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that not everyone can edit. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

French doctors, who had direct access or attended Arafat, have mentioned several times that they did not see evidence of poisoning. But the main fact, which is ignored by some, is that Arafat's widow and other closest to him have refused to allow an autopsy and further investigations. Clear indication that they are not interested in the world knowing the truth. Why? Calin99 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This response is a non-starter, especially given recent events. There is plenty of information in the Mohammed Dahlan article about allegations that he murdered Arafat in cooperation with Israeli forces. The allegations from Dahlan are widely reported and have caused his expulsion from Fatah. This should be refelcted despite an individual editor's suspecions of PLO officials. Poyani (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/whatkilledarafat/2012/07/20127383653774794.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/whatkilledarafat/2012/07/20127383653774794.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.44.208 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Polonium

The new polonium section is being given far too much presence considering it is an ongoing news story (and should have the associated tag for that) merely 2 days old. It shouldn't have its own subsection, but if consensus rules that is should, then it should be secondary to what has already been written in the article for the past eight years regarding his cause of death, not be given priority placement.

Furthermore, polonium references shouldn't be in both the "earlier views" and "polonium found" subsections. It also shouldn't be titled "earlier views", those are the current and accepted views (along with a few conspiracy theories, like the thallium poisoning), the polonium poisoning theory should not be written into the article in such a way as to make it appear that it has replaced all earlier considerations.

In reality, virtually all the new edits for polonium demonstrate violations of WP:NPOV by siding with the position that a polonium poisoning took place, even though that is not explicitly written in the article, because of how it is written and the priority given to that position. They are also violations of WP:UNDUE.67.87.168.207 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We could restructure the sections with time as more information surfaces. I hear the PA is launching an inquiry and has agreed to exhume his body for examination.[4] So I would think we should be getting more updates in the next few days, weeks or months. As for the size of these new sections, this a matter for discussion and I understand your concerns per WP:Recentism. However, it is important to note the new finds on his cause of death dismissed earlier theories that Arafat suffered from HIV/AIDS, leukemia or cirrhosis.[5]. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the part where the institute says his symptoms were not consistent with polonium poisoning should be closer to where AJ says that finding polonium suggests he was poisoned, but other than that I think the section is a good summary of the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbas has backtracked on his comments actually about exhuming the body (this is more recent than when you wrote it).--Activism1234 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it that there is any detectable amounts of Po-210 (with a half-life of 138 days) would remain now, more than 20 half-lives after Arafat's death? Any Po-210 that was present now has by now decayed to less than one-millionth of its original concentration.Scbtex (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Many analysts had a hard time with this as well. If it is not already in the article, it should be added, as Al Ameer stated we should add more info as time goes along.--Activism1234 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the polonium section. What I would like to call for discussion though is the opening lead into the article. The final paragraph in the lead mentions polonium poisoning. I don't believe this is appropriate for the lead. As of now, it remains as much a conspiracy theory as the AIDS theory (and publishing that theory in the lead as well would give this ridiuclous notion legitimacy). Many analysts and experts dispute this. The polonium conspiracy has been mentioned as far back in 2006, and more recently in 2011, by a Palestinian official on al Jazeera. It did not make it into the lead then, and it should not now (again, unless all possible theories will be mentioned as well, which is silly and I oppose). The explanation that the docotors gave is sufficient for the lead, and if wanted, we can write something such as "However, other theories have been offered to his death." I just don't think it's appropriate at the current time to put into the lead, considering the other theories are not in the lead either (and should not be). What are other's thoughts on this? --Activism1234 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Now the section is huge and suffers from acute WP:RECENTISM IMO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's that large, in light of how it became a major news topic, and compared to other sections in his article that are even larger. This section is slightly larger than the AIDS section as well. But I'm sure it can be cleared up somewhat once it settles down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Allegation against Mohammed Dahlan

It has now been widely reported that within Palestinian territories there is a growing suspecion that top PLO official Mohammed Dahlan has poisoned Arafat in cooperation with the Israelis. This information along with sources are available in the Mohammed Dahlan article. The allegations from Dahlan have come from very high-level sources, including Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, and have lead to Dahlan's expulsion from Fatah. This should be refelcted here. Poyani (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Allegations against Dahlan being involved in Arafat's death began surfacing a nearly two years ago so these new allegations may be politically motivated due to the harsh break-up between Dahlan's faction in Fatah and the PA. But yes we could include it in the article as "allegations" or "suspicions." There's been a surge of information these past few days and the Death section is going to continue to grow and become disproportional to the rest of the article, so I'll start a new thread here later (if no one else does) regarding creating a separate article on the Death of Yasser Arafat. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be labelled "allegations" or "suspicions". For the record, the allegations against Mohammed Dahlan began 5 years ago, after his men in Fatah were kicked out of Gaza by Hamas. Hamas published documents they claimed were from Dahlan's office which indicated he had planned and killed Arafat. This is all available on Dahlan's article. Poyani (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If the charges against Dahlan are published, it should be made clear that Abbas has an intense rivalry against Dahlan that dates back a while ago, and these allegations may not be true. Regarding a seperate article, I think that would be more appropriate if an investigation was conducted into his death. For example, JFK has a seperate article on his assassination, but that is only because of the multiple investigations, criticisms, findings, etc, which is overwhelming information. My main concern really is creating a new article may give legitimacy to all of these bizarre conspiracy theories, rather than the report published by the French doctors relating the death of a 75 year old man, which include not just polonium, but also the AIDS theory.--Activism1234 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Separate page for Death of Arafat

Out of concern for proportionality and quality and in light of the Featured article status of this page, I propose we start a new article on the Death of Yasser Arafat. Nothing controversial really, we could focus our efforts on the new page while maintaining a brief summary in this article. There are dozens if not over a hundred examples of "Death of" pages in Wikipedia, and in a case such as this with all of the controversy, suspicion, conspiracy theories and now an investigation (proposed or otherwise) it seems like the best move we could make. Thoughts? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we wait a while, at least until the issue starts boiling down. This is for a few reasons. Firstly, WP:Recentism. Secondly, anything can happen. What I mean by that is no exhumation may occur and the whole issue will just quiet down in a month, which I believe is most likely to happen. Aides to Abbas and Abbas himself listed a few prerequisites before exhuming the body, such as sending a delegation to the Swiss lab, etc. In my opinion, he has more important work to get to and doesn't want to be embroiled in this whole controversy and have accusations flung at him, as many interprted Al Jazeera's story to be aimed at P.A. political rivals of Arafat. Of course, I could be wrong, and the body could be exhumed and investigated. On the other hand, more analysts may come out and agree with the assessment that the polonium levels were way too high to have been planted 8 years ago, and should've decreased by a factor of over 1 million and be nearly microscopic today, which could also cause the issue to quiet down quickly. In fact, the past day the issue appeared in the news much less than usual, with the only major story about it that Abbas wanted a joint international probe. So I recommend just waiting a bit and seeing what happens, and if need be, we can merge the information into a new article and add more information. That certainly wouldn't be an issue. If most people want to create a new article and one is created, I wouldn't have an issue and woudl be willing to contribute information.--Activism1234 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever new information the future brings, I still think we should have a separate article because there's enough information already present to warrant a new page and the present material, about both the old theories and the new, could be further expanded on. My main concern is the quality of this article which I believe has already been degraded a notch. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well again, as I said, my personal suggestion and vote is to wait a bit into the future and see what happens, and then make a decision. If the decision is to create a new article, I will have no problem with that, and may even vote for it if I feel it warrants a new article based on further events, and will participate in merging/adding information. How long should we wait? I say we come back weekly and decide based on the events that occur. Because as I said, it's very possible that nothing will happen, and it won't be discussed further, or it's possible the saga will continue. If there's a constant update in information, then it should be created, but again, my suggestion is to decide that on a weekly basis, based on the trend in news and information regarding it. But again, if most people want to create a new userpage now, and one is created, I will have no problem merging/adding information with it, although I personally advise against it. Although a recommendation, if a new page is created, regardless of when - it's being created after this whole polonium story, but we shouldn't let the polonium theory take up the entire article. If a new page is created, a lot of information must also go into the medical report section and the French doctors, rather than the conspiracy theories (AIDS, polonium, etc) that aren't verified or proven. --Activism1234 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Al Ameer, it may have been different for you, but the Israeli and Palestinian news sites that I've checked in the past day have not reported on Arafat further. It appears that either the whole issue will remain like this, in which case we don't need another page, or the body is exhumed. In such a case, if results are found that polonium wasn't the cause, I think we could just add that in here. If the results are found polonium was the cause, we'll decide whether it's appropriate to add a new page, based on the amount of news it generates and information it receives. For this reason I felt it was better to wait, and it appears to be going in that direction for now. And of course, if anything changes, we'll just come right back here and decide where to take it. --Activism1234 04:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not new info will surface in the coming days or whenever, I'm still heavily opting for a new page. Since the recent polonium news broke out, a whopping 12,000 bytes of material has been inserted into the article (albeit that also includes the supporting references), solely in the Death section. New updates have come out: Suha Arafat plans launch of French probe and Arab League to hold emergency meeting discussing the new finds. Clearly Arafat's death warrants its own article regardless of whether the news or opinion pieces keep piling up (and they probably will). Also, for the record, a vote isn't needed to start the new article, I just opened this thread to get editors' thoughts and perhaps participation. I'm willing to wait longer, but not too long since the size of this article continues to increase dramatically and currently looks like a mess (the sub-subsections aren't helping either.) I'll notify the relevant Wikiprojects in the hope that we can expand this discussion beyond the two of us. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok sure. My opinion remains the same, although if a new article is opened up I am fine with adding information and helping out there. For now, has that information been added to the article? If not I suggest adding it, since that is pretty important (I can do it if you want...). --Activism1234 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done (and dadded some more refs). I think it's good, otherwise don't hesitate to ask me to change something. Also, you wrote about the second link that the Arab League will meet, but the link only discusses a request by Tunisia. Did you just write the wrong thing, or did you give the wrong link? --Activism1234 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info. Actually, I should have clarified about the Arab League. It is the Al Jazeera source [6] that contains the update about the emergency Arab League meeting called by Tunisia. Secretary-General Nabil el-Arabi confirmed a meeting would be held "next week" to "prepare a report on the matter and raise proposals over necessary action to be presented in the nearest Arab ministerial meeting." --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. I added that in now after the Tunisia part. --Activism1234 04:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've prepared a title ready to accept such information: "2012 forensic investigation of the death of Yasser Arafat" - knoodelhed (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

While I voiced my opinion above about an article (just very quickly, I oppose one being created now and would rather wait to see whether body is really exhumed and polonium is found or whether it dies down, but if one is created I will help out), both Al Ameer Son and I agree that such an article should cover ALL theories about his death, rather than just one. Otherwise it lends undue credibility to a certain theory over ones. Such an article should be more appropriately titled "Death of Yasser Arafat" (originally stated by Al Ameer Son). --Activism1234 21:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that WP:RECENTISM applies here. He was a major political figure of the modern era, and his death was a major event in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There has been commotion about his death for eight years. How long do we need to wait??? Mythpage88 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors are free to do as they want. Al Ameer Son can create the page if he wants, and I said I'd help out and contribute, but personally I am against it for the reasons listed above. WP:Recentism applies to the polonium story, which is the only reason the discussion of creating a new page was brought up, as the other theories were too minor or didn't have that much info to warrant a new page. Here, one reason for creating a new page is because there will be a lot of info, but I stated this may not be the case, and if it is the case, we can always create one. --Activism1234 01:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the page Death of Yasser Arafat by virtually copy and pasting the relevant info from this article. The next steps should be severely whittling down this page's "Illness and death" section to a concise summary in line with the quality (in both text and sources) expected of a Featured article. Expansion on the topic should be focused on the new page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, i'll be glad to help out. May I recommend making a sandpage that we can update and play around with for this article (what we want to whittle down)? It shouldn't take too long to get a pretty much final page, maybe about 2-3 days, but I feel that way it's easier. --Activism1234 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to compare it to the old one. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I created a sandbox that everyone can use here to edit a final result for how we will cover his death on this main article about Arafat, and then just copy and paste the final result that we agree upon to this main article. I hope it's useful. --Activism1234 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To Activism: Good idea. Since there is a separate page we should probably reduce the new section in this article to a single section i.e. no subsections. Go ahead and start trimming down the content at the sandbox page you created whenever you have time. That goes for everyone of course. Editors could discuss specific changes that need to be done at this Talkpage from here on.

To Mythpage88: Thanks for pointing out that archive. The international reactions to Arafat's death is especially useful, although we need to find sources supporting the material. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, the sources were present, just not in the standard footnote format. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

I understand that he was an Arab/Palestinian Nationalist but he was born, raised and educated in Egypt and fought for the Egyptian Army/Muslim Brotherhood (Egyptian) not the Palestinian fighters, would it not be more accurate to describe him as Egyptian? Sheodred (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting point, as his origin and birth was in Egypt, and this is part of the definition of nationality. I'd recommend to include both maybe. --Activism1234 21:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationality in the Arab world is determined by jus sanguinis, not jus soli. nableezy - 13:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

But how is it determined across Wikipedia articles? I mean I don't see it as a big deal the way it is now, the article notes he was born in Egypt and all, but it still is an interesting case. --Activism1234 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have to disagree. We ought to just keep Palestinian. After all he was the ultimate Palestinian, co-founding the quasi-state that is Palestine and becoming one of its first official citizens (don't think he was a duel-citizen either). Both of his parents were from Palestine and he spent a good deal of his childhood in Jerusalem with his maternal relatives. He never served in the Egyptian Army by the way, although he was a volunteer with the Muslim Brotherhood. Most importantly, none of his biographers or any mainstream sources define him as an Egyptian or an Egyptian-Palestinian. I reverted Sheodred's edit since this is a controversial move that should be discussed first. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, Nableezy reverted before I got to it (another edit conflict.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He was born there and Christophe Boltanski and Jihan El-Tahri write about Arafat's formative Eqyptian years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what source gives "Egyptian" as Yasser Arafat's nationality? nableezy - 22:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at Les sept vies de Yasser Arafat. Plus he was born there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You want me to read a book in French without telling me what page the supposed claim the Arafat's nationality was Egyptian? Where in that book does it say his nationality was Egyptian? nableezy - 22:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah page number would be best, but unnecessary, as I can provide that info for ya. It's actually in Chapter 10, which I believe is pages 175-187. Basically, the book's authors viewed his official birth certificate, where it says he was born in Cairo, and probably raised there, as opposed to the Gaza Strip, as the PLO/PA claimed. You can read about that in Page 11 of Middle East Leaders: Yasser Arafat by Bernaddete Brexel or page 265 of Let My People Go: The Trials And Tribulations of the People of Israel, And the Heroes Who Helped in Their Independence from British Colonization by Jerry Grunor (or in the actual book itself). It's also footnoted (footnote #77) on page 51 of The Prophecy That Is Shaping History by Jon Ruthven. Hope that helps. --Activism1234 04:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Although that doesn't actually support the argument for listing it under nationality, as it's already known he was born in Cairo, and most other sources than that French book write that as well. I think the editor was basically using that as proof he was Egyptian, but that's already known. I think the only way to resolve this is if there's some Wikipedia policy on what to list for nationality. --Activism1234 05:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of "nationality" is clear enough. It would mean that he was a citizen of Egypt. However, being born in Egypt does not automatically give citizenship so some stronger evidence is needed. Incidentally it doesn't help your case to list sources that obviously fail WP:RS, like "Prophecy That Is Shaping History". Zero^talk 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving sources because an editor said that he/she has no way of reading the original book, offered by a different editor. So I gave other sources for that editor to look in that discuss the original source given. I also mentioned exactly where to look in the original book. I also mentioned two other sources. I also mentioned that a majority of other sources say he was born in Cairo. It's ridiculous that you're attacking me over this. --Activism1234 05:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See BBC here as well. --Activism1234 05:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say he had Egyptian nationality there either. There seems hardly any doubt at all that he was born in Cairo and lived there for some time, but that doesn't make his nationality Egyptian. And it was really silly of you to read my comment as an attack. Zero^talk 06:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm sure it'd be "really silly" as well to interpret your comment above as an attack on my intelligence and perception as well, would it not? --Activism1234 16:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

His being born in Cairo is not in dispute, so a source saying he was born in Cairo does not add anything to this. Ill repeat what I wrote earlier: Nationality in the Arab world is determined by jus sanguinis, not jus soli. His being born in Cairo does not mean that he was an Egyptian national, and until a reliable source is brought that says he was an Egyptian national I really do not see what there is to discuss here. nableezy - 06:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate what I said above - my comments were to back up another editor, not myself, and I think the only way to resolve this is not based on what the Arab world wants to say, but rather what Wikipedia's official guidelines for "nationality" are, of which I personally don't know, but I'm sure can be found out. --Activism1234 16:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, no. Countries determine the criteria for citizenship, and in most Arab countries (all?), including Egypt, citizenship only passes through the father. Wikipedia does not invent a nationality for a person based on whatever arbitrary criteria you or whoever you are trying to back up proclaims. Wikipedia bases its articles on what reliable sources say, not what random internet users wish they said. Again, until a reliable source is brought that says he was an Egyptian national I really do not see what there is to discuss here. nableezy - 17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Uhh, no" - here we go again with incivility and fighting for no reason, rather than a calm and polite and friendly discussion which can end with all of us holding hands around a campfire singing Kumbaya... "whatever arbitrary criteria you or whoever you are trying to back up proclaims" - I'm not sure if English is your native language, so I'll try to be a bit more clear. I said that we should go according to Wikipedia's official policy. As far as I know, Wikipedia's official policy is not "arbitrary criteria" from me or whoever I'm trying to back up, nor is it from some "random internet users" who "wish they said." There would be no need for a "reliable source" if the official policy is that nationality is where he's born, where he spent most of his life, what he considers himself as, whether it's based on the region/culture, etc... Interestingly, Osama Bin Laden's nationality lists two things - Saudi Arabia from birth to 1994, and then 1994-death as stateless. Clearly, how the Arab world determines nationality isn't relevant to Wikipedia's determination of nationality. A similar method may be applicable here, using that as a precedent. --Activism1234 18:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden's citizenship was revoked in 1994 by Saudi Arabia, and reliable sources say that (see eg here) and that is why the Wikipedia article says he was stateless from 1994 until his death. Wikipedia does not make determinations about anything, and no matter how much random people on the internet try to obfuscate that crystal clear point, the only question that maters here is do you or do you not have any reliable sources that say Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? I am still waiting for such sources. Until they are provided, this article will not say that Arafat was an Egyptian national. And it is oh so very cute to cry about my saying uhh, no as being incivility and fighting and then following that up with I'm not sure if English is your native language. You get that from the eldersofziyon blog too? nableezy - 18:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to reiterate my statement that all I'm seeking is Wikipedia's official policy, not some random Internet users' statements that we should follow what the Arab world says. Unless, of course, that's Wikipedia's official policy, in which case I'd just like to be pointed to the WP that says so...

And woah dude. Chill out. Enough with the rant. Brush up on civility. And hajj with the accusations that you know are false and you can't back up. I'm an honest guy. When I say that all I want is for us to participate in a warm, friendly discussion and hold hands and dance around a campfire singing Kumbaya, you know that I mean it. --Activism1234 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are going on about, but if you want an official policy you can start here. Do you or do you not have any reliable sources that say Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? That really is not that difficult of a question, though your repeated evasiveness in answering it makes me think that perhaps you do not understand it, possibly due to English not being your first language. Ill try to be more clear. Wikipedia articles rely on what reliable sources say on a topic. If no reliable source says Arafat was an Egyptian national then the Wikipedia article will not say that Arafat was an Egyptian national. That is, literally, the most basic policy that Wikipedia has. So I repeat; do you or do you not have any reliable sources that say Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? Because if the answer is what we all know it to be (that being, of course, no), then this has been a complete waste of time. nableezy - 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:V does not answer what Wikipedia's official policy regarding what we list as nationality is. As I said before, I don't see a reason to provide a source if the Wikipedia official policy is enough to help us conclude it. For example, I will list some possible policies:

• Nationality is determined by where they are born - in this case, we already know he was born in Cairo, so we can just list nationality as Cairo.
• Nationality is determined by whatever the person considers himself to be - in this case, we can probably keep it as is.
• Nationality is determined by however the person's culture considers it, regardless of what the rest of the world considers it - in this case, we can probably keep it as is.
• In cases of confusion, for example born and raised in one place but spent rest of life (not so accurate, since a lot of his life was spent in Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia...) in another or was a leader of another, then the place of birth and the latter should both be mentioned. In this case, we would include both.

Hope this helps! --Activism1234 21:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is user Nableezy allowed to use strange definiton of "nationality". It is defined as "The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization" and if he was born in Cairo, then he was Egyptian! Nableezy is making strange arguments about jus sanguinis but this is not common meaning of the word as it it is usually understood! Crystalfile (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Acivism1234, you are now arguing against WP:V. That wont work. Yes or no, are there any sources that identify Egyptian as Yasser Arafat's nationality? Your belief that some imagined Wikipedia official policy allows you to side-step the requirement that all material must be cited to verifiable reliable sources is not something that I feel necessary to respond to. nableezy - 21:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Which imagined Wikipedia policy are you accusing me of imagining? --Activism1234 21:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

One that would allow you to add that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national without a single source saying he was an Egyptian national. Since you seem oh so concerned with civility, playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is incivil. So one more time, do you or do you not have a reliable source that says that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? That is a very basic question, one that you have not answered several times. Can you do so now? nableezy - 22:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Has consensus been established here? WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT says that I would be sticking to a point after consensus was established. Now of course, this isn't true, and I'm sticking to a point as much as you are. Again, can you clarify where I said that I know there's a Wikipedia policy that would allow me to add Yasser ARafat was an Egyptian national without a single source saying he was an Egyptian national? I find it dubious that Wikipedia would make a specific policy specifically regarding Arafat's nationality, but I could be wrong! I've already answered your question above, on multiple occasions, and I don't see the point of repeating myself and talking to a wall, but if I have to I will... --Activism1234 22:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Really, you answered the question? Where? The only "answer" I see is I don't see a reason to provide a source. That most certainly is not an answer to the yes/no question do you or do you not have any reliable sources that say Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? That is actually avoiding the question. Not answering it. My English might be a bit shaky, but I think I know the definition of the word answer, and what you gave was not that. nableezy - 22:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"My English might be a bit shaky" - so I think you can perfectly understand that I wasn't attacking you when I said that it's possible English isn't your native language, so I will clarify what I wrote. And you're cherry picking statements from me. --Activism1234 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

giggle. See also sarcasm. Feel free to answer the question any time. It is a simple yes or no question, and if you cannot say "yes, and here are the sources" then there is nothing else to discuss here. nableezy - 22:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you find my comments funny, although that certainly wasn't the angle I was going for. But hey, they say laughter is great for the body and soul! So whatever floats your boat, right? Why so serious?

I have to disagree. There's plenty to discuss. I don't know how fun it will be with uncivil and rude comments by uncooperative editors, but it can certainly be a thought-provoking discussion. By the way, my original statement about holding hands and singing Kumbaya around a campfire still stands. I hope you accept. I would love for the chance to do that with you and everyone else here, in order to build mutual trust and cooperation. And no, that wasn't sarcasm. As I said before, I'm an honest guy. --Activism1234 22:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

One more time. Do you or do you not have a reliable source that says that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? nableezy - 22:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I answered it numerous times above, and I'd answer it again if necessary, I fear that such a response would evoke unnecessary inflammatory, deragatory, insulting, personal attacks, assumptions, and uncivil comments in return, which I would take as highly offensive and may possibly harm my health. It would be better off for both of us if you could take a quick glance above at my answers to this question. Thanks. --Activism1234 23:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, lets try this. Can you provide me with a diff of you answering the question that you say that you answered? nableezy - 23:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but I do have many other things to do (searching for the diff in this haystack could take a while). If it's really necessary, yes. Otherwise, just re-read the conversation above, particularly near where you quoted me (although that's not the only place). --Activism1234 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So, no? How about this, since finding a diff apparently is too burdensome to manage. Can you yourself find which one of your comments actually answered the question and give me the timestamp? That should be easy enough. Or, and this is an off the wall idea, you could just answer the question now. nableezy - 19:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) I think we're dwelling on this issue (and some distractions unrelated to the subject) a bit more than needed. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, one of the major guidelines concerning this issue is WP:Verify. No reliable source defines Arafat as an Egyptian national or citizen. Even if we drop the words "national" and "citizen", no scholarly source defines Arafat as an Egyptian or an Egyptian Palestinian. They all define him as a Palestinian. This article acknowledges his birth and early life in Cairo (and for a period in Jerusalem), although further information on his childhood is famously scarce and almost always disputed. He also spent a decade in Kuwait, time in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia. For us to declare Arafat an Egyptian national would be original research as were taking from our own observations that since he was born in Cairo he must be a citizen of Egypt. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Ameer, thanks for your comment, it's very informative and relevant. What I was saying is that there may be an "across the board" Wikipedia policy regarding "nationality" in "infoboxes," or possible precedents, rather than saying "The Arab world says this, so we use that." Your part about WP:V is more applicable, and I'm not suggesting to change it unless such sources can be brought, but I'm saying that could possibly be circumvented if there's an official policy or precedent regarding how nationality in infoboxes should be presented, whether two can be presented, etc. Or the official policy may be such that it can stay as is. I don't know if this policy exists, that's what I was trying to find out. --Activism1234 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point, until a reliable source is brought that says that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national, this article will not say that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national. That is following as basic a policy as Wikipedia has, and there isnt any compromise to be had on this. nableezy - 19:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to the removed comment, no, I do not hold that opinion. I do however have the impression that the most basic Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V, cannot be trumped by whatever some random person on the internet wishes to put in an encyclopedia article. Until reliable sources are presented that directly support the claim that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national then this article will not say that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national, and on that point there can be no negotiation. Complying with the WP:V policy is non-negotiable; it is required of all editors and all edits. As far as I am concerned, any comment that wishes to insert that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national without also bringing reliable sources that say such a thing is worth the price of admission to Wikipedia. Activism1234, you have studiously avoided answering the most basic question that can be asked of you (do you have a source?), except for saying I don't see a reason to provide a source. Whether or not you see a reason is immaterial, you are required to provide sources for material you wish to put in an encyclopedia article. Unless you, or anybody else, can provide such sources, there is nothing to discuss. WP:V is clear, crystal, on this point, and refusing to comply with that policy will have predictable consequences. The next person that violates that policy by inserting that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national without including any reliable sources for that claim will see what those consequences are. nableezy - 23:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Let me put it this way, maybe you'll understand what I was saying better. Do you believe that the official Wikipedia policy of WP:V is the arbitrary wishes of some random internet user? It's a simpel yes or no question, and that's all that will suffice. --Activism1234 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is the collective consensus of the Wikipedia community of editors. You still have not brought any sources for the claim that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national, and have persisted in making the mind-boggling claim that the citizenship laws of the Arab countries are just what the Arab world wants to say. Until you actually bring a source for the proposed edit, there isnt anything to talk about. nableezy - 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to correct one misstatement above, prior to 2004 Egyptian citizenship passed only through the father, though that was changed then. Sorry for the mistake, apparently I need to brush up on my Egyptian citizenship requirements. nableezy - 04:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that most of the Arab world doesn't recognize Israel? It doesn't mean that on Wikipedia, the country doesn't exist... Or a better scenario (not true) - did you know that the Arab world said that Arafat is an alien from the planet Mars, but the rest of the world knows in fact he was born on Earth in Egypt? We wouldn't write as birthplace in an infobox what the Arab world says, would we now? --Activism1234 21:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you are just being silly. The requirements for citizenship is determined by each country. That is why Israel can say that any Jew can become an Israeli citizen, and if Israel grants that citizenship to any person then that person becomes an Israeli national. Egypt's citizenship laws determine who is an Egyptian citizen. That is about as basic a concept as I remember typing out on Wikipedia, but for some reason you refuse to understand that. And if you havent noticed the article says that he was born in Cairo, so that bogus argument fails. One more time; the content of a Wikipedia article is determined by reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources that say Arafat was an Egyptian national, then this article will not, can not, say that Arafat was an Egyptian article. Your dogged refusal to answer the questions posed to you lead me to the rather safe assumption that you cant give an honest answer and keep this bogus argument going at the same time, so you chose to not answer the question. I think Im done here, like I said above, Unless you, or anybody else, can provide such sources, there is nothing to discuss. WP:V is clear, crystal, on this point, and refusing to comply with that policy will have predictable consequences. The next person that violates that policy by inserting that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national without including any reliable sources for that claim will see what those consequences are. And I am serious about this, so if you want to let your pal know not to test the limits of my patience with another policy violating revert that would be just fantastic. nableezy - 21:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The topic in dispute is over what should be written under Nationality in the infobox, not Citizenship. Biographical infoboxes do have an area for citizenship as well when necessary. There is a difference. --Activism1234 21:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make myself crystal clear, I have never inserted such content into the article. Talk pages are meant for discussion, which is exactly what I'm doing here, until this dispute can be solved, and either the article can remain the same or be changed. The notion of penalties for writing on talk pages in a serious manner to solve a dispute, if you were discussing talk pages (if not, ignore this), is ridiculous. The dispute has not been closed, and you have no authority to stand towering above and declare what others should or should not democratically do. --Activism1234 21:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you think the word nationality means? There is no "dispute" until somebody brings a source backing their position. So you can keep talking, but the article aint changing until sources can be brought for the outlandish claim that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national. You can discuss until your fingers fall off, but the article will not say that Yasser Arafat was of Egyptian nationality unless reliable sources are brought that say that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national. Toodles. nableezy - 21:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is in the Wikipedia infobox. See the full infobox terms here, and note the distinction between nationality and citizenship. Hoping that this isn't some arbitrary Internet user either...

It's like the distinction between talking, which is done with the mouth, and writing, which is done with the hand, something you neglected above when you said I was talking here, yet in reality I am writing.

And I find it unlikely that discussing this will have any correlation with my fingers falling off. That'd be interesting to learn more about, if you're referring to a specific case though. --Activism1234 22:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The infobox doesnt actually say what the difference is, and that rather avoids the point. Unless you bring a source that backs the outlandish idea that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national then the article will not say that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national. Feel free to get the last word in to this section, Ill be ignoring future comments that are not accompanied by any reliable sources that actually back the suggested edit. This really is much more simple than you insist on making it. No source => no change. Mmkay? nableezy - 23:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the page? It actually does describe the difference... Or did you really think that Wikipedia would make two terms in an infobox that are exactly the same? Sheesh

"Ill be ignoring future comments" - so in other words, you failed to respond to what I've wrote here, about infoboxes, terms, nationality, citizenship, and instead are choosing to take the easy way out and ignore it. Nice one. Although I doubt it would get anywhere either, when you don't even bother to read the pages I send you... It's ridiculous. --Activism1234 23:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian nationality is determined by the Egyptian nationality law, and being an Egyptian national is not some undefined trait. No source says that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national, so this article wont be saying that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national.

Those are other words, they just arent my words. Finish the sentence and you might get the point. Bring a source, or dont, but if you dont there wont be any changes to the article. What is ridiculous is the repeated dodging of the most simple question that can be posed to an editor. Do you have any sources for the claim you wish to put in the article? Ill keep asking until you answer, because, despite the claims made that have suggested otherwise, you still have not answered that question. And unless you can say that you have such sources, you are simply wasting my time. Do you have any sources that say Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? Yes or no please. nableezy - 00:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Which sentence should I finish exactly? If it's my sentence, then how can you possibly know what "point" I "might get" if it's my own sentence, and my own sentence would clearly oppose your redundant answers that ignore whatever I write. I've answered your questions so many times before... Imagine I showed you a Wikipedia policy that read, "Wikipedia guidelines write that Yasser Arafat should be listed as an "alien" on his Wikipedia article." Would that not mean he would have to be listed as an "alien?" Everything I've been saying up until now, take my most recent response for example, has been as an answer to your question... You fail to realize this. And you still didn't bother to look at the page I sent you, you still failed to acknowledge that there IS a difference on Wikipedia infoboxes in regards to citizenship and nationality, and thus it's unlikely to get anywhere. And your response has just demonstrated that you don't have much credibility, and you flip-flop on what you write, writing at one point that you won't answer unless demand X is satisfied, and then responding... --Activism1234 00:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence that you quoted from me, thats the sentence you should finish. An infobox isnt a reliable source, and even the template says that one should be used in place of the other when there is a reason, and notes that the citizenship field should be rarely needed. I have not flip-floped one bit, though I do find it difficult to stop responding to such inanity (it really brightens my day) and lying about my actions will not do you any favors. From the start I have requested that any editor arguing for saying in an encyclopedia article that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national bring a reliable source that says that. If you brought such a guideline, I would inform you that Wikipedia policy trumps any guideline, and unless you can comply with mandatory Wikipedia policy such as WP:V then you cannot add such material to an article. You still have not answered that most basic question, doing a rather obvious disservice to whatever credibility you had. Do you or do you not have a reliable source that says that Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian national? Yes or no please. nableezy - 00:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm an honest guy. I'm glad it brightens your day, and when I say that, you know I'm telling the truth, and I'm more than happy to continue as well if it brightens your day, which you said it does. Now, you have flip-flopped (and this is the full sentence I quoted from you) - "Feel free to get the last word in to this section, Ill be ignoring future comments that are not accompanied by any reliable sources that actually back the suggested edit." Yet you didn't ignore my response, and you even responded to the subsequent response. So either ignore when you're proven wrong, or don't say that you're going to ignore it. It's one or the other, a zero-sum game. "An infobox isnt a reliable source" - which editor has said this? Please provide a quote. See, this is another example in a long line of many examples in which you're completely distorting what a person actually said, or plain misreading it, which really doesn't make this any easier. But perhaps the most ridiculous part about this all is I've never actually said we should write Arafat was an Egyptian national, you just made your own assumption about that, and completely misread everything I've been writing. I'm just saying that it's possible that's what should be written, if X is true, and if X isn't true, then it should stay as is. Just trying to help get this dispute solved. That's all. Simple as that, mkay? --Activism1234 00:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never actually said we should write Arafat was an Egyptian national. Not exactly true, your first response here was I'd recommend to include both maybe. But if you now do not believe that we should write that he was an Egyptian national, and are arguing just for the sake of arguing, then why is this still going on? I take it from that last comment that you do not have a source saying that Arafat was an Egyptian national, and no longer think that we should include Egyptian as Arafat's nationality. Now, promise, you can have the last word. Just as long as those words dont make their way as an unsourced, and incorrect, statement in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you're twisting my words. Maybe means:

An uncertainty; perhaps

To learn more about the word "maybe," I highly recommend the popular song "Call me maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen.

"Not exactly true" - it's either true or false. What you said was false.

"I take it from that last comment that you do not have a source saying that Arafat was an Egyptian national" - once again, you're reading what you want to read, not what I actually wrote or explained many many times. I explained it once, twice, you asked me to explain it again, I explained it, again, again, and again... How many more times? 10? 20? Or are we still on the topic of "Call me Maybe?" Because while I'm happy to discuss that, it'd be more appropriate on a user page, not here, where it distracts from the original problem.

"And are arguing just for the sake of arguing" - obviously, because I really have nothing better to do in the month of August than argue for no reason here... See WP:AGF

--Activism1234 01:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable edits

Some very poor material:

• "When the IDF raided his compound in 2002, they found papers showing Arafat had given money and aided terrorist groups." The source, by Brexel not Brexe, says "These [IDF] officials claim the papers show...". If the source is cautious about the claim, we are not allowed to report it without qualification. Zero^talk 09:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• "He was also accused of mass corruption, secretly amassing a personal wealth estimated to be USD $1.3 billion in 2002 despite the degrading economic conditions of the Palestinians." This source, which does not have Amira Hass as a coauthor, cites Major General Aharon Ze'evi as saying "Arafat's personal wealth, he said, is estimated at $1.3 billion." and does not have anything about degrading economic conditions of the Palestinians. So as well as inventing material not in the source, this edit unacceptably has "He was also accused" without identifying the source as an Israeli official. Zero^talk 09:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Citation to The More Things Change, The More He's the Same | publisher=Washington Post | date=March 22 2002, which was actually on March 24 and was an op-ed by a former Israeli official Joel Singer. Zero^talk 09:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted most of the recent edits since the majority were blatanly POV, particularly those in the lead section such as claims that he invented terrorism and raised a generation of anti-Semitic hate mongers. As far as the edits in the Birth and childhood section, I kept the bit about Arafat's father's claims to family land in Gaza, but removed all the extra info regarding his birth in Cairo. Since it's a fact we don't need to go on and on about proving it. Stating he was born and partially raised in Cairo suffices. Editors should keep in mind that this is article is an FA so a higher quality of material, in content, grammar and sourcing, needs to be maintained or improved to preserve that status. I didn't fully address the second point you brought up, but I did attribute the claim to "Critics." Still needs to be edited further for neutrality. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Ameer, I highly recommend that the part about Cairo/Jerusalem be kept, although worded differently. It's important and notable, since it shows that Arafat claimed this, but that's actually not true, and helps readers understand him better. For example, "Arafat was born in Cairo to Palestinian parents, although Arafat claimed to have been born in Jerusalem, and the Paletinian Authority listed the Old city, Jerusalem, as his birth place. School records also show that he grew up in Cairo." I think this eliminates the POV that is noticeable in the original form, while maintaining its importance in a briefer way. --Activism1234 17:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe less evidence of birth place is needed but Arafats and PAs claims is important. Also, please help me make what you removed to be written good so that it is properly presented. Crystalfile (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You reinserted material that distorted the cited sources and also used unreliable sources for statements of fact, lowering the quality of a featured article. That is in addition to violating the 1RR rule. nableezy - 21:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So what do you think is fair way to write these sources which you totally removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont, that is why they are unacceptable edits. nableezy - 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But I want them to be acceptable! So how do you suggest I make them good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

By not distorting the cited sources, not using an opinion piece by Charles Krauthamer as a source, not writing such nonsense as He was accused of orchestrating terror and inciting Palestinians against Israelis and Jews, while feigning to implement the peace process. He was responsible for raising an "entire generation schooled in hatred" He was responsible for an anti-Semitic campaign of vilification carried out by his media. anywhere, especially the lead. Basically, if you undo everything that you did that would be acceptable. nableezy - 22:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this issue was brought up when we were working on the article years ago towards FA. Mostly because of Arafat's truth bending when it came to discussing his origins, there were actually several different stories regarding his birthplace and childhood. The facts we have are that Arafat was born in Cairo to Palestinian parents and his father was from the large Husseini clan of Gaza. Arafat on the other hand claimed he was born in Jerusalem to the more famous al-Husayni clan of the Grand Mufti. Other official Palestinian sources listed his place of birth as Gaza. Instead of going into these stories and rumors (and there are many more) in the article content, we clarified this in the first footnote of the section which reads:

Not certain; Disputed; Most sources including Tony Walker, Andrew Gowers, Alan Hart and Said K. Aburish indicate Cairo as Arafat's place of birth, but others list his birthplace as Jerusalem as well as Gaza. See here [1] and here [2] for more information. Some believe also that the Jerusalem birthplace might have been a little known rumor created by the KGB [3].

The footnote needs to be re-edited and slightly expanded on. If we added Arafat's claims into this particular subsection, then what stops us from peppering the entire "Early life" section with Arafat's legends and to put it a bit more bluntly, falsities. That's right, I said it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed source about raid on compound like zero said. How do you think I should fix this http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/05/dig-up-his-crimes-along-with-arafats-body and make it good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Why is it not a good edit? I did as you asked?Crystalfile (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no making it "good" in this case. That sentence does not belong in the lead and we already mention the bit about the IDF/Israeli government's "finds" in the Muqataa that Arafat authorized the funding of militant (not "terrorist") activities. Also, not sure if Commentary Magazine should be used as a source for this article at any rate. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I will put it in the middle if you want and not in the beginning. I did what Zero wanted and I will try and do as you want also! Crystalfile (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you find a neutral reliable source you could expand what's already present in the "Relations with Hamas and other militant groups" section, although personally I think the information in that section is sufficient enough. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the above comments may as well read "Any source that points out Arafat's sordid activities, including his looting of the Palestinian treasury and his well-known financing of terrorists(oops, militants)should be considered inherently suspect, as Arafat was such an awesome guy". Commentary magazine is not a valid source? Since when? Why isn't it reliable in regards to Arafat? Because it is written by Jews? And the clear implication that Israeli sources automatically require some sort of qualification is absolutely ridiculous. This is yet another perfect example of people trying to sanitize an entry about a man who is known by everyone to have been a supporter and financier of terrorism.74.128.36.29 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cold War leaders

I added this category and I think it is accurate. Any disagreement? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of Institut de Radiophysique

Hey,

This is a pretty minor thing, and since I'm fine with either way, I would like to ask other people for what they think should be done. This is not a controversial issue or anything, just whatever you think is best.

In the "polonium" section, there are two different spellings used for the institution that tested Arafat's clothes and underwear for polonium. One of them is an English translation of the name of the lab, the other is written in the English alphabet but not the English language. The spellings are Institute of Radiation Physics vs Institut de Radiophysique. So basically just voice your opinion here which one we should use.

My personal opinion - Institut de Radiophysique, since that's the official name of the lab in their language and it is written in the English alphabet so everyone can indeed read it (It's not a language that doesn't use English alphabet, for example Russian or Arabic or Hebrew...) --Activism1234 15:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer an English version of the Institute's name with location in brackets because I'd like the widest readership possible, i.e. including the monolingual people. The monolingual English speakers can be put off by too many 'alien' words and when originals are in Cyrillic or Chinese for instance we need to translate anyway, because a phonetic version of the original name does not tell us anything. Please note that Arafat's name is spelt on the Spiegel website in German as Jasir Arafat. The discussion about how to transfer names into other languages is an eternal one; strict rules are probably not necessary because the only thing that matters in the end is understandability.

And while I am here, I saw the Al Jazeera docu yesterday. The label on the bottle was clearly Polonium 209. Why do I read here and on the Spiegel website Polonium 210? 144.136.192.18 (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

al-Husseini connection

According to the book Icon of Evil Arafat was related to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and drew inspiration from the elder Mufti. The book has been both panned and supported. Is there any substance to this connection, and should this article deal to some extent with this info? -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The article deals with this issue a bit in the "Name" section. Arafat falsely claimed that he was related Haj Amin, an assertion which the latter failed to deny. It was basically propaganda by Arafat to win resistance credentials from the Palestinian people many of whom associated the al-Husayni family of Jerusalem with the struggle against the British and the Zionists before 1948. Arafat was in fact paternally related to a different Husseini family based in Gaza. His mother came from a well-known family from Jerusalem, the Abul Sa'uds and Arafat himself was born and partially raised in Cairo. Hope this clarifies. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in the name section are you referring to? Do you mean this sentence?

. Al-Qudwa was the name of his tribe and al-Husseini was that of the clan to which the al-Qudwas belonged. al-Husseini was based in Gaza and should not be confused with the well-known, but unrelated, al-Husayni clan of Jerusalem.

Reading it doesn't really mention anything about Haj Amin al-Husseini or that Arafat falsely claimed he was related or propaganda. It does say that he was paternally related to a different Husseini family - that's true. But I don't see the first part of what you said in this section.

You clearly know more about this than me, so I'll leave it in your judgement whether to expand on this a bit or not. I just wanted to point this out. --Activism1234 18:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I chose not to add the bit about Haj Amin specifically, because Arafat made up a lot about his early life like the false claim that he was born in Jerusalem or that he led a squad that trapped and destroyed a column of Israeli tanks during the 1948 War, and the list goes on. I think it's best we just stick to NPOV and rely on factual information. In this case, since we already mention "and should not be confused with the well-known, but unrelated, al-Husayni clan of Jerusalem" we could also mention that Arafat claimed relation to the al-Husaynis of Jerusalem to make that sentence more relevant. You're more than welcome to of course, I just advise we keep it succinct. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Al Ameer son for that clarification. I think its notable to address the issue of what Arafat claimed, even though false, as it explains a question that certain readers, such as I, may have. That's not to say that every false political claim that Arafat made should be mentioned, rather that the claim of being related to al-Husseini/al-Husayni seems important enough. Plus it gives a little insight into Arafat's character. And of course we will need at least one source to cite. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a concern regarding the source - the Wikipedia article indicates that it got many negative reviews, some of whom criticized it as being historically inaccurate. If this is the only reference, I would highly advise against adding it, and would challenge its addition. Are there any other references for this? --Activism1234 01:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using that book as a source, rather I was hoping someone might know of some other source that talks about Arafat making things up. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Myself, I do not know. --Activism1234 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)