Talk:Yasser Arafat.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

Featured article star Yasser Arafat is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2007.
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2002 – October 2004
  2. October 2004 – November 2004
  3. November 2004 – December 2004
  4. December 2004 – January 2005
  5. January 2005 – February 2005

Contents

Proposed article split

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

That's not a bad idea, although another alternative is to simply reduce the existing article, which contains much irrelevant minutia. Fortunately, the environment here has calmed down sufficiently over the last month or so to enable editors to do work. So your involvement is certainly welcome. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 20:31, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think cutting it down a little first would be better. Also, more that 32K is not great, but not an emergency. For example, here are 3 pages that are 80-115K, and have been around for a while: Isotope_table_(divided), Isotope_table_(complete), November_2003 Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even getting it down to 32K would be a good goal though. Basically it would entail paring 25% off the article, which seems entirely feasible. We could either go section by section starting from top to bottom, or perhaps start with the most bloated section, for example, all the material about Arafat's death. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 22:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
That is pretty bloated. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to suggest pruning the external biographies list. A sampling of 5 or 6 biographical links would be sufficient, IMO. Wikipedia isn't a web directory after all. We should favor the more well-known and reputable sources such as Time Magazine, the BBC, etc. I don't think the inflammatory op-eds are especially useful here. We should probably prune the Bibliography as well, although I don't have any specific suggestions for how to do that. Kaldari 05:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For the bibliographies, there are four that I believe are the most cited: Hart (he's the "official" biographer), Aburish (he's the Palestinian biographer), Gowers & Walker, and Wallach & Wallach. I suggest we keep only the most recent of each of these four, unless someone thinks any of the others are especially relevant. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 08:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Although, now that I do some googles on the authors and Arafat, I get a lot of google hits for Rubinstein and Rubin, even more than for Gowers or Wallach. Maybe we can pare it down to those six. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 08:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

Internet Explorer for Mac (including the most recent version) has a hard limit of 32K on text fields. So if someone edits the article and saves it using IE for Mac, half of the article will disappear. I don't know if there's a limit on any of the versions of IE for Windows, nor do I know how many people actually use IE for Mac. Kaldari 19:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Microsoft discontinued IE for Mac a long time ago and I don't think we are obliged to support dinosaur browsers, especially when there are so many excellent alternatives such as Safari, Firefox, Opera, etc, etc. --Zero 14:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
That's only if they edit the whole article, though. If they edit any one section they'll be fine. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I propose keeping the following biographical links:

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

I propose deleting the following biographical links:

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

I'm ambivalent about the following entries:

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

Kaldari 23:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the keeps, although the Guardian Obituary is also in the Open Directory links. As for the deletes, these can probably go for the sake of NPOV, although they do illustrate viewpoints of how his critics regard him. Either delete them or perhaps one should stay as long as there's an additional link added for balance that illustrates the viewpoint of his supporters. On the ambivalent ones, the Nobel article is in all four of the directories, although it seems an important one. I'd go for perhaps keeping only that last link from honestreporting, at least it's a source for the article if so much of it is apparently borrowed from it. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 00:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think the honestreporting.com biography would serve as a good example of how his critics view him. It's completely negative, but at least it's biographical. Kaldari 03:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's probably the one to keep then instead of any of the ones on your delete list. I say go with your suggestions if no one else speaks up. I'll probably be offline the next few days. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 07:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your deletion proposals, though I think you should keep the ones you're ambivalent about. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I think the "Marginalization" section is flabby and confusing in spots, that would be a good place to go next. I'm opposed to spinning off articles from this, particularly about his death, since I don't think an article devoted to Arafat's death is particularly encyclopedic. The death article was spun off originally to avoid edit wars, and has only recently been re-integrated and cleaned up. By the way, I thought it was against Wikipedia policy to have links to link directories; or was I incorrect about that? Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree it would be better not to split off sections of this article, especially since the article on Arafat's death was just reintergrated. Most of the sections just need more summerization and fewer expositions of minute facts and details. I favor removing the directory links entirely, BTW. Does anyone want to keep them? Kaldari 19:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

.

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

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

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

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

I see no distinction in the 2 different wordings. How is "According to Arafat" any different than "Arafat claimed"? They both mean the same thing. Why don't you change it to "He claimed to have sought to understand Judaism and Zionism, but I seriously doubt it". Kaldari 23:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's well known that he was a major leader in this whole middle eastern bloodshed, he called a mass slaughter against Zionism and the US in many ways -- call me biased, but I think we should make it clear that it's only claims. I am afraid that you are biased, my friend. I'm pretty sure that if this article was about Hitler you wouldn't have said what you just did. Dushkin
The wording seems pretty much the same to me, and "Arafat claimed" is shorter. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Once we have a proper citation for this statement, this should no longer be an issue. Arafat was a militant populist. He survived for as long as he did by responding to historical developments, both internal (that is, within the Palestinian movement) and external. Of course he tried to understand Judaism and Zionism. Only a fool would attempt to engage rivals or enemies without properly educating himself first. --(Mingus ah um 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
And Dushkin... Hitler was Hitler. Arafat was Arafat. Arafat fought against Zionism, not Judaism. You don't have to respect him, but do try to acknowledge the fact that there was a substantial difference between the goals and actions of these two men. --(Mingus ah um 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Arafat's name

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

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

The internet edition of Nationalencyklopedin is wrong: the name Rahman is one of the divine names in Islam, a person has the name `Abd ar-Rahman. I think, because of this slip, it is unlikely that that web page is a good source. Gareth Hughes 13:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NE is generally good, but sometimes oddly substandard. But could you confirm that the name stated here is the correct one? A source would be very nice.
I'd be more than happy to point it out to the NE editors. :-) - karmosin 13:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
We had the discussion at /Archive 5#Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ar-Rauf al-Qudwah al-Husayni or Mohammed Abdel-Rawf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Hussaini. I think it covers a few general point about his name. Gareth Hughes 14:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Should, that 'Abu Ammar' translates as 'father of the virtuous[1]', be added?--195.7.55.146 09:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


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

It means "conquest" or more precisely "opening" (among other things, in the context of "opening" a country to Islam). That could also be interpreted as "victory". It does not mean "death", although spelled backwards ("hataf"), it does. It does not mean "open" (adjective) either, since that is "maftuuh"; or "open" (verb), since that is "fataha". Arre 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Arabic, like all semitic languages, consists of word roots made from 3 consonants. The role of tenses, pronouns etc are made by adding vowel sounds. In this case, FATAH derives from the root f-t-r, adding vowels can produce the words for to open, unlock, reveal, conquer

( fattâh, mifatâh, miftâhî, al-fâtiha). [2]Historygypsy (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

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

‘Terrorist’ vs. ‘militant’

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

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

  • Terrorist is a loaded POV term. The best NPOV word we have is Militant. I am not prepared to call Michael Collins a terrorist. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
So is 'militant' as used here—it is loaded with pro-Muslim bias one would not detect so easily. The term seeks to downplay the actions of killers who happen to be Muslim. Real militants protest, shout slogans, and engage in all sorts of civil disobedience, and using the term to describe what are in reality terrorists who kill innocent civilians distorts human understanding.
Would you rather it be replaced with "Revolutionaries", or "Freedom Fighters", or "Martyrs"? Terrorist is just as loaded a POV term as these. Militant best serves NPOV --Irishpunktom\talk 16:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
After giving it some thought, I figured that ‘terrorist’ doesn’t seem to be as loaded a term as people think it might be, because in the end, that’s what terrorists are—terrorists. Just as dictators the world over are dictators and murderers murderers. It’s plain fact. However, I get your point, and I realize this is probably the best compromise we could arrive at for now.
A group of people kills 135 civilians. If this group was Canadian and the civilians Palestinians, there is no doubt that the former would be branded 'terrorists'.
In this case, it doesn't matter whether you or I consider Black September to be a terrorist organization, the sentence is about what Mohammed Daoud and Benny Morris think. Can someone dig up the source so that we're not just making shit up? Thanks! And for the record, I oppose changing every instance of the word 'militant' in this article with the word 'terrorist'. Context matters! Kaldari 15:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I happen to have those sources and much more and I am probably the last person to tell you that you are making things up. I agree with you that context matters, and very much, but not when it means using ‘terrorist’ for non-Muslims and substituting that with ‘militant’ for Muslims. Moreover, by suggesting “context”, one assumes that Israelis are in the wrong here and that the Palestinians are victims of an official and systematic policy of Israeli aggression when it might be argued that in reality the problem lies with their own leaders. However I will not get further into that anymore.

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

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

I agree that "militant" is generally associated with stopping short of violence; for example, the Black Panthers were a militant movement but never went into terrorist activities. I don't see what definition of terrorism killing civilians doesn't fit; granted the fact that large numbers of civilians were killed for political causes, why does it matter what nationality either side is? That is terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.193.95 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Would you also consider mentionning State terrorism? It would be something like a terrorist fighting against state terrorism. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 13:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me 160.39.193.95 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite simply, to be a terrorist, the goal of your attacks is to deliberately target civilians for the sake of terrorizing the public in order to achieve political goals you cannot achieve through direct military force, therefore Yassir Arafat was a terrorist, even if he was also a militant. IMHO he is now in Hell, because GOD has judged him for the evil in his heart, and no post-mortem sugar-coating is going to change that. TodKarlson 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The thing I do not like most about Wikipedia is the people who love to make comments without having any knowledge. If all it takes is to "kill civilians in order to achieve political goals" in order to be a terrorist, there are thousands of other articles we should edit before this one. Let's start with all US and Israeli presidents for instance. Each of them are responsible for way more civilians deaths compared to Arafat (and there is much more proof too). --85.102.120.201 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Israeli and American leaders didn't targeted civilians, they targeted armed forces (armies, militants and terrorists), civilian were hurt by accidents or because they used as unwitting human shields to the Arab armed forces. Arafat, on the other hand, targeted civilians deliberately. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't even bother to answer this, but maybe you should start reading some real news instead of redneck propaganda. There are hundreds of incidents in recent history where Israeli and American leaders did intentionally target civilians. --78.181.30.45 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Father's nationality

AIDS Rumors/Secret Cause of Death

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

I think it is definitely worth reverting all attempt to add unsubstantiated and probably malicious rumors to this page, and I undertake to do so. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can post such rubbish. --Zero 13:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to be taken the wrong way on this. I'm in no way anti-Arafat. The guy was a great man. I personally believe the guy was infected with AIDS maliciously. Even to the casual observer, one can draw plenty of similarities between Arafat's symptoms and that of full-blown AIDS. I'll leave the fact that he's widely believed to have died of AIDS out of the article for the sake of not offending people afraid that it will tarnish Arafat's image. However, you must ask yourself this: If he had AIDS, would the Palestinians have admitted it? Would they acknowledge that their leader of so many years died of AIDS? What kind of rumors would it fuel? The Israelis go further than saying he had AIDS and add that the guy was a rampant homosexual pedophile. THAT is rubbish and unsubstantiated. What is not unsubstantiated is the fact that there are widespread reports in credible media outlets that the leader had AIDS and NO one in the Palestinian camp goes on record denying it.
Arafat certainly wasn't promiscuous, homosexual, or a drug user. Like I said, I believe the guy was murdered. I just don't think it's doing the objective reader justice to leave it out. All of God's blessings to you.--Bryanmenard 15:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of rumors out there that he was homosexual. Even the Atlantic Monthly article hints at it.

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

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


First off (Re: his wife): The fact that Arafat and his wife separated in the latter years of their lives means nothing, considering that: a) Arafat was literally under siege by the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza for the vast majority of that time period; b) Arafat was worth millions, and could easily provide his wife with better living conditions; and, c) there is nothing unusual about a rich couple ending their respective lives with an unacknowledged but de facto separation.
Second (Re: Ceaucescu): No reasonable historian would seriously consider including unsubstantiated evidence which was produced by one of Ceaucescu's cronies--particularly one of his head spies. With the possible exception of Enver Hoxha, Ceaucescu constructed the most abominable "leftist" polity ever to plague a European nation-state. One did not earn the title of deputy chief in his government through meritous action.
Third (Re: sexuality): I'm sorry to say this, but... I do not personally consider 365gay.com to be an authoritative source on Arafat's persuasion. This is a highly controverial topic. If it is going to be pursued, I think many of us would like to see more links (or citations to specific articles or books) which discuss his sexuality.
Fourth (Re: AIDS): Have any of Arafat's associates stated that they noticed potential symptoms? Not to my knowledge. Did the official report include anything that would suggest that he had AIDS? No. Could there have been a conspiracy of silence? Of course, but there's nothing to work with. As such, the rumors have no place in this encyclopedia.
--(Mingus ah um 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

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

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

Wanyonyi 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposed addition of a recent quote by Terje Rød-Larsen

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

As Terje Roed Larsen, the UN Special Coordinator for peace negotiations in the Middle East, put it in an interview with The Atlantic Monthly: "He lied all the time. And he knew it. I'd say, 'Abu Ammar, cut the crap. Let's talk serious.' And then he could either talk serious or not talk serious. He'd say nonsense." [3].

Don't even dream about it. --Zero 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Terje Roed Larsen is a respected diplomat, appointed by UN General Secretary Kofi Anan to be his representative to PLO. One of the architects behind the Oslo Accords in 1993, and an active contributer to the peace process later on. He has been critisized by both sides for working for the opposite side. By Israel for claiming that there were a massacre in Jenin. I don't remember what the PLO was complaining about, but I remember there was a long dispute.
I believe that his opinion of Yasser Arafat is both relevant and important, and should be presented in Wikipedia. Even if disfavorable.
If you have any change suggestions or additions to my proposition, please share them here on the talk page, so we may come to a consensus. --Heptor 04:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing gets done on here without "Zero"'s approval. He's the current self-appointed dictator of this article and will revert anything anyone does or suggests. Seeing him say things like "Don't even dream about it" rather than offering constructive suggestions shows his real face. Let's not get into an "Edit and Revert" battle going on here and just let this guy hijack the article. The article as it is, while biased, is at least acceptable. There are plenty of ideas I have for changing the layout, adding some meaningful information, but I won't suggest it here because of Zero's childish, offensive, responses. I'd say, let sleeping dogs lie.--Bryanmenard 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is how things should work on Wiki. If you have other suggestions for change in the article, do share them here, and we will discuss it. If there is a fact that is proven, important and relevant, then it should be on Wiki. Whether Zero likes this fact or not. I believe this is a good representation of the Wiki way.
By the way, funny you should mention Zero finally showing his face. If you see his profile, you will only see a picture of his feet... ;-P --Heptor 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. It's not the way Wiki should be. Wiki should involve us forming consenses on the Discussion page, not declaring "don't even dream about it" as though one of us is better than another. I'm not counting Zero out, but he seriously needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. This is not ZERO'S article. It is OUR article and WE will decide what to do with it together...this is not a benevolent dictatorship. --Bryanmenard 22:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I hereby await Zero, or somebody else, to present a well-reasoned explanation for why the mentioned quotation by the UN special envoy to the Middle East should not be included in this article.--Heptor 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

I agree with you that there is always a concern about article size when adding new information to the Wikipedia. This article is already 42kb long. This is however hard to avoid when writing about such an important, and controversial character as Yasser Arafat. To comparison, the article about Saddam Hussein is 60 kb long, and for Vladimir Ilych Lenin there are two competing versions of the article.
I believe this quotation should be included because it comes from a credible neutral source, and it describes an important character of Yasser Arafat as a politician. As you wrote yourself, lots of people had that impression of Yasser Arafat, and this quotation is illustrative for that impression.
If you want to include a positive opinion of him, I may suggest checking Victor Ostrovsky's infamous book, "By The Way Of Deception". There he writes that Mossad, who considered Arafat its greatest adversary, also considered him to be a man of great integrity, incorruptable and totally devoted to the Palestinian cause. I don’t have the book available, but if you find a relevant quotation from it, I will support its inclusion to the article.
I originally red about the artice in "Atlantic Monthly" in a Norwegian newspaper. The same information is available in Norwegian here: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/midtosten/article1092513.ece. --Heptor 02:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, no protests in five days, I am adding it. --Heptor 20:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Reasoned arguments do not need to repeated every few days to remain valid. Your addition was POV and unacceptable. --Zero 00:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but unreasonable arguments may be contradicted, as I did here on talk on 12 August. Please do discuss things before applying controversial changes. --Heptor 07:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"Arafat's long personal and political survival is remarkable" for one thing is quite editorial-sounding and POV. As for the quote, there are thousands of quotes about Arafat, and this particular one doesn't offer anything to the article. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I oppose adding it because it is not notable. That a politician (or diplomat) knowingly lies and talks nonsense all the time is expected. It is their job.  :-) --John Z 08:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, good point there :) But Roed-Larsen is a prominent politician and a diplomat himself. In the context of that interview, I would understand it as that Arafat was actually lying much more than Roed-Larsen was used to - otherwise he would not even notice ;-)
This quote actually adds an important view on Arafat that many people held: that he was lying all the time. He would speak of making peace with Israel to the Western press, and then speak of continuing attacks on Israel to his own people. His organizaton, Fatah, would spawn myriads of terrorist fractions, such as Black September and Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades - and then denying any connection to them.
I will not readd this quote to avoid a reverse war, but I will however readd the NPOV tag. --Heptor 13:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

Blatant Double Standards

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

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

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

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

A valid point (re double standards). I do agree however w/Irishpunktom that it is a loaded POV word that is best left out of WP in any of the articles you listed above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
A couple of quick points FYI (not for the article itself): I don't know of any single attack where there were 135 Israeli civilian casualties - perhaps the statement refers to multiple attacks over a period of time in which the cumulative result is 135 deaths (a quick check of Btselem's website should clarify). However, there are usually many more civilian Palestinian deaths during any given time frame than Israeli deaths (not counting armed people on either side) with few exceptions (during the peak of suicide bombings in two separate months from 02/03 I think). Many on the anti-occupation front use the phrase 'state terror' to define the IDF's actions precisely for this reason. Regardless, if you want to talk about double standards, keep in mind that Palestinian civilians deaths are not referred to as freely as Israeli ones. Second, your phrase "when Muslims kill Jews they're "militant" but when a Jew kills Muslims he's not" is a bit misleading; there are quite a few Palestinian Christians who have been killed by the Israelis as well, including a mother shot in the head inside a store while buying milk for her child who was standing next to her, and another 10-year old girl riding in her parent's car, among countless others. Christians are also leading activists in many of the groups that oppose the occupation, including the former longtime leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Don't look at this as purely a Muslim-Jewish issue, but rather a Palestinian-Israeli one. Anyway, back to the subject, I agree with MPerel that things should stay consistent, and I have previously referred to a WP policy page here. Goldstein would be referred to as a 'militant' or 'extremist' under this policy, and referred to as a 'terrorist' only if quoting a direct source. Refer others to this page if you are running into problems elsewhere. Ramallite (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No one denies that there are casualties on both sides. The difference is intent. Many Arab “militants” deliberately target cafes, shopping malls, and buses—soft targets which lack any real military presence. While IDF operations may have resulted in the deaths of Arab civilians, and forces may have acted carelessly or overzealously in retaliations which resulted in those deaths, they do not target civilian populations deliberately as terrorists do. There is a clear distinction between the two—a distinction based on intent. That said, a person like Goldstein, who deliberately targeted and killed civilians (whatever their race or religion), is a terrorist through and through in my book, as are groups like Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hezbollah, etc. I find this politically correct sugar-coating quite disgusting—even more so when it is applied only to articles relating to Arab terrorists. Again, regardless of the race or religion of the attacker or victims, a person who deliberately attacks a civilian population in such means is a terrorist, not a militant, not a freedom fighter. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Yes things should stay consistent, but they should also stay true. Aiden 06:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"they (the IDF) do not target civilian populations deliberately as terrorists do." This is an argument commonly made by Israeli supporters. However, one would be hard pressed to find anybody on the Palestinian side who actually believes it; their experience convinces them otherwise. That is sort of the point I'm trying to make. Ramallite (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If palestinian civilians are indeed deliberately targetted, then either the IDF's personnel is disobeying government's orders by flagrantly killing a handful of civilians every other day and get away with it every time for the last 20 years, OR it is actually implementing the government's policy by doing so. The former is clearly absurd, while the latter would suggest a yearly quota of about 1000 palestinian casualties serves Israel's interest, which is even more absurd.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Egyptian origin - 'Chairman' instead of 'President'

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

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

Arafat spent much of his childhood in Egypt, was educated in Egypt, served in the Egyptian army. As for his dialect, I have read several sources say this[6] [7] but didn't include it in the article. --Leifern 14:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That may be true (although he also spent some good time in Jerusalem as a child), but after 1948 that wasn't his choice - his father was a Palestinian merchant going back and forth, and Arafat apparently got stuck in Egypt. The questions here are: 1- Did Egypt consider him an Egyptian (no, he wasn't a citizen nor was he entitled to it), and 2- Did Arafat consider himself an Egyptian? (also no, he used the systems you mentioned to establish Palestinian organizations including guerilla groups). So given all of that, he definitely would not be Egyptian, origin- or nationality- wise. You had mentioned dialect in your edit summary previously, but that would be true of anybody who spends enough time in a foreign country. (Incidentally, he did have some Egyptian-style mannerisms but his dialect was not authentically Egyptian at all). Ramallite (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
p..s Not to make a big issue out of this, but I would trust Daniel Pipes to tell me the truth about Middle East history about as much as I would trust the president of Iran to tell me the truth about Jewish history. Ramallite (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I suppose I could understand your umbrage if someone deleted Category:Palestinian people and replaced it with Category:Egyptian people. As you seem to point out, these aren't mutually exclusive categories. There are countless examples of people who are natives of one country and adopt another. What varies is the circumstances under which they move from one to the other. As for right-wing propaganda is concerned, why in the world is it so bad to be an Egyptian? --Leifern 17:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it is not true? As said above, both his parents were Palestinian, of old Palestinian families; and he was not considered Egyptian by himself, by the Egyptian government, by Egyptians, or by Palestinians, or, really, by anyone. Also, it would create a lot of work :-)
  • This is nationalist, if not necessarily right-wing, propaganda in that it is employed frequently by Israeli rejectionists to create the impression that there is no Palestinian people at all - just a rag-tag bunch of anti-Semitic Arabs who've made up a flag to get a seat in the UN for their terrorist outfit. I'm not saying you agree with that, but this kind of bizarre and racist reasoning is not uncommon, and I'm sure you've encountered it more than once if you're interested in the I/P conflict. Arre 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - there is nothing wrong with being Egyptian, except he wasn't one by anyone's definition except a few who have nationalistic motives in pushing that argument. In Arabic speaking countries (and in fact in most countries of the world with the US being one of the few exceptions), jus soli does not apply. It's always jus sanguinis. Ramallite (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can only have it one way or another - do we determine his "Egyptianness" by virtue of citizenship, birth, upbringing, genetic factors, or what? It isn't clear what the answer is from any sources. But I do know he was probably born in Egypt and spent most of his time there, going so far as to serve in the Egyptian army. To add complexity to it, sovereignty over various areas have changed considerably during his lifetime. As for this point: "This is nationalist, if not necessarily right-wing, propaganda in that it is employed frequently by Israeli rejectionists to create the impression that there is no Palestinian people at all - just a rag-tag bunch of anti-Semitic Arabs who've made up a flag to get a seat in the UN for their terrorist outfit." I don't know how the possibility of Arafat's dual nationality (not uncommon in the Arab, or for that matter the Scandinavian world) lends itself to that kind of extrapolation. I don't hold any candle for Arafat, but it seems to me that with a factual presentation of the man's life and work, readers will be able to make an informed decision of their own view. --Leifern 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, you seem misinformed. I don't know how many ways I can explain that he was not an Egyptian national. So 'dual nationality' is not an topic here. Furthermore, 'dual nationality' may be common in Scandinavia (which is a bit surprising since as far as I know, only Sweden allows it and only as of a year ago, Norway and Denmark do not normally allow it), but the Arab League Charter explicitly states that no national of one member country can acquire nationality of another member country as a second nationality. This is common knowledge in the ME. An Egyptian national is not allowed, for example, to hold Jordanian, Algerian, Somali, Palestinian, or Yemeni citizenship. So I have no idea where you got the notion that dual nationality is 'not uncommon' unless you are referring to one Arab and one non-Arab nationality. Finally, you ask "do we determine his "Egyptianness" by virtue of citizenship, birth, upbringing, genetic factors, or what?". Answer: WE don't determine it at all, that is not our job on WP. This is what the No Original Research policy is about. Ramallite (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's the thing, Ramallite: If I were to apply strictly legal criteria to nationality, then we'd have problems with a Palestinian nationality to begin with, since Palestine isn't an autonomous nation-state. By that narrow definition we could eliminate the entire Palestinian category altogether; something that I actually don't want to do. By that standard, we should also delete the Palestinian category for Queen Rania of Jordan. In Scandinavia, there are people born by Norwegian parents who grow up in Sweden and then move to Denmark while retaining property in Norway; children of parents who have separate nationalities; people who live part of the time in