Talk:Death of Yasser Arafat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why?

Why is this a separate article? It is only relevant and encyclopedic as far as the biography of the person goes. We're not a news narration. --Jiang 19:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presumably because it will turn big and controversial soon. It can always be reemerged with Yassir Arafat when the issue is not hot anymore. Palestine-info 00:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the reason is simply that Yasser Arafat tends to be protected a lot because of vandalism and POV wars, and thus that it's awkward for reporting an ongoing event. David.Monniaux 09:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess we'll merge this after the guy croaks, or at least a few weeks afterwards --Jiang 00:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. David.Monniaux 08:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with David -- I assume YA will die in the next few weeks and this will have major effects on the Israili-Palestinian Situation. This article will then either be renamed something like "The Death of Yasser Arafat" or "The end of the Palestine-Israel conflict" (wishful thinking) or it will be merged into a larger article like "Yassir Arafat". How about I put down December 1 as a Mark on the wall. then come Dec 1, if this article still exists, it should be merged with another page or renamed. MPS 16:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat has left the building, folks. Let's merge the article. Rickyrab 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree, this should be merged very soon. -- Mattworld 22:45, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm not sure quite how to do it, but could a better admin than I come and merge these in a clean manner - this article shouldn't be allowed to continue for so long that it becomes an institution.Tompagenet 13:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merged until after the mourning period ends at least, at most, after the election of a new president, as both would properly fall under here, and alot can go on in the election campaign or mourning period. 132.205.45.110 18:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merged just yet. However, there is nothing wrong with editing this section after it is merged; there is no need to wait until an election, which may be far off. -- Mattworld 03:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Glad to see someone changed the name now that he's no longer ill. I say move it to Yassir Arafat now if that's what people want. If it sticks around for another 2 weeks it's going to become like the Politics of Canada and other such specialized sub-articles. What do we do, vote? MPS 16 Nov 2004

"ITP diagnosis does not explain the symptoms"

ITP can explain the reported symptoms because low platelet count can result in intracranial hemorrhage and when there is bleeding in the brain, vomiting, unconsciousness, coma, and death are quite possible. In any case, it is not up to Wikipedians to insert their medical opinions as fact. Even if you are a medical student, it's bad form to make a long distance diagnosis without examining the patient or reviewing laboratory results. If there is a published report from a reputable source , preferably a physician who has examined Arafat, disputing the diagnosis then the article would be justified in saying, "The diagnosis does not explain the symptoms according to .....(source)", i.e. physicians who examined Arafat, etc. See [1] "Because platelets help stop bleeding, the symptoms of ITP are related to increased bleeding. However, each person may experience symptoms differently. Symptoms may include the following:...bleeding in the head - this is the most dangerous symptom of ITP. Any head trauma that occurs when there are not enough platelets to stop the bleeding can be life threatening." --Alberuni 15:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. Arafat's physicians report that a CT scan demonstrated that there is no intracranial hemorrhage. Unlike you, I know what the actual clinical course of ITP is, and this is not it. ITP doesn't manifest as a stroke in the absense of petechiae or other forms of bleeding. If ITP adequately explained Arafat's symptoms, his physicians would not be looking for further diagnoses: yet they are, because they recognize that ITP is not an adequate explanation. I don't know why you think you know better than Arafat's physicians, or why the article should leave a reader thinking that your misconception (ITP accounts for his symptoms) is a realistic possibility. - Nunh-huh 23:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A CT scan cannot always detect intracranial hemorrhage, especially if it's a slow bleed. Also, stroke is not the same thing as hemorrhage. In fact, stroke is an obstruction of blood flow by a clot whereas hemorrhage is leaking of blood from arteries or veins. And like I said, we are not privy to Arafat's medical history, signs, symptoms, and laboratory results. Even if we were, we are writing an encyclopedia article, not conducting original medical research or supplying our own diagnosis. We are not here to infer meaning from Arafat's physicians' pronouncements. We are here to report those pronouncements accurately. If we can produce quotes from a physician attending to Arafat providing a new diagnosis, I am all for inserting that information and attributing the source of the report. The only diagnosis I am aware of is ITP. Until that diagnosis is replaced with a new one, that's as far as I believe the article should go. There has been wild speculation from various sources, none published from his medical team and some from quite partisan sources, that Arafat has cancer, leukemia, poisoning, AIDS, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease, etc. Should we print speculation? I think not. We should stick to facts, as they become available. --Alberuni 00:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a fact that ITP is not an adequate explanation for Arafat's course of illness. It's a fact that an intracranial hemorrhage that does not show up on CT does not cause unconsciousness. It's a fact that "stroke" and "clot" are not exact synonyms: rather strokes can be divided into hemorrhagic strokes and occlusive strokes, the latter being the type which involves clots or thrombi. In the absence of an adequate diagnosis - and there has been no word from the French physicians on any diagnosis - it's proper to point out that there has been no adequate diagnosis. Your suggestion that the article not include non-attributed speculation as to alternative diagnoses is hardly necessary: it doesn't. = Nunh-huh 01:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a fact that ITP is idiopathic. That's one thing his doctors are probably searching for, the cause for the low platelet count. Intracranial hemorrhage at the brainstem can cause coma and death without being visible on CT scan even with contrast enhancement. If you do not agree with the diagnosis of ITP, that is not fact for Wikipedia. If you think ITP does not explain symptoms, even if you are on your way to an MD degree, that doesn't qualify as a fact for Wikipedia. Do you have a published source that supports your claim that ITP does not explain Arafat's reported symptoms? The claim that ITP does not adequately explain his symptoms is unsourced speculation. It is not a fact. I provided one that links the diagnosis to the symptoms: [2] "Because platelets help stop bleeding, the symptoms of ITP are related to increased bleeding. However, each person may experience symptoms differently. Symptoms may include the following:...bleeding in the head - this is the most dangerous symptom of ITP. Any head trauma that occurs when there are not enough platelets to stop the bleeding can be life threatening." --Alberuni 04:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, and that can't be rectified by searching for webpages that support your position. I'm not sure why you're fixated on this. No one who is knowledgable about ITP believes ITP is an adequate explanation of Arafat's illness. That one of his doctors announced it as a diagnosis does not mean that it accounts for all his symptoms; one may have ITP and other conditions simultaneously. Your thesis that Arafat developed ITP, dropped his platelets, bled undetectably into his brain stem, lapsed into coma, and then woke up is not realistic. That's not the way hemorrhages work. Asking for a reference for what ITP doesn't do is a bit unrealistic. You've provided no source that states that ITP does account for Arafat's ills. The latest reports claim hepatic failure, which is also unrelated to ITP. Since reports of Arafat's illness have been remarkably unreliable and sketchy, I would suggest you wait until some actually tenable diagnosis is announced. - Nunh-huh 08:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ITP clearly doesn't cause "reversible coma". The web-page "mechanism" you've come up with (the undetectable bleeding causing loss of consciousness through bleeding) ins't reversible...and would certainly not be produced before purpura or ecchymoses in ITP. - Nunh-huh 03:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you know for a fact that Arafat did not suffer purpura or ecchymoses? Like I said, we are not privy to his medical history, we did not conduct a physical exam and we did not see his CT scans and MRIs. So we can't say anything for sure. It is just speculation. As for ITP-induced coma:

• Clinical significance of platelet microparticles in autoimmune thrombocytopenias. Jy W, Horstman LL, Arce M, Ahn YS. Department of Medicine, University of Miami School of Medicine, FL 33101. Platelet microparticles (PMPs) are vesicles derived from platelet membranes that are too small (less than 0.5 micron) to be detected in routine platelet counting. They arise in association with platelet activation and other unknown causes. Elevated PMPs have been observed in idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), a disorder in which autoantibody interacts with platelets and the opsonized platelets are destroyed by macrophages. .... Additionally, we identified a group of patients with ITP who experienced neurologic complications resembling transient cerebral ischemic attacks (TIAs): recurrent episodes of dizzy spells or weakness in mild cases, and coma, seizure, or progressive dementia in advanced cases. --Alberuni 04:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We have only the information we are given. No one has mentioned any purpura or ecchymoses. None are present on any of Arafat's photographs. The CT scan results were mentioned by a physician. No bleeding was noted. That is not speculation. And your reference on TIAs simply demonstrates one more time that you can't learn about the progression of illnesses by searching the Internet. The idea that ITP would manifest as nausea and loss of consciousness is absurd, no matter what webpage you find that allows you to construct a theoretical mechanism by which this might possibly occur. And a TIA by definition lasts less than 24 hours, so it doesn't explain Arafat's condition. - Nunh-huh 05:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be so arrogant. You don't know who you are talking to and you look like a foolish second year med student know-it-all. Your reading comprehension also leaves alot to be desired. I even highlighted it for you: coma, seizure, or progressive dementia in advanced cases. Coma and progressive dementia are not transient symptoms. Do you really think you can make a diagnosis from photographs and videos? Do you think you have better information and know better than Arafat's attending physicians? I don't care if you are Richard Carmona. Your opinions do not belong in any article. Don't insert opinions. Insert facts. You have no facts to make a diagnosis and your diagnosis and medical opinion is worthless to Wikipedia anyway. Who are we going to cite, "According to Nunh-huh..." Please do not insert your second-guessing of the attending physician's diagnosis into the article. Report facts. If you have published report where some doctor with a real name disputes the diagnosis, let's see it. Save your opinions about the diagnosis for the Talk page, not the article. Thanks. --Alberuni 06:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously we have different opinions about who's being arrogant, who sounds like a foolish know-it-all, and who has reading comprehension problems. Many thanks for trying to educate me despite my many deficiencies. Nonetheless, quoting someone who thinks progressive dementia resembles a TIA does not make it so. Nunh-huh 07:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"ITP, which causes a blood platelet deficiency"

This line is poorly worded: "According to one of his doctors, Arafat is suffering from ITP, which causes a blood platelet deficiency". ITP doesn't cause a blood platelet deficiency. ITP describes a condition of blood platelet deficiency. --Alberuni 04:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is the description of a low platelet count as a "deficiency", which is unidiomatic. One traditionally speaks of a "deficiency" of something that could be corrected, say by dietary supplementation. "ITP" in fact describes the mechanism that causes one type of thrombocytopenia, so it is a condition that implies a specific cause. I'll reword it so it's more accurate. - Nunh-huh 08:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A deficiency of platelets means that there are not enough of them. A decrease in platelets doesn't necessarily indicate ITP. Decreases within normal range are not pathological. You still haven't provided any evidence, sources, quotes, or references to support your independent medical opinion about the adequacy of the ITP diagnosis. Facts, not opinions, please. --Alberuni 02:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've presented the facts above. If the diagnosis was explanatory, further diagnostic tests would not be required. "Deficiency" is still the wrong word, if you like we'll add "pathological". - Nunh-huh 02:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's an inference. Idiopathic conditions require diagnostic tests to determine their cause. Since the condition is idiopathic, the tests are not always successful in finding a cause. When a cause is found, the condition is no longer idiopathic, thrombocytopenia becomes a symptom, not a diagnosis, and the diagnosis is changed to elemental mercury poisoning, thiophos poisoning, thallium poisoning, etc; lupus erythematosus, aplastic anemia, leukemia, or adverse drug reaction to cyclosporine, gentamycin, etc., etc. --Alberuni 02:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. Idiopathic conditions are "idiopathic" because all known causes have been ruled out by diagnostic testing. Since Arafat's physcian clearly stated it was an immune disorder, you'd be less confused if you expanded ITP as immune thrombocytopenic purpura...though of course, there's no actual report of purpura.... And yes, of course not all thromobytopenia is ITP. - Nunh-huh 03:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You just restated exactly what I wrote! I wrote "the condition is idiopathic until diagnostic tests determine a cause." You wrote "No, idiopathic conditions are idiopathic because all known causes have been ruled out." That is the exact same statement, just worded differently. If all known causes are ruled out, it is idiopathic. Therefore, they run tests to rule out known causes. If they find a cause, the condition is no longer idiopathic. --Alberuni 03:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's idiopathic only after known causes are ruled out. Not before. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haha. "Idiopathic", a descriptor meaning "unknown cause", is used until physicians determine the true cause. --Alberuni 03:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not correctly. "Idiopathic" indicates that the known causes have been ruled out. - Nunh-huh 05:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And if/when they discover a cause, what happens to the ITP diagnosis? You seem to think diagnoses are static phenomena. Shows your lack of experience. --Alberuni 06:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ITP diagnosis

Is the line about the ITP diagnosis under Onset the current diagnosis or the one made at the time? If it's current, it should probably be up in the (currently blank) introduction. Otherwise, the tense should be changed. -FunnyMan 05:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Exact function of Christian Estripeau

Christian Estripeau's exact title is médecin chef des services de classe normale which translates to "chief surgeon of the services, normal class". [He was named to this position by a presidential decree of July 13, 2004.] He is not, as far as I know, médecin général ("surgeon general"), which would imply a position of command. His position in the military ranks is roughly that of a brigadier general. He is the spokesman of the Health services of the armies. I do not think he belongs to the team that treats Arafat. David.Monniaux 11:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"General surgeon" refers not to a surgeon who is also a general (in the military), but to someone who performs general surgery. Alternatively, people might interperet the term to mean someone who is a surgeon in general, meaning someone who handles most forms of surgery, referring patients to experts (e.g. neurosurgeons, oral surgeons, etc.) when necessary. Anyone who doesn't know the first meaning (including myself up to a few minutes ago) would probably assume that the second was meant.

Médecin général, as I understand it from your comments, has no simple translation into English. I don't think there's any way to combine the titles "general" and "surgeon", your best bet would probably be a separate clause ("General Smith, noted surgeon,..."). Still, chief surgeon is an improvement, since it gives more information. -FunnyMan 05:02, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

If I understand French military ranks correctly, a médecin général is a médecin chef des services who has been given a position of command; that is, performs more administrative duties instead of medical duties. I'm not sure whether this is the case of Estripeau.

The bad thing is that there's also a rank of médecin en chef, which should translate as "head surgon", which ranks below that of médecin chef des services.

In any case, one should not follow the example of certain English-speaking news outlet which quote the guy as "general Estripeau". David.Monniaux 07:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ugh, messy. Yeah, that would definitely be the wrong way to say it. Well, like I said, chief surgeon is a definite improvement. Frankly, I don't think anyone is going to want to split a hair between "chief surgeon" and "head surgeon" in English, because we use them pretty much interchangibly. Fortunately, this isn't an article on the ranks of French military doctors (although that wouldn't necesarially be a bad idea), so we don't need to. Either "chief surgeon" or "head surgeon" is close enough. -FunnyMan 16:55, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. My point is that we should call him "chief surgeon" or perhaps (but I'd have to check his exact rank) "general surgeon", but not "general". "General", to me, conveys the impression of somebody who is primarily a military commander, and gives the impression that somehow the whole affair was under the control of the French Army or something like that. David.Monniaux 18:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you missed part of what I said. "General surgeon" has no implication of rank whatsoever in English. -FunnyMan 22:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yassir Arafat (Aug 24, 1929- Nov 11, 2004) Needed To Shave More Often

I suppose Arafat's illness and (possibly by now) death were not due to his tendency to maintain a 5 o'clock shadow. If that had been the case, I'd be in big trouble indeed. Rickyrab 03:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The clock is ticking... even though I upticked the death date from Nov 9 to Nov 10... Rickyrab 06:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me on this. Rickyrab 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

French Code of Public Health

Does anyone have a link to an English translation of the French Code of Public Health document linked towards the bottom of the Rumors section?-FunnyMan 05:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I don't and I doubt it exists. David.Monniaux 07:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Headline text

is arafat dead? A friend of mine thinks he is but i'm not sure--Marie Rowley 07:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are no official news to that effect. David.Monniaux 08:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks it's hard to figure out what's happening because of all these conflicting news reports--[[User:Marie Rowley|Marie | Talk]] 00:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian officials regret that the news about Yasser Arafat is "filtered" by his wife.

Palestinian officials regret that the news about Yasser Arafat is "filtered" by his wife. According to whom? "X, the Palestinian Y, has expressed his regret that..." would do. I've removed it for now. Mark¹ 09:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Les Palestiniens, pour la plupart, reprochent à Mme Arafat d'avoir fait de la rétention d'informations sur la santé de leur chef.[3] I linked several press articles.

NPOV Dispute - resolved

Added SectNPOV until the section about "delays" is updated to reflect encyclopedaic assessment of circumstances, right now its not encyclopedaic. rest of article not affected. FT2 23:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

(later) Better, not perfect but enough I'm ok with the tag removal. Thanks to the person who fixed it. FT2 00:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

"Arafat has died" edit war - resolved

I cannot find a single source stating Arafat has died. Where are you getting this information from? -- Jwinters | Talk 04:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To the person who actually showed their source - thank you -- Jwinters | Talk 04:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPR's hourly news feed is reporting this as of 11PM November 10th Eastern Time. No other news service seems to have picked it up, though.

Scratch that, CNN is reporting it too.

(sorry, not sure what the protocol is for adding new comments here)

All the major news agencies are reporting it now. At the time, people were posting "Arafat has died" and not stating what source reported it. -- Jwinters | Talk 04:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's official. Grubby Arafat has croaked, died, left the building, etc., etc. Time to wrap this up. Rickyrab 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page move

I moved Illness of Yasser Arafat to Death of Yasser Arafat now that the French doctors issed a time of death and senior PA officials have made an official announcement.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or wire service, so it's not that important to get breaking news on the spot. It's better to be right than early.

After the fuss dies down, we can think about re-integrating the Death of Yasser Arafat sidebar into the Yasser Arafat article. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:18, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. no one objected to page move. Good. --Ed

Here is a section that needs repairs:

===Delays in hospitalization===

Arafat remained at his Ramallah compound for more than 2 years, believing that if he left his compound, Israel would not allow him to return. Some people also believed that Israel would attempt to assassinate Arafat if he were to leave the compound. After reports of Arafat's deteriorating health, the Israeli government stated Arafat was free to leave his compound for medical treatment, reassuring that he would be able to return. After this statement from the Israeli government, Arafat's doctors announced that he would be moved abroad for additional medical tests and hospitalization.

---

Following Delays in hospitalization with "remained at his Ramallah compound for more than 2 years" implies that he had to wait TWO WHOLE YEARS to get to a hospital. Surely this is not what the contributor meant who changed the subheading from "Israel Factor" to "Delays in hospitalization".

Better to say that it took a few days (or several days) to secure assurances from Israel that he could come back to the compound if he went abroad for treatment. And if there is any source that says these "delays" made him more ill -- or killed him -- then by all means QUOTE THEM in the article.

No hints or nuances, please. Let's stick to (1) undisputed facts and (2) claims made by identified sources and (3) widely held opinions, also attributed to those segments of the public holding them. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:21, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Move/merge

When will this page be integrated with the main Yasser Arafat article. Few celebrities have their agonal state immortalised (pun certainly not intended) on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

not in coma/deeper coma

On November 7 Arafat is not in a coma. On November 9 he falls into a "deeper coma". This is inconsistent. Jayjg 22:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, Jay. On November 7 somebody denied that Arafat was in a coma, while others asserted just the opposite. There were 2 or more competing story lines going on since late october: (a) that it's just a flu; (b) that it's serious but curable; (c) that it's terminal. Not to mention: that he's slipping in and out of consciousness, in a coma, or already dead. That's why I started a sidebar article on Illness of Yasser Arafat - so we could keep up with the multiple conflicting stories. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 14:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Are the quotations useful?

As far as I can tell, the quotations of reactions from world leaders are pretty generic quotations. If I were to imagine what a generic reaction would be, I'd come up with something similar to those. Is there any benefit to quoting 25 of them? Similar sorts of quotes could be found when Ronald Reagan or Yitzak Rabin or nearly any other world leader died, yet we don't have a page worth of quotes for any of them, because it's just not interesting. It seems the encyclopedic value of the quotes would be greater if they were distilled into a summary of general reactions. --Delirium 23:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I just put it there for the immediate aftermath of the death, I don't expect it to survive the merge.

Move to Wikiquote? David.Monniaux 16:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External links

Some anon wrote:

(Note: why are all these links pro-Arafat? Why were the anti-Arafat links removed? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia, not a blog?)

---

That Israel vowed just over a year ago to kill him[4] should be in the record. (Usually Israel can work faster than that though...and somehow I doubt this was the first time they swore to do him in, and he was getting on, so it may actually be coincidence.) Kwantus 02:34, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I'm guessing 91% or more of world leaders' reactions will be pro-Arafat, so a ten-to-one ratio of nice quotes to nasty quotes would not be excessive. Face it: lots of people are pissed off at America and Israel and think terrorism is a good thing. I happen to disagree with these folks, but that's irrelevant to the task of creating an Enyclopeda Article about Yasser Arafat. What matters is how leaders and people in general feel. What we as editors or contributors believe must take a back seat. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:02, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

The above comment can be viewed in the light of Ed Poor's previous comments that "All terrorists are Islamic". None of his comments regarding Israel/Palestine should be taken seriously - Xed 23:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed. He probably believes in al Qaida-Nazi collaboration too, but I wonder if he knows the recent Ambassador Plenipotentiary to the Court of St James is grandson of the man who put the Luft in Luftwaffe. Or which flags were permitted in Hitler's realm.

Anyhow, what I really came here to note: YA's brother Dr. Fathi Arafat died abt 3 days later.[5] Kwantus 21:38, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Submitted for...well, no good reason: "poisoned with a widely known toxi[n] "Acontine", which is usually extracted from an Asian plant called "Aconite", a report, issued recently by the British intelligence, disclosed"[6] Kwantus 19:37, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

  No good reason? How about common sense? Let's see... Mossad has tried to assassinate Arafat 13 times before unsuccessfully, including using poison, Arafat gets a "mystery illness" and dies shortly thereafter, to this day nobody will say definitively what it was... He was replaced by Abbas, the puppet of the Israelis, much more malleable than Arafat... Arafat's death was widely claimed at the time to make possible a new era of Israeli-Palestinian relations, which it hasn't, since the Palestinian people are smart enough to see Abbas is a puppet and so Hamas crushed them in the 2006 elections, but nevertheless at the time his death was hailed as the best chance for rapproachment in years... Yet to even consider the possibility of him being poisoned automatically makes people start calling you a "conspiracy theorist" or an "anti-Semite", conveniently shutting down debate. Grow up people. Arafat was poisoned.

Can someone explain why I should care what Friedman has to say about the death of Arafat? I know why someone thinks I should care; it's so they can have an excuse to link to the WSWS article against Friedman. But I don't think we really need either of these links. unixslug 18:39, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Arafat and AIDS?

What is the blood disorder that results in low platelet counts and about which no clear statement from any of the doctors might be the normal expectation? When public figures die of "mysterious" blood diseases, what often has turned out later to have been the cause? What would be the motivation for keeping Arafat so isolated during his last days? There are plenty of Arafat's blood samples in the hospital at Percy. --Wetman 02:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lymphoma? (Note that the hospital excluded leukemia, but not lymphoma).

Arafat was not in a service that specializes in AIDS patients. He was in a service that specializes in blood disorders, especially those resulting from radioactive contamination. (That's another conspiracy theory you can spread: irradiation!).

Note that the doctors, in any case, cannot legally say anything to the press without the consent of Arafat's close family (and Estripeau's comment implied that his communiqués were vetted by Suha Arafat). The Canard Enchaîné reports that Suha Arafat had a group of 3 attorneys to help her decide each of her moves, rest assured she was prepared to sue whoever leaked information. David.Monniaux 08:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PA spokespeople officially ruled out all forms of cancer, so that includes lymphoma as well. The remaining list of diseases is not very large. There's also circumstantial evidence that Arafat may have been gay: He didn't marry until the 1990s, and even then didn't live with his wife except briefly, and Romanian intelligence officials have suggested that Romania has rather suggestive audio tapes of Arafat from their 1970s surveillance. All speculation, of course, but it's not entirely unlikely, especially given that other possibilities are not really any more likely. --Delirium 08:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

It's not unknown for gay or strongly gay leaning bi men to marry for "cover" -- especially in a culture like his where there is such a taboo. Note however that some heterosexuals do not marry for whatever reason. Is marrying only one woman unusual for someone of his wealth in the Arab world? Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Report of liver problems

I've chosen to report the announcement of liver problems by the Canard Enchaîné, while I was quite hostile to reporting each and every of the conflicting reports before Arafat's death.

The reason is that most of these reports appeared in media that did not have any special reason to have reliable information as to Arafat's illnesses – they very probably did not have any kind of special connections into the French military health services, for instance.

Le Canard is entirely another matter. This is a newspaper whose reputation is based on a large extent on its ability to get insider information from French government sources. If they announce they have a source inside Percy hospital, they very probably have a source inside Percy hospital. David.Monniaux 20:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberoni, you should read the information that you remove before removing it. You said "cirrhosis and alcohol discussion is speculation". I do not see any speculation in there. The source explained that Arafat had cirrhosis unrelated to alcohol consumption, but that in the mind the general public, cirrhosis is generally associated with alcoholism, and thus that it was not possible to publish such a diagnosis. This makes sense, especially with respect to a Muslim leader.

As for "blood formula", translation for formule sanguine, a search in Google will bring you many pages using this expression. Feel free to replace the phrase by a better one... should you have the necessary medical knowledge.

By the way, this is not your article. It seems to me that the leaks that the Canard had access to are probably the most serious information that had been published on the causes of Arafat's death – if only because the Canard is known to get insider information from inside the French government. This was not the case of the various announcements published before – I don't see where Arabic and Israeli newspaper could have fished reliable information of what goes on inside Percy. David.Monniaux 02:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, I did not see this note before editing the article.

I trust your knowledge about the reliability of this newspaper (despite the fact that a "canard" in English means "false or unfounded report or story; especially a fabricated report"). Nevertheless, it is speculation, unconfirmed by official announcment so I suggest that it is just a rumor that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

The cirrhosis and alcohol issue was pure speculation. Cirrhosis is a common outcome from hepatitis B or C infection, as well as many other conditions. The discussion about alcohol intake being forbidden in Islam being the reason why this wasn't released is just silly and I think appeals to some non-Muslims who might like to feel superior as they smile at the supposed "hypocrisy" of people with habits different from their own.

As for formule sanguine, it may just be the translation that sounds awkward. What is the medical dignosis? Blood disorder? What type? We heard low platelet count before Arafat went to Paris. Since then, we have heard nothing that has been substantiated.

I suggest deleting this section for those reasons. I don't own the article but I am an editor like you. I feel it is unreliable and not up to standards for an encyclopedia. --Alberuni 03:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't call this speculation. I call this information from undisclosed sources from a newspaper that has an excellent track record of finding "unofficial" information that very generally turns out to be right. This is different from speculation, which is making hypotheses facts from little bits of information. I suspect that a lot of the reporting on Arafat's health is in the latter case – things like giving press records to some local health professor and asking him for possible diagnosis.

The cirrhosis and alcohol part is not speculation, to me, I suspect there has been a misunderstanding, so I'll repeat myself on this. The sources specifically said that Arafat suffered from hepatitis of a nature not caused by alcoholism, and that Arafat obviously was a water drinker. However, the sources explained that announcing a diagnosis of "cirrhosis" would have been inappropriate because of the popular association between "cirrhosis" and "alcoholism". It's indeed quite probable that such an announcement would have resulted in allegations and innuendo on Muslim hypocrisy about alcohol.

You will probably not get an official announcement for a very long time. The reason is that Percy hospital cannot make a press release without it going through the next-of-kins. Perhaps that a parliamentary enquiry commission could work around that, but don't hold your breath.

That's why I think this information should be included. We cannot take it at face value, but it's probably by far the most reliable information we'll get for quite a while. Remember, this is a "breaking news" article, to be merged later. David.Monniaux 03:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Canard is French for duck, as in the bird. The English meaning isn't relevant. (And another English meaning is "airplane horizontal stabilizer near nose of aircraft." Just FYI.) A2Kafir 03:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your command of the English language dictionary is impressive. Can you explain the etymology of canard from "Vendre des canards à moitié"; to half-sell a duck? What does it mean to half-sell a duck and how did the French word for duck come to mean a fabricated story? The newspaper "Le Canard enchaîné", the "Connected Duck", is described in French Wikipedia as a satirical magazine (although they also say it has the reputation of breaking news ahead of other news outlets, among other interesting trivia). [7]. --Alberuni 03:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Canard is a French slang word for "newspaper" (and, yes, it means "duck" originally). The English usage of "canard" for a fabricated story perhaps comes from this French usage, but "canard" is not used with that sense in France (at least nowadays).

Le Canard Enchaîné means "the Chained Duck", not "the Connected Duck". It is indeed a self-described satirical magazine. I don't know of any foreign equivalent. They generally publish a lot of "insider" information, often from political sources (typically, aides working in ministries), administrative sources, etc., about the French economical and political scandals. Despite being sued for libel quite frequently, they very seldom lose their cases (in fact, I'm unaware of a lost libel trial by the Canard).

The Canard is largely a kind of Franco-French thing: it publishes information on very French topics (the French political, economical etc. establishment, political scandals, corruption scandals etc..) for the French public. It also adds a substantial amount of mockery on top of that. However, despite being intensely ironical, they are very generally factually correct (if only because they would risk a libel case if they were not).

In any case, the fact that it calls itself "satirical" should not let you infer that it is "unreliable". (And, if I may say so, I'm perhaps in a better position than you to judge the reliability of French newspapers.)

The information I pasted was from a TV reporting from TF1 on Tuesday night on the contents of the Canard of Wednesday. I'll be able to have a longer version when I get the Canard in the mail. David.Monniaux 03:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like I said at first; I trust your knowledge about the reliability of this newspaper. Nevertheless, the report is unclear and unconfirmed so I suggest that it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has even more responsibility than an investigative magazine to avoid spreading unconfirmed rumors. If the source is clearly attributed, I guess it's OK. --Alberuni 04:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that we will perhaps never see any attributed source for the reasons of Yasser Arafat's death (or perhaps not in a very long time, i.e. until the archives are considered public domain). The reason is that the physicians will never talk openly and allow their name to be printed, out of fear of litigation. Remember that discussing the illness of a patient with anybody but himself and his close family is illegal, even if the patient is dead.

I an going to ask on Village Pump. David.Monniaux 07:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Restore?

Can I raise the issue of restoring the article? Reading about Sharon's recent condition, I was reminded of how we covered Arafat's condition, and I wanted to go back and see what our article on Arafat's death looked like now. Needless to say I was very disappointed to see it was redirected, and the section in the main article is rather short. This was a highly notable thing and should have proper coverage. Everyking 11:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath

I also recommend that a section called "Aftermath" or something along those lines be created here. Basically it'd discuss the various responses to it - Palestinian (briefly the mourning since it's already mentioned, but also what happened next - who took over, Abbas became next leader, etc), Israeli, and international community. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I'll look this stuff up later when I get a chance, but if anyone wants to start it now, go ahead (of if you oppose it, comment here). --Activism1234 02:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

New theory - leukemia

Another day, another theory.

According to this source and this source, Arafat was suffering from leukemia, but his condition improved in France until he underwent a blood transfusion. Let me know what you guys think... --Activism1234 05:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

An infobox should be put at the beginning of this article with information on how old he was when he died, what time he died, where, a picture (perhaps the mausoleum), etc... I have no clue how to make an infobox, so any help would be appreciated.--Activism1234 02:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

International Reaction to Death of Arafat

This area seems to be a little empty in the article. I find it a little difficult to believe that world leaders would have so little to say about a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize passing away in this way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.26.242 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sort of update on Polonium theory

Wired summary of The Lancet. Podiaebba (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new lead

How about this:

Yasser Arafat died on 11 November 2004. Arafat had been the President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) from 1996 and the long-time Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from 1968.

French doctors who attended Arafat in the private hospital where he died determined the cause of death as "a massive haemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident." The hospital report ruled out any type of conventional poison. Nonetheless, rumors persisted that Arafat had been assassinated, possibly by Israel and possibly by his Palestinian political opponents. Following an investigative report by Al Jazeera suggesting that Arafat had been poisoned by exposure to radioactive polonium - an exotic method used to assassinate Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 - the Palestinian Authority approved an autopsy of Arafat's body. A Swiss forensic team found levels of polonium that could be consistent with poisoning; other experts disputed the findings.

Allegations that Arafat was murdered continue to circulate today. Arafat's widow, Suha Arafat, has said she intends to demand a murder investigation, but so far no specifics have emerged.

What is the citation for "The hospital report ruled out any type of conventional poison"? According to the Lancet article (linked above), "Despite numerous toxicological and clinical investigations, the cause of his illness remained unknown. There was no evidence of infectious, vascular, or cancerous disease and the treatment had been symptomatic only.[1] Poisoning was considered but never confirmed by toxicological analyses." Dlv999 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

From the report from the French hospital (page 12):

On a toxicological level

At the HIA Percy, the blood test for barbiturates, benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants, salicylates, paracetamol and lithium proved negative. The test in the urine for barbiturates, benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants, opiates, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylene dioxymethamphetamine and methadone proved negative.

At the Institute de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale, samples of blood, urine, stools and cerebrospinal fluid were analysed. For xenobiotics, the results corresponded to the presence of the treatments taken by the patient (ciprofloxacin, propranolol, metoclopramide, lidocaine and amantadine). With regard to metals there was no difference found, for the elements tested, with the controls. The results of these tests have already been passed on to the patient’s wife.

At the radio-toxicological control laboratory of the Service de Protection Radiologique des Armées (SPRA) a test was conducted for contamination by radioelements. This test proved negative. The results are appended.

The multidisciplinary meetings and the examinations conducted did not suggest intoxication to explain the condition of the patient.

Ravpapa (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But I think here we are running into problems of interpretation of a primary source. The report doesn't say that "The hospital report ruled out any type of conventional poison". It says that the specific tests it carried out came back negative and that "the examinations conducted did not suggest intoxication to explain the condition of the patient."

I think the Lancet article (an expert secondary source) should be used to interpret the primary document. It states that: "Poisoning was considered but never confirmed by toxicological analyses." Dlv999 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes us look pretty ridiculous when a primary source is as comprehensive and as explicit and as available (generally published) as this, but instead of relying on that we rely on a secondary source that says something else. But whatever... Ravpapa (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the Lancet article that they can send me? It is behind a paywall and I can't read it. Tnx Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

On second reading, I take back what I wrote. All three statements:

• "The hospital report ruled out any type of conventional poison"
• "the examinations conducted did not suggest intoxication to explain the condition of the patient."
• "Poisoning was considered but never confirmed by toxicological analyses."

say exactly the same thing. The only difference between them is the spin: While the hospital statement is written to rule out any possibility of poisoning, the Lancet article, by putting the statement in the corollary, suggests doubt. Of course poisoning was not confirmed by toxicological analyses - it was not merely not confirmed, evidence showed that it was not the case.

but, as I wrote above, whatever...Ravpapa (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dlv999 is right. You cannot draw your own conclusions in the WP-article. Only explicit conclusions may be cited, which does not say that every conclusion should be cited. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Swiss: French Arafat conclusion ‘debatable’ (Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)).

Bias

This article is biased. There is scant mention of the most likely explanation of Arafat's death, namely, old age and natural causes (heart failure). All these conspiracy theories about poisoning do not present an objective or truthful picture of what really happened. Man katal (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of little tricks in this article that make it biased. Here is an example: The article cites a news report (The Sydney Morning Herald - presumably a reliable source) quoting the official French death report as saying Arafat died of "a mystery blood disorder". Yet the sentence before quotes the same official report as being very specific about the cause of death. Read the official report: it never says anything about a "mystery blood disorder". In this case, the Sydney Morning Herald, reliable or no, is proven definitively wrong. Should be continue quoting it just because it is a reliable source? There are a lot of things like that in the article, which give it an overall quality of propaganda, rather than accurate reporting. Ravpapa (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If you say the article is biased, you should challenge it point for point. Otherwise the template should be removed.

If a source, reliable or not, wrongly quotes a reliable source, it should definitely not be mentioned here. Of course the wrong citation can be in the source itself, or produced (intentionally or not) by the WP editor.

By the way, I did a major copyedit, but did not check all the content. Also I may have put together separate edits, which now may seem little tricks, but are not. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the following revision:

1. The lead: Let's go with the lead below. The lead as it stands is uninformative and misleading.
2. The story of his death: This is almost entirely gossip. At least two of the sources (footnote 13 and footnote 1) are dead links. Most of the other sources are not tertiary but quadrary: they are quoting people who are quoting other news sources. We should have a nice, tight factual account of his illness and death. We should rely mostly, and quote directly, from the published medical report. All this stuff about Suha bickering with the PNA officials, and Arafat's doctor's sour grapes about not being consulted, adds nothing and is on the verge of disrespectful.
3. Polonium poisoning: This should be the next section. Of all the various conspiracy theories, this has gained the most notability (if not credence), and should be covered at the level of detail currently in the article.
4. All the other theories should be rolled into one, rather short section. These theories (AIDS, Thallium, high-tech laser and so on) are mere rumors, some of them almost ludicrous, and do not add information or dignity to this article.

The truth is that, after a rewrite like this, which would remove the fluff, the rumor-mongering, and the borderline libellous, it is questionable whether there would be enough meat left to merit a separate article. However, knowing how the politics of Wikipedia works, I know it would be impossible to get consensus for deleting the article. So at least can we make it respectable. Ravpapa (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

p.S. I know where the "mystery blood disorder" came from. The BBC used the expression in the article on Arafat's funeral. The article was written a few days before Suha agreed to release the official French medical report for publication. But the "mysterious ailment" - which was now no longer a mystery - was picked up by others to fan the various conspiracy theories. Ravpapa (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• The lead is a stub, rather than misleading. The right order is first write the body, than the intro as summary.
• Athough I have not planned to workout this article, I agree with you. There is much rubbish, gathered before we got the facts. Should be summararized. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I would largely be agreeable with Ravpapa's suggestions with a few reservations. The medical report is a primary source, I don't think we should be basing our content directly to this source. Expert secondary sources that interpret the primary source for us would be better, such as the article published in The Lancet [8]. I also agree with Wickey-nl that the article and sourcing should be fixed first, then base the lead on the article. If you want to add a new lead now, I would use in-line citations to support any claim that could be challenged. Dlv999 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

While it appears that the article is biased, there was and remains some interest in the conspiracy theories related to his death. What is missing in those theories is the lack of support of the symptoms he suffered against the claimed poisoning methods and one rather bizarre laser nonsensical section that makes little sense. One read of the article on DIC shows that none of the proclaimed poisons would perform as what he experienced, indeed, DIC is conspicuously absent for all methods listed. But, that does not remove the interest in the theories, as there are large groups of people who do believe in the fantastic, rather than the more germane likelihood that he died of a simple infection. The only real improvement I could think of would be to either remove the laser nonsense or more properly write it up, as it's ill informed, linking lasers and technology as the same and overall makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What is known for certain is, he was old, he lived a rather, erm, eventful life, with the injuries associated with an interesting and eventful life and he suffered from GI complaints, mild liver failure and DIC. While that is strongly suggestive of an infection, no reliable source has provided the organism responsible. The only bias is that of the general regional and global interests moving the reliable source reporting toward a bias, but that still must be included to provide proper depth and considerations on his death.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unilateral changes by user Coreyemotela

User Coreyemotela has performed severak unilaterel changes without any approval. Alse he deleted agreed information and changed the word "moderately" by "reasonable" . Al Jazeera article uses clearly "moderately" Also statement were added that are not at all reflected in the articles cited.

Same user did similar changes unilaterally on the main oage with out going over the talk page 94.111.114.238 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Erm, *any* editor may make good faith edits without "approval". Consensus is desired, but for many, many edits, not required and is unnecessary. Indeed, of your claims, you cite a one word change, but didn't bother to provide the edit revision links, which are trivial and normally provided when someone objects to an edit or six (or more or less). I've also made edits to articles without going to the talk page, though I usually do, occasionally I do not due to time considerations and that thing we call real life. I'd suggest contacting the editor and having a calm discussion on the edits you object to and move forward from there. It's called collaboration and is what good editors do here.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

High tech laser section

First, the section is rather concept salad in nature. It leads with "high tech laser", which a laser is by nature, but is incapable of performing any injury consistent with his illness and death. It then moves into nanu-nanu land with 'Quiba also alleged that 16 countries had tested the blood of Arafat, and determined that Arafat was poisoned through "high technology."', which is an allegation that has a citation, but the magic laser becomes "high technology". Either there has to be clarification or a secondary source, as the citation is a paragraph on a news collation page, with one junior diplomat making unsourced claims. The section now stands as "evil technology magically murdered someone", with the claimed detained agents conspicuously absent from any reporting on this planet. I suggest deleting the section, save if other reliable sources also mention it, though not as a reblog of the original blurb. News sources are publish first, verify later or ignore it. We are verify first, second and third.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cause of Yasser Arafat's death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070404023909/http://www.despardes.com:80/oscartango/111704.html to http://www.despardes.com/oscartango/111704.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130118203653/http://www.chuv.ch/ira/ira_home/actu-xml-list/actueve_detail.htm?id=3278 to http://www.chuv.ch/ira/ira_home/actu-xml-list/actueve_detail.htm?id=3278

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

new articles from CHUV

I added the decision of the court of appeal end June 2016.

Also two links to CHUV documents with some new explanations and that the conclusions of CHUV are not a real proof of poisoning. They now mention Bayes analysis, a term not mentionned in their first report.

What to do with the link to Luis Lema's article? It is complete nonsense with his 5 on 6 that has never been concluded and CHUV confirms they "these results do not then define the probability to which Yasser Arafat would have been poisoned by polonium". The article is a complete stub and I propose to delete the link here and also in the main Arafat article. 94.111.186.50 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Some small corrections also by 94.111.186.50 (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)