Talk:Ariel Sharon

Talk:Ariel Sharon/Archive 1 (threads undated or inactive through 2004)

First Paragraph

It is saddening to see what is happening with the first paragraph of this article, as it may be a sign of what bad things can happen with Wikipedia once it reaches a large-enough audiance - repeated useless editings that don't improve anything and just modify for the sake of modification, resulting in a slow drift into utter crap.

A few months ago, there were edit wars about the first paragraph. Some people made it say "Sharon is a war hero" and other made it say "Sharon is a war criminal", with the two camps constantly replacing the other camp's agenda by their own. The obvious solution was to do what I did: say that Sharon is regarded as a war hero by a majority of Israelis (the word "majority" I used here was proved when he was voted into office using this reputation), but he is regarded otherwise by other Israelis (some of those who voted against him) and by many other people around the world. The first paragraph as I wrote it was:

Sharon is highly controversial figure in and outside Israel. Many Israelis view him as a war hero, who helped defend the country in some of its greatest struggles, and as such he was voted into office. However, a significant number of Israelis, as well as much of the rest of the world, consider some of his actions to have been war crimes, and feel that his recent actions have been damaging the peace process. Most infamous were his actions during the 1982 Lebanon War (see below).

Now we have:

Sharon is a highly controversial figure in and outside Israel. Many Israelis view him as a war hero, and at present as a strong ruler determined to fight terrorism. However, a number of Israelis, as well as much of the Arab world, and certain other countires consider some of his past actions to have been war crimes, and feel that his recent actions have been damaging to the peace process. Most infamous were his actions as Defense Minister during the 1982 Lebanon War (see below).

Look at this, and at what we have today, and tell me if the slow drift did any good to this first paragraph. "Randomly" removing sentences that certain people didn't like for some reason, and at other times adding other sentences that certain people thought were "missing". I'm not saying the current version is bad - it is certainly better than the edit wars we used to have over this paragraph (which proves that my decision to write it like I did was correct) - but it makes me wonder about the continued quality of wikipedia in the future. Nyh 12:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

And the drift continues.... Now, two months later, we have:

Sharon is a highly controversial figure both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Thus many Israelis, a significant number of Jews worldwide and many foreign observers regard Sharon as a war hero and a strong leader in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, a number of Israelis and foreign observers believe that his recent efforts have been damaging to the peace process. Sharon's most stringent critics have in the past sought his prosecution as a war criminal, on the grounds of his actions as Israeli Defense Minister during 1982 Lebanon War.

Yes, it's different all right, but better? I don't think so, and I wonder who does. Let's bet that it will drift some more when I sample it again in two more months... 16:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Continuing to document the drift, 3 months later:

Sharon is a controversial figure both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Many Israelis, a significant number of Jews worldwide and many foreign observers regard Sharon as a war hero and a strong leader in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, a number of Israelis and foreign observers believe that his recent efforts have been damaging to the peace process. Sharon's supporters have described him as "a hero", "practical man", while his critics have called him a "terrorist", "lout", "sissy", and "spoiled parvenu" and sought his prosecution as a war criminal for his actions as Israeli Defense Minister during the 1982 Lebanon War. Still others have described him as a "de facto dove", and American President George W. Bush has described him as a "duly elected official in a democracy" and a "man of peace".

Oh well. I'm not saying this version is worse - the point I'm trying to make is this: this paragraph doesn't stop transforming. And it might never stop.

Nyh 08:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ten more months have passed, and it's time for another snapshot. This time, the entire paragraph that I added over a year ago and mutated so much since, has been deleted by User:Amirpedia on July 12th, and nobody restored it since. What will happen now is pretty obvious - someone will add a sentence "Sharon is a war criminal", someone else will change it to a "war hero", someone will come along and write a paragraph to please them both, and a year later someone will simply delete that paragraph. And the cycle continues, ad nauseam.

The pagraph in question, just before it was deleted, had already mutated into the following form:

Sharon is a controversial figure, both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Many Israelis and supporters of Israel regard Sharon as a strong leader battling terrorism. Conversely, most Arabs and supporters of the Arab-Palestinian cause and some other critics refer to him as "the Butcher of Beirut" and have sought his prosecution as a war criminal.

WHO'S CALL?!?!

Is it by this justifaction of one person that we ALL should be unable to type information about the Prime Minister? I think it it strange to have disabled us from adding and 'tweeking' information because of an opinion. It's weak.

Nyh 13:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC) .

A terrorist if there ever was one

I think pages like this (there are many others, especially with regards to Israel/Jews/WWII) clearly prove there is no such thing as NPOV, even on the internet.

The Jewish POV is EXCLUSIVELY present on every page dealing with them or aspects of their history, and any alternate viewpoint is given half assed and disputed if it is given at all.

The hysteria over "anti-semitism" and the Holohoax provides the Jew with a stick to beat the rest of the world into submission with.

It legitimises the bandit state of Israel and places the Jew on a moral pedestal so that no matter what crimes he may commit his position is unassailable.

Jesus Christ, the world needs to wake up and stop putting up with this ridiculous double standard!

Sharon was a terrorist. I don't care if he's the prime minister of Israel now, it doesn't change history. It should be there in black and white. He's worse than Arafat, worse than Saddam and even worse than Osama Bin Laden. Why do you think the Israelies elected him? Because he was a famous arab-killer! Unsigned by User: Merrick.

And your point is... JFW | T@lk 21:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My point is you may as well change NPOV to JPOV (Jewish POV) in regards to Holocaust/Palestinian related pages, because that's what these pages are. Unsigned by User: Merrick.

Merrick, you are free to change the POV as you see fit. Your litany above does little for your cause. If you can find a way to express "Holo-hoax" and "arab-killer" in POV-neutral terms they may even end up not being reverted. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not touching this one. I'm sure jpmorgan would revert it anyway, he seems to have issues with the truth.

I've got this nagging feeling that many people have issues with your truth. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting... someone calling Israel a "bandit state" and complaining about NPOV in the same post... at any rate, all the above NPOV discussions have been either resolved, or let go over 3 weeks ago; why is the POV warning still there? TheProject 07:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because your view is extremely NPOV as one can easily see, with such non-biased, non-inflammatory comments as "Why do you think the Israelies elected him? Because he was a famous arab-killer!" and "bandit state." If there is an anti-semite here, it's most certainly you.

Sharon's provocative visit to Temple Mount

First of, I've found lots of sources claiming that the Al-Aqsa intifada was "ignited" or "sparked" by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, many fewer that claims it was "started" by it. Second, Israel may very well have claimed that "the Al-Aqsa Intifada was engineered by Yasser Arafat as a leverage tool," but the source offered; [1] (a cite by Yassir Arafat in which he "warns of new intifada" from 1998) does not back up what the article states. Palestine-info 16:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Ignited" and "sparked" are inflammatory language, if you'll pardon the pun. "Started" certainly provides the same meaning in a NPOV way. As for the second issue, I've re-worded the language so the problem no longer exists, and found other references as well. Finally, you have failed to discuss your continued attempts to insert a nearly anonymous opinion piece that deals mostly with other topics in a non-contested area of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, wrongo. Ignited and sparked are 'not' identical in meaning to started. "A started B" implies that A is the primary cause of B. "A ignited or sparked B" implies that A was among many causes of B, and probably some other cause C was the primary cause. There is a clear difference in 'substance' here, not just in verbiage. --Kasreyn

Why do you believe "ignited" and "sparked" is inflammatory language? "Started" suggests that it was Sharon's visit alone that was the cause of the intifada. Most Palestinian sources that deal with Sharon's visit to Temple Mount explains that the climate was ripe for a second intifada and that Sharon's provocation was the event that sparked it. As for the second issue, your use of selective quoting to prove that the Palestinians started the intifada is not good. Neither are they relevant to this article which deals with Sharon, not the Al-Aqsa intifada. Better would be if you would like to provide a source for this sentence "Israel claimed instead that the Al-Aqsa Intifada was engineered by Arafat as a leverage tool." And you have to clarify which "nearly anonymous opinion piece" which I have attempted to insert. Palestine-info 18:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My google search found that "sparked" was by far the most commonly used term, and "ignited" the least commonly used term. I've changed it to "sparked". Regarding your second objection, I've re-worded and brought sources for all claims. Regarding the third, you keep trying to insert a link to an off-topic and nearly anonymous opinion piece. I don't have to tell you which one, since you keep inserting it. Please do not use the Talk: pages to play games. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disengagement Plan Quotation

It is also saddening to see a bias author who continues to remove the part that quoted Sharon's top aid saying the purpose of disangagement was to destroy Palestinian aspirations for years to come. There is no need to protect Sharon that he is, or is not a war criminal. If the reader hates Palestinians or is "anti-semetic" against Arab's, it is clear that Sharon, being the Butcher of Beirut is a great man- a hero! But if you are sympathetic to little girls and boys being murdered at the hands of this piece of pork you will have pleasure reading that there is an honest voice. Eternalsleeper

This article is about Sharon, not the disengagement plan. You comments, if they can be verified with a reliable source, belong in the article about the disengagement plan. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've studied the quotation and the source, and considering the source of the comments, it seems a very valid discussion of Sharon's policies and motives. That is not to say, however, that a separate article on the Disengagement Plan should not be pursued. In any case, I expanded the quotation an dated it, and moved it to the latter part of the career section to address concerns relevancy and flow. --A. S. A. 15:41, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

It belongs in an article about the Disengagement Plan, not a biography of Sharon; if Sharon said this it would belong here. It was certainly not relevant where it was placed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Disengagement Plan is a major policy brainchild of Sharon's, and such insightful comments from such a top aide are extremely pertinent to criticism and and analysis of Sharone's peacemaking activities, and therefore most certainly belong in his biography. Furthermore the quotation is meticulously dated, sourced and hyper-linked. I don't see how anyone opposing the inclusion of this material would have a leg to stand on, should it end up in dispute resolution. It's so strikingly relevant!--A. S. A. 10:59, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

There are all sorts of objections to and suspicions of the Disengagement Plan, and they are outlined in the lengthy article on the topic, Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2004. I've moved the relevant information about the plan into that article, where it is indeed strikingly relevant. I've also cleaned up some of the mis-spellings, and put in some of the missing hyperlinks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quote is pertinent because it mirrors what quite a lot of people around the world thinks about Sharon's "disengagement plan." Palestine-info 16:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that? Anyway, it's pertinent in the article on the plan, not the article on Sharon. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You cannot delete this instance of legitimate analysis of Sharon's motives and policies just because there is a separate article on the Disengagement plan. The mention of the Plan in the Sharon biography is brief and only extends insofar as showing reasons for distrust of his perceived double-dealing and an analysis of his motives. It's great to link to the plan, which I have maintained, but to cut out his aid's quotation, which so clearly corroborates his critics' concerns regarding motivation and double dealing, is unjustified.--A. S. A. 16:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

There are all sorts of legitimate quotes, both for and against this plan, and lots of other commentary as well, which is why it was included in a sub-article detailing this information. The reason for having sub-articles is to avoid the bloat in other articles. This is a biography of Sharon, not an in depth analysis of his plan, nor of what his various aides or political allies and foes said about it. Including one particular negative view of the plan in this article, while putting all other views (both positive and negative) in a sub-article, is biased and unjustified. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a brief mention, which adequately crystalizes one of the most repeated Arab criticisms of Sharon, that of double dealing and actively trying to hinder a Palestinian State, and in no way encumbers the article with an off-topic "in depth analysis." Furthermore, the reference is an analysis of Sharon and his motives, not a biased negative-only view of the Disengagement Plan itself. By all means if you think there is another positive way of looking at this quotation, include it. Your wholesale deletion is unwarranted. If we simply cannot agree on this point, I will begin Dispute Resolution, and start to limit my reverts to once daily, except for minor wiki corrections and additions--A. S. A. 17:14, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

The quote is about his aide's view of the plan, not Sharon's, and it only provides one particular (negative) view of the plan (which you claim is the "most repeated Arab criticism of Sharon"), not the full range of positive and negative views (of which there are many). I've already begun Dispute Resolution, by putting our debate up for RfC. You'll find my request for help at WP:RfC. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We have reached an impasse. My position is explained above. I will now revert only once daily until the outcome. Post Script: I failed to find any other spelling and links errors that you mentioned in the edit summary, please specify them for me, thanks.--A. S. A. 17:26, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I prefer to leave them in there as an example of the dangers of blind reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's extraordinary. And most unfortunate. Wikipedians are supposed to collaborate on improving all aspects of an article. That you should respond thus to an honest and polite request for assistance is very disappointing. What's more, since I asked for your help with correcting errors that you are fond of mentioning (without being specific), proves I am not engaging in blind reverts.--A. S. A. 19:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, my next edit will fix all the problems. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it.--A. S. A. 20:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with Jayjg's edit, for the most part. I don't mind if the actual quotation is removed, since the paraphrased meaning is briefly mentioned, as well as the implied criticism of motives and such. I did have one proviso I wanted to include, however. For the uninitiated, reading "he has embarked an a risky course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip" might sound as if full control of the territory would devolve to the Palestinians, with sovereignty etc. I propose to add "while maintaining control of its borders and airspace, and reserving the option of military incursions" or a something similarly brief, to clarify the fact that Israel would still hold the territory, despite pulling out settlers and a full military garrison, until a final settlement is reached with the Palestinians. To prevent escalations of reverts of a controversial paragraph, I thought we could discuss it first before I added the sentence. Opinions?

"while maintaining control of its borders and airspace," should be enough; military incursion is an option for any country at any time. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very well, since there were no other opinions, I went ahead and reworded the paragraph moderately. In addition to adding the borders and airspace proviso, I also decided that since the right wing's "security, military and religious grounds" of objection to the Plan were mentioned, I balanced that with the reasons why the other side supported the Plan, as a step towards ending the occupation and a final peace.--A. S. A. 13:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

"all Palestinian territories" is inaccurate on any number of grounds, and pre-decides the outcome of any future peace process. I've re-worded for NPOV and accuracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good edit, Aladdin. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"large segments of the Israeli public"

Palestine-info, why do you think the disengagement plan is opposed by "large segments of the Israeli public"? Which segments are these, and how large are they? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These segments are liberal and conservative-leaning Jewish citizens of Israel. How many they are, I don't know but they are loud and arranges lots of demonstrations. Polls conducted show that they are very many. And they can't all be "right-wing." Palestine-info 04:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please bring evidence for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although this requires more research for a definitive assessment of the relative sizes of the pro and con camps (of the Disengagement), the impression I got from international news coverage was that a moderate majority of Israelis support the withdrawal, and settler activists and their sympathizers have been leading the opposition. While vocal, I would not call them a majority. I have no polls to cite; as I said it requires more research to say definitively. I suggest that for the contested phrase, polls and/or noteworthy news sources be found, cited and incorporated into the article.--A. S. A. 20:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Support for the Gaza disengagement plan remains broad at 59%." [2] "A solid majority of the Israeli public - and among Likud voters - supports Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, according to a Haaretz poll conducted by Dialog under the supervision of Chamille Fuchs. Some 61 percent expressed support for the plan even after the death of Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat." [3] "According to the latest opinion polls published by Israeli newspapers, the majority of Israeli citizens support the disengagement plan, 66% in an Ha'aretz poll published in July, 58% in a Yediot Aharonot poll published in mid September." [4] Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems solid to me, and in line with what I recall of international news commentary. Palestine-info, I hope in light of this, you will concede this point.--A. S. A. 21:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

These are roughly the numbers I've read too. It means that 30-40% opposes the plan. That is a "large segment of the Israeli public." Palestine-info 03:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well you won't be factually incorrect if you say 30-40% oppose, and reference the above polls and stats. It's sounds better than "large segments of the Israeli public" which might suggest a majority. My concern is for brevity and flow.--A. S. A. 07:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, one can't assume that 30-40% oppose the plan; it all depends on what percentage say "don't know" or refuse to answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The articles citing the polls are very biased and they do not even mention what question was asked. Neither do they mention if their statistics include the "don't know" category. You get more clues that tell you that the support can't be overwhelming when you read about 150,000+ demonstrations against it. Or that "49% view the threat of a civil war in Israel ensuing from the plan’s implementation as high" [ http://www.jewishtoronto.net/content_display.html?ArticleID=142079] Or "50% for disengagement plan" [5]. Knowing all this, I think we can assume that the plan does not have an absolute majority behind it and that something like 25-50% of the Israeli population opposes it. And as I said, they can't all be right-wing. Palestine-info 11:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, we can't really assume anything, and especially not based on your understanding of the situation, when your edits are consistently and inevitably only for the purpose of Palestinian advocacy. Also, you keep forgetting that you should propose changes in Talk: first before trying to bully them into the article. And finally, you keep forgetting that this is a biography of Sharon, not a discussion of the disengagement plan; the nuances of the plan should be discussed in the article on the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And you should not forget that the purpouse of this talk page is to discuss changes to an article named "Ariel Sharon," not to discuss my persona. You are right that the nuances of the plan should be discussed in the article on that topic, but that doesn't mean that the information presented in this article should be faulty. Palestine-info 20:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And you should not forget the the purpose of this Talk: page is to get consensus for the changes you wish to make, rather than trying to force them on the page. The information presented here is correct, and you are yet again trying to turn a biography into something else. Please remember this is a biography of Sharon, not a discussion of the disengagement plan. As it is the paragraph is too long. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems like your criticism has changed from "cite your sources" then "you are incorrect" to now "the paragraph is to verbose." The text listed what different groups thinks about Sharon's disengagement plan, but omits what Israeli citizens think about the plan which is arguably the most important group in question. I believe we are close to a consensus, but I'll wait to hear what A.S.A thinks. Palestine-info 06:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All three objections have been used, and all three are still valid. You have never cited any sources, you are incorrect, and the paragraph is already too verbose, and you keep trying to make that worse. As for what Israeli citizens think of the plan, please recall (as I keep reminding you) that this is a biography of Sharon, not a detailed discussion of the plan itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are a plethora of right-wing parties in the Kenesset that do not support the Disengagement. In my opinion, we ought to mention only the prime minister's own party's bitter opposition (since this is his biography) and leave out "other MK's", which after all come under "right wing Israelis." As for the following contested sentence: "The Israeli public is currently divided on the question of disengagement with the part favouring disengagement having a slight lead over those that opposes it. Call have been made both from within the knesset and from grassroot organisations to hold a national referendum over this question which they feel is very important to the future of Israel." My vote would be to drop it. Besides it being grammatically cumbersome, I believe it delves too much into the nuances of the Disengagement Plan without being directly pertinent to the Sharon biography. I did some trimming to shorten the paragraph as well. Mentioning George Bush and Javier Solana seems verbose, I shortened it to the US and EU. I also reverted anon user 69.86.1.73's change of "involvement in" to "found indirectly respoponsible for" because the section on Sabra and Shatila is self-contained and the change, especially in quotation marks, is confusing. Palestine-info, if it were not for you, there would be no mention of the Dov Weisglass controversy at all. It is an invaluable measure of Sharon's alleged secret motives. Nevertheless, I am grateful that through compromise and consensus, it was trimmed down and the full details transferred to the Disengagement article. Perhaps you can look at this analysis of the Israeli public opposition in the same light. Let's keep it trim here in the Sharon Biography and move deeper analysis to the sub-article.--A. S. A. 07:25, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with AlladinSE's latest changes (even though he has reverted some of my changes as well). As I've repeated in a number of commments, this biography of Sharon is too verbose as it is, focussing too much on details which are already better covered in other articles. AlladinSE is also correct that though there are a number of parties opposing the plan, they are all right-wing parties. My only concern at this point is regarding the "bitter" opposition; I find these kinds of descriptors to be POV by their very nature. As well, the latest opinion polls have 60% of Likud supporters supporting the plan, almost identical to the support levels for Israelis as a whole. It is those to the right of Likud who oppose it at much higher percentages. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that the use of the word is intrinsically POV. I watched the Likud party HQ meeting on TV when the Plan was being discussed. There were angry shouts and scuffles, and the PM was handed an embarrassing defeat from his own party. I would describe what happened as very bitter indeed. Nevertheless, I was unaware that a majority of Likud have shifted to favour the Plan. I understood that since the time they voted it down (and Sharon proceeded anyway) that a majority still opposed it. If support is now really at 60%, then I will drop my attachment to the "bitter" adjective, or propose a change a long the lines of "However, it has been greeted, at least initially, with bitter opposition from within his own Likud party."--A. S. A. 21:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

As of January 2005 "The broad support for the disengagement plan—59%—remains unchanged, and a segmentation of the rates of support and opposition by voting for the large parties also indicates great stability. The rates of support come to 89% among Labor voters, 84% for Shinui, 78% for Meretz (Yahad), and 60% for Likud, while the corresponding rate for Mafdal (the National Religious Party) is 20%, for Shas 7%, and for the National Union 0%." [6] Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ASA, before you make statements like they voted it down (and Sharon proceeded anyway) that a majority still opposed it, please try to learn what you are talking about, Sharon didn't just "proceed anyways", he presented a modified method, then the knesset voted again which passed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes Section

Why have the quotations been removed and only the Wikiquote link preserved? From what I have read on Wikipedia, most articles with quotations keep them after they have been teranswikified, and place the wikiquote template in the quotations section. I wish to return the quotations section to the article and maintain the wikiquote link. Is this forbidden by Wikipedia? Please advise.--A. S. A. 23:02, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that general quotations should all be transwikied to Wikiquotes. Quotations which are actually used in the body of the article should be maintained in the article itself. Wikiquotes is a sister project of Wikipedia set up to hold quotes, there is no point in duplicating the information in both places when Wikipedia has a specific repository for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A pity. A contiguous article with a Quotes section rather than a link appears more seemly somehow. Oh well. If this policy is to be uniform, there's a great many articles in Wikipedia in need of this surgery. --A. S. A. 00:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I've done a couple, and hope to do one or two articles a week. In practice I've usually seen it done more often when an article is quite large, as an easy fix to bring the size down, but I've seen it done for small articles as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed and why

I have been reviewing the articles of controversial political figures on Wikipedia and have seen some excellent work that fulfills Wikipedia's neutrality objective. This article is not one of them.

Calling the Prime Minister of Israel "the butcher of Beirut" is more English tabloid than American encyclopedia, can we have a middle east expert without bias (OK, maybe that's a tall order) have a look at the Sharon article. It is quite outrageous in places.

Lagavulin 23:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I for one would not oppose the removal of that reference unless whomever wanted to retain it provided a source. I'll google it now and see if there are any matches. If not, I'll remove the reference and the tag. If there is a source, I'll add it and remove the tag. At any rate, thanks Lagavulin for sharing your concerns in Talk. Too many editors seem content to just leave those tags without any effort to reach consensus. --AladdinSE 00:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess my concern is that it is possible to ascribe horrible nicknames to any prominent figure. And saying "some say" or "it is alleged" or whatever doesn't really change the fact that it is unencyclopedic. I personally believe what happened in Lebanon in 1982 or whenever was disgraceful and unjustified but it doesn't mean I should be able to label him a butcher in an aricle required to be neutral. Lagavulin 00:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just added two sources, (and removed the tag) and I think you'll agree that they're big wigs. The BBC and the New Yorker Magazine. But you're partially right you know, it does seem to have a British tabloid feel to it, one of the links that came up was the Daily Mirror! Not to mention a whole lot of highly partisan blogs. But I think the epithet is referenced by enough reputable sources to allow it to stand the way it is, i.e. clearly stating that he is a controversial figure, and has been and is called this by the whole Arab world and then some. Do you think this is sufficient, or are you of a mind to introduce an RFC on the matter? --AladdinSE 00:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Saying there are sources to describe him as a "butcher" does not cut it, I'm sorry. I don't care if his wife called him the Butcher of Beirut. It doesn't mean anything. It's just an emotive label used by political opponents. If you do a Google search on "miserable failure" you will come up with George W Bush. Now I find that very funny as it happens but does it mean it's legitimate to assert Bush is a "miserable failure"? No. It's just some crafty bloggers and a valueless opinion. I couldn't imagine a less encyclopedic entry than this whole article. So please don't remove the tag, there are serious factual errors and major bias going on here. Not sure what a RFC is but if it can bring in neutral writers that would be great. Lagavulin 00:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree on general principal. If a nickname is prominent enough (and I can't say whether or not this one in particular is) then it should be included. See Josef Mengele (Angel of Death), Kenneth Bianchi (Hillside Strangler), Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash (Mrs. Anthrax) all clearly unflattering names, but also clearly relevant in their articles. --CVaneg 03:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised you returned the tag despite the sources. Remember, the article is not labeling him this way, only reporting that the epithet is widely used, and by whom, with sources. Also, your parallel to Bush does not apply. The Butcher of Beirut derived out of severe and specified battles and massacres. This is not to say that he is guilty beyond doubt, but the phrase is certainly an indication of one POV, which is presented alongside the opposing POV, that of the war hero. That's the Wikipedia NPOV way, present both sides. I will not remove the tag as long as fresh ideas are being discussed. As for the RFC, I wiki linked it earlier so you can read about it if you are unfamiliar. Also, please list all your concerns besides this one, but please read all the earlier Talk discussions, as much of your concerns might have already been thrashed out previously. You may find you agree with the consensus. --AladdinSE 00:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mean to surprise. I understand the source of the term. I reject its use in any form in an encyclopedia article that aspires above all else to be neutral. And you know he probably was guilty of what happened in Lebanon but that doesn't justify the use of such emotive terms. I understand and welcome your comments about having both POV's but the viewpoint asserting Sharon did the wrong thing in Lebanon can be put much less emotively than calling him a "butcher." Will read up on the RFC thing and will start writing a (lengthy) list of the issues with this article. Thanks for dealing with me patiently. Lagavulin 01:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lagavulin, I think I understand your concern, but it is entirely misdirected here. The article does not call Sharon the “Butcher of Beirut,” it merely reports that he is called that by a wide swath of critics and detractors, specifically in a controversial and non-universal sense. We can no more censor this information than we can remove all reference to "Ivan the Terrible" from the article about Tsar Ivan IV of Russia. CVaneg's examples above are also good examples. I look forward to your list, and I hope you compile it after you read previous Talk sections because they dealt extensively with issues of NPOV. If it takes a long time to compile, I hope you will not insist on the Tag while we wait for it. --AladdinSE 03:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The whole reason this un-encyclopedic insult is in the article is because User:Alberuni kept trying to find epithets to described Sharon. He started with "terrorist", and after a number of battles was finally able to push "Butcher of Beirut" into the article. As I've pointed out earlier, these labels are silly and subjective; if we're going for "Butcher of" designations then we should add all of them to Wikipedia. We would have to describe King Léopold II as the "The Butcher of Congo" [7] and Sani Abacha as "The Butcher of Lagos" [8] and Hosni Mubarak as "The Butcher of Cairo" [9][10] and Hafez al-Assad as "The Butcher of Damascus" [11] and Idi Amin as "The Butcher of Uganda" [12] and Shamil Basayev as "The Butcher of Beslan" [13] etc. And then there's Tommy Franks as "The Butcher of Basra" [14] [15] - oops, there's a conflict there, Norman Schwarzkopf is also "The Butcher of Basra" [16]. Can two people be the Butcher of one place? Of course, we'd have a bit of a problem with Sharon too, as "The Butcher of Beirut" is also "The Butcher of Sabra and Chatila" [17] - can you be a double "The Butcher of"? And what a mess we have with Slobodan Milosevic - is he "The Butcher of the Balkans" [18] or is it "The Butcher of Belgrade" [19]? But not only is Milosevic a double "The Butcher of", but apparently Wesley Clark is the real "The Butcher of Belgrade" [20], and Ante Pavelic is the real "The Butcher of the Balkans" [21]- or is it Bill Clinton [22]? And of course George Bush Sr. is the "Butcher of Beirut"! [23], as is Saddam Hussein [24]. For people who are primarily (and more famously known) for specific deeds (e.g. Hillside Strangler), these kinds of epithets make sense. For well-known political leaders with a list of activities stretching back decades, they do not. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are very funny Jayjg but make a serious point. Butcher may be justified in loose chitchat but it isn't acceptable in any encyclopedia article. As questionable as Sharon's role in Lebanon was and it is appropriate to record what happened in Lebanon and Sharon's role in it, it is not necessary to tag him butcher or bastard or barbarian or whatever else would spring to mind if we were talking about it over my favorite drink.

Can someone delete this, I find much more in the article that is equally unencyclopedic. Sharon is obviously terribly controversial but pouring unmeasured scorn on him makes a real and critical (in its true sense) evaluation of him in the article impossible. Wikipedia - as I have said a few times - is growing in stature all the time. Let's accept the responsibility that imposes and get rid of the hyperbole and hatred even from contentious articles such as this one. Lagavulin 20:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS I'm still working on the list of problems for you to consider.

Jayjg, you can mention all those epithets in all of those articles if the term is used by a significant number of people and reported as such by a significant number of Media. As long as, like this article, it is clear that we are only reporting what is said and not the article itself that is describing them thus. This article mentioned the usage of the phrase while specifically denoting it's controversial nature. The invasion of Lebanon and the Sabra and Shitila massacres were bloody affairs, it's not a stretch that an emotive phrase like that will develop from the other side. The reference is sourced and presented neutrally, so unless somebody has something new to add not already covered in Talk, my inclination is to move on. This was the result of consensus after all, and much improved over what was originally proposed, as we can see by Jayjg's account. --AladdinSE 03:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, I'm sorry but just because you can find a signifigant group of people that refer to someone using a epitat does not mean it should be in the encyclopedia. Why don't we refer to Sharon as a "Kyke", I could probably find quite a bit of literature and references that people indeed do refer to him as a kyke. No matter what info you provide that the epitat is not universal, it shopuild still not be there.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, that would be "epithet".  ;) -Kasreyn

Thanks, I recently have become a very poor speller

More questions/problems with the article

Among others:

• What exactly was Sharon's political career prior to 1977? The first parts of the article claim he was a right-winger, joining Likud in 1973, while the section on politics claims he didn't join with Likud until 1977, and actually courted left-wing parties early on. How to reconcile these?
• Is there a reference for his dismissal in 1974? In particular, for it being due to his political views?
• The end section strongly takes the viewpoint that Sharon is a right-winger withdrawing from Gaza as a political ploy. While this is a view people hold, it is definitely only one of two views—most Israeli right-wingers actually oppose his withdrawal plan, and some have even called him a traitor for it. The article should reflect that better

--Delirium 09:55, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

All of these are excellent points, and can be attended to without the need for the tag. I would volunteer to research them myself but for the next week at least, it's all I can do to make time to keep track of the other articles and Talk discussions. If no one has done it by April 20th, I will start researching these important holes and discrepancies. --AladdinSE 04:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Internet hoax quote

I've removed the internet hoax quote that Yuber inserted as a WP:POINT. The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. See [25] [26] As well, inserting the hoax quote at the top of the article, as opposed to the bottom, where quotes normally goes, shows shocking bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I added a few more quotes, please tell me if I'm showing bad faith as I value what you think.Yuber^(talk) 23:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course you're acting in bad faith; you've gone to a particularly nasty site, and found a serious of dubious "quotes" from various senior Israelis figures intended to make them look bad. It's good evidence, though, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah right, but when you add a dubious quote from Moshe Gil that is editing in "good faith". Your double-standards are amazing, since most of these quotes are from israeli/american sources.Yuber^(talk) 04:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you know what the phrase "double standard" means. Moshe Gil is a well-respected historion; the websites you've brought are crap. As well, the first of the two quotes you added was another well-known hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Kos Yisrael radio is a hoax now?Yuber^(talk) 04:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If he had actually said it there, then no. But since he didn't, that makes it a hoax. In fact, it was invented by a pro-Hamas organization: [27] Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page so that this hoax business can be sorted out without anyone being blocked for 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The run and grab it one. Polly Toynbee quoted him in the Guardian. I think that's generally accepted as a "reputable source", isn't it? I couldn't find the original Guardian article but here it is reprinted on Common Dreams [28] Grace Note 06:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The Toynbee article Can you unprotect the page now please so that we can include this appropriately sourced quote? Grace Note 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a real quote which is already found in Wikiquote, where it belongs, and which is linked to from here. That's what Wikiquote is for, a place to store those long lists of quotes which used to be found at the bottoms of articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, appropriately sourced, but inappropriately placed, as I made quite clear in my edit comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so when this article is unprotected you will not mind that I put in a sentence in an appropriate place saying that Sharon has expressed a desire to grab as much land as possible, perhaps in the bit about how he has worked to wreck the peace process, and using this as my source? Grace Note 06:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Please try to remember, this is a brief article outlining the man's entire life. And it hardly seems relevant now, since his policies have changed; rather, it seems like an attempt to push a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have quotes that you can source appropriately that show that he has changed this position? The POV that I am "pushing" is that Sharon has supported a landgrab by the settlers, which is not consonant with the "roadmap" or any other approach to peace that involves Palestinian autonomy in the disputed territories. It's a key issue about Sharon, Jay. His position on the settlements is much discussed -- in connection both with the Gaza pullout and with the West Bank. I'm not suggesting we include our own analysis of it, of course, but I think that trying to exclude mention of his views on the settlements is a bit fishy. Grace Note 23:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, the fact that he now supports removing all settlers from the Gaza Strip despite fierce opposition from within his own party would indicate that he no longer holds this position. The settler movement now considers him to be a traitor. If you feel the you need to promote his earlier views, you need to balance them with his current views. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that his change of position over Gaza shows that he has changed his mind. It's just a tactical thing, Jay. I think it's reasonably clear that he feels that he can sacrifice Gaza to hang on to more of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem. He understands that by giving some he can paint the Palestinians as the incalcitrant party in negotiations. Hey, we gave them Gaza but they still won't give up their claim on Jerusalem. That kind of thing. But having said that (which I wouldn't want included unless it is sourced, of course, I don't expect my personal analysis of Sharon's motives to be any part of our article), I don't see why one wouldn't include that as a counterargument. If you can find him saying that he's changed his mind about grabbing land, you could include that. If you can find a reputable source who claims that Gaza represents a change of heart across the board, you could include that. The whole issue is certainly interesting. It poses a lot of questions that are not simply answered. It certainly shouldn't be ignored though, and that particular quote is taken to be indicative of Sharon's general attitude to the settlers, who he has generally encouraged, I think you'd have to agree. Grace Note 04:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, your political analysis is interesting; I personally think he is trying to make peace. In any event, it's not that relevant. You may also believe that he still supports the settlers, but they certainly don't any more. In fact, they believe the opposite, and have for a couple of years:[29] [30] [31] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

kof. [32]. It's not my analysis, Jay. "However, Mr Sharon regards the annexation of Maale Adumim as Israel’s reward for pulling out of the Gaza Strip — and he also wants other blocs, such as Gush Etzion and Ariel. Each holds more Jewish settlers than the Gaza outposts put together." [33] [34] "The settlement blocs, however, "will be a part of the State of Israel, territorially connected to Israel, and with a much larger population than there is today."" It seems Mr Sharon shares my view of his ideas. Grace Note 00:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

No, this is your political analysis He understands that by giving some he can paint the Palestinians as the incalcitrant party in negotiations. Hey, we gave them Gaza but they still won't give up their claim on Jerusalem. That kind of thing. And negotiation always involves give and take, there's nothing nefarious about that; did you imagine it would just be all give by one side? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course I don't, Jay. The Palestinians have already given 78% of what they claimed. Gaza is not much to gain for surrendering any hope of a contiguous, viable state. Grace Note 04:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How would giving up Maale Adumim and other Jerusalem suburbs mean "surrendering any hope of a contiguous, viable state"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, I believe it is factually imprecise that the Palestinians do not have any claims for the sovereign territories of Israel. These claims and Israeli demands in the West Bank are still under negotiation and are in fact, next to Jerusalem, probably the toughest issues. It is very early to discuss what an Arab Palestinian state will look like, if and mostly when established. Also, this is not so much the place for such discussions, but rather the place to discuss Ariel Sharon. I understand and share your concerns. The situation is rather worrisome for all people in the area and beyond. gidonb 18:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of quotes

The removal of quotes by Jayjg is disturbing. He has done this to every Israeli politician article I have added quotes to, and has called it "vandalism" even when it comes out of Israeli/American sources. Maybe he should try to accept that Israeli politicians aren't perfect angels and that they do say some offensive things. Thank God for secular Jews/leftist and moderate Israelis, or else any quote I would cite from an Arab source would be considered a hoax or a "hate site".Yuber^(talk) 13:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was your addition that was disturbing, and you have confused me with other editors; when you made this comment I certainly had not removed the quotes from "every Israeli politician article I have added quotes to". My initial objections to your quotes included the fact that they were known hoaxes, or were duplicates in articles which already linke to Wikiquote. Those objections remain, and are compounded by the fact that you have taken them all from a single webpage which contains known hoax quotes, thus making them all dubious unless confirmed from more reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated note not worthy of a separate section

(Unrelated note not worthy of a separate section in this discussion: regarding my today's edit [35], I didn't intend to do a drastic change. I guess I had an older version in the cache...) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, Humus. When the article is unprotected, perhaps you could make your change first? Grace Note 23:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Grace Note. Nothing to worry about, that edit probably went unnoticed since it happened in the middle of the RV war. For the first time I see a benefit of RV war... ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR elsewhere, and there's probably no need to keep the page protected in his absence, so I've unprotected. I'll keep it on my watchlist in case it starts up again when he returns. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

- - - What Sharon has done here in August of 2005 is a step towards peace, at least on the part of Israel. Hopefully the Arabs will utilize this gesture. - - - It isn't israeli land...thats why they call it the occupied territories

Clarification on his son's death

Article currently says "Gur died in October 1967 after being shot while playing with his father's rifle". My assumption is that the rifle discharged whilst he was playing with it, the shot killing him. However, it's also possible to interpret the sentence in other ways, eg: someone shot the child taking Gur to be armed and, therefore, some kind of threat. I don't know the circumstances. Perhaps someone who does could clarify the article? --bodnotbod 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified it. Gur Sharon and a friend were playing with Ariel Sharon's gun when the friend accidentally shot Gur. [36][37][38] OCNative 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Resignation From Likud Party

I have reverted the edit by User:81.245.130.33 To Last Edit By User:Brendanconway because Prime Minister Sharon has not official resigned from the Likud Party. According to the BBC and other media outlets an official announcement is forth coming on Monday 20 November 2005 until then the fact that he is the head of the Likud should not be changed. Misterrick 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I hope I did not just violate a rule. When I came upon the Ariel Sharon article, it consisted of a single word, the famous four-letter Anglo-Saxon dirty word. (Literary reference, "A Christmas Story": "Only I did't say 'fudge.' I said THE word.") In looking at the history, this vandalistic act had been the most recent edit. The edit before that was the placement of a "protection" tag, which obviously did not protect the page from the vandal. (I have not yet figured out whether "protected" pages are actually physically protected, or if it is "just" a rule that you are not supposed to edit a protected page.) However, in looking at the version where the page had been "protected," there had also been some edits made that substituted the "/" symbol for a number of other characters. I could not figure out whether that was a good or a bad thing but it sure did not look correct to me. Therefore when I reverted the f-word, I went back to the edit before THAT -- which means in effect that I removed the "protection" tag. If I have done something incorrect, someone please fix it because I do not know how. My only intention was to get the article back to the last fully intact version. 6SJ7 14:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I added the little "president" infobox to the article, I hope no one minds. If there is a reason why it shouldn't belong here please tell me. I find it strange that most (all?) of the former Prime Ministers of Israel are missing the infobox.

A couple of things:

- under political party I put "Likud, Kadima". I don't know if this is the best way to go about it. You decide.

- I left spouse blank. Should I have instead put his wife along with the date of birth and death?

- Under place of birth I entered "Kfar Malal, Palestine (pre-state Israel)". Again, I'm not sure if that is the best way to say it (maybe it should be "Kfar Malal, British Mandate of Palestine"), you can decide. Pyro19 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Current Event??

Does this article really need a current event tag? IMO, Ariel Sharon is not a current event, however Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict may be. If nobody has any objections, I will remove the Current Event tag around this time tomorrow. -Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the current event really referred to the Kadima party, before that article existed. In any case, thank you for taking off the tag! gidonb 12:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat Impressed Overall

I am somewhat impressed overall of the portrayal of Ariel Sharon in his actions and policies. The continued debate over what is and is not pertinent in this biography is at the forefront of why I am impressed. I am pleased that people continue to place negative and positive aspects, for to have only of one side is POV. However, I must contend the placement of media views. It is a widely known fact that every news agency is known to twist information to their perspective, especially mainstream media such as the BBC and the New York Times. Largely, I have found the most major cases at this site[39]. While not anti-Israel, it is at the very least anti-media bias against Israel, such as the case in this news report on the supposed Israeli soldier attack on a Palestinian here, [40]. As noted in the article, an Israeli soldier is said to be shown attacking a Palestinian youth; however, the case is quite the opposite as he is trying to protect an ISRAELI youth from a mob of Palestinians. This is a cause to question the information in every news report, both pro- and anti-Israeli, as media can not only twist information, but blatantly lie about it as well.

In no regards am I anti-Palestinian, in fact I am both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. I feel that the only method that could possibly be attainable for the peace of a single state would be the combination of Israel and Palestine into one single nation, with equal rights given to EVERY citizen. I will explain why at a later posting under Israel, as I have not the time at the moment.--Antibias 08:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments. If you can improve the article after reading the guidelines for users, you are welcome to give it a try. As for your promise to explain your views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict when you find time - don't bother as we are not a discussion forum. Best regards, gidonb 12:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

VANDALISM!

As you can see, there is vandalism on this page. I can't revert the page because I am not an admin. Somebody needs to revert this NOW! Newguineafan 21:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I reverted it. Can someone help me with the copyright status, though? Newguineafan 22:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Er, from the article history it was you who vandalised the article. At least, it was your diff that changed the image. If it was you, don't do it again. Hedley 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism corrected, and I eventually replaced the picture with one that is a free license. Newguineafan, what you need to do is press the revert key ONCE then press the F5 key, and that will refresh your cache that will show the new photo. Zach (Sound Off) 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • BTW, if you think we could get this photo under a free license, this should be a good idea, IMHO. Zach (Sound Off) 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll email them to see what the deal is with the image. I'll report back if and when I get a response. - Pyro19 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • GOOD NEWS: We have kindly been given permission to use the image. The source must be cited! I'll add it to the article right now.
        • Damn, I just noticed that we aren't allowed to use images with permission anymore. That's too bad, it's an excellent image. - Pyro19 04:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Health issues

I have not figured out exactly where and how this should be included in the article (there is a paragraph on his health at the end of the intro and there is a separate section, "Stroke"), and I am still awaiting a source that is clearly reliable, so I am leaving the article alone for now. However, I have been hearing radio news reports for days that Sharon's medical condition is a bit more complicated than a "minor stroke." This was further confirmed this morning when I heard that he will be having a "procedure" on his heart. Now I have found this article [[41]] which confirms that he will undergo catheterization to repair "a small hole in his heart"; that the stroke was not "minor"; and that some in Israel (at least, his political opponents) have questioned the accuracy of the medical reports and appear to have doubts that he is making decisions on his own. The latter statements must be taken very cautiously because they are obviously an attempt to influence the upcoming election, but at the same time it may turn out that the doubts about Sharon's fitness to continue as Prime Minister are valid. Someone may wish to edit the article based on this information, but at the very least, it bears watching. 6SJ7 16:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone has now added some medical information, including the upcoming operation, but it is so much in medical-ese that I am not sure a general readership can be expected to understand it, but for the same reason I am not sure how to edit it into plain English and still retain the gist of it. Even so, the new information does not mention that the operation will be a "catheterization," which I think would at least have some meaning for the general reader. It amazes me that a heart defect that Sharon has had all his life (which I assume is implied by "congenital") should "decide" to manifest itself right at this pivotal moment in his career, but that's life I guess (and I realize that my amazement is non-encyclopedic.) 6SJ7 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

The hoax that was just included in this article and promptly erased is analyzed for example here. gidonb 17:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Reported Death

I have a dispute with the last paragraph and with the first line which states that Sharon has died. No other source currently confirms that the massive stroke suffered by P.M. Sharon has led to his death. Neither Reuters/AP/Fox News/CNN has this info yet. We should hold off on his death date until it is clear that he has died. ber06122, January 4, 2006, 5:41 p.m. (EST)

I saw that, it really confused me since no news sources were reporting it. People just can't be patient and wait! Weatherman90 22:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sky News has just reported that Sharon's prognosis is "extremely bleak". However rumours of his death are greatly exaggurated. Don't report his death (which seems likely in today) until at a major source (BBC, ABC, NBC, Sky) confirms a newswire story. Newswires do report rumours and then withdraw them. The key is the TV broadcasts. They will double-check any reports with their own stringers in Jerusalem. If they state it as fact it usually (not always, but usually) means that they have verified it from two sources. A newswire report in isolation is no guarantee of accuracy. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The last time the major news agencies reported anything in unison, they said 12 miners in the 2006 Sago Mine disaster were alive. Just pointing that out. BlueGoose 00:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that almost all the news nets have been practically putting his coffin in the ground for the last two hours with their "Life After Sharon" analysis bits - even though it's obvious he's about to die it's still in bad taste. PMA 02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has been under vandalism attack for hours, in all cases it seems from anonymous IPs. Rather than protect it and stop all edits to it, as was requested, I have imposed semi-protection, which will allow its updating from registered users but stop people just coming on to WP to attack this article. That seems to be the major problem right now — visiting editors who edit nothing else but this because of its news worthiness. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you just Put one of those New-Fangled Semi-Protection things on it. The stroke section needs expansion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Inform me

I am a novice when it comes to Israeli Politics, and I am wondering what would happen should Ariel Sharon actually die. Would a member of his party take over; and if so how would Israeli policy change? I appreciate any help that you can provide. Avengerx 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Prime minister of Israel#Order_of_Succession, in this particular case, Deputy Premier Ehud Olmert would take over on a temporary basis. It doesn't seem clear whether there'd be a new election, or what (or if it is clear, that article needs updating). -- Pakaran 04:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

According to [42], Olmert can serve for 100 days, at which time the government falls (and presumably an election is held). -- Pakaran 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually as per [43] the President will choose someone to form a government.

I vaguely remember when Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated, Shimon Peres took over as PM. BlueGoose 06:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert is the acting prime minister, according to law. He was appointed to be the stand-in prime minister in 2003, long before the current events. He is a rather experienced politician - Knesset member since the 70's (like Sharon!), held several ministerial portfolios (industry, finance, health etc.), mayor of Jerusalem for 10 years. He is also number 2 in Sharon's new Kadima party. However he is nowhere near Sharon in terms of charisma and popularity - and experience too. The elections will probably still be held on the 28th of March. Sharon was, until yesterday, thought to be the sure winner, however now things are not clear at all. It is highly unlikely now that Sharon will run at all. That makes Benjamin Netanyahu and Amir Peretz much more likely contenders for the post. Any current speculations are not worth much.--Amir E. Aharoni 09:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, everyone. Avengerx 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

please add wikinews box

{{wikinews|Israeli PM Sharon rushed to hospital}}
Which produces:

I forgot about semi protection. sorry. Bawolff 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, also removed semi-protection for now, I'll keep an eye on the article though. -- Pakaran 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat Strange Space After Link

Towards the middle/end of the third paragraph in the introduction there is a somewhat stranged space after a link and before a period. This isn't the only instance in which this occurs; the same thing is present in the http article. When I went to edit that article to fix it, the word that was linked in the non-edit version of the article didn't appear to be linked at all in the edit version, meaning there was no link format at all, if that makes sense to anyone. Now there are certainly better things to worry about as far as the article goes, and it doesnt at all hinder the information presented, I figured I would just bring it up, if for nothing else than my own curiosity as to why those spaces are there. --Zachjones4 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

seperation of early life and early military career

When I read the article, it kind of seems like the information about his early life shouldn't be lumped in with his early military career, although the transition between his pre-adolecent years and his joining the paramilitary group ties in nicely. The awkward part is when it jumps from the merging of Unit 101 with the 202nd Paratroopers brigade to the fact that he has been widowed twice. --Zachjones4 05:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Eternal judgement

In front of the Eternal Judge the Sharon will have to account for Shatila and Sabla! Make it clear, he will not meet Gandhi and Mother Theresa in the afterlife. 195.70.32.136 09:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Source? --24.31.29.171 09:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Ehud Olmert?

While Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is relevant to the failing health of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, what's the purpose of placing Ehud Olmert's photo on Sharon's page? --Scottie theNerd 13:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree Olmert's picture is not relevant to Sharon's article --Cramer 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Olmert's image for above reasons. If anyone feels like it should re-inserted, feel free to discuss it here. --Scottie theNerd 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with its removal. --Elliskev 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatilla edits

I think that characterizing the first Sabra and Shatilla massacre as "one of the worst exterminations of the 20th century" is both a POV violation and patently false; as tragic and deplorable as it was, it didn't reach the proportions of countless others. --Leifern 16:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No title

To the ignorant administrator (Markalexander100) who keeps revising my grammatical revisions and changing of such misnamings as "Israeli Defense Forces" to "Israel Defense Forces" (its proper name), you're a clown. Don't mess with my edits; I'm not vandalizing anything - I'm fixing the inconsistencies in grammar in this article and adding minor details of an impartial nature. Also, ignorant administrator, I am something you're not: a speaker of Hebrew, and with the knowledge of that language, I'm correcting some of the transliterations from Hebrew to English in certain people's names. Why not have the Hebrew names as the people who have the names say them, as opposed to the way people ignorant of the Hebrew language say them? Additionally, ignorant administrator, you list yourself as a native speaker of English, but since you reverted all of my edits, which included corrections of grammatical errors and inconsistencies in the article, I obviously not only know a language that you don't know, I also know how to speak your own language better than you. I'm a professional writer and a historian by training with a much deeper knowledge of the Middle East than yours. My mother grew up a few miles from Sharon's ranch; Sharon knows people who live in my mother's community. I feel that I'm entitled thus to add a few minor facts. Now, if you have a problem with how infinitesimally longer the article is becoming because of my edits (and it's probably not because I'm taking out a few misplaced letters here and there, along with my minor additions), you should say so. Be true to the scholarship in which Wikipedia believes - proper scholarship, not your personal non-scholarship. If you don't change my changes (all made in good will), I apologize to you in advance.

.ויקיפדיה אינה בימת נאומים El_C 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're User:66.214.230.155 I reverted your edit which broke a link to Labour (Israel). I suggest you check the edit history before being so silly in future. Mark¹ 23:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I also fixed that, I believe on more than one occasion. El_C 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic Name

While Arabic is an offical language in Israel, I don't understand what Ariel Sharon's name needs to be written in Arabic in this article. I do not see any precedent to this with other Israeli figures. The original name is in Hebrew and should only be translated to Hebrew. Thoughts? --Cramer 22:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)