Jump to content

Talk:Ariel Sharon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

How he is often drawn in political cartoons as morbidly obese, etc.--Mostargue 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean, in antisemitic so-called political cartoons in the Guardian and the Independent? Indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.51.19 (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


oh yes you make fun of a politician and your anti semetic watch what you say everybody it's the thought police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.30 (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Emoticon?

Can someone with the power to edit this please remove that silly emoticon under "Incapacitation"? --68.144.68.238 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --ColdShine 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon

Sharon was interviewed yesterday, 2-21-08 by Chuck Smith on 107.9fm, sounding clearly healthy enough, and therefore would, at least for now, no longer be in a vegetative state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.54.49 (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Any proof this really happened? FinalWish (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Bridgehead over the Suez Canal

I refined the part about the canal crossing from interview with one of his officers who was involved in the operation. He described how the berm at the canal was made weak so that a bridging operation would not be delayed. Sharon carried bridging equipemnt and intended to cross. Israel's use of UAVs allowed them to avoid contact with Egyptian forces on the East side of the canal. Once across UAVs helped spot enemy units and ambushes were set up to destroy threats. Once the Third Army was cut off the IDF stopped to await surrender. The Egyptians tried to break out with infantry attacks against tanks. Saltysailor (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

False statements by Associated Press attributed to Sharon

The following remarks reported by AP are mentioned in the article: "Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, in a statement, tied the killing [of the Phalangist leader Gemayel] to the PLO, saying: "It symbolises the terrorist murderousness of the PLO terrorist organisations and their supporters." Habib Chartouni, a Lebanese Christian from the Syrian Socialist National Party confessed to the murder of Gemayel, and no Palestinians were involved. Sharon had used this to instigate the entrance of the Lebanese militias into the camps." .. These statements were part of what was found to be false and defamatory in Ariel Sharon's libel trial against Time Magazine. Ariel Sharon never made such statements accusing the PLO of assassinating Gemayel, and the article needs to mention this if it is to have any credibility. The AP is notorious for making similar distortions and repeating hearsay and baseless allegations as though they were ironclad truths. One would hope that Wikipedia steers clear of that route. --Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

no mention of this interview

In an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956 former Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon said, and i paste this from the interview

Fake trolling quote deleted

why isnt this man's hatred for the arabs mentioned in the article? Tybridgefarm (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon. -- Nudve (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

nudve, thank you for that reference. Tybridgefarm (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction required on date

Rabin became chief of staff in 1964. This should be corrected taking into account the context of the sentence by someone with access to the information it contains.

Quote: "When Yitzhak Rabin (who within a few years became associated with the Labor Party) became Chief of Staff in 1962, however, Sharon began again to rise rapidly in the ranks, occupying the positions of Infantry School Commander and Head of Army Training Branch, eventually achieving the rank of Major General (Aluf)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.82.161 (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fraudulent Wikipedia article quotes fraudulent Associated Press misattributed "Sharon quote"

claiming that the assassination of Gemayel was carried out by the PLO. This quote was revealed in court to be false and defamatory. Sharon never attributed the Gemayel assassination to the PLO. This is a proven lie on the part of the AP, and Wikipedia sullies itself by repeating this falsehood as though it were a fact. Wikipedia sinks to new abysmal lows day by day, inundating the net with tabloidesque spurious information with no respect for factual information.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

question - this topic in arabic?

hi, i am curious - does anyone know arabic enough to translate this subject from the arab version of wikipedia? i am extremely curious to know how they cover this topic, and what is or is not included in their version. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yedatal (talk • contribs) 10:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Overlay

I don't know any wiki stuff so I'll have to describe the problem! When you access this page through the term 'Ariel Sharon' you get a big neonazi thing attached to the top of the 'prime ministers of israel collapsible' however if you access this article through Arik Sharon there is no such thing. This needs fixing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.189.219 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Economics

As much as many would like to think that the role of Israeli PM is all about war how bout including something in this article about the economics of Ariel Sharon. 58.178.70.103 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of corruption

I am surprised that allegations of corruption against Sharon and his sons are not mentioned at all (unless I am missing something). These allegations and investigations were a constant feature during his term as PM. BorisG (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge article

I am proposing that the recently created article Illnesses of Ariel Sharon be merged here, with the transference of the relevant information. There is absolutely no reason for there to be a separate article about his health problems, especially when this article already addresses the early problems he had in December of 2005. And there aren't that many "illnesses", anyway. He has a birth defect in his heart, and he had (possibly as a consequence of the previous problem), two strokes in two months. That's it. A reporter's speculation on whether or not the PM is obese does not seem suited for Wikipedia, not to mention that it seems to be a generalization to iclude it in the same "package" as the heart defect and the strokes (which is what this new article ends up doing, by listing it all as "the illnesses of Ariel Sharon"). Regards, Redux 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I advise to refrain, for now; the merge may be better suited for later. The main article spin-off appears to give us more maneuverability with respect to current new(s) developments. A lot of the detail that can go on in the main article might to be suited for a biographical article, but it's detail that people right now wish to know. And it's convinent to have a smaller space, too. El_C 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well the obesity issue isn't idle speculation, there are a million stories about Sharon's eating habits and people have been worried for a long time that his weight would come back to haunt him. Sharon's obesity is very encyclopedic since the stroke that resulted from it seems very likely to throw the political situation into turmoil.
As for whether the article should be moved, I agree with El C, there are a lot of advantages to having a separate article. Wikipedia has a serious problem with articles where a huge amount of detail is loaded into one section, throwing that section out of proportion with the article. If we merge in the article on Sharon's illness and the story keeps going for another week than the section on Sharon's illness will take up half the article on Sharon, better to put it in a separate article. The illness deserves an article because it is an important news story, not just one aspect of Sharon's life. GabrielF 04:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that only a week ago he was joking about people eating sufganyot and levivot, "but not overdoing it" — that's because it was a week ago. El_C 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
About a year ago a friend of my Dad's was at a party that Sharon attended. The host made two large trays of deviled eggs and Sharon planted himself next to the food and ate one and a half of them. Nobody wanted to stop him because of course he's the prime minister. It really seems strange that something like a guy's eating habits can change the course of history. GabrielF 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a lot of deviled eggs! Granted, they are delicious, but still... El_C 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It's all a matter of odds; a tenth of a milimeter here or there and an otherwise inconsequential this or that becomes pivotal. Considering his eating habits, it's in itself a minor miracle that he remained in such relative good health — born in the 1920s(!). El_C 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge: Separate article is overkill --DuKot 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear DuKot, thankfuly this is(?) a discussion, not a vote. ;) El_C 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only worthwhile and non-repetative information in the "Illnesses" article are the "International reactions" which are important. The other stuff about Sharon eating Pringles is a joke. Sharon is an old man, most people don't make it to 77, and as he is close to 78 all the discussions are moot because old people get sick and die from such things as heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, pneumonia, dehydration, or accidents (what's missing?). Sharon is nothing special. The article should be renamed, if anything, to the Health of Ariel Sharon and how he functioned so well for most of his high-pressured life. IZAK 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There's pringles now? Why don't you and Tomer and others begin to delete impertinent material liberally, then we can see where we stand. There are more international reactions, for example, the Pope calling on Catholics to pary for his recovery (if I recall correctly). Adding more details about the health aspect of it could be beneficial; detail impertinent to a biographical article (entailing a more brief summary of these), but that readers may still find interest in. Feel free to change the title to Health of Ariel Sharon, or whatever you see fit, I don't consider the title to be of an important issue (barring pringles & such!). El_C 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Point is, in the context of Israel (and beyond), this is a major historical event. He was in Office. What if after a while we merge and perhaps by then would end up with a stroke conspiracy article or something of the sort...? Difficult to tell. Let's not be hasty, is all I'm asking. El_C 06:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There is some precedent for keeping a separate article for a major event in a person's life. For Ronald Reagan there is a separate article on the Reagan assassination attempt for example. The article on Sharon's illness has room to grow. For example, information can be included on how prime ministerial successions are handled in Israel and an exhaustive list of statements from world leaders can be included, these things would not work in a biography of Sharon. GabrielF 07:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


The Illnesses article really should be merged...there's not a whole lot more that can be written until the next incident. Tomertalk 08:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
That's presumptuous, I find, and it dosen't respond to our objections; this deletionist drive at this stage is most puzzling. IZAK has just removed plenty of material that could be moved there. I don't think our readership favours a less-content appraoch. Out for now, really. El_C 09:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I lied! Just looked at some of the special features on Mabat [1]: הכתב אורן נהרי מביא תגובות מהעולם על מצבו של ראש הממשלה אריאל שרון - <>הכתב בועז שפירא על המערכת הפוליטית - דוברת ביה"ח הדסה עין כרם על מצבו של ראה"מ אריאל שרון - הכתב עודד גרנות מסכם את אירועי היום בעיני העולם הערבי — those are a few themes which Wikipedia can report on, in detail. El_C 10:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not deletionist, it's realistic. Without delving into more indepth coverage of the nature of the maladies themselves, which discussion belongs in the maladies' articles, not in an article about Sharon, pending some other health crisis, there's not a whole lot more that can be written that has specifically to do with his illnesses, chief of which is that a large quantity of his ill-gotten opulence has gone into pleasing his palate. Tomertalk 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Tomer: I just LOVE that line: "a large quantity of his ill-gotten opulence has gone into pleasing his palate." (What a riot!) Do you propose that as an epitaph? Hmmmmm, let's see now, baba ganoush and shawarma washed down with Turkish coffee and krembo on the side, anyone? Didn't seem to bother Sharon till less than a month ago, now we have to have an article with a falsely dramatic tone about the poor chap's health. Gimme a break, is this a Yiddishe Mama's version of the New England Journal of Medicine or are we editing a serious encyclopedia? Shabbat Shalom as I head off to prepare my cholent and dream of hot kneidlach in my lokshen soup and kugels, brisket and corned beef after shull services -- all only kosher of course. IZAK 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • hahaha. Yeah, it was fun writing it.  :-) Personally, I love babaganush and shvarma, but not coffee (gag) or krembo (puke). Shubbiss shoylem to you, and shabath shalom to me and shabat shalom to those who don't prefer either of the prior versions, I think the article is a bit of overkill, but I don't think it's worth arguing about. Enjoy your cholent, I'll enjoy my jamín...knaidlekh sound good right now actually...we'll see ... I'm thinking about wild and brown rice mixed and mixed vegetables with baked salmon for sometime over shabath... y'all should c'mon over.  :-) after musaf of course, in my esnoga...  :-p OK. nuffa dat. :-) Tomertalk 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey wait a minute why are you casting aspersions at me, I said Shabbat Shalom didn't I? Do not underestimate the breadth of my associations and experiences. At any rate, due to constrictions of local geography and family convenience I will hopefully be reciting/singing Lecha dodi at my local shtiebel where they will no doubt serve pickled herring by day, unless there is a Bar Mitzva or Aufruf taking place which means goodbye to my home-made cholent as the commercial ones served in shull are usually excellent. Well I must be going now, really. Oh, and my family loves dipping their challah into techina washed down with diet Coke. Now that is a blend of the ancient with the modern, don't you think. On topic, why the heck wasn't Sharon on a strict diet in any case? Aren't generals supposed to lead by example? Anyhow, see ya later... IZAK 13:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. It's not enough that the old man is in a coma, or that the fututre of Isreal, Palestine, and probably most of the rest of the world as a result, has been thrown into uncertainty. But now you're bickering over potato chips and challah? Yes, he was severely overweight, and I have no doubt his obeisity contributed to his current condition, or that it will kill him before his time. But right now, there is something more important to worry about. We can save discussions on his diet until after his body is cold and in the grave.
It appears that the idea would be keep it separate for now, and once the whole story has unfolded, then merge it here. But if the objective is just "data management", for lack of a better term, then it would perhaps be a good idea to move the entry from the article namespace, to something like Ariel Sharon/Illnesses. We'd be making it into a temporary subpage, as opposed to an article, which is what is raising the eyebrows. Thoughts? Regards, Redux 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave it for now, the "Illness" article is a mess compared to the main article (since the situation is changing hourly right now). Merge once the current crisis has been resolved. Zerbey 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said: we can leave them separated for now, but we should move the entry about the illnesses to a subpage position (with a temporary link to it in the main article). We can then merge the two at a later time. Redux 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
here, here. It would be silly to pass judgement for us to pass judgement on wether or not history will remember this as part of Ariel Sharon's greater story or as a seperate event in the history of the Middle East... (see: Caligula) Thesocialistesq 15:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to just leave them separate for now and to merge the relevant parts, which I see as being rather minor, into this article at a time when his health problems take up fewer headlines. שבת שלום לכולם Tomertalk 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But are there any objections to moving the temporary entry (I believe we've agreed that it's temporary) out of the article namespace, and making it a subpage of this article (Ariel Sharon)? As I said, we'd place a link to it at the top of the article, to make sure that people will find it. Regards, Redux 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Separate article is confusing and unnecessary. --Bk0 (Talk) 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of reality on account of content that isn't, for the moment, up to par. This is a top news story in the main stream media (try news.google.ca). Many editorials have and will be been written on it; books will be written on it, documentaries already in the making. El_C 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
News are supposed to be over at Wikinews, not Wikipedia. In any case, no one has objected my suggestion of moving from the article namespace to a subpage position. Should I assume consent and go ahead with the move? Regards, Redux 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, what? I am well aware of the role played by wikinews. As for moving the article to Ariel Sharon/Illnesses, I could not care less, nor do I see how it makes the slightest difference about anything. Perhaps you'd opt explain why it matters, though? No one, to my knowledge, cares about how it's denoted on the namespace (& how does it matter so long as it's linked from the main article?), but some are questioning the utility of the article itself. If and/or when it is merged, then it would no longer be on the namespace. Simple. This seems like needless overcomplexity, but again, it's trivial enough that I don't care to expend any more thought of it beyond my ("data management, for lack of a better term") puzzlement. Regards, El_C 17:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be agreed upon that the separate article should not exist, and that it should be merged, but at a later time. By moving it out of the article namespace and making it a subpage of the Ariel Sharon article, with the express role of a "staging area" for a future merge, we prevent constant re-opening of the discussion of whether or not the article should be there. Furthermore, it's not proper for us to create "temporary articles", that are only there for a period of time, for a later merge with another article. Gotta keep it organized somehow. I'm only thinking about making things as clear as possible, and in the process, minimizing our work related to whether or not the article should exist. Regards, Redux 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The only benefit (which is probably a big benefit depending on your view) of making the Illnesses article a subpage of the Ariel Sharon article is that the Illnesses of Ariel Sharon article can be made a redirect to the subpage, and when the hullabaloo settles down, the content can be merged into the Ariel Sharon article and the redirect easily changed to point to Ariel Sharon instead of to Ariel Sharon/Illnesses. What I see as the biggest arguments in favor of this is the two part "We all agree it's a temporary page"--and--"when the time comes we can avoid the whole to merge or to not merge discussion as a foregone conclusion", avoiding an edit war over where the redirect should point in the process. Thoughts? Tomertalk 11:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Good answer, Redux. To Tomer also: Actually, now I do have a problem with this, as a shortcut to consensus. We don't need namespace devices to reflect on the prevailing thinking that we, at this point in time, are following. We can note it in whatever notice we feel is needed (if at all). If this method is followed, I would like for it to be brought to the realm of policy and guidelines; that is, I want many more editors involved in what that method means, editorially, beyond just this case, for any possible future parallels (and for this case, future developments — as unlikely as those are with respect to turning the article in the future into a notable topic in itself). Hope that makes sense. Regards, El_C 13:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your words :) And what you're saying does make sense, and I agree. I'd favor that, once we've moved the article to the subpage, the redirect from "Illnesses of Ariel Sharon" to the subpage be deleted. If anything, because people just will not research that. The tendency is for people to come to this article in order to find information about Sharon, and from here, if need be, they are redirected elsewhere. At the Ariel Sharon article, I see it as essential for us to have a header pointing to the subpage, or else people might start adding information to the main article as well, and we'll have to be going back and forth to integrate everything. And, at the subpage, I'd favor including a notice at the top, making it clear to contributors that that page is temporary, and that the content will be merged into the Ariel Sharon article at a later time, a process which could result in further trimming of the text, etc., etc.
I remember a while back I started a discussion concerning people's eagerness to create new articles about topics that should really be sections of other articles. Unfortunately, the general response I got was basically "boys will be boys", so now we are still working on this on an article by article basis. Redux 22:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. Point taken, but still, I'll think we may have to deal with these potential difficulties, regardless. It's possible that preparing for it so expressedly, in that sense, may compound rather than aleviate these issues. I am against a notice on top of the page since I don't wish to disorient the reader. We could, however, work on establishing such a notice on the top of the talk page. Thanks again for your thoughts. Regards, El_C 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my take on the primary benefit of making Illnesses of Ariel Sharon a subpage (i.e., Ariel Sharon/Illnesses) as open advocacy...I was just making an argument, not standing behind it. See Devil's advocate. Tomertalk 08:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Not really, I thought you were trying to explain it. See Doublespeak argument, for kicks. ;) El_C 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think somebody's been stealing my drugs again... :-p Tomertalk 10:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That's the spirit! What? :D El_C 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While Tomer is looking for his precious pills ;), I'll say this: a notice on the talk page only would be sufficient for users minimally experienced, but anons and generally newcomers tend to ignore those. I'm thinking that if some major development were to take place (such as mr. Sharon dying), the main article would be overwhelmed with anons wanting to pitch in about what happened. El_C is right: no matter how much we antecipate and prepare, there's always the possibility that everything will go down the pipes. Of course, as a last resource, if the main article becomes too unstable as a result of the current events (which would render pointless our having a staging area for this), we might consider temporary protection of the Ariel Sharon article (or rather, semi-protection), as a means of directing the "mess" to the temporary entry. But, why is it that you think that a notice at the top of the article could disorient users/readers? Redux 12:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We should assume our readreship are not familliar with editorial notices, and it seems like a needless distraction for them. We can always v or sprotect it later if the need arises. I sprotected the article earlier today, for ex. I just would'nt worry about it, certainly not at this stage. El_C 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Humm, yes, agreed. Sprotection should be more than sufficient for this kind of situation. I'm thinking we should go ahead with the change. No one has opposed the page move recently, and it appears that we have worked out the details of the change to satisfaction. Just to be clear: we are going to: 1) Move the current Illnesses of Ariel Sharon to Ariel Sharon/Illnesses (we may still consider a different title); 2) Delete the redirect page that would be left at the present title; 3) Place two notices: One at the top of the talk page of the Ariel Sharon article and the second at the top of the subpage, informing of the intent to merge the articles at a later time. If we approve this, I can perform the necessary actions myself. Regards, Redux 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why you don't just leave the articles where they are, without any new tags, and wait to see how his recovery (if any) unfolds, and then decide what to do based on that. The current situation with the articles isn't hurting anybody. Of course, if you need to protect the article(s) from vandals, that is a different story. 6SJ7 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we've recorded enough detail in Illnesses of Ariel Sharon that we can't put it all in this article without needing to lose some information. In that case, we might as well use Wikipedia:Summary style, and just mention the broad picture here in Ariel Sharon. We could do with better name for the article, though. I agree with other suggestions that it'd be worth waiting to see how events pan out, first. — Matt Crypto 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not reviewed this myself, but it has been suggested during this discussion that a lot of the information at the "Illnesses.." article is redundant with what is already at this article. A later merge, in this case, would mean trimming down the information significantly. Assuming that to be a fact, the users who have posted here thus far have expressed a general opinion that the information should be merged here, just at a later time (and thus using the subpage as a staging area). I suggested moving the article to a subpage position because, if it is decided that the separate entry is temporary, just to gather and organize information before merging it into the main article, than it would be bad form for us to keep it in the article namespace. Furthermore, as long as it is there, an opening exists for people to start discussions about whether or not it should exist, and we'd be running in circles, addressing the same points over and over again. Regards, Redux 04:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge: This article should be included as a sub-section of the main Sharon article. Richardbooth 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted the Illnesses of Ariel Sharon article. Tomorrow I shall begin editing the two sections together. Help is welcome! Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this man dead yet?

I thought he had a stroke in 2006. Is he dead yet?

this man is not dead yet. 58.178.70.103 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mankfully, this than is not yed deat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.236.181 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is he currently?

I mean, geographically? Is this a state secret? --80.250.159.240 (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It is widely known that he is still hospitalized at Tel Hashomer hospital. --Shuki (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger

I have merged the Illnesses of Ariel Sharon article into this. Please make any necessary modifications, so that eventually the other article can be deleted. Rothorpe (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor note: merged articles are not deleted, merely redirected to the merged to article. Rami R 19:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

To keep this article neutral I suggest the holocaust denial bit in parentheses at the bottom of the article be removed. While he has denied the holocaust, which I am against him in this case, he has not specifically called for the direct destruction of Israel. Instead, he wants regime change, which is entirely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.157.66 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

reactions

because this article was so bias against ariel sharon i deleted it. if a new reactions article is put is should also have the reactions of every single western country who gave their condolences to sharon. not just the holocaust deneying president of iran who said hes glad sharons dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-of-David92 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Israel did not withdraw from Gaza. Withdrawal would mean opening the border and ceding control of airspace. The "Withdrawal" from the West Bank means withdrawal from the parts that they want, annexation of the parts they don't. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

While your interpretation of the terminology is questionable, 'withdrawal' indeed isn't the common terminology for those events. I've reworded the lead accordingly. Rami R 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I have just read the article intro and it strikes me that it says nothing about his illness or his state now, even though his condition is almost unique. Instead it talks about the fate of Kadima party Sharon founded. I think we need to stay on topic here. BorisG (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph clearly states "He is currently in a persistent vegetative state after suffering a stroke on 4 January 2006." - hardly a unique condition that needs to be expanded upon. Kadima is one of his more significant contributions to Israeli politics; surely two sentences (only one about post-stroke events) is reasonable for this. Rami R 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, there is info, but the last sentence is strange. We need a timeline here. Otherwise it is confusing for someone who does not know the chain of events. The words like 'ultimately' and 'after' don't help.BorisG (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think 'ultimately' and 'after' are reasonable for short time frames (no more than a year). But you are right that the lead needs more context. The second paragraph doesn't even have a year. The lead could also use more pre-politics background. I'll try to rewrite the lead sometime later this week, but you're of course welcome to be bold and suggest a new lead yourself. Rami R 22:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
OK I have put some work into the lead, which now has a new look. Please review carefully. It is more structured and hopefully more encyclopedic. I actually genuinely tried to summarise the artcile, mentioning only the most important milestones. In the lead there is no need for details even of most important facts, nor for references. They can be found in the article itself. I focused on the style and tried not to alter the substance. The only new element in the lead is about his role in settlement activity, which I think is important.
I still think the last sentence is unnecessary, but I have preserved for now. Please comment.BorisG (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Rami R 23:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!

Infoboxes

Some more infoboxes (at least at the bottom of the page) describing Sharon's time as Minister of Defense, Agriculture, etc. Would be helpful.--75.7.227.100 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Corruption allegations

I am really surprised that nothing is said about Sharon's financial scandals. Is this deliberate or just an oversight?BorisG (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the sources? LaRouxEMP (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Condition ?

Any update on his condition ? Last update on here was October 2009. Will he ever make a full, or partial recovery ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.105.151.171 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Death rumors

Rumors say he died on August 4th maybe..who can tell us the truth please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.85.164 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

A CRITICISM SECTION IS VERY MUCH NEEDED. Please understand history is not black and white but a series of competeing narratives. Currently you only have a Zionist persepective. Please consider others as well from the left-Israel camp as well as from the Middle East. Here is some information to add:

Within Israel as well as abroad Ariel Sharon has had criticism for his involvement in the 1953 Al-Burej Massacre. According to Ilan Pappe - a revisionist Israeli historian - in his "A History of Modern Palestine" (2nd edition Cambridge University Press 2006 p. 331)

"Served in the Alexandroni unit in the 1948 war. Founded commando unit 101 in teh early 1950s, which carried out retaliatory missions against Palestinian targets... Was minister of agriculture, housing, and of defence until the Kahan Committee found him indirectly responsible for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. "

Likewise his involvement in the War for Israeli Independence or known as Nabka (or Catastrophe) in the Arab World had him directly implicated in the al-Burej massacre where troops under his lead open fired on refugees - leading to the deaths of between 20 - 50 civilians(link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12354924/Israeli-Special-Forces-Sayeret).


Ariel Sharon is a highly controversial figure. I mean Noam Chomsky has called him a 'mass murderer', and yet there is no section on his page for criticisms. Come on guys we can do better than this. If you disagree with Chomsky then put in a slanted crit section ;)


But there should at least be one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.245.174 (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


The sabra and shatilla massacres were arabs firing upon other arabs. The Lebanese had had enough of the so-called "palestinians" persecuting and murdering their people, and they were well aware that they had just arrived in Lebanon due to being expelled by Jordan during Black September for attempting to form a state within a state. Obviously the Israel's War of Independence is known as a catastrophe in the arab world, the arabs started a horrendously disproportionate war against a barely breached Jewish country, and lost! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahaneforever (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Criticism section strongly seconded. Additionally, mere criticism regarding his medical care far from cuts it. As for that particular subsection I fail to see how his being driven to hospital rather than airlifted or him being prescribed a Heparin-type medication is truly notable in an encyclopedic article.

If a separate section denoting 'criticisms' (sourced facts, of course) were strenuously objected to I would be satisfied if the information were simply worked into the article itself. As it is now, parts of it almost read like a hagiography -- very uncyclopedic!

In any event, the U.N. concluding the Sabra and Shatila massacres not only directly involved Sharon but calling it a genocide (section D of Resolution 37/123) --not to mention Sharon's calling all of the survivors: man, woman, child and baby "terrorists"-- is definitely biographically notable and should be somewhere in this article. Even the Israeli Kahan Commision found that Ariel Sharon "bears personal responsibility"; information which is referenced right on Wikipedia under its eponymous article.

Acutally it is neutral. sharon is a war hero which is not mentioned at all. Only terrorist supporter would call him a war criminal. We should put a war hero and statesman in the intro.Unicorn76 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the comment by Kahaneforever, I am stunned. No, no POV in that comment or from that source! /irony Cherchez la Femme (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section. Please. This guy is one of the main reasons the Israeli-Arab conflict has dragged on and on for so long with so much bloodshed. 66.75.47.197 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I should've signed in. Parl2001 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Houg Land Conflict

I recently read, in Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish's book I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza Doctor's Journey, that Ariel Sharon had somehow managed to acquire the Abuelaish family's land in their hometown of Houg and says that Dr. Abuelaish to this day carries papers which prove the land was his before the family fled to a refugee camp, which they had inteneded to stay in temporarily before their return home. The book claims he stole the land and no evidence has been put forth that he purchased or otherwise legally acquired this land. I think this should be put in the article. The book also states a incident in which Ariel Sharon cleared hundred of houses without permission of the occupants to make room for his tanks to patrol in Gaza. The book says that Sharon refused to pay the families compensation for their houses that didn't choose to move to the town of Al Arish, effectively punishing anyone who protested being illegally evicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.159.122 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sharon held a huge number of posts over his career and did many many things, and many were reported in books etc. If we report all of them, the article will be 1000 pages long. If you can research a pattern of these actions in a number of sources, you can have a section on these attitudes and actions, but in my view an isolated action reported by a single source (and not impartial at that) may not warrant inclusion. More generally, the article does require serious work with inline citations etc. Respectfully. - BorisG (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What's with his eyes?

In a few of the pictures (the main one and the one where he's walking with Rumsfeld his eyes are point in different directions. It looks like his right eye may be a glass eye since it's always pointing straight ahead and his left eye points in different directions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.160.50 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's called Strabismus, I'm sure you know people in real life with this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.118.86 (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

I'm curious what the rationale is for the weasel words tag on the section "From 1948 War to Suez Crisis". The wording here feels pretty straight to me. The tag was added in April 2009 and I think it should be removed. GabrielF (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard any opposition in the past ten days, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. GabrielF (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did Sluizer not pursue the matter?

When asked why he didn't pursue the matter further, Sluizer said he began thinking more about the incident after surviving a near-fatal aneurysm in 2007.

I am not sure if this sentence is needed, since the section is about Sharon and not about Sluizer.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 06:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If we give air to these unsubstantiated allegations then some discussion about the logic of the person making the allegations may be useful. However, I have doubts that the whole paragraph is needed. To my mind it violates WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS if not WP:BLP. Can you say why this unsubstantiated (and bizarre) allegation should be there despite apparent violation of these policies? - BorisG (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I also think it can be removed, but since I doubted that would go down smoothly, I opted to NPOV it.
I'd also like to remind everyone this article is under 1RR (see top of this talk page). Jim, please self-revert your last edits or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me explain my above comment in more detail. The allegation have been published in RS and is about a public figure, and so per WP:WELLKNOWN is notable. So if something like this was alleged about, say, a new minister with ostensibly relatively clean record, this would certainly be notable. However Sharon is nothing of sorts. Nowadays his name is seldom mentioned in the media, and when it is, it is usually about his care. But when he was active, he was a controversial figure and a rare week passed without some allegation about his political intrigue, financial scandals or military conduct. If we wanted to repeat all allegations made about Sharon in RS, the article will have to be 10 times longer than it is now. We need to be selective. I think this recent allegation is not really notable among dozens of allegations about Sharon. - BorisG (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
While I generally agree with the above, I think there's a bigger issue here. Sluizer claims he saw this happen in 1982, and had a witness at the time. The fact he didn't mention it for almost 30 years is a bit suspicious. It would have been quite a scoop if publicized at the time.
That, and the aneurysm, and the fact he claimed he filed with various courts that have no record of his filing, and other such inconsistencies make this story pretty suspect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
BorisG, I would agree with you. But unstead of the questionable para lets put something like: "The allegations of direct involvement of Sharon with the events in Sabra and Shatila are still continue to be reported in media.". Would that be solution to many other accusation of Sharon being the part of the massacre?-- Jim Fitzgerald post 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. Need to ensure it does not violate WP:SYNTH. I do not fully understand that policy. Do you? Anyway, need to think. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not suggest search terms? I came upon the whole thing because I wondered what happened to this guy. It is hard to study these events to present a truthful, balanced and unbiased account. I searched for 'prosecution+Ariel+Sharon+ and then I made up my own mind about what I found. 144.136.192.6 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
First, let me "hide" the controversial edit, until we clarify the matter. I think, this will be fair for both sides, rather than reverting. I would suggest, I will look through the information in the past 1-5 years and see if there were other instances of critisizm on Sharon in regard to his alledged involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I will bring the links here, and then we may discuss them. If there will be quite a persistent accusations, then we might include into article the sentence that was proposed in above. My main point is - if there are still discussions on the Sgaron, then the wikireaders should at least be informed that the case is still being discussed. Whta do you think?-- Jim Fitzgerald post 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There are several issues here. Does Sluizer's account belong in this article? I doubt it. Someone suddenly remembering something he "saw" 30 years ago but neglected to mention until now, with details that don't check out and a reporter saying his story was inconsistent, isn't really encyclopedic material IMO. Certainly not on a BLP (Sharon is still somewhat alive as far as I know). I think it should be removed, not hidden. Second, you can't put a sentence about allegations about Sharon's participation being "still discussed in the media" without a specific source saying exactly that. Otherwise it's WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree in general with NMMNG, though I happen to think that the inclusion of Sluizer account does not result in any negative-BLP problems. The entire account is so transparently bullshit, it enhances the established pattern of people making up stories in order to demonize Sharon (and other Israeli leaders for that matter). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi All, decided to throw my two cents in.... First, it was smart for Fitzgerald to 'hide' the offending paragraph until this gets resolved. Second, I agree with Nice Guy, it is very disconcerting about this revelation thirty years after the fact, with no other witnesses mentioned, and Sharon cannot offer a rebuttal to these allegations while in his state. Unless there are primary sources from the period that describe this event, it should be remove - and quickly. I say, give it three days and if nothing else materializes, then delete and end it. Because Sharon is such a controversial figure, there are people out there that would look to blame him for a Midwest tornado, if them could. If this is the case, lets not add to rumor. Dinkytown talk 18:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
One individual's WP:Fringe claims violates WP:BLP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Brewcrewer both in substance and in principle. In substance, I agree it is bullshit, but if spread widely, it will be reported elsewhere as facts, and with references to respectable Wikipedia. But even if harmless or even beneficial to the subject, unsubstantiated claims should not be there (although admittedly, BLP policy is more concerned with negative information, and rightly so). OTOH, note WP:WELLKNOWN - BorisG (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I am also inclined to think that it is bullshit, BUT who we are to judge the sources? We act on facts, wether we like it or not. Our personal "investgation" into the matter (like "why Szluzzer critisized Sharon after 30 years) we cannot really as that kind of questions. But again, my specific suggestion was that if there are sources still discussing Sharon's involvement or non-involment in massacre in the past 10 years, then the sentence "The allegations of direct involvement of Sharon with the events in Sabra and Shatila are still continue to be reported in media" should be mirrowed in the article. -- Jim Fitzgerald post 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
You can't put that in the article without a source specifically saying it. Also, we don't have to put every single thing someone claimed in this encyclopedia. The onus is on the editor wanting to include the information to show why it should be in the article. There have been several policy based objections to including this. Feel free to explain why they don't apply. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
BUT who we are to judge the sources? I think you are taking WP:OR way too far. WP:OR means our analysis has no place in the article. But in selecting material for inclusion we should exercise our judgement, not on its truth or otherwise, but on its notability. WP:RS helps here, but there is a difference between a RS reporting it as news, and just an opinion expressed in a single interview. It's just does not seem to be notable. As I said earlier, particularly in the context of Sharon. It depends on how long it persists in the press though. If it sparks a major investigation, it would become notable. It is also a weird BLP issue in that Sharon is alive but unable to respond. However I won't worry about BLP as per WP:WELLKNOWN - BorisG (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that an event is considered notable if it sparks investigation. If to take that approach then this passage: "Criticism. Several commentators have criticised Sharon's care. Most seriously, after his second stroke, Sharon was transported by ground ambulance to the hospital, a trip that took approximately one hour. Helicopter transport was not used.[41] Also, other commentators have said that the dose of blood thinner given to Sharon was potentially problematic for someone who had recently suffered a stroke" has also to be taken out, as it is not notable. If we judge the source, then we have to admit that it is notable and reliable, George Sluizer is a well-known Jewish-Dutch film maker. [2] [3] [4]-- Jim Fitzgerald post 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Matt Rees

Content based on a Matt Rees essay has been removed. I've restored it. Rees was Time magazine's Jerusalem bureau chief and the book was published by University of California Press. The material may very well be inaccurate in some sense or one of a range contrasting descriptions of what Sharon's platform would have been, but I don't think it can just be removed/dismissed without evidence based reasons. If anyone can track down some more RS based descriptions that could be added it would help. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction on Early Life Timeline

The first paragraph states that Sharon's parents left Georgia post Ottoman Empire collapse, when the Palestine region was under British Control.

The 2nd paragraph states that they emigrated during the 2nd Aliya which the Wikipedia hyperlink for 2nd Aliya to be prior to Fall of Ottoman.

If the Wikipedia hyperlink for Aliya is correct, both statements can not be true. Naval Truth Bombardment (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your foresight. It was wrong the Aliyah number. Kfar Malal was established in 1916, while Second Aliyah ended in 1914 (and British Mandate didn't exist by 1914). Sharon's parents moved during Third Aliyah, triggered by the October Revolution in Russia, the anti-Semitic pogroms in Eastern Europe, the British occupation of Palestine and the Balfour Declaration.--Michael Zeev (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Name change

Jonathan Freedland in today's Guardian says his name was given to him by David Ben-Gurion. Assuming this is indeed the case, it should be in the article, which currently has no mention of the name change beyond the lead. (Ben-Gurion isn't mentioned either.) Rothorpe (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and yes, it would. Rothorpe (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Why he changed his name? Most citizens of Israel did. Hebrewisation. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so... twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Death rumors

Clarifying the recent edit war on this page, actually getting to know about the death rumors regarding the leaders death,[5],[6],[7], Any credibility? I guess not. OwnDealers (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, and we need a zero tolerance approach towards any untoward claims of such a thing here on wikipedia, given our WP:BLP policy. We'll know when this thoroughly notable politician does eventually pass away as all major media sources will cover the story as quickly as they can. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


He died. http://derstandard.at/1388649939320/Israels-Ex-Premier-Ariel-Sharon-gestorben http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2014-01/29096303-blitz-israels-ex-ministerpraesident-ariel-sharon-ist-tot-003.htm http://www.heute.at/news/welt/art23661,974132 http://kurier.at/politik/ausland/ariel-sharon/43.739.485 http://news.sky.com/story/1193639/ariel-sharon-dead-israels-ex-pm-dies http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ariel-sharon-former-israeli-pm-dies-at-85-1.2492803 http://www.thejournal.ie/ariel-sharon-dead-at-86-1259368-Jan2014/ Go add it, if you think any of these sources are "credible"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.123.229 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Page protection needed?

I think the page needs edit-protection at least from newly-registered users to disallow potential edit-warring between supporters and detractors. Below is a Survey section to find out support/opposition for page protection. -Mardus (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Page hasn't been vandalized yet, so no, no protection for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

This is just provisional, but in should be good to establish consensus.

  • No protection is necessary nor will it be forthcoming. I'm neither "pro-Israel" nor "pro-Palestinian". I support pruning down the reactions by firstly removing all meaninglless rhetoric, and by summarising reactions. Indeed I initiated the pruning. I'm open to leaving a comment or two from Palestinians. I know he, like all Israeli leaders, is much hated by them, but any quotes should be meaningful ones and not merely sniping or dancing on his grave. Having a separate reactions page at this stage is overblown. It is recentist, and will in addition be regarded as forking, and will almost certainly result it being merged back here. Best wait until there's enough material for a Military funeral of Ariel Sharon. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reagan and Sharon

I'm concerned about the following paragraph in the article:

After the 1981 elections, Begin rewarded Sharon for his important contribution to Likud's narrow win, by appointing him Minister of Defense. On 16 January 1982 US President Ronald Reagan, in his diary, wrote that Sharon was "the bad guy who seemingly looks forward to a war."[11]

The issue here is the reference to Reagan's diary. Here is the full paragraph from the diary:

Al Haig home with bad news about the middle east. Its possible Mubarak will abandon the Camp David Accords & settle down with his Arab brothers once he gets the Sinai back. At the same time Begin may renege on the Sinai although he swears he wont. Sharon is the bad guy who seemingly looks forward to a war. Al will be going back. [8]

It seems to be that Reagan is recording notes on what Alexander Haig told him from his trip and that this is Haig's assessment of Sharon, not necessarily Reagan's. I don't think we should be using a primary source like Reagan's diaries (especially something unfiltered like a diary) without a secondary source that puts it in context and explains what Reagan really thought about Sharon. GabrielF (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A classical case of a quote out of context. - BorisG (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Al Haig home with bad news [...]" This is not a abdication of responsibility for the information declared afterwards. What follows is Reagan's diarised version of the truth, whether or not it was relayed by an adviser at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zernager (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Shortened the "Reactions"

Why we are adding the reaction from David Cameron, Merkel, then some palestine leader? Since they are the ones who never served during Sharon's office, and they issued statements probably as a duty.

If someone disagrees, how about we make a new page? "International reactions to the death of Ariel Sharon", we did that for Gaddafi, but didn't for many others. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


It's pretty standard to have reactions from current world leaders regardless of whether they were in office at the same time. As for Palestinian reactions, that's a matter of balance. See for instance the Washington Post reactions and ABC News both of which include Tawfik Tirawi's comments. 147.194.0.238 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

True, but that is WP:UNDUE, you can't add all reactions neither you can quote mime much unless its a related page. I already suggested that we made such pages before, like we did about Gaddafi, now I am watching if someone would agree to make a new page for Sharon's death reaction. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And excluding all Palestinian reactions, as some editors have done, is inappropriate and unbalanced, violating NPOV. 147.194.0.238 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We all know that such pointed palestinian sources will obviously express with rage and hatred, why you are specifically mentioning them? Unless it was the page where all quotes were allowed. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It's called balance and if it's being reported by Associated Press, the Washington Post, BBC etc no reason to censor them on this page. 147.194.0.238 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Mardus, can you describe? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The contentious issue is reactions from Palestinians and whether they should or should not be included. -Mardus (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, please do not remove sourced information from mainstream sources without consensus to do so. 147.194.0.238 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Per my comment in the next section, I'm open to leaving a comment or two from Palestinians. I know he, like all Israeli leaders, is much hated by them, but any quotes should be meaningful ones and not merely sniping or dancing on his grave. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
NPOV requires both sides. Without Palestinian reaction there is Undue Weight being given to praise for someone who is actually a very controversial figure. 147.194.0.238 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I never liked reactions sections for when a person dies. But many people want and expect these, so they are here to stay. Best to keep them short and sweet. By all means have a bit of condemnation, but make sure it's encyclopaedic and not just a rant, which is what those comments were. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, rant must be "encyclopedia" as well, or else it's just a waste, already explained above that no rage or hatred are welcome. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
So if Hamas issues a statement that expresses "rage" or "hatred" for Sharon we shouldn't use it regardless of the fact that Hamas is a significant actor and the government of Gaza? While it's one thing to determine whether or not a particular commentator is notable, I don't think it's our role to judge the appropriateness of a party or individual's response. Hamas is notable, therefore there response should be included regardless of whether or not we like its content. 147.194.0.238 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't add any commentaries by just "leaders", only add if they are head of state. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a clever way of trying to exclude Palestinian responses as no Palestinian leader is a "head of state" per se. It's also not a criteria used by any media in determining whether or not a reaction should be included. 147.194.0.238 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed the part of the statement that gloated his death by saying the Palestinians are still alive. Also I see no point in linking (or even mentioning) Tawfik Tirawi as he doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable for a WP article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, there is Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, and if you ever heard of Rami Hamdallah. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Palestine is not a recognized state so they have no recognized "head of state". Also, if anything, Hamdallah would be a head of government, not a head of state. Downwoody (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The edit by Ohconfucius didn't included palestine at all. Just because our aim is "NPOV", doesn't means you have to force some information. There's no leader of Palestine? There is, and if Hamadallah says something, then only it will be added, not just anyone's quotes. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
See Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Downwoody (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
WP is a work in progress, and I'm more inclined to cite Death of Hugo Chavez as a more "polished" article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Check Death and funeral of Ariel Sharon, all related material can be added there instead now. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this would be an appropriate way of dealing with recentist junk. Material that is unencyloaedic for the bio is unencyclopaedic for the funeral article too. Anyway, it's premature to create a ghetto for this. No details on his funeral have been revealed yet. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Attribute then, if you think that they are not "details". Bladesmulti (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Attribute what? I'm surprised at you for creating that, as you seemed keenest to remove that eulogising crap that belongs nowhere in this project from this bio, now you created a ghetto for it out of the redirect. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Attribute that there are no funeral details, yet they are reported by some agencies already. I would had never made such page, but at least 2 people here kept edit conflicting with the palestinian opinions. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I think you could have easily added the details and left off all that rhetoric that you were keen to keep out of the main bio...An edit conflict in this bio is not reason for creating a fork for it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Death

Prime Minister Sharon died. It'd be really cool if someone edited the page to reflect that. Since I'm just a humble IP address, I can't do it myself. 98.118.69.139 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects Mr. Sharon's death already.—John Cline (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
However, the article's numerous tags need to be addressed as soon as possible, seeing that the article is now being pointed to at WP:ITN on the Main page. I'd like to urge that the experienced editors of this page lend a hand. Jusdafax 20:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that the concluding phrase on the legal findings of the NY court that investigated Sharon's libel case misrepresent the information given by the reference cited in this entry (number 35).

Here is the phrase: Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and so was not guilty of libel.[35]

The article is clear that Sharon lost the libel case with unanimity of the jury, failing to prove that Time defamed him with malice. On the other hand, Time failed to provide legally acceptable evidence that supported its arguments against Sharon. This is most of the time the case with investigative journalism, as it can rely on evidences looser than what the courts accept as proof. Also the reference article points out that Time accused the Israeli government of hampering the defense by threatening the potential witnesses and barring access to potentially interesting documents.

The current sentence describing the verdict presents the claim to moral victory of Sharon's attorney before citing jury's unanimous verdict, which can be considered a journalistic trick to create prejudgement in the mind of the reader, and does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. A more factual sentence would first mention that the jury cleared Time of having defamed Sharon in an act of malice, and then proceed to further details about the terms of the verdict, including the fact that Time could not bring legally acceptable evidences to support its defamatory act.

I am not a part of the team working on this page, but I ask you to fix this in the way you see appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mszargar (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

People participation.

People participation in his 80's mistakes. People and this were very big number of population told his 80's mistakes very clearly NO. How is in countries were is democracy people smart to tell no mistakes of politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.9.6 (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Name some, along with sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

Here's the text I'd like to be changed.

Margalit died in a car accident in May 1962. Their son, Gur, died in October 1967 after a friend accidentally shot him while they were playing with a rifle.[

Please put the sentences together: ...May 1962, and Gur died..."

The previous sentence says who Gur was, so we don't need to explain again who he was. 2001:18E8:2:1020:3190:5D44:EEF4:77CE (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Pluto2012 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cerebral Attak.

A Cerebral Attak possible be manipulated. At least in addition to the Internet. Internet is today almost tough anywhere. Sernager (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bar Lev Line

There is much to be said about Ariel Sharon's storing opinions regarding the Bar Lev Line. Is there a specific reason there is no information about this on this wiki page?TM (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added a section called Bar Lev Line. TM (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle for Jerusalem

The extended quote from Habis Al-Majali's is undue weight for a biography of Sharon. The claim itself is extremely dubious (POW exchanges were done only at the end of the war, yet the article shows Sharon participated in several battles after his supposed capture), and Sharon denied it. If it deserves mention at all - that should suffice. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended quote? Its half a sentence... Its also perfectly sourced, your point on POW exchanges is original research. Per WP:TRUTH and WP:OR. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It has no [lace in a biography of Sharon. Yes, it is undue weight. Start an RfC if you want it included. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is it undue weight? Its a majority view point held by reputable and reliable sources.Makeandtoss (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. It is a claim made by a single person, uncorroborated by ANY other source, which flies in the face of what we knwo about POW exchanges. I doubt ANY of it belongs in the article, but if we must, we can mention that Al-Majali claimed it, and Sharon denied it. Anything else is undue for a biography spanning 86 years. If you disagree, start an RfC. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk)
Don't be ridiculous? You don't be ridiculous. The sources deal with the capture as fact, it doesn't deal with it as a claim. " a Jordanian historian revealed...." and "Sharon sought to get in touch with his former captor" from Telegraph.[1] "Habes revealed how he had caught a young Lieutenant Ariel Sharon in the battle" from the Guardian.[2] Here's another source from a report by AFP. [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with WOLAF.
The claim by al-Majali is false. Sharon was not captured during the Latrun battle. It could be mentionned anecdotically, in a section describing how notorious Sharon was even in the Arab world (capturing him would have been prestigeous) but it cannot be given as a fact that would have occured during the '48 war.
Pluto2012 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Pluto2012: Wikipedia works with sources, what I am saying has sources, and what you are saying has no sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Makeandtoss:. You are fully right regarding sources. But just for your information, I am the author of this FA : fr:Bataille de Latroun (1948) that was translated to wp:en Battles of Latrun in which it became GA. All the sources are there.
AFP, Telegraph, ... are not WP:RS. On such a topic, WP:RS are Benny Morris, 1948 or Yoav Gelber, Palestine War, or... ie references from historians. Other WP:RS sources would be biographies of Ariel Sharon from reknown journalists. I will check if they don't mention Majali but I am quite sure they don't. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Lets assume Telegraph, AFP,... are not reliable. I got several Arabic sources from historians. A google search turned up with these [9], [10], [11], [12]. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't read Arabic. Who are the authors of these books (and as a second step, what do they say) ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit) Nor Morris or Gelber mentions this. And as you can see on googlebook nearly nobody does. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

First source: "أرئيل شارون شارك في معركة القدس ضد الجيش الأردني وقد أسره يومها النقيب حابس المجالي (أصبح برتبة مشير فيما بعد) الذي عالجه ونقله إلى الخطوط الخلفية، ثم إلى المفرق" Translates to "Ariel Sharon participated in the Battle of Jerusalem against the Jordanian army, and was captured by captain Habis Al-Majali, (who later became a general), he treated him and went to Mafraq"Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but how is the author ? Is he an historian ? I doubt so given it is a pure lie from Majali.
I had introduced the story the following way when I wrote the article about Latrun's battle: [13]. It is true that Majali made the claim but the claim is false and not supported by historians. Therefore, it can be mentionned in al-Majali article ; it can also be introduced in the article about Latrun battle but the way I did so (ie, in the section 'Jordanian historiography' and in underlining it is a claim). But there is no reason to mention this in Sharon's article. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
[14], [15]. Here are two more sources discussing it in detail. Plus the first three sources in English, all make references to Baqr Khazer, a historian.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I could not find who is Abdul Karim Hosni.
These "blogs" are not wp:rs but we should find who is Baqr Khazer.
But anyway, if Baqr Khazer is the only historian in the world who support al-Majali claims it is not wprs either.
Hundred of historians published on Latrun's ballte events: ″exceptionnal claims require exceptionnal sources"...
Pluto2012 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I am even less convinved that Baqr Khazer is unknown: [16].
I stop here. This information is not reliable as you should be convinced now. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Misspelled name and hasn't published anything in English but here you go [17]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Pluto2012: Hosni Abdul Kareem source and his book which mentions the capture. Book "Zionism: the West, Jerusalem and politics." [18]Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1329691/Field-Marshal-Habis-al-Majali.html
  2. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/apr/27/guardianobituaries
  3. ^ http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2001&dt=0217&pub=Utusan_Express&sec=Features&pg=fe_05.htm

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ariel Sharon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Subbotnik ancestry

The statement that Sharon's mother was of Subbotnik ancestry appears to have began showing up on the internet within the last several years. I'm not sure of its origin (possibly even Wikipedia). Is there anything concrete supporting it, beyond "Lists of famous Subbotniks" that casually mention a few names? An in-depth bio of Sharon, for example? His own statement? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 61 external links on Ariel Sharon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

POV check

I have flagged this for POV check. The discussion of Sharon as "Greatest military commander" and "King of Israel" does not sound impartial to me - "Was considered"? - are there no sources that dispute this? It should not be stated as an absolute truth - "was considered" - by who? The lead makes no mention of the fact that many people consider Ariel Sharon a war criminal (including the Kahan commission) - his other title, the "Butcher of Beirut" is buried somewhere near the end of the article and "King of Israel" is given prominent placement - please make an effort to WP:BALANCE these views. I have noted other problems inline. Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1R rule

I thought it was only 1R per 24 hours, Avaya1 has reverted the same post in this article twice in less then 24 hours, and that's only this article. If you want to sanction me for restoring content that is cited to an encyclopedia and written in neutral tone (literally a close paraphrase of Britannica), I can't stop you, but the editors in this section should be ashamed. I can have a POV and still write in neutral tone, and evaluate an article for balance. I have mastery over my POV. I have created an article on the eviction of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and it is written in neutral tone. This article is lop-sided, period. Removing content just because it is the POV-you-dont-like is POV pushing - that is how this article ended up completely unbalanced and biased. I am not trying to restore content without consensus, but the same standard should be applied for everyone, so I have removed content that is cited that I felt was POV pushing from the lead as well. Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add that "POV pushing" is not a policy, it is an essay. It is an essay about how editors should not call one another "POV pushers." The actual policy is WP:BALANCE and that is what I rely on when editing. Seraphimsystem (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell what you're talking about because you apply so many edits to the article, and you cite no diffs. What did you restore without consensus? And are you saying this removal is a revert? El_C 01:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I mean this concealed revert . It directly follows my edit, so it seems intended to mask the revert. Seraphimsystem (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't tell that as being a revert, because you haven't established what it reverted. El_C 01:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
My first post second revert - I'm going to say again here that POV-pushing is not a policy, and removing reliably sourced material that was intended to improve the neutrality of a page is not ok. Seraphimsystem (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
So what constitutes the first revert? This edit again? You two do not make it easy. El_C 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes Seraphimsystem (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, it does look like 1RR was breached. But you also admit to restoring content without consensus. So, I'm leaning right now at blocking both of you. El_C 02:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked for 12 and 48 hours, respectively (log). 12 hours because I will continue cutting the consensus clause block duration by half until ARCA is done with it. And 48 hours, because it's the editor's 2nd 1RR offense (although last one was over half a decade ago, which I have taken into account; last block was for 36 hours). I simply doubled the 24 hours I originally had in mind for first offense 1RR, and I feel that was lenient. That's all per my reasoning. El_C 03:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Alexandroni Brigade to Unit section of Summary

Sharon's first unit was the Alexandroni Brigade, as is mentioned in the article. Someone who has editing privileges, please add "Alexandroni Brigade" to the "Unit" section of the summary block on the top right of the page.Cfulbright (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sabra/Shatila

What are other editors thoughts on adding Sabra/Shatila to the lead? I have heard some here say it is not WP:DUE for the lead - wouldn't it be strange if what was WP:DUE changed based on which language Wiki you were editing? Most likely this is actually a systemic bias problem, and not a valid application of WP:UNDUE. I think it should be added to the lead. Seraphim System (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Ariel Sharon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ariel Sharon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sapir Handelman

I want to apologize for my edit summary saying Handelman is a biased source - I misread his Biography, I thought "Israeli associate" meant a position with a pro-Israel institute at Harvard, but I believe it means he is an Israeli professor - this is not enough to say he is a biased source, so I withdraw that.

The rest still stands - in the book he uses a quote "King of Israel" for which he does not provide a source, he also says it was the view of the majority of Israelis - this is also unsourced. That means he is a primary source for these views. When using scholarly sources one must pay attention to whether the source is secondary or primary for that view, as they are often a mix of both.

I have seen no further sources for this, or evidence that it has been widely cited by other scholars, or that is represents a majority view in secondary sources so I have removed it as being WP:UNDUE for the lede. Minority views should be attributed to scholars, this statement was not attributed. Seraphim System (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ariel Sharon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: "Personal life" section

There is a grammatical error in this section which needs to be corrected (I am unable to correct it myself; the article is locked).

"Sharon's sister, Yehudit (Dita) married Dr. Shmuel Mandel. In the 1950s, the couple permanently left Israel and immigrated to the United States" [my emphasis]. This should read "...left Israel and emigrated to the United States".

A person IMmigrates FROM a country of origin. A person Emigrates TO a destination country.

Done. P M C 14:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2017

Ariel Sharon is related to Gabi Sheinerman daughter to the Sheinerman family Gabzzy (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done. Fails WP:WEIGHT. Zerotalk 12:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ariel Sharon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Mother born non-Jewish?

Is this correct: Ariel Sharon's mother was born not Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hagiographic Lead

The lead of this article contains no real criticism of a man who was so well known as the Butcher of Beirut that when he died CNN ran a story Ariel Sharon: Hero or butcher? To begin with, I propose to include in the lead his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre beyond the single line He was criticized for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which occurred during the war. And to include the results of the Kahane commission found, as well as the nickname he earned. nableezy - 23:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you blind? It says clearly in the lead "He was criticized for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which occurred during the war."--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks, especially ones that are both foolish and ironic, given I said I would like to add something "beyond the single line He was criticized for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which occurred during the war." Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 00:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarize article, not push a specific POV agenda. One line for Sabra and Chatila is more than enough, just like every other topic related to Sharon's life.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"criticised for" is too weak and too vague. Actually was found to bear personal responsibility and that is the very least that should be written. Zerotalk 15:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Leads, and the rest of an article, must follow WP:NPOV, and a hagiography of somebody accused of war crimes does not follow NPOV, sorry to say. nableezy - 15:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2019

Sharon grew up to be bilingual in both Hebrew and Russian languages.

Sharon grew up to be bilingual in both Hebrew and Russian languages. 184.101.152.80 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Dubious claim about his mother being from a Subbotnik family

The claim that his mother was from a Subbotniks family is poorly sourced and probably incorrect. The source is an article on resuming the immigration of Subbotniks and mentions this in passing. This is not a proper source for the origins of the family of a man that has several biographies about him. Urban legends regarding Subbotniks ancestry of various people are abundant. A proper source would have to say something regarding the genealogy and how they reached the conclusion of such origin. Haparsi (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's best to remove it until a more comprehensive source is found.--RM (Be my friend) 04:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

Add Category:Israeli autobiographers. Quacelinz3 (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Quacelinz3, I need a reliable source that he did write a book about himself before I can make the edit. Thanks Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I just found a source: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/warrior-ariel-sharon/1103621264. The edit has been completed.  Done Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Add Category:Ministers of Transport of Israel. Quacelinz3 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not mentioned in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021 (2)

Add Category:Leaders of the Opposition (Israel). Quacelinz3 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not mentioned in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

The current page states "Sharon participated in the Palestine War."

This should be changed to "Israel's War of Independence." Why? Because Sharon used that term to describe the war from 1947-48 and the majority of historians still use this description and call it the war of Independence. 174.62.64.161 (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

I know it's normal to put alternate names before birth/death dates, but given the length of the alternate-names element, could his dates come first?

Ariel Sharon (26 February 1928 – 11 January 2014; Hebrew: אֲרִיאֵל שָׁרוֹן; IPA: [aʁiˈ(ʔ)el ʃaˈʁon] (audio speaker iconlisten); Ariʼēl Sharōn; also known by his diminutive Arik, אָרִיק‎, born Ariel Scheinermann, אֲרִיאֵל שַׁיינֶרְמָן‎)

49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: "thwarting" orders at the crossing of the Suez Canal

I am reading the authoritative book "The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East" by Abraham Rabinovich. It describes in detail the decision taken by the Israeli High Command, in consultation with PM Meir, to order Sharon's tank division across the Suez Canal in 1973. Even though there was some friction between Sharon and Bar-Lev, it is completely wrong to say that the move "thwarted the commands of his superiors". Yes, the crossing was performed by Sharon's unit, and he acted well and boldly, but it is not like he did it out of his own initiative and against orders! Furthermore, the Haaretz article cited nowhere said such a thing. Please remove the reference to thwarting his superiors, and leave the part that says the operation decided the war for Israel, which seems to be supported by the sources.

I didn't make the request, but I agree with the sentence about Ha'aretz. The article says that he drew up plans different from what he'd been assigned, and it says that he carried out those plans, but it doesn't say that he did it on his own initiative. It's WP:SYNTH to say that, especially since an alternate explanation (that he or someone else persuaded his superiors that his plan was better) is quite possible. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

Please change the interim replacement who was Ehud Olmert and NOT Ehud Barak “Sharon served as prime minister (Israel's head of government) from 7 March 2001 through 14 April 2006 (with Ehud Barak serving as acting prime minister beginning 4 January 2006, after Sharon slipped into a coma)” Should be replaced by the following: “Sharon served as prime minister (Israel's head of government) from 7 March 2001 through 14 April 2006 (with Ehud Olmert serving as acting prime minister beginning 4 January 2006, after Sharon slipped into a coma)”

Source: https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000082788 79.176.136.158 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Hubes -> Hubis EduardoFernandez (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to request a change from "Habes was adamant" to "Habis was adamant". EduardoFernandez (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Changed to Majali. nableezy - 19:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Should we add native name parameter {{Nobold|{{Script/Hebrew|אֲרִיאֵל שָׁרוֹן}}}} to the infobox? 2001:4451:824F:B700:351F:F869:156A:4BFD (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Balance

@Dovidroth: First of all if you have a problem with a specific edit, you can revert it and give a reason. But reverting all of my far-ranging edits without distinction is not constructive, especially when no valid counterargument is given. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@EytanMelech: Continued removal of sourced material while simultaneously refusing to engage in the talk page is cannot be considered constructive editing. Lede is a summary of body including most prominent controversies. Removing view of Palestinians towards him and view of Human Rights Watch is making this article biased. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Continued removal? I've never even edited this page before. Also, I didn't remove their opinions. If you bothered to check my edit comment, I stated that I removed the content because it was listed twice nearly identically with the same adjectives in both the lede and the legacy section. If you have a better way you want to synthesize the "information" without repeating yourself, you are more than free to do so. I never once said that I agree or disagree with the information in the article, I'm not "removing views" of anyone. EytanMelech (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, continued removal of fully sourced content by multiple editors, while ignoring the talk page discussion.
MOS:LEDE: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies".
Being viewed as a war criminal by Palestinians is definitely a prominent controversy. The fact that Human Rights Watch agreed with the war criminal term and lamented that he was never held accountable is also most certainly another prominent controversy. You also removed mention of the illegality of the settlements whose construction he championed.
Makeandtoss (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: Not everything has to be mentioned in lead and specially not in the way your want to portray it. Moreover, your continuous POV pushing in this and other articles, petty edit-warring, backtracking and stupid comments like this are clear examples of WP:NOTHERE. You are clearly not here to contribute but to do activism. Dovidroth (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This all needs to slow and clam down, both the bold edits to the lead, which have clearly been challenged and need discussion to reinstate, per WP:BRD, and the mudslinging. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dovidroth: Regarding your disruptive editing behavior and ad hominem, we can discuss that at arbitration enforcement. As for the betterment of this article, the removal of the occupied status of the West Bank and Gaza omits important context to the situation. And also removal of how the Palestinians and Human Rights Watch see him as a war criminal who should have been tried. As for mention of the 1953 Qibya massacre, which the war criminal Ariel Sharon himself orchestrated and led, here is a quick rundown of how many reliable sources have discussed this in the broader context of his political and army career (with references to later role in Sabra and Shatilla massacre):
There is no reason whatsoever why the lede shouldn't mention his role in the Qibya massacre, not mention that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied, or not mention that Human Rights Watch, the world's leading human rights organization, lamented that he was never held accountable for the war crimes he committed. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The mentioning of the 1953 Qibya operation by name in more than a dozen obituaries is certainly highly indicative that this is due for inclusion by name in the lead. No comment on the rest for now. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dovidroth: Consensus has been established for its inclusion. No valid counter arguments have been given. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV legacy

@Dovidroth: The current legacy paragraph in lede is POV, not mentioning what Palestinians and numerous political sources have described him as a war criminal, most prominently Human Rights Watch which have lamented his death. Your argument of "redundancy" is invalid". This is my proposed paragraph:

Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It is true that a statement which begins "the figure is polarizing ..." and then proceeds to explain only one of the poles of opinion on the subject, is not really completing the picture it sets out the present. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is the result of reverting without much thinking. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Illegality of settlements

@Dovidroth: care to explain why you have removed this important piece of information from the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Because that's something not specifically related to Sharon that the reader can easily find by clicking on the link of Israeli settlements.Dovidroth (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

@Dovidroth: "whereas Palestinians revile Sharon as a war criminal who suppressed their aspirations for statehood." There is nothing in any source that says Palestinians think he is a war criminal because he "suppressed their aspirations for statehood". The used and notable HRW sources is all about how Sharon escaped accountability for the war crimes he committed. It's not only Palestinians who say he is a war criminal, every eulogy (cited above) said so too. I propose the following sentence: "whereas Palestinians and numerous media and political sources revile Sharon as a war criminal. Human Rights Watch lamented the fact that Sharon was never held accountable for the war crimes he committed." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"numerous media and political sources" is a bit vague, and I'm not sure media self-pronouncements would be worth mentioning if that's what they are ... who are the other mentionables on this? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Eulogies from RS cited above. What alternatives are there? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
AP says he was called a war criminal by his critics, and the Nation says he was accused of war crimes, presumably in reference to the filing of charges in Belgium. Which others? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
As a possible phrasing, we could say:
Sharon remains a highly polarizing figure in Middle Eastern history. Israelis almost universally revere Sharon as a war hero and statesman, whereas Palestinians and Human Rights Watch have criticized him as a war criminal, with the latter lamenting that he was never held accountable. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ariel Sharon's Legacy is Deeply Disturbing". Human Rights Watch. 2014-01-13. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  2. ^ "Sharon cannot be tried in Belgium, says court". The Guardian. 2002-02-15. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
  3. ^ "Israel: Ariel Sharon's Troubling Legacy". Human Rights Watch. 2014-01-11. Retrieved 2022-07-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ariel_Sharon/Archive_3&oldid=1256388822"