Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:58, 25 February 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ariel Sharon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Illnesses of Ariel Sharon was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 March 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ariel Sharon. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Ariel Sharon was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: August 17, 2007.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 4, 2011.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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)

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 not Sluizer 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 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 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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. 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. -- Jim Fitzgerald 15:29, 1 December 2010 (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."

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.

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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Delisted good articles
• Selected anniversaries (January 2011)