Talk:Ariel Sharon

Archive 1 (earliest - December 2004); Archive 2 (April 2004 - November 2005)

Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag because this article needs some work. What I mean is that the way this article has been written, it acts like Sharon's recent strokes are the biggest events in his life. They're not. He has done a lot more then become prime minister and die, and yet this article dedicates waaaayyyyyy too much room to his strokes. pielover87 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I keep making grammatical corrections in this article, and I see that they keep disappearing. To all of you out there, I am a professional writer, and my knowledge of American-style English is virtually perfect (Wikipedia was started in America, and there are more native speakers of American-style English than British-style English, as funny as that sounds and with all due respect to the motherland of the English language, so I feel that spelling and placement of punctuation in relation to quotation marks should reflect the American style, especially since most of the spelling and quotation-mark-related punctuation placement in the article already are in the American style - let's be consistent). So please don't add a comma or delete a hyphen, for instance, in my revisions. Thank you. By the way, my mother grew up a few miles from Sharon's ranch, and Sharon and his sons have friends from my mother's community. Additionally, I've read Sharon's autobiography. So if you see me adding a minor fact about his life, please don't delete it unless you have read his autobiography and have interviewed his friends from my mother's kibbutz a few miles down the road from his Sycamore Farm and have found out then that I have erred. I don't see myself as better than any of you - I just happen to have access to some knowledge about Sharon's life that many of you happen to not have because my mother was born in a certain place. Thank you again.66.214.230.155 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)66.214.230.155

Hi to you. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. With all due respect, it is my experience, that people on Wikipedia tend to accord other users and Wiki editors more respect if they are registered users. I notice that you are not a registered user. I had the same experience as you until I registered. Perhaps you are registered and just didn't use your registered name for the above comment? Registering is easy, free and non-invasive. Also, you might follow the directions at the top of the page and add your new Talk comments to the bottom of the page to keep folks happy. Crunch 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Event??

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

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

Somewhat Impressed Overall

I am somewhat impressed overall of the portrayal of Ariel Sharon in his actions and policies. The continued debate over what is and is not pertinent in this biography is at the forefront of why I am impressed. I am pleased that people continue to place negative and positive aspects, for to have only of one side is POV. However, I must contend the placement of media views. It is a widely known fact that every news agency is known to twist information to their perspective, especially mainstream media such as the BBC and the New York Times. Largely, I have found the most major cases at this site[1]. While not anti-Israel, it is at the very least anti-media bias against Israel, such as the case in this news report on the supposed Israeli soldier attack on a Palestinian here, [2]. As noted in the article, an Israeli soldier is said to be shown attacking a Palestinian youth; however, the case is quite the opposite as he is trying to protect an ISRAELI youth from a mob of Palestinians. This is a cause to question the information in every news report, both pro- and anti-Israeli, as media can not only twist information, but blatantly lie about it as well.

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

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

VANDALISM!

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

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

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

Health issues

I have not figured out exactly where and how this should be included in the article (there is a paragraph on his health at the end of the intro and there is a separate section, "Stroke"), and I am still awaiting a source that is clearly reliable, so I am leaving the article alone for now. However, I have been hearing radio news reports for days that Sharon's medical condition is a bit more complicated than a "minor stroke." This was further confirmed this morning when I heard that he will be having a "procedure" on his heart. Now I have found this article [[3]] which confirms that he will undergo catheterization to repair "a small hole in his heart"; that the stroke was not "minor"; and that some in Israel (at least, his political opponents) have questioned the accuracy of the medical reports and appear to have doubts that he is making decisions on his own. The latter statements must be taken very cautiously because they are obviously an attempt to influence the upcoming election, but at the same time it may turn out that the doubts about Sharon's fitness to continue as Prime Minister are valid. Someone may wish to edit the article based on this information, but at the very least, it bears watching. 6SJ7 16:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Controversy

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

Reported Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inform me

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

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

According to [4], Olmert can serve for 100 days, at which time the government falls (and presumably an election is held). -- Pakaran 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually as per [5] the President will choose someone to form a government.

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

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

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

please add wikinews box

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

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

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

Somewhat Strange Space After Link

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

seperation of early life and early military career

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

Eternal judgement

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

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

Tsk tsk, POV, another POV is that he will be high fived for Sabra and Shatila but will have to account for the Gaza ethnic cleansing and other Judenrat actions. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The President of Iran just said in public that "the executioner of Shatila and Sabla will join his ancestors in hell". It is all over world news sites.

• For 195.70.32.136: Judge not, that ye may not be judged (Matthew 7:1) CharonX 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We must condemn evil. Do you think that we shall not condemn the nazism? The zionists do to palestinians exactly what nazis did to the jews. Lebensraum: the desire to displace people from their land of birth and use the territory for the sole benefit of the master race. Jews think they are a superior race over arabs and persians, they even did human experiments together with apartheid South Africa to develop diseases that attack negro and arabs, but leave white bosses and juden intact. They developed nukes to eliminate those "inferior races". Sharon did encourage such great crimes against humanity in his high military and political positions. He was utmost evil. 195.70.48.242 10:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Ehud Olmert?

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

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

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

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

Sabra and Shatilla edits

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

That sounds like justification for a huge amount of deaths Robert Taylor 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some claims here that Syria is responsible for Sabra and Shatila. This is a viewpoint held by a very tiny minority since it suggests that Israel and Syria were allies cooperating with each other during the massacre. Either way, it does not belong in an article about Ariel Sharon. Yuber^(talk) 02:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the word "strangely" from the phrase " "Strangely, The Kahan Commission also claimed ...," as it is clearly POV. Gni 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sabra/Shatilla section has become disturbingly partisan. One added section reads: "The subsequent Israeli Kahan commission of enquiry into this atrocity provided absolute proof that Israeli soldiers saw the massacre taking place. The evidence of a Lieutenant Avi Grabovsky was crucial. He was an Israeli deputy tank commander and reported what he saw to his higher command. He was told by his senior officers: 'Don't interfere.'" Saying in introducing the Kahan report that the report "provided absolute proof..." is a misrepresentation of the Kahan report. The Kahan report actually concluded that "...we determine that indeed I.D.F. soldiers who were near the embankment which surrounded the camp saw certain acts of killing and an attempt was made to report this to commanders of higher ranks; but this report did not reach Brigadier General Yaron or Major General Drori." Indeed, Grabovsky never claimed that he himself was told "Don't interfere" by senior officers. Rather, he said that he was anecdotally by collegues that officers responded to an earlier radio bulletin by someone else that they are disturbed by the reports, but that the soldier should not interfere. I'm removing the reference to Grabovsky. If it is to be in, it should reflect the actual contents, and just as importantly, the actual tenor of the Kahan report. Gni 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming annoying to be honest, people are only insisting on including the softer parts of the Kahan Commission and refusing to include any other sources on the massacre. I have added a part about Palestinian survivor testimonies, which I referenced. Please do not remove it, it is laughable that some of you want to make sure that the viewpoints of the survivors, who were not consulted for the Kahan Commission, are not included.

Also, Gaborsky clearly said that he was told not to interfere, and I reinstated that part. If you don't like that fact, you shouldn't remove it.

I suggest you reread the report, carefully. Again, Grabowsky was never told by his senior officers "don't interfere." Grabowsky spoke with a tank crew, whose members claimed to have heard a communications report in which a commander had said, "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." I will paste the text of the report below. Secondly, if you are quoting a sentence fragment ("Don't interfere"), it needs an ellipsis. But in this case, it is downright distortion to quote "Don't interfere" instead of the full quote: "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." In any case, as it is, it is simply incorrect. I am removing it again. Maybe the administrator could take a look at the Kahan report to verify that commanders never told Grabowsky "don't interfere," but rather a tank crew told him that they heard a commander say the bit. Finally, how is it neutral POV to claim that other investigations "have all been more candid" than the Kahan report. I'm not interested in getting into which reports are more orless candid here in discussion--and such point of view certainly does not belong in the article itself.

Here is the actual text from the Kahan report regarding Grabowsky:

Lieutenant Grabowsky wanted to report the event by communications set to his superiors, but the tank crew told him that they had already heard a communications report to the battalion commander that civilians were being killed, [and] the battallion commander had replied, "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." Gni 02:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No title

To the ignorant administrator (Markalexander100) who keeps revising my grammatical revisions and changing of such misnamings as "Israeli Defense Forces" to "Israel Defense Forces" (its proper name), you're a clown. Don't mess with my edits; I'm not vandalizing anything - I'm fixing the inconsistencies in grammar in this article and adding minor details of an impartial nature. Also, ignorant administrator, I am something you're not: a speaker of Hebrew, and with the knowledge of that language, I'm correcting some of the transliterations from Hebrew to English in certain people's names. Why not have the Hebrew names as the people who have the names say them, as opposed to the way people ignorant of the Hebrew language say them? Additionally, ignorant administrator, you list yourself as a native speaker of English, but since you reverted all of my edits, which included corrections of grammatical errors and inconsistencies in the article, I obviously not only know a language that you don't know, I also know how to speak your own language better than you. I'm a professional writer and a historian by training with a much deeper knowledge of the Middle East than yours. My mother grew up a few miles from Sharon's ranch; Sharon knows people who live in my mother's community. I feel that I'm entitled thus to add a few minor facts. Now, if you have a problem with how infinitesimally longer the article is becoming because of my edits (and it's probably not because I'm taking out a few misplaced letters here and there, along with my minor additions), you should say so. Be true to the scholarship in which Wikipedia believes - proper scholarship, not your personal non-scholarship. If you don't change my changes (all made in good will), I apologize to you in advance. Unsigned by 66.214.230.155

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

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

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

Let's keep this civil. I greatly appreciate your contributions El_C, but please calm down a bit - calling people ignorant won't help resolve this matter in any way. CharonX 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that wasn't me. :) El_C 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic Name

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

No harm in it; he is the PM of country with a substantial Arab-speaking population. El_C 02:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the original name is in Hebrew, not Arabic. --Cramer 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In some countries (like mine) with more than one official language it's specifically allowed by law to adress to the head of state by its name "translated" to any of the official languages. Maybe something similar happens in Israel? --62.57.93.138 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If we are going let this through, then all Israeli names on Wikipedia ought to be translated to Arabic as well. --Cramer 20:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever removed it --Cramer 10:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

PM status

Don't change the succession box yet. Sharon remains Prime Minister until either one of three things happens: (1) he dies, (2) he resigns, or (3) he is declared permanently incapacitated. He is currently temporarily incapacitated as far as the law is concerned, ie, they do not know officially whether he can resume the post or not. (In practice he probably cannot, but that isn't officially declared yet.) His deputy is merely acting PM (ie, he isn't PM but fulfils the role). As of now he will not feature in the list of Israeli PMs. Only if Sharon is declared permanently incapacitated will the deputy assume not merely the powers but the role of PM.

BTW does any know what the technical procedure is for formally declaring an Israeli PM incapacitated? Some countries require Supreme Courts to issue such a ruling. Others require a ruling of parliament, or of the Parliamentary Speaker, or of the cabinet, or of the cabinet secretary, or of the head of state? What is the formal procedure in Israel? It might be useful for WP to know, because given Sharon's condition it is only a matter of when, not if, that ruling is made and he is deemed to no longer be PM. Alternatively though, it could be decided not to make such a ruling, but to leave him theoretically in office and continue using an acting PM (on the basis that sympathy for Sharon would boost his party's prospects in the general election). But leaving him in power would be controversial. Unusually a constitutionally independent officer or organisation has the task of ruling someone permanently incapacitated and so de jure terminate their premiership. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

I agree with you - de facto he ceased to be PM when he had the massive stroke but de jure he still holds the office. (One of the medical experts the BBC had on last night said that if it was anybody but the PM, they would've stopped trying to save him by then as the prognosis with this kind of stroke is so dire.) PMA 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Note my changes to Israel. El_C 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Big Question

No matter what you think of Ariel Sharon's life, a big unanswered question hangs over Israel and the world: What now? unsigned by 67.50.32.67

Now we wait. El_C 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Converting to Template:Ref and Template:Note

Any chance of converting the inline links to {{ref}} and {{note}}? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! What? El_C 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be easier to use <ref> and </ref> as described here. -- JeremyA 04:53, 6 January 2006 (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 Hebrew Wikipedia has a brief paragraph on it here. It would take me ~2 minutes the translate it. I'll do it once I get some sleep. El_C 08:33, 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. Tomer^talk 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 [6]: 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. Tomer^talk 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. :-) Tomer^talk 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)
    • Any perceived aspersions hereby retracted. I'll resolve the issue with שבת שלום :-) I won't go into nutrasweet... Tomer^talk 20:53, 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 Tomer^talk 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? Tomer^talk 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. Tomer^talk 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 Tomer^talk 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)

Date mistake?

Under "Early life", 3rd paragraph:

In 1994, he was promoted to company commander and in 1951 to intelligence officer.

I think the date 1994 is incorrect, as it doesn't make much sense otherwise...

I don't know for sure, but I'm gonna go ahead and agree with you, and go out on what I consider to be a fairly sturdy limb and propose that it's prolly sposta be 1949 instead of 1994. Tomer^talk 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This was a recent act of vandalism. GabrielF 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon became commander of the Golani Brigade's reconnaissance company in September 1949. (Sharon, Ariel (2001). Warrior: An Autobiography. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 074322566X, p. 68), but he became an intelligence officer for Central Command in 1950 (p. 69). --Ian Pitchford 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical issues

I agree with moving the detail to another article - Nixon's bio just says basically "on April 18, 1994 he suffered a major stroke and died four days later" - something simple like that can also be used when Sharon dies. PMA 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the TV news nets are suggesting that after Sharon the political parties or the Israeli people might go for "young and healthy" in their next long term leader rather than someone like Shimon Peres who is 82. PMA 21:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nixon didn't suffer a stroke while in office, so it attracted considerably less attention, and had considerably less impact on world affairs. --Delirium 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon's Hebrew name

It's Ariel Ben Devorah, maybe someone can squeeze that in somewhere. I also notice that the name Arik is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Arik is to Ariel as Robert is to Bob and, especially in Israel, Sharon goes by Arik. - Pyro19 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, surely his Hebrew name is "Ariel Sharon" and his 'European name' or whatever is "Ariel Scheinermann". If he was a Middle Ages rabbi rather than a 21st century Israeli politican maybe he would be known as "Ariel , son of X", but surely one would use his father's name here rather than his mother's.--Pharos 02:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He only has one common name, Scheinerman was his birth name and he later changed it to Sharon. A Hebrew name, sometimes known as a Jewish name, is something else (read this for an explanation). You're right though that it must be his father's name rather than his mother's, so it would be Ariel ben Shmuel. I bring this up now because as people are praying for him they are using his Hebrew name. I don't really care if it's in the article, I'm just bringing it to peoples attention.

I've decided to throw Arik in the article because, quite frankly, it's bizarre for an article on Sharon to not even mention the word. - Pyro19 08:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what a Hebrew name is; it's just to me a concept that doesn't make as much sense for an Israeli Jew named Ariel as for an American Jew named George or something. For Israelis, the "son of"/"daughter of" form is just a traditional patronymic; it's not any more "Hebrew" than their ordinary name. Of course "Arik" belongs in the article; it certainly was here before and must have been removed very recently. I think it would be a bit overkill to include "Ariel ben Shmuel", but it certainly would be appropriate to include the names of his parents, which communicates the same information.--Pharos 08:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. His parents name should be enough. - Pyro19 10:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ariel ben Dvora thing is being spread around by people (family, rabbis, various kibbitzers) requesting that people (individuals, synagogues, various follow-the-leader types) say a misheberakh for Ariq. Since his father is Jewish, his Hebrew name if he were to be called for an `aliya would be ben Shmu`el, not ben Dvora (although in some congregations it might be ben Shmu`el uDvora [ben Shmu`el's dad, etc.]). That said, I rather doubt that Sharon (as an Ashkenazi) actually considers his father's name to be part of his own. Not that I'm presuming to speak for him, but afaik, that's not part of Ashkenazi naming convention. Tomer^talk 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila: contradicting understatement/weasels in the intro?

The Sabra and Shatila references in the intro and appropriate section seem out of tune with each other. The intro states:

Furthermore, some consider certain of his wartime actions (particularly during the 1982 Lebanon War, see below) to have been war crimes.

The 'Sabra and Shatila massacre' section reveals that it was the Kahan Commission that recommended Sharon to be removed from his post as defense minister because:

We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office...

In my opinion, if the Kahan Commision reference is correct, the intro needs to be rewritten. While some consider his wartime actions to have been war crimes, I think it should be remarked in the intro that a government-appointed Israeli commission recommended his removal from office, because he bears personal responsibility.

Given the controversial topic, I'd like to hear some feedback before anyone touches the intro. 213.140.21.231 10:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While the Kahan Commission refers to "personal responsibility," this is only after it makes clear that "absolutely no direct responsibility devolves upon Israel or upon those who acted in its behalf." The reference is to Sharon's "indirect responsibility"--a point that isn't (but probably should be) made clear in the "Sabra and Shatila" section. 24.61.42.54 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead?

Does anyone else get the feeling that Sharon is dead and the media is just giving the public time to absorb the fact that they may lose this public figure? JoachimK 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No. El_C 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If he were, there's no reason anyone would announce that he's improving. Not to mention that for any individual media outlet, being the first to announce his death would be a major scoop. -- Pakaran 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, though I do get a deja vu sensation of what happened with Arafat, SqueakBox 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon's surgeon has just said his chance for survival is high. - Pyro19 22:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Head of neurology dept. at a major Israeli hopsital said that of these types of cases: 25% die within a few days, and of the seventy five percent that live beyond that, 25% get better and 50% show no improvement. El_C 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

People love to believe they aren't being told the whole truth. Perhaps this skepticism is good, because it ensures that people will always doubt and check the media's source material, creating greater accuracy. At the same time, I don't really think the media has a vested interest in lying about Ariel Sharon's medical crisis. People are probably more distressed now, because there's so many possible outcomes (death? full recovery? Partial recovery? Permanent disability? Resumption of political activity? Cessation of political activity and retirement into obscurity?) than there would be if there was only one outcome (death). Think of how you would feel if someone you felt passionately about (love or hate) were in a coma. Would you feel more relief if they were dead? At least then, you'd know what to expect. Now, no-one knows anything. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.50.32.67 (talk • contribs)

Huh. Again with the he's-already-dead-and-nobody-is-telling-us thing. Please! Sharon is not dead and Elvis is not alive ;) Redux 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

External Link

Can someone explain why the external link I added was deleted? (It was to this timeline: http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1054) Not only is it informative, but it certainly looks like the external links could use some balance, with two links to the virulently anti-Israel Electronic Intifada, and only one to an Israeli perspective source. I put the link back in--if it for some reason it shouldn't be there, could someone please explain why, and explain wikipedia's exteral link policy. Thanks. 24.61.42.54 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it that informative; it appears to depict a timeline already covered by the article. If a few items aren't, they can be added, no? El_C 01:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is so, the same would certainly apply to the two external links going to the Electronic Intifada Web site. 24.61.42.54 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what that is. El_C 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Death rumors

According to the World Tribune, Sharon was declared dead by 6 AM EST on Friday January 6th by physicians at Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital.

A computed tomography scan taken on Friday morning showed little to no brain activity in Sharon. At that point, Sharon's son, Omri, called aides and senior officials to the hospital to prepare for an announcement of the prime minister's death.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453741.9118055557.html

The problem is, in this case what does "death" mean? Is it complete death, just brain death, or what?

Flypanam 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It means clinical death, I think. All of this will likely become clear soon. Even though no one had said anything at this stage, it looks likely that they'll set up a commission to look into the health care he recieved, esp. why he wasn't forced to rest after the 1st stroke (see this). El_C 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this section from "Sharon's Dead? Or Is He?" to "Death Rumors." Based on the news, it appears very much as if he is NOT dead. Even the worldtribune.com story linked-to above states both that he is, and is not, dead. Of course it could all be one huge conspiracy and he really did pass away on Friday but it is being covered up for some unfathomable reason. But I don't think so. Anyway, I changed the heading so nobody looks at it and immediately decides Sharon is dead, when all the current evidence suggests he is not. (For some reason I have this sudden desire to watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail.) 6SJ7 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It has now occurred to me that if some people on Wikipedia do believe Sharon is dead and that a massive coverup is underway, that would just be par for the course. See the article, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, which not only exists, it has a tag stating that it is a controversial topic! 6SJ7 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead heavy

At the moment we have far too much detail in the lead section, and we should avoid this, even for subjects that are high-profile current events. I propose we move nearly all the information about the stroke from the lead section to the "Health problems" section, leaving only a sentence or two in the lead. It's tempting, but Wikipedia articles are meant to be encyclopedia articles, and we should resist the pressure to warp them into quasi news reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Crypto (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, AnonMatt, but others may. Best wait for more input. El_C 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila

I find this paragraph was better before and that additional information should only be written in the article dedicated to this. Christophe Greffe 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Do we really need three huge paragraphs in the introduction, taking up more than half the section, dedicated to his hospitalization? This wouldn't be a standard part of a biography. Put it this way: If, a month from now, he were well again, or if, a month from now, he were dead, would we want such a long section on his coma in the introduction? No. Just because it's a current event shouldn't give the event such huge prominence in the introduction — there should be a short reference to it, and then the information should be in the article's body. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but... You could put all of the details in the section later in the article regarding his health, and/or in the separate article about his health, but I suspect someone will just come along and add a lot of that stuff back into the intro. This (these) article(s) will not stabilize until after Sharon's situation does (for good or for bad) and the information can be added, rationally, into the right places in the article, and the "Illnesses" article can (probably) be merged back into this one. But that just isn't the case, yet. 6SJ7 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone came along and added stuff back in the intro, then they could be reverted easily enough. Wikipedia has quite well-established conventions about the lead section. I don't see why we need warp a decent encyclopedia article into a hybrid news piece simply because the topic happens to be a high profile current event. Wikipedia should be kept current, of course, and often does make a good source for current events, but our primary goal is to write high-quality encyclopedia articles. — Matt Crypto 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt, I see you have made the changes. I think you have done a good job, let's hope it sticks. 6SJ7 01:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (I put this in the wrong place the first time.)

Yeah, I think this is much better. Asbestos 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this is what occurs, 6SJ7, I think it's particularly important that articles involved in current events should be at their most professional. I imagine that the Sharon article is getting a much greater surge of hits than it has in recent months, and that many people searching for information about Sharon who come to this article are relatively new to Wikipedia. That's why I think that professionality ought to be more strict for current events, not less. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Qibya

Can whoever is claiming 99 killed at Qibya please provide a reputable source? I can find nothing claiming 99. Even harshly anti-Israel sources claim 69, for example: Electronic Intifada [7], al-Jazeera [8] , PalestineCampaign [9]

69 is the correct figure for Qibya itself, but two-thirds, not half, were women and children. --Ian Pitchford 10:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical Bloopers

[10]

Doctors have now discovered that Sharon suffers from cerebral amyloid angiopathy, which predisposes one to brain hemmorhages, and should not have been placed on long term anticoagulant medication following treatment of his earlier minor stroke.

Oops.

Hermitian 05:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideology and Beliefs

Let's please remember this is an encyclopedia, not an avenue for hyperbole. The claims that Sharon "was never apologetic" and "had no moral qualms with keeping his country secure by any means necessary" are hyperbole. I've removed them.

I've also removed the following quote, pending which appears to be one of the many hoax quotes circulating around the internet. A nexis search reveals that neither AFP nor any other outlet reported Sharon saying the quote:

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." (Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.)

As such, I've removed the quote.

What's more, this certainly can't be said to represent Sharon's "ideology and beliefs", even from the time. In fact, on Nov. 17, one day before the alleged quote, Sharon spoke before the Israeli Knesset, saying:

"I know of no other nation that would give up land embodying its historical heritage, but the government had to decide whether we want to make a genuine, sincere effort to reach arrangements that may some day, God willing, bring peace between us and our neighbours. The government's answer was yes. I, too, decided to try to reach an arrangement with the Palestinians."

So again, let's all be careful to keep within Wikipedia guidelines, and, of course, to stay accurate. Thanks. Gni 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Passages Palgiarized from Fisk

I've noticed that some contributors have been copying passages from articles by Robert Fisk and pasting them into the body of the article (without quotes or citation, as if it was written by a contributor). That's alarming not as much because of the clear plagiarism, but because turning the wikipedia article into a Robert Fisk article hardly bodes well for neutrality.

This passage from a 4/17/01 Fisk article, for example, was pasted right into the Ideology & Beliefs section:

"He voted against the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. He voted against a withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 1985. He opposed Israel's participation in the Madrid peace conference in 1991. He opposed the Knesset plenum vote on the Oslo agreement in 1993. He abstained on a vote for peace with Jordan in 1994. He voted against the Hebron agreement in 1997. He condemned the manner of Israel's retreat from Lebanon in 2000"

The passage about Lt. Grabowsky in the Kahan report, which has been removed due to inaccuracy (see Sabra Shatila discussion above), was similarly pasted directly from a Fisk article.

I hope all agree that there is, and must remain, an essential difference between a neutral Wikipedia encyclopedia entry and a partisan Fisk opinion column. Gni 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Christophe Greffe 09:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ya...In my view, this kind of thing belongs as a polemical prooftext in the Robert Fisk article, not here. Tomer^talk 06:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Weisglass Interview

The passage on Gaza evacuation states that "Dov Weisglass was quoted in Haaretz on October 6, 2004, as saying the purpose of disengagement was to destroy Palestinian aspirations for a state for years to come." Only a miniscule fraction of the Weisglass interview was published in the Oct. 6 Haaretz. The full interview was published Oct. 8, and it became clear that the Haaretz "teaser" from Oct. 6 distorted and took out of context Weisglass' words. In the full interview, Weissglas says nothing about "destroying Palestinian aspirations," and it is disingenuous and partisan POV to word it this way. He said in the interview that the gaza disengagement came after Israel, along with the U.S., "reached the sad conclusion that there is no one to talk to, no one to negotiate with" on the Palestinian side. "What's important is the formula that asserts that the eradication of terrorism precedes the start of the political process," Weissglas noted. This principle, he said, was the main achievement of the "road map" peace plan. According to Weissglas, Israel was pushed to the disengagement idea because the Palestinians were not fulfilling their obligations under the "road map". With the "road map" stalled, he explained, Sharon realized Israel would be pressured to negotiate even while the terrorism continued and that the principle calling for an immediate stop to Palestinian violence would be "annulled." He continued: "And with the annulment of that principle, Israel would find itself negotiating with terrorism. And because once such negotiations start it's very difficult to stop them, the result would be a Palestinian state with terrorism ... The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde." Gni 16:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

American English vs. British English

Regarding the comments on British English being removed, if I find evidence of this happening again I will be extremely displeased. American English has been proved scientifically inferior to British English, as most historians and language scientists will tell you. British English was the original form of English and is superior in every way to the American style, born of murderous homocidal maniancs charging through the West and commiting acts of genocide on the native population.

I have close ties to the British cabinet and the PM himself, if you Yank scum don't start accepting British English as the default form of English internationally, then this is a matte we are willing to go to war over.