Talk:Ariel Sharon/Archive 1

message: Please do not remove quotes...it's his quotes, no need to remove them.
:Do you have any other source for these quotes, preferably a source which is more neutral, and not dated April 1? --gadfium 02:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from [http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2002-04/01/article14.shtml] 

message: I just saw something that is either wrong English or I don't really understand it, namely -
the Israeli precursor to the Israeli Defense Force
I know we have an article on the IDF, but were there other precursors to it?
Someone mind explaining? Thx - Muhamedmesic 21:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little ol' spelling error? 

message: Laughable that anyone would think this is unsubstantiated..
:Well, that's just one article writer, and I'm sure I could find someone who called him a poopy pants too, but as always I'm willing to compromise to keep the peace. Jayjg 04:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see you live up to your false claim. "I'm sure I could find someone who called him a poopy pants too." Find one such article. Here are several more that describe the terrorist butcher Ariel Sharon as such: , , , --Alberuni 04:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This may shock you, but I suspect that not everything that has been said about Sharon is captured on the Internet.  But he has been called a bunch of things even on the Internet, maybe that should be expanded. Jayjg 05:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So your statement, "I'm sure I could find someone who called him a poopy pants too" was another fabrication. --Alberuni 05:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I stated my opinion, and I didn't state that I would restrict my search to the Internet.  In fact, I've called him a poopy pants myself.  And look: "Ariel Sharon is a poopy pants".  Now you can even find it on the Internet. Jayjg 05:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics view Sharon as a Terrorist 

message: Let's go section by section and NPOV every claim with references and attributions. --Alberuni 02:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do whatever you like. Jayjg 15:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You always revert anyway so it doesn't matter what anyone else does. Is that it? --Alberuni 05:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  I've never reverted a change which has reached consensus first in Talk: And I've left in dozens of your edits as well, even when you fail to bring them to Talk: (which is almost all the time). Jayjg 05:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, you are full of it. You are constantly editing out and reverting changes. You are impossible, arrogant, biased, and a poor speller. You are not an asset to Wikipedia. I hope you have better luck elsewhere in life. --Alberuni 06:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 10:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare Sharon and Arafat articles 

message: You are now claiming that 35,000 Palestinians were killed in Sabra and Shatila by Pahalangists. You need a vacation. --Alberuni 05:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. Jayjg 05:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg, your edits are getting sloppy 

message: Which parts of the article do you want to change, and why? Jayjg 22:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  HistoryBuffEr, let's open the dialogue here 

message: It is pretty safe to say that the Sabra and Shatila death toll was between 460 to 800, as those numbers were reported by the Lebanese police and Shin Bet, respectively.
:Other sources claim 3,000 or more.  It's best just to list the sources and their numbers. Jayjg 17:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll in Lebanon 

message: Daily Dvar and authour Amos Oz have given unlimited rights for the interview to be published as long as its attributed correctly
After a rant against liberal non Israli Jews Shorn has this to say...
"Leibowitz is right, we are Judeo-Nazis, and why not? Listen, a people that gave itself up to be slaughtered, a people that let soap to be made of its children and lamp shades from the skin of its women is a worse criminal than its murderers. Worse than the Nazis...If your nice civilised parents had come here in time instead of writing books about the love for humanity and singing Hear O Israel on the way to the gas chambers, now don't be shocked, if they instead had killed six million Arabs here or even one million, what would have happened? Sure, two or three nasty pages would have been written in the history books, we would have been called all sorts of names, but we could be here today as a people of 25 million!
"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. Then you can spruce up your Jewish conscience and enter the respectable club of civilised nations, nations that are large and healthy. What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. True, it could have been finished in 1948, but you interfered, you stopped it. And all this because of the Jewishness in your souls, because of your Diaspora mentality. For the Jews don't grasp things quickly. If you open your eyes and look around the world you will see that darkness is falling again. And we know what happens to a Jew who stays out in the dark. So I am glad that this small war in Lebanon frightened the Yids. Let them be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before it gets really dark. So I am an anti-Semite ? Fine. So don't quote me, quote Lilienblum instead [an early Russian Zionist - ed.]. There is no need to quote an anti-Semite. Quote Lilienblum, and he is definitely not an anti-Semite, there is even a street in Tel Aviv named after him. (C. quotes from a small notebook that was lying on his table when I arrived:) 'Is all that is happening not a clear sign that our forefathers and ourselves...wanted and still want to be disgraced? That we enjoy living like gypsies.' That's Lilienblum. Not me. Believe me. I went through the Zionist literature, I can prove what I say"
:Hi anonymous.  You may not be aware that this is actually a famous hoax:
Amos Oz never met nor interviewed Sharon. In fact, the so-called “interview” was a literary device taken from Oz's book “In the Land of Israel.” In the English version, the interviewee's identity is not revealed, and is referred to as Z (Flamingo/Fontana 1983).
Apparently, Palestinian propagandists substituted Sharon's name for Z in the Davar interview. The description of Z does not fit Sharon, and at one point Z refers to Sharon, Begin and General Eitan.
In a telephone conversation with journalist Holger Jensen, who had misattributed these quotes to Sharon, Amos Oz  confirmed that he had never met nor interviewed Sharon.
:Jayjg 20:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extract from Sharon's Famous Interview published in the Israeli daily Davar Dec. 17, 1982)

message: During this period, Sharon supported the Gush Emunim settlements movement and was viewed as the patron of the messianic settlers movement. He used his position to encourage the establishment of a network of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to prevent the possibility of the return of these territories to Palestinian Arabs. Sharon doubled the number of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip during his tenure.
: Please post your sources.  Thanks. --Viriditas 22:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source request 

message: This sentence was changed from:
"According to the Palestinians, Ariel Sharon has followed an aggressive policy of non-negotiation. Palestinians allege that the al-Aqsa Intifada started because of a visit by Sharon and an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex, site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. Sharon's visit came after archeologists claimed that extensive building operations at the site were destroying priceless antiquities. While visiting the site, Sharon declared that the complex would remain under perpetual Israeli control. Palestinian commentators accused Sharon of purposely inflaming emotions with the event to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks. "
to
"Ariel Sharon has followed an aggressive policy of non-negotiation with Palestinians and use of violence to force Palestinians into submission. Most observers agree that the second Palestinian uprising started because of the provocative visit by Sharon with an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex, site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. During the visit, Sharon declared that the complex would remain under Israel's control "forever". Many observers blamed Sharon for purposely inflaming emotions to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks."
OK, both versions need qualifying IMO. The first version (that is current at the time of writing) needs to state which Palestinians of note say that "Ariel Sharon has followed an aggressive policy of non-negotiation" and that "allege that the al-Aqsa Intifada started because of a visit by Sharon and an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex". 
The second version needs to state who the observers are that are in agreement that the "second Palestinian uprising started because of the provocative visit by Sharon with an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex"! Not only this, but "Many observers blamed Sharon for purposely inflaming emotions to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks." needs to be qualified similarly. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: An American investigatory commission was set up to look into the violence, charied by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell.  It stated "The Sharon visit did not cause the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed, it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited." . Jayjg 01:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Hey, any thoughts about this? Jayjg 17:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Shouldn't the article mention the Phalange were sent in to clear out PLO fighters? Jayjg 02:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it probably should. We should reference the report to make the article accurate, or mention that was the reason given in the report. However, was there any PLO fighters found or killed? If there weren't I think that should probably also be mentioned. IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a point of contention, one side claiming that PLO fighters were killed, the other (naturally) claiming only civilians. Regardless, as it stands the article gives the impression that the express Israeli reason for sending in the Phalange was to murder civilians, which is hardly accurate or NPOV. Jayjg 17:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Israel send the Phalange in?