Talk:Ariel Sharon/Archive 2

message: It is saddening to see what is happening with the first paragraph of this article, as it may be a sign of what bad things can happen with Wikipedia once it reaches a large-enough audiance - repeated useless editings that don't improve anything and just modify for the sake of modification, resulting in a slow drift into utter crap.
A few months ago, there were edit wars about the first paragraph. Some people made it say "Sharon is a war hero" and other made it say "Sharon is a war criminal", with the two camps constantly replacing the other camp's agenda by their own. The obvious solution was to do what I did: say that Sharon is regarded as a war hero by a majority of Israelis (the word "majority" I used here was proved when he was voted into office using this reputation), but he is regarded otherwise by other Israelis (some of those who voted against him) and by many other people around the world. The first paragraph as I wrote it was:
:Sharon is highly controversial figure in and outside Israel. Many Israelis view him as a war hero, who helped defend the country in some of its greatest struggles, and as such he was voted into office. However, a significant number of Israelis, as well as much of the rest of the world, consider some of his actions to have been war crimes, and feel that his recent actions have been damaging the peace process. Most infamous were his actions during the 1982 Lebanon War (see below).
Now we have:
:Sharon is a highly controversial figure in and outside Israel. Many Israelis view him as a war hero, and at present as a strong ruler determined to fight terrorism. However, a number of Israelis, as well as much of the Arab world, and certain other countires consider some of his past actions to have been war crimes, and feel that his recent actions have been damaging to the peace process. Most infamous were his actions as Defense Minister during the 1982 Lebanon War (see below).
Look at this, and at what we have today, and tell me if the slow drift did any good to this first paragraph. "Randomly" removing sentences that certain people didn't like for some reason, and at other times adding other sentences that certain people thought were "missing". I'm not saying the current version is bad - it is certainly better than the edit wars we used to have over this paragraph (which proves that my decision to write it like I did was correct) - but it makes me wonder about the continued quality of wikipedia in the future.
Nyh 12:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharon is a highly controversial figure both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Thus many Israelis, a significant number of Jews worldwide and many foreign observers regard Sharon as a war hero and a strong leader in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, a number of Israelis and foreign observers believe that his recent efforts have been damaging to the peace process. Sharon's most stringent critics have in the past sought his prosecution as a war criminal, on the grounds of his actions as Israeli Defense Minister during 1982 Lebanon War.
Yes, it's different all right, but better? I don't think so, and I wonder who does. Let's bet that it will drift some more when I sample it again in two more months...
16:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Sharon is a controversial figure both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Many Israelis, a significant number of Jews worldwide and many foreign observers regard Sharon as a war hero and a strong leader in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, a number of Israelis and foreign observers believe that his recent efforts have been damaging to the peace process. Sharon's supporters have described him as "a hero", "practical man", while his critics have called him a "terrorist", "lout", "sissy", and "spoiled parvenu" and sought his prosecution as a war criminal for his actions as Israeli Defense Minister during the 1982 Lebanon War. Still others have described him as a "de facto dove", and American President George W. Bush has described him as a "duly elected official in a democracy" and a "man of peace".
Oh well. I'm not saying this version is worse - the point I'm trying to make is this: this paragraph doesn't stop transforming. And it might never stop.
Nyh 08:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Sharon is a controversial figure, both inside and outside Israel, attracting diverse and often polar views. Many Israelis and supporters of Israel regard Sharon as a strong leader battling terrorism. Conversely, most Arabs and supporters of the Arab-Palestinian cause and some other critics refer to him as "the Butcher of Beirut" and have sought his prosecution as a war criminal.
WHO'S CALL?!?!
Is it by this justifaction of one person that we ALL should be unable to type information about the Prime Minister?  I think it it strange to have disabled us from adding and 'tweeking' information because of an opinion.  It's weak.
Nyh 13:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: First of, I've found lots of sources claiming that the Al-Aqsa intifada was "ignited" or "sparked" by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, many fewer that claims it was "started" by it. Second, Israel may very well have claimed that "the Al-Aqsa Intifada was engineered by Yasser Arafat as a leverage tool," but the source offered;  (a cite by Yassir Arafat in which he "warns of new intifada" from 1998) does not back up what the article states. Palestine-info 16:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ignited" and "sparked" are inflammatory language, if you'll pardon the pun.  "Started" certainly provides the same meaning in a NPOV way.  As for the second issue, I've re-worded the language so the problem no longer exists, and found other references as well.  Finally, you have failed to discuss your continued attempts to insert a nearly anonymous opinion piece that deals mostly with other topics in a non-contested area of the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, wrongo.  Ignited and sparked are 'not' identical in meaning to started.  "A started B" implies that A is the primary cause of B.  "A ignited or sparked B" implies that A was among many causes of B, and probably some other cause C was the primary cause.  There is a clear difference in 'substance' here, not just in verbiage.  --Kasreyn
Why do you believe "ignited" and "sparked" is inflammatory language? "Started" suggests that it was Sharon's visit alone that was the cause of the intifada. Most Palestinian sources that deal with Sharon's visit to Temple Mount explains that the climate was ripe for a second intifada and that Sharon's provocation was the event that sparked it. As for the second issue, your use of selective quoting to prove that the Palestinians started the intifada is not good. Neither are they relevant to this article which deals with Sharon, not the Al-Aqsa intifada. Better would be if you would like to provide a source for this sentence "Israel claimed instead that the Al-Aqsa Intifada was engineered by Arafat as a leverage tool." And you have to clarify which "nearly anonymous opinion piece" which I have attempted to insert. Palestine-info 18:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I've removed the internet hoax quote that Yuber inserted as a WP:POINT.  The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon.  See   As well, inserting the hoax quote at the top of the article, as opposed to the bottom, where quotes normally goes, shows shocking bad faith. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Land of Israel is not a fictional work, however this "quotation" is a fiction.  Oz did not ever claim that Sharon said anything like that. --Zero 11:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a few more quotes, please tell me if I'm showing bad faith as I value what you think.Yuber(talk) 23:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you're acting in bad faith; you've gone to a particularly nasty site, and found a serious of dubious "quotes" from various senior Israelis figures intended to make them look bad.  It's good evidence, though, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah right, but when you add a dubious quote from Moshe Gil that is editing in "good faith".  Your double-standards are amazing, since most of these quotes are from israeli/american sources.Yuber(talk) 04:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you know what the phrase "double standard" means.  Moshe Gil is a well-respected historion; the websites you've brought are crap.  As well, the first of the two quotes you added was another well-known hoax. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kos Yisrael radio is a hoax now?Yuber(talk) 04:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If he had actually said it there, then no.  But since he didn't, that makes it a hoax.  In fact, it was invented by a pro-Hamas organization:  Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: Please try to remember, this is a brief article outlining the man's entire life.  And it hardly seems relevant now, since his policies have changed; rather, it seems like an attempt to push a POV. Jayjg (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have quotes that you can source appropriately that show that he has changed this position? The POV that I am "pushing" is that Sharon has supported a landgrab by the settlers, which is not consonant with the "roadmap" or any other approach to peace that involves Palestinian autonomy in the disputed territories. It's a key issue about Sharon, Jay.  His position on the settlements is much discussed -- in connection both with the Gaza pullout and with the West Bank. I'm not suggesting we include our own analysis of it, of course, but I think that trying to exclude mention of his views on the settlements is a bit fishy. Grace Note 23:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the fact that he now supports removing all settlers from the Gaza Strip despite fierce opposition from within his own party would indicate that he no longer holds this position.  The settler movement now considers him to be a traitor. If you feel the you need to promote his earlier views, you need to balance them with his current views. Jayjg (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that his change of position over Gaza shows that he has changed his mind. It's just a tactical thing, Jay. I think it's reasonably clear that he feels that he can sacrifice Gaza to hang on to more of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem. He understands that by giving some he can paint the Palestinians as the incalcitrant party in negotiations. Hey, we gave them Gaza but they still won't give up their claim on Jerusalem. That kind of thing. But having said that (which I wouldn't want included unless it is sourced, of course, I don't expect my personal analysis of Sharon's motives to be any part of our article), I don't see why one wouldn't include that as a counterargument. If you can find him saying that he's changed his mind about grabbing land, you could include that. If you can find a reputable source who claims that Gaza represents a change of heart across the board, you could include that. The whole issue is certainly interesting. It poses a lot of questions that are not simply answered. It certainly shouldn't be ignored though, and that particular quote is taken to be indicative of Sharon's general attitude to the settlers, who he has generally encouraged, I think you'd have to agree. Grace Note 04:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your political analysis is interesting; I personally think he is trying to make peace. In any event, it's not that relevant.  You may also believe that he still supports the settlers, but they certainly don't any more.  In fact, they believe the opposite, and have for a couple of years:   Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: kof. . It's not my analysis, Jay. "However, Mr Sharon regards the annexation of Maale Adumim as Israel’s reward for pulling out of the Gaza Strip — and he also wants other blocs, such as Gush Etzion and Ariel. Each holds more Jewish settlers than the Gaza outposts put together."   "The settlement blocs, however, "will be a part of the State of Israel, territorially connected to Israel, and with a much larger population than there is today."" It seems Mr Sharon shares my view of his ideas. Grace Note 00:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is your political analysis He understands that by giving some he can paint the Palestinians as the incalcitrant party in negotiations. Hey, we gave them Gaza but they still won't give up their claim on Jerusalem. That kind of thing.  And negotiation always involves give and take, there's nothing nefarious about that; did you imagine it would just be all give by one side? Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course I don't, Jay. The Palestinians have already given 78% of what they claimed. Gaza is not much to gain for surrendering any hope of a contiguous, viable state. Grace Note 04:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How would giving up Maale Adumim and other Jerusalem suburbs mean "surrendering any hope of a contiguous, viable state"? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet hoax quote 

message: ::The removal of quotes by Jayjg is disturbing.  He has done this to every Israeli politician article I have added quotes to, and has called it "vandalism" even when it comes out of Israeli/American sources.  Maybe he should try to accept that Israeli politicians aren't perfect angels and that they do say some offensive things.  Thank God for secular Jews/leftist and moderate Israelis, or else any quote I would cite from an Arab source would be considered a hoax or a "hate site".Yuber(talk) 13:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was your addition that was disturbing, and you have confused me with other editors; when you made this comment I certainly had not removed the quotes from "every Israeli politician article I have added quotes to".  My initial objections to your quotes included the fact that they were known hoaxes, or were duplicates in articles which already linke to Wikiquote.  Those objections remain, and are compounded by the fact that you have taken them all from a single webpage which contains known hoax quotes, thus making them all dubious unless confirmed from more reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of quotes 

message: Article currently says "Gur died in October 1967 after being shot while playing with his father's rifle". My assumption is that the rifle discharged whilst he was playing with it, the shot killing him. However, it's also possible to interpret the sentence in other ways, eg: someone shot the child taking Gur to be armed and, therefore, some kind of threat. I don't know the circumstances. Perhaps someone who does could clarify the article? --bodnotbod 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified it.  Gur Sharon and a friend were playing with Ariel Sharon's gun when the friend accidentally shot Gur.  OCNative 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on his son's death 

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

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

message: I added the little "president" infobox to the article, I hope no one minds. If there is a reason why it shouldn't belong here please tell me. I find it strange that most (all?) of the former Prime Ministers of Israel are missing the infobox. 
A couple of things: 
- under political party I put "Likud, Kadima". I don't know if this is the best way to go about it. You decide.
- I left spouse blank. Should I have instead put his wife along with the date of birth and death?
- Under place of birth I entered "Kfar Malal, Palestine (pre-state Israel)". Again, I'm not sure if that is the best way to say it (maybe it should be "Kfar Malal, British Mandate of Palestine"), you can decide. Pyro19 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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. -Werdna648T/C\@ 03:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event?? 

message: 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.  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, .  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Somewhat Impressed Overall 

message: 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)
thread_title:  VANDALISM! 

message: 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 [] 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Health issues 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Reported Death 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: According to , 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)

text: Actually as per  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, everyone. Avengerx 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inform me 

message: 
Which produces:
:I forgot about semi protection. sorry. Bawolff 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, also removed semi-protection for now, I'll keep an eye on the article though. -- Pakaran 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please add wikinews box 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Somewhat Strange Space After Link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  separation of early life and early military career 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Eternal judgement 

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

text: FWIW, I agree with its removal. --Elliskev 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Ehud Olmert? 

message: To the ignorant administrator (Markasexander100) 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I also fixed that, I believe on more than one occasion. El_C 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Heh, that wasn't me. :) El_C 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No title 

message: 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)
replies: text: No harm in it; he is the PM of country with a substantial Arab-speaking population. El_C 02:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but the original name is in Hebrew, not Arabic. --Cramer 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Note my changes to Israel. El_C 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PM status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Big Question 

message: Any chance of converting the inline links to  and ? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! What? El_C 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be easier to use  and  as described here.   --  JeremyA 04:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting to [[Template:Ref]] and [[Template:Note]] 

message: 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.  Tomertalk 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a recent act of vandalism. GabrielF 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharon became commander of the Golani Brigade's reconnaissance company in September 1949. (Sharon, Ariel (2001). Warrior: An Autobiography. Simon & Schuster. , p. 68), but he became an intelligence officer for Central Command in 1950 (p. 69). --Ian Pitchford 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date mistake? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Medical issues 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't know what that is. El_C 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Death rumors 

message: 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.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt Crypto (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections, AnonMatt, but others may. Best wait for more input. El_C 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead heavy 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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 , al-Jazeera  
, PalestineCampaign 
::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)
thread_title:  Qibya 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Medical Bloopers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ideology and Beliefs 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Alithien 09:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya...In my view, this kind of thing belongs as a polemical prooftext in the Robert Fisk article, not here.  Tomertalk 06:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passages Palgiarized from Fisk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weisglass Interview 

message: I'm surprised the article doesn't mention when or why Sharon changed his name from "Ariel Scheinermann" to "Ariel Sharon". It really should be in the article. Mike Dillon 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very common for Jews to change their name to a Hebrew one when they immigrate to Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very tue, however Sharon was born during the British Mandate in today's Israel. In addition to the immigration event, people also changed names at later stages, especially in the public service. In government agencies there were expectations, and possibly also requirements, of anyone from certain levels of management and command to change names. gidonb 04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scheinermann 

message: Can someone please justify the removal of the external link to the article 'Ariel Sharon: an Israeli Caligula'? (http://www.obelus.org/index.php?artID=15) Since this essay is a comprehensive chronology of Sharon's war crimes, fully annotated, and with most of the sources being themsleves Israeli, I can't see how it could be considered unsuitable: on the contrary, it does prompt one to suspect that there are other motives for its removal. Which why I am asking for an explanation.
Give me a break, Comparing a mainstream politician to Caligula, not NPOV buddy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link removed 

message: I believe the term "Incapacitation" does not accurately reflect the overall health ordeals Sharon has gone through. His health problems did not begin with his being comatose. I tried changing article title to "Health Problems and Subsequent Incapacitation" but it has been reversed to "Incapacitation". I'd say we should keep his illness a very brief memo on the page and link readers directly to his "Illnesses" page.
Shiranweber 18:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Problems or Incapacitation?? 

message: Recently it has been argued that "Sharon is not particulary controversial inside Israel anymore".
* Sharon has been a highly controversial figure, both in and outside Israel.
has been changed to
* Sharon has been a highly controversial figure. Today his critics are mostly outside of Israel, but in the past he has been very controversial there as well.
Sharon is one of the most hawkish PMs ever, extremely controversial, and heavily criticized to this day inside Israel. I find this edit to be unsupported. However, if there is a reasonable number of citations from reputable scholarly or journalistic sources that generally agree that he is "not particulary controversial inside Israel anymore" then I would be very interested to read them, and will agree to the edit.--AladdinSE 11:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new text is simply wrong. Ignoring the suppression of criticism that occurred when he went into a coma, he is more controversial now than ever.  The Gaza disengagement and surrounding events made him controversial amongst the right wing as well, whereas it used to be only amonst the left wing. --Zero 11:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some will claim he is controversial, some will claim he is not. Depends on one's POV. Why do we need such a statement at all? gidonb 18:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would support removing the entire phrase.  What I meant to show, though in that edit I did it poorly, was that at the time of his coma, sharon was mroe popular than ever, it was wrong that I said he wasn't controversial because he clearly was, especially becasue of the disengagment plan, but he still had the support of a large majority of the population, and his party (that some said was his personal vehicle) is expected to gain a plurality on what some say is Sharon's persona.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not meaningless. Areil Sharon is highly controversial. He attracts a great deal of passionate support and criticism, and always has. Sharon does happen to attract polarized opinions about himself and his policies. It is just flat out false to claim that he is no longer so since falling into a coma. However, if you really dispute that he is controversial and want citation, I understand, though it might seem strange to a reader that such a widely held view seems to require citation. More importantly, it's Moshe's edit that "Today his critics are mostly outside of Israel" which is false, and unsupported by citation. Also, Moshe's other changes and citations do not match. The BBC source he used does not say that at the time of his stroke Sharon enjoyed support "from most areas of the political spectrum" or that "Kadima is expected to gain a plurality in the 2006 national elections". I replaced one of the BBC sources with another that directly mentions what Kadima is expected to accomplish, and accurately correlated the information about support for Sharon at the time of the stroke, to the source. --AladdinSE 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Where did I say that he is no longer criticized since his coma? also I already changed the reference that his critics are mostly outisde of Israel long before you made this response so I don't quote understand the purpse of bringing it up again.  And the three sources I added are all pointed to the conclusion that he had support from most areas of the political spectrum, but anyways that passage has been changed also.  The reason that the sources seemd to point to the wrong passages was becasue the order of words got all changed around.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Needless to say I completley disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote, however I see no reason to continue arguing about this since it has been resolved.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharon as controversial or not, inside Israel 

message: Please see: Talk:Ariel Sharon/Archive 2#Totally Disputed and why. --AladdinSE 11:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this phrase is not encyclopedic enough for the introduction.  It belongs in the Beirut-related part of the article.  --Zero 11:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said back then, it's certainly not encyclopedic, and has no place here, particularly in the introduction. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we reached any kind of consensus, just somewhat of a stop-gap measure until we do.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Butcher of Beirut", revisited 

message: If the elections formally ended his time in parliament, don't they also formally end his tenure as PM? PMA 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. Also in the infoboxes should we list that de jure date only or both it and the de facto date he ceased to be PM (4 January when he had the stroke)? PMA 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: "Sharon was hospitalised on December 18, 2005 after reportedly suffering a minor ischemic stroke. Sharon spent four days in hospital, and was released on December 20" someone needs to some math! 20-18!=4 --130.216.191.184 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  length of hospital mistake? 

message: i added a merge template on that page.  there seems little reason for the article to exist outside of Ariel Sharon.  It certainly has no permanent encyclopedic value.  It's not as though his illness is either out of the ordinary for people his age or significant to his life. [anon user]
The Illnesses of Ariel Sharon is covering a current event, it should remain there until further developments. Joncnunn 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely irrelevant.  Current events only get their own articles if they are encyclopedic.  50 years from now will Sharon's illness be any more significant than anyone elses?  If Sharon had a rare illness of some type, having its own article would make since.  Sharon is an obese old guy who had strokes.  That's not notable.  You don't make articles that have no long term significance.  The information should be merged into this article, where it belongs.  --MateoP 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, this article should be merged ASAP if no one objects to it -- Snailwalker | talk 12:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Illnesses of Ariel Sharon]] 

message: Can someone change the term "miscreants" in relation to destroying the Gaza synagogues after the Israeli withdrawal.  It makes it seem like some kids hanging out when in reality it was Palestinians with hatred for Jews.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mister Nobody (talk • contribs) .
It was Arabs - there are no 'Palestinians'.
if you're from the palestinian region you're palestinian unless you're israli oops i forgot to call israel and the surronding lands anything other than "the land the israelis' imaginary friend gave them" the palestinian people are just as fictional as the israeli people. how long will it take for someone to try and stifle my freedom of speech by calling me a bigot i wonder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.30 (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscreants 

message: While the Sabra and Shatila massacre was undoubtedly a defining moment in Sharon’s history, I find that the article focuses too much on it while neglecting his vital role as the originator and architect of the Israeli invasion to Lebanon in 1982 (during which the massacre took place). His part in the Lebanon war was arguably the most significant thing he did in his career. This is not even mentioned in the article. Any thoughts? Amirig 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon Invasion 

message: Why there is no mention in the article of the infamous Sharon remark to Perez: don't worry about US pressure, we jewish people control America? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) .
:This user seems to be right. BhaiSaab talk 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BhaiSaab, which source are you referring to? There's talk about this on the Ouze Merham page, if you do indeed find a source that confirms it, not just a bunch of search results, you may want to update that, too. CarlosCoppola 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This hoax is also discussed on the CNI page.  It's amazing how many people have fallen for it. Precis 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: I keep looking at the source of the article and can't figure out how they got the text direction correct for the right-to-left Hebrew text amidst the left-to-right English text (look at the article on Paul Ben-Haim, at least two other people have tried to correct it and have failed). I looked in the history, but there are way too many edits to look through. Can anyone tell me how to do this? Robert Happelberg 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text direction 

message: The date of birth in this article is: february 27 while in the wikipedia 'list of dates' Sharon's birth is mentioned under february 26. Anyone who can confirm one of both, please update and delete this discussion-item
:the hebrew wikipedia says the 26th. Jon513 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of birth 

message: "Moshe Dayan was born in a kibbutz ("collective farm"), Degania Alef ("Degania A"), Palestine, near the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). His parents were Shmuel and Devorah who were Jewish immigrants from Russia, and he was the first child born in the newly established community. At age 14, he joined the Haganah, the underground Jewish militant group which was at a very early stage in its history. He was greatly influenced by the military teachings of the English pro-Zionist officer Orde Wingate when Dayan was a sergeant prior to World War II." 
So Sharon and Dayan have the same named parents, both come from Russia and both joined Haganah at 14? I do not know anything about this and just wanted it to bring it to the attention of someone who might --Frup 08:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence? 

message: On October 14, 88.153.34.93 added an external link to a site completely devoted to Sharon : http://www.ariel-sharon-life-story.com/. The site contains a lot of information, but it is impossible to know who wrote it and it contains no e-mail adress to join the webmaster. If someone finds out who the author is or where the text come from, please let me know. --Scroteau96 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: It's been brought up twice before in this talk page, but I thought third time's the charm.  Would someone knowledgeable about the subject please add to the article a brief (sourced) explanation of when and why he changed his name to Sharon, and the meaning of the name?  Thanks.  Robert K S 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was common practice in the early 50s for all gov't officials and sr. army officers to change their names which had meaning in European languages to Israeli/Hebrew names that either sounded like their previous name, or had the same meaning, as part of the process of "nation building". Sharon is named for the coastal plain north of Tel Aviv. Former user 2 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That answers the why, now if we can get the when and the sourcing... Robert K S 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is particularly noteworthy.  Of all the articles about Israeli political figures who changed their name, I doubt there are more than a few that mention the timing.  I don't see any reason to single out Ariel Sharon, and I also don't see any value in delving into the details of everybody's name change.  6SJ7 04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change to Sharon 

message: The infobox says he died "October 15, 2006", yet then at "Incapacitation" it says "On November 6, 2006, it was reported that Sharon has been moved out of an intensive care unit after treatment for a heart infection." This implies he is not dead. If he is still in a coma, then it should not say he died "October 15, 2006". Have I missed something? Jpeob 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out; others had reverted some vandalism but didn't go back far enough, and missed that (and another piece of vandalism as well.)  The fictitious "death date" for Sharon was just added a few hours ago.  I just reverted back to the last vandalism-free version.  6SJ7 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death or continued incapacitation? 

message: This section needs major work. It seems like a blurb about him going to al-Aqsa in 2000 (before he was PM), something about French antisemitism and other trivia bunched together with a picture. It doesnt talk about his accomplishment during his prime ministership or anything very relevant. I believe a rewrite is in order. Jeztah 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Prime Minister 

message: The statement that Sharon was the first Israeli OP.M. who was not of Likud or Labour in incorrect.
1948-53  David Ben-Gurion  Mapai  
1953-55  M. Sharett  Mapai  
1955-63  David Ben-Gurion  Mapai  
1963-69  Levi Eshkol  Mapai/Labor  
David S Sinclair, Montreal, 28 Jan 2007
:Mapai eventually became the Labour party. nadav (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The references in this article need fixing as the references section at the bottom of the page shows two references numbered 14. Consequentially all subsequent references are displaying the incorrect number in the reference section. e.g. the 15th reference in the page (which is correctly numbered 15 in the text) shows in the references section as the second 14. This is having a knock on effect with all subsequent references with these references all showing up as one number less than they should be. e.g. if you click on the up arrow next to the reference labeled 24 in the references section it takes you to a reference in the text labeled 23.
Sorry for the verbose description. I don't know how to fix this problem so I will have to leave to someone else to do. Morgan Leigh 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go ahead... nobody is stopping you! ;) --Maxl 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References need fixing 

message: Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to have a picture of Sharon during the Six-Day War. I think it would contribute greatly to the article. --The monkeyhate 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Sharon in the Six-Day War? 

message: I don't believe this article meets the GA criteria, so I've raised the matter here. Giggy Talk | Review 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]