Talk:Operation Wrath of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Wrath of God is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Operation Wrath of God appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 25, 2006.

Operation Wrath of God has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

This used to be a redirect to the page Munich Massacre. Since the two topics are substantially different, I figure that that should warrant separate articles. Joshdboz 15:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe that Black September existed? Do you believe Yuval Aviv's story?Scott Adler 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--Nobody said that he/she believed in Black September or Yuval Aviv's story. As much as you disagree with the existence of the knowledge, they are on Wikipedia as a reference for the general audience to decide whether they are real or hoax. Regards, Vic226 06:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--Well said Vic. Scott, below you say you are an expert on this subject, but your comments (with all due respect) are amateurish. You are reacting emotionally. I have taken courses on intelligence and espionage and feel qualified to say that this is a respectable article. Moomot 14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Eliminated 2 Never existed 3 Revert 4 Passed GA nomination 5 Hoax and should be eliminated 6 Staged operation 7 This article should be scrapped 8 Vandalism 9 Critcism 10 Hey Now 11 Hoax?

[edit] Eliminated

I am very unhappy about the use of this word. It is a euphemism. In my opinion it dehumanizes the victim. I'm not sure what should replace it, perhaps simply "killed". Brainfood 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed every occurrence of "eliminated" to either "assassinated" or "killed". Articles such as this are remarkable in the sense that they successfully (excuse the clichés) walk a tightrope over a minefield. However in this case I think the repeated reference to "successful elimination" was not balanced. Brainfood 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

terrorists in the black september are anything but victims. Amoruso 18:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed completely with Brainfood, thanks for the reverts. Joshdboz 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see this as a difficult one, and I'm not sure of the correct answer, eliminated, neutralised or terminated are what words that would be used in millitary speak and I feel that the first to of these words do work well as they carry a NPOV. Assassinated is a charged word, as people remember it in connection with the JFK or MLK assinations and it is generally related to something which is generally politically motivated rather than security related. Killed is emotive as people will relate it to killings as reported in the media. In reference to "successful elimination" that is what this would have been regarded as by the people undertaking the operation, so it may have merit, but in a specific context. MattUK 20:20, November 28 2006 (UTC)

My view is that the most basic description is "they died". If we are interested in cause and effect the phrase would be something like "they were killed". In this field there is no term without emotional conotations. Eliminated, neutralised or terminated all claim the person deceased was solely a military/security/strategic object and no other dimensions or aspects to their humanity existed. While this may be the optimum belief for state sanctioned killers, or terrorists, it is POV. A human being is multidimensional and to deny this is POV. We look for the least worst term to describe those who kill innocents to further their cause. We say "they killed" or more commonly "3000 people died". But we dont use euphemisms. They didnt "involuntarily enroll, in a glorious sacrifice, 200 people". Even if that was the way the killers saw it. In the same way here I think taking the POV of the killers in OWOG and using eliminated, neutralised etc in our narration would not be neutral. SmithBlue 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Two posts above signed Joshdboz contradict each other over "Eliminated" use. Second of the posts was actually by MattUK according to "history". SmithBlue 03:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the second one was by me, New to this and wasnt sure how to sign the comment, so as I have on the previous ones I copied the sign from the one above so I had the correct formatting and changed the details, unfortunatly, due to doing this while on the phone and getting distracted I forgot to change the name section, sorry for being slow on this, and sorry Joshdboz for the mess up and any confusion. I've changed it so the comment above is correctly signed by myself. MattUK 19:26, November 29 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never existed

I just deleted a sentence put in by User:Greenday121: It should be noted that this operation, officially, never existed. First of all I there is no source to back up this claim, it is possible Israel has admitted to this campaign. Also, given the fact that this is described as a covert action, I think it is implied that this was done secretly and with full denials. Joshdboz 10:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted a pretty obvious vandalism attempt -- it refered to serving Satan and "stupid PHUCKS", among other things.--Icewolf34 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA nomination

I noticed this pop up on my watchlist after a short while of inactivity, with a request for GA status. As I have peer reviewed this before, and the stage it was in at that time was already very good, and it has only improved since then, I feel it passes GA criteria easily. --Lethargy 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax and should be eliminated

This whole article is based on a hoax. It should be eliminated and merged into Munich Massacre.

The entire "Wrath of God" concept is based on a widely discredited book by New York Publicity hound Yuval Aviv. The destruction of the Fatah terrorist network in Europe by the Mossad is a valid entry, but "Operation Wrath of God" is a joke, an insult, mere propaganda. My favorite part is a claim that "Black September retaliated against the Israeli government"

Uh-huh. Black September never existed. If it did, who were its leaders? Where was its headquarters? Who were its sponsors? Black September was FATAH.

And if there was one group Fatah NEVER attacked, it was the Israeli government, out of fear that if a government official was killed, Arafat would be next.

Peer Review? I wonder who did it? Yuval Aviv?68.5.64.178 07:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this article is somewhat controversial, but it would serve you well to read the article and look at its sources before criticizing it. Almost this entire article is based on the consensus of many sources. Because Yuval-Aviv's book is so controversial and verifiably questionably, I have only used it when talking about the possible organization of the Wrath of God teams, and in a seperate section devoted entirely to the controversy. You're correct in that Black September was very close to Fatah, although people disagree as to how close the links where. Black September carried out numerous attacks against Israeli targets, and the evidence is well documented. Please refrain from shouting before you check you're facts.--Joshdboz 11:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted the recent edits you've made to the article, because they readded the word "terrorist" in many places where it was purposefully removed, and because you change statements to mean different things without references. As for you're complaints about the title, all I can say is what it says in the footnotes, this was a name given to the operation by the press years after its occurence, and was probably never used by the Mossad. However, it has become the standard name in most books and press stories used to describe the events which occured, so I believe it is a suitable enough title.--Joshdboz 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A question regarding the sequence of events: It is said that OWoG was planned after the hijacking of a Lufthansa plane and the subsequent release of the remaining Munich terrorists. However, the hijacking took place on October 29th, and the first "target" of OWoG as reported in the article was Zwaiter, on October 16th. This doesn't work, does it? Either OWoG was already planned before (and ostensibly modified after the Oct 29th events to include the three released terrorists) or Zwaiter's death cannot be considered part of OWoG. Or am I missing something? 82.83.202.198 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. Obviously no one really knows when all the background events actually took place, but I think I've rearranged the wording to reflect this. Feel free to improve. Joshdboz 13:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staged operation

"After the three surviving perpetrators of the massacre were released just months later by Germany in compliance with the demands of the hijackers of a Lufthansa aircraft, Golda Meir created Committee X, a small group of government officials tasked with formulating an Israeli response, with herself and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan at the head."

Shoulden't we mention that the German goverment is reported to have staged the Lufthansa hijacking in order to prevent genuin terror attacks? --Boris Johnson VC 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anything's been proven but if you can reference it go ahead. Joshdboz 13:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In both ESPN/ABC’s documentary The Tragedy of the Munich Games and in Kevin Macdonald’s Academy Award-winning documentary One Day in September, it is claimed that the whole hijacking episode was a sham, concocted by the West Germans and Black September so that the Germans could be rid of the three Munich perpetrators. The view is that the Germans were fearful that their mishandling of the rescue attempt would be exposed to the world if the three Fürstenfeldbruck survivors had ever stood trial[2].

Found this on the Munich massacre page, though i'm not sure if this counts as evidence. --Boris Johnson VC 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added this line The suddeness of Germany's capitulation to the demands has since aroused suspicion as to whether the entire hijacking was simply a show to allow West Germany to rid itself of the possibility of future retaliation.[8] Please adjust it to how you see fit. Joshdboz 16:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Boris Johnson VC 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be scrapped

This article is based on two obnoxious hoaxes -- the Yuval Aviv novel "Veneance" and Yasser Arafat's "Black September" cover story.

There was no "Wrath of God" operation. The Israelis attacked the Fatah network. There was no "Black September", it was a cover for Fatah, nothing more. Yes Arafat included operatives from other organizations, big deal. If it actually existed, who were its leaders? Where was its headquarters? Why did it suddenly disappear?

I don't know what kind of fools engaged in the "peer review" process that approved of this nonsense. I'm an expert in this era-- I was only 50 miles away from the the "Black September" war while it was going on. Anyone who supports the work of Yuval Aviv or believes that Black September actually existed should be working on articles about vegetables.Scott Adler 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though I have no opinion about this yet, if you are unhappy about anything in the article (or, in this case, the article itself), please, for the sake of civility, don't include taste of personal attacks in your commentary. Thanks, Vic226 04:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott Adler, this article has been criticized several times before for relying on Yuval Aviv and been called a hoax. If you read the article and look at the footnotes you'll see that none of this is true. Yuval Aviv (in the book Vengeance) is only used as a source in small subset of the "Organization" section and in the final section entitled "Vengeance". Because it is an unverified account, it is never used for any information with regards to background, operations, etc. You're correct in that there was no official "Wrath of God" operation; this was a name that started floating around the press at the time to describe the series of assassinations conducted by Israel. As for Fatah and Black September connections, yes many people have concluded through research and the accounts of senior Palestinians that Black September was nothing but an armed front organization for Fatah. However, that conclusion is somewhat contentious, so it is more neutral and verifiable to continue to use the label Black September. This issue is addressed somewhat in one of the first few footnotes. Joshdboz 12:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I request for protection of this page due to recent vandalism (Why is it not protected anyway? Isn't it on the Front Page?)--kenobi.zero 04:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sprotectedTalk}}-ed. I was considering not since it wasn't that frequent yet, but I changed my mind after the last 2 edits by 24.65.3.116 almost killed my computer just to load his vandalized version. Vic226 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a longstanding policy to not protect the main page featured article, regardless of how severe the vandalism gets. Daniel Case 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of Nigger is completely inappropriate and should be immediately removed. I wonder why Wikipedia tolerates the use of Nigger but has completely removed derogatory refernces to Jewish people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.181.156 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you were talking about the vandal by an annonymous IP user that has been automatically reverted, since nowhere in the article mentions anything about the word "nigger". And why did you mention the seemingly unrelated thing about the "removal of Jewish people" references here? Vic226 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't ageee that that Wiki or the community in any way sanctioned making a page about "Operation Wrath of God" pages and pages of the word "nigger" as you can see it was reverted immediatly. If you think that using the word "nigger" to fill pages is some kind of Wiki policy then you obviously don't understand this site at all. The page is now as it should be and will probably be semi protected as most pages which are put on the front page usually are. MattUK 05:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree -- this page NEEDS to be protected immediately, I clicked on the link from the home page and was directed to "DO A BARREL ROLL"

[edit] Critcism

There is an extremely long passage at the beginning of "Criticism" that uses a simple book review from a periodical as its reference. This should be removed or checked for additional sources, such as the sources cited in the book itself. Avery 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This section of text used to be in the Munich massacre article and was copy/pasted over by me. I have read the book and have confirmed all of the book review's assertions, although at that time I didn't think it was necessary to replicate sourcing from the book itself. I could change that in the future but unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book right now. Joshdboz 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Joshbodz! I will try to find a copy for sourcing.Avery 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Now

All of you seem to have high critism's of this article what do you have to back up your critism besides critism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.169.250.83 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax?

The following discussion was previously posted on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors -- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

This article is based on an infamous hoax. There was no "Operation Wrath of God" -- the claim is based entirely on the ravings of a man by the name of Yuval (or Juval) Aviv, a poseur discredited twenty years ago. Aviv was never a member of Mossad, but his ravings have been made into two separate films. The Mossad did not target the perpetrators of the Munich Massacre, but the Fatah terror network that European governments illegally permitted on their soil, a specific violation of the Hague Treaty of 1907. (Check the text, if you like) How the hell did such a rediculous scandal become a "featured article"? Please respond. Scott Adler 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that most historians would agree with you. In any event, Wikipedia cares about verifiability over truth. So if you can find reliable sources that argue for the above claim, we could then consider adding the viewpoint that it was "hoax" to the article. JoshuaZ 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me turn this around. Find me a single reliable source that supports the existance of Black September as distinct from Fatah or a single participant in the events who backs up Yuval Aviv (or even met him). He was exposed in Haaretz 20 years ago. More recently, try "Spielberg could be on the wrong track" by Yossi Melman, (Haaretz 06/09/2005) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=596350

Or perhaps "'Striking Back' says 'Vengeance' botches history" by STEVEN ZEITCHIK in Daily Variety (Dec. 12, 2005) http://www.variety.com/ac2006_article/VR1117934484?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1&query=munich+and+spielberg&display=munich+spielberg

I have many, many, others. There was no "Black September" and there was no "Vengeance" -- the Israelis went after the Fatah network to prevent further attacks on European soil. They succeeded.

You want VERIFIABLE -- What more do you want. It's now up to you. YOU verify the existing article or withdraw it. Go ahead -- who was the leader of Black September? Who can back up Yuval Aviv's claims? Who? Scott Adler 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott, you may notice that the article has very little emphasis on Black September and that Aviv is used only once as a source in the article. Everything else is sourced to others. JoshuaZ 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott Adler: Nothing is going to be accomplished peacefully if you keep up the pressure and stress on other editors with disruptive behavior. Please keep a cool head if you want to resolve controversial disputes. Thanks, Vic226 03:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)