Talk:Samu incident

Unnecessary duplication

This article is nearly 100% identical with Operation Shredder (not surprisingly, since I merged this content , which was previosuly at Es Samu into Operation Shredder). There's a discussion at Talk:Operation Shredder on the need for a separate "Samu Incident" article, with the conclusion "no". Feel free to contribute there. Isarig 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have already responded to this point. It's inappropriate to structure Palestinian history according to which Israeli military operation was taking place. The Incident is of course much larger than Operation Shredder. I doubt also whether many people have heard of this operation's code name whereas most relevant history books cover the Samu Incident. --Ian Pitchford 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to rename Operation Shredder to Samu Incident, as was suggested and agreed on the Talk page there. These 2 articles are nearly 100% identical and there's no need for this duplication. Isarig 17:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be two articles, Operation Shredder, a relatively short article on the details of the military operation, and another, Samu incident, covering more of the political/ideological/sociological contexts and the broader ramifications. --Ian Pitchford 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The "the political/ideological/sociological contexts and the broader ramifications" are already covered in the Operation Shredder article. Just rename it. Isarig 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no logical basis for two articles on the same topic.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is only one article. Operation Shredder is just a redirect to Samu Incident. Zero^talk 00:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Upgrade to B rating?

Seeing that the article is large enough and has reliable references like Bowen and Michael Oren, I think we should upgrade its ratings

• Object - there are severe problems with this article. It fails to make clear that this incident was part of an escalating pattern of Israeli attacks that culminated in the Six-Day War. We need evidence that there was really a mine killing 3 Israelis - or else make it clear that this is an unsupported Israeli claim. PR^talk 09:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Prelude to the Six-Day War?

In what way was the "Incident at Es Samu is regarded as a prelude to the Six-Day War"? They were unconnected, unless the editor means to say that because Israel got away with an unjustified attack on Jordan, it could get away similar attacks on Syria and Egypt. If that is what the author meant, that should be stated. I am not sure what else could have been meant by the statement. Incidentally, I am not sure whether the conclusion is justified.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. In their "The Arab-Israeli Conflict Transformed", Hemda Ben-Yehuda and Shmuel Sandler make exactly that observation on page 34. Middle East Journal Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), p. 174 also lists the cross-border attack as a prelude. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Title

I am querying why this event has been given the decaffeinated title of an "incident". It was a cross-border invasion in violation of the U.N. Charter and of the General Armistice Agreements. Even the IDF calls it an "operation". The U.N. called it a "military action". Given that the IDF agreed, I propose that the title should at least be changed to "Samu IDF Cross-border Operation" or something similar Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have proposed Battle of Samu which is very prevalent in Jordanian historiography, but the term does not have significant usage in English sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for that insight, Makeandtoss (talk · contribs). A Wiki essay cautions against over-representation of a dominant culture such as "the West's" view in English Wikipedia. Here is a perfect opportunity to remedy both the current decaffeinated nature of the title for this IDF attack, and to address biased flavours. If you are satisfied, I fully support a title change to "Battle of Samu". Any further suggestions so as to smooth out cultural over-representation and reflect the views of other players in the Middle East would, hopefully, be welcomed by all. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 Article review

Better than most English Wiki articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict, this one still suffers from cultural bias. IDF allegations are rarely challenged while statements from Arabs/Palestinians are dismisses as not WP:RS. There is plenty of balancing commentary from the copious U.N. records (in UNISPAL) and I will be introducing this. The members of the Security Council received a spread input ranging from the Secretary General, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO)(on the ground), and the Jordanian and Israeli representatives, so they should be in a near-ideal position to judge cause, justification and merit. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

your recent edit removed some material with an edit summary that read "no source" - but there actually is a source given for one of those claims (Rubin). Attack Ramon (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Under the "Aftermath" heading Walt Rostow is listed as a "Special Assistant." During this period he was National Security Advisor, a significantly different role.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Rostow Gumbus223 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)