Wikipedia:Peer review/Operation Wrath of God/archive1

KING007

Operation Wrath of God

I've worked on this article a while off and on and have finally gotten most of the core information about the campaign up and cited. Of course looking at the same article for so long it's easy to lose perspective and miss any glaring or subtle problems still there. I'd appreciate any kind of criticism, especially with regard to making the long list of assassinations flow more smoothly and not look simply like a choppy list. Another text section that certainly needs work is the Criticism section, and I was curious as to how other controversial articles have been able to make sections like these comprehensive but not just a laundry list of each parties complaints. This article is also in dire need of some good pictures, so any suggestions on what types to include would be helpful. Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article is a very good read, and covers a topic I was not at all familiar with. I would say it is definitely a good article, and close to featured standard. If it were to be nominated for GA status, (*hint*) I would be more than willing to pass it, as unless I am mistaken I fall within the realm of "haven't significantly contributed to" the article.

While I cannot address the specific things you brought up in your request, I have made a few minor tweaks to the article I felt were necessary.
I think the "Black September and PLO response" section might need some clarification. Namely, how is an attack on a Saudi embassy in Sudan, capturing US, Saudi, Jordanian, and Belgian citizens a retaliation to Israeli attacks? This seems to me to be an unrelated incident, rather than a response to Operation Wrath of God. The lack of citations for sources in this section is also bothersome. The sentence "only a seven year prison sentence" might be POV. While I myself agree that this was far too small a punishment for terrorism, I'm not sure this is outside the normal punishments of the time and place.
A link to an article with more info on the Lufthansa hijacking should be included.

Again, this is a very good article which I hope becomes featured soon. --Lethargy 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the quick response! Looking back now I'm in complete agreement over the problems with the "Black September and PLO response" section. So far I've added several more attacks against Israeli targets that I had previously forgotten and tightened up the existing descriptions. I have also trimmed the Khartoum diplomatic assassinations summary to only a single sentence because it was only an indirect attack. In the "Background and planning" section I created a link in the phrase released just months later, which jumps to a page that has a slightly larger description of the Lufthansa hijacking with sources. The sentence you marked for POV has also just been deleted from the section as part of the clarification. I appreciate the suggestion for GA nomination, and will certainly do so once this peer review is over.--Joshdboz 13:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably excessive use of the words "terrorists"/"terrorism" in Wikipedia's narrative voice, with absolutely no citation of who characterizes this as terrorism. Not that I disagree, just that (as you probably know) there has been much discussion about this at Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and the pretty broad consensus is that it is a POV word unless someone uses it about themselves (and of course few do). Not that it can't be there, but we should be very cautious about using it, and especially overusing, in Wikpidia's narrative voice. The problem isn't so much in a case like this; it's that there is no clean place to draw the line.
Any reason for linking years so often? Outside of birth & death dates in biographies, MoS is generally against this unless the event looms so large as to be mentioned in the "year" article. At the same time, month-day-year dates here are often unlinked, whereas MoS encourages linking those to allow variable formatting.
"…outrage forced Golda Meir to…" is a bit vague and lacking agency. Whose outrage forced her to do this?
The "criticisms" section contains criticism only of assassination of innocents. Surely it should not be hard to find criticism of either the efficacy or ethics of assassination/"targetted killings" as a tactic even when used against "guilty" parties. Most of the "criticism" section is devoted to what is more a defense than a criticism (paraphrasing, Klein seems to be saying "they got the wrong guys, but that's OK").
"Using the pseudonym Avner, Aviv claimed in Jonas' book to have led a hit squad…": does this not mean to say something like "According to Jonas [and this preceding phrase may not be needed] Aviv claimed that, using the pseudonym Avner, he led a hit squad…" - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I've tried to deal with each.

The terrorist/terrorism issue is as you mentioned a tricky one. I've tried to where I could change the word terrorist to an equivalent term in the specific context (militant, hijacker, etc.). As of now I am keeping references to the perpetrators of the Munich massacre as "terrorists", a) because it is used throughout the article Munich massacre and b) I think any objective observer, regardless of how justified he/she believes Black September was, would consider it an incident of terrorism. Obviously my second point could be up for contention, and if more users disagree with the use of the term, I would be happy to change.
Years were linked somewhat haphazardly. I believe that I've fixed it so only month-date-years are linked for variable formatting.
The statement now reads: "In the aftermath of the affair, international outrage over the mistaken murder forced Golda Meir to order the suspension of Operation Wrath of God." It is also sourced.
I have yet to work on the criticism section, mainly because I need to do some more research. I'll add and adjust it as soon as possible.
I have tried to clarify the Avner/Aviv/Jonas debacle. It now reads: "The 1984 book... by Canadian journalist George Jonas, purports to tell the story of the Israeli assassination squad from the viewpoint of a self-described former Mossad agent and leader of the squad, Avner. Avner has since been revealed as a pseudonym for Yuval Aviv, an Israeli who now runs a private investigation agency in New York. However, Aviv's account...".

Thanks again for the excellent crits, I'd welcome any follow up points if you have.--Joshdboz 17:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some criticism from relatives of those who died at Munich.--Joshdboz 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]