Talk:Black September/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Very biased in tone

I found this article extremely biased and non-neutral, seemingly written from the perspective of someone with the intention to ideologically defend the Jordanian position and against the Palestinians. It doesn't feel encyclopedia-quality at all. 18:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, are you a Jordanian extreme right-wing?

These stories about Black September are according to the king Hussein of Jordan only and supoort him as a vectim and hero, no ? it is very sarcastic, because no matter you do, you can't change the history and people always know the facts. I have put the stories according to the majority, and there were TV shows talked about and people know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.83.120 (talk • contribs)

Please avoid making assumptions and personal judgements. "there were TV shows" is not a reliable source. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The TV political shows are based on references and many evidences. So tell me, your article is based on what ? Anyway, what is a shock to me that there are many people cry out for the neutrality in this page.

If what you are saying is right, there should not be a problem supporting it with reliable verifiable scholarly sources. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are reliable verifiable scholarly sources books and reports in Arabic . But it is problem to find international reports and references about it, because who care about ? even in the Jordanian history school books they don't say anything about it, they always want to avoid this subject.

See WP:RS#Sources in languages other than English. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Escalation of tensions between US and USSR

The contents of the section "Escalation of tensions between US and USSR" seem to be original research. No citation of a reputable source is given for what the section claims to be the near unfolding of "World War III". Even if this section is based on facts, its style is very unencyclopedic and needs to be completely rewritten.--128.139.226.36 08:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition its content doesn't relate to the rest of the article. Removing it but one phrase, recoverable from either from history or this diff [1]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted some edits and added the Soviet/Russian point of view to the events. --Fastboy (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cite this part or I'll remove it

There is a very broad claim being made here about the Jordan Army posing as PLO and killing their own soldiers in an attempt to gain public support. I have never heard of that before, and the person who wrote it did not cite it. Someone please provide a reliable source, otherwise it sounds like speculation based on someone sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

restore the prestige of his monarchy.[2]

RE:It was a month when Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan moved to quash the autonomy of Palestinian organizations and restore the prestige of his monarchy.[2] I am a new and neutral editor and just happended upon this page. It is absolutely POV to have the phrase "restore the prestige of his monarchy." It should be something like " and reestablish Hussein's political control.. Just a rough paraphrase of course. I will do some research to see how NYT or other newspapers describe the event and then cite it but I am a newbie so please help me cite properly and phrase properly. I will be happy to take practical advice from other editors.aharon42 (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some sources.

Agence France Presse -- English September 23, 1999 20:08 GMT Jordan has "proof" Hamas threatening new Black September Thousands were killed and wounded in 10 days of bloody clashes in 1970 when King Hussein ordered the Jordanian army to suppress Palestinian guerrillas who were threatening to overthrow the Hashemite monarchy

The Associated Press September 7, 1985, Saturday, AM cycle The current PLO presence is the largest in Amman since 1970, when Hussein cracked down on the PLO's growing independence and to halt PLO raids that brought damaging Israeli reprisal attacks on Jordan. The Black September fighting of 1970 resulted from the crackdown and the PLO came close to toppling Hussein. In 1971, the king expelled the last of the guerrillas, with most of them winding up in Lebanon.

The Associated Press December 13, 1988, Tuesday, BC cycle Chronology of PLO Events September - King Hussein of Jordan, alarmed by growing Palestinian power, sent his army to drive the guerrillas out of Jordan. Arafat moved his base to Lebanon.


this is not exhaustive but clearly no one uses anything like "restore the prestige"

After doing a literature search on LexisNExis I suggest just quoting "King Hussein ordered the Jordanian army to suppress Palestinian guerrillas who were threatening to overthrow the Hashemite monarchy" It seems neutral and descriptive. I will wait for others to comment and then edit the article. aharon42 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

massacre !!!

it is a massacre when people are mass murdered in their own land. those palestinian civilians (refugees) engaged in acts of war against the monarchy, jordanian soldiers, and jordanian civilians. they were part of the PLO's unorganized or unofficial military. so, this was mass kill of soldiers and not mass murder of civilians .... "massacre" is an emotional word and inappropriate to describe a historical event which we only read about in books and which is supposed to be scientific and unbiased.



RESPONSE: Actually a massacre is an "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". How is it that acts of civilians are described as acts of war? Sorry but you should get over the use of "emotional" wording its entirely appropriate in this instance.

please sign your comments and also cite references. I see that neither of you is doing this. Let me know if I could help you come up with references.. I speak a little Arabic if that helps.aharon42 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestinians escaping to Israel during BS?

I´ve seen some old magazines where Palestinians escape from Jordan to Israel during BS, anyone have any # how many escaped and their destiny? RGDS Alexmcfire

RESRONSE: "Seventy-two Palestinians who were afraid of the Jordanian soldiers chose to undertake the most humiliating action possible for them: They fled to the West Bank and surrendered to IDF soldiers".. actually I'm very sorry that I don't have any documented references regarding the subject and I promise to look for and post as soon as I can. Firstly to be noted, palestenians who surrendered to IDF did NOT do it as an act of fear of the Jordanian Soldiers. They did it under the impression that being captured by the enemy is the norm in warfare but being emprisoned by an arab brother and prevented by him to fight your enemy is what humiliation is all about. Again I apologize for not supporting my claim with documented references but I know people who were there at the time and turning an action of Pride to an action of fear in this article is just beyond my tolerence.. Omar K. Hasanat 213.181.166.26 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, biased background

The "background" section is quite ridiculously biased and unsourced. None of the statements in the first three paragraphs of the section has any source and make quite general and unsubstantiated statements. Not to mention that the section starts with "In the late 1960s PLO set up a state within a state ...". Did the PLO drop from the sky into Jordan? The background should mention something about the 1967 war and previous happennings. Israel is not even mentioned, except as a victim of terrorist attacks from Jordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs) 09:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Point of translation?

What exactly is the point of the following translation? As far as I can tell, Yasser Arafat's "victory" does not have anything to do with "dignity".

"" Yasser Arafat claimed this as a victory (in Arabic, "karameh" means "dignity") ""

If anything, the translation should be moved to the beginning of the section on the Battle of Karameh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.123.145 (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Battle at Karameh was on no way a military PLO victory. However, PLO recieved a propaganda boost. Both sides claiming victory is typical for the region. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Israeli involvement

Israel were directly involved, aiding King Hussein (sourced). Why was this removed? Can someone give me an explanation on that? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn neither source you presented gave any support to your view of Israeli involvement during this period. Had their been even the most brief comment in either article you referenced I would have been delighted to let it stand, but there simply was not. You need to present a satisfactory reference that clearly states Israeli involvement. From my own search for a reference all I have found is a number of mentions of 'buzzing' by the Israeli air force. And as I'm quite sure I don't need to inform you 'buzzing' is not 'shooting' so does not constitute actual involvement. So now please provide us with a reference from a reputable source that does demonstrate the 'direct involvement' that I have been unable to find and that is not supported by your current reference. Thank you - Galloglass 22:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
First, the Israeli Air Force bombed the Syrians, which is actually already in the article. Second , quoted from my source, Israel undertook "precautionary military deployments" to aid Hussein. Seems like direct involvement to me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The article actually only says; Israel, which found the move undesirable, performed mock air strikes on the Syrian column which I have already mentioned above does not constitute actual involvement in Black September and precautionary military deployments within their own borders constitute no involvement at any level. As I've said before though Mikrobølgeovn, if you can find a reference that demonstrates Israeli's fighting for Jordan during this period I am more than happy to see them added. - Galloglass 09:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any good internet-sources or search-words I can use? I find it difficult to know if the search results are trustable. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had a good look twice now but have not been able to find anything on the net that would do as a reference. Will check through some text books on the period to see if they have anything relevant. - Galloglass 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Pro-Western?

I think that is misleading jordan does not have oil and does not have the luxuries afforded by it like the Qataris or Suadis who are themselves quite Pro-western but can speak out of both sides of their mouth unlike small oil-less Jordan. This is true today if anything Jordan is the most pro-palistian country in the world it has integrated them into their society while other arab countries keep them in refugee camps like animals wait for the day they can reclaim Israel or Iran that has no Palistians but pushes them like lemmings into war with Israel. Jordan is a country like the US or a European state with out the luxuries of oil and has to work for everything and if that means being pro-west then so be it!and I think this Idea and point of view needs to be expressed in the article instead of making jordan out to be some traitor to the Pal. cause74.74.144.252 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Destroying/dismantling

Andres, it's not my intention to twist facts, but the use of the word "destroy" is ambiguous. They did not intend to raze Palestine, but to end the state of Israel. If you have references for the wishes of Arab leaders to kill all the Jews (I presume you mean they intended to kill more Jews than just the soldiers they encountered), by all means put it in. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The real motives behind Black September Massacre

Although it is widely known that King Hussein initiated black September because a) the USA and Israel told him to and b) Israel may have invaded Jordan if he did not (like Israel subsequently invaded Lebanon in 1982 after the PLO relocated there due to Black September and started waging attacks on Israel from Lebanon), this is barely mentioned in this article, except for these brief two sentences:

"On the military side of things, the PLO also continued attacking Israel from Jordanian territory with little regard to Jordanian authority or security. Heavy Israeli reprisals resulted in both Palestinian and Jordanian civilian and military casualties, and the threat of larger-scale Israeli invasion loomed large."

This is the real and primary reason for King Hussein's Black September. The talk about a State within a state and Jordanian sovereignty is just propaganda. (This is Not much unlike the situation today in which the propaganda coming from Egypt's government for why it is helping to siege Gaza talks about Egyptian security and sovereignty, when everyone knows it is because of US and Israeli pressure on Egypt's government) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.89.188 (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"widely known" = hearsay... please delete the above useless propaganda.

PLO wanted to Occupy Jordan and use it a base for there attackes , started to act as a state within state , PLO members carrying guns and stoping people for search and asking for ID's Jordanians couldn't nor the Jordanian Army couldn't stand PLO actions , THIS is The mean and Only motive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Colt (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties

In the infobox it is claimed that up to 20,000 Palestinians died. In the article itself the same sources are cited to say that Arafat claimed at one point up to 10,000 died. Which is it? MosheEmes (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pakistani involvement

As far as I see, this article does not provide sources on Pakistans alleged involvement in this conflict. If this is so, Pakistan should be removed from the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

removed Pakistan. A Pakistani General doesn't equal Pakistani involvements. Just like we have Americans Italians leading Republican battalions during the Spanish Civil with no official involvement from their countries of their behalf.--Rafy talk 11:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed it again.Sumanch (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a bizarre edit war going on over this, with sockpuppets removing unsourced, POV, poorly written and clearly ridiculous assertions, while good faith editors, including admins, are restoring it. I understand that edits by socks of banned editors should be reverted on sight, but common sense should surely dictate that the unacceptable content should then be removed by a good faith editor. RolandR (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Going back to this - i remove the Pakistani flag from general's name: he wasn't representing Pakistan in the conflict, but rather himself only.GreyShark (dibra) 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cairo Agreement

This doesnt sound right, Cairo agreement was in 1969, how could it be the result of a 1971 war?--Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct. fixed.GreyShark (dibra) 16:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Name

I propose renaming the article into "Black September" Makeandtoss (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I agree. It also strikes me as strange that that this article covers the 8 month period after September 1970. I have always understood that "Black September" refers to the events of September 1970 only. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is a notable Black September group, so let's keep as is.GreyShark (dibra) 19:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Black September is the main event, anything else is subordinate. The group is called Black September Organization, an own unique name. So this should br Black September because it is the common name per wiki guidelines --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Why haven't you made a WP:RM? this is not a standard procedure.GreyShark (dibra) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No idea what that even refers to.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS to move, and almost all discussion participants agree that the current title is unsuitable. SSTflyer 13:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


– Common name and is the main event. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose I see no reason to merge the disambiguation page into a hatnote on this article. This isn't even the primary topic (the terrorist group is), so why would we even move it there? -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Uhm no, the event is the primary topic. The terrorist group was subsequently formed. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, "merge the disambiguation page into a hatnote" can't happen anyway, since this is not a WP:TWODABS situation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE no one has been informed of this move, not the other article involved, not the disambiguation page. There is no notice, the notices have been deleted -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Invalid complaint; this is a WP:RM, which is a site-wide process. It is not required or expected that individual editors, or misc. wikiprojects that may or may not care about an article will be separately notified of move discussions. If people care about an article, they watchlist it. If they care about overall patterns of moves, they pay attention to RM.
  • Support The current disambiguation page links to three topics - (1) the event itself, (2) the short-lived BSO terrorist group named after the event and known for the Munich Massacre, and (3) a 1990s marketing name for a comic relaunch. A quick google search confirms that the comic relaunch is clearly not of material notability versus these other two uses. As for the event versus the group named after it, it's likely impossible to prove a WP:COMMONNAME through google hits because many of the sources talk about both topics. The swing factors for me are (a) that the event was the genesis of the name, so has logical primacy, and (b) it is possible to talk about the event without talking about the subsequent terrorist group which took its name, but it is not possible to talk about the terrorist group without talking about where its name came from. Ultimately this boils down to what is the most elegant and intuitive arrangement. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe something like "Black September (conflict)" would be clearer. I agree the current name is weird. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the Munich terrorist group comes up in Google Books substantially, though as above maybe something like "Black September (conflict)" would be clearer. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The terrorist group comes as "Black September Organization" not as "Black September". This "war" happened in September and so was named subsequently. The current name "Black September in Jordan" makes it sounds as if there are other Black Septembers in other countries. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – There has been no other Black September events in any other country than Jordan, I support also moving the Black September page which contains the three articles to Black September (disambiguation).--Opdire657 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Opdire657. Note: I wouldn't be totally opposed to "Black September (conflict)", but prefer just "Black September". I don't see a great need to give Black September the "conflict" qualifier since there is no proper name for that conflict other than "Black September", whereas the group and its article are called "Black September Organization" (not "Black September (group)" as is stated in the dab page). A hatnote directing readers to the group's article should suffice, along with the creation of the page "Black September (disambiguation)", as suggested by Opdire. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Both the organization and the Jordanian event, also called the "Jordanian Civil War", are equally prominent. Look at the statistics... Well, the event is more viewed than the organization, especially when the event had huge numbers in two non-consecutive days. Nevertheless, day by day, especially within the last 30 days, the numbers are very close to each other. One time, the organization is hugely more viewed than the other. Reading the introductions, one Civil War was part of a Cold War, while the organization was Palestinian-based and more dangerous than KKK and committed the massacre in Munich Olympics, which had more attention to the West and inspired pop culture to reflect the massacre. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The organization has a special name of its own; "Black September Organization" not "Black September (organization). I really fail to see why this move request is so problematic. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a matter of disambiguation or organization. The matter is the ambiguity of the proposed title. At first thought, I thought it was some horror film, but I didn't realize what it describes until I read the articles. Scrapping out "in Jordan" wouldn't help matters. Perhaps make substitutions or propose another alternative title when this is over? George Ho (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Idk, it feels like saying ex: Syrian Civil War in Syria instead of Syrian Civil War, completely unnecessary. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
No, no, no. When I said "in Jordan", I was referring to "Black September in Jordan". When the discussion is over, perhaps we'll discuss "Jordanian Civil War" as the title. --George Ho (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Jordanian Civil War is not common (relatively) and sounds weird for the ears of a Jordanian like me..Makeandtoss (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
So does Black September for a non-Jordanian... unless you are a horror film fan, especially of 1970s ones, like... Black Christmas, anyone? George Ho (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per "the current name is weird" comments above. (Read User:Oncenawhile' comments.) The Black September Organization is derivative and can accessed via the dab hatnote. —  AjaxSmack  02:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — I am not in favour of Black September (conflict) but it is better than the current title. —  AjaxSmack  20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The current name being weird doesn't mean that the proposed move is the correct solution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
      • No, but as I and others have noted, the "in Jordan" is not necessary. There are no other articles called simply "Black September" that compete with the notability of this one. —  AjaxSmack  20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. As per above. Most common usage. Filpro (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments above. There are no other major usages, Black September usually refers to this spesific conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per user:George Ho.GreyShark (dibra) 20:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The names of the other "Black September"s are derivative of this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since the group has quite significant RS coverage, and depending on what kind of reading they do, a large number of readers are more apt to be familiar with the organization than with the informal appellation of the event for which they're named. No actual case has been made that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, just an assertion that it is, with no evidence, and considerably contradictory evidence provided by others.
    Support alternative move to Black September (conflict) (unless and until some other notable conflict comes to share this name some day), because the present name fails the intersection of WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and is not WP:CONCISE. I appreciate the attempt at WP:NATURAL phrasing, but this isn't really natural in an encyclopedic way, but only an awkward, informal way, like "the Civil War in America". It simply does not fit our naming patterns for articles of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per Oncenawhile —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name.- revisited

Thinking about this topic again, one fact I haven't seen is when the name "Black September" was first used in relation to the events of 1970. Was it used by Palestinian politicians in 1970-71? Or was it first used by the BSO and retrospectively applied to this event from 1972 onwards? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The first reference I can find in a quick search was in the NYT of 18 Nov 1970, p7: "Fatah, the commando newspaper published in Amman, warned this morning that the new fighting might well 'mean the repetition of the events of Black September' — the costly civil war". Zerotalk 22:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Biased or what?

Wow -- I can't believe this piece is standing without much opposition to its one-sided contents. Just goes to show how U.S.-centric the Wikipedia still is.

The only reason I don't formally demand a NPOV here is because I don't know enough myself about this history. But consider this entry notice that the article is unacceptable as-is. Once english-speaking palestinians learn about it, for instance, I'm sure the article will invariably become more objective. Informative too.

Otherwise this piece skirts being labelled as simply soft-ball anti-palestinian propaganda.

Pazouzou 06:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - there are clear POV problems, so I added the {{pov}} tag. At present we have an entire article outlining, and explicitly apologising for, the Jordanian position, coupled with the Israeli/american view on the conflict, but nothing explaining the palestinian position. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Pazouzou (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
OVER 10 years later... and this article is STILL unacceptably biased. All claims by others and myself still stand.
As for the rebuttal from Cohn: he's not likely ever come up against the 'Wikipedia CIA'.


leon cohn - my opinion is that if you do not like the view of the conflict, find a new one and annotate it and stop complaining.


Yow... this will take a bit of work. For what it's worth, the article is missing information on:
  • Nasser's diplomatic involvement
  • Palestinian political claims
  • Criticism of the rule of a monarchy in Jordan
  • Attempted Syrian intervention
  • Jordanian-Israeli diplomatic coordination
  • The balance and scale of civilian deaths
All this aside from a general pro-monarchist phrasing and citing on events. POV until these things are fixed. --Carwil 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


what is really missing is the fact that Hussein clearly massacred the palestinians without holding back at all, and this is the reason why the terrorism stopped in Jordan... and not in other places. Amoruso 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Precisely.
I have no problem with the description of those events as a massacre-analagous to what occurred in Hama during Hafez al-Assad's reign-and I thought the actions that King Hussein and the Hashemite monarchy pursued were absolutely correct, in hindsight.
If anything, those actions have been vindicated by history.
Still, I agree that the Palestinian position-no matter how baseless I personally believe it to be-should be outlined in full.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs lots of work. Editors please try to avoid leading adjectives as much as possible and editorializing. This has been tagged as a highly notable article and I think it will make for fascinating reading once we have researched all of the facts, interpretations, and controversies. aharon42 (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Black September in Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black September in Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black September. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black September. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

copyedit

@BroVic: Why do you think "massacring" is a typo? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Also for my personal use, when do we not capitalize prime minister? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Pay me no mind—believe it or not, I was actually thinking "massacaring"! I was tired and practically seeing double (good thing I suspended the edit at the time)... as for the second issue, I would say capitalize it when using it in a titular fashion. Thanks for the feedback. – BroVic (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@BroVic: Titular as in identification? Are these examples correct?
  1. "He fired Prime Minister Wasfi Tal"
  2. "He appointed Wasfi Tal as prime minister"
  3. "Wasfi Tal was assassinated, the Prime Minister's last words were.." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Something like that. See this section in the Manual of Style for guidance. – BroVic (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black September. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Arafat's War

@Davide Facchini

"They also stirred up conservative and religious feelings with provocative anti-religious statements and actions, such as putting up Marxist and Leninist slogans on mosque walls."

The citation cited for this entrance is exactly this: "Arafat's War by Efraim Karsh, p. 28" I accessed the book from this exact link. No such statement, or anything about vandalizations of mosques is listed on the page 28. Al-Rimawi (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan as a belligerent

Pakistan was one of the belligerents in the event

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2021/05/14/remembering-the-pakistani-dictator-accused-of-slaughtering-palestinians.html


. Factpineapple (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Skitash Factpineapple (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
General Zia-ul-Haq was involved in the conflict, but this does not equate to direct Pakistani government involvement. This has been discussed on the talk page previously [2]. Skitash (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Syrian Troops

Were the "Syrian Troops" with PLA insignia just Syrian allies or were they Palestinian exiles (though likely second generation by that point)? Irtapil (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_September/Archive_1&oldid=1212994665"