Jump to content

Talk:Entebbe raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEntebbe raid was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 23, 2005Good article nomineeListed
August 9, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 27, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 14, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2005, July 4, 2006, July 4, 2008, July 4, 2009, July 4, 2012, July 4, 2016, and July 4, 2020.
Current status: Delisted good article


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

[edit]

Add ISBN to reference 4 Entebbe: The Most Daring Raid of Israel's Special Forces, The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011, by Simon Dunstan, p. 58 [ISBN 9781448818686] Awilling (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneSirdog (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

[edit]

Delete portion of Aircraft refueling section that goes as follows: "While several East African nations, including the logistically preferred choice Kenya, were sympathetic, none wished to incur the wrath of Amin or the Palestinians by allowing the Israelis to land their aircraft within their borders." Cannot find a reasonable reliable source that claims this; books like 90 Days in Entebbe seem to say the exact opposite, mentioning that Kenya was the only country in East Africa with leadership sympathetic to the raid operation. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name not accurate

[edit]

The name "raid" in the title is not accurate and should be "operation." The raid to release the hostages was one aspect of the larger operation, but it was not the only event. Additionally, it is reffered to as an operation in several places in the article itself, including when linking to official Israel documents. 5.28.189.222 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 3 vs July 4

[edit]

Should the date be kept as July 4 or changed to July 3? I understand the raid ended on the fourth but it started on the third and as such many Israelis commemorate it on the third (I don't have a source for that as it is anecdotal from an Israeli friend so feel free to ignore that part of my statement if not having a source bothers you). This is not a formal edit request as I think we should discuss first what it should be. Jacob p12 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just put 3–4 July? Although from what I can tell, very little happened on 4 July. CWenger (^@) 02:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

[edit]
  • Change from: Opening paragraph of lead with no mention, in summary fashion, of the outcome of the operation.
  • Change to: An opening paragraph that, per guidance in WP:INTRO, contains a proper summary both of the lead, and of the article as a whole.

[At registered editor's discretion, the call is for an additional 1-2 sentences to be added to the opening lead paragraph, stating (something to the effect) that

"The operation was widely considered... [summarise article]] as its result was the loss of only 3 of 105 passengers, and only 1 of 100 Isreali commandos sent on the mission, with some limited casualties, while having broader [summarise article] repercussions within Uganda, and in the history of anti-terror responses."]

Justification: In any article with a lead as long as this one, the opening paragraph of the lead, per WP:INTRO, serves both as a starting point for the overall lead summary, but also as an overarching summary of the main elements of the lead itself. In short, the reader should not have to wait until the end of a long lead to simply have a grasp of the meaning of the title given for the article. In this regard, the current Entebbe lead properly covers the precipitating historic event, and anchors it geographically, but fails to communicate anything in summary regarding the outcome—rather, forcing the reader to read the entire lead to understand what the article is about. This is not good abstract/lead writing, nor encyclopedic introduction writing more generally.

98.206.30.195 (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]