Talk:Entebbe raid/Archive 2

Should Operation Eagle Claw be discussed in this article and do the included citations support the article? Dimension31 (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Text in question:

As a result of the operation, the United States military developed highly trained rescue teams modeled on the Entebbe rescue. One notable attempt to imitate it was Operation Eagle Claw, a failed rescue of 53 American embassy personnel held hostage in Tehran during the Iran hostage crisis.^[1][2]

• Yes. Both sentences in question are backed up by reliable sources (see quotes in references directly above). The Alan Dershowitz book clearly verifies the first sentence. The Houghton book verifies the second sentence, devoting at least 3 pages to discussion of how Operation Entebbe was very much involved in the planning of Operation Eagle Claw. I don't know why anybody would want to exclude this information, as it is an important part of the legacy of Operation Entebbe. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have posted a link to this discussion at WP:Israel, WP:Palestine, and WP:Terrorism. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Per CWenger. I can't imagine why, either.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Agree that the connections are relevant and worth the brief mention. Leaving it out would almost be negligent.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, but I don't think the first one is useful. Dershowitz is an unreliable lawyer-activist with no expertise in military matters. CWenger's description of the Houghton book suggests it has a much stronger case for a mention. Zero^talk 07:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • A fair concern. I found another reference to support this claim, Winged Shield, Winged Sword 1950-1997: A History of the United States Air Force: "The spectacular attack on Entebbe, more than any other single event in the struggle against the growing threat of terrorism, fired the imagination of military planners who believed that terrorists had to be fought and defeated. The American reaction included the organization of Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta, called the Delta Force, designed to be flown anywhere in the world to do what the Israeli commandos had done in Uganda." –CWenger (^ • @) 07:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Another source, The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Special Ops Forces, By Marc Cerasini (p. 114) states that the Iranian operation was "modeled after Operation Thunderbolt . . .", and another source says "it layed the groundwork." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A case would need to be made that "Complete Idiot's Guide" meet WP:RS. It isn't clear. Zero^talk 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The author, Marc Cerasini, also wrote The Future of War: the Face of 21st-century Warfare, 2003. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes I think it's pretty clear from a number of sources. Number 57 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - These sources are reliable and clearly support the claims made. Additionally, this is an important and interesting piece of information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The current state of the article says several times that Dora Bloch was "murdered" by Ugandan soldiers after the raid. I'm changing it to "killed" --- murdered is a loaded word and out of place in an encyclopedia, unless referring to its usage in the law.

To forestall likely arguments, I do absolutely agree that it's fair to call the killing murder --- but I think the description makes that clear enough without having to use a judgmental word to make sure people get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.48.155.214 (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

From the article

According to Ilan Hartuv, one of the hostages, the hijackers told to the hostages explicitly that they are against Israel and not against Jews. Among the freed passengers there were many Jews that did not hold Israeli citizenship, including two yeshiva students from Brazil

From the source

Hartuv recalls that the Israelis were joined by two couples from Belgium and the United States, and two teens from Brazil, who had completed a year of studies in a Jerusalem yeshiva: "They were transferred to the Israeli group because when we landed in Entebbe, before dawn, they had put on tefillin and recited morning prayers. We approached the Peruvian and asked that they be transferred to the foreign group because they were not Israelis. The Peruvian agreed and transferred the two Brazilians. Later they were freed with the rest of the non-Israeli hostages. He apologized for not being able to free the other two couples because the German woman wouldn't allow it."

The problem here is that some of the hijackers explained their motives but not all of them. The passage quoted above show that those identified as Jew by methods other than passports were also held with the Israelis and that at least one of the hijackers insisted that the "two couples from Belgium and the United States" remained with the Israelis. Hartuv describes the German woman as a Nazi but if asked she would have rejected that label and said something similar to Bose "I'm no Nazi! ... I am [a left wing] idealist". If an Israel gentile had been held then one could make the argument that it was based on citizenship alone, but if all the people held were Jewish and only some of them were Israel citizens, then the paragraph in the article is misleading because it implies that all non Israel hostages were released when the source does not say that. --PBS (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I read the Haaretz article. The difficulty here is that we would be into original research if we report the article in terms that contradict what the article explicitly summarizes itself. Zero^talk 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To more accurately reflect the article I suggest that the text is changed to qualify "hijackers" with "some of the hijackers" and add to the end "but at least four none Israelis remained hostage". (the source is not explicit about the religion of the four). -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Need to add ytzhak Rabin the prime minister and shimon Peres the security minister then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.240.223 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This has probably been discussed before, but I have a problem with the name. It was code-named Operation Thunderbolt, and later changed to Operation Yonatan. To present it as the code-name is misleading. It would be better to call it Operation Yonatan, or perhaps something like the Entebbe raid, as it is widely referred to.--RM (Be my friend) 23:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Revision as of 23:40, 23 August 2011 by PBS "Removed the judgemental words 'terrorist' and 'militant' (let the facts speak for themselves WP:W2W"
• Latest revision as of 00:10, 24 August 2011 by Epeefleche "widely used by RSs, and therefore perfectly appropriate--PBS -- please stop w/your POV editing"

Normally Epeefleche I would not revert before discussing such an edit, but in this case your explanation for reverting, is not justified, and I know from bitter experience that you play games with reverts, and there is a 1RR on this article.

Epeefleche why did you add into the edit history "-PBS -- please stop w/your POV editing". How it it a POV edit to follow WP:W2W? If anything putting such words into an article is editing in a point of view.

As the lead can be structured without need to use the word terrorist why use it, unless one is trying to put a POV into the article?

It does not matter that it is used in reliable sources, the terms are superfluous and biased. For example is there more than one "Revolutionary Cells"? If not then there is not need to disambiguate them with a term like militant as there is no moderate "Revolutionary Cells" for it to be contrasted against.

The reader can make up their own minds if by their actions, the hijackers were common criminal, terrorists, or soldiers, Wikipedia does not have to make that judgement in the passive narrative voice of the article. In the body of the text if someone is quoted stating that the hijackers were terrorists then fine but we should not use such terms in the passive narrative voice of the article and doubly so in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "terrorist" should not be removed from the article. It is widely used by reliable sources. Replacing it with "militant" would be watering down the content. We can argue about whether or not we need in-text attribute but removing it entirely would not be following the sources. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the edit I made, I did not and am not suggesting replacing the word terrorist with militant. -- PBS (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right, your edit was actually even more contentious because you removed both "terrorist" and "militant". My argument still stands. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CWenger. PBS made the edit I reverted w/the edit summary "Removed the judgemental words "terrorist" and "militant". If used in RSs, they are not "judgemental (sic)" and inappropriate. They are RS-supported. PBS--you have a personal POV as to the article, which is at odds with the RSs -- the view of the RSs is more important in guiding us than your personal view. That is the case here, as I told PBS. Saying that what the RSs says is "biased" and superfluous" is at best one editor's (PBS's) POV ... Others no doubt don't think it is those things, but by following the RSs we avoid arguing over whether one editor's POV is better than another editor's POV. PBS -- we've had discussions in the past at AN/I about you engaging in non-consensus, POV-pushing editing; please don't engage in editing here yet again along those lines, for the reasons I thought you would have been sensitive to after the input provided by the community at your AN/Is. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"PBS--you have a personal POV as to the article, which is at odds with the RSs" What does that mean? We have a policy and guidelines that do not support the use of judgemental words in the passive narrative voice of the article points of view should be attributed in the text. If they are to be in the article and there is no reason why they should not be, it would be much better to place with in text attribution in the body of the article. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a policy that we follow the RSs. What you call "judgemental" in your POV, others call accurately described by RSs. Your habit of letting your POV interfere with following RSs, and editing against consensus, has been detailed at AN/Is. if you like, I can link to them. Please follow the RSs, and consensus, rather than your own personal views as to what is "judgemental". Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the thanks for? Please see the first section of WP:NPOV specifically the bullet point "Avoid stating opinions as facts ..." from the same page WP:SUBSTANTIATE and the guideline WP:TERRORIST. Using the word terrorist in the passive narrative voice in the lead is not backed up by policy or the style guidelines. There is not need for it. Most people who read the article are quite capable of deciding for themselves if the perpetrators of the hijacking were terrorist or freedom fighters or whatever.

It would be factual, and well within the scope of an encyclopaedia article, to include in the body of the article a quote from an analysis by an authoritative neutral source that states that the hacking was a terrorist act or that terrorists or members of terrorist groups carried out the hijacking, at the moment there does not seem to be any such quote. As this action took place during the Cold War there was a sizeable section of the international community that condemned the Israeli operation this probably needs to be mentioned in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Avoid stating opinions as facts ..." whether someone is a terrorist or not is an opinion or a point of law. Either way it should be attributed to the source and not expressed in the passive editorial voice of the piece otherwise it is expressing a specific point of view. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

We follow the RSs. There is no rule, as your POV would suggest, that the phrase be deleted from wikipedia, despite its widespread usage by RSs vis-a-vis certain individuals.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"There is no rule, as your POV would suggest" There is guidance on it see WP:TERRORIST. Contrary to the spin you are trying to put on this it is you who is trying to maintain a POV in the article in the passive narrative voice of the article which implies that Wikipedia article consider these people to be terrorists. A neutral POV would not make such a claim but would attribute the term to the most reliable sources available. -- PBS (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The hostage-takers are widely referred to in Reliable Sources and the Media in almost all countries as terrorists. This has to stand in the article. Their actions are the very definition of what terrorism is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert. The use of the word terrorist in the passive narrative voice of the article breaches the WP:NPOV policy and the WP:TERRORIST guideline. -- PBS (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I restored the KIA with the alt tag to both the dead leaders; to get into arguments about which is or isn't a terrorist or killed by terrorists is just silly here. We also shouldn't be using the little cross for non-Christian casualties, per a long-standing consensus. Rather than get into further argument, if there is still argument about this, we should just get rid of the KIA tags. They aren't all that crucial to understand the article. --John (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Then get rid of them. -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I happily did this. --John (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I was unable to confirm the following quotation, tagged as needing citation, via Google, Google Books, or Highbeam, and have thus removed it from the article:

Shani said the final operation “...was planned over 48 hours. Planning an operation like this might take another military a month, two months, six months or more, but we had two days, so we probably covered only 2 percent of the plan, leaving 98 percent to improvisation."

I don't have any particular reason to doubt its veracity, but it does need a citation to be restored. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The article previously stated that four passengers were killed and ten were injured, which has been marked as needing citation for some time. I can't find a source for the ten injured, but this source states that seven were wounded in the Israeli raid without mentioning other injuries. I've modified the article accordingly for now, but would welcome changes if anyone has a source for the "ten injured". -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a few friendly points.

• There is an actual definition of the term, so it is not a "political" term, although it does appear, from an outsiders point of view to have been "politicised" in the U.S.
• The article covers a military operation, in which usage of the term is appropriate. The article is not discussing an evil (I use the term unashamedly) "domestic" and senseless school or high street slaughter of innocent civilians.
• A blanket rejection of the term would appear to a U.K based ed, to be a POV gun control aversion related to the ongoing U.S national debate, and irrelevant in the context of this article. I may be making an erroneous assumption there, and am happy to be corrected if that is the case. I would ask what are your primary objections to the usage of the term in this article?

Just some thoughts. Happy to arrange a compromise if consensus disagrees with the above points of discussion. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

How many hostages died? In the third paragraph it says three, but the table on the right says 4. Same for the aircrafts. The sentence in question lists 30 Migs while the table says 11. I came here after watching a documentary about the incident, which also said that the Ugandan airforce that consisted of 11 Migs was completely destroyed. Since the documentary consisted of interviews with the former commandos and hostages, including original footage, I rather trust the table that supports the numbers stated in the documentary than that contradicting sentence. I suppose it stems from an unreliable source or was misinterpreted, but I neither have the book in question nor any other source other than said documentary. Can someone clear that up? 93.128.174.237 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.128.174.237 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How many hostages died: I just changed the table on the right, and provided 2 reliable source. The number 4 may come from including Dora Bloch, however, she did not die in the operation see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe#Ugandan_reaction.

With regard the number of MIGs that were destroyed:

You can see the page in question here http://books.google.com/books?id=to7hS3Wlro4C&pg=PA203 unfortunately it doesn't have the next page which may be helpful.

Here is what a bit of research turned up:

11 MiG fighters - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_2786000/2786967.stm

11 MiG http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/188804/Entebbe-raid

between six and 10 Soviet-manufactured MiG fighters destroyed. http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1976/jul/04/1

My assumption would be that at least 6 MIG were totally decimated, and many more were damaged to various degrees.

BTW, which documentary did you watch?

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose we rename this article "Operation Thunderbolt" and have "Operation Entebbe" redirect to this. The operation was never named Entebbe and as an encyclopaedia wouldn't the correct name be the name of the article with a mention of "also known as" in the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thunderbolt" is no more a correct term than "Entebbe", since the original Hebrew codename was "Thunderball" (_ball, not _bolt), later renamed "Yonatan". Thunderbolt is a simple mistranslation that became widely known, but is incorrect nonetheless. Also, there's a discussion about this article's title further up this talk page - have a look. altmany (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, then the article should be titled "Operation Thunderball", with an AKA mention of the other names. After all, Operation Market Garden isn't called Operation Arnhem, no?milnews.ca 16:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of hijackers varies in different sources from 4 to 8. By now I couldn't verify, what source was the most trustworthy. The current version of the article counts to 7. What source is used for this number? Hybscher (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

When referring to the actual "hijackers"—those people who hijacked the airplane after takeoff in Athens—the number four is correct (two Germans, two Palestinians). When more Palestinians joined the original team of four when the plane arrived at Entebbe airport, maybe the term "hijackers" is no longer the most accurate for the new team. The Israeli troops later reported to have killed all seven enemy militants they encountered at the airport (including the four original hijackers). According to witness reports at least one more Palestinian (who had directed the operation since arrival of the hostages in Entebbe) was not at the airport at the night of the Israeli raid. Several witnesses reported varying numbers of PFLP troops. 8 is the minimum total. --Hvd69 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hvd69: Regarding your edit here. I have several concerns: @Kingsindian: I hope you don't mind if I answer each point directly in this paragraph. --Hvd69 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I do not see any source for 248 people "mainly Jewish and Israeli". Is there some place where nationality is mentioned? The lead says that 148 (47 + 101) were non-Israeli. I don't know how many of them were Jewish.

• I have now added two sources mentioning the fact that most passengers on the plane were Israeli and non-Israeli (mainly French) Jews. There are several more sources available referring, for example, to the 148 released non-Israeli hostages as "most of them Jews of various nationalities", or stating (on page 16) "Il faut savoir que 90% des passagers étaient de confession israélite et 60% des israéliens." = "You must know that 90% of passengers were of Jewish faith and 60% Israelis." (coming from a French Jew who belonged to the group of non-released, non-Israeli hostages). Nobody knows exactly how many of them were Jewish, but that a vast majority, even of non-Israeli passengers, were Jews is safe to say.

• You added another source, however:
• I do not see in the source where the 5 million ransom was asked for.

* I have added a better source.

• I do not see in the source where Idi Amin is described as "pro-Palestinian"

* I have deleted the "pro-Palestinian" (which was a leftover from the previous version referring to his troops, which made even less sense).

• You changed "40 Palestinians" to "40 mainly Palestinian militants". The source simply says 40 Palestinians

* I have re-edited the text and added a better source.

• You removed the quote and motivation of the hijackers, and a quote from a survivor Hartuv about distinction between Jewish and Israeli.

* The first question must be if the quotes are adding relevant information to the encyclopedia. Secondly, there are a large number of quotes from conversations with Böse, some of which are more explicit about his motivation than the simple statement claiming to be an "idealist". Thirdly, the source of the deleted quote is no longer accessible. As for Hartuv, his statement on the distinction between Jews and Israelis is by no means singular. If we want to get into the business of interpreting the behaviour or statements of hostage-takers in order to assess their underlying motivation (I'm not entirely sure if that's what an encyclopedic article is about, at least not in the part describing actual events), then more than only one of the many witness reports should be quoted from.

I do not have detailed knowledge of this event, so some of these things might be true anyway. Kingsindian (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have researched quite a bit of details (especially about the hostages) and can make more quotes and sources available, in case you have additional questions. I hope my additions and answers are now ok with you. --Hvd69 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hvd69: Thank you. After your other edits, most of my concerns have been addressed. Regarding the last point, you might be correct that this might not be the place to put the motivation. However, my point was that if this paragraph is strictly describing the circumstances, I see the last sentence "raising fears and memories...of the Holocaust". The concerns of the passengers were of course genuine but simply writing that could be misleading here. As far as I understand, the selection was primarily done on the basis of Israelis vs non-Israelis, though there were a few exceptions on either side (some Jews included, and some non-Jews excluded). The Hartuv reference is simply a pointer to this fact. Just as you have summarized the other things, there should also be a half-line summary of this fact (if I understand the facts correctly). Kingsindian (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about pointing out the sentence "raising fears..."—which is why I have now deleted it and, instead, have added more detail about the separation of hostages in two groups. Which is not to say the Holocaust associations (and other aspects going beyond describing who did what) should not be mentioned in the article, but probably better in a separate section. Do you agree? --Hvd69 (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last edit looked fine to me, if a bit overly detailed. I am not sure if it is necessary to mention all the details; perhaps it can be condensed, since some of it is duplicated in the paragraph just below. Anyway, I agree that the Holocaust associations and the hijackers' motives should be discussed. There are scattered references throughout the article, but perhaps there can be a short subsection for this somewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now tried to limit redundant information about the hostages by deleting some references in following paragraphs. And I have added a note to include the Hartuv reference (and similar voices) expressly disclaiming that the hostages were separated into Jews and non-Jews. --Hvd69 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the many edits. Often these kinds of pages serve as a dumping ground for this or that factoid without any regard for coherence or duplication. Kingsindian (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have another suggestion. The lead is a bit unclear on the basis of the separation. It simply says "Israeli and Jewish" were separated, and continues in that vein. Though it later states that non-Israeli prisoners were released, the next sentence again goes back to "Jewish and Israeli". Perhaps it should be made clear that the separation was based on nationality (including dual citizenship), primarily, with a few exceptions on either side. Kingsindian (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the lead is faaaar too long and in urgent need of some serious shortening. When cutting it down to a useful summary of only a few lines, mentioning the basis of the separation of the hostages may well be too much. After all, this article is about all aspects from the hijacking itself, the negotiations, the raid with all its political and military preparations, the role of Ami and Uganda, the diplomatic fallout, the effect on public opinion in Israel and the world, and so on and so forth. --Hvd69 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is possible that the separation stuff should be dumped altogether. I am not too knowledgeable about this subject and haven't edited it much. I might get around to shortening the lead some time, but for now I am planning to shorten some others first. Kingsindian (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The length of the lead (4 paragraphs - none particularly long) is in line with WP:LEADLENGTH. "A few lines" would be far too short. (Hohum ^@) 16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the operation to free the Entebbe hostages supposed to call Operation Thunderbolt later renamed by the Israeli military as Operation Yonni or Operation Yonatan after there slain leader Lt. Col. Yonatan Netanyahu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Departure" description states that Netanyahu was killed during a firefight after the hostages had been rescued, hijackers killed, and the freed hostages were boarding a plane.
"Aftermath" description states that there was disagreement as to who was at fault for Netanyahu's death early into the operation and how the firefight in which he was killed could have undermined the element of surprise.
Please correct.
Vasechek (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone concerned fix the (incorrect) links to Live or die in Entebbe? They are scattered all over the entry.Super48paul (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"pro-Palestinian militants imprisoned in Israel" ought it not be "pro-Palestine militants" if it is to make grammatical sense. But leaving that aside for the moment. There is a POV issue of of militant. If they were militants does that make any patriot a militant? For example are the IDF soldiers "pro-Israel militants", if not why do we label one group militants but not the other? -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Entebbe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110323123727/http://www.jewishpress.com:80/pageroute.do/39910 to http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/39910/

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WATCH THIS SPACE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.77.243 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The circumstances of Yoni's death are missing from the "Raid" section. After reading the relevant references^[1][2], I can see that the topic is controversial, so I'm not prepared to defend any of my precursory judgments that might be reflected in my writing. However, the controversy at least deserves a paragraph, either in the Operation Entebbe article or in the Yonatan Netanyahu article. -- SaaHc2B (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Entebbe. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120815235504/http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/634093-Uganda--Israel-honor-1976-Entebbe-raid.html to http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/634093-Uganda--Israel-honor-1976-Entebbe-raid.html

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"and to work towards humanity" - not clear Notreallydavid (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The page is too complicated for me to change (or I am blocked). The link on reference 87 is dead. This is a current one: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3270234,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansynek (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article go by the controversial position that only israelis were separated? If haaretz is its only source that's definitely not sufficient, as it's considered to be a far-left paper in Israel. Meanwhile the AP, Washington Post, have all recently confirmed that both Jews and Israelis were targeted. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Haaretz the only source??? Please take a minute to consult the many sources provided. A total of four non-Israeli Jews were forced to join the Israeli group: The Karfunkels from New York and the Weills from Antwerp, two orthodox couples. On the other hand, several dozen more non-Israeli (mainly French, US and Moroccan) Jews were released by the hijackers, as was Israeli citizen David Bass. All eyewitness accounts basically coincide, whereas the Israeli government's (hasbara) selection narrative is irreconcilable with the hostages' first-hand testimony. A reliable, comprehensive and well-sourced account of this and other details can be found in Saul David's 2015 book Operation Thunderbolt.--Hvd69 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

None of the numbers in this article agree.

There are at least 4 different possibilities for how many passengers were on the plane: 248, according to the beginning of paragraph 1; 242 according to the end of paragraph 1 (148+94); 246 or 304 according to paragraph 1 of the 'Hijacking' section; and 242 according to the last paragraph in the 'Hijacking' section (48+100+106-12).

I'm not familiar with this incident, so can't confirm which numbers are correct, but something is clearly wrong with this entry. Can someone more expert in this area fix this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:D5DF:FC7C:4456:ACA2:BC3C:39EF (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Dora Bloch's age is listed separate on this page as both 74 and 75 -- most sources I can find say 74. Also, the claim that her doctors and nurses were killed along with her doesn't seem to be supported by the supplied links. They do contain mention, however, that a policeman guarding her was killed (this is also mentioned on the Dora Bloch page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Her age isn't certain (the birth records belonging to the defunct Ottoman Empire) but is usually given as 74. Neither of the cited sources says anything about her doctors and nurses being killed and that claim appears to be vandalism. The murder of the police officer, on the other hand, may be factual. The British government did not specifically claim that the two Ugandan officers who took Dora Bloch away were acting on Amin's orders, only that they were close to Amin. (Though that may come to the same thing.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In the beginning, the article mentions "30 aircraft destroyed". Later, it talks of "11 aircraft destroyed". Which one is the correct figure? 46.242.11.219 (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It's correct in the source.

https://www.knesset.gov.il/lexicon/eng/entebbi_eng.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Dora_Bloch

Please fix!

BenjaminKay (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Entebbe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721135953/http://www.mota.co.il/antebe.htm to http://www.mota.co.il/antebe.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203193846/http://ussranger.org/home/ranger-history/ to http://ussranger.org/home/ranger-history

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discuss. El_C 01:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

File uploaded numerous time on Commons and always deleted as Copyright violation. Uploaded by the user Nystart!! that is blocked on this wiki. I assume that it is the blocked user that is adding the image to the article. -- Tegel (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@El C: That's not true. The current version of the image is not proven to be a copyright violation. It's still allowed on Wikimedia commons, so it should still be allowed here. 2607:9000:0:14:0:0:0:25E (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it has been deleted multiple times, then its a problem. El_C 01:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 245 Kenyans murdered in retaliation be listed under 'Casualties and Losses'??? Why aren't their names listed?24.197.171.146 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Kelly Olson, 3/1/2018

According to a 2011 interview with Ilan Hartuv, one of the Entebbe hostages, there was no separation of Jewish hostages from the remainder.Jafder (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. Actually Hartuv said that Jews other than Israelis were in fact placed in the "Jewish section", because they were Jews. To wit:"Hartuv recalls that the Israelis were joined by two couples from Belgium and the United States, and two teens from Brazil, who had completed a year of studies in a Jerusalem yeshiva: "They were transferred to the Israeli group because when we landed in Entebbe, before dawn, they had put on tefillin and recited morning prayers. We approached the Peruvian and asked that they be transferred to the foreign group because they were not Israelis. The Peruvian agreed and transferred the two Brazilians. Later they were freed with the rest of the non-Israeli hostages. He apologized for not being able to free the other two couples because the German woman wouldn't allow it."[Haaretz July 8, 2011) 71.190.242.242 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

On the Russian, Italian, Vietnamese pages it shows the Flight 139 consisted of 84 Israelis, 4 French nationals, 32 Americans, 30 Britons, 25 Greeks, nine Italians, five Spaniards, four Belgians, two Danes, one German, one Japanese, and one South Korean. But there is no source, anyone have a source to it? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The lede says there were 248 passengers and 12 crew, while the body text gives 246 and 12 crew. So which is it? They need to agree. Cadar (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Entebbe (film) (titled 7 Days in Entebbe in the U.S.) is based on the event and released in 2018.

Twnaing84 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Operation Entebbe has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Modify end of sentence ending with footnote 26. I suggest adding: arrived in Entebbe after the French Embassy in Kampala asked Uganda to authorize the landing. The source is a declassified French Embassy cable quoted in this story: http://www.rfi.fr/fr/afrique/20160703-israel-ouganda-france-raid-entebbe-amin-dada-40-ans-amin-dada JosephQuesnel (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. "The sentence ending in footnote 26" could be any one of five locations. Please follow the instructions given in the edit request template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Air France Boeing 747 take-off out of Entebbe Uganda Airport.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"This was against the plan and against the orders.[47] As they pulled away, an Israeli commando in one of the following Land Rovers killed them with an unsuppressed rifle.[19]"

Shouldn't the second sentence come before the first sentence? It doesn't seem logical otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"Operation Entebbe or Operation Thunderbolt was a successful counter-terrorist hostage-rescue mission carried out by commandos of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) at Entebbe Airport in Uganda on 4 July 1976.[7]" - it's unusual to rate a mission (or anything else) in the first sentence. Usually it's just "XXX was a mission" to state the basic information in a neutral way. Also it's redundant since the success is mentioned later (and also stated in the infobox). It might also violate NPOV this way. --StYxXx (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I came here to mention this after being unable to change it. One hundred hostages were rescued, but more than two hundred Kenyans died as a result of retribution. Success is subjective. Silenceisgod (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a grammar issue.

Last sentence of paragraph 4 of intro says: "There were 245 Kenyans in Uganda killed and 3,000 fled." The "there were ... killed" is not correct grammar, change it to "245 Kenyans in Uganda were killed, while 3000 (were forced to flee the country) / fled the country."Bwmdjeff (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Operation Entebbe has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a link to the 2018 film Entebbe under the list of films describing the event. Montyevans (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It is is already listed in the "Dramatisations" section there. RudolfRed (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why uganda was involved in the hijacking of france plane in 1976! What caused the conflict here that led to operation entebbe !. 41.13.92.241 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)