Talk:Operation Opera

Comments

‘’’STRATFOR'’’ The reference to Stratfor noting that there was a widespread assessment of the plant as being on the verge of producing nuclear fuel is grossly misleading. Stratfor was formed in 1996 - 15 years after the event in question. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.204.104 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am no big fan of reasoning, because it can be manipulated easily. However, I reason with psychology because it cannot be manipulated easily.

Firstly the "self defense" thing. To be frank, birth of Israel itself creates enough issues that self defense is mere a criminal excuse.

Another assumption of self defense is that arms will remain ever costly and thus out of reach of "denined" people/nations capability. Recent time has shown that this can be grave mistake. Both AK47 and nukes will become increasingly cheaper with advancement in technology. And those nation who suppress internal people or external coutry will have tough time in near future.! In fact such "security" related responses will create great insecurity in near future. What people have to say about that?

I was born in muslim family and along with it came the string of things that can make a person fanatic (most dangerous was about "non-beleiver").. but I am able to rise above that and help other people see the proper context and thus preventing them from fanatism..... anyone believing in "2500 years ago we were here" needs to be put to mental asylum if they have acquired such powers of high position. Such people will not mind pressing nuke button at slightest of the whims irrespective of their religion.! My experience always tell me that if you live happily then all you bother about is today and what new things can be done tomorrow to make life more beautiful. I just fail to comprehend the mindset of ppl "2500 years ago". terrible waste of life for a stupid belief.!

We need to promote life and shun all such mental sickness as "orthodox religion, self defense" blah blah things out of civilization. C'mon there is enough knowledge in the world to drive out these cancer from the modern world. Will anyone accept it?

57.73.26.225 08:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well written article, comprehensive, good background, and good follow up of consequences. I would not say that the article is obviously biased, because I detect no overt anti-Iraq or anti-anyone sentiment in it. It even mentions the reactions and actions of other nations - but it does seem to be told from an Israeli perspective. This might be partly due to the references you quote. for example, in the negotiations, no mention of Iraqi perspective is shown. Additionally, the results of the attack are described as "Israel had neutralized a target they thought to have been a threat to their country." - which is true, but also only the Israeli perspective of the incident. Another take is "Israel unilaterally violated the airspace of one of her neighbours with military force and destroyed an industrial complex". "Casualties were very low. Only eleven men died; ten Iraqi soldiers and one French researcher" can also be read "the attack resulted in at least one civilian death".

I'm not saying either is correct - I'm saying they're the views from either side, and perhaps both contrasting views should be shown, not just the one. This could be said of the article just as easily had it been written from Iraqi sources.

I think a slightly more balanced would be something along the lines of "Israel claimed this, Iraq claimed that" - interweaving the two perspectives. You can't ever get an "objective viewpoint" - it's human to have a particular viewpoint - best you can do is show multiple perspectives. Although, I don't know where you'd find reference material from the Iraqi POV.

Excellently written though! - Vedexent 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to know what the Jordanian and Saudi statements on Opera were? -Randall

It'd be hard to tell this story from the other perspectives, except the aftermath, which is already told from many perspectives. Jordanian Perspective: Holy bleep, what are those planes doing flying over my yacht at 100m. Saudi Perspective: "They did WHAT? Lousy western radar stations! Useless!" Iraqi Perspective: BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. OH bleep! Start firing randomly in the air! Damn, we missed."

It would be different if they had had some advance warning, or some planning process to describe. I suppose you could go into the defense systems that were put into place to prevent such an attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex10294 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotation

Why are there no quotes from anyone with contrary views on the attack? Why is there no quotes from any Iraqi sources? - Vedexent 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be presumptuous of me to move the quotes to wikiquote. I know that the intent of this section is to give a sense of the internatioanl, etc. reaction to the strike but I don't think a collection of quotations is the best way to do that. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The insignia on the aircrafts is of the "Indian Air Force" and not of the "Israeli Air Force"...hence these images are incorrect on 2 accounts 1. They are not of Israeli aircrafts 2. They can't be F-16 as Indian Air Force does not fly F-16s...they look more like Mig-29s or SUK-31s

F16 Image Changes

F-16A - How's this?

Please do not use the image Image:F-16 over Masada.jpg on any article other than Israel Air Force. That's the only place it is allowed to be used. Unless the article meets the copyright requirements; and I don't think this one does... -- Killioughtta 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The first one was replaced on the grounds that is the wrong variant of F-16. Neither picture may be appropriate. I don't know - I'm not an expert on fighter aircraft. - Vedexent 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "wrong variant"? Those two look identical to me. -- Killioughtta 23:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit log: (→Israeli military reactions - replaced the F-16 photo; the previous one was of a twin-seated plane with CFTs, certainly not identical to those involved (F-16A).) - don't look at me, it's not my comment - Vedexent 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the body shapes of the two aircraft. They aren't identical - Vedexent 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that's right. Thanks. -- Killioughtta ^T/_C 01:28, February 28, 2006

It was me who replaced the photo. Didn't think the Image:F-16 over Masada.jpg photo is not allowed to be used here, sorry. Anyway, as Vedexent already said, the reason was that the currently used photo is of wrong variant - those involved in the operation were F-16A, the one on the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg photo is F-16I, which doesn't look identical to the "A" at all even for a not-exactly-expert like me - "I" is a twin-seater with "hump" and conformal fuel tanks (those things above the sides of the fuselage). So... if somebody comes across a PD photo of IAF F-16A, please replace the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. Or should it be removed anyway as irrelevant ? I'm not sure...Bukvoed 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And btw, Killioughtta, I see you are the one who uploaded the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg ... please specify on the image description page the source and the reason the image is PD. Bukvoed 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked everywhere. I couldn't find any PD or GNU image so I uploaded this one: Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg with the generic fairuse license template. -- Killioughtta ^T/_C 07:30, February 28, 2006

The closest one, a twin-seater with hump, is F-16D. The second one AFAIK is "C". I've found some IAF F-16A pictures here http://www.waronline.org/IDF/photodir.php?dir=Air Force/F-16 (008, 020, there are probably more, I don't have time to look at all of them) but the quality is inferior and, I guess, the copyright status is uncertain. Bukvoed 09:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

One possible source is the web site of the Israeli air force itself. Images on U.S. Government web sites are not copyrighted; I'm not 100% sure it follows that this is also the case for branches of the Israeli Government or not. You'd have to look into that. If that's the case though, you'd be able to find an image of an Israeli F-16 with an appropriate copyright status. - Vedexent 09:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Israeli gov images are PD. Bukvoed 09:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The IAF is very strict about Copyrights. They claim none of the material in their website may be used. It belongs to the AIF so I used Bukvoed's link. I think we'd be better off using the present image http://www.waronline.org/IDF/photodir.php?image=Air Force/F-16/f-16_008.jpg with fairuse License??? -- Killioughtta ^T/_C 17:19, February 28, 2006

F-15I image

Cool. Is that a toy F-15? It's detailed enough to be real but the tiles in the floor seem like it's on a livingroom. haha. looks good though. -- Killioughtta ^T/_C 20:49, February 28, 2006

Or maybe a model/RC... -- Killioughtta ^T/_C 20:51, February 28, 2006

The picture looks like a real one. However, like with F-16, it's wrong variant. Funny, but once again, it's "I" instead of "A". So I'm replacing the image. Perhaps the picture quality is not great, but at least this time there will be no copyright problems :). Bukvoed 13:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me the reactor picture is not the wrong variant too!!! :D - Vedexent 17:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

:)))). Bukvoed 18:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• HAHAHAHA!!! Menachem Begin's picture is of a Menachem Begin-D, the one used in the mission was a Menachem Begin-A... sorry guys. hehe. --Killioughtta ^T/_C 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Article needs expansion

First, it doesn't address well the nature of the international reaction from other countries. It needs to demonstrate both the sheer variety of nations condemning Israel for the attacks, and, where verifiable, the congratulations though quieter channels. Second, it needs to mention how the attack has recently been cited by many, even in the Bush administration, often tongue in cheek, as an example for how Israel could preempt Iran as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A preemptive strike is not necessarily a bad thing. It is an attempt to repel or defeat an inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending unavoidable war. --Fintelia (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Roles of aircraft

Not having information about this very operation, it seems odd to me that the F-16 would be used for ground assault and the F-15 for air support. I have a nagging suspicion that the role descriptions of the two airplanes got switched somewhere along the way. Can any of the authors confirm or deny? - Varjohaltia, 5 April 2006

Well...

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a multi-role aircraft. While it makes a superb dogfighter when outfit for air-to-air combat, it is a general "workhorse" fighter which can be easily equiped for ground assault as well. Thus it could have assumed either role.

The F-15s on the other hand, are divided by variant into dedicated "roles". F-15 Eagle variants A,B,C and J are air superiority tactical fighters, while the F-15 Strike Eagle variants (E,I,S,K, and G) are the "ground assault" versions of the F-15 airframe, with the F-15I being the Israeli Air Force version of the Strike Eagle. What role the F-15s has therefore is dependant in which variant flew. The sources used mention the F-15A, which is one of the air superiority versions. It is possible that the variant used is mis-reported, but if you check out the IAF's own profile on their F-15s, click on the "In Action" tab, and scroll down to "Operation Opera" where you will find:

On June 7th 1981, six F-15s escorted the eight F-16's which attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor. The F-15's mission was to provide the attackers with defensive cover against enemy planes. .

and I guess they would know best :)

Hope that addresses your question :) - Vedexent 02:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strike Eagle made its first flight years after the operation. And my "source" in the IAF confirmed the variant used was "A". Actually, I think "A" and "B" were the only variants IAF possessed in 1981. Bukvoed 07:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Yep - Strike Eagle didn't go Operational until 1989... program wasn't even announced until March of 1981 - So unless the fighter was developed and deployed in 3 months, it wasn't used. Now I feel foolish for not catching that one earlier ;) - Vedexent 10:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to make this FA

I'm doing some extensive reading on this and I am sure this article is worthy of FA status given that it played an important role in the US being able to run through Iraqi army twice without the real threat of Iraqi nukes in the Gulf War. I hope others will continue to contribute positively in improving this good article to a featured article. --Idleguy 13:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some facts that bear verification/clarification

1. The article states that the Osirak plant was "more than 1,000 miles" from the Israeli air base. It appears that the round-trip distance is more than 1,000 miles, not the one-way distance.

2. The article states that the plant was about 18Km southeast of Baghdad, but the mission route graphic distinctly shows the plant as almost due west of Baghdad.- Vrtsflipflop (talk · contribs)

Re #1: This might simply be an error. If you've pulled out your atlas and measured it, and it's 1000 miles round-trip, by all means update the article. It was stated as such in the original draft and I havn't changed it in my edits. It may just be an error that slipped through.

Re #2 - the "Mission graphic" was, I believe, "home grown" by another contributor. They could be in error, or the text could me. Either way, if you can dig up the correct information, feel free to update the article - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Another point of contention: the BBC retrospective article mentions only two F-15 escorts. It also mentions "A number of other F-15s head elsewhere in Iraq as back-up.", so I suspect that both versions are right: 7 F-15As with 5 dispersing for "wide air cover" over Iraqi airspace, and 2 in "close escort". Can anyone provide more references/information about this? - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

GA concerns

Please assess these minor ... technical points in order to keep the GA status :

• Image:Menachem.jpg, Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg doesn't give its Fair use rationale and Image:OsirakUN.jpg doesn't even give it's copyright.
• The Quotations section should be dumped into wiktionary.
• The two inline external links should be converted to footnotes. Lincher 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article is lacking a NPOV. The quotes are entirely from Israel or pro-Israel sources. The Jewish Virtual Library is not a nuetral source.

This might be another point of view: Iraqi scientist interview with BBC. I believe this article points out that prior to the bombing Iraq had no real Nuclear weapons program. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4774541.stm

If we can use The Jewish Virtual Library, let's try AlJazeera too. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8A8E349D-9A46-4AAC-81CE-526C23D08E4B.htm

This article mentions prior history as well as a book by the head of the Iraqi Nuclear program

The book is called : he Last Confession - by Jafar Dia Jafar

As a comment, it is really disheartening that Wikipedia is full of so many biased articles. This article is well written, however it lacks because it has the "truth" from only one view.

The Documentary about the airstrike is a case in point. If there was no nuclear weapon program before Isreal bombed then how did Isreal save the USA durning Kuwait? How did Isreal help durning the current Iraqi war? This is propaganda - all one point of view

Wmb1957 13:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What is this shˆt about "We have been here 2500 years ago...". What does that have to do with anything?

It seems to me that the International political reaction section is biased against Isreal. It starts by saying how Isreal was condemned for the attack and only at the very end mentions that it may have been a "necessary action" and that Iraq was still in a declared state of war with Israel during this time.--Fintelia (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It might look bad now, but folks, check out your first reference, it has an article which itself uses inline references, see if you can lift some from there. Homestarmy 13:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name

The name should be changed, the current is Israeli-POV. Also, it's better known as the Osirak reactor airstrike. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article is "Pro-Israeli". It mentions the fact that the action was unilateral military action on behalf of the Israeli government, the general condemnation of the action by other nations - including the US embargo of further military aircraft aid, the passing of UN Resolution 487, and Israel's refusal to abide by it - none of which is flattering to the Israeli viewpoint. However, you are perfectly welcome to balance the viewpoint by placing other viewpoints in the article as well.

If the action is "better known" as the Osirak reactor airstrike (note that there is no such article in Wikipedia. At the time of this writing the link is red - this may change later), where is it better known? A search for "Operation Opera" with Google finds several instances of the name, and not just in Wikipedia mirrors. See here, here, and here. A Google search for "Osirak reactor airstrike" yields no results. I cannot see how it is "better known" as this.

If you mean it is "better known" in that you do not wish to seem to validate the operation by using the Israeli military names for it (Operation Opera, Operation Babylon, and Operation Ofra are all names given the operation by the Israeli military), then I'm not sure how exclusion of these names is balanced either. If other military/intelligence organizations have named it something else, then by all means that should also be included in the article along with the Israeli names for it, but I have seen no other references/names for this action.

While the article should not be "pro-Israeli" and supporting the action (and I don't think it does), neither should it be "anti-Israeli" and condemn the action. The article should be neutral and simply report what happened, and what all other people's reactions were to events leading up to the action, to the action, and following the action (not the authors' viewpoints). I think the article does this. The description of the actual air strike is almost clinical. - Vedexent (talk) - 16:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a remark. "Operation Ofra" is probably not an alternative IAF designation of the operation but rather a mis-reading of "Operation Opera" (in Hebrew, "p" and "f" is the same letter). Bukvoed 17:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The only proper name of the operation is Operation Bablylon, and NOT Operation Opera. "Opera" was the codeword used ("We have two tickets to the opera") over the phone to indicate that Operation Babylon has commenced. This is clearly documented in the book Raid on the Sun by Rodger Claire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.193.13 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 08:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The airplane specs

I heard they had to heavily modify the aircraft to make the mission possible. Once a friend told me that the aircraft used had every thing that was non-essential stripped, even the fly-by-wire systems. I don't have any sources, but I would like to see if any one has more info on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.249.152.15 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Your friend is either an idiot when it comes to aeronautics, or pulling your leg. The F-16 cannopt fly without its fly-by-wire system. It is not controllable in flight without the computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.92.21 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Debatable... The F-16 has backup fly-by-wire systems, so it isnt entirely impossible. Unlikely? Yes.-- ThatOneDoge (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Iraq's nuclear development esp. with France

I am sort of confused about his sentence, in the background section of the article regarding Iraq's use of a nuclear reactor:

"[The experts] also claimed that an Osiris class reactor was not particularly useful to countries which have no established reactor programs, but that it was capable of producing plutonium."

I am wondering, if France sold Iraq a reactor for energy use, and even though the International energy committee checking in on non-proliferation signator nations peaceful reactor countries was in question, I feel like there needs to be more explaination on the physics behind nuclear reactors or how the international community felt that Iraq was becoming a nuclear threat. Can an energy reactor become a weapons-grade reactor? What was the evidence in this instance? Thanks for any updates. Rhetth 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevance of 2002-2007 Iraqi WMD status in relation to a 1981 event

The unreferenced statement "However, as no WMDs to present are found in Iraq, it has been criticized that the attack is baseless as a self-defensive act." should be removed IMHO, as it isn't cited and detracts from the article. It is proven that Iraq did posess WMD (e.g. gas attacks on the Kurds), and the time frames where the presence of WMD in Iraq are in doubt are irrelevant in relation to the events in 1981. WeedWhacker 09:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Contested Legality

"even if the legality of such action under international law is a contested point"... what would constitute a certain breach of international law then? the international law in question is Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" and the Israeli action has been unambiguously condemned by the united nations council in resolution 487: "1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct". I think a more accurate formulation would be "While being strongly condemned as a clear violation against international law by the United Nations Security Council, the Israeli standpoint maintains the legality of the action under the right of self-defense as granted by UN Charter chapter 51." To summarize my point: the international law in question is UN law and this action has been judged by the hightest UN body to be breaking it. The "accused's" viewpoint it interesting, but not relevant for the question of legality.

...after receiving no response i edited the article, contested legality is an opinion while resolution 487 is a fact, so if someone considers changing this back please state your reasons.

Fair use rationale for Image:IsraeliF16.jpg

Image:IsraeliF16.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Menachem.jpg

Image:Menachem.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi response?

Why didn't Iraq strike back? The article could do with more on Iraq's reaction. 58.28.151.180 11:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

( 70.181.148.148 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )

Strike back how? With what? The Iraqis had difficulty "striking back" at Israel when they attempted to provoke Israel into actively participating with the US in the first Gulf War.

One would assume that the Iranians are spending much time considering that general subject these days. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Unclear "complication"

At 1,000 km into their flight, the operation was complicated by the F-16As external fuel tanks. The planes were so heavily loaded that the external tanks were exhausted while the task force was still en route to the Osirak facility. These tanks were jettisoned over the Saudi desert after the attack.

This is unclear. Is this trying to say that the fuel exhaustion was a surprise? In that case, the fuel tanks themselves did not complicate the operation. Tempshill (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some notes

Some thoughts on the content, in no particular order:

• The map shows a route south from the bottom of Israel, then across Saudi Arabia, conspicuously avoiding Jordan. However, the article notes that the planes were "...flying unchallenged at 800 feet in Jordanian and Saudi airspace"
• We name the F-16 squadrons; do we know which squadron the F-15s were from?
• We've a picture of Ilan Ramon's jet. I have a recollection that Ramon's part in the mission was only announced after his death - is this right? What information has been declassified, when did it happen, and what's still secret? The article's quite vague on this, and indeed on related issues - did Israel initially deny responsibility, or announce it to the world? How much of the background information only emerged a decade or more later?
• The "Mysterious deaths" seems pretty tangential - are we implying they were related? Are we implying the source is claiming they were related? Would the quote appear different in context?
• The "Diplomatic reactions" section - should this be merged into political reactions, or does it actually refer to events before the bombing?

Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli planes over Hussein's yacht

I have doubts about this piece of info: "On the initial flight southward, the planes coincidentally flew directly over King Hussein's private yacht at 100 feet altitude. Hussein recognized the Israeli markings and reportedly realized instantly what their mission was, and attempted unsuccessfully to alert the Iraqis" It really sounds like a scene from a science fiction movie. How on earth would the late King know that those planes were heading to Iraq? That is if the planes really flew "directly" over his yacht. Can anyone provide the content from the source? Imad marie (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agreed Imad. Let's leave it removed until we get a source stating it. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 09:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is also documented in the book Raid on the Sun by Rodger Claire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.193.13 (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Route avoided Jordan?

Can we confirm that the route shown in the graphic is correct? If so, can anyone find information on why it would appear to avoid Jordanian territory (at the expense of a significantly longer distance)? This seems relevant. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing. There is a cited source in the text that states that the route was partially in Jordanian airspace. Given that the map is entirely unsourced, I will boldly remove it until it can be substantiated. I will also ask the uploader (who has an account on Commons) to comment. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Jordan was a possible route, not certain, but shouldn't be discarded. Per sources: "The Israeli planes would have to violate Jordanian and/or Saudi airspace". Although they pretended to be Jordanians while in Saudi airspace. Also bare in mind that Aqaba is so close to Israel to the point that you might haven't noticed that this map probably shows Israeli aircraft over the aforementioned Jordanian city (in the south, near Eilat).--Baatarsaikan (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that Aqaba counts as Jordanian airspace but that's not the point; there is simply no source for this route as a whole. Unfortunately, it is inappropriate to add a map with an unverified route and then state that it is a "possible route"; doing so is contrary to the two core policies of verifiability and no original research. Anyone who adds material (or reverts its removal) must be able to support it, and there is still no reference that states that this was the actual route. The map cannot stay until it is substantiated. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, I won't argue with you, but all the other Wikipedias (in other languages) have the same map. Could you at least upload a different map to Commons? Any map you prefer is fine. This article should have at least one map with the aircraft route, or different possible routes. Don't you think? Greetings.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A map would be great; I love maps! But it needs to be verified. How can we make a map with the route if we don't even know what the route was? I hope it's clear why showing a map with possible routes is pure original research. We don't engage in speculation here. A map with just the location of the reactor and Etzion would be nice and supported by sources but right now I don't have the means to make one. This map has caused enough confusion on this talk page alone (see a few discussions above that also question the map) that I'm surprised the matter hadn't been addressed earlier. In the interest of making progress, the source given in some of the article for some of the details of the raid () might have the details we need, but I cannot find a copy of that online. Maybe the resource exchange can help. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Etzion

Osirak

class=notpageimage|

What a map showing just the origin and destination could look like

Just as a quick experiment I looked at some map templates to quickly sketch out what a simpler map that sticks to the verified facts might look like. I am not suggesting that this go into the article (it's too zoomed out for one, but I can't fix that just with templates) but I wanted to present an alternate example. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not a bad choice. Maybe you could zoom in and add some colors. Thanks.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Merge with Osirak article?

Both articles are pretty much on the same subject, and duplicate most information. I suggest merging them. Alternatively, wiki can prune both articles (e.g. leave discussion of Osirak's capabilities in the Osirak article and discussion of Opera's aftermath here?), but these are IMHO so intertwined I feel a merge is more appropriate. 79.176.8.207 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently when doing mergeto it posts the discuss link in the other article... I'll post there. 79.176.8.207 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Osirak#Merge_proposal:_Operation_Opera_to_Osirak_article. 79.176.8.207 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Britannica Blog is not WP:RS or WP:NPOV

As anyone can see at http://blogs.britannica.com/about-this-site/ the Britannica Blog is not trying to be objective, but provocative. They state "We tried to achieve a kind of objectivity in the aggregate—balance might be a better word—by publishing, in the fullness of time, advocates for all reasonable positions on major controversies." The Blogs are very biased, but by providing blogger from all sides of the issues, they try to offer balance. Wikipedia should not be using it as a source, unless they use blogs from both sides of the issue to get a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose removal.I think it is more of an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You seem quite comfortable with a wall of anti Israeli POV but object to one "dissenting" paragraph. Cheney is a perfectly reliable source. If he said it, it should be noted. The section is now completely unbalanced with a total anti O/O POV. I suspect you are here to right great wrongs. You have your own glaring POV issue which you should address. Irondome (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that if the source is considered reliable enough to report what Cheney said, then using it can be OK. Of course, Cheney is wrong, since as is explained in the article, the raid caused Iraq's nuclear program to assume a military aspect which was missing earlier, but that doesn't mean Cheney's views should be removed. Rather, they should be exposed, so to say. --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is correct. While a blog won't generally be considered reliable a prominent blog to quote someone shouldn't be problematic. Gotitbro (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, for totally opposite reasons :). However, I am assuming we now have a consensus for its reinstatement. However it is perceived, it should be in mainspace. I am reinstating paragraph. Irondome (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation"

Redundancy much? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:B5A2:AF54:73BF:FBF3 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

You mention in the preparatory phase of the attack that an Israeli F4 got out of fuel and the pilot had to eject but if you follo the reference you will read that it was the other way around: the Iraqi pilot had to eject for fuel starvation... 87.210.29.149 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I checked the source and you are correct. Thank you! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016 - Ref 13 is missing the < ref >

Reference Perry, Dan. Israel and the Quest for Permanence... is missing the initial < ref > 24.248.67.97 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - although it was a bit more complex than just a missing < ref > - two different books had been given the same refname - it's been like that for over a year - Arjayay (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2016

Snd28 (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) When you search "Osirak" or "Operation Opera" in google, the thumbnail for the wikipedia page says: "the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs."

This statement is the opinion of one lone person and is a matter of controversy. In fact, multiple sources contained in the article suggest that the Osirak reactor was capable of making nuclear weapons, and this was the entire point of the reactor. For example, a past U.S. Secretary of Defense has stated that taking out the Osirak reactor eliminated a possible nuclear threat to U.S. troops during the 1st Gulf War, ten years later.

It seems consistent with Wikipedia's policy of promoting objectivity to have a thumbnail statement that reflects facts, rather than differences of opinion in what is still an ongoing controversy.

The point of my comment is that, in line with Wikipedia's policy, there are substantive sources that currently disagree over whether the reactor was intended for peaceful or military purposes, so it seems one-sided, un-objective, and very unlike Wikipedia to have the summary thumbnail reflect one subjective view rather than objective reality.

Perhaps a different thumbnail statement might read "the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June 1981 was purchased from France and supported by French engineers", as all substantive sources are in agreement on these facts.

As I cannot edit the page "Operation Opera" myself, I am requesting that Wikipedia administrators do so instead.

Thank you

Not done: The thumbnail statement you read is an automatically generated preview that is controlled entirely by Google. Feel free to contact Google about this issue, but unfortunately, it cannot be modified by the volunteer editors or administrators at Wikipedia. I agree that it is rather unfortunate that Google has cut out the in-text attribution for the opinion, and if I could, I would change it to your proposed text. Mz7 (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Article is ridiculously biased

This article should never have been a candidate for GA status. Is is clearly biased against the described operation, at every turn only quoting experts who have criticized Israel's decisions and reasoning while ignoring other experts who have agreed with them. The to-do list adds insult to injury and maintains that what the article truly lacks is Iraqi positions on the matter, while a neutral POV cannot be achieved here without expressing the full range of expert opinion on the nuclear, military and political facets of the strike.

Ududy (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

number of F-15

According to De Arcangelis (La Storia dello Spionaggio Elettronico, Mursia 1987) the F-15 were 8 and in the return path over Jordan the 16 aircraft split in 8 couples made by one F-15 and one F-16. The source is old and may be wrong, but a check seems worth. 151.29.73.133 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

In these two phrases:

designed to make nuclear weapons

barely enough fuel on the site to make one bomb

Please replace "make" with "produce". "Make" is a rather generic verb, and replacing it with a stronger verb like "produce" will strengthen these phrases. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have altered the first instance but not the second as in that case the sentence implies a direct quote, which it is. Tollens (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (2)

In this phrase:

head of Iraq's Western Air Defense Zone, Colonel Fakhri Hussein Jaber and all officers under his command

Please add a comma after "Jaber" because the comma preceding "Colonel" demands a second comma. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - I moved the name in front of head of Iraq's Western Air Defense Zone for clarity as well. Tollens (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (3)

In this phrase:

Iraqi government is entitled to seek

Please change "is" to "was", since it's talking about an event from thirteen years ago. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (4)

Please change "Dick Cheney thanked" to "U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney thanked". The article quotes Cheney without any explanation of who he is or why his opinion is relevant. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - rephrased to Dick Cheney, then the United States Secretary of Defense, thanked for clarity and also added link to the article about him. Tollens (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

It is clear that Islamic Iran was anti-Israel and anti-Western from the start; therefore it is impossible that Israel would help Iran. 2A00:23EE:1760:60D8:6AF2:60CC:777C:5187 (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, that's not grounds to delete an article about an event that very clearly did happen. You know who else was anti-Israel? Iraq. The ones with a nuclear program (at the time, anyways). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Einsof (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

72 kilograms of 93% enriched uranium

«  72 kilograms of 93% enriched uranium » seems false to me, as it would be bomb rate uranium. Civil usage is <5% enriched uranium, with some nuclear plant till <20%. The French would never have delivered bomg grade uranium to Irak. 2A02:1210:72D6:1701:5979:4545:1BB6:B381 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)