User talk:Omarello2

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. ʄlame (report mistake) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Yom Kippur War. Thank you. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thanks for engaging me on my talk page. your edits appeared to be someone trying to insert POV into the article, i apologize if i was mistaken. could you please point me in the direction of a WP:RS that supports your addition? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have an article by Pierre Tristam who is a famous columinst that describe in details the first and second disengagements in the Egyptian and Syrian borders which made israel lose some previously held territory in Sinai and Golan Heights.In addition I have an article by William Burr an editor in the National security archieve that describes the disengagement and the weight of the Israeli losses compared to the Arab losses.Where should I provide the links?

hi omarello, thanks for getting back to me. could you provide the links here while i go update myself on the article? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to edit the article (the part were refuse to remove Israeli tactical victory and refuse to add Egyptian strategic and political victory in the infobox). At the end of the war after the first and second engagement Egypt held more territory and controlled the Suez Canal while israel had lost territory so its supposed to be a strategic victory for Egypt(supported by many sources). As for the casualties comparison I have many sources that claim that the Israeli losses in percentage terms was more than the Arabs. According to William Burr it was equivalent to 200,000 losses in the US army.All of the info should be summarized in the infobox. Military stalemate replace tactical victory or at least Egyptian strategic and political victory because in 1975(still at state of war) held more territory.

Here are the sources

Six Part BBC documentary which is supposed to be a neutral source clearly states that it is hard to say whose the clear victor and thatEgyptian side was the side that gained the most.

first part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XztQ28ZUXs0

last part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHpzPCGp1Ek&feature=related

Here is a link that to the national security archieve which states that the israeli 2600 soldiers in percentage was equivalent ::::to 200,000 Americans. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm

an article by Pierre Tristam that describe in details The Egyptian/Syrian-Israeli Disengagement Treaties of 1974 and 1975. http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm--Omarello2 (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing now... WookieInHeat (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i've reviewed all the information you provided, let me break down my analysis. the BBC video is informative but doesn't directly support you claims (also youtube is not generally considered a WP:RS, the quote from the national archives has little to do with the information you are trying to insert, and the final link you provided didn't work. any ways, let me ask you more directly about what you want to add. for the statement "territorial gains for egypt", do you believe egypt gained territory because it regained control of the sinai desert? and also, "Political and strategic victory for Egypt" seems to POV compared the statement directly above it that says "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel"; having both right beside each other seems to be somewhat of a contradiction. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking some time to look at my sources. As for my statement on the territorial gains, I did not mean all Sinai but part of the Sinai and this illustrated in my link about the first and second disengagements on the Syrian and Egyptian border. Egypt also took control of the Canal.Here is how you look at it in 1971(state of war) Egypt had no control over the canal and Egyptian troops are on the western side, In 1975(still state of war) Egypt on the eastern side with some territory and full control of the canal, Syrian troops in the previously held town of Qunitera.Peace talks started 4 years after the war during this time did not Egypt held more territory than before 1973 war and werent they and Syrians engaged in a minor war of attrition(wikipedia article even say this). As for the BBC source please research about Peter snow is a very important TV and Radio presenter and BBC is supposed to be neutral if Israel won they would say it but instead they said and I quote"There is no sign of a clear victor in the war". I am sorry for the link that did not open.As for the quote about the causulties Will I be allowed to insert in the yom kippur article I already provided you with its reliable source(national achieve) Here is another link that describe the disengagements (these are undisputed facts you will get the same info if you researched any source) http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ykwar_agreements.php--Omarello2 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)not a problem at all, i am glad you are taking the time to discuss the issue. again, i don't see the relevance of the national archives quote in relation to what you want to add to the article; also the most recent link you provided didn't work (404). saying that the yam kippur war was a "territorial victory for egypt" is somewhat of an overstatement. it would seem the current statement "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel" is mroe neutral and sufficiently conveys the status of egypt after the war. and finally, the additions you would like to make appear to violate WP:OR as you are drawing conclusions from what your sources say rather then using what they say to state facts. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to be continued, i'm off to bed. night WookieInHeat (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the links wer not working because they were followed by -- when sigining when signing please try to open the link again

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ykwar_agreements.php

What were the strategic and political gains for Israel? They lost some previously held territory and lost full control of the canal. I did not say "Egyptian tactical victory" I said "military stalemate" or "Both sides claim victory" would be more descriptive. I can download the series and provide it to you to make it a more reliable source but that is not the issue.BBC documentary said" There is no sign of clear victor in this war" so why should we say its an Israeli tactical victory? You should add "territorial gains" for Egypt and remove "strategic and political gains for Israel" because these were a result of a peace treaty not the war and therefore it should be added in the article about the CampDavid accords not the Yum kippur war.

Here is the other link provided with maps about the disengagement agreements

http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm

another city of Quneitra which came under Syrian rule in 1974 from Israel as a result of the disengagement.How is this not a strategic victory. If the lets say Iran went to war with US in Iraq and the end result was that Iran took control of 2 small Iraqi ciities but were pushed back from the rest of Iraq and failed to invade the rest of Iraq(but still hold the 2 cities), wouldn't this be a strategic victory for Iran?

the links worked now and i read both the articles. what were the strategic and political gains for israel you ask? they regained use of the suez and a new UN peacekeeping mandate to monitor it. any way, i think i may have a compromise to our disagreement. how about we remove egypt from the statement "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel" making it "Political and strategic gains for Israel", and include "Territorial gains for Egypt". this avoids declaring victory for either side and addresses the land israel ceded under the final UN resolution as a territorial gain for egypt. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is more informative but we should add Syria too because they got back an important city called Quneitra. But still why did not the BBC documentary(unbiased) say its an Israeli victory but instead said that the victor was unclear. AS for strategic vicrory for Egypt in the Yom Kippur article itself there are many sources that support that.Here a quote from the article "Thus, if war is the employment of military force in support of political objectives, there can be no doubt that in strategic and political terms the Arab States—and particularly Egypt—won the war, even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory".|Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947–1974

your quotes sound more like reason not to use the word "victory" if you ask me. i would really just like to avoid the word "victory" in general as it seems to be drawing conclusions that aren't quite set in stone anywhere. its not like WWII where the germans were totally defeated and occupied, the current use of the word "gains" seems much less presumptuous. as for syria, the town you mention appears to be relatively unimportant, the already quite lengthy yom kippur article doesn't even mention it. adding every minor territorial development to the lead infobox is only going to further clutter the article. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note: seeing as this has become somewhat of a debate, i'm going to copy the conversation over to the talk page for the article; also a similar debate already exists, see Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Result. lets continue there for the sake of transparency and inclusion of any interested editors. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

Hi Omarello! I see you're new here, greetings!

I'm aware of the percentage and ratio comparisons of Israeli and Arab casualties. These were in the article but were removed. As for the matter of who was the victor, there's a great rift amongst sources. I believe the article is leaned particularly to one side of the argument right now and somewhat neglects the other side. I hope I can get some books together and possibly add some balance to the article again, though not anytime soon.

I've seen the BBC documentary before. Using youtube links is discouraged because they are not considered WP:RS in general. However I think this might be an exception. Also, there might be a way of citing it in the article as a documentary rather than simply a youtube link.

Take notice that this article has seen countless arguments on many issues; you are not the first to address the matter of who won and how. It's useful to have a quick read of previous posts and the latest archives in the talk page, and if possible approach the problem in a new or different way with a healthy amount of sources and reasonable arguments.

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Happy editing! :D --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the discussions. I don't agree with the counter-arguments to the info about ratios of losses. However I'm not so free nowadays, plus, I prefer to wait until I have those books with me before I start editing. Perhaps by then you'll have come up with more sources and ElUmmah might be free to join the editing. Don't be discouraged or stop though; keep up your efforts and dig for more sources, and I advise you to read through the archives carefully. That'll certainly come in handy; letting you know all the previous arguments that happened and how they concluded. Also, take a look at a paper published by George W. Gawrych titled the "Albatross of Decisive Victory", it's available online and includes a good amount of information as well as that bit on the ratio of losses. If you need any more help, drop by. Cheers! --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

Hey Omarello :),

I agree that the article has many problems, unfortunately I've been busy recently and couldn't engage in any edits. The issue regarding the infobox is one that has been debated endlessly, and the information currently being displayed in the infobox is the result of a compromise reached between editors. While I'm not happy with it, it was the best we could do given the major differences in views between the editors involved. While there are many sources that state the war to be a political, and even strategic victory for Egypt, there exist sources that state otherwise, and this is what causes this debate. However, regarding the line that says "Israeli tactical victory", it is possible, provided you can find reliable sources, to change it to "Israeli tactical victory/military stalement", which properly represents the existing dispute. Reliable sources supporting military stalemate DO exist, it's just a matter of getting your hands on them. For example, there's Dupuy's book "Elusive victory" and Edgar O'Ballance's book "No Victor, No Vanquished". There's also Hammad's book which is in Arabic. If you provide reliable sources for your edits, it'll be much more difficult for other editors to challenge you. Both the sources you provided ARE reliable as well as accurate, but as Sherif has mentioned above, youtube links are usually not regarded as reliable, despite the actual documentary being a reiliable source. Also, the Vietnam comparison is accurate and is mentioned by many sources, but unfortunately some editors on the other side of the debate believe that this information is useless. I plan on getting more involved with the article once I have the time. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page whenever :) Good luck! ElUmmah (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]