Talk:Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967)

message: Hi, if you read it, what do you think of the article, clear enough? I'll add a picture of movements later. And terms like division and brigade may have different meanings in different languages, so if anyone can tell the difference between dutch and english, please help.
Wiki1609 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Since there are 2 battles of Abu-Ageila I suggest the article should be renamed to "Second Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967)" to make it absolutely clear which battle we are talking about. If you disagree, maybe we can have the option of removing the disamb. page of this article. I hope to see some comments in the coming 12 hours, if not I will move this article. Sincerely, Daimanta 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok you moved this. I tried to make a distinction in the battles by date, but this is more clearly and like other wiki articles. Wiki1609 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the name 

message: === Summery ===
Michael Oren has stated that the number of Egyptian troops in the battle of Abu-Ageila was 16,000 according to the person who added that in the article -I have no access to that book right now-. Michael Oren is an IDF officer, and an American-Israeli scholar. I see that his point of view, and estimates cannot be neutral in this certain article, and article like it (about battle directly involving Israel, specifically the IDF). Because the information comes from a reliable source, following Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, i did not remove the information from the article . In order to meat Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines, i have stated that this information comes from Michael Oren, who in an American-Isaerli scholar, and an IDF officer. Since the information does not represent an official Israeli estimate, i did not include it in the infobox, because i am not very sure how to include it, and in the same way follow WP:Neutrality 9it would look like that neutral estimates vary, not one neutral estimate, and another that is not). Canadian Monkey have numerously argued that, and claimed me to be questioning the reliability of the source citing Oren's estimate, some thing that is not true, and some thing i have denied, and stated that the source is reliable. Canadian Monkey stated that the importance goes to the reliability of the source, not the neutrality of the information according to what i understood []. Canadian Monkey has refused to discuss the neutrality of the information [] []. The main argument is about weather or not to include Oren's estimate in the infobox, and if done, how to include it, and preserve the neutrality of the article. That is a question i asked more than once, and did not receive an answer. An idea that might resolve the dispute is to add a brief note about according to whom is that number (16,000), and adding both numbers in a way of "8,000, or 16,000", since there are no estimates of numbers between them; and that is what id did for now. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In history, there is no such guarantee of a purely unbiased source, and any differences that might arise should be noted and sourced, if those sources are legitimate per Wikipedia standards. I am totally in favor of the "8,000-16,000" with all sources noted. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Can an IDF officer be considered neutral in a battle involving the IDF? 

message: Michael Oren has stated that the number of Egyptian troops in the battle of Abu-Ageila was 16,000 according to the person who added that in the article -I have no access to that book right now-. Michael Oren is an IDF officer, and an American-Israeli scholar. I see that his point of view, and estimates cannot be neutral in this certain article, and article like it (about battle directly involving Israel, specifically the IDF). Because the information comes from a reliable source, following Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, i did not remove the information from the article . In order to meat Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines, i have stated that this information comes from Michael Oren, who in an American-Isaerli scholar, and an IDF officer. Since the information does not represent an official Israeli estimate, i did not include it in the infobox, because i am not very sure how to include it, and in the same way follow WP:Neutrality 9it would look like that neutral estimates vary, not one neutral estimate, and another that is not). Canadian Monkey have numerously argued that, and claimed me to be questioning the reliability of the source citing Oren's estimate, some thing that is not true, and some thing i have denied, and stated that the source is reliable. Canadian Monkey stated that the importance goes to the reliability of the source, not the neutrality of the information according to what i understood []. Canadian Monkey has refused to discuss the neutrality of the information [] []. The main argument is about weather or not to include Oren's estimate in the infobox, and if done, how to include it, and preserve the neutrality of the article. That is a question i asked more than once, and did not receive an answer. An idea that might resolve the dispute is to add a brief note about according to whom is that number (16,000), and adding both numbers in a way of "8,000, or 16,000", since there are no estimates of numbers between them; and that is what id did for now. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summery 

message: I support having it say "8000—16000" if you have conflicting estimates, however, the suitability of a source has nothing to do with its neutrality. Practically everything on the internet is biased.--Patton123 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In history, there is no such guarantee of a purely unbiased source, and any differences that might arise should be noted and sourced, if those sources are legitimate per Wikipedia standards. I am totally in favor of the "8,000-16,000" with all sources noted. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: On page 182 of Michael Oren book, Six Days of War; 
A similar balance prevailed further to the south, in the heavily fortified area, six miles deep and two wide, of Umm Qatef. This was the first line of Egypt's Conqueror strategy, and its defenses were a microcosm of Sinai's: three stations, 80 guns, 90 tanks, and 16,000 men -between which the enemy could be crushed. Guarding the vital Abu' Ageila junction leading into the peninsula's interior, to the Mitla Pass and Ismailiya, the stronghold had withstood repeated Israeli onslaughts in 1956, surrendering only when its supplies were exhausted. Since then, Umm Qatef had been further buttressed by powerful redoubt at Ruwafa Dam and at nearby al-Qusayma. Manning these positions were troops of the 2nd Infantry Division who, thought battle-ready, were commanded by Maj. Gen. Sa'di Nagib, a political appointee best known as one of Amer's drinking mates.
I take back thinking of the book as being non neutral, as it is very clear now that the editor who used that source was the one being non neutral, and lying to the encyclopedia. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lying

message: Regarding Citation needed there, about Abdel Hakim Amer's panics as the (sole?) reason for the order for withdrawal: at Six-Day War#The Egyptian Army I have been lead to an AlAhram article that both shows the background and a bit different event - that according to this source the decision to whthdraw was joint Amer's and Naser's.  
By looking into that background it seems the reason for the order being issued, and the disastrous form it was issued in, was complex and probably one of the main reasons for that was insufficient training and experience of people giving the order. Several or most of Free Officers were promoted several grades instantly after succesfull overthrow of  King Farouk in 1952, and in positions of power by the source without necessary training neither then nor later.
It is understandable if the people - undertrained for their current level and before that disaster for years overconfident - panicked when it happened. But I think Amer didn't panic alone, and his panic didn't cause the order to withdraw. It was a general panic, which contributed the order to being issued as to "withdraw in 24 hours", without instruction (or even hint about) how to accomplish that.
I am not sure yet how to introduce this change into the section in a concise way. Also, that section in article Six-Day War has the same problem: two adjacent sentences contradict each other (first lacking citation about Amer panicking to issue order to withdraw from Sinai, the other supported by citation, that the decission was made by him and Naser). 
Probably there somebody like me looked into citation needed and found it, and added info from this source, but didn't ammend the previous senetnce (text marked as lacking citation), yet.
 Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Aftermath