Talk:Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967)

Comment
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)

Change the name
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)


 * 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)

Actually, since it was the only battle at Abu-Ageila during the Six-Day War, then per WP:MILMOS it should be named"Battle of Abu-Ageila (1967)". Any objections? -- Nudve (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian force
First, I'd like to agree with Canadian Monkey's recent change to convey conflicting sources. I have a question concerning Gawrych's source (Key to the Sinai). According to Eric Hammel, an Egyptian infantry division was 11,800 troops (Six Days in June, p. 141). He later gives the order of battle for Abu-Ageila, which seems to coincide with what the article currently says. How can one division, two brigades and three companies amount to only 8,000 troops? Does Gawrych or anyone else explain it? -- Nudve (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that the book is available on PDF and linked (is that a copyvio?). Anyway, Chapter 4, Page 93, gives a number around 19,000 by both sides. It refers to another book, which I can look up. Any thoughts? -- Nudve (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not read the whole source, but i think that the Egyptian force was supposed to guard at least three position in which Abu-Ageila was only one of them. the source speaks about the fighting in the three position, and puts higher emphasise on the Abu-Ageila battle, however this article in about this single battle. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gawrych puts the numbers at around 19,000 (p. 93). He cites them to Trevor Dupuy's book, which is more specific, so I cited it. The 8,000 figure refers to the actual engagement as result of Sharon's plan, according to Gawrych (p. 98). -- Nudve (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In p.93, the first line reads: "The size of Sharon's ugdah numbered around 19,000 men, a force somewhat larger than the Egyptians' 2d Infantry Division.11". I did not note that statement at the beginning, but i think it is very clear that Gawrych is talking about Sharon's ugdah , not the number of troops by both sides.
 * In p.98, the source states: "The Israelis not only had the advantage in leadership but also in manpower and weapons. Sharon's plan gave the Israelis a marked superiority in numbers of troops at Abu Ageila—14,000 Israelis pitted against 8,000 Egyptians.". clear enough that it states that the number of Egyptian troops in the Abu-Ageila was 8,000, and that the Israelis had a marked superiority in the number of troops thanks to Sharon's plan. One last pharaoh (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sharon's ugda alone could not have been bigger than the total. Gawrych isn't clear here, but I think the 19,000 refers to the entire battle, including Um-Katef, which seems to be included in this article. -- Nudve (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nudve, i have copied the exact phrase found in the source. How can it be clearer than leteralystating that information, as Gawrych did? One last pharaoh (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Gawrych also mentions the original lineups. I think that's relevant. Also, you have not provided an explanation for removing the other sources (Dupuy and Oren). -- Nudve (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents. First, I am from Israel and my English is not so good, so forgive me my mistakes. I wrote most of the Hebrew wiki article which is not finished yet. A very important point that is missing in the article itself and from this debate is the point of Kusseima. According Garwych, the Egyptian army was deployed between Abu-Ageila and Kusseima. On the days before June 5 Israel made several steps that cause the Egyption to believe that the main battle will be at Kusseima, and therefor, the Egyptians moved big part of their power to Kusseima. Their wholle power was 16,000 men, but in the area where the battle took place in the end there were about 8,000 soldiers. Another point is that the whole tactic of the israely army (and probably other armies as well) was to have a decisive advantage in power at the crucial time and place. by stating that 14,000 israely soldiers won 8,000 egyptians you are saying that the israely army succeed in his plans to create this advantage. exectly the same way the Egyptian army did in 1973. The numbers of the soldiers don't mean anything about who was a better soldier or army, but about which commander was more bright by succeeding to create this advantage. Anyway, it will be most welcome if we could have the Egyption point of view on the battle.Tushyk (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you (Tushyk) are correct. What is your source for the figure of 16,000, and what does it say about the total Israeli force? -- Nudve (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In page 82 of "Key to the Sinai..." Garwych writes: "With the standard size of an infantry division around 11,000 men, the 2d Infantry Division, with its attached units, numbered around 16,000 men.(37) Of these, approximately 8,000 were stationed in the Abu Ageila area. Note 37 says: "Dayan, Diary, 91, 210; and Wallach interview (Yehudah Wallach, interview with author, Tel Aviv, Israel, 7 November 1986). Israel's numbers are from the same source.Tushyk (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanx for joining the discussion, Tushyk. What have you noted is exactly what i said in the Neutrality section of this talk page, however i do not get your point correctly, i think. I believe that we agree on that the number of Egyptian troops in Abu-Ageila was 8,000, and the number is 14,000 for the Israelis; That is what is mentioned in the article, and cited by Gawrych's book. I have requested that some one who has access to Oren's book, or at least know for sure the exact phrase in that book to state it to me, since i do not have access to that book, yet no response have been given till now. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We can see that Garwych numbers are based on Israeli sources as well, even though that according his notes, he had some approch to Egyptian sources. The main issue, as I can see it, is how big the arena of the battle is. One way is to see Sharon ugda versus Saleh al-din mohsen 2nd division, and then divison 2nd is 16 thousend. The other way, is to see it as the troops that were battling around Um-katef (By the way, the hebrew wiki article name is Um-Katef battle, the name that is more common in Israel). In this option the Egyption force is of 8,000 soldiers. we have to remember that Sharon ugda had a unit (a battlion+ in the comand of Uri Baidatz) near Kusseima that was exchanging fire with the Egyptian forces there with the aim to keep them busy and not let them assist the Um-Katef area. Michael oren wrote in Hebrew a book that i believe is more or less the same as the english version. i will try to locate it and see what he has to say.Tushyk (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I coudn't find Oren's book yet. It will take some time.Tushyk (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, however i think it would be much more complicated. To state the total number of Iraeli troops in the attack opposed to the total number of Egyptian troops defending the positions, we might actually need to re-write the whole article; And that would take alot of work.
 * As can be known from my user page, i am a student; And i am having "some things to keep me bussy". That means; final exams, mid terms, reprts, copy books, and practical exams. In another word, no "big effort" should be expected from me from now to up to one month.
 * I commend you on your wellingness to improve the article, and positivly interatcing with it's issues, and am thanking you for your civil way of discussion; So good luck with Oren, and hope me good luck with the college :D. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your exams. As can be seen in my discussion page, I don't really edit here. If I will find more information, I will write it here.Tushyk (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One more piece of information can be found here. The relevant pages are 65-70. The writer, John Mearsheimer, gives ratios based on Trevor Dupuy's book "Understanding War" which based on data base of the CAA (What is it?). As can be seen on table 2 (page 69), Personal Strength Ratio is 1.04, Force Strength (fire power) Ratio is 0.94 and Combat Power Ratio is 3.12. The last Ratio includs the element of surprise and other factors such as significant qualitative asymmetry in fighting forces. I must mention that Mearsheimer says that "An outside review cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the 598-battle data base used by the CAA study" (page 66).Tushyk (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
one question needs to be answered: is an israeli scholar, and an IDF military officer representing a neutral point of view in an article concerning a conflict directly involving israel ? One last pharaoh (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this question does not need to be answered, as the source is a reliable one, from a peer-reviewed academic publication. WP:RS requires reliable sources, not "neutral" ones, whatever you might imagine those to be. We've been over this several times before, on other articles. Please read WP:RS and edit in accordance with what it says - you can't remove material sourced to relevant reliable sources, authored by professional military historians and published by an academic press, based on your personal feeling that the author is not "neutral". Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As you do not wish to discuss it, i do not have to. As i said, i did not remove the content. by the way, i believe that the other source (supposedly, the neutral one) is far more reliable than the non neutral source. just read the intro of the first PDF provided, and you might get an idea about what i mean. get your self some more attention about why have we "been over this", and for the October war, i just am not free enough to get back to it thanks to how openly minded responses i got there, so it might need some effort from me, and that's some thing i am not able to afford right now.One last pharaoh (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's no need to discuss this - only to edit according to policy. You certainly did remove the content - the info box stated 8,000-16,000, and you removed the 16,000 number, sourced to Oren. You are welcome to believe whatever you like regarding the reliability of sources, but you may not remove information sourced to relevant reliable sources, authored by professional military historians and published by an academic press, on the basis of that belief. Other editors have agreed with my position here, and on those other articles where we have had this discussion, so you might want to take note of that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK let me make it easier for you, check this out: Neutral point of view. the article still includes the statement, so check the link out, and come back when you are ready to discuss weather that source can be considered neutral in this article or not.
 * Meanwhile, you can check this link too: [] One last pharaoh (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, why you seamed like having no problem at all, when only the 16,000 number was mentioned? in fact, why did you delete the 8,000 sourced figure, and include the 16,000 figure sourced to the non neutral source?
 * is some one affected by his own interests here ? One last pharaoh (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please help me a little bit, and mention which editors are agreeing with you "here & there". One last pharaoh (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read Neutral point of view? Did you see the section that reads


 * Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article.


 * This is exactly what I am doing here. I have included varying estimates from different reliable sources, and presented them in a neutral fashion. In contrast to this, you have in one place removed sources based on your personal belief that they are not neutral, and in another place presented material from those sources in a non-neutral way (by describing them as an "IDF source" when in fact they are an academic publication).
 * Since you seem to have missed it, User:Nudve writes, above, 'I'd like to agree with Canadian Monkey's recent change to convey conflicting sources.' On the Yom Kippur War article it was User:Raul654, and on Operation Bulmus 6 it was again User:Nudve.
 * Finally, please avoid personalizing this dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Canadian Monkey is right. An article should represent different estimates. It does not become non-neutral just because someone doesn't like one of the sources. -- Nudve (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the NPOV says: "Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view') — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article.", right ?
 * I have not deleted the information from the article. the article still have the information but in a way that shows the background of it's author, which in this case is an Israeli, and an officer in the IDF. i have not said, or concluded that the information comes from the IDF. What Canadian Monkey is arguing about is including the information in the infobox. if that information came from the IDF itself as an official report, or statement by an IDF spokesman or what ever, it would be considered as an official Israeli estimate, and in that case we would be able to include it in the infobox representing Israeli official estimates; however it is not. the information comes from a reliable source, and that's why it is included in the article, and it is included in the article in a way that makes it a neutral article.
 * Correct me if i am wrong, but Nudve was talking about the numbers of troops according to Gawrych's book; and any way we are solving what i think was a slight misunderstanding right now, so why do not you join us.
 * The article already represents different estimates according to reliable sources in a way that makes it a neutral article. both estimates are represented in the article, and the infobox holds the neutral estimates, and again no change should be expected unless Canadian Monkey explains why do not he/she consider Oren non neutral in this article.
 * In a matter of fact, maybe Oren was talking about the full Egyptian force, not only the part stationed in Abu-Ageila. Gawrych records two figures for the number of Israeli troops, one for the force attacking Abu-Ageila, and the other for the ugdah, but records an exact number of Egyptian troops in Abu-Ageila.
 * One more thing, is that supposing that in another article where Oren can be considered neutral, Gawrych's book stills far more reliable, and when it comes to choosing a source, it would definitely be the right choice. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what ,Canadian Monkey.......I think that we are very similar, yet having very different personal interests, and points of view; and that's a problem because, when an object is under the effect of two equal force, yet opposite in direction, the object does not move, and each force deletes the effect of the other. When each of these forces change it's direction towards the other's a little bit, they may come to a point neutralizing their differ in direction, and the object is then subjected to the combined effect of both forces.
 * Let's join our efforts, and try to find that neutral point. you want Oren's estimate to be included in the infobox; your reason is that it comes from a reliable source, and therefor neutrality is not a concern -which is against WP guidelines-. I see that it is not neutral in this article, and have stated my reasons. If some one suggested a way to resolve that, i would be happy to go with it. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're hearing me. The way to present different estimates in a neutral way is "Source X claims the number is nn, source Y claims the number is mm". What you are doing is presenting one source's claim as fact, and the other claim using a well-poisoning "background", which consists of a cherry-picked older affiliation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Michael Oren's book is a reliable source. In fact, since it's more recent, it might be more up-to-date. Maybe he used sources that were not available to Gawrych 12 years earlier. He's not infallible, of course, but there's no reason to relegate him to some sort of a propagandist. There's a way to deal with conflicting estimates. -- Nudve (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not questioned the reliability of Oren's book. The neutrality is a basic guideline for every single wikimedia foundation project as it's article suggests.
 * According to Wikipedia guidelines, the reader is the one who decides his/her own opinions about information, and persons {Wikimania 2008 conference}. The reader is the one who decides his own opinion about the neutrality or Michael Oren here, and therefor his/her own reliability on the information coming from him. The article mentions the estimate of Oren, therefor this is not a matter of reliability. The article does not say for example that that certain estimate according to the Israeli, or Pro-Israeli point of view, yet it mentions the author, and the reader has the final word.
 * Canadian Monkey, i am not hearing you, i am reading what you write. the way of representing information in a neutral way from two sources; A, and B; source A is not information coming from any official government report/statement, or individual belonging to any side of the dispute. Source A states that the number is X1. Source B estimates that the number is X2, however X2 = 2 X1. Source A estimates another number to be Y, yet another is W where W = Y + Z. It maybe true that X2 is a fact as well as X1 because X2 is in the general formula, but X1 is true when calculating on a smaller scale.
 * Illustration; It may be true that the total number of Egyptian troops have been 16,000, and that is what Oren meant; but the number of Egyptian troops in Abu-Ageila alone was 8,000, and that's what Gawrych mentioned. Gawrych mentions that the number of troops comprising Sharon's ugdah was 19,000, and that the number of israeli troops participating in the fighting in Abu-ageila was 14,000. I have no access to Oren's book, so i would be grateful if some one mentioned the exact original statement in that source.
 * I have requested an idea that solves this issue by finding a way to include Oren's estimate in the infobox, and giving the reader a background about where this information comes from.
 * And if providing a back ground about that source only bothers you, Canadian Monkey, you can give a back ground about Gawrych's estimates as well, however i think that this would greatly weaken the situation of Oren's estimate if a reader is to decide which source is more reliable; I for one believe that the institutions backing Gawrych's book are significantly more reliable than any university press, even if that university was Oxford.
 * So, the situation here, is that either some one comes with an idea to satisfy what was mentioned above, or the issue sands still since it is not against any WP rules. In Fact, your suggestion is provoking WP:Neutrality. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both sources are reliable sources. The way we deal with conflicting estimates from reliable sources on Wikipedua is by presenting both estimates, in a neutral fashion. "giving the reader a background" about one source is called Poisoning the well, and is not neutral. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Call it whatever you want, it is a wikipedia policy, and you still did not give alternatives. "poisoning the well" link does not lead to a wikipedia policy. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * stop edit warring.
 * I think it's time to undergo dispute resolution steps. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion Thanks for requesting a third opinion at WP:3O. Based on my review of the comments above and the articles edit history, I agree with and  in that including estimates from both sources is appropriate for this article. However, I also commend for his efforts to avoid ad hominem attacks and to resolve this issue with civility. As there are more than two editors involved, and a RfC has already been requested, I believe this issue is outside of the normal bounds of the WP:Third opinion project. Please be mindful of the Three Revert Rule. Good luck! (EhJJ)TALK 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Reliable sources guidelines, i did not remove the information from the article. In order to meat 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)

Comments
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.--Patton 123 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. Monsieur dl   mon talk-mon contribs 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lying
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)

Section Aftermath
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)