Talk:Operation Bulmus 6

Different figures
Was going to add www.jewishagency.org as a source or external link but noticed the figures for wounded was different from the article. "The Flotilla 13/Sayeret Matkal units evacuated the island. There were six dead and fourteen wounded." From www.jewishagency.org -- FloNight   talk  03:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New record
This article should win the Most Biased Article Ever "MBAE" price. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific issues? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article does not cite it's claims. that needs to be fixed, so please do not remove the tag until the problem is solved. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article already has a tag for that, and "unreferenced" is not the same thing as "not neutral". If you have specific issues with NPOV, let' hear them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's written in a way that is not neutral. ex. "with some jumping from bunkers into the sea, and eventually calling in artillery on their own position.", "roared up to the island", the causalities which are shown upwards here to be untrue. The way it's written to be read as a Mission Impossible, while not citing a single word. that needs to be sourced, or changed to a sourced version using neutral sources.
 * Note: if non neutral sources were used, the neutrality tag wont get removed, and again, please remove the tag after we come up with some thing here. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see that you have started to explain the issues -we can now start workign on them. I don't agree that the 2 sentences you've called out are not neutral, but I'm certainly willign to entertain different phrasing. What do you suggest would be a better, NPOV statement of these facts? What are the correct casualty figures you wnat to see in the article? Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fellow editor;

the article still does not cite any references for the israeli casualties, that was a main reason for assuming nonneutrality. It's not about what i want to be written as u asked, it's about what can be sourced. In the sub article just above this one u can find an example.
 * I assume that u already know that discussion pages are not forums where for an example i would post a feedback on ur contributions. I included a tag that there are no sources in the article, u fixed that, and the tag is removed, so no problem, i do not have to say "well done" or some thing like that, however it's a good job u've done there.
 * The discussion is already finished.
 * I have mentioned some specific examples that are not sourced, and that are not neutral as u asked; solve these issues, and remove the tag whenever u want, because then i would resume the discussion only if the issue is not solved.
 * U have no idea how much busy i am these days, but i believe i'll be back soon. Any way, Thanx for ur effort, and Thanx in advance for what's going to be done. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the sources for Israeli casualties. In the future, if a specific claim is missing a source, tag it (rather than the whole article) with . Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think i was very clear, when i was talking about reliable,  Neutral  sources !
 * By the way the only change is sourcing casualties. other specific statements have been pointed out.
 * Things to do; finding neutral sources for requested informations to be cited. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS requires reliable sources, not "neutral" sources, whatever you imagine those to be. In any case, the Flotilla 13 casualties are sources to the Illustrated Directory of Special Forces - a "neutral" source by any parameter. If you'd like, I'll add a to the other casualty figures, or simply remove them. Agian, do not tag an entire article for alleged POV, when the problem is a missing citation for one fact. Also, do not tag an article and then claim you have no time to dicuss improvements - I have responded to issue you raised with regarding to the 2 statements you called out - I will be happy to hear your suggestions for alternative formulations of them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The neutrality tag is not questioning the reliability of sources, it questions it's neutrality -that's only if we differentiated between both- neutrality is a key factor to the reliability of a certain source to be used to cite a certain information in a certain article, and most important, in a certain statement/claim.
 * I suppose that u are very far from being understanding the discussion, since the battle sub article still does not include a single source !
 * The improvements are simple, cite them, or delete them.
 * A non-neutral source is used as the main source for the entire article, and u remove the neutrality disputed tag ?!!!!!
 * If i had enough time, what should be expected is that, the source u used for many informations was to be argued, certain statements to be removed, and one, or more tags to be added.
 * So, if u do not have the time, or the effort it takes to improve the article properly, please do not suppose that u have solved the issues concerning it.
 * That's why i think it's best for all of us at least for now, to work of the article, and leave the tags until a decision is reached; that's why i am reverting the tag, supposing that u would respect this discussion, and remove it only if u have solved the problems in the article.
 * Do not worry, i believe i'll be back to my normal editing activity after exactly some 10 days or so. Good luck. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, let's get a few things straight: I have both the time and willingness to improve the article. It was you, not me, who claimed you were too busy to edit this article - Here, and again here. So let's have no more of this " if u do not have the time, or the effort it takes to improve the article properly" nonsense.
 * The "neutrality disputed" tag is used to highlight POV issues, not to highlight claims that need a reference. If there are unreferenced claims that you dispute - tag them, not the article, and I will either find a source for them or remove them. If tehre is an entire sectionthat is unreferenced - tag it as unref, not the article as POV. If you have issues with supposedly non-neutral phrasing - I am more than happy to hear your suggestions on how it might be improved - I've made this offer to you more than 10 days ago, and you have still not proposed any alternatives. Please do not continue to tag this article unless you are willing to participate in a productive debate on how to improve it. If you are too busy now, come back  in 10 days when you have more time, and we'll continue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute here, i am not willing to turn this discussion into a personal one. U can go for it, and add links to "prove" some thing i have already said about my self, but i am not going there with u.
 * Show me ur willingness! cite the phrases i talked about, find neutral sources, and please, please do not confuse the rules with each other just for a quick end of the discussion.
 * I am not "ordering" here, i am asking. there have been a long dispute concerning the Military of egypt article, and i ended it using reliable sources....please, try to do the same. Good luck. One last pharaoh (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to turn this into a personal debate, please avoid using phrases like "" if u do not have the time, or the effort it takes to improve the article properly".
 * You have called out 2 sentences that you think are "not neutral" - I am willing to listen to an alternative phrasing.  Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the work?
I have forgotten about this article, but my fellow editor Canadian Monkney have just reminded me. as i can see there have been no significant change....well, maybe the tags would get the editors into action. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't tag articles in a drive-by fashion. there are 6 references listed, so it is inappropriate to tag the article as "unreferenced". Regarding the neutrality issues - 3 months ago I wrote "You have called out 2 sentences that you think are 'not neutral' - I am willing to listen to an alternative phrasing.". I am still waiting for a response. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try. there have been 6 references in the whole article, and i tagged only the then unreferenced section, however i can see that the tags got one editor into action, and he/she added some references to the concerned section. problem solved. One last pharaoh (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Names of Egyptian commanders, How did you get them?
I couldn't find any name of Egyptian commanders: represented in the article as commanders of the Green Island during the Israeli raid on the fortress in any Arabic, English or Hebrew accounts of the operation, so please provide sources to these names. --Amr F.Nagy (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Major Saad Amin (Garrison commander)
 * Brigadier Butros Zaghloul (Brigade commander)
 * Captain Abbas Shehata (Signal Platoon Leader)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2021
'''The outcome must change, so that both parties claim victory ''' Ahmed88z (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

the video Magdy Bishara's novel of the battle This is a source that includes the sayings of Brigadier General Majdi Bashara Qalini, commander of the battle, and this is also a video recorded with a voice that includes a detailed explanation of the battle Ahmed88z (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2021
this page It relies on sources from only one side, which is the Israeli side The outcome of the war must be adjusted so that both sides claim victory And also writing the Egyptian claim about the killing of 40 Israelis and the failure of the Israelis to occupy the island the source the source Ahmed88z (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 01:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I want to change the outcome of the war so that both sides claim victory, mention the number of Israeli dead that were mentioned in the Egyptian sources, and add a new section that includes the story of the battle from the Egyptians’ point of view--Ahmed88z (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems like a controversial edit to request that requires a consensus with other editors first.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 12:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is already consensus Ahmed88z (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please check the sources. The sources contain confessions from Israeli leaders of defeat, and this is enough to change the result without the need for consensus.

I suggest that the article be reformulated in line with Mr. Ayalon's admission and with adherents of a policy of absolute neutrality with regard to the Battle of Green Island and the War of Attrition in general.

POV : article for Israel
All the sources of the battle from the Israeli side everything from the Israeli narrative, put the Egyptian narrative and say that the two sides claimed victory This is a provocation This is not the Hebrew Wikipedia This is the English Wikipedia You have to take (neutral) sources or the sources of both parties Hamed2139 (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)