Talk:Operation Eagle/Archive 1

Sinai withdrawal
@, Policy at WP:WEIGHT requires that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The subject we're dealing with is Egypt's military operation in the Sinai Peninsula. Per WP:WEIGHT, we're instructed to follow the manner in which reliable sources reporting on the operation have treated Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai. Adding content that isn't being reported by reliable sources in the context of Egypt's operation is a violation of policy. If, on the other hand, you have sources that discuss this operation and refer to Israel's withdrawal using language like you're trying to add, that's another matter.—Biosketch (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing that Israel and Egypt had some thing called the Sinai Interim Agreement is nothing hard, i guess. Getting other sources on that the Egyptian forces, unlike the IDF, never gave back the territories they occupied during the October war just cannot be easier. If there are news reports (secondary sources) that say Israel gave back the ENTIRE Sinai SOLELY by the peace treaty, there are plenty of perfectly reliable primary sources that say otherwise. Regarding WP:WEIGHT, last time i checked, you reverted my edit which was about clarifying that the Sinai was returned on multiple stages, just to add some undo weight about that Israel got the Sinai in the first place by the 67 war. Now the October war from the Egyptian perspective was all about occupying a very thin land strip of the Sinai to allow the negotiations to start, and improve Egypt's position, after Egypt offered peace in return for the Sinai before the war and Israel refused. Your edit makes it look like there was no October War, there was no Separation of Forces Agreement, and there was no Interim Agreement. You are right, the article is about a current Egyptian military operation against insurgents, that is why arguing how did Israel lose the Sinai is irrelevant. If we are to mention here how did Israel lost the Sinai, we ought to do it the right way. If we are not to mention it at all, it wont damage the article any how. So, what do you think ? ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do I think? I think trolling my Talk page isn't conducive to establishing constructive dialog with me. It'd be nice if you'd revert your edit there. As for the article, the text currently reads,
 * Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula, which it captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, to Egypt in 1982 as part of the 1979 Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty. Among the treaty's other provisions was an agreement that the peninsula would be left effectively demilitarized.
 * That's a paraphrase of two sources:
 * 1. Xinhua
 * The minimal control over Sinai that Cairo asserted since the signing of the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, dropped even further with former President Hosni Mubarak's downfall in February, and the apparent inability or even abdication of responsibility towards policing the peninsula.
 * According to the agreement, Israel in 1982 evacuated all its military bases and settlements from Sinai, which it had captured in the 1967 war, and returned it to Egypt in exchange for the area becoming a demilitarized zone with only a limited number of Egyptian troops deployed.
 * 2. Jerusalem Post
 * Under the 1979 peace treaty, Israel returned Sinai to Egypt. In return, Egypt agreed to leave the area, which borders southern Israel, demilitarized.
 * JPost uses the words "Israel returned"; Xinhua talks about the Six-Day War and the 1982 evacuation; and both sources mention the Sinai's demilitarization. So I haven't added anything that's not in the the sources.—Biosketch (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Taken easy, buddy. I was not trolling your talkpage, and the warning there is just a reminder that you understand and have full recognition of the current "nature" of this article. So, with all due respect, i am not reverting my edits there.
 * Secondly, i am not trying to establish any kind of dialogue with you apart from discussing how to best edit Wikipedia as fellow editors, so just make sure you understand that this is not a forum. That also means, if you would like to point out a certain issue to an editor, you do that i their talk pages, not writing a comment-like edit in article discussion pages like you did with the "@ One last pharaoh", this is not YouTube...
 * You do not seem to recognize what is the difference between Primary, Secondary, and Third party sources, so have a look at this article Identifying reliable sources.
 * I do not remember reading any guideline about that Wikipedians should restrict their edits to certain sources, as there are plenty of much more reliable sources that support my edit. I was asking you whether or not we should use these sources, and talk about that matter, you responded by two sources, so i will take that as a Yes.
 * Most importantly, let's not forget how this revert war started, and mainly, what did the phrase in question read before our edits. It's no longer a question of accepting a certain edit or not, it's now a matter of which edit to accept in this article.
 * Have a nice Day :D ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   12:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My day was pretty nice, thank you. About your edit at my Talk page, it's your choice of course if you want to revert it or not. I could do it myself if I was that fussy about it. Since it came across as WP:POINTy in the context of the anonIP's message at your Talk page, I rather figured you'd revert it even without my asking. I guess not, though. It's not a big deal.
 * The underlying purpose of this dialog is to discuss the sources I used in formulating the passage and to consider any sources you wish to reference in support of the changes you're interested in making. Typically, the way it works is both sides bring the sources they have, and a discussion ensues where consensus is reached in relation to which sources are best and how the text in the article should represent them. Now, I've brought two sources whose validity you don't appear to dispute. But you've yet to do the same. I suggest you bring whatever sources you think are pertinent to the operation and propose whatever modifications to the text you'd like to introduce. Then we can move forward.—Biosketch (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact there should not be "both sides", we are all on the same side, Wikipedia's side. Do not worry, buddy, i am just having a little vacation here, and am gonna be back to action in a few days, god's well. I am happy that you now get my point, and are waiting for the application. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suppose you meant the anonymous IP that started the edit war had some actions that came across as WP:POINT. Since You, the anonymous IP, and myself were the only three editors involved in the edit war, the three got the warning. Deleting the warning is non sense, though, the point is to inform the editor, and show that the editor was informed, in case a user violates the guideline, that little magic tab at the top called "view history" is more than enough to indicated that, yes, the editor was informed. The anonymous IP actually violated the guideline themselves, so maybe if you have some time, you can report their violations, so that we can continue editing this article without disturbance. here are some useful links: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   15:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sinai insurgency
I would like to ask editor Activism to stop his WP:OWN and WP:SYNTH actions in developing this article into what it is not. Operation "Eagle" is long over - it took place in 2011, while several sources wrongly called the current actions as operation "Eagle" (later corrected in all media sources, after official request by Egypt). The current operation in Sinai sinc August 5, 2012 is called Operation Sinai (2012) - see sources: AlJazeera Sep.16, ThedailyEgypt Sep.8, Alarabiya Sep.8, CNN, Daily Telegraph Sep.17, Haaretz Sep.08, France24 Sep.16, Hurriyetdaily Sep.16. Thedailystar 16.Sep.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wrongly called" - you got that from... Sources in the month of September? The CNN ref simply says the name was changed, if that's even true... Or maybe you're saying that the Egyptian military "wrongly called" the operation... A legitimate discussion can be held on the topic of Operation Sinai, which as of now seems perfectly acceptable to indicate that the Egyptian army initially called it Operation Eagle, but then changed the name in September.  What would we do in regards to one article or two articles and the title and redirects, I'd leave that for a discussion. But simply saying this is synthesis or ownership of an article is flat out wrong, especially when an admin supported the deletion of Operation Sinai, and when I'm more than fine with holding a discussion on how to incorporate it here.
 * However, simply adding tags over the page and changing info without providing ANY explanation, either in the edit summary or the talkpage, is not right. It's not helpful. IF you're going to make a change, explain it. If you feel there's an issue, explain it.  Otherwise, you end up making edits with possible BLP violations without any references or indication in the article which another editor refers to as "wtf." -- Activism  1234  18:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Amin al-Huseini is long dead, so waving the BLP stick is a bit curious. And irrelevant.  nableezy  - 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are genuine sources and genuine claims. You are acting against wikipedia rules by removing dispute tags during ongoing discussion. This is a first warning against your bullying actions, please engage in proper discussion under the guidelines of the wikipedia environment. I still assume WP:GF, despite your strong and improper responses.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume WP:GF, otherwise your wikipedian life would be quiet hard. Trust me - i've seen many good wikipedians falling into this trap.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyshark... You put in two tags. You failed to explain why you put it there. I looked meticulously for an edit summary explainig why. Didn't find. You haven't provided an explanation for this. The naming of an article isn't "Synthesis."  Obviously, I assume good faith - which is why I said, if there was a legitimate reason to include it there, explain the issue you have with the article and discuss it.  But don't insert tags for no reason, assuming there wasn't a reason as no explanation was provided, which I'm not assuming because I'm assuming good faith. -- Activism  1234  21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Activism, the reason i put synthesis is that this article describes the 2011 operation, while including a large section of 2012 events (which according to sources i've read cannot be included within operation Eagle). While you have subjected Operation Sinai (2012) for deletion, i did put synthesis tag on this article, until it is agreed whether the 2012 events can be included within "Operation Eagle".Greyshark09 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If your only issue is the naming of the article... Then that hardly doesn't warrant a tag for additional citations... Or synthesis even... If the issue is the naming of the article, then that will be easily resolved based on the future of the AfD, which to me seems like I'll probably ask to be closed soon, as soon as you clear up the question I posed. In that case, I wouldn't have any objections from moving the information here in 2012 to Operation Sinai, provided that it's mentioned somewhere it was originally called Operation Eagle. Does that make things better? Does it solve the issue here? -- Activism  1234  21:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a misunderstanding, there is no issue with the article name - the issue is with the content of the article. I think we should put 2012 events ("Operation Sinai") as "Aftermath", not as part of the "Operation Eagle" (we of course can mention that initially media sources related to 2012 operation "Sinai" as continuation of previous 2011 operation "Eagle"). I think we can soon close the issue, and i'm glad we, as experienced editors, can find a common ground to further imporove the wikipedia. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - are you saying you'd prefer that there exist only one article (this article), with Operation Sinai included as aftermath? Or do you want two separate articles, one for each operation?  The reason I ask is because I made a comment on Operation Sinai's AfD asking for the AfD I submitted to be withdrawn, following your comments there.  However, if you only want this article, then I'd retract that (and you can comment there as well to note your position is the same).  I'm not opposed to either one - I'm just a bit confused which you prefer. -- Activism  1234  23:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in keeping both articles. Seems to me both operation Eagle (2011) and operation Sinai are notable enough to have an article for each. In this article (operation Eagle) we need to mention that it was followed by operation Sinai. I hence agree to keep operation Sinai article (your Afd), while moving there most of the relevant info on 2012 events from this article. Are we clear?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear! -- Activism  1234  01:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Description of Morsi's statement changed
I changed the description of what then Egyptian president Morsi said about the military campaign being waged in "full respect to international treaties". As I said in my edit summary, the source (a Reuters article published in Ynetnews) added this following the statement: "The Egypt-Israel peace deal includes limits on Egyptian military deployment in Sinai". This is to explain what Morsi meant with that they will follow "international treaties", namely that there are restrictions Egypt must follow.

However, the wording used here was "Morsi added that the campaign was in 'full respect to international treaties,' although the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal places limits on Egyptian military deployment in the Sinai". The word "although" is not good because it gives the view that while Morsi said they follow treaties, it can't be true as they are using their military in Sinai. But his whole point was to assure Israel that they were going to respect the peace treaty and the explanation by Reuters clarified what he referred to about the treaty, not that they meant that Egypt are not following the treaty, though Israeli officials were concerned. So this word could give it another meaning and that is why I changed it.

Given that the Egyptian side's statements were misreported in Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty and which I edited two months ago, I reacted especially to this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hAsoz688aMcJ:www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/CSSAnalyse168-EN.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=il with https://web.archive.org/web/20150418131034/http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/CSSAnalyse168-EN.pdf on http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/CSSAnalyse168-EN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)