Talk:Valley of Tears

above all "valley of tears" is a Biblical expression and a reference to Psalm 83 etc. ought to be there as a primary reference=source. All other usage is then secondary albeit OK.89.75.140.113 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Article appears to be very biased
The article cites only Israeli sources, and apparently, one American source. There are no Syrian, or Arab sources of the battle whatsoever. The entire battle is written from the Israeli point of view; there are no details of the battle from the Syrian POV. Also, the casualty rate seems highly unreasonable: 60-80 Israeli tanks against 500 Syrian tanks. At the second day it is written that "Due to the Israelis' lack of night-fighting equipment, the Syrians reached within close range, and a battle commenced at ranges of 30 to 60 yards". This is unreasonable, since it is written in the Yom Kippur War article that Arab armies had night vision equipment, so logically the 500 Syrian tanks and RPG armed infantry should have been able to destroy the opposing 40 Israeli tanks with ease. Yet the Syrians retreat losing 130 tanks! Then, two battalions of around 1000 to 3000 Syrians are beaten by less than 20 Israeli soldiers. I presume the Syrians must have been completely blind and armed with only sticks, fighting against soldiers with superhuman powers. The 77th Battalion then proceeds to eliminate two T62 battalions and the the Assad Republican Guard singlehandedly.

The article is really biased. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it shows IDF tactical and training superiority? How is it biased? I assume because Israel prevailed? Irondome (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Syrians didn't lose 500 tanks, only 260-300 (the rest are APCs and others). Maybe It should be clarified. I wish I had a Syrian source on this battle, but I don't really know of any. -- Nudve (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of the syrian "APCs" as you call them were in fact BMP-1 IFVs with sagger and 76mm guns with huge anti-armour capabilities, and night vision combat equipment. Fully the equal of most Western armour of the time. This merely makes the IDF stand all the more impressive. at least 400 Syrian tanks were destroyed. Irondome (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The article I read seems to use a thorough mix of sources. Kenneth M. Pollack's (2002) Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, Studies in war, society, and the military from the University of Nebraska Press is one of the most referenced sources and Trevor N. Dupuy's (2002) Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974 from the Military Book Club can also hardly be described as "only Israeli sources". While I agree that the article is written almost exclusively from the Israeli perspective, the statements and facts are referenced to strong reliable sources. My search didn't turn up any Syrian sources of the battle, but "The Future of Land Warfare" by Chris Bellamy, opens with this battle and appears to largely coincide with the description offered in the article. As with all articles, this should be expanded to include a thorough portrait of the battle. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, it remains true that most of the article is cited from Herzog and Rabinovich. I also presume that Dupoy and Pollack, being Western sources, probably rely mainly on Israeli sources themselves. I still press the point that an amount of what is written in the article is illogical, such as the fact that 500 Syrian tanks soldiers with night vision equipment should have fared well against 40 Israeli tanks bereft of any such equipment, not to mention the two battalions who were stopped by the 20 soldiers, or the 77th that destroyed two T62 battalions (one of the most powerful tanks at the time) as well as the Assad Republican Guard (whose name suggests they are well trained and equipped). Sherif9282 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree this is written from exclusively israel or western sources. i'll try and find a couple of alternatives to give a more balanced view. I'd also like to find some more supporting information about night vision capacity of both sides, since the article does seem to offer a very strange view on this topic.

However I must disagree with one thing it is'nt good practice to look at the numbers engaged and if the weaker side inflict disproportinate losses assume it must be be untrue, battles are not won by logical calculations of relative firepower. The Israelis were heavily outnumbered but that is case in many of the engagements they fought in 1967 and 1973 they still won most of them.

The main reasons for heavy syrian losses compared to the israelis are training and leadership. The israeli troops were extremely well trained (particularly their tank crews, gunnery practice was and is something of an obsession) and well led. Commanders were appointed on merit most more senior ones with battle experience in at least one other war 1967 some in 156 and 1948 as well. The Israelis were also highly motivated defending their own country against a potentially fatal attack. The syrian troops in both this and other wars against israel were very different. In general their training was poor even in elite formations with minimal knowledge of the weapons they used. While the officerd were in many cases political appointments whose loyalty to assad was more important than ability, with little regard or interest in their troops. Both the Russian advisors and Egyptian allies of Syria had a very low opinion of their effectiveness. I should stress i don't wish to suggest the syrians lacked bravery indeed the ordinary soldiers showed determination of a high degree and fought hard. But years of repeated training and good command count for a lot in modern war and the syrians were lacking in both compared to their opponents.Kurtk60 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Truly great job with the article Nudve! I just have a minor suggestion: Wikilinking. The context is good (could be better with Syrian sources, although I am aware of the difficulty of finding those sources), but lacks wikilinks. Before it gets the GA crown, I think someone should go on a linking spree throughout the article, perhaps while it's being copyeditted. Cheers and again, great job! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I tried to wikilink all (notable) names and stuff. Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did exactly what I suggested... too bad these articles haven't been created yet because I see a lot of red links. I don't think this should get in the way of a GA pass anyhow. Cheers, and good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rafid vs Al-Rafid vs Al-Rafeed vs Ar-Rafid
The map (from 1973) shows a city called Rafid along the Syria-Golan border. The article also uses the name Rafid. On Google Maps the only reference to Rafid is in Lebanon 18km north of Mt. Hermon. In what appears to be the area of the Syrian Rafid, Google shows Al-Rafeed, which seems similar to me, a layman. Yahoo and Mapquest agree on Ar-Rafid. While I'm no expert, I'm relatively certain the link to Rafid (which redirects to Al-Rafid in Lebanon) was incorrect, so I've removed it.

What this article needs now, is someone who knows the area to clarify: is Rafid in Syria now called Al-Rafeed/Ar-Rafid? Sudopeople (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates needed, battlefield today, in popular culture
Can someone who has access to the relevant sources please add the coordinates of some of the major positions mentioned such as: A1, A3, Booster, Bunker 107, Bunker 109 etc. as its very difficult to conceptualize without them. The page should ideally describe the battlefield today. How closely, if at all, does the Valley of Tears (TV series) correspond to the battle? Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024
Elie20092016lolol (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC) The casualties are in accurate and the brigade, isreali brigades contained 5k tanks and 200k casualties, the causalties of syria are fake, according to the president its 200 tanks destroyed.
 * 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. Cannolis (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wording Edit
It may be helpful to have a small note of clarification in the "Background" section in reference to the second paragraph; I think it would be good to include the number of Syrian divisions present. For example, "Each of the three Syrian infantry divisions had (brigade information)", followed by the information pertaining to each brigade. This would make it more clear for readers, particularly on mobile, who cannot immediately see the information box.

Ossspy (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)