Talk:Ofira Air Battle

too biased

how can over the hell it is possible isareli are no devils

Either the Arabs are seriously this bad, or someone is bullshitting about this "battle".

Better pilots and better planes. --66.229.35.146 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

no source

there is no source to prove the battle

I spent about an hour trying to find a source, and this was the only article I could find that uses this name for this battle. I guess you have to read actual books to find detailed information about the battles. However, as I couldn't locate a single confirmatory source and the article has no references, I added the unreferenced tag.--Qball6 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a source DeepSpace 10:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Impossible

The article has a clear pro-Israel point of view, for the following reasons:

1.The story is illogical, 7 MIGs cannot be shot down in 6 minutes only, given the phantom armament, we would know that such a large number of kills (4 for one of the two phantoms) must involve cannon kills which would necessarily come after relatively long dogfights.

2.The only source mentioned is the Israeli air forces website, which cannot be considered a neutral source.

3.Back in 1973 the MIG-17 an outdated subsonic aircraft ,shouldn’t be the EAF first choice in a critical mission , personally I believe that sending out 28 of these aircrafts on their own is an act of madness which doesn’t consist with the general Egyptian performance during this war

I've come here from the NPOV tag placed on this article. Besides that point, how is this event notable? This article is hardly a stub and fails to mention why it is important. --Zsinj^Talk 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced tag based on multiple concerns expressed above.Qball6 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

possible and true

the two pilots got medals (one for downing 3, of which one was MIG-21, and the other for downing 4), I know of reliable sources about the battle in hebrew (attached to the hebrew wikipedia). By the way six minutes is long for this kind of battle (certainly not a short one).

A google search on "2-28 Air battle" only returns hits to Wikipedia articles. I have now read most of what is available online in English regarding the Yom Kippur air war, and I have found no mention of this battle. The apparent dearth of sources in English regarding this event continues to give me concerns regarding its accuracy and notability. I also see that the article suggests that the Egyptian planes were MIG-17s, but the above comment says that there were MIG-21s involved.Qball6 15:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuing concerns about this article

This article has now been around for a while and the various concerns that have been raised have not been fixed. First, there is no independant sourcing for the article. Second, the notability has been questioned - I'm not certain that this qualifies as a "battle" rather than a skirmish, engagement or action. The more I consider this article, the more I think it is appropriate to propose deletion. However, I want to give fair notice and an opportunity to improve/add sourcing before I do so. -Kubigula (ave) 17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

After consulting with User:El_C, who has the advantage of actually being able to read the original sources, I'm satisfied that there are sufficient sources to meet WP:N and WP:V.--Kubigula (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

what the hell??!!

what a load of bullsh** how the hell can this be even possible a 5 year-old kid wouldn't believe this

this battle is called "2-28" and it is a very famous battle. there was another air battle between israeli and russian pilot but my english is not good enough to write an article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.254.34 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

i am 99.9% sure that this was featured on an episode of dogfights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.164.197 (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

True discussion

With my respect to all the members who have contributed here, this discussion page is no more than a shamefull paper in our encyclopedia !

the article in not even near to be neutral, only one source used, and believe it or not, it's not neutral !

How many anti-air missiles can a Phantom carry? Four !! meaning that assuming that the battle toke place, and that the phantoms fired all of their weapons and each single missile downed an aircraft, would not it be strange that the remaining MiGs disengage knowing that the phantoms are no longer capable of firing a single missile at them? besides, the MiG-21 is fare more maneuverable than the phantom, and downing a phantom with an MiG-21 is easy according to egyptian pilots in the mansourah air battle where most of the fight was in ranges too close to use missiles, therefor cannon fire was most extensively used. so the phantom's only advantage is it's missile armament, since it is very heavy and unmaneuverable compared to the MiG-21.

Now u are a MiG-21 pilot, u have ur full stock of missiles, u know that including yours there are 20 aircrafts of ur air force against only two Phantoms which no longer carry any air to air missiles. U know the advantages of your aircraft, ad that it is more maneuverable than the Phantom, and is even armed with a stronger cannon....would u all disengage?

• That shows that the battle may have never actually took place, or may have took place, but fabricated to be the story we are talking about here.
• It has no important historical or strategic value.
• The only source used is an Israeli source.
• The egyptian air force never said it took place. -although israel is denying the mansourah battle, they admitted it took place with their own story ofcourse to their public-.

In another word, if this article do not get supported by reliable neutral sources, it should be deleted

If it got supported by such source, it should be discussed weather it get deleted or not since it has no historic importance, and was part of a much larger event where it did not have any significant impact on it. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Seeing that there has been no contribution to this discussion, and that this article remains supported by the same single source (IAF), which is not neutral and so cannot be considered a reliable source, I have nominated this article for deletion. Not to mention this article is not mentioned anywhere else. Sherif9282 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Source

"At exactly 1400 on 6 October Israeli Air Force fighters were scrambled from their bases. Here and there they achieved local success: shooting down seven attacking Egyptian fighters for no losses over Ophir (sic.)air base; shooting down an AS-5 ASM launched by an Egyptian Tu-16 towards Tel Aviv; shooting down most of the Egyptian Su-7s that attacked the major Israel Defense Force command and control center at Om Hashiba - including the one flown by Atef Sadat the half brother of the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat."

From Page 80, "Arab-Israeli Air Wars 1947-82" by Shlomo Aloni, Osprey Combat Aircraft # 23, Copyright 2001, Osprey Publishing Limited, Elms Court, Chapel Way, Botley, Oxford OX291LP. This is probably not enough for "independent verification" since Shlomo Aloni is an Israeli, but his other works show significant access to Israeli specific documents and are quite scholarly.. There is no specific citation for this information, but there is a general listing of "Selected English Bibliography." Yudel (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stills, "there is no specific citation for this information" One last pharaoh (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Reference

"They (Egyptian fighters) were greeted with a barrage of antiaircraft fire (most from Soviet equipment captured from the Arabs, ironically enough) and missiles that managed to shoot down four SU-7s while two F-4s accounted for seven MiGs."

p. 32, Walter J Boyne, "The Two O'Clock War," @2002 Walter J. Boyne, Thomas Dunne Books, and imprint of St. Martin Press, NY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudel (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Yom Kippur War article it was stated that the air strike conducted by the Egyptian Air Force on October 6 at 2:05 had resulted in the loss of only 5 aircraft due to the fact that the Israelis were unprepared. How is it possible then that 7 aircraft were lost at Ofira alone?

At any rate, it still remains the case, as One Last Pharoah had mentioned above, that if this battle did indeed occur then it did not have any effect on the war whatsoever, and is indeed of no historic importance. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't explain the discrepancy because I don't have access to all the sources provided on that article, and I don't know who added them. There already was an AFD, back when there were fewer sources, and the result was "Keep". You may try another one. -- Nudve (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion (2nd Time)

The article has been nominated for deletion once more. The reasons and discussions concerning this are stated here. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

A tag was placed on this article yesterday, yet no discussion was started on this talk page. WP:DRIVEBY says an article should not be tagged unless an actionable issue is being discussed. Is there such an issue? -- Nudve (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• The bias of the article. Being a near-fantasy story as illustrated above. No mention of such battle by the Egyptian side. No such an evidence on it's occurring apart from Israeli sources. --( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Please, provide a scanned image of page 717 of Pollack -the only non-Israeli source- or illustrate what the book exactly state about this battle in page 717. This is important because as i said, this is the only non-Israeli source in the entire article. --( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A few things:

1. WP:DRIVEBY is a guide, not an accusation. If you tag an article, please provide a reason so that it can be fixed.
2. WP:RS does not distinguish between Israeli and non-Israeli sources, but between reliable and unreliable ones. I think Yonay is American, and another American author can be produced. The verifiability of this article has been established on two AFDs.
3. Pollack's book is available on Google Books here. I originally only added it as an additional source.

Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Google Books link.

If you did not remove the tag from the beginning, i would not have had to re-add it. Back then it had the problem that were not solved.

WP:RS shortly states that the source has to be reliable. WP:NPOV shortly states that article should be added in a neutral way; a report from the government of Mars, or a "Marsian" individual would surely be considered not neutral when used in an article about a conflict that directly involves the armed forces of plant Mars. As a result, an Egyptian source about a conflict that directly involves Egypt is not neutral, and an Israeli or pro-Israeli source about a conflict that directly involves Israel is not neutral. being reliable does not mean being neutral. For example, a source the comes from an official government report is very reliable to cite the point of view of such government, but does not mean that this point of view is neutral.

I think that the previous AFD requests came with a result that the article is not okay, but can be improved and so it does not has to be deleted. This indicates that the article still needs more work, not that it is in a good status.

"Why the heck do we even have to consider worrying about neutrality?" : That is because Wikipedia states that: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.".

So, what to do?

1. It should be illustrated that the mentioning of this battle is only by the Israeli side, or by western sources, based on the Israeli side -Israel did mention that the Mansourah battle occurred, where the out numbered and outgunned EAF won, and Egypt mentioned it's defeat in Battle of the Sinai, so the statics may differ, but at least the battles are stated to have occurred.-.
2. It should be noted in the info box that the battle was between the Israeli air crafts, and ground anti-air defenses and the Egyptian air crafts.
3. It should be noted that this skirmish was a part of the successful Egyptian air strike -which in turns was part of Operation Badr, where the main concern of the EAF was to achieve as much damage to the Israeli strategic points and ground forces in the Sinai as possible with minimal loses, rather than engaging in air battles with the more advanced IAF away from the Egyptian air defense net.
4. In this air strike, the EAF achieved more than 90% of it goals. The EAF lost only five air crafts in the entire air strike according to the Egyptian side.
5. Later in, when the EAF had to defend the delta away from the air defense net of the canal, it won the most furious fighter jet air battle according to Dr.David Nicol, involving more than 160 air crafts, where only 62 of them belonged to the EAF.
6. A slight comparison, regarding the capabilities of air crafts used by both sides would be very helpful -The Phantom is nick named "MiG Killer"-.

I would be happy to preform some or even most of these improvements my self, but I do not have the time to do so. You may have noticed that i have nearly abandoned my own Fahd APC article for now. Thanx in advance.--( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the policies mean. However, I disagree with your interpretation that an Israeli is inherently unreliable when writing about Israeli history. Reliability is not determined by ID. The sources cited are independent and are not employed by a government. About the rest:

1. I agree that it might be stated that the Egyptians claimed not to have lost those aircraft. I'll see if I can find sources for that.
2. The sources don't mention any antiaircraft involvement in the battle.
3. This would be relevant in Operation Badr, not here.
4. The same as #1
5. How is that relevant? also, can you give me a source for this battle?
6. Not directly relevant for this article.

Cheers, Nudve (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what indicates the neutrality then?

1. I meant that the Egyptian side never stated that such battle or skrimish occurred, not that it did not mentioned losing air crafts.
2. I think that that is mentioned in the first paragraph in the "Battle" section, cited to Cohen, Eliezer (1990), pages 454-457.
3. It would be as relevant here as how the air strike is relevant to Operation Badr; the air strike is part of the entire operation, and this assumed battle is part of the entire air strike.
4. The same as #1; the Egyptian side did not state that such battle occurred, and it stated it lost only five air crafts of the entire attacking force.
5. This is relevant, because in case this battle really did take place, it would show the difference in performance of the EAF, when it's quest was to strike ground targets with minimal loses -avoiding engaging with the IAF-, and it's performance when it's objective was defending ground targets against the IAF. The battle is briefly mentioned, and cited in El-Mansourah city article in the history section.
6. This is to show the qualitative edge the IAF enjoyed. Leave this to me, any way.

Thanx for reading. --( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is when all points of view are presented, and in a neutral way. If you think you can improve the article by providing relevant info, go ahead. -- Nudve (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dunstan, in his book, The Yom Kippur War 1973: The Arab-Israeli War of 1973 p.33, mentions that the Egyptian crossing involved Egyptian losses of 208 killed, 20 tanks destroyed and five aircraft downed. This information contradicts what's presented here in the article. Sherif9282 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which edition of this book are you looking at ? I have in my hands Dunsatn, The Yom Kippur War: The Arab-Israeli War of 1973, ISBN #1846032881. Page 33 of this book says nothing of the kind. Regardless, if the quote you have does not mention Ofira, it is original research to use it in the manner you have done in the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it original research? It is important to note that Ofira was a target in the Egyptian air strike on October 6.

Here is the book: The Yom Kippur War.

I have another book which states that the Egyptian air strike on October 6 targeted the Ras Nasrani airfield. A quick look at Wikimapia shows that Ras Nasrani and Ofira are one and the same:

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=27.9707435&lon=34.3812418&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=2&search=ras%20nasrani

--Sherif9282 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the link you provided, and it does not say what you claim.

The original research you are performing is described in WP:SYNTH : "put[ting] together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.". The conclsuion you have put into the article is that "the air strike (including Ofira Air Base) resulted in a total of five Egyptian aircraft losses" - but there is not a single source that explicitly states that. Rather, you have taken one source that claims that the initial Egyptian airstrike resulted in a total of 5 losses, joined it with another source that says that one of he targets of that initial airstrike was Ofira (actually, you haven't even done that, you've taken a source that says that Ras Nasrani was attacked, and performed an additional synthesis, which relies a non-reliable source (wikimapia) to conclude that the Ofira airbase is the same as Ras Nasrani)), to reach the conclusion that the first source must have included Ofira in the tally. That's not permissible on Wikipeda, and I've accordingly removed it from the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link again. It's clearly written at the right, in the description of the picture on the preceding page, that the initial Egyptian air strike saw five Egyptian aircraft downed. Also, the other source I have states that the airstrike targeted Ras Nasrani Air Base. Now take a look at this link and search Ofira Airbase and see for yourself. The coordinates in the link are the same ones in Wikimapia. Ras Nasrani is Ofira. I'm re-inserting the information you removed, with adjustments. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As i wrote, this is still synthesis, from multiple sources, in an attempt to promote the conclusion that "this battle did not happen the way the article says", or more restrictively "7 planes were not shot down in this battle". In order to state that, you have to find a single source that says it. You can't construct that argument by combining multiple sources that don't explicitly say that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen Canadian Monkey, I don't know of any other way of putting that information, but ultimately, that was sourced information. I stated facts, and made no conclusion whatsoever. Perhaps you can adjust it so that it complies with WP:SYNTH. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any way of putting that information in, short of finding a source that refers to this air battle, and specifically questions the number of downed aircraft as reported by reliable sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sherif9282. Evidently, Egyptian sources (or at least primary or official ones) claim that this battle didn't take place, and that in itself is notable. They can't really be expected to say explicitly that there was no battle and that seven aircraft were not lost, if they already said that only five aircraft were downed in the entire attack. -- Nudve (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if Egyptian sources claim that this battle didn't take place, that in itself would be notable - but then we'd need to have such a source making that claim. If all we have is a generic statement by Egyptian sources that states their losses for the October 6 strike were 5 planes, that can only go in the article about Operation Badr, not here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What we have is not only a statement that losses for the 6 October air strike were only five aircraft, a statement seconded by Simon Dunstan, but Shazly further mentions that five aircraft were the total Egyptian losses up to October 7. We also have an Egyptian source that states that the air strike targeted Ofira air base.

Whether there is a source that directly contradicts the Ofira Air Battle is extremely unlikely (more like impossible). I believe that the sources at hand and the information they provide can be used here whilst complying with WP:SYNTH. This information is worth noting here in the article. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can add that into the article without violating WP:SYNTH, which was written precisely to prevent this kind of thing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a WP:SYNTH issue here, but it might not be that bad. Maybe we could write that "sources XYZ say that Ofira was attacked, but do not mention a battle or any losses" or something, but do not include the figures for the whole operation. -- Nudve (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, what if we added that sentence, and the losses? We do not state the losses as those of the air strike, but in relation to time; Shazly states that five aircraft losses were the total losses up to the morning of October 7. I think this won't be at odds with WP:SYNTH. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I've received no reply, I've made my addition to the article. To ensure what I've added is not synthesis, I've specifically noted that Dunstan does not specify which air bases were targeted, but only mentions losses. I've added another source which directly contradicts the article.--Sherif9282 (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As nobody since May 12 has complained about this article non-NPOV-ness, I remove the tag. --151.50.20.160 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)