Talk:Libyan–Egyptian War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WP:MILHIST Assessment[edit]

Nice start. Could use some expansion, an infobox, and references. LordAmeth 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet advisers?[edit]

the article mentions that there were reports about the killing of some soviet advisers, but it does not mention on which side they were. soviet advisers were expelled from egypt several years before the war, and i never heard that libya ever used them. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No one disagree?
ok then, the unconfirmed claim is deleted. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Title?[edit]

Why not just Egyptian-Libyan War? This way it will be in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.203.249 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Aktually the Libyans used plenty Soviet advisors. About deaths in this Egypt Libya border conflict read a quick summary here http://www.historyguy.com/egypt_libya_war_1977.htm

Libya and Qhadaffi also saw dead Soviet advisors in their conflict with Chad. For that see Itamar Rabinovich, Haim Shaked - 1989 49.176.98.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Skirmishes?[edit]

Reccardow has moved the page: Libyan–Egyptian War>> Egyptian–Libyan Skirmishes. Does all that make it just skirmishes! Tension between the two countries had increased during April and May 1977 as demonstrators attacked the embassies of both countries. In June 1977, Libya's leader Muammar al-Gaddafi ordered the 225,000 Egyptians working and living in Libya to leave the country by July 1 or face arrest. On July 21, 1977 gun battles between troops on the border began, followed by land and air attacks on both sides. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit and NPOV check needed[edit]

For reviewing Admins and editors alike, please note of Libyan–Egyptian War#Sequence of operations:

A "march on Cairo" was organized with thousands of Libyan protesters marching towards the Egyptian border in June 1977. The Libyans wanted to demonstrate against the increasing likelihood that Egypt would enter into a peace treaty with Israel. On July 20, 1977 Libyan artillery units fired at the Egyptians in Sallum, after the protest march was stopped by Egyptian border guards.

On July 21, Libyan forces carried out a raid against Sallum, similar to another raid conducted on July 19. The raid was carried out by the 9th Tank Battalion and supported by a few Mirage 5 aircraft. The Libyans were expecting no more than a prolonged exchange of fire with the Egyptians. Sadat and his Generals ordered 3 fully-powered Divisions to head to the Libyan border when the news of advancing Libyan tanks came to them. The three divisions quickly smashed into the Libyan brigades and destroyed most, if not, all of their equipment. The Egyptian Air Forces did not fail during the many air battles it had with the Libyan Air Force. After the Libyans were demoralized, the Egyptian Air Force and 3 Divisions of the Egyptian Army stormed across the Libyan Border and captured some key border towns. The Egyptian Air Force Bombed nearly every city, town, airbase and military base in the area. Other Arab nations pleaded and begged Sadat not to launch a full scale invasion of Libya (which Sadat and his Generals planned on doing on the 26th). Sadat headed with their words and forced Libya into a ceasefire. The Egyptian Army then withdrew from the captured land.

Seems to me that the whole section has a lot of strange grammar/syntax problems as well as POV issues in there, thoughts anyone? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

its awfully pro-egypt. I've copyedited as part of WP:GOCE, but it needs cite or some more stuff must go.Lihaas (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it needs more than that... which makes me wonder, what is a 3 fully-powered Divisions? The other thing is... how is an Air Force suppose to storm across the border to capture anything, let alone a town or a city? It wouldn't be an Air Force if it really did all those feats, eh? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This was, from a neutral point of view, a crushing Egyptian victory. Not only were the Libyan invaders repulsed, but Egyptian troops also penetrated into Libya itself before ceasefire was reached. It makes no sense not including this in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement[edit]

There is a conflict between the battle box and the aftermath casualty figures for Libya.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Assistance[edit]

I was asked in my talk to have a look at this article. I immediately see that it is pretty badly-written and there has been an edit-war recently. Could editors discuss here towards a compromise on the sourcing issue? I can have a look at the other issues; once article stability has been attained we can clean up the writing a bit. --John (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I have now protected the article to allow discussion to take place. --John (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Well i think that the way other pages have been edited, for example Sino-Soviet border conflict, i think the result should be kept simple "Military retreat from both sides" as it's supported by the RS and really happened. This page actually was, but one editor has been disagreeing with it, lately. Clarificationgiven (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death. I have provided sources that proves Libyan troops initiated hostilities and were in fact forcibly pushed out of Egyptian soil, and sources supplied by Clarificationgiven furthermore confirm Egyptian troops were inside Libya when the ceasefire came into effect. "Military retreat from both sides" is outright counterfactual, and someone should stop repeatedly removing sources. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Whatever meaning you get out of your sources, Egyptian military just went to the border, and Libya's military was at border too, so just keep it simple "Military retreat from both sides". Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
To repeat myself.
Countrystudies.org; Mutual suspicion between Sadat and Qadhafi, plus Egyptian charges of Libyan subversion, led to a brief but sharp shooting war along their common frontier in July 1977. Egyptian forces advanced a short distance into Libya before Algerian mediation ended the fighting. (proves the war was ended on the Libyan side of the border)
Acig.com; Quotation here (proves Gaddafi initiated hostilities)
Your reference; ...a Libyan diplomat in Rome claimed there was fighting Monday in two Libyan oases. (confirms that the war ended on the Libyan side)
All this proves that the frontline had indeed been replaced to the Libyan side of the border. This, and the fact that the war was initiated by Libyan forces1, is in my opinion enough to conclude that the Libyans had indeed been militarily defeated - or at least forcibly pushed out of Egypt.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the huge 'result' column should be lowered to simple term, which is actual highlight of the whole conflict, not any of these. Clarificationgiven (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What you call a 'simple term' is actually a counterfactual one. We should stick to the realities and the facts. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Same terms were used before in different pages, link Sino-Soviet war(1969), that's why i am saying. Clarificationgiven (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The term doesn't apply here, for reasons I have explained here and on my talk page. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No matter what you think, are not meant to insert your personal feelings into box. Thus i have removed them, and inserted what actually matters. Capitals00 (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I speak from facts, not from feelings. I urge you to read through this discussion before making such accusations. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Libyan–Egyptian WarEgyptian–Libyan War – Shouldn't this be in alphabetical order? Isn't the naming convention? Charles Essie (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • We don't make up the names for wars. "Libyan–Egyptian War" definitely comes closer to being the name of this conflict as used in reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is mostly due to the title of this article that "Libyan-Egyptian" has been used so much. I really find "Egyptian-Libyan" to be better. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Made up numbers[edit]

Where is the casualties number coming from its not even cited. Misdemenor (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

fake results[edit]

"lack of response" is not valid, as long as there are no sources. Already discussed here[1] and User:Tomandjerry211 agreed too. Not everyone has 24 hours to spend on here. Get sources if you claim victory. MapSGV (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection? We know that a) Libya invaded Sallum, b) Egypt repelled the invasion and c) Egypt was occupying Libyan territory when the ceasefire was called. Rather obvious case. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ad hoc users?[edit]

It amazes me how new users solely devoted to change the rather obvious outcome of this conflict without really making an argument, has become a recurring theme. The article states (and I copy this from above) that a) Libya invaded Sallum, b) Egypt repelled the invasion and c) Egypt was occupying Libyan territory when the ceasefire was called. I fail to see the rationale behind doubting this was an Egyptian victory, not to mention removing a source directly stating that Gaddafi gave up on his war goal. And he initiated this war with very specific (and foolhardy) aims. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've familiarised yourself with what status quo ante bellum means - return to prewar lines. No change in territorial status. This is exactly what's quoted and what I changed it back to. In any case, any claim of an Egyptian victory requires significant sourcing. We're not doing WP:Original Research here - if you think the outcome merits description as an Egyptian victory, you will have to find a good source or two (not random internet sites), and preferable dead tree, saying so. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: It seems that @Mikrobølgeovn: is still promoting his hoax theory, not only on this article by deceptively edit warring, but also on other article.[2] Capitals00 (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Saying that applying the term 'victory' to the Egyptian result in this war is not a 'hoax'; it's a relatively good description of what went on. The question is finding good sourcing for it. With my admin hat on, I would request you kindly to stop using the word 'hoax' forthwith; your behaviour is beginning to appear borderline. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
There was no terrotrial change in whole war, and war was enforced to be stopped after a mediation that was accepted by Egypt first. So there is no sense in claiming that it was Egyptian victory. I can't find any Mikrobølgeovn[3] has nothing more to say than what he feels about the war, he hasn't provided any source, so how about we keep the result parameter to the previous one with the backing of these WP:RS[4][5][6]? We will never find a source claiming Egyptian victory. Capitals00 (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Making absolute statements is not always a good idea. Let's pull this back to basics. Clausewitz defined war (I'm paraphrasing) as a struggle between two adversaries which involved compelling the enemy to accept your will. To quote, "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will." (this is an old translation [7] but will do for now). Now, nobody forced the Egyptians to do anything. They destroyed the Libyan forces which attacked them. They were in possession of Libyan soil and undisputed masters of the battlefield (air and ground) at the end of their combat operations, which they ceased, at their choosing and at a time they wanted it. Now, we follow the sources, but that an Egyptian military victory was achieved is pretty unquestionable.
All that aside, yes, because the word 'victory' is not in the current deadtree source, I'm going to remove the current claim in the article infobox. Again, I will ask you, kindly, to strictly refrain from the the use of the word 'hoax' in this regard, or, in any other case unless you have reliable sources that show that an assertion cannot be proven. More generally, please read and reconsider WP:PILLARS. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You call it unquestionable, yet still remove it because the source uses slightly different wording? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I do (though I called it 'pretty unquestionable'). WP is not a scholarly text where I could assert military victory on the basis of the many good arguments we've raised. We *must* follow exactly what the sources say, when controversy occurs. WP:V and WP:RS are the very core of this encyclopedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not about what the source says, it's about wording. The book says Egypt achieved its goals, and that Gaddafi gave up. Sounds pretty clear-cut to me. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Neither; the relevant rule is WP:BURDEN: which says (start quote) All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution (end quote) (emphasis added to 'directly supports the contribution'). Because we repeat rather than create material, we must stick with the sources. If you disagree with my interpretation of WP:BURDEN, this talkpage is not the place to debate it (hardly anybody is aware of this discussion). You need to find a relevant project talkpage, possibly WT:MILHIST, if you like. I'll happily raise or respond to a first posting by you anywhere you like. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libyan–Egyptian War. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)