User talk:HistoneSebas

Battle of Karameh

Please spend sometime looking up what casualties mean, it means injured not lost. Kindly revert your edit for this reason, and because you violated WP:1RR--Makeandtoss (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@HistoneSebas: Check the article's god-damned talk page!!--Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

:You haven't made a single comment on the "damned" talk page to explain your multiple reverts of sourced content!! You only opened a discussion for the infobox result.--HistoneSebas (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@HistoneSebas: The infobox result almost contains everything about what you have reverted.

1-Two New York Times articles right in 1968 describe the battle as 'raid repelled'.

2-There are no mentions of any downed Jordanian aircrafts in the vast majority of sources.

3-Its not propaganda victory, and its not defeat.

4-Check war or battle infoboxes, none of them mention anything about being 'left behind'

5-Why did you remove 40 deaths? Its mentioned by several sources, extremely unacceptable.

--Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, calm down. This is not the right place to discuss this, but I'll do it anyway.

1-Unlike you, I didn't remove sourced content, so the "raid repelled" from the NWT is still there, I just added another opinion supported by reliable sources that mention a (voluntary) "withdrawal".

2-There are multiple mentions of two Jordanian aircraft shot down, including Zeev Maoz.

3-The "propaganda victory" is supported by Spencer Tucker: "The PLO, however, tried to turn the fighting at Karameh into a propaganda victory, claiming that it had fought bravely despite being outnumbered and that it had inflicted serious damage on the Israelis."

4-You yourself admitted that "27 Israeli tanks were hit but only 4 were left behind", according to source.

5-The source you gave (Spencer C. Tucker) doesn't support 40 dead anywhere. I checked it. It's here.--HistoneSebas (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am very calm, I am rather irritated.

1- You cannot put "Both sides claim victory" and then "Propaganda victory" together. It implies that Israel won the war, contrary to the tens of sources that I provided saying otherwise. Which makes the 'propaganda' point of view have an undue weight.

2 If you read the article's talk page you would have seen that editors agreed on that there was no such thing as two downed Jordanian aircrafts, since they were all destroyed in the Six Day War.

3 Back to 1, but also it does not even mention Jordan, only the PLO. Huge difference.

4 I did, but that does not mean you can put that in the infobox. Its like saying " There were 200 people injured, 5 of which had broken legs"--Makeandtoss (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

1- I don't know what sources you are talking about. No source claims it was a victory for the PLO or Jordan, but Spencer Tucker (an impeccable source) clearly says "The PLO, however, tried to turn the fighting at Karameh into a propaganda victory..." The sources agree that the PLO camp in Karameh was destroyed and the Israelis withdrew after doing what they wanted, although they found more resistance than expected (mainly from the Jordanians, it was a surprise that they came to aid the PLO militants and fight side by side with them). What did the supposed Jordanian/Palestinian "victory" keep the Israelis from doing that they actually wanted to do? (except for the fact that Arafat fled the battle and wasn't captured).

2- Not all Jordanian aircraft were destroyed in 1967. Another important source says two were shot down in Karameh (Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel's Security & Foreign ... University of Michigan Press (2006), in pages 244-246).

3- You are right on this point. I'll remove "Jordanian" from the propaganda victory.

4- As a matter of fact, before you made your multiple (undiscussed) changes, the infobox showed only 4 Israeli tanks in the casualties section. I don't know why you changed it to 27. In any case, infoboxes in general don't mention all the tanks that were hit in a battle or war, only captured/destroyed tanks, as you can see in the Six-Day War infobox for example, and although the article for the 2006 Lebanon war mentions as a note all the tanks that received armor penetrations, only 5 tanks (those which were destroyed or damaged beyond repair) are in the proper section for casualties. Either we remove the alleged 27 Israeli tanks from the casualties section or we clarify that only four were actually lost.--HistoneSebas (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1- What do you mean you do not know what sources I am talking about! As I said for the billionth time check the sources on the articles talk page, they all state that it was a victory for the plo and Jordan. here, here. Also there are several Israeli sources supporting this, including here, here, here. Other sources; here, here, here, here, here, here. 11 sources > 1 source. Spencer Tucker can be disregarded, it has no place here.

2 Check the talk page again. User:Poliocretes said "Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less what the infobox says regarding victory. I also agree that no Jordanian aircraft were apparently lost, though not because of the reasoning above. The Jordanian Air Force did have combat aircraft at this time, the F-104 Starfighters, but there are simply no claims by the Israeli Air Force for this specific event. Neither side claims Jordanian losses."

3 "Were hit" does not mean they weren't destroyed. 27 is provided by the source. Plus you don't have a source saying that all 30 Jordanian tanks were destroyed.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1- Now you are simply lying... Why don't you copy-past the exact quote from any of those sources saying the battle was a Jordanian/PLO victory? Where does it say it? Put the sentence from the given sources like I do.

2- We should investigate if the given source support or not the 2 aircraft allegedly lost.

3- We should check the books of Herzog and Maoz, but before you intervened in the article the casualties section said "Israel also lost four tanks, three half-tracks, two armored cars and a 113 Squadron Dassault Ouragan, although the pilot succeeded in parachuting to safety." I don't trust you, I want to make sure by reading a direct quote from the sources that 27 Israeli tanks were destroyed.--HistoneSebas (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1 LYING? " If the Israelis' purpose in yesterday's attacks across them Jordan River was to wipe out Palestine guerrilla commandos and their bases, it failed". source 1 . "Jordan announced 40 minutes before midnight tonight that that territory east of the Jordan River had been cleared of Israeli forces. " source 2 "The IDF exposes the failure Karameh" on source 3 Haaretz Israeli newspaper written in Hebrew, use google translate if you don't speak Hebrew. "The IDF was forced to retreat" source 4 on Israel veterans website!!!. "so that the public never knew about the debacle" source 5 by an IDF soldier!... Do you want MORE?

2 Ask @Poliocretes: about the aircrafts

3 Herzog and Moaz are both Israeli, how on earth do you take them for granted? I did not even use one Arab source to describe about Israel in the whole article.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

HistoneSebas, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi HistoneSebas! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Canvasing

Please avoid canvassing me by email, from this or other accounts you may have. “WarKosign” 07:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)