This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from Air battle of Mansoura appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 May 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Are there any other sources for this battle? Most of it is attributed to this site, of whose reliability I'm not sure, and Al-Ahram. I'm asking because none of the sources I've checked mention anything about this battle, and some, such as Pollack's book, which I cited, simply contradict it. Thanks. -- Nudve ( talk) 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Nice article.. It's nearly the same information mentioned at Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 units in combat p.43 by David Nicolle and Tom Cooper, but this book said that the resulting engagement put 62 MiG-21s against exactly 120 Phantom IIs and Shyhawks.-- Vagueman ( talk) 01:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please guys add this book as a reference because I don't know how to add it..
David Nicolle & Tom Cooper (March 25, 2004). Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 units in combat. Osprey Publishing.p.43. ISBN 1 84176 655 0 -- Vagueman ( talk) 02:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has alot of perspective from the Egyptian side. Not that anythings wrong with that (at all) but I imagine it misses on an important aspect/s of the battle. Plus, I deleted a line regarding Mubarak's explanation for not engaging the Israeli fighters; I don't see how thats relavent - Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.116.113 ( talk) 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There's this quote at the end, attr. to Pollack: "...In all, the Egyptians succeeded in shooting down 5-8 Israeli aircraft while losing 172 of their own to Israeli fighters". 172! There's got to be some error there - could someone check the quote's been copied accurately? Shimgray | talk | 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have my doubts concerning the engagement period (of 53 minutes). The battle only really started at 15:30 (when Nicolle uses 15:15 as the starting point of the battle), and ended most likely under 40 minutes. As for the number of aircraft, I believe dogfights in WW2 and probably the Korean War reached such a number. Operation Mole Cricket 19 involved 200 aircraft in all, and I assume the air engagement lasted around an hour, did it not? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 12:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just removed the 2 planes figure from the infobox. The reason i did so is that such figure is attributed to a source that did not mention the occurrence of the battle. It is just not logic to add a reference that did not mention the subject of an article as a source for its events. Egyptian sources said that the IAF lost more aircraft to the air defense units that day. Also about removing the "in several waves" phrase from the inforbox, that was because of that the info box here is for the total number, and that that information is already illustrated in the article. The EAF aircrafts did come in several waves as well, so it is unnecessary to add that phrase to the infobox, as it is illustrated well in the article. --( ΡHARAOH The Muslim 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I added disputed to the figures of losses. There seeems to be enough disagreement to warrant this. - Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.116.113 ( talk) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This work of fiction relies principally on two sources. A German article that appears on some blog and another online blog where apparently anyone with a password and user ID can log on and contribute, sort of like Wikipedia. The latter source was written by a fella named Sherif Sharmy who shares the same name as the principle editor of this Wikipedia article. Could be just a coincidence. But irrespective, it’s not a reliable source. It has not been subjected to a vetting process and peer review. The other sources listed are not cited to support facts addressing the specific battle and are rather noted for ancillary issues only, perhaps to give the article a veil of legitimacy.
By contrast, no author or scholarly work of note mentions this battle even in passing. Not Abraham Rabinovich, not Kenneth Pollack, not Zeev Schiff, not Chaim Herzog, not Martin van Creveld, not Edward Luttwak, not George Gawrych, not Bren Adan, not the Insight Team of the London Sunday Times, not Time Life’s the Epic of Flight, Fighting Jets and I don’t even think that Saad El Shazly mentions it. In sum, this article is the stuff of science fiction and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is blatantly made up, it cites Israel as losing more fighters on the 14th than Israel during the entire war according to most sources. The main source appears to be a sketchy online article that doesn't cite any sources. 174.111.245.63 ( talk) 02:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There is also information on this battle from Israeli sources:
Megaidler ( talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
ACIG is a WP:SPS and is not peer-reviewed and therefore does not qualify as a WP:RS. Unfortunately, much of the article's substantive allegations rely on this poor SPS. This article was once nominated for deletion and the problems that existed then, including extremely poor sourcing and possible COI issues have not been remedied or addressed.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 07:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of this battle is not unclear and it is not an Israeli victory. Israel failed to achieve its strategic goals and had to withdraw because of the Egyptian Air Force and therefore lost, there is no question about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnopoems ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Who said Egypt lost twice as many fighter jets?! what's your source? an Israeli source or a pro Israeli source?! go to Egypt, Mansoura, ask the farmers there what happened to the Israeli air force in that battle, they will tell you the truth which they witnessed, Israel had to withdraw because of the high number of downed aircraft, do you really believe Israel would withdraw just because they lost 2 aircraft out of 160-180 aircraft? Israel lost more than 17 aircraft — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wasteland1 (
talk •
contribs) 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Despite supposedly involving very many aircraft, over a lengthy period, the number of casualties is very low. That seems strange. 122.59.167.152 ( talk) 10:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Air battle of Mansoura. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from Air battle of Mansoura appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 May 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Are there any other sources for this battle? Most of it is attributed to this site, of whose reliability I'm not sure, and Al-Ahram. I'm asking because none of the sources I've checked mention anything about this battle, and some, such as Pollack's book, which I cited, simply contradict it. Thanks. -- Nudve ( talk) 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Nice article.. It's nearly the same information mentioned at Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 units in combat p.43 by David Nicolle and Tom Cooper, but this book said that the resulting engagement put 62 MiG-21s against exactly 120 Phantom IIs and Shyhawks.-- Vagueman ( talk) 01:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please guys add this book as a reference because I don't know how to add it..
David Nicolle & Tom Cooper (March 25, 2004). Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 units in combat. Osprey Publishing.p.43. ISBN 1 84176 655 0 -- Vagueman ( talk) 02:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has alot of perspective from the Egyptian side. Not that anythings wrong with that (at all) but I imagine it misses on an important aspect/s of the battle. Plus, I deleted a line regarding Mubarak's explanation for not engaging the Israeli fighters; I don't see how thats relavent - Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.116.113 ( talk) 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There's this quote at the end, attr. to Pollack: "...In all, the Egyptians succeeded in shooting down 5-8 Israeli aircraft while losing 172 of their own to Israeli fighters". 172! There's got to be some error there - could someone check the quote's been copied accurately? Shimgray | talk | 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have my doubts concerning the engagement period (of 53 minutes). The battle only really started at 15:30 (when Nicolle uses 15:15 as the starting point of the battle), and ended most likely under 40 minutes. As for the number of aircraft, I believe dogfights in WW2 and probably the Korean War reached such a number. Operation Mole Cricket 19 involved 200 aircraft in all, and I assume the air engagement lasted around an hour, did it not? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 12:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just removed the 2 planes figure from the infobox. The reason i did so is that such figure is attributed to a source that did not mention the occurrence of the battle. It is just not logic to add a reference that did not mention the subject of an article as a source for its events. Egyptian sources said that the IAF lost more aircraft to the air defense units that day. Also about removing the "in several waves" phrase from the inforbox, that was because of that the info box here is for the total number, and that that information is already illustrated in the article. The EAF aircrafts did come in several waves as well, so it is unnecessary to add that phrase to the infobox, as it is illustrated well in the article. --( ΡHARAOH The Muslim 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I added disputed to the figures of losses. There seeems to be enough disagreement to warrant this. - Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.116.113 ( talk) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This work of fiction relies principally on two sources. A German article that appears on some blog and another online blog where apparently anyone with a password and user ID can log on and contribute, sort of like Wikipedia. The latter source was written by a fella named Sherif Sharmy who shares the same name as the principle editor of this Wikipedia article. Could be just a coincidence. But irrespective, it’s not a reliable source. It has not been subjected to a vetting process and peer review. The other sources listed are not cited to support facts addressing the specific battle and are rather noted for ancillary issues only, perhaps to give the article a veil of legitimacy.
By contrast, no author or scholarly work of note mentions this battle even in passing. Not Abraham Rabinovich, not Kenneth Pollack, not Zeev Schiff, not Chaim Herzog, not Martin van Creveld, not Edward Luttwak, not George Gawrych, not Bren Adan, not the Insight Team of the London Sunday Times, not Time Life’s the Epic of Flight, Fighting Jets and I don’t even think that Saad El Shazly mentions it. In sum, this article is the stuff of science fiction and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is blatantly made up, it cites Israel as losing more fighters on the 14th than Israel during the entire war according to most sources. The main source appears to be a sketchy online article that doesn't cite any sources. 174.111.245.63 ( talk) 02:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There is also information on this battle from Israeli sources:
Megaidler ( talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
ACIG is a WP:SPS and is not peer-reviewed and therefore does not qualify as a WP:RS. Unfortunately, much of the article's substantive allegations rely on this poor SPS. This article was once nominated for deletion and the problems that existed then, including extremely poor sourcing and possible COI issues have not been remedied or addressed.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 07:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of this battle is not unclear and it is not an Israeli victory. Israel failed to achieve its strategic goals and had to withdraw because of the Egyptian Air Force and therefore lost, there is no question about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnopoems ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Who said Egypt lost twice as many fighter jets?! what's your source? an Israeli source or a pro Israeli source?! go to Egypt, Mansoura, ask the farmers there what happened to the Israeli air force in that battle, they will tell you the truth which they witnessed, Israel had to withdraw because of the high number of downed aircraft, do you really believe Israel would withdraw just because they lost 2 aircraft out of 160-180 aircraft? Israel lost more than 17 aircraft — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wasteland1 (
talk •
contribs) 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Despite supposedly involving very many aircraft, over a lengthy period, the number of casualties is very low. That seems strange. 122.59.167.152 ( talk) 10:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Air battle of Mansoura. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)