Talk:Battle of Karameh

What about the third view?

I had added to the original article on this subject: "Some scholars have expressed a third view, describing the events as "a conflict with limited military importance" which has since been blown up and exaggerated by both sides. W. Andrew Terrill (Winter 2001). ""The Political Mythology of the Battle of Karameh"". The Middle East Journal. Volume 55, Number 1. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)

I think this is a viewpoint as meritorious as saying that the Israelis or Palestinians "won" anything here. After all, it has been forty years since the battle, and nothing for which it was fought has been resolved, or shows any sign of immanent resolution. bd2412 T 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Where and how exactly do you suggest this be added to the article? -- Nudve (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As to where, I would say it belongs in the "Aftermath" section. There are any number of points where it can be worked in without disrupting the flow of the article - which, itself, now seems to expand the importance of the battle to mythic proportions. bd2412 T 15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible. Also, since you have (at least one) source, do you think you can help with the issues raised below by Ynhockey, mostly concerning the details of the battle? -- Nudve (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I'm starting a discussion here, which has partially been going on between Nudve and myself on talk, because what I'll raise now is not just between the two of us. I'm talking about improving the article potentially to GA status, which shouldn't be too difficult. However, many things are still missing, which exists in the sources already provided in the article! I suggest the following improvement (will make some of them myself as time allows):

1. Detailed breakdown of Israeli forces - right now we have a pretty clear idea of what the Israeli forces consisted of, especially from this source, but also from Pollack and Carta. I will probably do this one myself.
2. Much more detail about the battle - right now the section is stripped-down and takes up only a small part of the page, even though it's easily the most important section and should contain all of the details we can find (because they clearly don't belong in any other article). Especially problematic are the current 2 lines about Operation Asuta, which can be expanded into at least 2 paragraphs. Much info about this can be found in Carta (if anyone is interested, I could privately send a scan of the relevant page).
3. While taking all the information (especially about the aims and effects of the operation) from Israeli sources may violate WP:NPOV, taking facts about Israeli forces and battle positions certainly does not. Therefore, I suggest more digging into Israeli unit websites, many of which describe the battle and their side of it. For example, the informative page I linked to above on the Paratroopers site is not used even once in the army, which is a shame. If someone speaks Arabic, perhaps they can find Jordanian sources which have information about Jordanian forces, positions and commanders.
4. Organization - while it's just my opinion, I have a slight problem with the 'prelude' and 'the battle' sections. Certainly they could be organized better, perhaps joined into a large section with sub-sections for the preparations (prelude), Operation Inferno and Operation Asuta.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

even treatment?

The article has a full section devoted to (and entitled) "Israeli command structure", but there's nothing about the Palestinians' or even the Jordanian army's. This seems one-sided; similar treatment should be afforded each side, and if it can't, there should be an explanation. If, for example, rigorous scholarly efforts have been unable to establish which Palestinian combatants were where and in what capacity, or the Jordanian army has never announced who the members of its local command hierarchy were, the article should say so. In the alternative, maybe naming all the lieutenants is unnecessary. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed by Ynhockey above. We are trying to find this kind of info, and any help would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jordanian commander

The commander during the battle was not King Hussein but Mashhoor Haditha, I changed that. --Michael1408 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, do you a source saying he was ignoring Hussein's orders when he decided to attack? -- Nudve (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Aljazeera TV network's documentary.--Michael1408 19:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid the doesn't satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Do you have anything citable? I've managed to verify Haditha with another source. -- Nudve (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, i am trying to find a citable source --Michael1408 19:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

verification

the arabic article has a lot of different information backed by several cites including an interview with Mashhour haditha, the comander of the jordanian army. and the number of losses on each side is different acording to the citations.. and they are mostly from official military cites. the article in my opinion should be re-evaluated and many things should be added to it to insure that it is impartial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.144.193 (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Jordan an Israeli protectorate?

Why would Jordan let Israel invade without even an attempt to resist? I don't care so much about "assumed" vs. "hoped", but the army of a sovereign state doesn't "stay out of the fighting" when its territory is invaded. Not allowing the word "invade"/"invasion" seems rather WP:POV. Erik Warmelink (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Israel invaded Jordanian territory is quite obvious in the lead, and I don't see how it is implied that Jordan is an Israeli protectorate. If you insist, I don't mind changing "stay out of the fighting" to "ignore the invasion". -- Nudve (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't obvious from the lead, because the lead uses weasel words like "Israel Defense Forces" (my highlight, though I realise that it is customary on wikipedia to use that term). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is not a weasel word or a custom, it is the name of the Israeli army. Are you OK with my suggestion? -- Nudve (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the Israeli propaganda term, most countries have such a name for their army. For "defense forces" they kill far too many civilians, they destroy for too many houses. And again, Israel isn't unique in that.

"Ignore" is a bit weaker than "neglect", but OK. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Casualty numbers and pro-Israeli bias.

Regarding the casualty numbers, sources stated are primarily Israeli, whereas Arab and foreign sources are not taken into account. The numbers issued by Jordanian officials differ widely from the ones posted. To add to that, Jordan had no planes during the battle as they had completely lost their air force during the 1967 war, so it is absurd that "2 planes" are stated to have been lost by Jordan under casualties. Furthermore the result of the battle was not Israeli military victory. According to many sources; the Battle of Karameh is celebrated each year as the first Arab victory over Israel's then "unbeatable" army; it is a source of pride for Jordanians and Palestinians, and thus if Israel also claims victory, the result must be both sides declared victory as I edited.

I think the speech by Haim Bar-Lev, the high-ranking Israeli military official, that was published by Haaretz newspaper on 31/3/1968, should be taken well into account, especially the following quotes:

“ "The Karameh operation was unique in nature and Israelis were not used to this kind of operation. In other words, all other military operations were decorated with victory for our forces; the Israelis were used to seeing their army gain victory in every operation, but Karameh was different because of the large number of casualties among our forces and other consequences of the battle like Jordanian forces taking a number of our tanks and vehicles, all of which were a major surprise to the Israeli community."

The high-ranking Israeli official, Haim Bar-Lev was also quoted by United Press International, saying that Israel lost three times the number of vehicles that were once lost during the June 67 war.

”

Please consider re-evaluation of the sources provided in the article, and thank you. :-) Ymousa (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

Your casualty rates, however, have absolutely no place in here. Herzog says Israel lost 28 soldiers, so does the British Daily Telegraph, so does Mark Tessler, the IDF gives the number as 27, and multiple other reliable sources give numbers in that range as well. And yet you're suggesting that the number is ten times larger? 250? That's more than the number of soldiers killed on the first day of the Yom Kippur War! Sorry, no, but such an extraordinary claim from one foreign language offline source is simply not good enough.

I'm also reverting the addition of a quote supposedly said by Bar Lev - again, a problematic foreign language offline source is alone in quoting an Israeli paper quoting an Israeli general. You obviously took it from an Arabic source, which took it from a Hebrew source, and now we've got in English. Again, that is simply not good enough. Did you translate it? How can well tell how faithful the English product is to the Hebrew original? The criteria for WP:RS are not met here. The speech is interesting and may indeed have a place here, but not in its present form. Poliocretes (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Poliocretes (talk), thank you for your reply. With all your respect, sources vary widely then, here are a few Arab sources that are consistent with a much larger number of Israeli casualties, I would appreciate your evaluation and feedback.

Provided by the Middle East Record 1968 by Dishon p369:

• IDF casualties were about 200 killed and wounded; 42 tanks were destroyed (17 in Karameh and 25 near Allenby Bridge).
• At 9:45, the Jordanian army spokesman announced that three Israeli Mystere aircraft had been shot down, one near the Damiya Bridge, and two over Shuna.
• At a press conference in Amman on 23 March, King Hussein said that Jordan had lost 20 soldiers, 10 tanks, 10 other armoured vehicles and 10 guns.
• R. Amman said the dead included 6 officers, and that 65 soldiers, 12 of them officers, were wounded.
• The Times reporting from Amman, said that "neutral observers" believed the number of Jordanian killed to be 47. (R.Amman, 21 March-BBC,23 March; Sunday Times, 24 March Times; 26 March)
• At his press conference, King Hussein estimated IDF losses as 200 dead and wounded. He added that Israel had lost 5 aircraft, 45 tanks and 25 armoured vehicles. (NYT, Sunday Times, 24 March)
• Al fath report by the PLO went on to describe the fighting in Karama itself, in which 17 Israeli taks were destroyed and 400 Israeli troops killed or wounded. It said that the IDF deployed three armoured brigades and that 12,00 infantry troops had crossed the Jordan.
• [The latter report gave a figure for fidai losses higher than that of any Arab source and closer to the Israeli figures;] 124 dead; 91 al-Fath and 33 PLO Popular Liberation Forces.
• A "secret al-Fath report" that was published by a Lebanese paper, put the number of Israeli casualties at 400. In addition 17 IDF tanks were destroyed.

• Palestinian impasse: Arab guerrillas & international terror by Lester A. Sobel p28: 30 Arab commandos in Karameh were killed. Israeli forces suffered more than 200 casualties, including more than 100 killed. Jordanian forces destroyed 45 Israeli tanks and 50 other vehicles and downed 5 Israeli planes.
• Bridging the barrier: Israeli unilateral disengagement by Tami Jacoby p18: Israel sustained many casualties including the loss of six jet fighters and twelve armored tanks.

Also regarding the quote by Bar Lev, it is present in English in The Hashemite Arab Army1908-1979: an appreciation and analysis of military operations by Sayed Ali El-Edroos p278. Ymousa (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims of wildly inflated casualty figures and other exaggerations demand reliable sources and require verifiability per WP:V. You have not demonstrated that your source (the meager ones that you choose to supply) meets these criteria. Moreover, your edits go against the body of nearly all mainstream sources. Worse still, you are deleting referenced and reliably sourced material. You have made no effort to seek consensus for your contentious edits. You have been reverted by two editors and a third editor has voiced similar concerns about your contentious edits[1]. You have also tried to Use an IP to circumvent 3R[2]. Your edits are filled with WP:OR, lack reliability per WP:RS and verifiability per WP:V.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy (talk), on what basis have you, once again in my opposition, reverted the edit made by Poliocretes at 10:14, 15 October 2010? Radical numbers that we disagree on have been removed as per your requests; but other edits, such as providing normal links to words, mere photographs that further express the conflict, and a logo of the PLO; are only normal edits neither subject to verification nor cited resources as you most bluntly claim. I am offended by your irresponsible actions, where normal debate is not something you are familiar to. The sources above are mainly Western citing Arab ones, so respectfully, on what reason are they not verifiable and accurate in your opinion, or are you, as it seems, practically shunning the Arab view out of context? Please try to edit individual information when it does not appeal to you, don't just undo the work of someone you disagree with. Seeing as your views are of the most radical ones, I would much like to hear Poliocretes thoughts on the quotes above, as he shows reasonable understanding of the subject and respects the aspects of debate. Thank you. Ymousa (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You made multiple contentious, poorly sourced edits, filled with original research, covering multiple issues in one shot without so much as even discussing any of it. A better course of action would have been to start slowly, covering each issue in a manner that builds consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the caption that you placed under your uploaded photo was incorrect and should have read Al Karama Battle Aftermath 21 March 1968. You wrote Jordanian forces deployed during the battle which is an inaccurate description of the photo and that further lessens your credibility.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the photo with slightly modified caption and also restored the hyperlink of Jordanian intelligence to Dairat al-Mukhabarat al-Ammah--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the inclusion of inflated casualty figures so long as we can provide sources and properly explain their dubiousness. bd2412 T 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to inclusion of inflated casualty figures if those figures are devoid of WP:OR, come from an RS and are verifiable per WP:V--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

bd2412, thank you for your comment. Regarding the result of the battle, i had previously changed it to: Both sides claim victory, Israeli withdrawal from Jordanian territory, and Destruction of the PLO camp in Karameh before JJG had changed it. Do you find any faulty assumptions in this result? Also the logo of the PLO should represent them in belligerents, I see no reason why it should be removed. To add to that, a minor detail; the Hashemite kingdom in the first paragraph does not necessarily reflect Jordan. I had also replaced this with the Hashemite Jordan before the revert by JJG. The sentence However, Jordan claims that conquering highland territories in Salt[1] and nearing the strategic capital, Amman[9][10], was also of Israel's intentions, in addition to disabling the PLO. was also removed for no apparent reason where sources state otherwise. Thanks. Ymousa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

I think there was some availability issue with the PLO logo a while back. It was in the infobox and then removed ... Poliocretes (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ymousa, I have no doubt that the claims were made, and you provide a fine source, but "Middle East Record 1968" is just that - a record. Published in 1973, it merely reports what was said about the subject. The numbers, which even contradict themselves, are outlandish. Claims abound, but there is a huge difference between claims made in the heat of battle or shortly afterwards and durable historical fact. 40 years after the event, the Israeli Ministry of Defence maintains a site containing a web page for each and every IDF fatality over the years. There are 29 people listed for March 21 1968, where's everyone else gone? Then there's the multitude of WP:RS. 250 Israeli casualties is a tenfold expansion on practically each and every modern work to discuss the subject, one written in the last 25 years. It's pure WP:FRINGE and should be treated as such.

As someone who otherwise tries hard to stay far & away from any article involving Palestine & Israel, I'd like to point out the following about the numbers of casualties in this battle. First, the Middle East Record 1968 cited above by Poliocrites cites sources which are usually considered reliable -- the BBC, New York Times, & King Hussein of Jordan. Dismissing them as unreliable without further examination only leads to further conflict. Second, the official public records of any military will, despite its best good faith intents, minimize its losses; no one wants to admit to having more soldier killed or wounded than need be. Thus the IDF, despite its care & skill in record-keeping, must be treated as a biased source. (And so is the Jordanian army, the Palestinian, & the US military.) Thirdly, the varying reports of casualties on both sides may have arisen over initial reports having been repeated, without subsequent corrections. That would explain where the BBC, the NYT, & King Hussein came up with the number of 200 total IDF casualties. Actually finding & reading the original news reports would help in explaining that figure. Fourthly, there is a lot of misinformation floating out there about all sorts of incidents with emotional connotations -- such as this battle. People who only know part of the story will come to this article, see one set of figures & assume that the article is in error & attempt to change it. Therefore, we need to not only include all points of view on the matter, but explain where these numbers came from. Those acting in good faith will see why one statistic has been favored over another, & not bother with repeating another edit war; as for the rest, the only solution for them no matter what we do is to ban them. But it's better to work with everyone editting in good faith. -- llywrch (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you llywrch and Poliocretes for your comments. Not to be pessimistic or anything, but after all this talk nothing has been done to improve the page's casualty statistics or the other issues that were mentioned above, most importantly the result of the battle; leaving the page still in an off beam pro-Israeli bias. I have refrained from editing the page myself due to the frustrating fact that Jiujitsuguy keeps reverting my works, thus I hope someone would further investigate the issues above and edit the article as they see appropriate. Ymousa (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user llywrch IDF, despite its care in record-keeping, must be treated as a biased source, just as the Jordanian army, and the Palestinian PLO force. I would recommend at least mentioning in the article that some estimates point to higher IDF causalities, as the official IDF ones. Representing several points of view (I think sources were identified above) is the better way to go, rather than using IDF consistent estimates and not pointing to estimates from the other side. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.189.41 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Including all points of view

Would it be possible to start a new section devoted to reactions from various countries, specifically Jordan? The Battle of Karameh is a source of pride to Jordanians, and it is not seen as an Israeli victory but a Jordanian one in the kingdom. Numerous Jordanian sources and newspapers report the celebrations that occur on a yearly basis, and I'll be more than happy to provide some. I think this should be included in the article. Building up on the previous debate regarding bias of the article, I would also still love to see Arab casualty sources being used in the article. As was previously said, we need to not only include all points of view on the matter, but explain where these numbers came from. Much appreciation. Ymousa (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed result to reflect that both sides claim victory. Who won is entirely based on what you believe the actual objectives were, Israel claiming their objective was simply a raid and retalliation after which they fell back, Jordan claiming it was a full attack on Jordanian soil and was repulsed and Palestinians claiming that it was an attempt to eradicate the PLO and destroy the camp at Karamah, and in both of these it largely failed. So, each side claims victory and there are sources to back all sides up. I strongly urge no one on any side to take this out of neutrality and for all to just leave this result as it is, adding perhaps a further section on how each side claims victory or sees the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.216.244 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You should bring sources.Israeli victory is currently sourced.If have other WP:RS saying otherwise you welcome to present them in talk--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

i found 2 sources this book and this is a celebration patronized by king Abdullah II on Al Karama Battle anniversary

Given to the events of this war, I think a "both-sides claim victory" would be appropriete. Israel did complete its mission of destroying the Karemah camp, yet the Jordanian military and PLOs feel that they chased and drove the Israelis out. Or at least something like that, because if Jordanians are celebrating this day, surely that would count as a victory.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Agree with pacific suggestion for the infobox. If all Arabs consider it as a victory then that's notable enough to be included in the article. Since there wasn't a third party documentation from inside the event itself, then we have to primarily depend on both sides claims, and non of them should have a priority on the other --aad_Dira (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC).

Saddam Hussein also claimed the Gulf War was a "victory" for Iraq. Would you consider to change the Gulf War's infobox just because "many people" allegedly think it was an Iraqi victory, despite there is no serious facts or reliable sources to confirm such a hypothesis? It's no secret that Arabs use to claim "victory" over Israel every time they are defeated in battle. For God sake! Hamas even claimed "victory" in the Gaza War!--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Gulf war is a conflict over a land, and this land is a whole country, so if Saddam really won it he would be simply controlling it, and it is not hard to any third party to know the truth about who's controlling this land. However, this is just a battle that happened and ended, and when it was fought there wasn't third parties THERE to tell you who won, so simply there is no reason that Israel isn't the one who's claiming the "victory" --aad_Dira (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC).

Israel fulfilled its objectives in this battle: to destroy the PLO camp in Karameh, and to cause many casualties among the enemy forces (dead, wounded and captured) at a low cost (to conquer more land wasn't a goal at all). They did it (even after Jordanian intervention), and when the Israelis finished the job, they withdrew back to the western part of the river. Yes, perhaps the Arab world fabricated a "propaganda victory" after... so? It doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia must be based on facts. And it's a fact that this battle was a clear Israeli victory. There are reliable sources to prove it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice story. However, you didn't tell us yet how you can know which are facts and which are the propaganda? The third parties wasn't in the battle. Simply, all you're saying is based on Israeli claims, so if the Arabs claimed reserve then you don't have a way to judge about it. You have just to record what both sides are saying. If some people told you this is the fact it doesn't mean necessarily that what it is actually --aad_Dira (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC).

WP:Undue--IranitGreenberg (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So you mean that the view point of the Arabs comprising half billion people is a "minority view" that doesn't even deserve to be indicated in an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict? --aad_Dira (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

It's not a matter of numbers or Arab public opinion, but serious historic facts and reliable sources. Your reasoning would be like saying Eat shit: millions of flies can't be wrong.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer above --aad_Dira (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

By the way, I didn't ask you to eat anything, but what am I saying is that if the flies actually likes to eat shit, then you have to damit in the article that flies eats shit :) --aad_Dira (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

Oh, I remember as well that the guy above had just given us a reliable book published by Tel Aviv university talking about the "Arab victory" in the battle. I doubt how real is "there is no serious facts or reliable sources to confirm such a hypothesis". It seems that this is rather is the hypothesis here --aad_Dira (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

I would like to see the alleged "Tel Aviv University" reference. I'm sure it talks about an Arab propaganda victory.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF, why is it "alleged"? If you would like to see it then see it, it is cited above. For me, I would like to see how sure are you when you see that both points of view are cited there, unlike what do you want here --aad_Dira (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

So, should I understand this silence as "no oppose"? --aad_Dira (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

Not at all.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I understand this last comment as "no, no oppose"? --aad_Dira (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

lol... Sorry, my mistake. I meant NO to your proposal. I oppose.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my mistake too. I actually meant that this is not the way it is :) --aad_Dira (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

Well, if still no oppose I gonna change the infobox to "both-sides claim victory" --aad_Dira (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

And I'll revert you, since there are no consensus for such an absurd statement.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice. If you want to revert then you have to say why or you will be simply banned. "Oppose" isn't a least reason for "no consensus". As the policy I indicated earlier clearly states, Wikipedia is not built upon voting, but upon discussion. I am still awaiting a response about the source provided above --aad_Dira (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC).

What source? Show me the link below this message. Thanks.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The link was provided by Pacific at the beginning of the discussion. See it yourself. Or do you want me also to come and open it for you on your computer? --aad_Dira (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC).

I found them. The first one is from a book in Arabic (many people here don't understand the language) and I couldn't translate it because Google doesn't allow me to see the pages (copyright). The second one is barely reliable (Jordanian government), but not even that source says anything about a "victory" on Karameh or a kind of explanation about the battle itself from the Jordanian point of view, but rather a "celebration" or commemoration for the 44th anniversary. No, the answer is no. You can't add an "Arab victory" or "both sides claimed victory" sentence on the base of these two poor sources.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god, source in Arabic! If that's right it seems that I don't know Arabic well --aad_Dira (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

Its in English, but even if it werent an Arabic source is not by definition a poor source and cant be excluded because a user does not understand it. See WP:NONENG. nableezy - 18:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I read it in English. It's a poor source to claim an "Arab victory".--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

lol, why is it "poor source"? Because it is talking about both views? Or any source that mentions Arab victory becomes automatically "poor"? --aad_Dira (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

Still waiting for a reason. Is it just "poor because it is poor" or do you have something else? --aad_Dira (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC).

What should I consider silence this time? I think I gonna change the infobox with the suggested result and source, as it seems there is no "real" objection on the source, other than voting matters --aad_Dira (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

The book is pure propaganda, not RS. There is not a single military fact provided by the source to claim this battle was an Arab victory.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The source has included it as a point of view about the event, and that's enough. You aren't authorized here to judge which are the facts and which are not, you just have to include both views fairly. wp:POV reads it clearly: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" --aad_Dira (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

Read WP:RS and WP:undue. In other words, the article on Earth doesn't directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it (let alone in the infobox like you propose in this case).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You are making a claim that it is "minority", though you have nothing to prove it. Yet, there is many sources actually talking about it, and I have just given one, but you are trying to run around in circles. Trying to prevent including this point of view in the article is simply clear POV, the article now is one-sided and not neutral. Anyway, since this is becoming increasingly an unmeaningful debate, I will ask for a third party opinion --aad_Dira (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

There is no need to reflect in the infobox (which is only for real facts, except when there isn't a clear winner) what is already in the lead:

Both sides declared victory. On a tactical level, the battle did end in Israel's favor[8] and the purpose of the mission was achieved.[2] However, for the Palestinians it became a mythological victory that established their national claims.[9][10]--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is getting really ridiculous, just repeating the same again and again. The infobox work is to give a summary of the lead, if it is mentioned in the lead then that's proves it should be included in the infobox. By the way, as you are quoting this, I likes to note that "mythological victory" is a pure POV --aad_Dira (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

"Mythological victory" is the term used by references (or "propaganda victory"). A mythological victory shouldn't be reflected in the battle infobox in equal position than a real military victory.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The source aad_Dira brought does not say that. nableezy - 14:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah right! Because according to this "indisputable reference", Israelis "fled from Arabs" in Karameh. lol... seriously, any serious reference explaining why the battle was an Arab military victory?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a serious reference, published by serious publishers, and it meets all the requirements of WP:RS. You do not, repeat not, get to ignore anything you dislike. He brought a source, and hes entitled to use it in the article, and if other sources are in dispute then we include all of them. I dont know what gave you the impression that you run things here, but, Im sorry to inform you, you dont. nableezy - 15:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it isn't up to you which is the "serious reference". Actually, this source is reliable more than the ones cited for "mythological victory", because those are only newspapers --aad_Dira (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC).

Where on earth are you getting the idea that this is a poor source? Its co-published by Wiley, a respected academic publisher, and Israel Universities Press. You cant simply say no this isnt a reliable source, especially when it prima facie meets all the requirements. nableezy - 14:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Defeat" in infobox removed

I have removed the strongly POV and unsupportable defeat claim in infobox. Withdrawal would appear to be the tactical and staregic reality. To compensate, I have left Propaganda victory. There is nowhere in the main article narrative to support the concept of an Israeli military "defeat". I assume it is a POV hangover from an earlier time. Irondome (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

One side was defeated. It is very rare for a tactical operation to be so balanced as to be capable of being called a "draw". The article suggests variously that both sides won, but also suggests that Israeli objectives were achieved. I am not sure that this view is correct - and it is certainly contradicted by other parts of the article. However politics intrudes into this too much - what is the view of military experts (excluding those from Israel, Jordan or the USA, for their possible bias)?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Counter result

I know that the references vary greatly but I got several notable third party references that support another point of view. Here are the sources; two New York Times articles right after the battle claim that Israeli forces were repelled. here, here. Also there are several Israeli sources supporting this, including here, here, here, here, here, here. Other sources; here, here, here, here, here, here. Along with, of course, the countless Arab sources.

The infobox could be 'Both sides claim victory ,Karameh camp destroyed ,Failure to capture Arafat ,Israeli raid repelled'

@Irondome: @Nableezy: @IranitGreenberg: @Ymousa: @Poliocretes:, care to share your opinion?--Makeandtoss (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To quote myself almost 5 years to the day, "I couldn't care less what the infobox says regarding victory", though I don't understand how "Karameh camp destroyed" can go in the same sentence as "Israeli raid repelled". It seems like trying to have it every which way. Why don't you just put "Both sides claim victory" and let the article speak for itself? Poliocretes (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Poliocretes: Well, we got two types of sources that are contradicting themselves. Which is why I thought that putting both together would be neutral-ish. And I have searched for "Both sides claim victory" battles on wikipedia, they all seem to further elaborate regarding results. Plus, the Israeli raid did not happen only on Karameh but on three fronts.--Makeandtoss (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Poliocretes (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

(copied over from my Talk page)

Both 6 Israeli armored vehicles and 40 Jordanians dead are mentioned in the source. Here's the exact location. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ok, that's a different source (p.180) than the one given in the article (p. 570). Feel free to re-add it with the new page number, but note that your source gives a figure of "half a dozen armored vehicles" - which is inclusive of both tanks and half-trucks - so the info box can't list this in addition to the figure of 4 tanks and 2 half trucks - that would be double counting. Also the "40 Jordanians killed" seems to refer only to the operation at Safi, not Karameh. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The 40 Jordanians killed is added next to 28 Israelis killed, which is considered to be the Israeli casualties in the battle... So its a slight misunderstanding. --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, as other sources give higher casualty figures for the Israeli side (the article gives a range of 28-33) Bad Dryer (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

33>28, ok?.. I am not following. --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that the "40" figure for Jordanian losses is for the entire operation (Karameh + Safi, vs. Safi only) is based on a comparison with the adjacent Israeli figure of 28 which you seem to think is for the entire operation - but that figure is lower than other estimates for Israeli casualties - which is as high as 33, so we can't t use your extrapolation (which would be original research, in any case). We need a source that clearly says total Jordanian losses were 40. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel did not lose 5 soldiers in a battle and 28 soldiers in an operation.Makeandtoss (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

that's your opinion. Find a source that says that. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Chaim Herzog and Kenneth Pollack estimate 28 dead and 69 wounded.--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

and others (e.g Morris) say 33. Bad Dryer (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the 40 figure [3]

ok, that;'s a different source, which could be used for the lower end of the range. Bad Dryer (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jordanian jets

The statement that 2 Jordanian jets were shot down is reliably sourced to "Zeev Maoz page 246". Maoz, in turn, gives two impeccable historical references for this (Morris, 2001 and Michelson, 1984). You can't "debunk" such well sourced material relying on one Wikipedia editor's original research which claims that Jordan's air force had no jets at that point in time (which is obviously ignorant of the fact that Jordan's F-104s were in Turkey during the war and thus not destroyed, but that is a side point - original research is original research), and another editor's personal research, which refutes the former's original research but says he hasn't seen the IAF claim such victories. Now, it would be one thing if the reliable source making the claim was some marginal publication, but in this case the very same source is being used multiple times in the same infobox (!!!) , for figures of Israeli half truck losses etc.. You can't pick and choose which figure to accept and which figures to reject, from the same source, based on WP:OR, or more likely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not picking what I like and what I don't like. The aircraft topic is only mentioned in that source. While the other Israeli half truck losses are found in several sources.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And that source cites two additional ones. It is a reliable, academic source, and you can't choose to exclude those figures while accepting others from the same source. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Its an Israeli source, I don't know how you can consider that reliable (considering its the only source mentioning RJAF aircrafts). If you insist, I will remove the Maoz source and replace it with uninvolved sources (except for RJAF claim obviously).Makeandtoss (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This encyclopedia doesn't rule out sources based on the ethnicity of their author, and I'm frankly appalled that you would think this is a valid argument. The source a recognized academic expert - a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Correlates of War Project at the University of California, Davis, published by the University of Michigan Press, an American academic publisher, and is a reliable source. You seemed to be quite happy to quote "Israeli source" when it discussed Israeli half truck lost, but for some reason it becomes problematic when discussing Jordanian losses. If you remove it, and the material sourced to it, I will likely follow up with an arbitration enforcement case against you for tendentious editing. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool threat! As far as I am concerned I do not plan on engaging in edit warring. Now tell me where I can read that Morris and Michelson sources?Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Go to your local library and check out Maoz's book. Find which Morris and Michelson books he is referring to. Check those books out and have a read. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I doubt my local library has Morris and Michelson books. Maoz's is on google books, I didn't find anything new concerning Morris and Michelson.Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible to view all of Maoz's book on Google. You need to do actual research, in a library. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This book the one used in source..--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Poliocretes: might know more about this than me.--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Morris 2001 is his "Righteous Victims" for which a 2011 edition is available on Google Books and makes no such claim. As for Michelson 1984, that Hebrew language publication, which actually deals with the 1950s retribution operations, is unavailable online. However, Michelson is also the author of what is probably the definitive account of Karameh, published in Maarachot, an IDF publication, also in 1984 and available here. On page 29, discussing IAF participation, the author explicitly states that no aerial opposition was encounetered, and on page 32 makes no mention of aircraft among Jordanian losses. Maoz appears to be a rather poor source. Nevertheless Bad Dryer is right regarding the reliability of sources. You can't pick and choose the facts used here. Poliocretes (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Poliocretes: Thank you for taking the time. But with all due respect, didn't you also here 'picked and chose facts'?Makeandtoss (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bad Dryer: The IDF publication in 1984: "The IDF airforce effectively enjoyed total aerial superiority above the battlefield, and with the exception of anti-aircraft fire from sub-machine guns and rapid-fire cannons (not radar guided), which which was fired mainly over that areas of Sunt Nimrin and Ma'adi, the airforce met with no opposition". Your source directly contradicts with the sources of all sides involved in the war, are you trying to rewrite history? Wikipedia:Conflicting sources says "Sometimes, although not often, our policy that our threshold is verifiability, not truth means that although something can only be one or another, we cannot determine which one it is. This happens, when two (or more) equally reliable sources contradict each other about certain facts." The IDF publication in 1984 is an involved party and is much more reliable than a 2006 historian source.Makeandtoss (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the IDF publication is more reliable than Maoz, for 3 reasons:

1. Later sources are preferred over earlier ones, especially when dealing with historical events, as additional analysis is done, classified documents become available or other information comes to light

2. Academic sources are preferred over non-academic ones, for their rigor

3. Sources who are neutral are more likely to present information in a neutral way than involved parties who have agendas and vested interested in presenting certain POVs Bad Dryer (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not original research nonsense. Wikipedia:These are not original research#Conflict between sources says "If reliable sources exist that show that another apparently reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed."Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The "original research nonsense" refers to the comment you made on your Talk page, to the effect that "Jordan lost its entire Hawker Hunters squadron in the Six-Day War and its four remaining F-104 fighter jets were evacuated to Turkey" - as a reason for why they didn't have an airforce in 1968. Bad Dryer (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical events? Out of the tens of thousands involved in the war? NOBODY mentioned anything about any Jordanian warplanes, but an academic 30 years later did?!? Why would the IDF have interest in not mentioning it shot down two airplanes? I don't find words to describe this nonsense.Makeandtoss (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A battle that happened 50 years ago and is considered a seminal event in the formation of Palestinian nationalism is an historical event, yes. Why would that even be disputed? Let me give some possible agendas for that statement in the IDF article - the author could be making a case for greater reliance on IAF in such attacks, so he overplays the true nature of the opposition faced by the IAF. The jets may have been shot down by IDF ground forces (as was the Israeli Ouregan by Jordanian forces), and the author may be trying to play down the role that ground forces have against modern jet fighters, etc... I don't know if any of these agendas exist , but they are certainly possible, and they are the reason one should be suspicious of claims made by involved parties, vs. disinterested academics. And the fact that you can't even imagine such agendas does not reflect well on you. Bad Dryer (talk)

The fact whether TWO planes were shot down or not is not a historical event that would exist in one out of thousands of sources. We just showed you that your source referenced the 2 planes to two sources of which NEITHER make such claim, I am truly surprised you are still trying to make an argument here.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not two planes were shot down as part of an historical event is something to be supported by reliable sources discussing that historical event. We have one such impeccable source - a book by an academic subject matter expert, published by a university press. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No its not impeccable. The same sourcث has information that no one seems to support not even the sources it is referenced to!! Makeandtoss (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As I've said multiple times already, you can take it to WP:RSN. But you can't delete material sourced to an academic, published by an academic press just because he is the only source for a claim. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

RSN is irrelevant. I took it to content dispute, its not about because its the only source, its because its the only and the contradictory source that makes two references to two sources that do not support the claim it makes.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ma'oz can't be removed re the two jets, because he is a very reliable source, and not really partisan when it comes to the history of conflict. But, since scholars can err, and since the claim is apparently not otherwise confirmed in many standard accounts, it should be used with attribution.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Nishadani, but I would also add the IDF publication that appears to contradict it, also attributed of course. Zero^talk 02:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, I don't find anyone reporting what Maoz's first source "Morris 2001, p369" says: "One fighter-bomber was shot down and a mirage had to crash-land." Actually the way Morris presents it seems to suggest that the aircraft were Israeli. Who flew mirages then?
Here is the whole paragraph: "Altogether the IDF lost 33 dead and 161 wounded at Karameh: 27 Israeli tanks were hit, four of them left behind. One fighter-bomber was shot down and a mirage had to crash-land. The PLO lost 156 dead and 141 captured. The Arab legion lost 84 dead and 250 wounded." You can see that the two aircraft are listed as Israeli losses. Zero^talk 02:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Israeli had mirages then for sure. As far as I can see, Jordan had none until 1981. This confirms Morris' plain text: he is referring to Israeli planes, not Jordanian planes. Zero^talk 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to look at at Morris' book, the source he gives for the paragraph is the Hebrew article that Poliocretes mentioned above. Maoz's "Michaelson 1984" is the same as the source Morris gives: "Mem" (Michaelson), Benny. (Heb.) 'Operation Topfet', a battle on the East Bank of the Jordan—March 1968, Ma'arachot 292-93 (1984). Morris refers to pages 29 and 32. Zero^talk 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the Hebrew source (middle column of p29) says that one Israeli aircraft was shot down (what is ״אוראגן״?) and one Mirage III crash-landed. We need a Hebrew reader to check more carefully that this source does not mention Jordanian aircraft shot down. Assuming it doesn't, I withdraw my support for citing Moaz with WP:IAR as basis. Both of Maoz's sources state something different from what he reports and it is beyond reasonable doubt that he just made a mistake. Zero^talk 03:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

״אוראגן״ must refer to a Dassault Ouragan. Zero^talk 07:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Compliments from the board. As usual, superbly done (no brown-nosing intended).Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Leaflet drop

I am totally confused by this, to quote: "An Israeli aircraft was supposed to drop leaflets addressed to Fatah, after the paratroopers had surrounded the town; however, due to difficult weather conditions, the helicopters flying the paratroopers arrived twenty minutes too late". I can understand that if the leaflet drop was to occur after the town was surrounded, but the paratroops were "too late", that would mean that the pamphlets were dropped first. But in what sense does this mean that the troops were "late"? The element of surprise had already gone. So too late for what?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am confused here too ..Makeandtoss (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Israeli raid repelled"

A newspaper article from the day after the raid is hardly sufficient to support this claim. While the New York Times is definitely reliable, scholarly sources are needed if this is to stay in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Btw, nice work on the list of wars articles. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these sources. The problem of inconsistency remains, however, as the aftermath section claims the raid achieved its aim. Would you support rephrasing it to "Israeli withdrawal", thereby reconciling sources that disagree with each other? Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely, the Jordanians believed that the Israelis had other objectives, of capturing Balqa Governorate, as seen in lead. Also, the Karameh camp was not completely destroyed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's of course one side of the story. I don't believe Israel's 'real' aims matter here, as fact is the IDF withdrew calmly across the Jordan River after reaching a ceasefire. I'm not arguing this was a "decisive Israeli victory" or anything (even if I did, my opinion would be completely irrelevant), but stating Israel was "repelled" ignores a significant portion of what is otherwise stated in this article. While all your (good) sources use the world "repelled", neither of them elaborate on this point. To be a complete devil's advocate; if we are to keep this phrase, a scholarly source exploring this particular battle in particular should be used. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Arabic literature states that during the battle, Israel asked the US to arrange a ceasefire with King Hussein, but the King allegedly refused that until "the last Israeli soldier withdraws from east of the river"..However, I didn't find any mention of a ceasefire in English sources. Anyway, repelled=forced withdrawal, so if we are to say that it wasn't forced withdrawal. We would be literally saying that Israeli forces withdrew after destroying camp, aka decisive Israeli victory... Makeandtoss (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Plus the IDF didn't withdrew calmly, the ongoing Jordanian artillery fire prevented the Israelis from retrieving their damaged tanks and even the bodies of 3 IDF soldiers. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:As the two sides disagree on Israel's conditions for victory, it makes sense both sides declared victory. Israel did withdraw under fire (as you correctly point out), but as it did not have territorial aims and intended to withdraw after achieving its objective anyway, this alone does not make for a defeat. In short, Jordan can claim a defensive victory by defending its sovereignty, while Israel can claim a strategic victory by successfully destroying the Karameh camp (though at a high cost). "Forced withdrawal" makes little sense in a situation where a withdrawal was the intended end game anyway, and although I am no expert on the subject, I do hold "Israeli raid repelled" should be replaced with "Israeli withdrawal". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Do you have any sources on that ceasefire you mentioned? Look at it this way; Israel was not going to withdraw until the complete destruction of PLO camps or it was not going to withdraw if they seized territory. Neither of these two scenarios happened, since the camps were not completely destroyed and Arafat wasn't caught, and no territory was seized (if there were even any intentions to). Makeandtoss (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I remember reading it somewhere several years ago, but don't take my word for it. As for the fate of the camps, the article holds the IDF did destroy them (first sentence in the "Aftermath" section). Where did you read they were only partially destroyed? If this can be sourced, it should be mentioned in the article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I'll get back to you tomorrow. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: [8] Makeandtoss (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's good, but still pretty vague. I think we need something that describes the battle in a detailed manner. Since you know Arabic, I bet there's a ton of good sources available. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: this source says "the enemy managed to reach to the town of Karameh and was able to destroy some of its buildings" on Israeli raid repelled [9].Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We have three sources that explicitly states that the IDF destroyed the Fatah camp ("most of the camp", according to the "Battle" section - this is very different from "part of the camp"). This is why we need detailed sources. If the base was still standing and operable, the IDF arguably failed its mission. If a few buildings remained standing in between the ruins, we're talking a different outcome altogether. We must be certain what our sources are actually saying before drawing conclusions. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: "destroyed the camp" doesn't necessarily mean all of it. Also one of the objectives was to capture Yasser Arafat, so putting Israeli withdrawal really does sound like Israel achieved all of its objectives.

Check out this source [10]. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the source I initially found problematic, because it was written two days after the battle. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:. So? Two days are quite enough for the press to know what exactly happened and what did not . Makeandtoss (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not my point. On one hand, we have a newspaper article stating Israel was repelled. On the other hand, the lead explicitly states Israel won a tactical victory. Either one version must go, or we must back off and refrain from drawing conclusions. Do you see where I'm coming from? Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Tactical victory not supported by source. I will leave their fate up to you. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Look at the pages the footnote refer to. The source does explicitly state IDF won the battle, but also lacks the scholarly elaboration the article is currently missing. Why don't we compromise to a) Both sides claim victory, b) Destruction of most of the Karameh camp and c) Failure to kill Yassir Arafat, and leave the rest out? Scholars disagree on the subject, and I don't think the two of us will settle it today either. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: And that way, we literally leave out the entire view point of the Palestinians and Jordanians! Makeandtoss (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Valid point. What do you suggest? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Do you really feel its contradictory? As seen in lead, there were other objectives... Makeandtoss (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I do indeed find "Israeli raid repelled" and "the battle went in Israel's favor" (sic) contradictory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: It would be biased to be coming from me, but changing the latter is a better option. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:, @Mikrobølgeovn:, I still am not really seeing a consensus here. I suggest we resume discussion. An inaccurate NYT source is still being used to back up the claim of "repelled". Therefore I suggest an attempt to find a new form of words. In the meantime I am going to make an uncontroversial edit on a photo caption. Regards Irondome (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you here about six months ago asking for your opinion.. In any case, there are lots of sources to support this point of view including; here, here. Also there are several Israeli sources supporting this, including here, here, here, here, here, here. Other sources; here, here, here, here, here, [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] here. Along with, of course, the countless Arab sources. Lets assume we put in that Israel had a tactical victory, what victory did the Arabs achieve? As far as I have researched, there were no sources thoroughly discussing the type of victories so this will become original research. The Israelis left tens of vehicles behind, 3 dead soldiers and various types of weapons and ammunition. That really doesn't look like a coordinated withdrawal to me.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The impressive number of sources you muster are merely repeating the term "repelled". This is often a phenomenon of lazy reporting. The bulk of objectives appear to have been met. It was a finite operation, and it certainly was not an invasion attempt with the goal of holding ground indefinitely. It met with some skillful resistance but it did not stop the operation. In the context of 1968 any resistance against the IDF was perhaps seen in an exaggerated light. I recall a version which was a rather elegant solution. "Limited Israeli Tactical victory. Jordanian/PLO propaganda victory" I suggest we revisit aspects of that solution. Irondome (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Goals of operation included capture of Yasser Arafat, calls for punishment against Jordan, a disputed call for capture of land, none of which were met. "bulk"? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw, the engagement between PLO and IDF ended around 11am, battle continued till 8pm. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The objectives of the operation as launched were actually quite limited. "The Israeli forces amounted to less than a brigade of armor, an infantry brigade, a paratroop battalion, an engineering battalion and five battalions of artillery. The units were divided into four task forces. The largest of these was to cross the Allenby Bridge and reach Karameh from the south; a second one was to cross the Damiyah Bridge, and reach Karameh from the north, thus completing a pincer move. Meanwhile, paratroopers were to be lifted by helicopters into the town while the fourth force would make a diversionary attack at King Abdullah Bridge to draw the Jordanian forces from Karameh and to cover the main attack." The pre - operational talk was just that. Talk. The operation was centered on Karameh. Irondome (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Quoting American ambassador to the UN "on a scale out of proportion to the acts of violence that preceded it, are greatly to be deplored". Also, don't forget the action on the village of Safi south of the Dead Sea. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ummm. I am sure we can think of an - all encompassing form of words for this which is acceptable to all. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've always wanted to look over this article, but never have time. Simon has a point that contemporary news sources are good for just that, how things were seen at the time by journalists writing to a deadline, but as time passes, one does well the ground as much as possible on quality academic works which are written in the light of more comprehensive review and analysis (it was widely rumoured by Israeli sources that Arafat scrammed cowardly telling his men to fight (the Italians say "armiamoci e partite" (let's get guns, lads, and off youse go). Abu Iyad, a courageous man, testified later that Arafat stood his ground, etc.) Here are some:

• Mark Tessler, A History of the Israeli -Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press 1994 pp.425-6 (a good balanced assessment, I think)
• Gershom Gorenberg,The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Macmillan, 2007 pp.141-143 This has something I think important that is ignored in most accounts I'm familiar with. Eshkol was involved in secret manoeuvers to get rid of Palestinians from Palestine from early 1968, while sending out feelers to get Russian Jews in. In Gaza in particular, Israeli officers were engaged in persuasion of, and offering financial incentives and transport to, Palestinians to, well, piss off. By March they were managing to truck out 1,200-1,500 Gazans a week, and they were sent, precisely to Karameh’s refugee camp.
• Beverley Milton-Edwards, Peter Hinchcliffe,Jordan: A Hashemite Legacy, (2001) Routledge, 2009 p.39. This is particularly good on the tensions between Jordanian soldiers and Arafat’s PLO, something ignored or underplayed in this article, after the former fought very ably but had their dignity somewhat offended by the superior media projection by the PLO of this as their victory. This had long term effects we see years down the track.
• Sari Nusseibeh, Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life, (2007) Picador, 2015 p.105 calls it both a bloodbath for Palestinians and mentions it was spoken of as ‘the Stalingrad of the Palestinians’ in their tradition. I entered this some time ago on Nusseibeh’s bio, I think, but it could go here.
• Daniel Byman, A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism, Oxford University Press, 2011 p.39 has some useful personal recollections from people there (biased as some comments may be), and its function in Palestinian school curricula.

The page does actually need a ce workover as well. I'll be busy this month on my Hazlitt priority but if I can help in this latter regard, drop me a note. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nish, good to "hear" you, seems a while. We have been having a pleasant conversation on this little chestnut, and I am sure User:Makeandtoss would welcome you as much as I. All is in constant change, improvement, and a fresh perspective is a valuable commodity! Hope all's well with you mate. Simon Irondome (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I provided references other than the New York Times pieces.. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's just a minor point M&T. You've done a steady and good job of work on this, which is much appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually didn't want to intrude, but I thought you had a point re sourcing. I really must honour my commitment to help out at the Hazlitt article, which has been starved of attention save for the valiant work of its main editor. It's spring, pal, and though the cherry tree carked it, the rest of the orchard's in bloom, and, of course Bernie Sanders's wonderful run has kept my spirits up. No doubt doomed to be outmaneuvered, but, for a few months, one can dream of decent people, whose merits the young and idealistic, as opposed to hardened oldies, can perceive, showing up to give the old power brokers a touch of the Jimmy Brits for a while! Cheers Simon Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: @Nishidani: How about changing the sentence to "Israeli repulsion or withdrawal" ? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Karameh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this aerticle.
• First impression, many sentences and paragraphs under battle end without citations, they all need it.

@FunkMonk: The sources for the unsourced parts in that section would be in the consecutive paragraphs.. Anyway, I will add them now. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, but then these sentences should be in the same paragraphs, not stand alone. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Better? --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Much better, there are unsourced statements under Casualties too, though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Done --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the infobox image. First off, it seems to be a diorama, not "3D" (whatever that is supposed to mean here), and I think a map or photo of a location or battle (maybe this[16]) would be more appropriate there. The diorama photo would be more appropriate under culture or aftermath.
• Perhaps add date (1977) to the Arafat photo, so readers don't think it is from during the war.
• This image[17] certainly doesn't seem to be self-made, so should be deleted, unless it is public domain according to Jordanian law.
• "Israel destroyed the existing Fatah networks there" Explain what Fatah is, by for example saying "destroying the networks of the Palestinian group Fatah".
• "blocked by the IDF." Spell IDF out and link at first occurrence in article body.
• ", as well as the American-financed East Ghor Canal" How can one retaliate against a canal?
• "and fedayeen moved into the valley." Explain fedayeen in parenthesis.
• "In February, he sent" New paragraph, so name "he".
• "order a Fatah unit to leave Karameh." Present and link Karameh at first mention. What is it?
• "Chief of Staff (Ramatkal)" Link in parenthesis seems redundant, can't Chief of Staff just link to the relevant article?
• "— mindful of an adverse American reaction —" Perhaps state that the US had good relations with Jordan?
• " Haim-Moshe Shapira vocally opposed it, while Education Minister Zalman Aran opposed it" Opposed what?
• "There was an intelligence informant who was a former Fatah member, code-named "Grotius". He was "familiar with the base in Karameh and its surroundings." I'd merge these two abrupt sentences.
• "the Allenby Bridge (King Hussein Bridge) and Damia Bridge (Adam Bridge)." Why different names? If the ones in parenthesis are the modern names, should be mentioned.
• "On March 17, Dayan warned that the Arabs were preparing" The Arabs? Doesn't sound so neutral.
• "he termed the Arabs' "repeated acts of aggression."" Likewise. If "the Arabs" is included because it is what these Israelis said, it should be placed within the quote-marks.
• "between those bridges." The bridges. They are only named in an earlier paragraph, not in this one.

Addressed the issues. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why the battle section, unlike the rest of the article, is written in many, very short paragraphs? It is a bit distracting when reading.
• "(Israeli Colonel Gonen of the 7th Armored later claimed the action on the Abdullah bridge was merely a diversion.)[8]" Earlier you state it as a fact that it was a diversion?

I didn't write the battle section so I don't really know. Well his opinion says "merely a diversion". In reality, it was a diversion. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this line redundant then? FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• "on the right flank of Israeli forces invading from the south, tried to protect it" What does "it" refer to?
• "Jordanian soldiers surrounding Israeli abandoned or destroyed trucks and tanks which were paraded across Amman and were put on display at the Hashemite Plaza.[39]" Not sure about the formatting here, isn't there a way to makie it look more as part of the gallery, directly above, or directly below it?
• "captured during the corresponding Operation Asuta." That is a self-link.
• "nd 1 aircraft; 113 Squadron Dassault Ouragan," a 113 Squadron Dassault Ouragan?
• "Israeli command structure" Why is this table needed? Seems a bit one-sided and overdetailed.
• " Gideon Rafael later said" Who? You need to present each person first time they are named.
• There are various words that are linked in the article more than once.
• "are considered to have been important catalysts for the 1970 events of Black September in Jordan.[20][48]" Perhaps a very short elaboration on Black September?
• "Maybe I'm making the mistake of my life, but if I am, I should do it now. I have a right to my opinion, and those who don't agree with me are simply hiding from the truth." This part of the quote seems unnecessary.
• Also, I'm not sure why these long quotes can't just be summarised in the text?
• "The Battle of Karameh was the subject of many artworks, stamps and posters.[52]" To have a new section for this short sentence (instead of just including it in the former one) seems excessive, unless you can expand it.
• "during the War of Attrition." Should also be mentioned outside the intro. The intro should never have unique info, and is only a summary of the article body.
• "which culminated in an Israeli school bus hitting a mine in the Negev." Wasn't that the catalyst rather than culmination?
• "Files released by the IDF revealed" Only mentioned as such in intro.
• "Israel wanted to punish Jordan" Likewise.
• " When Jordan saw the size of the raiding forces entering the battle it was lead to the assumption that Israel had another goal of capturing Balqa Governorate to create a Golan Heights similar situation." Likewise.
• "Israel assumed that the Jordanian Army would ignore the invasion" Likewise.
• "This engagement marked the first known deployment of suicide bombers by Palestinian forces." Likewise. Should certainly be elaborated.
• "The battle resulted in the issuance of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 248, which condemned Israel for violating the cease-fire line.[22]" Likewise.
• "were a considerable surprise for the Israel Defense Forces and was stunning to the Israelis.[4]" Likewise.
• "Although the Palestinians were not victorious on their own, King Hussein let the Palestinians take credit.[4][23][24]" Likewise.
• You use a lot of sources in the intro, this is not needed, since all this info is supposed to be sourced in the article body. There should not be sources in the intro not used in the body.
• " King Hussein after the battle proclaimed, "I think we may reach a position where we are all fedayeen." No reason to have the same quote twice in the article.
• "However, afterwards the PLO's strength began to grow, and Palestinians spoke openly of taking over Jordan." Not mentioned outside intro.

Adressed issues. --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Changes look good, but this wording "managed to kick out the" seems way too informal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "and that repetitions of these violations will force the Security Council to take further steps." Why present tense?
• "condemned Israeli raid on Jordanian territory and violation of the cease-fire line" You need to add "the" two places here.

Done --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice, all looks good to me now, so I will pass the article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Notes

Actually M&T, I was just copy-editing. The English at numerous points in the article is not idiomatic, and occasionally ungrammatical.

• this edit restores the text to an ungrammatical form. It is no longer English.

I can no longer edit the page for 24 hours, and finish my top to bottom ce. So I can't fix it.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I felt that your edits made the text a lot more complicated to read. Also I noticed some changes in content. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your edits and I anticipate more. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain in concrete detail. The text I started to ce ran.

After the Six-Day War in 1967, the PLO and Fatah started to step up their guerrilla attacks against Israel from Jordanian soil, using the border town of Karameh as their headquarters. The battle started with an Israeli invasion that was intended to destroy Palestinian groups' camps at Karameh and capture Yasser Arafat in reprisal for the attacks by the PLO.(Cath Senker (2004). The Arab-Israeli Conflict. Black Rabbit Books. p. 45-47.) However, plans for the two operations were prepared in 1967, one year before the attacks began.("Debacle in the desert")It is also believed that Israel wanted to punish Jordan for its support to the PLO.

This given text thus has the following elements:

• After 1967, the PLO stepped up guerilla attacks (ps. This is inaccurate since the Palestinian resistance was and is highly fragmented, and several factions outside the PLO/Fatah also staged attacks from Jordan)
• The Israelis invaded to destroy the Karameh base. It was a reprisal for the PLO (stepped up) attacks
• The plan for this attack predated the (stepped up) attacks.
• It was believed that Israel also intended by the attack to punish Jordan.

So the sources are saying that primarily Israel’s attack was a reprisal for new (stepped up) PLO attacks, but that a secondary purpose was also believed to lie behind the attack, i.e. to punish Jordan.

So I wrote

Though the Israeli invasion, whose purpose was to destroy the Palestinian militant camps at Karameh and capture Yasser Arafat, was primarily motivated as a reprisal for these new attacks, the two operations had been prepared a year earlier.("Debacle in the desert" )

You can challenge this more compressed version, of course,-one could take out ‘primarily - but what I said is what the received text was saying.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would they stage attacks from Jordan pre 1967? Stepped up=stepped up attacks from Jordan only.. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I fail completely to understand your objection. Don't you recall the May 1965 Israeli 'reprisal' attacks on Jordan's Fedayeen?Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And, please do try to fix the sentence:'Although the Israeli invasion,' is a hanging clause without a verb or relationship to anything that follows.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am unaware of any attack of that sort in 1965.. There was a massacre in 1953 and an incursion in 1966, in any case both of which occurred in West Bank, obviously not Jordan. Did the incident you mention happen in Jordan or West Bank? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I had Moshe Gat in mind when I crafted my revision of the lead you now object to.

Moshe Gat, Britain and the Conflict in the Middle East, 1964-1967: The Coming of the Six-Day War, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003 p.124:'At the end of May 1965, Israeli sources attacked several targets in Jordan, in retaliation to (sic) guerilla attacks perpetrated from Jordanian territory.

On googling for more precision on statistics I note now

Jillian Becker, The PLO: The Rise and Fall of the Palestinian Liberation Organization , St Martin’s Press 1984 rates 28 of the 35 raids on Israel in 1965 as hailing from Jordan. Becker is generally a one-eyed purveyor of official Israeli sources and POV, and the link is to the 2nd ed. self-published of 2014 (the 1984 ed was reliably published), but generally that kind of statistic has some Israeli source behind it.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't edit quickly and efficiently with this amount of wasted talk page commentary for each little thing, so despite saying I'd try and help out with a ce , I'll drop it. I'm ignoring other requests for assistance. But if you examine the several sources I noted above, they all have new material, which you surely can add? Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right, go ahead and continue ce. I will add the info you mentioned to the beginning of the prelude section. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw you still haven't reverted anything so 1RR doesn't apply. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Karameh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151116153805/http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/248(1968) to http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/248(1968)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Karameh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921173127/http://www.gal-ed.co.il/zanchanim-palsar/show_item.asp?itemId=55&levelId=59462&itemType=0 to http://www.gal-ed.co.il/zanchanim-palsar/show_item.asp?itemId=55&levelId=59462&itemType=0

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Israeli soldiers

All pictures currently in article are about Jordanian soldiers or maps, so I added a famous picture of the event depicting Israeli soldiers, which was deleted a few years ago from Wikimedia Commons. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I made a mistake. Apparently, Israeli copyright would've run out in 1.1.2019. Probably it will be deleted from commons anyway. I would appreciate very much if someone could uploade it with a proper licence later on.--יניב הורון (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure but I don’t think Israeli copyrights run on a picture taken in Jordan.. Upload it with a Jordanian license and add it in the Battle section. I also remember seeing a picture of an Israeli helicopter unloading troops into Karameh but I don’t know where that is now. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a rule in Jordan that a picture taken more than 50 years ago becomes public domain? If you want to improve the quality of this article, I recommend you to add at least one picture of Israeli soldiers during the Karameh battle. I don't know how to put the appropriate licence in commons.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: Fixed license and added image. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks--יניב הורון (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

False claim

Article reads

Files released by the IDF in 2011 contradict the official Israeli narrative, which claimed that the operation was carried out in retaliation for the bus incident.

That's a false conclusion. Just because operations are planned ahead in no way contradicts nor precludes that later incidents may serve as their trigger. It *was* carried out in retaliation of the bus incident, if that hadn't occurred it would simply have been triggered by another. -- 217.225.245.163 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

This is either a very silly mistake or open vandalism. Why making up facts? The text and sources clearly say those tanks were damaged, not destroyed (both Jordanian and Israeli). Someone please revert.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - I checked the source, and the wording “hit” was indeed used. That sounds strange in the infobox, so I changed it to “damaged” instead. But I think it’s important to recognize that the edit you linked to was made in good faith. The other editor thought the word “hit” was awkward, just as I did, but made a factually inappropriate substitution. They were trying to improve the encyclopedia, just as you are. Simply because someone is wrong does not mean they have committed an act of vandalism. On the contrary, most incorrect edits are made in good faith. You should avoid making the accusation of vandalism unless it’s clear that the editor intended to disrupt the page. Calling it a “silly mistake” that constitutes “making up facts” is also inappropriate and unnecessary; such language may be perceived by other editors as hostile and will slow improvement of the encyclopedia, including the implementation of changes that you desire. In the future, try to assume good faith; you’re lucky that an argument wasn’t started over this. One could easily happen if you word your suggestions this way again. Remember that most contributors are trying their best. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Karame battle.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

Jordan and Palestine won the battle not Israel. Misinformation leads to wrong history SamerTall (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Name

It's supposed to be Battle of al-Karameh as it was named after the village of Karameh in Arabic it would be Battle of the Karameh 46.185.209.214 (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)