Talk:Israeli naval campaign in Operation Yoav
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ynhockey in topic Operations on October 15–18
 | A fact from Israeli naval campaign in Operation Yoav appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
.jpg)
To be added later
editSome notes:
- The Italian motorboats cost about $3000 each (Tal, Eliezer, p. 237) and were brought/purchased(?) by Ze'ev Heim (Goodman and Mann, pp. 43–45) – to be added when the article is expanded
Operations on October 15–18
editThese paragraphs are poorly written, it is so unclear on the facts that I am unable to fix it. Did the mysterious Egptian ship (fail to) appear on 16 October as stated in one section or on the 17th as maintained by another sentence? It cannot be both. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really understand the problem. The article explains it clearly; the Israelis were looking to destroy Egyptian ships, but did not know their precise location. When a possible location was found, the nearest ships were alerted of this. Both on October 16 and 17, Israeli ships that were alerted in such a fashion came to the said location, but did not find the Egyptian ship they were looking for. I was under the impression that this was clear from the article. The paragraphs do not talk about a particular ship, but any Egyptian ship. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying there were two different ghost ships? OK, that makes sense. Perhaps we could be a bit clearer on that point? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- There weren't any ships. The reports might have been erroneous. Again, I don't understand the problem. Let me lay this out more clearly:
- Israeli ships patrol the coast > Israeli naval HQ tells them to go to coordinates X to engage an Egyptian ship > no Egyptian ship is found.
- This happened at least twice during the period described in the article. Does that make sense? —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, it makes perfect sense. Could you make it clearer in the article? Honestly, mentioning two separate incidents in such a small area (in time and in space) lends itself to confusion. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have clarified the issue per your request, and tried to stick to the source as much as possible. However, I am worried that a small tidbit could be WP:OR and not directly mentioned in the source. I will look into the issue when I have time to significantly expand the article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, it makes perfect sense. Could you make it clearer in the article? Honestly, mentioning two separate incidents in such a small area (in time and in space) lends itself to confusion. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying there were two different ghost ships? OK, that makes sense. Perhaps we could be a bit clearer on that point? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)