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:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
A fact from Operation Rhodes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 May 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that during Operation Rhodes of January 1970, Israeli paratroops held the Egyptian island of Shadwan for over a day before leaving with 62 prisoners of war?
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
lol, the article is also using references in Hebrew, absolutely disgusting bias, every Wiki article about Israel and Egypt always uses Israeli sources (Israeli historian Uri Milstein And Israeli author Shlomo Aloni are cited here) or pro-Israeli references (like US sources or American historians (mostly George W. Gawrych is cited here) but they never use an Egyptian source or a pro-Egyptian source (Soviet source for example) for the Egyptian claims, claiming the sources are biased! and if they do present such a source, they present another biased reference saying it counters these Egyptian or Soviet claims! or boldly accuse Egyptians of flat out lying like Gawrych is doing! Wasteland1 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to tell you, but Israeli and American sources are far more reliable than Egyptian ones (which are closer to propaganda than actual reports, specially back then). Mainstream Israeli sources are known to give accurate statistics when it comes to casualties, even when it's embarrassing for their own side. Every fallen Israeli soldier has a name and is mourned by the public. Egyptian sources often hide their own casualties and exaggerate the enemy's.--Watchlonly (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream Israeli sources are known to give accurate statistics when it comes to casualties" oh yeah and how did you come to that conclusion? Every country hides their casualties and exaggerates the enemy's, or claims their losses were due to an "accident" rather than hostile action (such as the US in Afghanistan and Iraq), and not every soldier has a name, some are never even found or known. But here you are claiming Israel is the god of truth! and everyone else is lying! just by looking at this article you can see the blatant bias and lies, 3 dead vs 70 dead, if they were fighting babies with pistols they would have suffered higher casualties lmao, this is so disgusting.Wasteland1 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
