text:
Talk:War of Attrition

Untitled
Why does this article say the '1970' war of attrition? It was a three-year period that *ended* in 1970. How does one change the name of an article?

There is no referacne here to what a 'war of attrition' means, rather the specific war known as the 'war of attrtion'

"No serious diplomatic efforts"
As of 28/08/18 the article reads: "Following the 1967 Six-Day War, no serious diplomatic efforts tried to resolve the issues at the heart of the Arab–Israeli conflict.". This is entirely false. Israel offered the Sinai peninsula and the Golan heights to Egypt and Syria respectively in exchange for peace, an offer supported by the US and the USSR which Nasser refused. It was essentially the same proposition that Sadat would later accept. See the last few minutes of the following documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKuxPyrpx0 (the strange title of the youtube video is no indicator of the quality of the documentary, which contains testimonies from the likes of foreign secretary McNamara, Abba Eban, and several Egyptian generals). I hope this error is swiftly corrected, as I feel this fact is essential to the understanding of the situation in the middle East from 1967 to 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.158.137 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A few sound-bites stitched together. Nothing at all that is citable here. Zerotalk 10:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Who won the war?
Egypt tried to re-capture Sinai, but failed. Instead, they fought a long-lasting and expensive war near the Suez Canal. The egyptian casualties were much higher than the israeli, although they recieved help from the Soviet Union, amd Jordan and PLO attacket Israel at the same time. At last, Egypt gave up, and they returned to Status quo. So who won? Israel. The succeeded in protecting Sinai from the egyptian invasion, and Egypt failed in causing the israelis high casualties. Although the egyptians also claimed victory, Israel was the real victor. Anyone who disagree? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks more like draw to me. 88.100.47.221 (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The only way Israel could have lost this war, would be by loosing post-1967-territory to Egypt. Israel did not only halt the Egyptians from re-capturing Sinai, but also inflicted them huge casualties. I highly favour this being an Israeli victory.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Seems you want every war Israel's been in to be an Israeli victory. No one cares what you "highly favour", find a reliable source that states it to be an Israeli victory and then you may have some basis for this claim. What you're doing is original research. ElUmmah (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just can't see any way Egypt might have "won" this war. They attempted to recapture Sinai, and failed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

They weren't trying to recapture Sinai, read up on their stated objectives. And like I said, stop with the original research. Wiki is about finding reliable sources. ElUmmah (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It is already stated in the article; "Egypt was determined to regain Sinai, and also sought to mitigate the severity of its defeat.". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, regain doesn't necessarily mean recapture. Second, I'm telling you for the third time, get a RELIABLE source that EXPLICITLY states that the war was an israeli victory, and then raise the issue again. I'm done here. ElUmmah (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

July 30th, 1970 ambush
There were not 24 MiGs. Maybe there were 24 in air at one time, but if this is so, then 12 of them did not reach the battle in time, so they did not take part. There is much confusion about the number of planes involved (24:12?, 12:20?, 8:16?, 8:12?), but it would not be much of an ambush if the Israelis were outnumbered 2:1.
 * There are many sources that say there were 24 MiGs. There are other sources that put the ratio at 20:12, but I have yet to see one claiming there were more Israeli planes than MiGs. In any case, it is bad form for you to just replace the original figures in the article with others, without citing a source. It may very well be that some of them arrived later than the others.

Looking at sources from one side are not you? You have to look at both sides to get a more clear picture. Even the account of an Israeli pilot contradicts the 24:12 statement: "Now some more of our aircraft had joined the battle; the Russians no longer had numerical superiority." from here http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_263.shtml And of course, if you want the account of Israeli pilots, thoe official IAF history books have the ratio at 24:12
 * You presume too much. I've looked at numerous sources, mostly neutral, and have yet to see your claim of an 8:12 ratio. Indeed, the very article you cite above is one of my sources,and is a neutral one, and gives a 16:12 ratio, as follows "Four high-flying Mirages were nearby, with four additional Phantoms at low level, all waiting for the Soviets to appear. Further to the rear four additional Mirages were positioned as well. When there was no reaction from the Soviets, the front section of Mirages penetrated deeper into Egypt: almost 12 minutes after the initial attack, the Soviets finally reacted. The first to be scrambled were eight MiG-21s of the 135th IAP, led by Capt. Kamencev. They expected to clash with a group of Skyhawks or Phantoms that were apparently underway towards Cairo: in fact, the Mirages were only dragging them in front of Phantoms. As the pursuit continued, four additional MiGs were scrambled from Kom Awshim, and now the rear quartet of Mirages joined the fray as well: in response, the Soviets scrambled four additional MiGs from Kutamiyah." Other sources have it at 20:12: "four Mirage IICs were sent to attack a radar base in the Nile Delta to draw the Russian pilots into the battle. At the same time, another four Mirages and four F-4s were lying in ambush at a very low altitude. The Russians sent two formations of four MiG-21s to shoot down the Mirages. A short time later, another dozen MiGs took off. " http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/jul_98/jul2a_98.html

- Again, the IDF official account is only one side. What are your other neutral sources? By neutral, I don't mean a non-Israeli website or book, but something that does not only use Israeli sources and/or is not biased to one side. You have to have a truely neutral source or atleast look at sources from both sides and compare. I posted the website to provide a source for the pilot's quote. Acig has some anti-Soviet bias, so I don't consider it a neutral source. Anyway, on there and on the site you posted, it does not say that the additional MiGs reached the battle in time. Russian sources state that the Israelis had numerical superiority (8:12 or 12:20) in the actual battle. Maybe I will translate them later if needed. I think it is not wise to say that the Israelis were fighting outnumbered 2:1. Why does the Israeli pilot contradict the 24:12 assumption?

--
 * The IDF account is only one side, but I've given you 2 other sources, the ACIG site, and the CodeOne site. To me, they are both neutral, as they are neither Israeli nor Soviet. But if you're going to discount every such source by alleging it has an anti-Soviet bias, there's not much point in bringing up sources, is there? [I have yet to see a single one of your sources, BTW]. I don't know why you think it's not wise to say that the Israelis were fighting outnumbered 2:1. Sela's testimony does not contradict the 24:12 ratio, it merely states that at one point in time, the Israelis achieved numerical parity. This tells us the Israelies were outnumberd before that point in time, but does not rule out that they were again outnumbered later, when the additional 4-8 MiGs arrived on the scene Isarig

-- He describes the crucial part of the battle and we know that atleast half the battle (2 MiGs already down, Israelis in positions to shoot others) was not fought with Israelis outnumbered. The CodeOne site does not list any sources, so you can't say it is neutral (again it is not only about who wrote it, but what sources were used). And from the way it is worded, it seems to only use Israeli sources (well it is about the IAF). As for the article on acig, it mentions a Russian source, but again from the tone of the article and from my knowledge about the author, Cooper, I can say that it primarily uses Israeli sources and is biased towards the pro-Western Israel. Cooper, looking at his books, articles, and forum activity, has a generally anti-Soviet point of view (in a post he made on the acig forums, he hints that Russian sources are unreliable). I could direct you to the Russian sources, but they are in Russian.

Obviously untrue information
"On June 27 around eight Egyptian Su-7s and MiG-21s attacked Israeli rear areas in the Sinai, shooting down a Mirage and capturing its pilot." How exactly PLANES managed to CAPTURE a downed pilot over pilot's own territory?!? 88.100.47.221 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

William Rogers
The list of people at the bottom of the page contains a link to William Rogers. That link is to a disambiguation page, and it's not clear which William Rogers on that page is the relevant one. Would someone who knows this please (1) update the link to be to a page about the right William Rogers, and (2) add some text after the link indicating this person's role in the conflict (for example, "U.S. ambassador to Israel", or whatever he did)?

War of Attrition:Timeline
Under the "Timeline" heading there is a reference to Superpowers that I found misleading. I'd previously deleted this reference, but a dissenting contributor felt I was mistaken in my belief that it referred to Israel and Egypt, two nations that I don't believe were ever considered 'superpowers', in that it represented the US and Soviet Union. I'd accept that but for the fact that there is no preceding mention of the US or Soviet Union in the "Timeline" segment. I ask that someone more knowledgeable than myself review the article, and determine if my understanding of its context is correct. In any case, to the casual reader, it is confusing, and either a referring statement needs to be added before "Superpowers" or the word should be removed as inaccurate. I've chosen not to edit this again myself for hopefully obvious reasons. Thanks.--Dphoenix1701 14:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)dphoenix1701

 * The basic dates given in the introduction don't correspond with a much more specific timeline that appears later in the article. It seems like the introduction prioritizes a specific interpretation in the controversy over who was the aggressor, who was justified, and so on. If the detailed timeline given is correct and fair (I can't personally speak to either), then the introductory section of the article should match. Better, it should probably clarify immediately that the specific dates identified with the war are controversial (and thus also which events are relevant or not to the page). A secondary but related point (made elsewhere on the talk page) is that the origin and usage of the label 'War of Attrition" is not prominent or clear in the article. There is a reference to a specific use of the term by Nasser, but since many wars in this region have also involved controversy over the "correct" name, it would help to clarify when this one became the standard usage and by whom. The relationship of this label to the earlier WWI-era usage should be clarified, since another Wikipedia page ("Attrition warfare") is similarly titled and could easily be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.76.17 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Who started the War?
At the very beginning of the article, it reads "(the war) was initiated by Israel as a way to prevent recapture the Sinai from Israel". At the Beginning of the timeline it reads "The war began in June 1968 with sparse Egyptian artillery bombardment of the Israeli front line on the east bank of the canal.".

So who started the war?
 * Egypt. They wanted Sinai back. Thier tactic was simple: Egypt has more manpower than Israel so they'll use some of their man power to weaken the Israeli forces guarding the border by shoting them day after day. Then Egypt will use it extra power to take Sinai back while Syria will try to take the Golan Hieghts back. In Yom Kipur War they failed doing so for some reason, never understood what it is.--Tharbad 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I had the same question. If Egypt did indeed initiate the conflict, shouldn't the intro be changed to reflect this? I'm far from an expert, I'd appreciate clarification from someone with better subject knowledge. --NoahElhardt (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Use as generic phrase
Should there not be an entry for the phrase "war of attrition" rather than just for this particular conflict?
 * Yes, I think there should be. When you think of a war of attrition, you should think of World War I. Unfortunately, as it stands people have to enter a disambiguation page via a hyperlink at the top of the page and then click another hyperlink, Attrition warfare.--189.62.170.155 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New Information
In 2003 IDF has changed one attribute of the war: the time. According to that info this war started on 7.1967 and lasted until 8.1970. The part of the which is mentioned in this article is the third one; the lasted from 7.1967 till autumn 1968, the second, which was a cease-fire, from fall 1968 till spring 1969 and the third as mentiond in the article.

External link (Hebrew).

--Tharbad 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vanadlized!!!!!
Please fix this page, and lock it, it looks like the same guy did this all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82abhilash (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Casualty Report
The article states there were a little over 350 dead Israeli soldiers. Israeli Governmental Figures, The Jewish Virtual Library, and all other sources I've seen say there were 1,424 dead Israeli soldiers during the war. I would also like the article to note the 100 dead Israeli civilians.

The The Jewish Virtual Library also shows ~2,000 wounded soldiers and ~700 wounded civilians on the Israeli side. Perhaps "more that 3,000 wounded" should be replaced with the more detailed "2,000 wounded soldiers. 700 wounded civilians." Besides the fact that this would provide a more detailed breakdown, it also has a source, which the original article does not.

I would make the edit myself, but I'm a new user. Aside from the technical challenges, I'm not sure what I'm at liberty to edit without first consulting the discussion board.

Also I can't see where it says anything about the 10,000 dead on the Egyptian side. I looked in the reference and it doesn't give a specific figure.

I m dude2002 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The 10000 figure came from reference 3, though that was not the one sourced and hence I changed the numbers to match the source that was referenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.104.191 (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

as the israelis bombed "strategic" non-military targets such as factories, infrastructure and the like, the civilian casulties on the egyptian side were very heavy. Lom Nordeen (international airpower vol 8, p103) cites a figure of 30,000 ! no reference or break-down of figure are given, however.

sinzov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinzov (talk • contribs) 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)  Sinzov (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

some strategic considerations
i think some of the more complex consideration should be included in the main text.

 * all of this would be an original research (bordering on propaganda) and thus unsuitable for the wikipedia 88.100.47.221 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

- after the victory of 1967 israel was fighting a multi-front war, since military actions were continued from egypt, syria and the palestinians. instead of exploring chances for peace, the leaders of israel opted for agressive military actions. strategically, these israeli actions were not defensive, but offensive in trying to establish and secure the israeli occupation of foreign land (some 30 years later a discussion started: did israel - and the arabs - loose the peace in the late 60ies ?).

- the israeli effort would have faltered soon, if not for the massive military and economical support by the USA. there is no way the israeli economy could have fed the war without the US support and money.

- the egyptian build-up of a dense air-defence organisation including thousands of soviet troops changed the whole military situation. in spite of severe setbacks this umbrella denied air-supremacy to the israelis and reestablished egyptian control over her country and troops.

- the following israeli abondonment of deep strikes was surely not a question of ethical considerations after the killing of dozens of school children but of military facts. bombing non-military targets such as factories (Helwan) or infrastructure has always had an element of terror bombing with the agressor willing to accept heavy civilian casulties.

- evidently the israeli air force had simply lost it's war against the air defence. any continuation would have meant a further escalation with the potential of a direct confrontation of the superpowers. that is why the superpowers forced their "ally" to step down and agree to a cease fire.

so the outcome was twofold: egypt had not regained control over sinai - whether this really was an objective for the "war of attrition" could be disputed -, but it had reestablished it's control west of the suez canal, reestablished the morale of it's population and military, and some of it's reputation at least partyl. egypt did learn it's lessons, israel obviously only to a much lesser extent.

p.s.: facts and figures given in the main article are far from neutral. sources are mostly israeli or of a very dubious value (especially Cooper's many articles are next to worthless). scores of israeli aircrafts were shot down by sam-missiles, and many more by fighters, including those shot down by soviet pilots. suffering heavy losses, they effectively forced the israeli air force to restrict their actions to the canal.

Sinzov (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

generic phrase
was the war named after the generic phrase or vice versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdewey (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Merriam-Webster, the word 'attrition' dates to the "14th century". The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology of 'attrition' as "ad. L. attrtin-em, n. of action f. attrt-: see ATTRITE and -ION1. The theological sense 4 was earliest in Eng." Sense 4 is "An imperfect sorrow for sin, as if a bruising which does not amount to utter crushing (contrition); ‘horror of sin through fear of punishment, without any loving sense, or taste of God's mercy’ (Hooker), while contrition has its motive in the love of God. (A sense invented by scholastic theologians in 12th c.; the earliest in Eng.)" The earliest quotation mentioned in the entry is "c1374 CHAUCER Troylus I. 557 Thou..wailist for thi synne and thyn offence, And hast for ferde caught attrition." Here are all quotations for the relevant definition 2. b. ("Mil. The wearing down of the enemy's strength and morale by unremitting harassment, esp. in phr. war of attrition."): "1914 Sphere 21 Nov. 181/1 This is a war of attrition, in which each side tries to wear down the other. 1915 KITCHENER Memorandum in Lloyd George War Mem. D. Lloyd George (1933) I. xii. 435 The end of the War must come through one of the two following causes: (1) by a decisive victory..or (2) by attrition. 1918 E. S. FARROW Dict. Mil. Terms 45 Attrition, in a military sense, the act of wearing away the enemy's strength, increasing his mortality list, and lowering his morale. 1919 HAIG Desp. 21 Mar. (1919) 326 The rapid collapse of Germany's military powers..would not have taken place but for that period of ceaseless attrition. 1927 W. S. CHURCHILL World Crisis 1916-18 I. ii. 45 The only method of waging war on the Western Front was by wearing down the enemy by ‘killing Germans in a war of attrition’. 1958 Listener 13 Nov. 791/3 Nor did Montgomery, unfairly scornful though he is of generalship in the first world war, disdain tactics of attrition at times." The military definition of "attrition", as well as the term "war of attrition", are strongly associated with W. W. I, and I personally have never heard of this term in relation to the Arab-Israeli Conflict in anything but the most informal sense. All the Oxford English Dictionary quotations are from '' and do not include bolds, italics or underlines.--189.62.170.155 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualty Report
Israel had a total of 721 dead - 127 civilians and 594 soldiers. (sources - hebrew wiki, taken from idf stats itself) you should change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.113.178 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents
To what fact does including Jordan and PLO stand? The war was between Egypt, and Israel, any other actions were not by planning by Egypt, and cannot be considered part of the war. the PLO Olympic attacks for example cannot be included for sure. Also the Soviet participation was in form of air defense i.e.e engaging IAF planes attacking Egypt, not participating in Egyptian raids. The first and last engagement between the soviets and the Israelis was an Israeli victory were three out of four soviet-piloted aircrafts were shot down, according to Gen. El-Shazly. So also the soviets did not have great impact of the war. --( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1973 War material removed
The "Egyptian Front" section contained material unrelated to the subject of this article, with lots of details about events that really don't belong here. This article still has a lot of room for expansion, it's a shame so much of it was taken up by content that belongs elsewhere. Poliocretes (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ACIG
I noticed that many sources in this article are attributed to ACIG. ACIG is a blog and open to editing from anyone with a user ID and password. It does not comply with WP:RS and edits which are sourced to ACIG should be removed. In the alternative, new sources for these edits should be found.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect, Sabena Flight 571
The link "Sabena Flight 571 (Operation Isotope)", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabena_Flight_571 (in the template generated content at the end), is a redirect (to Sabena Flight 571 hijacking). --Mortense (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

July 1, 1967 battle, Ras-el Esh
Concerning this battle, four sources are provided but I've found serious source distortions, omissions and errors. First, Herzog notes on page 196 that the Egyptian force was driven off but this is not reflected in the edit. Second, neither Dunstan nor Shazly reference the number of Egyptian commandos deployed during the battle nor do they note that 10 Israeli tanks were utilized (@ noted page references). The term "repeated attacks" is not employed by either source. Moreover, Shazly refers to a battle in August so it's not even clear that he's referring to the July 1, battle. If he is, he's off by at least a month, calling into question the reliability of his entire statement.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It says PLO 900-1000 but then look at PLO killed and wounded over 3x's ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-loki (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Participants
This particular war took place along the Suez canal. Unless Syrian/Iraqi/Jordanian/Cuban/Palestinian involvement on this particular front can be sourced, they should be removed from the infobox regardless of border clashes occuring simultaneously. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

PLO Killed/Captured
The article cites 900–1000 PLO members participating in the War of Attrition but 1828 killed and 2500 captured. Obviously these numbers don't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.85.195 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Benny Morris
Benny Morris is a biased Israeli, this break Wikipedia's neutral sources requirement! you consider soviet estimates "biased" while you rely on Israeli historians for Israeli casualties?!? Benny Morris claims 10,000 Egyptians dead, but the Egyptian chief of staff says 2,800, Morris exaggerates Egyptian losses and minimizes Israeli losses everytime, he's a biased ISRAELI JEWISH HISTORIAN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.41.82.133 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on War of Attrition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930230243/http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm to http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060629235830/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on War of Attrition. 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/20070930230243/http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm to http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629235830/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Should Jordan, Syria, and the PLO be included?
I am under the impression that the War of Attrition was declared by Egypt, and that clashes with the PLO and Jordan and Syria were an entirely separate matter from the war.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 11:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War of Attrition. 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/20120324150613/http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt to http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324150613/http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt to http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324150613/http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt to http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

War started in 1967?
Zeev Maoz talks about the War of Attrition of 1969-70 (2006, p. 36). This article says July 1, 1967 – August 7, 1970. What is correct? Uglemat (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Add to the beginning of this article most people don't know what war is
Attrition warfare is the term used to describe the sustained process of wearing down an opponent so as to force their physical collapse through continuous losses in personnel, equipment and supplies or to wear them down to such an extent that their will to fight collapses. Infinitepeace (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/attrition_warfare#:~:text=Attrition%20warfare%20is%20the%20term,their%20will%20to%20fight%20collapses.

Who will address this????????,, Infinitepeace (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda
This is a lame propaganda page, reading throughout it reveals that almost not a single neutral and/or egyptian source was used, only israeli statements and sources were used as facts. 41.46.206.173 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Well you know what they say
 * "history is written by the victors"
 * - Winston Churchill 2.54.182.117 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

10000 !!!!!
10000 Egyptians were killed in that war? Of course, 10000 is mentally and logically incorrect Army Chief of Staff Saad El-Shazly will not align himself with the Egyptian army He said the exact number of Egyptian soldiers is 2882 meaning in name As for the idiot Benny Morris says 10000 how is that a very large number? He is an Israeli Jew who takes sides with his people every time. It never happened that the Egyptian army lost 10,000 men in any war until the defeat of 1967 we lost 9,800 men, according to Al-Gamsy sources and the October war the Egyptian army lost 6000-9000 How can we lose 10,000 soldiers? You have to wipe this cloak from Morris and not take it as a source for anything Hamed2139 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Terrible bias towards Israel
The article lists completely unrealistically about the details of the war, that it is a false propaganda page, not facts

The Moon Over Suez: Between the Novel and the Reality of the War of Attrition Yossi Ozard
The writer, Yossi Ozard, creates an excellent story about a photographer named Amnon who makes memorial films for families. Amnon is asked to make a memorial film about the father of the family, who was killed during the War of Attrition as a "tiger" in its expiring decades. "Tigers" is a nickname for the reserve commanders who volunteered to serve in the canal outposts for several months. They formed the backbone of the leadership in this war. Amnon, who was a former spokesperson for the Israeli army and was sent to the channel as an activist in Gopnik to document the fighting in the strongholds along the same canal line, is exposed to daily bombardment in appalling conditions in which fighters, separated from the state, spend most of their time. From their time in the shelters under .. at the hands of the Egyptians and they suffer many losses every week. Excursions from the outposts were mostly fatal, and there was no patrol that was not hit or killed by the bombing, sniping, and ambushes that the Egyptians deployed along the canal. Ever ground (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please use this book, as well as the Egyptian General Intelligence’s book on the War of Attrition for Easter from Le Pen, as well as the book The War of Attrition by Field Marshal Mohamed Fawzi, The War of Attrition. Ever ground (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Israeli historians are completely fair and completely impartial to Egypt much more than you are Ever ground (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I also recommend the memoirs of General Ahmed Ismail, her name is Mushir al-Nasr, everyone is available in English Ever ground (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2022
Please add Kuwait's 17 fatalities from April-June 1970 on the Egyptian front according to to the "Casualties and loses" section of this article. Wikiuser552 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: www.kuwait-history.net appears to be an internet forum which qualifies as user-generated content and is probably not a reliable source for this claim. If the same claim can be verified by independent reliable sources, please post those here and re-open the request. --N8wilson 🔔 02:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Weapons And Equipment
What Is With The Equipment & The Weapons Of The War ?.Can Someone Add That To That ? 188.136.9.8 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Cuban participation - Huge mistake
The article says that Cuba took part in the Egyptian-Israeli War of Attrition, this is wrong. This article cites as a source Efraim Karsh's "The Cautious Bear". However, that book is clear when, in its chapter 4, states the following: "The Syrian-Israeli War of Attrition (1974) was the first case in which Cuban ground troops took an active part in a local war.". I am unable to edit the article, but please correct it. 95.247.230.107 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom of libya was involved https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/حرب_1967
Add kingdom of libya Samira819 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That article appears to be about a different conflict, the Six-Day War, which already mentions the involvement of Libya. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @OuroborosCobra oh I didn't know talk page could be old but uhm so I saw this and I had to see but there is no Kingdom of Libya in the six day war ? Jamalie7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @OuroborosCobra oh and I found a book on Amazon saying the got involved so do I add them or nah Jamalie7 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @OuroborosCobra oh and I found a book on Amazon saying the got involved so do I add them or nah Jamalie7 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to see the source to know that it's a reliable source and is talking about this war, and not a different one. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Date format
What is the reason this articles uses MM/DD/YY format, which is US specific, rather than the internationally used DD/MM/YY format? Wikipedia's article on date format,, shows that DD/MM/YY is the appropriate one for Egypt and other the other mentioned countries. Perhaps someone with editing access could make the necessary change to DD/MM/YY. Danke. 93.204.178.203 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Its a WP:LANGVAR issue, whatever was first used is generally kept absent a very good reason to change it. I dont think MOS:TIES really comes in to play here, but dont really care either way.  nableezy  - 17:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023
I would like to edit the result because:The War of Attrition was fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt from 1967 to 1970

. The war was centered largely on the Suez Canal, and it involved fighting between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), and their allies

. The war was characterized by large-scale shelling along the Suez Canal, extensive aerial warfare, and commando raids

. The Arabs managed to win the war of attrition by wearing down Israel and providing Egypt with the opportunity to dislodge Israeli forces from the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had seized from Egypt in the Six-Day War of 1967

. The war was inconclusive, and no territory was exchanged, and there was no obvious victor

. However, Egypt gained a diplomatic victory in persuading the Soviet Union to provide military assistance and in moving SAM missile batteries, which Egypt used in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, close to the Suez Canal

. The long-term effect of the war of attrition has been to make Israel more suspicious of international peace proposals and Egypt more precise in its strategic military planning So I would like to add that it was indeed an egyptian victory 2603:6010:1C00:325:2A25:2FBD:51C:491 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing Cuba from Belligerents section
Hello TechnoSquirrel69, There's a mixing up. The Cuban expeditonary force took part in the war of Attrtion in Syrian enclave in 1974 not the war of Attrtion 1967-1970. The only source provided in this article (Karsh, Efraim: The Cautious Bear: Soviet Military Engagement in Middle East Wars in the Post-1967 Era) cited that and I qout "Cuban armed forces played an active role in the Syrian-Israeli war of Attrtion (1974). Other sources like (Ra’anan, G. D. (1981). The Evolution of the Soviet Use of Surrogates in Military Relations with the Third World, with Particular Emphasis on Cuban Participation in Africa. Santa Monica) stated that "Fighting on the Golan Heights front continued until May 1974, by which time an Israeli counterattack had largely defeated the Cuban-Syrian tank forces. The Cubans reportedly suffered casualties of approximately 180 killed and 250 wounded". See Foreign interventions by Cuba.--Amr F.Nagy (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Amr F.Nagy, other than declining the edit request above this section, I have never touched this article and have very little background on its topic area. If you believe a change needs to be made, please compile the reliable sources that support your point (with page numbers, if necessary) and submit a edit request of your own. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any other questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I already provided two reliable sources, one of them is the only source that the article uses as a proof of Cuban involvment in war of Attrtion (1967-1970), while the source itself cited that in p. 1961 that it's the war of Attrtion in Syrian enclave in 1974 (part of Yom Kippur war). It's not about of view, it's about an obvious mistake of mixing up two conflicts. Amr F.Nagy (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:War of Attrition


text:
Booths

E.H.Booth & Co.,Limited, trading as Booths, is a chain of high-end supermarkets in Northern England. Most of its branches are in Lancashire, but there are also branches in Cheshire, Cumbria, North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. It has been described as the "Waitrose of the North" by sources such as The Daily Telegraph.

History
E. H. Booth & Co. Ltd was founded in June 1847 when 19-year-old tea dealer Edwin Henry Booth opened a shop called the China House in Blackpool. In 1863, he added the sale of wines and spirits, and branches were opened in Lytham in 1879 and Blackburn in 1884. The business was incorporated as a private limited company in 1896.

Edwin's son, John, opened cafes in the stores in 1902 and invited all staff to become shareholders in 1920. It has remained owned by the Booth family and staff ever since, comprising over 250 shareholders in 2011 and with no individual having more than 12% of the total shares. The current chairman, Edwin J. Booth, is the fifth generation.

In a feature article in The Guardian in 2008, David Webster, the former chairman and co-founder of Britain's Safeway chain (which had sold out to Morrisons in 2004), said that he had tried to buy out Booths several times over the years, as did several of his rivals: "One thought Booths would have disappeared ages ago but it jolly well hasn't. It is obviously doing an outstanding job for its customers".

In 2008, Booths was under pressure by Waitrose with rumours of a takeover, which was later ruled out. Booths and Waitrose then formed a buying group together.

Today
In June 2005, the current chairman, Edwin J Booth, was awarded the Business in the Community (BITC) Prince of Wales Ambassador Award for North West England. This is given to individuals whose leadership and commitment to responsible business practice and the actions they have taken personally have created a positive impact both inside their company and on the wider society. He was also finalist for the Ernst & Young Master Entrepreneur of the Year (North).

In 2006, Booths achieved second place in the list of the World's Greatest Food Retailers. The panel of top designers, architects, analysts, journalists, suppliers and retailers was brought together by national trade publication, The Grocer, and asked to rank their favourite food retailers from anywhere in the world. They were impressed by the quality of the company's offer, its focus on local sourcing and head for innovation. Simon Bell, retail director of foodservice firm Leathams, voted Booths' Chorley store first above Selfridges in London. He applauds its excellent customer service, knowledge of products and friendly staff.

A new head office was opened in early 2006 in Ribbleton, Preston and includes environmentally friendly features, such as using rainwater to flush the toilets. In 2011, Booths opened two new stores in MediaCityUK (Salford, Manchester) and Penrith, Cumbria. A new Booths store in Milnthorpe opened on 14 November 2012 and one in Barrowford opened on 4 December 2014. A branch opened in July 2015 in Burscough, followed by a store in St Annes in September and the Poulton-le-Fylde store was renovated.

Booths commissioned Small World Consulting to research its carbon footprint and the resulting report was published in 2012.

In 2015, Booths was named Independent Retail Chain of the Year at The Grocer Gold Awards. As of 11 October 2017, Amazon Fresh sells a range of Booths branded products for home delivery in selected areas.

In November 2017, it was reported that the supermarket had been put up for sale for between £130m and £150m, but this was later dismissed as "speculation" by the firm.

In the 2019 Birthday Honours, Booths' executive chairman Edwin J. Booth was appointed CBE "for services to business and to charity".

In 2021, it was confirmed that the MediaCityUK branch was to close within months due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. After 10 years, it closed for trade in February 2021, bringing the total number of Booths stores to 27.

The same year, the store introduced ice cream for dogs as part of its range of frozen desserts.

Store list
There are 27 stores:

Lancashire

 * 1) Barrowford
 * 2) Burscough
 * 3) Carnforth
 * 4) Chorley
 * 5) Clitheroe
 * 6) Fulwood, Preston
 * 7) Garstang
 * 8) Hesketh Bank
 * 9) Longridge
 * 10) Longton, Preston
 * 11) Lytham
 * 12) Penwortham
 * 13) Poulton-le-Fylde
 * 14) Scotforth, Lancaster
 * 15) St Annes (town centre shop closed but new, larger store opened)
 * 16) The Gallery Wine Bar at Lytham

Cumbria
• # Kendal

• # Keswick

• # Kirkby Lonsdale

• # Milnthorpe

• # Penrith

• # Ulverston

• # Windermere

Yorkshire

 * 1) Ilkley
 * 2) Ripon
 * 3) Settle

Cheshire

 * 1) Knutsford

Fair Milk
In May 2014, the store rebranded its own-label milk as Fair Milk, increasing its farm gate milk price to a yearly average of 34.4 pence per litre, and thus paying farmers more for their milk than any other UK supermarket. In 2015, Booths became a finalist in the Responsible Business Awards, organised by the charity Business in the Community (BITC), the UK's longest-running and most respected corporate responsibility awards. Booths was one of only four companies shortlisted in the Samworth Brothers Rural Action Award, which recognises businesses which support rural communities.

Cafe 1847
The Artisan speciality food shop and restaurant is a recent development by Booths. The first one was located at the Kendal store; its range is mainly local produce from small producers.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Booths


text: Template:NE England

title: Template:NE England


text:
Dicarbonyl

In organic chemistry, a dicarbonyl is a molecule containing two carbonyl (C\dO) groups. Although this term could refer to any organic compound containing two carbonyl groups, it is used more specifically to describe molecules in which both carbonyls are in close enough proximity that their reactivity is changed, such as 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dicarbonyls. Their properties often differ from those of monocarbonyls, and so they are usually considered functional groups of their own. These compounds can have symmetrical or unsymmetrical substituents on each carbonyl, and may also be functionally symmetrical (dialdehydes, diketones, diesters, etc.) or unsymmetrical (keto-esters, keto-acids, etc.).

1,2-Dialdehyde
The only 1,2-dialdehyde is glyoxal, (CHO)2. Like many alkyldialdehydes, glyoxal is encountered almost exclusively as its hydrate and oligomers thereof. These derivatives often behave equivalently to the aldehydes since hydration is reversible. Glyoxal condenses readily with amines. Via such reactions, it is a precursor to many heterocycles, e.g. imidazoles.

1,2-Diketones
The principal diketone is diacetyl, also known as 2,3-butanedione, CH3C(O)C(O)CH3. 1,2-Diketones are often generated by oxidation (dehydrogenation) of the diols:

2,3-Butanedione, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione are found in small amounts in various foods. They are used as aroma components in alcohol-free beverages and in baked goods. Benzil, (PhCO)2, is the corresponding diphenyl derivative.

A distinctive feature of 1,2-diketones is the long C-C bond linking the carbonyl groups. This bond distance is about 1.54 Å, compared to 1.45 Å for the corresponding bond in 1,3-butadiene. The effect is attributed to repulsion between the partial positive charges of the carbonyl carbon atoms.

1,2-Diketones condense with many bifunctional nucleophiles, such as urea and thiourea to give heterocycles. Condensation with aromatic amines gives diketimine ((RC\dNAr)2).

In the cases of 1,2-cyclohexanedione and 1,2-cyclopentanedione, the enol is about 1-3 kcal/mol more stable than the diketo form.

ortho-Quinone, C4H4(CO)2, is the parent of a large family of 1,2-diketones.

1,2-Ketoaldehydes
A well-known compound of this class is methylglyoxal, CH3C(O)CHO, also known as pyruvaldehyde. These compounds are also known as 2-oxoaldehydes or α-ketoaldehydes.

1,2-Diesters and diacids
Oxalic acid and its esters define this family of compounds. The diacid is produced industrially by oxidation of waste sugars. It occurs naturally (as the conjugate base), notably in members of the plant species Oxalis. Condensation of the diesters with diamines gives cyclic diamides.

α-Keto- and formylcarboxylic acids

α-Keto-acids and -esters are well known. Pyruvic acid (CH3C(O)CO2H) is the parent α-ketoacid. Its conjugate base, pyruvate (CH3C(O)CO2-), is a component of the citric acid cycle and product of glucose metabolism (glycolysis). The corresponding aldehyde-acid is glyoxalic acid (HC(O)CO2H).

1,3-Dialdehydes
The parent 1,3-dialdehyde is malondialdehyde (CH2(CHO)2), a β-dicarbonyl. Like most dialdehydes, it is rarely encountered as such. Instead it is handled almost exclusively as its hydrate, methyl acetal, and oligomers thereof. These derivatives often behave like the parent. Many 2-substituted derivatives are known. They are often prepared by alkylation of the enolate of malondialdehyde.

1,3-Diketones
1,3-Diketones are also called β-diketones. An important member is acetylacetone, CH3C(O)CH2C(O)CH3. Dimedone is a cyclic 1,3-diketone. 1,3-Indandione is the cyclic 1,3-diketone fused to a benzene ring. Acetylacetone is prepared industrially by the thermal rearrangement of isopropenylacetate. Another cyclic 1,3-diketone is 2,2,4,4-tetramethylcyclobutanedione, which is a precursor to a useful diol.

1,3-Diketones often tautomerize to an enol and ketol. They usually exist predominantly in the enol form. The percent enol in acetylacetone, trifluoroacetylacetone, and hexafluoroacetylacetone are 85, 97, and 100%, respectively (neat, 33 °C). Cyclic 1,3-diketones, such as 1,3-cyclohexanedione and dimedone, similarly exist significantly in the enol form.

 * [[Image:AcacH.svg|300px|Scheme 1. Tautomerism of 2,4-pentanedione]]

Like other diketones, 1,3-diketones are versatile precursors to heterocycles. The conjugate base derived from 1,3-ketones can serve as ligand s to form metal acetylacetonate coordination complexes. In the DeMayo reaction 1,3-diketones react with alkenes in a photochemical pericyclic reaction to form (substituted) 1,5-diketones.

Classically, 1,3-diketones are prepared by the Claisen condensation of a ketone with an ester.

1,3-Diesters and diacids
Malonic acid and its esters are the parent members of this class of dicarbonyls. Also common are the 2-substituted derivatives with the formula RCH(CO2R)2, which arise by C-alkylation of the conjugate base (the enolate) NaCH(CO2R)2.

β-Keto-esters
β-Keto-esters arise readily by the condensation of a pair of esters. A well known example is ethyl acetoacetate (although it is prepared by ethanolysis of ketene).

1,4-Dialdehydes
Succinaldehyde (CH2CHO)2 is the simplest and parent 1,4-dialdehyde. The aromatic derivative is phthalaldehyde.

1,4-Diketones
Diketones with two methylene groups separating the carbonyl groups, also called γ-diketones, typically coexist with their enol tautomers. The preeminent member is acetonylacetone. 1,4-Diketones are useful precursors to heterocycles via the Paal–Knorr synthesis, which gives pyrroles:
 * Paal-Knorr Pyrrole Synthesis.svg.]]

This reactivity is the basis of the neurotoxicity of γ-diketones. 1,4-Diketones are also precursor to furans and thiophenes. The condensation of 1,4-diketones (and related substrates) with hydrazines afford dihydropyridazines, which can be converted to pyridazines.

para-quinone, C4H4(CO)2, is the parent of a large family of 1,4-diketones.

1,4-Diesters and diacids
Succinic acid and its esters are the parent members of this family of 1,4-dicarbonyls. Succinic acid is notable as a component in the citric acid cycle. It forms a cyclic acid anhydride, succinic anhydride. Unsaturated members include maleic and fumaric acids and their esters.

1,5-Dialdehydes
Glutaraldehyde (CH2)3(CHO)2 is the simplest and parent 1,5-dialdehyde. It hydrates readily. The aromatic analogue is isophthalaldehyde.

1,5-Diketones
These diketones have three methylene groups separating the carbonyl groups.

1,5-Diesters and diacids
Glutaric acid (CH2)3(CO2H)2 is the parent 1,5-diacid.

Hydration and cyclization

Small aldehydes tend to hydrate. Hydration is prevalent for dialdehydes. Glyoxal forms a series of cyclic hydrates. Succinaldehyde hydrates readily to give 2,5-dihydroxytetrahydrofuran. The aromatic phthalaldehyde also forms hydrated. Similar hydration and cyclization equilibria apply to maleic dialdehyde, glutaraldehyde, and adipaldehyde.

Safety
A number of dicarbonyl compounds are bioactive. Diacetyl is known to cause the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans in those individuals exposed to it in an occupational setting. Dialdehydes, e.g. glutaraldehyde and malonaldehyde, are fixatives or sterilizers.

title: Dicarbonyl


text:
Talk:Iguazu Falls

Naming and accents
The English term is Iguassu. In Portuguese, it is spelled "igaçu" without an accent; words ending in l, u, z, i, or r in Portuguese have the emphasis on the last syllable unless they are accented. See www.fozdoiguacu.pr.gov.br.

 * Three different spellings are used in the article n the title, text, and photo captions). Obviously these need to be regularized, but which should be the official encyclopedic spelling? Lee M 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Brazil is the bigger country and maybe the article should reflect the size of the 2 main countries (both very large) but I have only ever seen Iguazù used in English (with or without the accent depending on the author's laziness or not being able to find the key on their keyboard). The status quo with 'Iguazu' seems quite sensible.  Luckily I have 'ù' on my keyboard as it's Italian.--217.203.166.113 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stupidly just realised that 'ù' on my keyboard is not the same as 'ú' that's used in Iguazú Falls.--217.203.166.113 (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy on a Mac—three keystrokes: option + ` then u. Fortunately for a Windowscentric world, the consensus here is to for the accentless Iguazu.. Rivertorch (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * In Portuguese, it is Iguaçu (with a c-cedilla and no accent on the "u", though putting an acute one on it is a very common spelling mistake among Brazilians themselves). In Spanish, it is Iguazú, with an acute accent (that is, slanted to the right; "ù", with a grave accent - slanted to the left - does not currently exist in either Portuguese or Spanish).
 * Both spellings are troublesome for English speakers. The Portuguese one has a c-cedilla that many will not know that it is to be pronounced as an "s", rather than a "k". Likewise, Spanish has the letter "z" but not the sound of it in English and other languages; it is also pronounced as an "s" (the Portuguese and Spanish pronunciations for this name are nearly identical).
 * So, I believe Iguassu would be the most appropriate spelling for the English Wikipedia. In fact, the Brazilian city of Foz do Iguaçu is considering changing its official name to "Foz do Iguassu" because of the foreign tourists who come to see the falls, but it is finding legal problems to do so (since Portuguese spelling in Brazil is officially defined by the Brazilian Academy of Letters), as well as some opposition from upstream towns with no tourist traffic which don't want to change. --UrsoBR (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I support the current consensus for Iguazu per several discussions "upstream" on this page. In a context where all of these spellings are widely used, this spelling here has led to a stable version of the article with neither Spanish- nor Portuguese-language devotees crying foul—nor, for that matter, anyone else crying foul. (I misspoke above, btw; it's option + e then u on a Mac. The cedilla is easy: option + c.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 * It's just as easy in Windows: ctl+alt+u. Isn't it about time we got over the childish OS wars? Bagunceiro (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DOUBT
is it bigger than Niagara Falls?

What do you mean by bigger? Height? Total length? Volume of water?

IGUAÇU
In portuguese it is called Iguaçu and not igaçu. What should we do with the Iguaçu article. Should we merge or...?
 * Iguaçu and Iguassu Falls are two different articles (the river and the waterfalls).
 * Iguassu is the English name, prefered over Portuguese Iguaçu or Spanish Iguazú. (It's a Guarani name, and they had no writting).
 * BTW:Don't forget to sing your msg with ~ ~ ~ ~. --Marianocecowski 13:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, whatever spelling you choose, please make sure it's coherent in the title and the article itself. Right now, "iguassu" and "iguazu" are both used, confusingly. --84.154.132.241 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * If Iguassu is the preferred English name, then please move the article back to it. Icemanofbarcelona101 also moved Iguaçu without any reason. --193.86.75.124 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no long so sure about the English name google reports 708,000 hits for "Iguazu falls", and only 280,000 for "Iguassu falls". Commens form any native English speaker? Mariano (t/c) 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native English speaker, but here is some data:
 * Encarta: Iguaçu (the river also Iguassu)
 * Britannica: Iguaçu
 * Little Britannica (?): Iguazú or Iguaçu (ex-Victoria??)
 * Webster: Iguaçú or Iguazú
 * Columbia Encycl.: Iguaçu or Iguassú
 * To Iguaçu, I say. --193.86.75.124 13:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, what you gave is not necesarilly all. For instance, Britannica also uses Iguazu Falls and Iguazú River] as main titles. I'm more for Iguassu or Iguazu, but I would prefer a native speaker to give his/her point of view. Mariano (t/c) 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the third item. Btw, until the native speaker appears, you can consider those as the opinions of 5 native English speakers, namely the editors of those encyclopedias. They mostly seem to favor Iguaçu. --193.86.75.124 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, in the links I gave its the first item, not the third. Please, at least take a look at them before answering. your reasons are no better than mine, so I don't know why you replaced all the words saying that the decision is finnal. I hope the survey clears things out. Mariano (t/c) 07:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[image:Third item.PNG|right]]Third item. Did you even look at my comment? I doubt it. --193ypico 09:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a native English speaker and favor Iguaçu. The redirect of Iguacu should exist because the ç normally is not on our keyboards. I strongly believe that place names should not be translated when all possible. (note: many place names in the US and UK are translated in Portuguese and I don't like that hehe). However, Iguazu is Spanish and it is equally valid, since the falls are international.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, if you consider local names Iguaçu and Iguazu to be valid, vote at the section down below. Mariano (t/c) 10:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked my opinion here, but as for where the article should reside, I don't really have one. All the redirects should exist; all the common spellings should be listed in the lead section of the article; other than a mention of alternative spellings or in direct quotations, the article body should consistently use one spelling; but beyond that I have no opinion. - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker but want to make my comments anyway. I also believe that place names should not be translated when all possible. The original name of the falls is not Portuguese and not Spanish, it's Guarani. Though Guarani was not a written language it became one with a complete grammar and spelling rule since the Spanish Jesuits used it to instruct the natives hundred's of years ago. The real name of the falls in Guarani is Y'Guazú. Paraguayans, which actually speak Guarani name them Yguazú which is the nearest to the original Guarani term. I think it's important to notice the letter "Y" is also a word that means "water", so I think it's not a matter of spelling, it's a matter of meaning. LucasAntuna 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Lucas, and thanks for your information on the Guaraní name of the falls, I'll add it to the article. Nevertheless, the naming conventions in wikipedia ask us to use wither the English name or the most commonly used name. The guaraní version is clearly not any of those two, so I would say it wouldn't be such a good idea to change the page's title. Take care, Mariano (t/c) 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, I guess it was already there. Mariano (t/c) 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mariano, your right, it's already there. I vote for Iguassu as the English term because it's easier to type (without accents and wierd characters that are not available on American keyboards). The comparison with other famous falls is excellent, I'm going to link my related site page http://www.iguassu-misted-falls-vacation.com/iguassu-falls.html to this page. Maybe you find something interesting there to publish here (of course, your authorized) or want to include it as an external link. 201.217.22.1 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The name of the article has already been extensively discussed, and the Iguazu has been chosen as the most common English name. The site you point to seams to me fine enough to include it among the external links. Mariano (t/c) 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does one name have to be used throughout consistently? When writing an article about 'Derry' in the north of Ireland one editor may prefer this name and another may prefer the unionist Londonderry. Deciding between the two would be a very political decision to make and this is demonstrated in British and Irish newspapers which often use Londonderry in the first mention and Derry from then on (or viceversa). As long as the article indicates in the opening paragraph that Iguazú, Iguazu and Iguaçu (and what ever strange name someone suggested was the "proper" English name - Igussu, was it?) are the same thing then it doesn't matter what's used in the rest of the article. If a reader is too stupid to read the opening paragraph then they should probably get back to playing video games.--217.203.166.113 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * It is the convention not only at Wikipedia but in most media to be consistent throughout. Most of our readers are far from stupid (even the ones who play video games), but we serve everyone from native English speakers to those just learning the language and children and people with visual and cognitive disabilities. Few people would be confused if we seesawed back and forth, but it would be potentially confusing and definitely look amateurish. Rivertorch (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The current Guarani spelling used throughout Paraguayan schools (Guarani is an official language there, alongside Spanish) for "big water" is "y guasu". Olga Troxler Vda. de Maldonado’s "Gran Diccionario", 2004 Edition, renders "yguasu" as "sea, water in abundance" and translates the Spanish "catarata" into the Guarani "ytororõ". In the other hand, there is an academic consensus that proper names retain their traditional spelling. Indeed, the "Map of Paraguay. Political Division. Scale 1:1 000 000. 1996 Edition. Reprinted in 2004." published by the Paraguayan Military Geographical Service Directorate, spells "Cataratas del Yguazú" Aldo L (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls in fiction
Like in the Antarctica article, I suggest we remove the Iguazu Falls in fiction section of non-important trivial facts. Please see Antactica's talk page. -Mariano 07:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Such facts can be interesting, keep. 72.231.18.127 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus. "Correct" names in Spanish or Portuguese would be Iguaçu or Iguazú, BTW. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
As shown in, the preferred Englush name is Iguaçu. I don't understand why Marianocecowski refuses to move, what does he mean by this comment, or why he thinks that a random English-speaking Wikipedia editor's opinion should have more weight than three encyclopedias and one dictionary. Anyway, since he doesn't want to move, I can't move, and nobody else is here, I put the request on Requested moves. I don't think a survey is necessary; but just in case... --193ypico 21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I stated enough reasons to doubt of which name should be used, and given the fact that the name of the article has been a controversial topic is enough reason to take the time to decide this with more than one or two users. And the fact that you seam to find your way so smoothly in the Wikipedia as to create move request minutes after your account was created makes me wander about your good will.
 * Given the three possibilities for the naming, I will reformat the vote.Mariano (t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The survey is not necessary; three encyclopedias and one dictionary agree. For some reason you think that your opinion is more important. I created the account for the sole purpose of moving this page, but moving is not allowed to new accounts and I was directed to Requested moves. I supposse it's personal for you now, and you will fiercely defend anything else than Iguacu (there are you, choosing Iguassu over Iguacu (!), as if it were a preference survey), so I don't expect a quick resolution of this anomalous situation. It's a shame. I'll try to move it when my account is old enough. It was my mistake calling you to see the case in the first place; I judged you wrong. --193ypico 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The three encyclopedias and one dictionary where your finding. I can list you more examples with other spellings:, , , , , , , etc. I believe that the English name is Iguassu (W:English names), the Portuguese is Iguaçu, and the Spanish one is Iguazú. Many encyclopedias try to make use of the local names, so they might choose to use Iguazú, or given the size of Brazil Iguaçu. Now, I would prefer to restore the previous consented title of Iguassu Falls, which a user changed to the Spanish spelling, but wanted also to point out that Iguazu Falls is the most used term of the three, at least as I showed with the google hits (W:Common names). Given the fact that this is the English wikipedia, it would be hard for a English speaking user to type either Iguaçu or Iguazú, I think Iguassu should really be used for the articles name, of course pointing out the local spellings. I also whant to point out that I left messages asking people for their oppinion in this talk page in the Argentine, Brazilian and Latin American WikiProjects. Mariano (t/c) 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll sum up your links for you: (1) 3 of them use the same dictionary: WordNet (uses Iguazu or Iguassu w/o distinction, and doesn't know anything about Iguacu), (2) I didn't find anything related with the falls in the "Encyclopedia of Conscientology" (?), (3) Collier's Encyclopedia (if we believe that 2nd or 3rd hand citation) uses Iguassu (and thinks the falls are in Argentina alone), (4) I strongly suspect that thefreedictionary also uses WordNet, (5) the Concise Britannica article was linked before.
 * So, merging your findings with mine, we have:
 * Iguacu: Britannica, Concise Britannica, Encarta, Webster, Columbia
 * Iguazu: Concise Britannica, Webster, WordNet
 * Iguassu: Encarta, Columbia , WordNet, Collier's
 * ( Small type means alternative accepted name.)
 * (The contradiction within Britannica itself is a little startling...) So, in reference works we have: 1. Iguacu, 2. Iguassu, 3. Iguazu. In google: 1. Iguazu, 2. Iguassu, 3. Iguacu. Probably we'll end up compromising on Iguassu, as you say. --193ypico 13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I hope so. In any case, we should wait for a week to end since the beginning of the survey since your first vote, that is, late June 8th (normal proceedings). Mariano (t/c) 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But probably reason will prevail and we'll rename it to Iguacu. Eh! One never knows... ;-) --193ypico 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey
The following voting is for popularity, meaning a voter can vote more than one of the options.

Iguazu Falls

 * 1) -Mariano (t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -Mtiedemann 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Taragüí @ 11:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Seattlenow 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (first choice--most common and seems like a better transliteration)(English words rarely have diacritics--"Iguaçu Falls" is Portuguese, not English)
 * 5) IlyaHaykinson 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iguassu Falls

 * 1) -Mariano - first choice (t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -Mtiedemann 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Taragüí @ 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) My first choice
 * 4) Seattlenow 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) IlyaHaykinson 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iguaçu Falls

 * 1) Pro --193ypico 21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Reasons: Encarta, Britannica, Merriam Webster and Columbia Enc., all favor Iguaçu.

 * 1) Pro - it simply is the correct name. Dpotop 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

keep Iguazu Falls. Mariano (t/c) 07:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Run-off
As the choice is now between Iguazu and Iguassu, I'd say we have a vote on just those two options. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify, "normal voting time" is five days after the move has been listed at WP:RM; that is today, so I've closed the move above. This run-off is an attempt to come to a decision, as Mariano claimed this was not a no consensus result. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls
Support Oppose
 * — Nightst a  llion  (?) 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Taragüí @ 11:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gadig 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Iguassu Falls
Support Oppose
 * Mariano (t/c) 10:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mariano (t/c) 10:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * — Nightst a  llion  (?) 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Iguazu Falls in television
Who really cares about whether or not the falls were in a soap opera? That is the tackiest thing I have ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.184.65 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect the waterfall that appears in this episode is Gullfoss, located in Iceland in Hvítá river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.69.158 (talk • contribs)

 * Brought from main article by: Mariano (t/c) 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nov. 5 edits (spelling)
An unregistered user has changed most but not all of spellings in the article from Iguazu to Iguaçu. This was done despite a vote to the contrary (see archives below) and with no recent discussion. It was also done inconsistently. I have reverted the page. (I have no strong feelings one way or the other but have an aversion to sloppily executed edits by unregistered users on controversial topics without prior notice.) Rivertorch 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree, usage must match article's name. Mariano (t/c) 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This rocks my sox!
This is the coolest waterfall ever! I love it soo much! I have to do a report on this, and it was so helpful to have a page that is so informative! :) Thanx, Anyonoumus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.108.21 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Geology
The article currently has no discussion of the geology of the falls. See for example the Niagara Falls article. Geology could be grouped with other aspects of a natural history survey. --Figsyrup 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Livingston de Chutes?
I am unable to find any non-wp related google reference to such named falls? However "Livingston Falls" is an alternate term to "Victoria Falls". If there is another "Livingston de Chutes", please reinsert with reference or link. Ekem 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Boselli?
I can find no explorer by the name "Boselli" on Wikipedia, per the sentance in the introduction, "The falls were rediscovered by Boselli at the end of the nineteenth century, and one of the Argentinian falls is named after him.". Could somebody please clarify? Nigholith 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything on Boselli online, at least in English. Perhaps someone fluent in Spanish or Portuguese could Google Boselli and Iguazu (with alternate spellings) and make sense of what comes up; there are a lot of hits. Or maybe someone has a written work to cite. In the meantime, I added an inline citation tag (redundantly, since there's already a template on top). Rivertorch 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

can we use this image?
Hi, I uploaded a picture I have of Iguazu Falls to Wikipedia. It's entirely my own work, and I thought it'll be great if you guys can use it or add it somewhere in the article.

Let me know if it will be added. --Mitchipr (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In Paraguay?
When I visited Iguacu falls in 2003, I was told that the falls are located on the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, although I did not visit the paraguayan side, because apparently there is a shopping mall there. Is it true that the falls lie between the borders of 3 countries? If it is true then we should change this in the article. 86.163.117.233 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The junction between Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina are situated a few kilometers down the Iguazu River from the fall, when the river merges into the Parana river. Iguazu falls are clearly outside of Paraguay.S23678 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding, too, although some quick Googling for detailed maps was unproductive. The terrain is a bit confusing in the vicinity of the falls. A large-scale map or an aerial view with the national borders overlaid would be a valuable addition to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: For having spent 3 days in the area going from Argentina to Brazil to Paraguay, Iguazu falls AND river is, without a single doubt, outside Paraguay -- S23678 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You and I know that; unfortunately, our knowledge doesn't meet WP standards for verifiability. The article is correct as it stands, but since the question has been asked it would be nice to be able to point to something definitive like a clear map. Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The park shares with Iguazú National Park in Argentina one of the world’s largest and most impressive waterfalls, extending over some 2,700 m." Official World Heritage Website, about Iguaçu National Park, in Brasil. -- S23678 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The semicircular waterfall at the heart of this site is some 80 m high and 2,700 m in diameter and is situated on a basaltic line spanning the border between Argentina and Brazil." Official World Heritage Website, about Iguazu National Park, in Argentina. -- S23678 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Terrific. Let's see if we can work one or both of those citations into the article. (It looks like some rewording will be required, which is beyond me at least until tomorrow.) The Access section looks like a problem, too; it should specify that access to the falls from Ciudad del Este isn't direct access. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A MAP! Worth a thousand words. Geo-coordinates are nice, but nothing beats a picture.76.88.1.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies?
An editor reported (within the article, not on the talk page) that "Some of the numbers cited in this [Comparisons to other famous falls] section do not agree with the ones given in the reference (i.e. references 4 and 5, data from world-waterfalls.com). Should be reconciled." Anybody have time to check this out? I probably can't get to it for a couple of days. Rivertorch (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 * First paragraph of article: "The Iguazu River rises near the city of Curitiba." --- rises? really? As with anti-gravity? Please edit. Suggest "arises", at least, or better, "originates". 76.88.1.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Rivers rise. It's absolutely standard terminology and can be found in any good dictionary. Rivertorch (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Throat
There's an understandable tendency for specific editors to switch Spanish phrases to Portuguese and vice-versa, but it doesn't serve the article for this to happen. I am changing the article to use "Devil's Throat" rather than "Garganta do Diabo" or "Garganta del Diablo" throughout the article except for the first occurrence, where I have the other forms in parentheses. This would seem to be the best solution, since this is the English Wikipedia and it's awkward and confusing to switch back and forth from one language to another when referring to the same thing. Rivertorch (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Further note: there should be a similar consistency to the spelling of "Iguazu", so I'm doing something similar along those lines. ("Iguaçu" is perfectly legitimate as well, but let's go for consistency rather than randomness after the lede.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Upper and lower" Iguazu?
The following statement seems to have been completely invented, because I have never seen it anywhere else: "The falls divide the river into the upper and lower Iguazu." Considering that the Iguaçu/Iguazú river is over 1,100 km long and the falls are only about 30 km upstream from its mouth on the Paraná River, this extremely uneven division does not make the least sense in geographic terms. I strongly suggest that it be removed. --UrsoBR (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 * A quick Google search indicates that the phrases "upper Iguazu" and "lower Iguazu"—particularly the latter—are in common use. (I tried to remove WP-based results from the search, think I mostly succeeded.) It makes sense geologically, if not geographically. Rivertorch (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * also may make sense in terms of navigating by boat 2603:8001:7F00:4808:B07D:16A0:1EDB:956F (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil)
These falls are near to the Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil).Agre22 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

IMDb etc
Regarding Crech's edit of earlier today: If I understand correctly, IMDb is deprecated as a reliable source except in certain limited areas, none of which involve content of a film (e.g., setting or location). See RS/IMDB and Citing_IMDb for discussion on this topic. It's not a policy or even guideline, as far as I can see, so there's probably plenty of wiggle room. Also, including the year of each movie's release seems a bit unnecessary. It's nice to know, but why stop there? Cast and director would be cool too, but it's all off-topic. In any case, that info is a mouse click away in each case and doesn't need to be in an article about a waterfall. Finally, the bulleted list format seems unnecessary for so small a group of films and distracts from the flow of the article. Rather than simply reverting, I thought I'd shoot for consensus. Your thoughts, Crech? Anyone? Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 * A little bit of detail about the significance of the waterfall in each movie would be good. I would prefer to have some prose as opposed to just the bullet lists. But eh, I dunno, I'm just passing by really. I've been watching the article for only a little while. Dawnseeker2000   05:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory wording
Clarifying, per a request on my talk page: on Dec. 14, I placed a "contradiction" tag in the first paragraph of the Geography section. The last two sentences in the paragraph seem to contradict each other: "The Devil's Throat (Garganta del Diablo in Spanish or Garganta do Diabo in Portuguese), a U-shaped, 82-meter-high, 150-meter-wide and 700-meter-long (490 by 2300 feet) cataract, is the most impressive of all, and marks the border between Argentina and Brazil. and The Argentine side comprises three sections: the upper falls, the lower falls, and the Devil's Throat." If the Devil's Throat marks the border between the two countries, then is it really one of the three sections on the Argentine side? Conceivably, yes, if the border lies just past the Devil's Throat, but then the phrase "marks the border" is imprecise and shouldn't be applied to a 700-meter-long cataract. My reading of "marks the border" suggests that at least part of the Devil's Throat belongs to either country. A large-scale map of the falls (from a reliable source) clearly showing the international border would be helpful. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the limit border is the Waterfall "Union", which is the beginning of "Garganta del diablo" (devil throat). --El rrienseolava (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We need a map. Rivertorch (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I will bring a map, and its reference, then you will see that I was saying the truth. --El rrienseolava (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the map, you should look to this webpage: http://en.argentina-excepcion.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=905 And if you are a neutral person, please write that I wrote before. --El rrienseolava (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the link. While the source isn't quite impeccable, it does tentatively help to clarify where the international boundary (the brown dashed line, I presume) lies in relation to the falls. The precise boundaries of the Devil's Throat aren't clear from the map, though. You wrote above that "the limit border is the Waterfall 'Union', which is the beginning of 'Garganta del diablo'", and I'm not sure what the Waterfall "Union" is.
 * Regarding your proposed text, it has multiple problems. Aside from its being in nonstandard English and somewhat confusingly worded, it appears to be sourced to a travel company's website and two blogs, which don't meet the guidelines for reliable sources. Some of your proposed wording also seems to conflict with the map you've provided. If the map is to be trusted, then far more than 80% of the falls—including all or most of the Devil's Throat—are in Argentina. Also, only the Devil's Throat area, not the falls as a whole, appears to be in a horseshoe shape, and judging from the map, the views from Brazil should be significantly more panoramic than the views from Argentina. In any case, I'm making too many judgments based on incomplete information. We cannot afford to allow original research or synthesis into the article, so I'm afraid we need to leave it as it is, pending better sources. I am reverting, and I will reinforce my earlier comment here about edit warring. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you wanna, look to these photos and images: - http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://www.forodefotos.com/attachments/argentina/12034d1276138670-parque-nacional-de-iguazu-mapa_cataratas_del_iguazu.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.forodefotos.com/argentina/2618-parque-nacional-de-iguazu.html&h=602&w=618&sz=147&tbnid=xx8aiK4ntI3GPM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=136&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmapa%2Bcataratas%2Bdel%2Biguazu%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=mapa+cataratas+del+iguazu&hl=es&usg=__erxwZGcqPg2r-VqB3dqYj8xZLow=&sa=X&ei=fD6iTc-ID8fChAeroKCOBQ&ved=0CCAQ9QEwAg

- http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://www.opcioniguazu.com.ar/mapas/mapa_cataratas_iguazu.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.opcioniguazu.com.ar/mapas_cataratas_iguazu.php&h=433&w=437&sz=134&tbnid=p8tPv1binXsi7M:&tbnh=125&tbnw=126&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmapa%2Bcataratas%2Bdel%2Biguazu%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=mapa+cataratas+del+iguazu&hl=es&usg=__Z0AnGDdd1uBXo8YhQ6adn9aXaJs=&sa=X&ei=fD6iTc-ID8fChAeroKCOBQ&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAw

- http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://static.flickr.com/40/98092385_ae2393b684.jpg&imgrefurl=http://lluisr.blogspot.com/2006/02/argentina-iguazu.html&usg=__tDRV1dXg4DO2AhxIbZXExaUgDU8=&h=322&w=500&sz=188&hl=es&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=a90zD_5IT9roQM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=149&ei=Gj-iTbr0F8ak8QP3yIyoAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmapa%2Bcataratas%2Bdel%2Biguazu%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1362%26bih%3D507%26rlz%3D1W1ACPW_esES417%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=365&vpy=199&dur=484&hovh=180&hovw=280&tx=149&ty=103&oei=Gj-iTbr0F8ak8QP3yIyoAw&page=1&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0

- http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://www.opcioniguazu.com.ar/imagenes/mapa_iguazu_cataratas.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.opcioniguazu.com.ar/cataratas_del_iguazu.php&usg=__zPZouI1bpb4u27QJSArbBicMhns=&h=122&w=165&sz=37&hl=es&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=64YGs7IpaYU3mM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=132&ei=Gj-iTbr0F8ak8QP3yIyoAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmapa%2Bcataratas%2Bdel%2Biguazu%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1362%26bih%3D507%26rlz%3D1W1ACPW_esES417%26tbm%3Disch0%2C199&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=775&vpy=172&dur=483&hovh=97&hovw=132&tx=73&ty=64&oei=Gj-iTbr0F8ak8QP3yIyoAw&page=1&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:23,s:0&biw=1362&bih=507

- http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://www.01argentina.com/sitio/mapa_iguazu_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.01argentina.com/sitio/map_iguazu_falls_mapa_national_park.html&usg=__rVzyzZtvIVI0-AOp4dgzAo6BffQ=&h=679&w=950&sz=316&hl=es&start=54&zoom=1&tbnid=-BPSgkZaLeVALM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=209&ei=Yz-iTePaO47O4waQ0riVAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmapa%2Bcataratas%2Bdel%2Biguazu%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1362%26bih%3D507%26rlz%3D1W1ACPW_esES417%26tbm%3Disch0%2C1264&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=342&vpy=206&dur=1685&hovh=190&hovw=266&tx=108&ty=112&oei=Gj-iTbr0F8ak8QP3yIyoAw&page=4&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:54&biw=1362&bih=507

- http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cMZnG4Fe69Q/TO10XjTxrlI/AAAAAAAAAAc/cgTZ-XcK0AA/s1600/Infografia_Iguazu-530x357.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ale-zeku-cs.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html&usg=__UFLg2tG72vz3XKVQCOIFuFVluow=&h=357&w=530&sz=90&hl=es&start=140&zoom=1&tbnid=fme53K_TOlNTOM:&tbnh=167&tbnw=238&ei=tj-iTaHhNsij4Qbnlpi3Aw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmapa%2Bcataratas%2Bdel%2Biguazu%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1362%26bih%3D507%26rlz%3D1W1ACPW_esES417%26tbm%3Disch0%2C3905&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1045&vpy=144&dur=141&hovh=184&hovw=274&tx=124&ty=130&oei=Gj-iTbr0F8ak8QP3yIyoAw&page=11&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:140&biw=1362&bih=507

- http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://img.viajesyturistas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/iguazu3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.viajesyturistas.com/cataratas-de-iguazu-paisaje-natural-de-sudamerica/&usg=__-aChEoKdQ9-ikj8lseDQdguxoE0=&h=320&w=335&sz=29&hl=es&start=10&zoom=1&tbnid=WDn9b_LzDLhaHM:&tbnh=170&tbnw=191&ei=LUCiTd_ICsrS4waUrvSJAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcataratas%2Bdel%2Biguazu%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26biw%3D1362%26bih%3D507%26rlz%3D1W1ACPW_esES417%26tbm%3Disch0%2C456&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=147&vpy=177&dur=1810&hovh=219&hovw=230&tx=147&ty=136&oei=J0CiTZrRIIei8QOOy7GoAw&page=2&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:10&biw=1362&bih=507

Is it enough? --El rrienseolava (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 * This is all interesting. What a complicated waterfall system! A good map made for Wikipedia would do wonders. I'm adding a request for one now. Maybe someday I'll attempt one myself. Pfly (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this map,, appears to be a copyright violation, but otherwise a decent source for use in making a new map. Pfly (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 * @ El rrienseolava No, it isn't enough. Sorry. I can search Google Images, too, but that's not the way to find reliable sources. I agree with Pfly—it is all very interesting—but as I advised you on my talk page, there are rules about original research and reliable sources. Thanks, Pfly, for requesting the map. Rivertorch (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rivertorch n' Pfly. I will do some research on it later as well, maybe I can turn up something good. In the meantime, I requested speedy deletion on that map. It is clearly a copyright violation; the watermark on the map is a clear giveaway, aside from the source website.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm . . . didn't realize El r. had uploaded it. I found an article in The UNESCO Courier (I don't have link at hand but it's the Nov. 1995 issue, pp. 40–43) that has me thoroughly confused. It places the Devil's Throat in Brazil and says that "it is only from the Argentinian side that it is possible to get a panoramic view". If I had the cash, I'd say the heck with this WP:NOR stuff—I'm flying there next week and see for myself. In all seriousness, though, there seems to be a dearth of readily available reliably-sourced info on the falls, and that's just weird. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok! then... good luck in tour trip, I hope you enjoy it. And when you see through your eyes that I said is the truth, please remember the nick "el_rrienseolava". And when it happens, please, write here (again) that I wrote a few days ago, thanks.

OH! and... I recommend you visit the Argentine side and you would live something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnuV2xVIfgs (From brazil you can't do this thing.... obviously, the reason is my that I said in the text removed by you... :) )... --El rrienseolava (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Good source?
Just a quick note--this book seems like it might be a useful source. There's a chapter on the falls, starting on page 76: Waterfalls, p. 76. Have to run, more later. Pfly (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Excellent! I've been poking around a bit but hadn't found that one. Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyedits
I'm trying to do a general overhaul/copyedit of this page and just made a relatively simple first pass. A few points: I noticed one of the sources I had used recently was an exact duplicate of the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry about the waterfall, so I changed all those refs to Britannica (and added a few more). There's a good number of references now so I took off the "refimprove" tag--although like most pages it needs additional work. I took out the "Name" section because it was not just about the name but also touching on history. It made sense to include in the lead. Also, I took out the sentence "The falls were rediscovered by Boselli." This sentence was referenced to a blog website,, and I have not been able to figure out who this "Boselli" might be, when he or she lived, or anything about this "rediscovery". So, pending further info, it seemed best to just remove the sentence. The blog website ref is used elsewhere on the page, but probably ought to be replaced with something more reliable. What else? I guess that it about it for now. Perhaps over the weekend I'll do a few more copyedit passes. Pfly (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls in Argentina and Brazil
What do you thin about this map? I think, this one show the distribution between Argentina and Brazil.... --El rrienseolava (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry..., about this map: http://www.google.com.ar/imgres?imgurl=http://www.forodefotos.com/attachments/argentina/12034d1276138670-parque-nacional-de-iguazu-mapa_cataratas_del_iguazu.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.forodefotos.com/argentina/2618-parque-nacional-de-iguazu.html&h=602&w=618&sz=147&tbnid=xx8aiK4ntI3GPM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=136&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmapa%2Bcataratas%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=mapa+cataratas&hl=es&usg=__ZfBTq1XuR1CAb7YUfHs636qt-S4=&sa=X&ei=QZvXTfCQO8anhAfv_ry1CQ&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAw --El rrienseolava (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think much of it. It doesn't even indicate the border, as far as I can see. Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The border is in the middle of Iguazu river... can't you imagine it?... --El rrienseolava (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Oh, I can imagine it, all right. Problem is, imagining things doesn't work very well when determining content for Wikipedia. Only when we can verify what we imagine does it get to go into an article. (Incidentally, I can imagine the border being elsewhere just as well. Lots of rivers aren't split down the middle.) Rivertorch (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iguazu Falls. 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/20120625065838/http://www4.icmbio.gov.br/parna_iguacu/ to http://www4.icmbio.gov.br/parna_iguacu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"The junction of the water flows marks the border between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay."
I nominate this sentence for our list of incomprehensible WP(-presented) CONCEPTS. Seems to me that borders are indeed between, and therefore not defined for triplets of anything. And a junction is either a point, or an 2- or 3-dimensional region, whereas borders are 1- (or 2-) dimensional demarcations between adjacent pairs of regions on a surface (or of surfaces where volumes are in contact). (I fully endorse the elimination of this travesty, tho my own priority is harnessing it as an object lesson. An ideal editor to repair it is one who sez "OMG, that equine posterior is right, and I could have been the one who wrote it, if the opportunity had presented itself to me to make the same error." But as always, I endorse the concept of every WP editor being their own assignment editor. The negative example does not highlight a problem whose solution is trivial, and I'm grateful for both the opportunity to think it thru myself, and the occasion that I hope colleagues will take to likewise polish their editing -- and other, related, analytical -- skills.) --Jerzy•t 08:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

comkmjjkl
a very used sex site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.116.100 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Iguazu Falls


text: Talk:Artillery

title: Talk:Artillery


text:
Talk:Justine Henin Hardenne

The images have been removed as possible copyright infringement.

This image is a possible copyright infringement and should therefore not be used by any article.  This image is now listed on Possible copyright infringements. To the poster: If there was permission to use this image under terms of our license or if you are its copyright holder, then please indicate so here (click Edit this page in the sidebar) - see our image use policy for tips on this. NOTE: deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

If you believe that this image may be used by Wikipedia and by all sublicensees under the fair use doctrine, then please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on image description page to justify this belief.

Thanks, Texture 17:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Justine Henin Hardenne