text:
The Forest City

The Forest City is a nickname or alternate toponym for the City of Cleveland, Ohio, United States. The inspiration for the name is a reference to Cleveland, describing a highly sophisticated society amid a heavily forested environment in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, which contains the Frenchman's observations of the United States in the 1830s. Early use of the moniker is uncertain. Some say that Timothy Smead, editor of the short-lived Ohio City Argus first put the name to use. Many others believe that William Case, secretary of the Cleveland Horticultural Society and Cleveland's mayor from 1850 to 1851, carried the name forward. Case was well known for encouraging the planting of fruit trees, and thus the name stuck. By 1940, approximately 221,000 trees were growing in the city.

One of the earliest documented uses of the term "Forest City" in Cleveland was in 1834, when the Forest City Hook and Ladder volunteer firefighting company was chartered. In the late 1860s, the city's best baseball club adopted the name, became an independent professional team in 1870, and helped found the first professional league, the National Association, in 1871. The first National Association game was a visit by the Forest City club of Cleveland to the Kekionga club of Fort Wayne, Indiana on May 4, 1871. It is considered the first major league baseball game by those who count the National Association as a major league. The team folded after the 1872 season. During 1871, it was one of two National Association teams named "Forest City", the other being a team based in Rockford, Illinois.

By 2015 the number of trees in the city declined to 120,000, according to a City of Cleveland-funded initiative. Compared to other cities in the region, Cleveland has a relatively low percentage of its landscape protected by an urban tree canopy at only 19%. Cincinnati, Ohio in comparison has an urban tree canopy of 38%. According to a 2020 analysis by the Cleveland Tree Coalition, “areas with lower income and/or higher proportions of Black residents and residents of color have generally had lower tree canopy cover due to disinvestment. This variability leads to an inequitable distribution of tree canopy cover, meaning neighborhoods with lower tree canopy receive fewer benefits.”

title: The Forest City


text:
User:Tina the Macedonian

The Greeks or anyone else can't say that ancient macedonian language has greek dialect or that antcient Macedonians were Greeks because Macedonia and Macedonians exist before the Greeks and Greece. The fact that ancient Macedonians used the greek religion doesn't have to mean that todays Macedonians are Greeks. About Alexander III... Noone can proove that he was Macedonian but the fact that he was born in Pela - Macedonia and that he was called Alexander the Macedon claims that he was macedonian and fought for his land and concored the Greece. In fact my opinion is that today Greece doesn't want to admit the name of our country because is afraid of the rest of the world. In a way they are trying to steal our history and then complain we are trying to steal theirs. You people from the rest of the world have no idea how the Greeks acimilate the Macedonians in Greece. They have changed their names in greek. That's all for now

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

title: User:Tina the Macedonian


text:
User talk:Garvald

I thought that I'd just write a little note to all the beautiful women that I've had relationships with. I wish that I could have a party with all of them there. There is something about all of them that I am still in love with! I wish I could share beautiful vistas and sunsets with them and thank them for sharing my life with them! I'd like to write more when I'm inspired. check out my blog www.escapetheokiezone.com

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Rich Farmbrough 21:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Note that Wikipedia is an encycloaedia, articles about peole need to be abut "notable" people. Rich Farmbrough 21:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Garvald
I just confirmed the speedy delteion of this article. Wikipedia is not in general a vehicle for writng and posting an autobiography. Please see WP:BIO, WP:MOS, WP:VAIN, and WP:SPAM before you try to rewrite this article. you could also write about yourself on User:Garvald quite freely. Plesae feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DES (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Newsbusters.org
Howdy! Please stop recreating the newsbusters article until it can meet bare minimums in terms of length, WP:NPOV, and notability. If you continue, you may be blocked. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 05:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Www.newsbusters.org
A tag has been placed on Www.newsbusters.org, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:Www.newsbusters.org. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Proofreader J-Man 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Www.escapetheokiezone.com
A tag has been placed on Www.escapetheokiezone.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:Www.escapetheokiezone.com. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Proofreader J-Man 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Garvald


text:
Category:Cities and towns in Finland

This category contains articles relating to cities and towns in Finland.

title: Category:Cities and towns in Finland


text: Category:Theatre in Guinea

title: Category:Theatre in Guinea


text:
George Sangster

George Sangster is a Dutch ornithologist.

He specialises in taxonomy and has written many articles on this subject for the magazines Dutch Birding, British Birds and other publications.

He is a member of the Dutch, British and European taxonomic committees.

title: George Sangster


text:
Category:Politics of Ohio

Politics of Ohio.

title: Category:Politics of Ohio


text:
Lycée Français de New York

The Lycée Français de New York (LFNY), commonly called the Lycée (in English, "The French High School of New York"), is an independent bilingual French school based in Manhattan, New York City. The school serves students from Nursery-3 to grade 12. The Lycée is accredited by the New York State Association of Independent Schools and the French Ministry of Education; it receives no funding from the government of France.

The Lycée offers a standard French curriculum taught by French-trained teachers. In parallel, students follow an American program, taught by U.S.-trained teachers, similar to what is found in New York City independent schools. Students study for the French general Baccalauréat, the international option of the French Baccalaureate, or French Baccalaureate International (BFI), as well as the American High School Diploma. The school has over 1350 students from more than 65 different nationalities. The student to teacher ratio is approximately 7:1.

History
In the mid-1930s the Lycée was the brainchild of the then French Consul General in New York, Comte Charles de Ferry de Fontnouvelle. He enlisted the help of Forsythe Wicks, a lawyer and businessman who was the president of the Alliance Française, and Paul Windels, Sr., the Attorney General of the City of New York. Others involved in the founding of the Lycée include Nicholas Murray Butler, the President of Columbia University, Jesse Straus, the U.S. Ambassador to France, and Jean Marx, the Director of Cultural Affairs at the Quai d'Orsay. The Lycée granted its first baccalaureate degree in 1938. Since 1935 over 36,000 students have studied at the Lycée, and more than 150 nationalities have been represented throughout the School's history.

De Fontnouvelle served as the school's first President from 1935 until his death in 1956. He was succeeded by two interim presidents: Jean de Siéyès (president or former president of the French-American Banking Corporation) from de Fontnouvelle's death until the end of the school year; and Robert Lacour-Gayet (a writer and academic) for the next school year. Then, Mr. Maurice Galy became the school's President starting in 1957, a post he held until he retired in 1989.

Curriculum
The school curriculum parallels the academic program laid out by the French Ministry of National Education and used in French schools throughout the world. This curriculum is supplemented by the essential elements advanced in American private-school education.

LFNY Students pursue their post-secondary education in US, Canadian, French and British universities and colleges.

Facilities
The school originally occupied a residential building at 3 East 95th Street near Fifth Avenue (Mrs. Amory S. Carhart House), and Mr. Galy arranged for the acquisition of three more landmark mansions, two on East 72nd Street (Henry T. Sloane House and Oliver Gould Jennings House) and one on East 93rd Street (Mrs. Graham Fair Vanderbilt House)." In 2003, the school completed a modern, 158,000-square-foot (14,700 m2) state-of-the-art facility located at 505 East 75th Street. Taking up nearly a full city block, it houses the upper and lower schools and features such amenities as a 354-seat auditorium and two full-size gymnasiums.

The modern Lycée building was designed by the New York-based architecture firm Polshek Partnership Architects (now Ennead) in 2003. It consists of two LEED-certified buildings linked together by a patio, serving as a walkway, but also a lawn where students congregate and play. The North building (76th street) houses the pre-school and elementary schools while the middle school and high school students are taught in the South building (75th street). All students share the cafeteria, the auditorium and two gymnasiums. The facade of the building is made of stainless glass, and the exterior walls are dedicated to great writers, artists, scientists, philosophers and activists of Francophone and American thought.

The building was actually remodeled from what had previously been a Volkswagen Car Dealership and five-story garage from at least the early 1970s through the 1980s (the exact year that dealership closed is unknown).

In 2016, the Lycée opened its new York Wing, a 19,000 square-foot addition, on York Avenue. The Wing has enabled a transformation of the school's program with technology-enhanced classrooms, a Media Lab with a working television studio and recording equipment, as well as a Makerspace, with equipment for carpentry, 3D printing, laser-cutting, and robotics. Dedicated faculty trained in the use of media, technology and fabrication work with existing faculty to integrate these spaces into the curriculum (These resources are however rarely used by members of the student body).

Cultural Center of the Lycée
The Lycée's Cultural Center keeps a year-round calendar filled with guest performances for students of all ages, as well as lectures and workshops led by thinkers and innovators in fields as diverse as the arts, science, technology and the humanities. Most notably, the Cultural Center's Artists-in-Residence program brings renowned working artists to the campus three times a year to engage an entire grade in a creative endeavor—from circus arts to music, writing and illustration—over the course of a week.

Throughout the school year, the Cultural Center offers a program of evening and weekend events and activities focused on French and Francophone culture. This program is open to the public, and includes free film screenings once a month and regular panels on topics of global import to our times. Three times a year the Cultural Center presents music concerts featuring leading French and Francophone artists in jazz, classical and world music. Guests have included Ayo, Cécile McLorin Salvant, Francis Cabrel, and Camille Bertault.

Student body
In 2012, while campaigning to represent the first constituency for French residents overseas, Julien Balkany criticized the school for prioritizing the children of American celebrities—including Madonna, Angelina Jolie, and Donald Trump—over the children of French citizens for admissions.

Tuition
The Lycée Français de New York has a tuition of $48,050. Financial Aid (bourses de scolarité) is given to students based on need. The Lycée is a private, independent school and receives no funding from the French government; however, children of French citizens are eligible for tuition grants from the French State based on need. These are independent from the Lycée's own financial aid program and are allocated directly to the families, not the school. The Lycée holds a yearly Gala to raise money to support financial aid, among other things.

title: Lycée Français de New York


text:
Fohr

Fohr may refer to
 * Föhr, a North Frisian island, in Nordfriesland, Germany
 * Wyk auf Föhr, a town on Föhr
 * Föhr-Land, a municipality in Nordfriesland, Germany
 * Föhr North Frisian, a North Frisian dialect spoken on Föhr
 * Fohr (surname)

title: Fohr


text:
Droogs (rocks)

Droogs are steep rocks which dot the surface of Mysore and Tamil Nadu, India.

The rocks are prominent monoliths and may resemble haystacks, some of which are 1500 ft high, and some of which have springs on the top. They provide formidable sites for fortification because most are scalable only by steps cut in them. There is a famous droog at Tiruchiripalli in Tamil Nadu, also known as the Rock Fort. This is climbed by 434 steps cut into the rock face. Temples to Ganesha and Shiva have been built there. In the 19th century, droogs were used by Superintendent of the Geological Survey of India Colonel William Lambton as sites for his theodolite. The survey, commissioned by the East India Company and completed by Sir George Everest, laid the foundation for the extensive Indian railway system.

Excerpt from Gods, Guides and Gurus (John Hatchard, 2010):

If the Madurai skyline was dominated by the huge Gopuram towers of the Meenakshi temple, Trichy’s was dominated by a spectacular granite outcrop crowned by a fort and a temple. The view from the top had to be spectacular so it was a place to visit. We had passed similar upstanding natural features on the way here, huge granite monoliths, smooth and rounded like an elephant's back and spectacularly water-stained. These outcrops, found all over southern India, were called droogs. In most places they provided easily defended sites where local chieftains could base themselves. Here in Trichy it was presumably the same story. As time went by temples were added and the place became more important. These droogs proved of great use when, in the early 19th century, Colonel William Lambton became Superintendent of the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India. From a base line at St. Thomas Mount, Madras he worked inland and then took the survey south from Bangalore toward Cape Cormorin. He used both droogs and temple gopurams as high points on which to place the great 450-kilogram theodolite used to measure his angles. This survey, commissioned by the English East India Company, gave it an accurate account of the lands it now controlled and was the most remarkable exercise of its kind ever undertaken anywhere. There is a story that while attempting to establish the theodolite on a certain droog, Lambton ran into trouble with a local Muslim chief who believed he was really intent on spying on his harem.

title: Droogs (rocks)


text:
Love Me

Love Me may refer to:

Albums

 * Love Me (Jeanne Pruett album) (1972)
 * Love Me, a 1984 Jackie Chan album, or its title track
 * Love Me (J Peezy album) (2008)
 * Love Me (Lee Jung Hyun album) (2008)

Songs

 * "Love Me", a song sung by Lee Patrick from the film Footsteps in the Dark (1941)
 * "Love Me", a song by Fats Domino (1954)
 * "Love Me" (Leiber/Stoller song) (1954), popularized by Elvis Presley (1956)
 * "Love Me" (Buddy Holly song) (1956)
 * "Love Me", a song by Diana Ross from Last Time I Saw Him (1973)
 * "Love Me", a song by Bow Wow Wow from When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going (1983)
 * "Love Me" (112 song) (1998)
 * "Love Me" (The 1975 song) (2015)
 * "Love Me" (Bee Gees song) (1976), popularized by Yvonne Elliman (1976)
 * "Love Me" (Justin Bieber song) (2009)
 * "Love Me" (Lena Meyer-Landrut song) (2010)
 * "Love Me" (Lil Tecca song) (2018)
 * "Love Me" (Lil Wayne song) (2013)
 * "Love Me" (Stooshe song) (2012)
 * "Love Me" (Tracie Spencer song) (1992)
 * "Love, Me", a song by Collin Raye (1991)
 * "Love Me", a song by Eminem featuring Obie Trice and 50 Cent from 8 Mile: Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture (2002)
 * "Love Me", a song by Katy Perry from Prism (2013)
 * "Love Me", a song by The Phantom (Jerry Lott) (1960)
 * "Love Me", a song by Jess Glynne from I Cry When I Laugh (2015)
 * "Love Me", a song by W24 from Singing Dancing (2018)
 * "Love Me", a song by Jess Glynne from Jess (2024)

Film

 * Love Me!, a 1986 Swedish film
 * Love Me (1918 film), an American film starring Dorothy Dalton
 * Love Me (1942 film), a German film directed by Harald Braun
 * Love Me (1991 film), a Canadian film directed by Marcel Simard
 * Love Me (2000 film), a French film directed by Laetitia Masson
 * Love Me (2013 film), an American-Canadian film featuring Jean-Luc Bilodeau
 * Love Me (2024 American film), an American film starring Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun
 * Love Me (2024 Indian film), an Indian film directed by Arun Bhimavarapu

Other

 * Love Me (Australian TV series), a 2021 Australian TV series
 * Love Me, a 2003 novel by Garrison Keillor
 * LOVE ME, a 2016 concert installation by Nico Sauer

title: Love Me


text:
User:Garvald

My middle name is Garvald. I'm hanging out here teaching in a reservation somewhere many miles west of Oklahoma (native American for nothing to do).

title: User:Garvald


text:
Talk:Share-alike

Merge into Viral license
Viral license is just a perjorative term for a share-alike license, so it makes sense to me that they should be merged. --Sanglorian (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge into copyleft?
Should this article be merged with Copyleft? 80.177.208.41 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it should be. I've never heard "share-alike" used outside of CC licenses and it seems just to be a synonym for copyleft.  I'm putting a merge tag on the article.  Nathan J. Yoder 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Someone asked me to make some maps I created, and liscences under {gfdl} up on the creative commons.  So I tagged them with the creative commons share-alike liscence.  Then I did a little looking around.  I had assumed that the two liscenses would be sufficiently compatible that they would be no confusion over releasing the images under both.  What I found was that it was not that clear.  And I am grateful that there is a separate article on share-alike.

 * What I found is that the debian-legal group recommends debian contributors not use cc-sa liscense, at all. They don't consider those liscenses "free".

 * My initial understanding is that when I first put the {gfdl} on my images I released a bunch of rights. I don't regret that.  And that is a good thing, because, my understanding is, the release of those rights was irrevocable.  The rights released under the cc-sa liscenses are also irrevocable.

 * The articles point to one another, at the appropriate points, correct? So, if there are really significant differences, as the debian-legal people claim, a merge would result in more confusion, and more work for the editors, than leaving them separate.  I don't see any benefit in doing so.  --  Geo Swan 15:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The term “copyleft” is not applicable on non-free licenses such as the CC-BY-SA-NC. -- Sloyment 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * How I see it: the term “share-alike” defines a type of license, it is "merely" аn adjective which describes on which terms a work would be shared. Copyleft on the other hand could represent a special mechanism with whom you assure that a work maintains a specific license or copyright. Copyleft is, as its article says, a play on the word, but I would call it a way, a mechanism, maybe even an ideology. I believe that karatekas would use the term "DO" for this. It looks to me that that it can be used as an adjective defining the property of copyright. Anyway, as I understand the terminology: a license could be share-alike, and not conform to the idea of copyleft, and thus not be a copyleft license. If this makes any sense. :-) Biblbroks 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree this should be merged into copyleft. That copyleft is sometimes called "share-alike" should then be mentioned in the intro of copyleft. --Gronky (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Share-alike images legal on Wikipedia?
Anyone know for sure? Thanks! - Richfife 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes and No. But to answer your question, yes. Timeshift 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual licenses deserve separate articles
The license tree makes sense as a way to describe how licenses involve a series of options. However many projects, including Wikipedia, license their work under CC-SA and do not use CC-NC-SA. The current articles available about CC licenses (this one, which talks about 'share-alike' but is largely devoted to the CC notion of it, and Creative Commons licenses) are quite confusing for someone who simply wants to understand what a CC-SA license means.

Each license that is in widespread use deserves its own article to make its description completely clear and free of this confusion. –SJ + 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CC SA
Don't forget this one: CC SA 1.0 - the abbreviation CC SA is ambiguous - include the BY - K (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Transitioning to include non-Creative Commons licences
Hi folks,

I'm going to change this article so that it discusses all public licences with reciprocal licensing terms, not just the two Creative Commons ShareAlike licences. This is consistent with modern usage (see, for example, the Open Data Handbook: http://opendatahandbook.org/en/glossary.html#term-share-alike-license).

Why? Mainly because a lot of non-free, libre and open licences on Wikipedia are being described as copyleft. However, there is no other article to point them to instead of copyleft, so I'd like to point them here. I would use 'reciprocal licences', but unlike 'share-alike' 'reciprocal' in popular usage refers exclusively to copyleft licences. --Sanglorian (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is "reciprocal" appropriate under Copyleft?
Just wondering? I think it has non-free associations? - Kim Tucker (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question, Kim. I think reciprocal in its standard use is libre; Microsoft does have a 'Limited Reciprocal License' but typically 'reciprocal' is synonymous with copyleft. To remove ambiguity, we could use 'reciprocal libre' instead? --Sanglorian (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "libre share-alike"? - Kim Tucker (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done :) --Sanglorian (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

History of Creative Commons ShareAlike Versions
Missing: ShareAlike 1.0. I think this retired licence is worthy of mention. --Kim Tucker (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong statement
I deleted following wrong statement. The link used to verify this is dead.

Although CC Attribution-ShareAlike qualifies as copyleft because it is free content, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike is non-free and therefore not copyleft.

Bye. -- 87.151.25.249 (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge into copyleft
"Share Alike" is the name that Creative Commons uses for their copyleft licences.

Their description of "Share Alike" says that the effect is "that future users are not able to add new restrictions to a derivative of your work".

That's copyleft, just with a different name.

This merge should have been done years ago, but there were three objections which. Rereading that thread (it's the second thread on this page), the objections don't actually contain any reasons not to merge. I'd clarify by noting that:

 * GFDL and CC-by-sa being incompatible has nothing to do with being copyleft or share alike, the problem is caused by differences of implementation details in the legal texts. The unfortunate reality is that almost all copyleft (or "Share Alike") licences are incompatible with each other.  It's very difficult to write a new copyleft licence that doesn't contain anything which conflicts with the "no adding restrictions" clause of the existing copyleft licences.
 * CC-BY-SA-NC being judged non-free by Stallman doesn't prevent it from being a copyleft licence. The goal of copyleft is to keep a work free, and the CC folk (and a substantial portion of CC users) view their NC licences as being free.  The disagreement is over a separate issue (namely, do non-commercial clauses make an artistic work non-free?).
 * Lastly, someone said that copyleft is a movement as well as a licence style, but that's not accurate. The free software movement and the free culture movement are movements, with philosophies, activists and supporters.  A portion of each advocate copyleft, but there is no distinct "copyleft movement" (or "Share Alike movement").

This is why "Share Alike" is only discussed in terms of Creative Commons. It doesn't exist as a concept, it only exists as a local term for what is essentially copyleft. Can we merge this into copyleft? I don't mind doing the work. Gronky (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that "copyleft" imples freedom in the sense of the Free/Libre software definition, and that the concept is generalisable beyond software (e.g. free cultural works, libre knowledge, ...). The ShareAlike in CC BY-SA is copyleft because it is freedom that is perpetuated via this licence. The ShareAlike in CC BY-NC-SA would not be copyleft as it perpetuates a restriction on use. So, it is not true to say that Share Alike is "copyleft, just with a different name.". - Kim Tucker (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC).

 * Copyleft implies a general idea of freedom for users and redistribution, but it isn't tied tightly to any particular definition. For software, even FSF doesn't say it's tied to their definition.  For libre knowledge, what definition would it be tied to?  And for culture, who says the Definition of Free Cultural Works is the definition, and what body authoritatively rules on whether something fits the definition?  Indeed, Richard Stallman even endorsed commercial restrictions on cultural works: "I'm proposing that there should be copyright covering commercial distribution and permitting only verbatim redistribution non-commercially".
 * So my first point would be that although CC by-sa-nc fails FSF's freedom tests for software, that doesn't give a definitive result. CC by-sa-nc contains a general intent on allowing redistribution and giving freedoms to users, and it fits Stallman's freedom test for cultural goods.
 * An example is the GNU GFDL. Some people (notably Debian) disagree that it's free, but I haven't seen anyone claiming it isn't copyleft. (On this page, a group of Debian developers argue that GFDL is non-free but they say "As a copyleft license...".)
 * My second point would be that the topics "copyleft" and "copyleft licences" are not the same thing. The former is a concept, the latter is a judgement on a licence as a whole.
 * In this respect, the Share-alike issue is similar to that of the NASA Open Source Agreement. It has a copyleft clause (section A of OBLIGATIONS) which is very similar to GPLv2, and the licence would be free except that a later section contains a half sentence (possibly a drafting error) which only allows adding modifications that are your "original creation", so you can't merge this code with free code written by others.  Now, if someone showed you just the section A of OBLIGATIONS, you would say it's a copyleft clause.  Does it stop being a copyleft clause when you put it into a licence which has a freedom problem?
 * So it would be hard to decide if CC by-sa-nc and NASA OSA would have a place in List of copyleft licences, but that doesn't change that both contain copyleft clauses: they use copyleft.
 * If merged, Share-alike should be used an an example for a section about the interaction of free and copyleft. Gronky (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Strong agreement that this should be merged, for all the reasons you stated, Gronky. Would be happy to help with drafting/editing as necessary.
 * KTucker, I disagree that copyleft implies freedom in the FSF sense. FSF conflates the two, but the common usage does not. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary ("software license that allows users to modify or incorporate open-source code into larger programs on the condition that the software containing the source code is publicly distributed without restrictions") or the common substitution of "reciprocal" for "copyleft", neither of which contain connotations of freedom. LuisVilla (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded today also that the Open Source Initiative's FAQ entry on copyleft also does not refer to or make the distinction Kim is trying to make; it says "'Copyleft' refers to licenses that allow derivative works but require them to use the same license as the original work" and then goes on to an extended answer in the same vein. LuisVilla (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a final note on the topic, I note that the FSF itself refers to share-alike as a copyleft, both in GFDL 1.3 Sec. 11 ("'CC-BY-SA' means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license ... as well as future copyleft versions of that license") and in the licenses FAQ. LuisVilla (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Do (merge or not) whatever you think serves users of Wikipedia best in terms of clarity. "Share-alike" (brought to prominence by the Creative Commons) was inspired by copyleft which is deemed as one of Richard Stallman's cleverest ideas in the world of free software.

Perhaps one thing to mention (or just think about :-) is that the Creative Commons community tends to describe ShareAlike in terms of not adding restrictions (the community includes many lawyers concerned with "property"), e.g.

The advantage of this license [BY-SA] is that future users are not able to add new restrictions to a derivative of your work ...

while the FSF describes copyleft in terms of perpetuating the core freedoms.

"Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well."

This distinction in emphasis of perspective (owner vs user) is what permits the Creative Commons to use ShareAlike to qualify both libre (BY-SA) and non-libre (BY NC-SA) licences.

Certainly within the free software and certain free culture communities one will see or hear the term "copyleft licence" as implicitly meaning a libre copyleft licence. --K (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's go with the merge?
So there was one negative reply (Kim Tucker), and I hope the replies address the points raised. The points raised by Kim should also be kept in mind so that we can clarify them in the merged article.

Given the above replies, do any objections remain? Any other questions or things to discuss, or should we roll up our sleaves and get it done? Gronky (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to help out however I can, but have never done a merge before, so would be grateful to watch/learn from someone who has. —Luis (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, while we're at it, do we nuke viral license? —Luis (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Share-alike


text:
Talk:Polo Grounds

What now stands on the site?
What now stands on the site? --71.102.144.27 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * An apartment complex. 64.241.37.140 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New York City Housing Authority operates two units on the site. One is the Charles Rangel Houses, the other is the aptly-named Polo Grounds Towers. The area is referred to as "The Polo Grounds" by local residents, especially Black New Yorkers, who use the term to define both the two public housing complexes and Rucker Playground which is across the street (east side of Frederick Douglass Ave and north side of 155th). Rucker Playground is famous for street basketball tournaments and is a popular weekend hangout for local basketball players and other youths.

 * If so, that would put the playground on the site of Manhattan Field. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we're talking baseball, it should be noted that from Rucker Playground or from any east-facing window in the projects on the site, there was a clear view of old Yankee stadium. Not sure about the new one, I haven't been to NYC since July.

The article is confusing. It says that the Polo Grounds were "bounded on the south and north by 110th and 112th Streets, and the east and west by Fifth and Sixth Avenues, just uptown of Central Park," and yet in the side bar it says: "Location 	West 155th Street and Eighth Avenue, New York, New York". Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.44.41.68 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Original was on 110th. Best-known one was on 155th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the quick response. Can/should this be clarified in the article? In the summary it is unclear that the famous Polo Grounds used by the Giants was moved uptown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.44.41.68 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Soccer at the Polo Grounds

 * I never knew how important the Polo Grounds was to the development of soccer in this country. Nyrmetros 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The New York Giants soccer team of 1894
The paragraph contained within the soccer section of this page keeps being removed but I feel that it not only is an important part of the history of the Polo Grounds but also a very significant turning point in American sport and should remain. Had the Baseball owners achieved what they set out to do with the soccer idea it could, and probably would have changed the face of American sports totally from the framework we know today in three ways. Firstly soccer would almost certainly be either the biggest or second biggest sport in the USA today. Football may well have never become a major sport and possibly even could have been outlawed in the early 1900s making it a forgotten extinct sport today. Amazing as this seems this nearly happened even without soccer popularity. Thirdly each citie's Baseball, soccer, football {if there was any}, basketball, hockey, lacrosse, rugby etc...teams would quite possibly have all been run by the same owners {perhaps the city itself} under the same name. As an example the New York Giants would today have been one organisation playing a wide range of professional sports under the one title. Similar to the Spanish model where Real Madrid play a host of sports other than soccer for which it is famous. Captainbeecher
 * It keeps getting removed because you're not providing a source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Four different stadiums; four different pages?
Should this article be split into four articles for each of the four distinct Polo Grounds, or is this article like this for some other reason?--CrazyTalk 21:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the so-called "III" and "IV" were the same diamond just surrounded by wooden (III) or concrete (IV) stands, so they were really the same park. And "II" was right nextdoor. "I" was 45 blocks south or so. Now, how would you do the disambiguation on it? To put it another way, is there really enough info to warrant separate pages for I and II? I just checked Madison Square Garden, and it was done this same way. Even though they are separate buildings, there is an implied continuum... just like the N.Y. Giants and the S.F. Giants are on the same page, although maybe that's a poor analogy, since they didn't physically move the ballparks. Wahkeenah 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * One of the common fallacies that I have noticed on this site is the circular logic that is used often: It must be this way because this is how it is. "Because" is not answer for "why?". If III & IV are the same park, then there is no IV and there just is a III. However, III burned down and they built IV; therefore, III & IV are not the same or they would have just called it III.  Just because they have the same name does not mean they are the same.  I am sorry, but that answer seems empty: "there is an implied continuum". Do New Yorkers generally consider the Polo Gounds as one park? Using that logic, Comiskey, Busch, South End Grounds, Lake Front Park, West Side Park, etc etc etc should all be combined, not to mention all of the various League Parks, County Stadiums, Memorial Stadiums, Municipal Stadiums etc etc etc. Typically for stadiums, we have a page for each structure. I believe this page should be disambig. If a consensus believes otherwise, then so be it.--CrazyTalk 01:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Then you should do likewise with Madison Square Garden. As to III and IV, that is modern revisionism. Nobody called them that at the time, it was just "The Polo Grounds". The wooden grandstand burned in 1911 and was replaced with concrete stands built around the same diamond. However, the previous bleachers survived the fire and remained intact until 1923. So I could argue for a III (1890-191) and a III-and-a-half (1911-23) and a IV (1923-64). Also, consider Sportsman's Park, which was rebuilt several times in its existence on Grand and Dodier, the diamond repositioned several times, yet there is only one article. If you want to separate them, I would argue that I and II could be on individual pages, but separating III and IV is kind of a stretch. As to what New Yorkers "consider", most of them don't even know about I, II, and III, so it's kind of a moot question. Wahkeenah 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ruth

 * Even in the early 1920s, one of Babe Ruth's deeper blasts was said to have landed "in Manhattan Field".

Is there a source for this? I assume the implication is that one of Babe Ruth's home runs from the Bronx was said, quite hyperbolically, to have landed in Manhattan field, but to someone who wouldn't know it sounds like the shot in question was hit in the Polo Grounds, which would still be hyperbole but considerably less so. Can someone clarify? Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Or was it in the Polo Grounds before '23? I guess that would make more sense.  Again, a citation would clear everything up.  Chick Bowen 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It was a home run that Ruth hit over the right field stands at the Polo Grounds that landed in whatever was left of the former Manhattan Field. I could look for the article if necessary. It's in a book I have someplace. Wahkeenah 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it was his first as a Yankee, on May 1, 1920. Smelser's book makes reference to the ball landing on an amateur field. Another book, which I can't find just now, reprinted an entire article from 1920 about it. The point of that anecdote was that the diamond called "Manhattan Field" was still well known in 1920. Later it became a parking lot. Wahkeenah 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was May 1, 1920. I put that in the article recently... and only about 14 months after I said I would look for it. Now, on to my projects from February of 2006. Wahkeenah 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

American Football at the Polo Grounds
This statement needs a citation: "Yale traditionally played football in the Polo Grounds in the 19th century for their most highly attended games. Their Thanksgiving rivalry game against Harvard was attended by 24,000 spectators in the stadium, marking the arrival of college football as a significant cultural phenomenon." Which game? When? --Chancemichaels 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels
 * According to the article List of Harvard-Yale football games, there were two such games, in the 1880s, i.e. at the original "polo grounds" on 110th Street. The details are not given, though. Wahkeenah 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted the dates and citation in the section on Polo Grounds I. bobhymes —Preceding comment was added at 20:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ninth/Eighth Avenue Elevated
I've changed "Eighth Avenue Elevated" back to "Ninth Avenue Elevated" as in the text I had originally added. Although the northern terminus of this elevated line was at 155th and Eighth Avenue, at the time the entire line was called the "Ninth Avenue Elevated" because it originated in Ninth Avenue, all the way down at South Ferry at the southern end of Manhattan. From Ninth Avenue the line made a sharp turn east into 110th Street followed by a sharp turn north into Eighth Avenue, creating the S-curve that would later be known as the "Suicide Curve" because of its height and because at least one person did attempt suicide from the El tracks at this point. Bobhymes (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because it was an IP address making an unsourced and seemingly random change. You could be right. What's your source for this info? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Ninth Avenue" change was based on my general knowledge about that elevated line, which ran through what's now my neighborhood; but I realize general knowledge isn't enough, so for a source see the Wikipedia article "IRT Ninth Avenue Line," which lists the 155th Street stop as one of the stops on that line. See also the webpage "abandoned subway stations (nysubway.org)" at www.scribd.com/doc/220588/abandoned-subway-stations-nysubway-org. Sorry about the IP address before -- I had forgotten that I wasn't logged in yet when I started making changes.Bobhymes (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha. Well, you need to include that cross-reference in the article, and then you could reset it to Ninth Avenue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added the reference as a parenthesis after the sentence mentioning the Ninth Avenue Elevated. Is that the correct location for the reference? Pardon the question, but I'm a novice at Wikipedia editing, as you can probably tell.Bobhymes (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a source, anyway. I'll leave it to the sourcing-structure mavens to determine the exact way to state it, assuming they accept it. Thanks for posting it. We'll see what happens next. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Concrete and steel

 * 1909 - Shibe Park, Sportsman's Park, and Forbes Field
 * 1910 - League Park, Comiskey Park
 * 1911 - Polo Grounds, Griffith Stadium

Owner of the Polo Grounds????
The article lists in the summary section on the right of the page that the NY Giants owned the stadium. Who owned it after they left town in 1958? Maybe the new owner should be listed underneath with the dates effective. Kochamanita (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Giants owned the stands, but the piece of land was the property of the Coogan estate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. So who got the gate and concession money when the Mets were the users of the field?  The Giants or the Coogans? Kochamanita (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we're delving into details, I dug out my copy of Land of the Giants, by Stew Thornley. The teams got the gate receipts and concessions money. The teams paid rent to the Coogan family. Page 116 says that once the Giants left, the city of New York decided, in 1961, to condemn the Polo Grounds and put up high-rise housing. Apparently they did this through eminent domain, but the Coogan family fought it until a court decision on the matter was issued - in 1967. Meanwhile, the Titans of the AFL (renamed Jets in 1964) began playing (and paying rent) in 1960, and the Mets in 1962. Both of them left for the publicly-owned Shea Stadium after their respective 1963 seasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Earliest picture of Polo Grounds?
Something doesn't seem right with the description on this image. It would appear in this image that what appears to be Coogan's Bluff and the Morris-Jumel Mansion (with flag waving) are in the background in the same position as they are in the later photos of the Polo Grounds. However Polo Grounds I (circa 1882) was at 117th Street and the later ones were at 157th Street. It's possible that the background is a different building and bluff but it sure looks a lot like the later Polo Grounds. Americasroof (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 110th Street, actually. And at 157th Street, Coogan's Bluff and the mansion were above and behind home plate, not beyond the outfield. And they were much higher up than in this artist's conception. In any case, if the magazine is truly from 1882, then it must be the 110th Street location. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're so smart. I was looking at the position the pictures and not the relation of the field.  What's in the background is still going to bug me.  What direction did home base in Polo I face?  Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Photographs I've seen from 1884 suggest home plate was roughly in the southeast corner of the block at the 110th Street location. That's where the Giants played. However, there was a curtain-like structure halfway down the block and the Metropolitan club played in the west half. I've never seen a picture of that diamond. So it's hard telling which diamond this illustration depicts, as I don't know which of the two was there first, or if they were laid out at the same time. I was under the impression that the west diamond was in the southwest corner. This illustration doesn't quite seem to work for that assumption. I do know this from the 1884 photos - there were no really tall buildings north of the ballpark. And Central Park was to the south. Make of that what you will. I think more research is needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After blowing up the photo some more here's some more thoughts: With trees along the left (third base) side and no trees on the right that would imply Central Park is on the left and so home base would be on the Fifth Avenue facing northwest. The flag and "mansion" on blow up actually looks to be part of the Fields itself and not so distant.  There is what looks to be a hill in the backgound on the right and that would fit with the location of Columbia University to the northwest.  This is all proably much ado about nothing.  Thanks for indulging me. Americasroof (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. This has been educational. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there reason to doubt that the Polo Grounds I was actually located at 110th Street? The description of this location is not consistent with street maps from the time.  See the new discussion below.   -- A Carbine Flash (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Players League
Edited to indicate that the stadium known as Polo Grounds III opened up as host for the Players League version of the New York Giants and that the National League Giants did not take possession until the next year after the Players League folded. Vidor (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

how many Polo Grounds?
This article lists three parks called the Polo Grounds, but "Green Cathedrals" by Philip Lowry lists five. Trying to correlate that with Wikipedia is a bit confusing. Lowry seems to classify I and II as separate parks, with two diamonds occupying the same property, i.e. "a huge park". Lowry's Polo III, according to the text, was next to Polo IV. Lowry's Polo V was built on the same site as Polo IV after the latter burned down. So as far as this Wiki article is concerned, Polo Grounds I equals Lowry's Polo I and II, and Wiki's Polo Grounds III equals Lowry's Polo IV and V. Does that sound right? Elsquared (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Location of Polo Grounds I?
The article states: The 110th street location and the 1876 to 1889 timeframes are not consistent with street maps available from that era. For example, numerous contemporary maps show that 111th Street extended the full width of Manhanttan Island from 1874, with 111th Street running between Fifth and Sixth Avenues seemingly since many years earlier. [This map from 1873 shows 111th street is interrupted, but between 9th and 10th avenue, while this map from 1874 shows it uninterrupted the width of the island.]
 * ... the original Polo Grounds, opened in 1876 and demolished in 1889, ... Bounded on the south and north by 110th and 112th Streets and on the east and west by Fifth and Sixth (Lenox) Avenues, just north of Central Park
 * The original Polo Grounds stood at 110th Street between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue, directly across 110th Street from the northeast corner of Central Park.
 * New York City was in the process of extending its street grid into uptown Manhattan in 1889. Plans for an extended West 111th Street ran through the grounds of the Polo Grounds. City workers are said to have shown up suddenly one day and begun cutting through the fence to lay out the new street.

The 110th Street location is given without any reference, as is the account of the park's closing. There is reason to doubt the correctness of either the location [see the discussion above regarding the background depicted in the 1882 image], or the other information given in this article. -- A Carbine Flash (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Polo Grounds after 1911.JPG

title: Talk:Polo Grounds


text:
Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 1

Requested move

 * Background: This move has been done and reverted several times in recent days. It seems appropriate to use the Requested moves mechanism to gather broader feedback rather than have a move war.  I have therefore created this request as a third party; I'm not the requester. -- Curps 06:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional brief explanation, then sign your vote with ~ . This poll is to last roughly one week.

 * Strongly oppose. The current name is the most common (and thus is the one proscribed by our name policy); the proposed one is not. The current name is neutral, the proposed one is not (for reasons below). As anyone who is aware of Gracenote's editing knows, this proposal is a clear example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point (he didn't like how Palestinian territories is/was named so he picked a fight here, on what was a very, very quiet article). Oh, and based on his actions under his old name on the clitoris article, I fully expect Grace Note to completely ignore the outcome of this poll. →Raul654 06:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Typical ad hominem spite from you, Mark. Why does the policy on most commonly used name not apply to Occupied Territories (Israeli)?Grace Note 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most common name. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose But NOT because "Yom Kippur War" is a good name for this article, and NOT as a means of settling this question. We are still actively discussing this very issue in a civil manner and with good faith, so a poll is completely out of place at this time.  Further, our naming policy mentioned by Raul654 cannot override the founding principle of NPOV, no matter how popular the name "Yom Kippur War" is, if consensus is that "Yom Kippur War" expresses any significant POV.   Un  focused  09:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I strongly agree with the view, that has been well argued by mav, that page titles can never really be NPOV, and that we thus must use the most common name, rather than the most neutral one. - SimonP 13:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you agree then that our article on the Occupied Territories should be called Occupied Territories (Israeli)? Grace Note 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Opppose. As User:Unfocused said: "We are still actively discussing this very issue in a civil manner and with good faith, so a poll is completely out of place at this time.". Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Polls are evil. There are important issues at stake, and a POV pusher like Mark should not be allowed his own way just because he is backed by three or four others who share his POV. Surely it's better to reach a consensual end? If Mark is right and his policy is substantiated, he can surely argue it successfully here?Grace Note 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well that takes the cake. As a third party, I filed a standard WP:RM request on your behalf because I regularly monitor the move log and I noticed this page being renamed four times by you and reverted each time, and I simply wanted the move war to stop.  Now you have voted against the very page title you repeatedly unilaterally moved to?  Please see WP:POINT.  My only agenda was to end the move war, and if that is accomplished then my work here is done. -- Curps 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What a horribly awkward proposed title. johnk 04:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a reason. The very reason WHY the war started on October 6, 1973 was that this was Yom Kippur. The obvious reason for choosing the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur for staging a surprise attack on Israel was that on this specific day (unlike any other holiday) the country comes to a complete standstill. On Yom Kippur most Jews fast (don't even drink), abstain from any use of fire, electricity, engines, cars, communications, etc. Many soldiers leave military facilities for home during the holiday and Israel is most vulnerable. This choice of an attack date testifies about a steep development in the Arab states' military thought, their understanding of (and ability to exploit) Israel's weaknesses. Guybas 06:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yom Kippur War is the most well known name for the war and as Guybas explained the name is deeply significant. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current name is the most common. Moreover, the war began when it did because it was Yom Kippur.  I see no point in changing the name. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See my comment below for my reasoning. SlimVirgin (talk)  18:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. I also agree with using the actual name for the event. The Yom Kippur War is what the war is overwhelmingly known as in the English-speaking world among those who support neither side, as the war was deliberately started on Yom Kippur. I strongly oppose making up a new name to make a political point. Ambi 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Making a point is not nice. I've also added some comments below. Andjam 01:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Yom Kippur war is by far the most common name.
 * Oppose. I already left comments below. uri budnik 06:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: no question Yom Kippur War is most common name in English. Jonathunder 20:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
 * Add any additional comments

 * I think this sets some kind of record for WP:RM... a requested move supported by absolutely no one, including the person who added the request to WP:RM and the person who actually performed the move in the past. I guess there's nothing to do but sit back and admire the unanimity (who said consensus is difficult to achieve?), leave it up for a couple of days so that those who participated can see the results, and then move to the bottom of the talk page or archive or delete. -- Curps 05:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed this page's entry from Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move. If this changes, feel free to add another request. --Lox (t,c) 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--

I'm planning to write a major article on the Yom Kippur War (like I did with the Six-Day War), but it may yet take a while to write it (lots of material, viewpoints). --Uriyan

Suprisingly, this article does not even state why it is called "Yom Kippur War", although it contains a lot of other interesting information. --user:FlorianMarquardt

Who the heck is this Esseily guy? Are you trying to re-write history with incorrect facts just to make the Egyptians look better or something? You're obviously not impartial enough to comment on this article. Name the war after the people who won? It's always been called the Yom Kippur War. That's the day the Arab nations attacked Israel again. Emphasis on the word "Attacked" and "Again". There's no rewards for aggressors in war. Egypt lost land from a previous war when they "Attacked" Israel. What do you want Israel to say, "Oh, we're sorry you attacked us and we had to defend ourselves and take some land. Here you go.  You can have the land back if you promise not to "Attack" us anymore." Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way. And what's with calling the war an Egyptian victory? I'm pretty sure the Egyptian army was defeated and the Israeli tanks were only about 20Km outside Damascus before the U.S. implored them not to attack and to turn around and go back. If you want to call that a victory, o.k. I guess. Israel gave the land back after Camp David not because of any defeat during this war, but as a peace offering with assurance that Egypt recognizes the state of Israel and will not declare war on them anymore. Pretty nice gesture by Israel. Hey, Eiselly! Keep it real or go post on some Al Jazeera web site where you could commiserate with other haters. On second thought, why don't you stop breeding hate, and become the first great Arab leader and lead your people to peace and to friendly relationships with the great nation of Israel and its people, and then you can stand up and tell the other Arab nations to do the same thing and to stop killing innocent people living in their homes or on buses. Lead by example. Right now the Arab nations seemed to lost and the only thing they can agree on is to hate Israel. If it wasn't for Israel they would all be fighting with themselves. If only you could turn all that negative energy into something good. It only takes one Esseily. Be the leader of your people and start to bring peace to one corner of the world. --[Ted] Mar 3 2005 16:25

Actually the site does state why the war is caller "Yom Kippur War" it's because the attack was planned on that day of the Holy Jewish Event, but if it was up to me I'll call it as the people who won the war call it "The 6th. of October War" or "The Canal Crossing Battle"--Esseily 00:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This may be an English-to-Hebrew mistake (on my part) but I believe the name is Avraham "Bren" Adan (as opposed to Avraham "Bern" Eden). (from the book "On the Banks of the Suez ..." by the same). Additionally, I think it's important to note that this was considered one of the biggest Arab victories over Israel ever (despite the outcome) to the point that Eqypt currently still celebrates the date the war began. Likewise this war precipitated the resignation of Golda Meir as Prime Minister of Israel (among other notable Israeli politicians and military) and wwas considered one of the worst wars for Israel (by Israelis). Also in your copy, you stated that Egypt didn't plan on developing on their initial successes which is not entirely true. The Egyptian military headed by Abu-Iziz (if I remember the name correctly) plan (Badr) stated that all eastern bank crossings were to be consolidated *before* advancing further east. The actual objective was to capture the whole of the Sinai and Gaza. The actual reason why the Egyptian advance stalled was that they could not overrun the Bar-Lev line as completely as they had planned to. This was due in part to Israeli soldiers who fought extremely bravely, but more due to the fact that there was confusion, hesitation and ultimately failure at evacuating the strongpoints along the canal from the Southern Command (under Gonen at the time). - Baraq Baron Ben-Gideon Bacharach (baraq@dmech.org)

I didn't get the (despite the outcome part) coz as far as we're Egyptians concerned we did win that war, and we took back most of our land in battle and the rest through peace talks that started with the Camp David Agreement If I'm to say what I think of the outcome, the only thing Egyptians in general didn't like about the Camp David agreement was the restriction on the numbers of the Egyptian troops in Sinai, coz simply this is Egyptian land and only Egypt should have the power to decide how many of our troops should be there .. other than that the outcome was fine .. '''The October War is till today considered one of the biggest Tank Battles in the modern Military history and it was a well earned victory to retrieve the Egyptian land, of course with the help of all fellow arab countries that participated in the battle in a way the other .. and by the way the Barlev defence line was almost completely destroyed in those 6 hours of the first day of war and I beleive that was the main reason why behind the Israili resignations, coz Israelis before the war were told that the Barlev line in inpenetrable .. which proved wrong of course.'''

A very important fact that Baraq missed as well is that the fight stopped not because of the the bravery of the Israeli soldiers "maybe that is true" but mainly because of the very heavy American reinforcements, hundreds of the Israeli tanks that were destroyed in the battlefield were of course American plus they were brand new, they were brought by by an air bridge to the battle field and they managed to join the fight in very early stages ..

My last comment on the Article is that I don't beleive the casualties and dead figures are right at all, If I could get precise information I'll post it ASAP.. thanks all for ur time --Esseily 00:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about the Bomb? BL 22:23, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about it? This war didn't go nuclear at all. Berrik

There was the possibility of nuclear war during this war but no mention is made about it. From the DEFCON article:

 * DEFCON 3 refers to an increase in force readiness above normal. United States military commands (minus the Strategic Air Command, at heightened alert on DEFCON 2) went to this level in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All United States forces went on DEFCON 3 during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Soviet nuclear warheads were discovered moving toward Egypt. James Schlesinger sent U.S. forces to the Middle East without notifying NATO. The third time the United States reached DEFCON 3 was during the September 11, 2001 attacks.

I am not familiar with this war but I think that the nuclear aspect should be mentioned since the word 'nuclear' isnt found in the article at all. --ShaunMacPherson 06:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want to add blow-by-blow accounts of battles or heaps of statistics, I suggest that you break it out into a seperate article and link to it. I also suggest that you represent both sides equally. Putting in a figure for Israeli casualties for a single battle but not mentioning anything else (including possibly casualties on the other side?) is neither NPOV nor good practice. Nvinen 13:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weaponry
I deleted cause it was not really true. Isreal got many weapons from Germany the USA and members in the common wealth.

the old mistaken surprise subject

listen there was no surprised attack what so ever. we know in Israel that the military and goverment high ministers knew and had all the signs that the war is going to break. to say that there was a surprise it is a bad point of view and a one major error. 212.179.81.67
 * Perhaps so, but either way, it's impertinent — historical claims and observations requiere references. El_C 10:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=2424 http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2773155,00.html#n http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/docs/doc_30.1/ Oraien

 * Thanks. I remember reading their (Yedioth Ahronoth, that is) print series on it with great interest and found it absolutely fascinating. Incidentally, you can sign your username by typing ~ :) El_C 19:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

it is very interesting and also very outrageous to find that the chief of steff generals and the defense minister knew abot that the war is going to break but didn`t do anything.

Things to do
I am satisfied that the section about the lead up to the war is complete. The immediate aftermath is *almost* complete (it just needs a talk about the syrian front and UN peacekeeper intervention). The section on the war itself is wholly inadaquate, and the long term effects section is virtually empty. I'd like to address these, and then nominate this article on featured article candidates. In the mean time, I'd appreciate it if anyone could track down some copyleft pics of the fighting to use in this article. →Raul654 03:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just created the article on Operation Nickel Grass, the U.S. airlift of supplies to Israel (it's since been featured in Did You Know). I'll start looking for pics and see if I can't contribute here and there... -Lommer | talk 03:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, with the work I did today, I'm happy with the immediate aftermath section. Now it just needs a better description of the long term effects and of the fighting itself. →Raul654 21:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

what is AMAN?
it seems like it is a government agency but it is not explained in the article and its left as a link to an article yet to be written. a footnore, a parenthetical comment, or an article stub would help here. uri budnik 08:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * AMAN (the name is the english acronym fo the Hebrew name) is one of Israel's (many) intelligence agencies. As I understand it, their job is to (among other things) digest the intelligence recieved by all the other agencies. Check this link. →Raul654 08:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Give me 15 minutes and I will write/translate a very bad article on it! El_C 05:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * i first posed the question above because it was not clear to me when i first read the article what AMAN was/meant. i saw the link that raul654 provided and i considered maybe even using it as a basis for an article stub but i have not gotten around to it. i did want to change the article to make the AMAN acronym a little bit clearer. i did, and your subsequent modification is an improvement but maybe it still could be better.

 * question for you, would it be correct to say: The IDF's AMAN (a Hewbew acronym for Inteligence Branch or Military Intelligence), "the leader of Israel's intelligence community," was responsible...? in such a case maybe we can even get rid of "the leader of Israel's intelligence community." especially if there is a link to an article about AMAN. User:UriBudnik

 * It isn't an acronym, it's an abbreviation. Well, it took me much longer than 15 minutes. Naturally, I blame my cat for this. El_C 06:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * nice article on AMAN (especially since you wipped it out so fast!) but i still think that opening scentence here is a bit awkard. for example, i did not realize that the phrase "the leader of Israel's intelligence community" was a direct quote from the rabinovich book. that is why i edited it. do you think that ('intelligence branch') still needs single-quote marks inside the parenthesis? to me it was confusing to to see that followed by a direct quotation. i'm not an expert on style but i don't think the single-quote marks serve a purpose inside the parenthesis. uri budnik 07:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! But actually not that fast. Feel free to remove the single quotes, I don't remember what purpose they were supposed to serve, if any – possibly I just copy & pasted it as such). Perhaps that it's just a literal translation(?). El_C 08:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a reference to the rabinovich report is needed
i am assuming that all the attributions marked "Rabinovich" are to a report by an author of that name. it would be usefull to at least create an article stub about this person and/or the report he authored about this war.uri budnik 08:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rabinovich refers to Abraham Rabinovich. I was using this book here to write most of this article. (The book is, from what I have seen, considered one of the best descriptions of the war you can get) →Raul654 08:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * But it does represent one particular current in the historiography. See: Critical book review. El_C 08:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for the clarification. i had incorrectly assumed that the "Rabinovich" references were to a public report by the israeli government or a commission thereof (like the 9/11 report). this certainly needs to be fixed in the article. i am just not sure what the appropriate stylistic form for the reference is. i'll look it up somehow.

 * on the POV issue, i agree with EL_C, however, the article IS written in the spirit of NPOV (IMHO). i suspect it would take an arab speaker who has read on the subject from author(s) writing for "the other side" to make it unequivocally neutral. when i was in college i wrote a paper for a negotiations and conflict resolution class on the falklan island war (or the maldives war depending on whose side you were on.) for research i read books and articles from american, british and argentinian (and some other latin american) authors both in spanish and english. it really struck me then how massively different points of view and perspectives on the same event can be. i think this is a great article as it is, and that it would take someone that can come at it from a completely different perspective to be able to make it truly NPOV. so, perhaps someone who perceives this event from a different perspective will come along and take a stab at it. isn't that what the wikipedia is all about? i hope this happens as i would like to see this great article improved even further. i am curious what someone with a primarily arab perspective would add to this. (please take this in the positive spirit that it is meant) uri budnik 09:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on the article, I haven't read it closely yet, my comment was on the book. El_C 10:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the article isn't POV (please cite any statement that is biased), it's just most of the discussion of command decisions centers on the Israeli side. Why? Because, as the Rabinovich book says pretty clearly, there's was no public report or memoirs available from anyone in the egyptian or syrian high command (most of them being dead by now). The information simply doesn't exist. →Raul654 16:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * i am not claiming that the article is not NPOV. and, i have not read the rabinovich book, i am not an expert on this subject, and i am too young to remember these events when they transpired. i was just commenting that most of the information comes from the perspective of one side even if it is not biased. i have now learned from you that this is by necessity since as you point out, "the information simply doesn't exist" for the other side. not a challenge to its veracity, just a comment. i think you would agree with me on this. there is just not as much perspective from the other side (and perhaps there is none to be had) i could see how totalitarian governments would not be as open to having their members publish memoirs or personal accounts of a war they started (or of their inner workings). i think saying this only makes the NPOV position of the article stronger.

 * by the way, i thought the article was very good. that is why i spent time adding some links and why i posted comments here. heck, i may even get the book...uri budnik

...Almost there
Ok, I'm satisfied that this article is complete, except for the description of the fighting on the Syrian front, the participation by other Arab states, and it still needs a references section. After that, I'll nominate it on Featured article candidates. →Raul654 16:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * By the way, I *know* the Director of WP:FAC, let me know if you wish for me to pull some strings! ;p El_C 06:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

posible typo inside of quote
raul654,

i was looking at your latest changes and i think there are a couple of typos, but since you are quoting from a book, i did not want to change it without first checking (with you since i dont have this book to verify the quote).

in this revision [] should it not be "most demoralizing" and "was a desperate option" ? uri budnik 02:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The first one is not a typo (it's perfectly correct english); the second one was and I have corrected it. →Raul654 03:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Results of my researches
Sadat's autobiography, which is pretty glaringly self-serving, does have a chapter on the October War. Sadat blames the war mainly on the United States because they refused to force Israel to negotiate. Reporting on the February 1973 meeting between Kissinger and Hafiz Ismail Sadat states that the drift of what Kissinger said to Ismail was that the United States regrettably could do nothing to help so long as we were the defeated party and Israel maintained her superiority. (pg. 238) Sadat thus claims that the war was only a needed enabler of the later peace accords.

One other factoids of note from Sadat's work is that Hosni Mubarak was the commander of the initial air attack and Sadat was greatly impressed by him. Sadat states that this was an important reason for later making him vice-president. This should probably be mentioned seeing the emphasis given to Arial Sharon's role on the opposing side.

Also I think that the statement in the introduction that "Egypt and Syria launched a surprise joint attack aimed at retaking territory—the Sinai and Golan Heights—captured by Israel during the Six-Day War six years earlier" needs to be changed. The scholarly consensus seems to be that Sadat was only trying to inflict a symbolic defeat on Israel and not to actually trying to retake the Sinai by force of arms. This was the opinion of all the sources I consulted. Assad, however, was trying to retake the Golan and felt betrayed when Sadat turned to the defensive in the Sinai. Maoz in Syria and Israel states that whereas Sadat went into a limited war in order to shatter the status quo and generate American pressure on Israel to give up the entire Sinai, Asad envisaged the capture of the entire Golan (and Sinai) and subsequent pressure on Israel to give up the occupied Palestinian territories. pg. 128. Moaz also gives some other reasons Assad was so interested in war besides retaking the Golan. Assad wanted to be the preeminent military power in the region, and was especially interested in competing with Iraq for regional prestige. He also felt that a military victory was the only way to win respect from Syria's Soviet allies.

Raphael Israeli's book on Sadat also states that the Egyptian offensive was to obtain a symbolic rather than a territorial victory. However he states the main motivation was Sadat's deep sense of shame over the 1967 defeat and the belief that until this national shame was reversed other areas of Egyptian life, such as the economy, could not be revived. David Hirst and Irene Beeson focus more on the domestic concerns and the need to build international prestige, but also felt that Sadat's goal was mainly a propaganda victory.

Israeli goes into considerable detail on why the other Arab powers did or did not join the offensive. He seems to disagree with Rabinovich over Jordan as Israeli states that the main reason Jordan stayed out was the Sadat was working closely with the PLO and promised Arafat the West Bank. Hussein had just attacked the PLO in Jordan and still saw the West Bank as their territory.

Both Israeli and Moaz have some good material on the Egyptian and Syrian deception prior to the war. I feel that that section should be rewritten and renamed as the surprise attack was just as much an Egyptian success as a Israeli failure.

Israel has some information on the domestic problems at the time, but not a great deal. He does state the student protests were important in convincing Sadat to launch the war. In a weird opposite to the anti-war protests in the United States at the time the Egyptian students were protesting demanding war with Israel and accusing Sadat of defeatism. The students pushed to have the government close all the universities and conscript the students into the military. - SimonP 23:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

when was the meeting between nixon and brezhnev?
the second paragraph in section 1.2 israeli intelligence failures, starts with "in the summer, in a metting between..." what year did this meeting take place? from the flow of the article it seems it was in 1973 (and i almost changed the article to say that) but its actually not completely clear. i think it a little bit sloppy to say in the summer and not mention the year when it is not self evident what year it was. if someone knows for sure that the year was 1973 please change accordingly.
 * The meeting took place on the night of June 23-24, 1973. I have fixed the article accordingly. →Raul654 07:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

territories vs palestinian territories: a "claim term"
i noticed that the term palestinian territories was recently changed to just territories under the justification that palestinian territories is a 'claim term.' i suspect that there may be some debate as to which is the proper term to use (which i don't feel informed enough on the subject to join), but no matter the consensus result, i suggest that a footnote is added with a sentence or two describing the dispute as to how to refer to these areas AND that the link to the palestinian territories article is preserved. this gives it beter context. uri budnik 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted Palestinian territories because it may be construed (justly) as a claim term. The term is itself ambigious; it could mean territories belonging to Palestinians or territories in geographical Mandate Palestine. Whether or not the term is used by Western media, Western media is not NPOV, wikipedia is theoretically supposed to be. I agree that perhaps plain territories are ambigious, but everyone knows what it means when referring to this conflict. If not, I think reinstating West Bank and Gaza would be fine. Palestinian territories is similiar to Yesha when used in Hebrew. For the sake of NPOV, we must use another term. Guy Montag 01:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It is a term used in the scholarship as impartial — unless you bring forth evidence from it or otherwise notable source that it is disputed in more-or-less the terms you listed above, my original change/merge of GZ and WB as the Palestinian territories stays, not vice versa. El_C 01:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not accussing anyone of POV Pushing. The term, if you clicked Palestinian territories cites this:

This term connotes much more than a definition, but a host of related propositions that amount to a preventive political argument about the disposition and status of the land:

 * that these territories are under the military control of a nation that does not have sovereignty over them;

 * that the nation in control of these territories, i.e., Israel, is thus obliged (as a matter of right as well as by international law) to return these territories to their rightful owners; and

 * that these territories belong by right to the Palestinians, i.e., the stateless indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

As you can see, I am using the definition of that the article has given. Whether it is used as a neutral term is not what is relevent, what is relevent is how it may be construed. Guy Montag 02:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Negative, this is just wrt the status of (to use military-speak) The Territories themsleves, not so much the term. El_C 02:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you please reiterate?

 * Reiterate how, Anon? Guy's above passage deals with the controversial status of The Territories, not so much the term. I don't know if I can explain this any more clearly: there's no mention above wrtt term "Palestinian territories" as itself disputed. El_C 02:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry El C, that was me I just forgot to sign. The article says that the term amounts to a political argument. That is why I am against using it. Guy Montag 10:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh! My point is: I'm not sure that it does, in that sense. Which is why I'm asking for a reference indicating whether this is/isn't the case. El_C 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only reference I have is from the Palestinian territories article itself. If you read it, you will see that the term is loaded. Also, with a little common sense, I think you already know why it is loaded. Hint: Palestinian acts as a possessive modifying territories. :) Guy Montag 01:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Right, maybe it could be read that way, but what I'm getting at is that we need something more definitive, more scholarly-grounded. El_C 01:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there's no doubt that it is read that way. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps cf my criticism of necessarily "possessive" construal - actually of "Occupied Palestinian Territories"  that's what's actually considered in the Palestinian territories article - in the talk for that article.  US State department usage of the term is probably "geographic." A State department usage of it before 1988 or 1974 - see if I can dig up one - must be "geographic", as at that point the US position was that some/all of the territory was to be returned to Jordan, not the Palestinians. Of course possessive construal by ordinary readers nowadays is natural enough though.--John Z 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All these objections against the position of Raul and myself have yet to be substantiated by anything concerete, but I have something. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Spokesman writes:  If they do not object... El_C 22:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Israeli government is referring to the self governing Area B, where the PA has some authority. But what the Israeli government says, doesn't make a term neutral. For many people in Israel, the government is not truly Zionist. We should focus on how a common reader would interpert the passage, and it will be through the possessive, because the article he will click on will say so. Guy Montag 03:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If you have a non-Wikipedia source that demonstartes it's problematic, by all means. I have provided one, now it's the opposition's turn. El_C 03:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That appears to be the same Ministry of Foreign Affairs that insists that the territories are "disputed", not "occupied": Jayjg (talk)  15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand then. The wikipedia article on the Palestinian territories makes it a loaded political argument, and outside sources use it. Is wikipedia wrong and Israel is using the terminology of its adversaries, or is the article wrong? Guy Montag 01:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Guy, Jay, I'm going to have to see sources outside of Wikipedia articles regarding the use of Palestinian territories in this article. Thanks. El_C 01:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why? Guy Montag

 * Because it's subject to interpertation. I want to see a source which states outright the term is problematic. El_C 21:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. The palestinian territories article has already established the fact that the term is loaded. Lets use a term that would not be subject to interpertation instead. It's that simple.

Guy Montag 00:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no. *YOU* say the article established it as a loaded term. I do not see it that way. I think the first sentence is far more telling -- The term "Palestinian territories" is used by mainstream Western journalists as a collective name for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And, as has already been established here, even the Israeli government (or at least one part of it) uses the term. So in essense, we have a term that the Israelis, the palastinian, and the western media all use. It sounds to me like your claim that it's a loaded term is wholly without merit. →Raul654 01:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Guy, either you provide a reputable source, as I did, or there isn't really much left to speak about. Why? Because we'd be going in circles. El_C 05:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose my source from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs insisting that they should be referrred to as "disputed" didn't count for much. Regardless, in Israel they are referred to in a number of different ways; not surpisingly, the terms are all in Hebrew. "Yesha" is one term used by the right, which is an acronym for "Yehuda, Shomron, v'Aza". Here's an interesting article talking about the terms used to describe the territories, which actually argues that "occupied" is the most neutral: In any event, I think it would be hard to deny that "the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is by far the least ambiguous term. Once you start talking about "Palestinian territories", then you have to parse that; does that mean the territories controlled by the P.A. (and which subset of those), or does it mean the West Bank and Gaza, or (as militants would have it), does it mean all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip? Jayjg (talk) 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, really, what is wrong with "West Bank and Gaza" here? How could it offend anyone? It's four words, but short ones that add up to less than the two long ones. The problems are in the Palestinian territories article, which should be rewritten to reflect the discussion here.--John Z 15:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no idea; El C evidently objected to my use of them, and converted them:, and since then there has been a conflict. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not object to them, I unified them for convinience. I had no idea that there would be objections to that. El_C 00:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is blaming you. Those people that want it changed back to West Bank and Gaza are think it will solve a dubious NPOV problem.

Guy Montag 15:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I would still like to hear of a source that objects to it beyond editors here, outside of Wikipedia. It is a notable enough term, so one would presume there would be little difficulties establishing this. I admit I am somewhat bothered with a reversion lacking this referencial basis. El_C 2 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Israeli Victory?
This is really a POV. The outcome was much more a draw. Though Egypt and Syria did not achieve their major war aims Israel and the United States failed to restore the status-quo ante as this was recognised in the immediate disengagement agreements that led to the eventual separate peace between Egypt and Israel signed at Camp David.
 * Israel was hours away from encircling and destroying the Egyptian third army, and days (maybe a week) away from doing the same to the second egyptian army (at which point, organized resistance on the sinai front would have ended). In the north, Syria et al were preparing a counterattack (which would almost certainly have failed, given the tactics used in previous battles). Israel was definitely winning, and the US held them back from delivering the crushing final blows. Or, to quote the article "Israel, in short, was to emerge quasi-victorious, not triumphant" So yes, the war ended in Israeli victory. →Raul654 18:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with 217.158.116.150 above. This was not the opinion of many, especially Israelis - ordinary people, officials and generals at the time as well as outside observers at the time and many or most historians. Would Israel have been in that position without American aid? After all the Americans (with Soviet intervention in the background) did loudly say no and Israel accepted.  It is really even secondguessing the Israeli command at the time to call it an Israeli victory. E.g. the very respected Zeev Schiff called it "a territorial draw" with Egypt, though a major victory against Syria. Sadat's later Foreign Minister, Ismail Fahmy called it a draw, though he commented the achievement was hardly worth going to war (that's his POV) Trevor Dupuy in Elusive Victory, a standard military history: "If war is the employment of military force in support of political objectives, there can be no doubt that in strategic and political terms the Arab states - and in particular Egypt, won the war, even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory."  (Israel's losses in the war were 30 times as great, relatively, than the USA's in World War 2, according to Dupuy) IMHO Dupuy hits the nail on the head, even thought Israel was of course "winning" at the end.
 * It is at the very least highly misleading to say "Ended by a United Nations cease-fire in Israeli victory" - it sounds like the UN made an official judgment - so I will cut it. Only the driest and most indisputable of facts belong in a table.--John Z 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Since it's described in detail later, I can live with the changes. Suffice it to say, had the war gone on much longer, Arab losses would have spiraled upwards very quickly (a fact which no one really disputes). →Raul654 23:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you say that Israel had not won this war then you can say that the Soviets didn't win the WWII, it's completely wrong. Israel had lost fewer troops than the Arabs and if the Soviets wouldn't stop them they would take Damascus. The Arabs says that they win this war because of the relative small loss that they have comparing to the last war.

The aforementioned source?
In the Lead up to the surprise attack section, the text says "Finally, Zvi Zamir personally went to Europe to meet the aforementioned source. . ." But what source is this referring to? The only previously mentioned source is King Hussein of Jordan, but I doubt that's what it means. Anyone have any insights?
 * Second, they learned from a high-ranking Egyptian informant (who to-this-day remains confidential, known only as "The Source") →Raul654 June 28, 2005 18:02 (UTC)

Camp David
This section needs to be expanded. Sadat's initiative was designed in part to block the Soviet call for the reconvening of the Middle East Peace Conference that met shortly after the October 1973 cease-fire. The co-sponsors of that conference were the USA & the USSR. The Americans were opposed to reconvening the conference and the Sadat administration believed it could get more out of direct talks -- though Sadat's initial proposal included the participation of Syria and the PLO. They both declined.

I strongly disagree. This section, if anything should be reduced. This is not an article about Camp David; most such material should go there. In any case, it should not include completely false statements like the Americans being opposed to the reconvention of the Geneva Conference. Carter and Vance worked very hard to get it reconvened, and it was if anything more an American than a Soviet initiative. I am removing the part about Iran assuming the mantle of leadership of the Arab world; no matter who said it, it is eccentric, to say the least. Iran is not an Arab country. The speculative connection of Camp David and the Iran-Iraq war is also rather farfetched, and in any case has little to do with the topic of the article.--John Z 30 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Well I disagree with that. I think there needs to be more research to clear this matter up amongst us here and that is why I have not made any amendments but merely flagged up a point for discussion. My understanding is that the Geneva Conference was largely seen in the Middle East as a Soviet initiative. Brezhnev later tabled his own plan commonly known as the Brezhnev Plan that was essentially a rehash of past UN resolutions. Kissinger and Nixon were opposed to the reconvening of the ME Peace Conference as they favoured continuing the "disengagement" strategy. I'm not sure what evidence there is for Carter and Vance working "very hard" to get the Geneva conference reconvened -- had that been so why didn't it happen as the Soviets were always demanding its recall.

I agree with the points about Iran though. Iran's foreign policy changed radically after the 1979 Islamic Revolution but their position was and is never in favour of Arab unity or Arab nationalism which the Iraqi government elevated to try to win support from the Arab minority who live in southern Iran -- the Islamic government called for Islamic solidarity exclusively.

 * There is no doubt and has never been any dispute - there is a great deal of documentation - that although it never happened, Carter and Vance wanted to reconvene the Geneva Conference quite strongly in 1977 - they issued a joint declaration with the Soviets in October. (cf any general book like Shlaim or Quandt) It was the centerpiece of their early Middle East diplomacy, following the recommendations of the Brookings Institute report by Brzezinski and others.  They were more serious about it than Kissinger and Nixon were about the actual conference, called for by SC 338 and only meeting for a short time in 73-74. You're right that for this one the Soviets were more serious about than the Americans, who preferred behind the scenes, less open comprehensive multilateral/UN diplomacy then, and didn't really like it, except as a threat.  The 2nd conference never reconvened in 77 because of Sadat's initiative before it was to probably reconvene, and which the US knew nothing whatsoever about.  The Brezhnev plan is even later - 1982.  An interesting source for Geneva Conference and reconvening matters  (he even says himself that he might be providing excessive detail) is Ismail Fahmy's (Sadat's Foreign Minister, father of the present ambassador to the US) Negotiating for Peace in the Middle East.--John Z 3 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Question
Israel argued that Sadat felt the root of the problem was in the great shame over the Six-Day War, and before any reforms could be introduced he felt that shame had to be overcome - I think that is supposed to a reference to Raphael Israeli's (note the last name) biography of Sadat. Am I wrong? →Raul654 00:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, that typo led to a fairly major change in meaning. - SimonP 00:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - very much so :) →Raul654 00:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS - I've gone ahead and made that sentence explicit in its reference to the biography (Isreali is, unfortunately, still a bit ambigious). However, I'd also prefer a page citation, if possible. →Raul654 00:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nose
I removed this sentence: "This Israeli salient was nicknamed "Golda's Nose" from its shape." If this is true, could someone provide a citation? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 12:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jordan halved?
How was Jordan halved in size in 1967? Jordan is 92,300 km², while the West Bank is only 5,860 km². According to Britannica the West Bank had about 47% of Jordan's total population in 1967, so the halving was by population, not by size. - SimonP 18:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I got the quote from here: "Hussein had been relucantly dragged into the Six Day War by Egypt and lost half his Kingdom - the West Bank - as a result" (Rabinovich, 45). On the other hand, your statistics don't lie. →Raul654 18:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rabinovich must have been being imprecise. While most would read that as referring to area, he seems to measure kingdom size by population. - SimonP 18:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a wikipedia article or excerpts from Abraham Rabinovich's book?
Ever other paragraph seems to be taken directly from Rabinovich's book that this might as well be called the official war history of israel. I'm not accusing of a bias, but implying the excessive quotations from a single israeli author might be seen by other readers as a POV way of presenting things. I believe that the arab world did not publish any official findings etc., but other views on the war must be incorporated, israeli victory notwithstanding. Right now despite a pretty good presentation of the war, it sounds like snippets cut from Rabinovich's research. Idleguy 05:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself - the arab world conducted no official inquiries or studies into the war, and (excluding Ariel Sharon) the principle people involved on both sides are all dead. To complain of a lack of arab sources is patently unfair. →Raul654 22:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Very well, but also, to complain of a complain of a lack of MORE references, than just that of Rabinovich, is also unfair. If there are no Arab sources, then this is no justification of counting on LESS sources. In fact, it is a justification of the very opposite, that we need more and more sources from elsewhere. Rabinovich, is here, in this one-sided article, is almost God-provider-of-all-knowledge, incarnates! -- Thank you Maysara 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 1