Talk:Valley of Tears

above all "valley of tears" is a Biblical expression and a reference to Psalm 83 etc. ought to be there as a primary reference=source. All other usage is then secondary albeit OK.89.75.140.113 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Article appears to be very biased

The article cites only Israeli sources, and apparently, one American source. There are no Syrian, or Arab sources of the battle whatsoever. The entire battle is written from the Israeli point of view; there are no details of the battle from the Syrian POV. Also, the casualty rate seems highly unreasonable: 60-80 Israeli tanks against 500 Syrian tanks. At the second day it is written that "Due to the Israelis' lack of night-fighting equipment, the Syrians reached within close range, and a battle commenced at ranges of 30 to 60 yards". This is unreasonable, since it is written in the Yom Kippur War article that Arab armies had night vision equipment, so logically the 500 Syrian tanks and RPG armed infantry should have been able to destroy the opposing 40 Israeli tanks with ease. Yet the Syrians retreat losing 130 tanks! Then, two battalions of around 1000 to 3000 Syrians are beaten by less than 20 Israeli soldiers. I presume the Syrians must have been completely blind and armed with only sticks, fighting against soldiers with superhuman powers. The 77th Battalion then proceeds to eliminate two T62 battalions and the the Assad Republican Guard singlehandedly.

The article is really biased. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it shows IDF tactical and training superiority? How is it biased? I assume because Israel prevailed? Irondome (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrians didn't lose 500 tanks, only 260-300 (the rest are APCs and others). Maybe It should be clarified. I wish I had a Syrian source on this battle, but I don't really know of any. -- Nudve (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of the syrian "APCs" as you call them were in fact BMP-1 IFVs with sagger and 76mm guns with huge anti-armour capabilities, and night vision combat equipment. Fully the equal of most Western armour of the time. This merely makes the IDF stand all the more impressive. at least 400 Syrian tanks were destroyed. Irondome (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The article I read seems to use a thorough mix of sources. Kenneth M. Pollack's (2002) Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, Studies in war, society, and the military from the University of Nebraska Press is one of the most referenced sources and Trevor N. Dupuy's (2002) Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974 from the Military Book Club can also hardly be described as "only Israeli sources". While I agree that the article is written almost exclusively from the Israeli perspective, the statements and facts are referenced to strong reliable sources. My search didn't turn up any Syrian sources of the battle, but "The Future of Land Warfare" by Chris Bellamy, opens with this battle and appears to largely coincide with the description offered in the article. As with all articles, this should be expanded to include a thorough portrait of the battle. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, it remains true that most of the article is cited from Herzog and Rabinovich. I also presume that Dupoy and Pollack, being Western sources, probably rely mainly on Israeli sources themselves. I still press the point that an amount of what is written in the article is illogical, such as the fact that 500 Syrian tanks soldiers with night vision equipment should have fared well against 40 Israeli tanks bereft of any such equipment, not to mention the two battalions who were stopped by the 20 soldiers, or the 77th that destroyed two T62 battalions (one of the most powerful tanks at the time) as well as the Assad Republican Guard (whose name suggests they are well trained and equipped). Sherif9282 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree this is written from exclusively israel or western sources. i'll try and find a couple of alternatives to give a more balanced view. I'd also like to find some more supporting information about night vision capacity of both sides, since the article does seem to offer a very strange view on this topic.

However I must disagree with one thing it is'nt good practice to look at the numbers engaged and if the weaker side inflict disproportinate losses assume it must be be untrue, battles are not won by logical calculations of relative firepower. The Israelis were heavily outnumbered but that is case in many of the engagements they fought in 1967 and 1973 they still won most of them.

The main reasons for heavy syrian losses compared to the israelis are training and leadership. The israeli troops were extremely well trained (particularly their tank crews, gunnery practice was and is something of an obsession) and well led. Commanders were appointed on merit most more senior ones with battle experience in at least one other war 1967 some in 156 and 1948 as well. The Israelis were also highly motivated defending their own country against a potentially fatal attack. The syrian troops in both this and other wars against israel were very different. In general their training was poor even in elite formations with minimal knowledge of the weapons they used. While the officerd were in many cases political appointments whose loyalty to assad was more important than ability, with little regard or interest in their troops. Both the Russian advisors and Egyptian allies of Syria had a very low opinion of their effectiveness. I should stress i don't wish to suggest the syrians lacked bravery indeed the ordinary soldiers showed determination of a high degree and fought hard. But years of repeated training and good command count for a lot in modern war and the syrians were lacking in both compared to their opponents.Kurtk60 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Alright! Good article, I can see you have put alot of hard work and researching into it. My review is below, I hope you find it helpful in continuing to improve the article. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Lead

• • "They penetrated the Israeli defenses at night, benefiting from night vision equipment, which the Israelis lacked.", suggest changing to "They penetrated the Israeli defenses at night with the help of night vision equipment—equipment that the Israelis lacked."

• • "The next day, they mounted another attack, and at one point less than forty Israeli tanks were facing approximately 500 Syrian tanks." suggest changing to: "The next day, the Syrians mounted a second attack, and at one point in the engagement less than forty Israeli tanks were facing approximately 500 Syrian tanks."

• • "On the fourth day, a small reinforcement force arrived when the 7th Brigade was down to about a dozen tanks and almost out of ammunition." Who received the reinforcements?

• • "The Israeli forces managed to hold the line for four days, after which the Syrians retreated. The reasons behind the Syrian retreat have been debated." A bit confusing, did they hold the line four additional days, for a total of eight? Or is this just counting the original four days again?

**"The reasons behind the Syrian retreat have been debated." Why did the Syrians retreat if they had such an advantage? Give a couple of the debated reasons here to better end the lead.

• • • OK, I've incorporated your suggestions into the lead. Let me know what you think about it now. -- Nudve (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That is better. How about - "The Syrians retreated for reasons that are still debated. Some sources suggest that Israel threatened Syria with a nuclear attack."
        • Done. -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Background

**I would suggest putting a {{main|Yom Kippur War}} at the top of the background section.

• • • Is it necessary? It's already established that it was a part of the war. The war article is not really the main article of this section. Alternately, could we use a "see" template intead of the "main" template? -- Nudve (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No this is not necessary, just a suggestion. It is useful though in helping to establish main and sub articles Charles Edward (Talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "He also convened his battalion commanders to go over the main points of the operational plans that were previously implemented in the Israeli Northern Command." Suggest changing to "He held a meeting with his battalion commanders to go over the main points of the operational plans that were previously implemented in the Israeli Northern Command."

• • "The Israeli Intelligence estimated that Syria had more than 900 tanks and 140 batteries of artillery immediately behind the Syrian line." Where was the Syrian line? Where did it come from? Had it been there very long?

• • "The 7th Division was one of the units ready to attack." Was this the Syrian 7th division? It is a bit confusing since the Israeli unit was also a 7th. It would suggest labeling Isreali and Syrian when referring to units.

**"That would lead to a double envelopment of most of the Israeli forces in the Golan, as the 7th Division strikes west through El Rom and Wassett while the 5th Division moves to the Arik Bridge north of the Kinneret. Each division was to advance in two echelons." Suggest changing to "The plan would lead to the double envelopment of most of the Israeli forces in the Golan. Each division was to advance in two echelons, the 7th Division would strike westward through El Rom and Wassett while the 5th Division would move to the Arik Bridge north of the Kinneret"

• • • Made the changes. The line was basically the Purple Line, as the Syrians were "right on the border". The source does not elaborate, but I suppose the artillery was behind the tanks. -- Nudve (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Prelude

• • "They ran back to their battalions while Ben-Gal moved the headquarters out of the camp." Who is "they"? The Syrians or Isrealis?

**"Ben-Gal decided to maintain a reserve force, and began building a third battalion." Why did he decide to do this?

• • • It was his strategy. The source actually says it was his "obsession". Do you think this should be mentioned? After all, the article is not about Ben-Gal. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it would be good to expand on that just a bit to better explain to the reader the purpose of the reserve force. For example: "Ben-Gal decided to maintain a reserve force because..., and began building a third battalion." Charles Edward (Talk) 15:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've added that this was his usual strategy. -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**"With reinforcements, the new battalion gradually became a proper one." Who received reinforcements, and how did that make the battalion "proper". I would suggest removing proper and replacing it with a better explanation, like "combat increased" if that is what is intended.

• • • I tried to clarify. Basically, it means it had three "proper" companies for tactical maneuvering. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok that makes sense now. I would still suggest slight change. Pawn would fall under WP:SLANG, so instead say something like: "With reinforcements, the new battalion gradually grew to full strength, giving Ben-Gal an additional battalion available for maneuvering purposes."
        • "full stregnth" would be misleading, but I wrote battalions instead of pawns (although the source actually says "pawns"). -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**"He received Lieutenant-Colonel Yair Nafshi's 74th Battalion, which was in line with the fortifications in the northern sector." Are these the reinforcements, or are these forces he moved from elsewere? It is not clear.

• • • There was a missing "the" in that sentence. Now it says what the source says. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**"The first battalion was stationed from fortification A1 on the Purple Line directly east of Masada on the foothills of Mount Hermon south for four miles to the Hermonit hill." This sentance is a bit confusing. I am not quite certain what you mean by it. Maybe this: "The first battalion was stationed on the Purple Line. The line began at the fortification A1, directly east of Masada on the foothills of Mount Hermon, and ran south four miles to Hermonit hill." If so that sounds much better.

• • • Done. -- Nudve (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First Day

• "At 13:55, Nafshi's sector came under a heavy artillery barrage, and several soldiers along the Purple Line reported that the Syrians were removing the camouflage nets of their tanks and artillery." suggest change to. "At 13:55, while Nafshi's sector came under a heavy artillery barrage, several soldiers along the Purple Line reported that the Syrians were removing the camouflage nets from their tanks and artillery."

• • "Nafshi was at Kuneitra when the order came to deploy his platoons and move his headquarters somewhere safer, and he immediately ordered his troops out of town, tanks forward, soft vehicles back." Suggest changing to "Nafshi was at Kuneitra when the order came to deploy his platoons and move his headquarters somewhere safer. He immediately ordered his troops leave the town, and the tanks advance while the soft vehicles feel back."

• • "Nafshi ordered his men to destroy the bridging tanks, and during that afternoon the ones in sight were put out of action at ranges of 2,000 yards, and only two managed to reach the anti-tank ditch north of A3, opposite Hermonit." Another cumbersome sentance. How about "Nafshi ordered his men to destroy the bridging tanks. During the afternoon the Israeli destroyed most of Syrian bridging tanks within sight, putting them out of action by shots being fired at ranges of 2,000 yards. Only two of the bridging tanks managed to reach the anti-tank ditch north of A3."

• • The article needs a good copy edit. I think this will give you a good start and some pointers.
    • Yeah, I'll go over it when I have time and patience :) -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

**In your footnotes you need to use ndashes rather than hyphens. See WP:DASH for examples

• • • Will do. -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Good.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• • I think if you are going to continue to improve the article, it will be important to get more information on the battle from the perspective of the Syrian front. However at this point I do not believe there is a POV in the article so much as a lack of information on the other side.
    • I know. I'm not sure if there is any material on it from the Syrian side. -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

1. 

• • This goes along with my prior comment. More information about the Syrian retreat and reasoning during the battle would be an important addition. (Although I can understand that some of the information may not be known or available).

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Good

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

• • The map the top is great, but how about some more images? Maybe a picture of the Golan Heights, or a photo of the commanders, or what the tanks looked like, etc. Those are just ideas. Two or three should do the trick.
    • I'll try to find some. -- Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

• • Good.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• • Good.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: On hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Article need a fair amount of copy editing and some additional images.

You can reply here or my talk page when you are ready for me to check the article again. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good so far! I have struck out the items that are resolved. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good progress. At this point the only thing holding it back is a good copy edit and a couple additional images. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Decision

I am going to fail this GA, after several days have passed without the primary concerns being addressed. I beleive in its current state, the article fails for prose issues, and lack of images. These are easy to fix, when you have fixed them submit for a new review and it should pass. Good luck! Charles Edward (Talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've been a bit busy lately and have neglected this article in the last week. One day, when I have time and patience, I'll rewrite it, try to create some graphics, perhaps find a picture that can pass as fair use, and look for more sources. Thanks for the review. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Truly great job with the article Nudve! I just have a minor suggestion: Wikilinking. The context is good (could be better with Syrian sources, although I am aware of the difficulty of finding those sources), but lacks wikilinks. Before it gets the GA crown, I think someone should go on a linking spree throughout the article, perhaps while it's being copyeditted. Cheers and again, great job! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I tried to wikilink all (notable) names and stuff. Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you did exactly what I suggested... too bad these articles haven't been created yet because I see a lot of red links. I don't think this should get in the way of a GA pass anyhow. Cheers, and good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rafid vs Al-Rafid vs Al-Rafeed vs Ar-Rafid

The map (from 1973) shows a city called Rafid along the Syria-Golan border. The article also uses the name Rafid. On Google Maps the only reference to Rafid is in Lebanon 18km north of Mt. Hermon. In what appears to be the area of the Syrian Rafid, Google shows Al-Rafeed, which seems similar to me, a layman. Yahoo and Mapquest agree on Ar-Rafid. While I'm no expert, I'm relatively certain the link to Rafid (which redirects to Al-Rafid in Lebanon) was incorrect, so I've removed it.

What this article needs now, is someone who knows the area to clarify: is Rafid in Syria now called Al-Rafeed/Ar-Rafid? Sudopeople (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates needed, battlefield today, in popular culture

Can someone who has access to the relevant sources please add the coordinates of some of the major positions mentioned such as: A1, A3, Booster, Bunker 107, Bunker 109 etc. as its very difficult to conceptualize without them. The page should ideally describe the battlefield today. How closely, if at all, does the Valley of Tears (TV series) correspond to the battle? Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

Elie20092016lolol (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The casualties are in accurate and the brigade, isreali brigades contained 5k tanks and 200k casualties, the causalties of syria are fake, according to the president its 200 tanks destroyed.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)