Wikipedia

Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 2

< Talk:Yom Kippur War
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Meeso in topic Yom Kippur War is NPOV
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

New title

Latest comment: 19 years ago64 comments10 people in discussion

Such a long title -- why not just "1973 Arab-Israeli War" (like the 1948 Arab-Israeli War)?--Doron 08:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason I opted for the title in question, Doron, is that I felt that it was best to move to a title that was none of those preferred by various factions. If you felt strongly about it, I wouldn't object to moving it to "1973 Arab-Israeli War". I do however object very strongly to moving it back to Yom Kippur War. Those who support the Israeli viewpoint need to at least give consideration to putting the NPOV policy before their narrow factional bias. Clearly, it is not neutral to describe a conflict with the name of one of the involved party's holy days!
Just to forestall the inevitable: Yes, Mark, I'm making a point. But actually it's a very good one. It is a double standard to suggest that we should use the name used by the majority for this article and not for others. I would support either standard, so long as it applies across the board and is clearly stated. We either consider the majority usage the most neutral or we do not. We cannot decide it differently in different cases, based on whether it suits our POV or does not. Grace Note 00:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
"Article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". (--Wikipedia:Naming conventions) The name 'Yom Kippur War' *is* the common english name for the conflict. Your suggested name violates our naming convention, and I have reverted it. →Raul654 04:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
But you do not apply the same standard to Occupied territories (Israeli) and other pages where people who share your POV do not want the common name for a thing to be used? Why not? If you do apply the same standard, please show some willingness to put it into action there. Grace Note 03:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


i disagree with the statement from Grace Note:
Clearly, it is not neutral to describe a conflict with the name of one of the involved party's holy days!
the above statement implies that calling the conflict the 'Yom Kippur War' somehow imparts, supports or legitimizes israel's political position or military objectives on this conflict; but, how so? the name was given because syria and egypt chose this date expecting the IDF to be at its least prepared. the name is simple, very descriptive, and it does not transmit any particular viewpoint. it is named after the day the event started. in my estimation changing it to '1973 Arab-Israeli War' would make it confusing to the vast majority of people. this is in no way parallel to the debate over what to call the palestinian territories/occupied palestinian territories/occupied palestine where the term used to describe the issue imparts much meaning (or at least some consider it to do so). i submit that the title of the article carries no actual POV implications and should remain as is. uri budnik 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Uri, I'm sorry, that's total nonsense. The Arabs don't call it the "Yom Kippur War". Yes, they picked the day on purpose. Had they attacked the States on Christmas Day, they wouldn't call it the Christmas Day War either. The fact that the war has more than one name might alert you to there being some dispute as to what it's called. Grace Note 03:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Uri - bear in mind that GraceNote is disrupting this article merely to prove a point (disruption is something he's very good at -- it's why the arbitration committee has already sanction him under his previous name, Dr. Zen). Go read Talk:Territories under Israeli control to see the point he is trying to prove. →Raul654 05:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I note that you do not apply the same standard to that page. What a surprise! Here, you insist on moving the page to a POV title because it is the one most widely understood. There, you do not make the same insistence. The arbcom sanctioned me previously, Mark, because I disagreed with you and wouldn't bow the knee. Like previous editors who have done the same, you refused to negotiate and find a consensus and instead used the arbcom to settle it that way.Grace Note 03:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
well, i just wanted to register one more opinion on what the title of the article should be (and my reasoning for it). i am a bit surprised that the article name was just changed without first getting discussed in the talk page. that i did not realize until raul654's above comment to me. changing the name of the article is a drastic step and should be proposed and discussed before being done. uri budnik 07:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I advise you to read this policy. I think it's incumbent on an editor to fix POV problems without demur. Grace Note 03:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we seeking NPOV, or trying to determine the most commonly used English language name? Since there's still a redirect at Yom Kippur War, and "Yom Kippur War" is mentioned very prominently in the first paragraph, I don't see what objection any reasonable editor could have to basing the article title on verifiable fact. Using "Yom Kippur War" as the article title has a slight but distinctly visible POV. Unfocused 04:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to support either policy. I don't think the policy on NPOV is tenable, because it's rather confused and there are places where it breaks down. This is one of them. I can support a policy that says "use commonly used and understood names as titles" or one that says "do not present opinions as facts" but they clearly clash here, and whichever is chosen, I want it applied as broadly as possible. In particular, if we opt for "common title" here, I want "common title" for all pages. Personally, I feel that the "common title" policy was motivated by good reasons: it would be nightmarish to title Liancourt Rocks or Sea of Japan without expressing a POV (would we put rocks or islands at long X lat Y? Sea between Japan and Korea?).
I am, as is Mark's wont, cast as someone disrupting Wikipedia just to make it uncomfortable for the likes of him, but that's far from the truth. I want an NPOV Wikipedia, and where it can't be NPOV for other considerations, I want it to be evenhanded. If it's "disrupting" Wikipedia to want those things, then I don't mind the label. Grace Note 06:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I like our naming conventions policy a lot, but it's clear to me that the naming policy cannot trump a founding principle, namely NPOV, when there are two or more widely used names for the same thing. Various POVs will always remain in the fact that the redirects will continue to exist, but the article itself should be isolated from POVs if there is a reasonably neutral possible title that can still identify the topic properly. In this case, I think there is. Unfocused 07:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the NPOV policy is flatly wrong. "Neutral" writing means you cannot tell the author's biases based on his writing. The name "Yom Kippur War", as the undisputed common name in english, is almost-by-defintion neutral. Using another term would be glaringly obvious (and thus POV). →Raul654 08:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If the "Yom Kippur War" was the undisputed common name in english, you would be correct, but sadly, it is not. Using "Yom Kippur War" and claiming is it "undisputed" when even the first sentence of the introductory paragraph at the top includes some of the alternate names is glaringly obvious POV. Unfocused 13:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You are simply ignoring that there is a dispute. Perhaps you feel the Arabs don't count because they aren't native English speakers or that they are just adding "colour" by using a different name. Grace Note 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I don't mind either "Yom Kippur War" or "1973 Arab-Israeli War". I don't know what the common English name of the war is. As for POV, the title does not express any view. It was a war and it started on Yom Kippur, it was between Israel and Arab states and it was in 1973. This is in contrast to "Occupied territories (Israeli)", which expresses a view according to some interpretation -- the view that these territories are under occupation.--Doron 13:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I live near Detroit, which has the highest concentration of middle eastern people in the U.S. I've spent time in coffee shops, restaurants, convenience stores and other places where this topic has been discussed. Not once that I recall has it been referred to as the "Yom Kippur War" in that context unless a Jewish person was present, and in that case, only the Jewish person used that term. Most often, it's called the "October War", but occasionally I've heard it called the "'73 War", as well as several pro-Egyptian and pro-Syrian POV names. It is not my point that it shouldn't be called the "Yom Kippur War" by those who prefer that name. However, it is our duty to recognize that "Yom Kippur War" is a name centered on a very specific POV, and does express a POV, so it should not be the primary title of the article. Unfocused 14:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. It is widely not known as the "Yom Kippur War". Doron simply ignores that a person might use the holiday as the date of the attack without naming it after the holiday. Grace Note 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The common English name is "Yom Kippur War"; it gets far more Google hits than any other form. And the war was specifically started on Yom Kippur, not in October, or 1973, or Ramadan. Yom Kippur was picked for a reason. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The rank hypocrisy of suggesting that we should use the common name here ! You have absolutely no shame whatsoever. Grace Note 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
i understand how the name of a conflict can carry a POV. a very clear case (if i may use a non-middle east example) is the conflict that in the US is called the mexican-american war. in mexico it is uniformly refered to as the US invasion of mexico. this second name clearly implies that it was a war of aggression. now, contrast that with "yom kippur war," if you do not know anything about the conflict, what can you infer here other than when it happened and who was involved. calling it the "yom kippu war" is descriptive, accurate, succinct, its not misleading and its not a statement of political propaganda; furthermore, its widely used. (perhaps the strongest justification) i gather from the comments above that some consider it a problem that it contains the name of a holy day of one of the combatants. yes it does, but, what is the POV implication of that?

quoted from above:

...it is our duty to recognize that "Yom Kippur War" is a name centered on a very specific POV, and does express a POV...
what very specific POV is that? i asked that in my first post on this discussion. someone replied that it was nonsense. that the arabs don't call it that and that if they attacked the US on christmas day that they would not call that the christmas day war. probably so, but calling a war that started on christmas day the christmas day war would carry what POV? referring to this conflict, the yom kippur war, by the day when it started means that you support one side over the other? (...and share its POV?) uri budnik 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, the name "Yom Kippur War" is the view of one side of the conflict, and only one. Jews would prefer to use this name, because it advances their POV that they were unjustly attacked on their holy day. I'm not saying that's wrong. Arabs prefer to view the attack date as a tactical decision to enhance their chance for success in a war of retribution. I'm not saying that's correct. We're presented with two entirely different versions of events, each with its own distinct POV. And only one article title actively advances the POV of one of the groups in question, which is why that proposed article title should be a redirect and not the main article title. It should certainly remain present as a redirect, though! In any case, the war was not solely fought on the day of Yom Kippur, so "Yom Kippur War" is not fully descriptive, either. Finally, Google counting is a good exercise to get a feel for the lay of the land, especially to see if any alternate titles have any prominence, but Google counting doesn't provide NPOV answers, and NPOV must trump our naming policy. Unfocused 21:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This is great.... Can it be "POV" to call the war "Yom Kippur War"? Let's see:
  • Did it happen in Yom Kippur? Yes
  • Does the name prejudice the "other side" No, it is just a statement of fact.
  • Is this the name the english common name for this conflict: Yes.
I just don't see the point in this discussion. How does the name imply "Unjustness", as Unfocused says? Why would this offend Arab sensibilities? I just don't see how.
I am sure that the next topic will be moving Six Day War to something else because it implies that the IDF fought too hard and the war finished too quick, therefore advancing Israeli POV. By the way, let's call Intifada something else, since the arab meaning "shaking off" has anti-Israeli POV.
This really looks like an attempt to disrupt a very well written page that was even a FA in our encyclopedia... And sorry for the sarcasm.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You simply ignore that "Yom Kippur" is not "Yom Kippur" for Arabs. Or for me, now we come to mention it. I don't even know which day it falls on. Or care. Yes, it looks to you like an attempt to disrupt the article. I've said it before: it's very hard to step outside our biases, particularly when they are shared by the system we are working in. Grace Note 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think that seeking NPOV for an article title is "attempt to disrupt". I haven't proposed a single change to "a very well written page that was even a FA in our encyclopedia" other than the title of the page. That is the only change I've suggested. And I've even suggested preserving "Yom Kippur War" as a redirect to the article.
Did it happen in Yom Kippur? Well, for one side, it did start then. The other side, which was a larger force if I'm not mistaken, doesn't recognize Yom Kippur, so for over half of the combatants, the answer is no. Ignoring the side you don't sympathize with and their POV is not NPOV.
Does the name prejudice the "other side". Well, actually I've already argued that it does. You haven't explained why you think it doesn't invoke any sympathy among those who know what Yom Kippur is about. Is the current name the only name widely used to identify the topic? No. Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians and other Arabs don't call this the "Yom Kippur War". Do you suggest we ignore them and their POV?
There is no point in this discussion, but there is a point. The article title is not currently NPOV.
Regarding the other changes you propose, those are up to you to pursue if you like. I don't accept your hyperbole as a reasonable extension of my discussion on this issue.
"Sorry for the sarcasm" is no big deal. Don't worry, I don't take offense very easily. You can continue to do that all you want. Unfocused 01:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
"The other side, which was a larger force if I'm not mistaken, doesn't recognize Yom Kippur, so for over half of the combatants, the answer is no." I'm afraid Sebastian is plain ignoring that. Yes, the attack was on the day that Jews celebrate as Yom Kippur. But the people doing the attacking do not celebrate Yom Kippur. For them, it was just another day in Ramadan. And yes, there is a point: we either adopt NPOV as a principle or we don't. It's either flexible or it isn't. But if it is, it is for every page, not just the ones where it would favour our POV.
Sebastian, the point about the Six Day War was not very meaningful, but yes, the one about the intifada was. Do Likudites call it something else? If they do, then by the same argument here, it can and should be moved to another title. Grace Note 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually Guys, I am not ignoring anything. Arabs chose Yom Kippur purposefully. They did care and did attack precisely because of that. They are not diminished or attacked in any way by this name. Let us not forget that "POV" means "Point of View" as in "One side of an idea". There is no idea here, just a name.
As far as Intifada, I don't think it should be moved from the same reasons we shouldn't move this article. Is the english common name, plain and simple. As you can see in Talk:Territories under Israeli control I voted in favor of the name "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" even though there is an idea associated with the concept of occupation... But if the UN and a lot of people call it that there isn't much sense in calling it anything else.
Grace, I saw you passionately defend this last argument but I think you are now on the other side of the same argument. Let me draw a quick parallel with the previous case. The fact that the territories are called occupied by the majority of people doesn't make the concept less POV. Some Israelis (and even some non Israelis) don't agree with the word but we still try to keep it. But here, alas, we argue that even though most people call it "Yom Kippur War", we need to mind the sensibilities and POVs of the Arabs (and some non Arabs) thus "neutralizing" a title. Is this concept dependent on how many people support the non traditional view?
Grace, you seem a passionate yet balanced editor (sorry Unfocused, I have never read you before) you surely see the irony of this dychotomy. This is not about me being jewish or somebody else being arab or whatever. For me, is about consistency and being as fair as we can. As several people said before, in this particular case we need to either violate POV (very very slightly, in my own POV) or violate the naming convention.
PS: Unfocused, thanks for not taking offense, I surely could've written my opinions in a less confrontational way.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Sebastian, you are not distinguishing the choice of day (because it was a holiday for the people being attacked) from the name for the war (for which Mark favours a POV name because it matches his POV). No dispute that the day chosen was "Yom Kippur" and it's pointless to keep revisiting that. The salient point is that the attackers do not call it the Yom Kippur War regardless that they chose that day.
Yes, I argued for the common names, but I was shouted down. I am arguing for our plumping for either the common name or a neutral name. Not one for one article, the other for another. I want us to apply the same standard to all articles. It's my personal belief that the policy on NPOV is for practical purposes entirely untenable and has led to some very poor articles (and also some very good ones) and that the commonly used name should be used for all articles. However, if that view is not acceptable for Occupied Territories (Israeli), I need an explanation of why it is acceptable here. The only explanation I can think of is that there is a double standard: it is okay to use POV titles for articles where the POV is pro-Israeli but not where the POV is thought to be anti-Israeli. Is that in fact a policy of Wikipedia?
I'm well aware of the dichotomy. I picked this article purposely as one with a very POV title, which has been used because of its widespread use. I recognise that Mark finds that disruptive. Perhaps he's comfortable with the de facto policy that pro-Israeli POV is okay. He doesn't actually bother discussing the issues, so how can anyone know? Grace Note 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sebastian, I don't really see the point of not putting this at a neutral, purely factual article title, then using redirects for any and all POV titles. As I wrote above, I've never heard this referred to as Yom Kippur War by anyone who isn't Jewish. That also includes Christians, atheists, and others, however as a topic it's pretty rare, even among political discussion groups. Yom Kippur is foreign to most of the population, so calling the more factual title "non traditional" while supporting your own culture's traditional name isn't really a fair assessment.

The only reason I don't think more people don't consider this a POV issue is that most of the english speaking world doesn't really know what Yom Kippur is. Or care. How many non-Jews really know what Hanukkah is? Or a Bar Mitzvah? Very few, and these are probably the two best known examples of Jewish tradition. These terms are very culture-specific.

But for those who do know, using "Yom Kippur War" as the primary title for the article represents the Jewish view; that it was a war precipitated by a sort of 'dirty rotten surprise attack on our holy day', so those who started it must be the evil ones in this conflict. That's what's implied by naming a war in which you are the defender by the your own holy day on which it started. (And it only started on Yom Kippur.) If Arabs and Chistians and others also observed Yom Kippur, it wouldn't be POV. But they don't.

The POV I describe is there just as much as the US Policy POV is supported by calling our current involvement in Iraq "Operation Iraqi Freedom" when in fact the reason cited for the invasion was the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. No one remembers the real, failed reason to start this war when they're told of news from "Operation Iraqi Freedom". That's also why "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a redirect and not the main article title.

It's a subtle but very effective form of propaganda to choose the name of something. That is why I think "Yom Kippur War" will never be an NPOV title to this article. And finally, regarding the "Occupied Territories" argument, if we couldn't find a single truly NPOV title among those terms in use, I'd support a truly NPOV title that no one has ever heard of, then redirect all POV titles there. NPOV trumps Naming Policy. It may make Wikipedia a little unusual, but sticking to our founding principles is never a bad thing. Unfocused 03:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfocused, I would appreciate if you refrain to mention "my own culture" in your replies. I resent that you challenge my ability to remain objective. I was born in Argentinia, and if you bother to do some little research, you would find me voting for eliminating references to the word "Malvinas" in Wiki. I don't think you appreciate me arguing that the only reason you never heard the word "Yom Kippur War" is because you live close to Dearborn, MI and they have one of the largest Muslim communities in the US [[1]]. It is getting old to accuse people of bias based on religion to win an argument, and I won't discuss under those circumstances.
Having said this, Yom Kippur is an globally recognized Jewish holiday, I had almost all my non Jewish acquaintances ask me how I was doing after fasting, even in an overwhelmingly Christian country like Argentina. I fail to see how you can extrapolate "dirty rotten surprise attack" from those two words. It is a big stretch of the imagination, to say the least...
"If Arabs and Chistians and others also observed Yom Kippur, it wouldn't be POV.". Two things
  • Christians? What about them? I thought this was only Arab-Israeli... If we count Christians why nor buddhists? They are certainly a major percentage of the worlds population...
  • If Arabs didn't care when Yom Kippur was (or what it was), the war would've started in a different day. Simple.
Regarding "Occupied Territories", I could propose "Territories that the Israeli Army seized during wars and Palestinian people claim as theirs" (or a variation of that). Those are all facts, but somehow I don't think this name is good for the article.
To finish, if this article was found good enough to be a Featured Article with that name (going through a Peer Review process and all that) then evidently it is not me who is being overzealous.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding "your own culture"; I should have phrased that a little differently. In my mind, I haven't even considered whether you're jewish or not; it just doesn't matter to me. I meant that in a more general sense, because the only people I've ever heard call this war "Yom Kippur War" were jewish. You said, the name "Yom Kippur War" is the traditional name for it, but in my experience, it is "the traditional name" only among those with a Jewish POV. The traditional name among other groups is entirely different. Re: Dearborn, yes, I'm near there now, but I've lived in many places. This particular issue is certainly more common as the topic in discussions in this area, though.
Searching the closest thing we have to an international NPOV political events naming body, the United Nations, results in five direct hits for "Yom Kippur War" and six for "1973 Arab-Israeli War", and the only one of these in their educational mission is the latter. This doesn't include the dozens of variants of the latter that are used to describe this conflict.
Your friends who ask you insightful questions regarding your traditions are doing that because they're your friends; you should expect them to know more details about your customs than the average person. Yom Kippur is on every major calendar in the world, but if you ask the average person what it is about, or why it's a Jewish holiday, 99% of them will give you a blank stare. Every year around the winter solstice holidays, there are skits in popular comedies that work along the line of "WTF is Hannukah, anyway?" These comedic bits work because in the public perception, they're based on fact. Most people are clueless about Jewish holidays.
Because you and I know what Yom Kippur is all about, we know the implications of being attacked on that holy day, so it introduces bias. The war wasn't about Yom Kippur, it wasn't completed on Yom Kippur, so it's not NPOV to call it "Yom Kippur War".
When I said "Arabs and Christians and others" I was referring to primarily Muslim Arabs, but there are significant Christian, Coptic, and other religious minorites in the armies of the aggressor combatants. Over half the people involved in this war, and most of the people killed simply don't (or didn't) believe in Yom Kippur.
The Arabs only cared about Yom Kippur because it was a day on which the Israeli defenses would be at their weakest. If there were a non-religious day on which everyone was compelled to be less vigilant, for example, if it were compulsory to return home on Mother's Day, the Arabs would have attacked then. They didn't attack on Yom Kippur to help Israel by inducing religious sympathies and empathy, they attacked then because it was an easily predictable moment of weakness. If they could have gotten the same tactical advantage without stirring up any religious zeal against them at all, they most certainly would have done so. Simple.
Regarding "Occupied Territories", I don't intend to discuss that article here. It only confuses the issue.
Finally, going through the "Featured Article" is certainly no guarantee that every single error will be caught by the time the process is over. You cannot foreclose discussion on an article just because it was featured at some time in its history. I can't recall how many corrections I've made to front page articles since I've started, other than to say it's been in the dozens, not single digits. Unfocused 16:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed compromise by Sebastian Kessel

Ok, now that we have moved past the religion/living area stage (;D) I'll go straight to the point. By your own admission, the UN has almost as many hits for one than it does for the other name. That only makes me think that it prefers neither or that it is indistinct for them. That is important. As you say, is "the closest thing we have to an international NPOV political events naming body". Therefore, the current name is not necessarily POV, at least the UN doesn't think so. The Arabs only cared about Yom Kippur because it was a day on which the Israeli defenses would be at their weakest. True, absolutely true. Nobody disputes that. But the fact that the "average person" will give me a "blank stare" when asking about why Yom Kippur is Yom Kippur is irrelevant. You yourself said that is on "is on every major calendar in the world". If that's the case and also most people don't know what Yom Kippur is then how can they "know the implication of being attacked on that day" and be biased about it? It is just a name. Alas, this discussion has gone too long and too far and I, for once, am willing to try and reach a compromise instead of arguing a point (which I terribly enjoy doing, I must somewhat shamefully admit). The 1948/49 War (aka "War of Independence") is referred to as "1948 Arab-Israeli War". Maybe we could call it "1973 Arab-Israeli War" (reversing the redirect that is currently in place) and be done with it? "Arab-Israeli conflict of October 6–October 24, 1973." is just a ridiculous name. I hope I don't get chastised by a certain group for this compromise, but instead of arguing ad aeternum I think is better to find an acceptable middle ground and be done with it. We should also slightly rewrite the intro if we go with this new title. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As I said to Doron, I'm not fixed on that title. Grace Note 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. Leave those as redirects to this, the common name, per policy. The complaints about 'Yom Kippur War' being non-neutral are vacuous. →Raul654 18:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Show them to be so. They don't automagically become "vacuous" because you say so. If one side in a war calls it "X" and the other calls it "Y", I don't see how calling it "X" can seriously be considered NPOV. Argue your POV, Mark. Can you do that? Or is your idea of an argument to threaten arbitration against someone who disagrees with you? Grace Note 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe them to be so, but compromises have to be made sometimes and 1948 Arab-Israeli War is a good example. The result would harm nobody and please most... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I could be disingenuous and say "good compromise, let's do it" but the truth is that your proposal is exactly the title that I think is most proper and neutral for this article. I also agree that it would harm nobody and please at least a few people, but it would also displease a few as well. I'd like to understand why. I think that for now, if you don't mind, I'd like to take some time (perhaps a few days or more) to think over and digest our discussion more fully. Just to take a mental break and try to understand each other a bit more.

After that, perhaps we would each put together a bullet point summary of our various arguments, then call an RfC to get some outside views. We've both been very active, and I also don't want to reach any conclusions by attrition; that's no better than an edit war. Although I've enjoyed our debate so far thoroughly, at this point, I don't expect it to mean anything other than the two of us might be able to find a mutually acceptable title. Unfocused 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm cool with that.As you know, the title as it is doesn't bother me at all but I will be more than willing to help with an RfC proposal when the time is right.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it needs to be clarified whether we have a policy on NPOV that is at all times to be adhered to or whether we have a policy on commonly used names that is at all times to be adhered to. And if we have neither, it needs to be clearly stated why and to which articles the differing standards apply. Grace Note 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is not relevant in this case, since the title is both the most common English title, and entirely NPOV. Yom Kippur is appropriate because that is the specific day chosen by the Arab countries for attack - they obviously were quite familiar with the day. No-one disputes that the war was started on Yom Kippur. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always suspected that your definition of "NPOV" was "Jay's POV" and here you confirm it! If it is NPOV, why do many people not use it as the name for the conflict? Grace Note 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

1973 Arab-Israeli War seems like a perfectly appropriate title to me. It is short and to the point, and is not a wikipedia-created neologism. It is also completely neutral. I don't really care very much one way or the other - I don't think Yom Kippur War is all that POV, either. Wars are often called multiple things. Frequently, the two sides don't call them the same thing. Seems to me that one always has to choose a single name, eventually. I'd say that 1973 Arab-Israeli War is probably the best title, but that it doesn't matter all that much. john k 04:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please forgive my slowness, but can someone please explain to me again what specifically is the point-of-view expressed by the title "Yom Kippur War"? (and just to avoid unnecessary arguments, I'll note that I do not oppose the title "1973 Arab-Israeli War", despute being Jewish).--Doron 11:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize the answer to that better sometime in the next few days, but basically, "Yom Kippur" is a Jewish holiday so that naming it such emphasizes the Jewish POV of being a victim in this war which was really more of a continuation/boil-over of a previously existing conflict, "most common english title" isn't something that can be proven by Google hits (i.e. counting hits on the UN site is counter to Google results), most of the combatants who were involved don't call it that, most of the casualties of the war don't/didn't celebrate Yom Kippur, Arabs do not believe this title is NPOV so there is significant dispute over the name used, there is a completely neutral name available, NPOV trumps Naming Policy, and no one is harmed by moving this article to the most neutral name while rewriting the opening paragraphs to better describe the naming conflict and leaving redirects in place of all POV names. The war wasn't about Yom Kippur, and it wasn't completed on Yom Kippur, only started then. It wasn't the topic of the war; it shouldn't be the primary topic of the article. Hope that helps a little. Unfocused 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Obviously most participants of the war don't observe Yom Kippur, but I fail to see how that makes the name POV. What the war is called by non-English speakers is besides the point as well, this is English Wikipedia and we are concerned only with English names. I did not say that "Yom Kippur War" is or is not the most commonly used name as I am not a native English speaker myself and most of my reading on the subject has been in Hebrew, I am only trying to understand one specific point, and that is why do you considered this name POV.
Now, in order for something to be POV, by definition, it has to express a view. For example, if the war was called "1973 Arab Invasion", that would convey the view that the Arabs were invaders. What is the view conveyed by the name "Yom Kippur War"?--Doron 14:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
First, classifying Arabs and others who don't refer to this as "Yom Kippur War" as "non-English speakers" is patently false. There are millions of non-Israeli middle easterners in the US alone who don't fit that description. There are also hundreds of thousands in other english speaking countries, not to mention that many of them in their native nations speak english. Even many middle easterners in Germany speak english. We cannot dismiss the opposing view on those grounds.
"Yom Kippur War" emphasizes the date of attack as a religious holiday for one of the combatant groups; otherwise, you might call it the "October 6th war". It is this emphasis on a religious holiday, (which was only one day of the war), and the natural resultant sympathy for a group attacked on their "holiest day" that induces bias in the readers. That the Arab nations didn't realize that this resultant sympathy would end up being far greater than the tactical advantage they gained by attacking at a weak moment is something that should be discussed in the article, but is not a reason to maintain a POV in the article title. The date of Yom Kippur was not the topic of the war, and it wasn't a war against Yom Kippur. It is undue emphasis, and it does express a POV.
I hope you can tell that I'm not out to remove all reference to this fight as "Yom Kippur War", as the POV of the defending nation in the war must be preserved and expressed. But it is improper for it to remain in the primary title of this article. Unfocused 15:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
How did the "resultant sympathy end up being far greater than the tactical advantage they gained by attacking at a weak moment"? At any rate, is it your argument that an article on a war can't be given a title based on the name given it by one side? Take the War of Jenkins' Ear, for instance. This is not a name used by the Spanish. It is debatable if the Spanish even cut off Jenkins' ear. The war was not fought over Jenkins' Ear - it was not really a war to vindicatae Jenkins. Furthermore, the name creates an unearned sense of sympathy towards the English, as it implies suffering on the part of the innocent English. I could go on, but you get the idea. As I said, 1973 Arab-Israeli War would be a completely acceptable title to me. But the idea that naming a war after one of the combatants' names for it is POV is deeply problematic. The name "Yom Kippur War" is a little bit POV in that it is the name that one side, but not the other, calls it. But that is the extent of the POV, and sometimes it is necessary to call wars what one side calls them. I think this is really much ado about nothing. john k 15:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The fact that more than half of the war's participants object to this name means that it's not "much ado about nothing". This is a serious discussion of whether there is a POV included in the current name or not. I think there is a strong POV included in "Yom Kippur War" and that's why I've allowed this discussion to take so much of my time. If there is any POV included in the article name, it should be moved to a neutral name, if available. NPOV as a founding principle of Wikipedia is far more important than the tradition of either side, or even a popularity contest. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable", and sometime it takes a long discussion to keep that promise.
War of Jenkins' Ear is an interesting counter-example, but an only tangentally related issue. Perhaps that should be a redirect as well, perhaps not, but that's not a discussion for this page. Unfocused 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. Nobody has presented any evidence that more than half the war's participants object to the name Yom Kippur War, just that they don't use it. This is not the same thing. My basic position on this subject is that extremely POV titles shouldn't be used, and that mildly POV titles should be avoided if there's a more NPOV alternative available (but only if said alternative is actually in some use). As I said, I'm largely indifferent to this article, and 1973 Arab-Israeli War seems like a perfectly acceptable title to me. But you're assuming a lot as the basis for your argument. john k
Unfocused: Again, I was not making any argument about what is the most commonly used English name of the war. I did not mean to dismiss anyone's view, I was referring to your argument that around where you live, the war is most commonly known as the October War, which is a translation of the Arabic name of the war. Whether the Arabic translation, the Hebrew translation, or something else altogether, is the most commonly used name of the war, is a different matter which I do not pretend to have an opinion about.
I am also not concerned about what the Arabs intended by attacking on that day, or anything else about the war and its connection to Yom Kippur. My only concern is why is the name "Yom Kippur War" POV. I don't see how calling it "Yom Kippur War" induces sympathy for Israel. Does the name "Ramadan War" induce sympathy for the Arabs? Does the name "Tet Offensive" induce sympathy for the Vietnamese? The name does not make anybody a victim, it does not even imply who attacked whom. It merely refers to the day on which the war started (as does "Tet Offensive"), and whatever sympathy one may grow would inevitably have to stem from further information about the war, as the name itself presents no particular view.--Doron 18:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Doron, regarding "Tet Offensive", I don't believe we should give the US Military a pass when it comes to NPOV. Redirects can handle searches and direct title entry for any and all POV titles. The important questions regarding that article are "Do we have a neutral alternative name that is also in use?" "If not, could we compose one that is as descriptive as the original, yet still NPOV?" Unfocused 00:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes, once again, I understand very well what you're aiming at, but it is based on the assumption that "Yom Kippur War" is POV, and I am yet to hear what is the view expressed by it. I argued that it does not induce any sympathy for the Jews, just as "Ramadan War" and "Tet Offensive" do not induce sympathy for the Arabs and Vietnamese, respectively. It does not even imply who attacked whom.
If YKW is not the most common name for the war, clearly it should not be the title of the article. If the title were indeed POV, clearly an alternative would be necessary. So the whole discussion is based on either establishing that some other name is more commonly used than YKW, or establishing that YKW is POV. So once again, how does this name express a view? How can it possibly bias the reader?--Doron 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Yom Kippur War" gets 344,000 Google hits, "1973 Arab-Israeli War" gets 31,000. Both are NPOV. It's really no contest here. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV by fiat, you mean? It is clearly not the POV of the "other side", Jay. If they felt it was a neutral name, they probably would call it by that name. But they don't. To avoid the well-deserved charge of hypocrisy, you are simply denying that the title you support is POV! As for the Google test, you might not that "territories under Israeli control" scores 429 Google hits, and "Occupied Territories" 1.9 million. Grace Note 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't think google hits are a good way to determine this. And Yom Kippur War is obviously very slightly POV, because it is a name used by one side but not by the other. It's hard to see as this is not at least to some extent POV, even if the name itself is not offensive and not potentially illegitimate. john k 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that anyone's trying to link this issue to the one at Territories under Israeli control. The issue there is that the article is in part about whether the territories are rightly regarded as "occupied," under international law. Therefore it seems more NPOV to have a title that doesn't prejudge the debate. Similarly, at Palestinian terrorism, the article deals in part with which groups and acts count as "terrorist" according to certain governments. For that reason, it seems more NPOV to have a neutral title like Palestinian political violence, as it does now, so that Wikipedia isn't prejudging one of the substantive issues. But when there is no such issue at stake in the body of the article, then it makes sense to go with the common-use argument, where Google hits are one good way to determine what the common use is. Regarding this article, it isn't about whether the war should be called the Yom Kippur War. That's the name used by most English speakers, and this is the English Wikipedia. We call the Falklands/Malvinas war the Falklands War because that's what most English speakers say, and although the article is in part about who the Falklands belonged to and why the war started, it's not about the name of the war, so the common-use argument applies. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Sorry but it's really difficult to take your argument seriously. No matter how many times it's pointed out to you that your discussion of whether the world is right to call the territories occupied by Israel "the Occupied Territories" is original research, you keep thinking it has force. It's not a question whether WP judges the "substantive issues" (although you're quite happy to allow us to come to the judgement that there's something wrong with calling the territories "occupied", which is a tiny-minority view -- typically of an ardent POV pusher, you simply don't recognise that your personal POV is one!). The dispute here, though, just so you're a bit clearer, concerns the majority of its participants' not calling it the "Yom Kippur War". You are prejudging that particular dispute by disallowing their view that that is not its correct name. Grace Note 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I, for one, prefer "Yom Kippur War". On the other hand, I don't understand why we can't compromise and do the same thing that was done with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and redirect the curent title to it. I like first title better but if there's a better more NPOV title that doesn't look as ridiculous as the first title proposed, I'm willing to compromise and let everybody be happy.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
PS, I just stumbled upon this: [2] (scroll to the end of the section). I don't quite understand the quotes around the word neutral, I don't like what they suggest so I'll keep my opinions to myself but since is relevant to this discussion I'm posting it here to let everybody draw their own conclusions.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The quotes signify that I don't believe titles can be entirely neutral, nothing more sinister than that. Grace Note 06:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


I'm fairly certain that "1973 Arab-Israeli War" (or some permutation of those four items) is actually more commonly used in English than "Yom Kippur War." Also, it's probably a more useful name: most mildly informed people, I strongly suspect, are aware that there has been a series of wars between Israel and the Arab states. Providing "1948-1956-1967-1973" in the names given for these wars will make abundantly clear which happened when. I doubt a lot of people would know off of the tops of their heads that the "Yom Kippur War" was fought in 1973. Marsden 15:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As Google shows, "Yom Kippur War" is used more than 10 times more often than "1973 Arab-Israeli War". As for 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the alternatives (War of Independence, Nakba) are clearly POV, unlike "Yom Kippur War". "Yom Kippur" and "Six-Day" actually tell you something unique about the war, rather than simply the generic information regarding the year in which it happened. Furthermore, it's easy enough (and even more useful) in any article to enter 1973 Yom Kippur War, just as is now often done for 1967 Six-Day War. Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not POV to name a war after a religious holiday celebrated by one side in the war? It's not "generic" information if one side doesn't agree that that day is called "Yom Kippur". Personally, it's not very "generic" or "descriptive" for me because I have no idea when Yom Kippur is (although if it's in Ramadan, it must be around now). It's incredible how hypocritical some here are prepared to be. On one hand, they will argue that writing "BC" for dates is "POV" (when BC is utterly meaningless and simply describes a point on a calendar) while claiming that "Yom Kippur" is completely neutral, despite its being a religious holiday celebrated by a minority, which most people couldn't even tell you when it is. Grace Note 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, please. The Arabs "didn't agree" that the day was Yom Kippur? That's ridiculous on its face. The Egyptians and Syrians purposefully chose to start the war on Yom Kippur because the Israelis would be more unprepared then than any other day of the year. I don't think that this fact is disputed, and I don't think it's casting a moral judgment against the Egyptians and Syrians to say it, either - if they were going to start a war, there's no reason they shouldn't start it at a time most advantageous to them. You keep on acting as though it is a coincidence that the war started on Yom Kippur. But this was a specific strategic decision made by Sadat and Assad. "Yom Kippur War" indicates considerably more than just "a war that started on the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur" - the fact that it started on Yom Kippur was integral to the Arab strategy in the war. As I said before, I am pretty apathetic as to what the title of this article should be - as I've said before, 1973 Arab-Israeli War seems to me as though it might be a slightly better title. But let's quit with the dishonest arguments. Whether or not "most people" know when Yom Kippur is, the fellows who started the war most certainly knew, and they were most certainly not Israelis. So let's give it a rest. It might (or might not) be vaguely POV that we are using a title used by only one side (although we certainly do that for a lot of wars - Korean War, for instance - I imagine it is not called this by the Koreans). The idea, though, that the name is POV because Arabs don't celebrate Yom Kippur is absurd. john k 06:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 18 years ago120 comments38 people in discussion

Yom_Kippur_War → 1973_Arab-Israeli_War – "Yom Kippur War" is offensive to many Egyptian and Syrian Arabs, who made up a majority of the combatants and casualties in this war. "Yom Kippur War" shares virtually no commonality between the Jewish and Arab views of this conflict, just as "Ramadan War" also has almost no commonality. Please move this article from a POV, offensive, naming policy violating title to a completely neutral, fact-based title that favors neither side. Unfocused 16:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC) copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

  • Unfocused: Well can you or ANYONE explain WHY the Egyptians and the Syrians chose to start their war on Israel on Yom Kippur of all days in 1973? Obviously they were smart enough to know what the day meant to Jews, so why should it be "offensive" if the war is known by the day on which they (the Egyptians and Syrians) chose to start it? Your proposal makes no sense. IZAK 12:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IZAK, please, give your stance a bit more thought. They did not choose the day because they celebrate Yom Kippur. That they know what day you think it is doesn't mean that they are therefore obliged to agree to call the day what you call it. If Israel were to attack Ghana on Christmas Day, they might still call it the Hanukah War, and not the Christmas War, regardless that they chose the particular day because of its significance to Ghanaians. Are you really not getting that? It's rather like saying that if you were to attack a mosque on a Friday, because you know that the Friday mosque will be fullest on a Friday, that means you think that Friday (day) is the Sabbath. --Grace Note.

Poll ends - 16:29, January 12.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

PLEASE! lets try to work together and keep the discussion in the discussion section and off the voting section. Let's work together.

  • Support. Without mentioning Wikipedia (we don't need POV warriors of any type here) I asked an Egyptian professor at a local university the question "Would you buy an encyclopedia that titled to this conflict as "Yom Kippur War". His response: "No, no, a thousand times no. I would no more buy this encylopedia than I would expect an Israeli would buy one with this war under "Ramadan War"." Wikipedia is supposed to serve everyone neutrally, not just the most popular views. Unfocused 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Firstly, we conducted a poll on this very recently, and it's silly having to go through this again. Secondly, practically the entire rest of the world calls it the Yom Kippur War. And thirdly, as the invasion was specifically timed for Yom Kippur, I really don't think it's that unfair to call it as such. Ambi 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • First, polls are evil and no attempt was made to resolve the issue, as usually is the outcome when there's a poll instead of discussion. Second, that position is not applied to the Occupied Territories, so called by the entire world bar a rather tiny fraction. Third, see my answer to IZAK above. If you bombed a mosque on Friday, you would not necessarily agree that Friday is the Sabbath or call your attack the "Sabbath attack", even if the people you bombed called it that. Is that argument really so elusive for people who share your POV? -- Grace Note.
  • Support No POV, pleeeeeaase. Robert Taylor 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons Ambi gave. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia policy pleeeeeaase. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You are yet to explain why the very same policy does not apply to the Occupied Territories, Jay. --Grace Note.
  • Oppose. Article title clearly not POV, as was discussed AT LENGTH a few weeks ago, when this poll was originally done. This is simply re-running the old poll to get a favorable outcome. And as was shown last time, Yom Kippur is by far the most common (Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), despite the people above who want to disregard the manual of style for their own preferences. Also, on a related side note, does it strike anyone as a bit odd that the people who are pushing to have this artilce renamed have never actually *edited* the article? Raul654 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your repeated use of faulty logic continues to astound me! I haven't actually *edited* the article because I find that in all other ways, it's an extremely well written article that I personally have not found any other way to improve! Ever stop to consider that possibility? Finding one GIANT flaw does not mean that an article necessarily has others. Unfocused 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's all remember this is wikipedia!!!! I need not to write on this one particular article to make a contribution. I make a contribution by just correcting a misspelling and there are no requirements to have a dialog! -Spaceriqui 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. use common names. Tomertalk 00:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For better or worse, unlike the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, this is how the war is refered to in (most of) the scholarship. The interwiki links may also prove revealing. El_C 00:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Interwiki links are mostly created by the same editors who placed this article at it's current POV title. It reveals nothing because there is nothing to "reveal". Unfocused 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    please see discussion below. -Spaceriqui 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Interwiki links reflect the titles chosen by other language Wikipedias. Thus, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War is the 'War of Independence' (מלחמת העצמאות) on the Hebrew Wikipedia. El_C 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    So what you are saying is that the Hebrew wiki is even more biased? - Spaceriqui 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, nobody really calls it the 1948 Arab-Israeli War in Hebrew, but that's an aside; what I am saying is that it isn't the same editors in every language wiki as per titles. A simple point which seems to be getting lost in preplexing tautologies. El_C 02:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    I understand that they don't call it that in Hebrew... reasonable. But what is the point then? to use the most common term, or to be unbiased? As I understand from the NPOV, in an ideal world the all the articles would be almost identical, even their titles, because they don't represent one culture more than another, one point of view more than another, etc. The fact that the hebrew wiki calls it 'War of Independence' just proves there is a bias. Don't you see the bias here too?  ;-) -Spaceriqui 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    My point was in response to Unfocused claim that it was "same editors" — it is not. History is biased, it's not our role to rename the American Civil War into the 1861-1865 Confederate States-United States War, etc. El_C 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Faulty logic; specious argument. "Civil War" defines that both sides in the conflict were once in unity and then later warred, but does not express anything further, so "American Civil War" is clearly NPOV. American Civil War expresses the exact same thing for both combatant sides without any emphasis on the customs, traditions, beliefs or religion of either side. Unfocused 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people in the American south continue to refer to it as the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "War Between the States," because they consider it a strugge over states's rights. If it was a civil war, then the southerners were illegal rebels against the federal government; and this they dispute. --Leifern 16:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That explanation is unrelated to the notability of the title, so which side would be saisfied with what is not the issue. It also fails to account for the reason the YK title is used. Which is to say, as a particular theme (Ramadan does not play a decisive role in this war). See Soccer War, etc. If you're asking me, however, whether I think the 1973 Arab-Israeli War is a more politically-correct title, the answer is yes. El_C 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per consensus of previous poll, and comments above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons stated above - plus, I don't understand how it is offensive? Is the mere mention of a Jewish holiday offensive? Or that the Israelis dare name the war after the day it was (deliberately) launched? Labeling it as offensive completely discredits the proposal, imho. --Leifern 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can't believe we're doing this again. Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • please see discussion below.-Spaceriqui 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the pointer. If you look "up" you'll see that I proposed the current "proposed name" a while ago. I was compromising back then but I sincerely like the current name better. I don't have the time now to dedicate to fully participate in this so I'd rather leave my vote and follow this from some distance. Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Most commonly known name. Besides, we've deja-ed this vu before. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why is the most commonly used name an argument for objectivity?? it is more likely an argument for bias. (please use discussion below) -Spaceriqui 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because it's the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English wikipedia is a highly international project, and its editors reflect many different points of view. It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view. (emphasis added) [4]
  • Strong Oppose. As per Ambi. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: use common names, etc. Isn't it ironic that the side that picked the date is the "offended" one? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed new title is a neutral description; the existing title reflects just one perception of the war. As an activist on this issue, I never refer to the "War of Independence", the "Six Day War" or the "Yom Kippur War", but rather to the 1947-8 War, the 1967 War and the 1973 War. RolandR 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV and Use Common names As evident from the table, the scientific community calls it the Yom Kippur War because it was purposefully initiated by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur. No connection whatsoever with Arab or Israeli POV. Lets keep it that way. gidonb 11:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons given. Wikipedia should not be the "home base" for historical revisionism. IZAK 12:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hardly anyone calls this by the suggested new title, especially in English. WP:NC suggests using common names. Agree with IZAK that a move would smack of historical revisionism. Also one needs to bear in mind that Yom Kippur was chosen as a date for strategic reasons. Not every war can or should be named in a so-called NPOV manner. JFW | T@lk 12:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this outlandish and farcical move per above and per common sense. Those whose countrymen purposely started the war on Yom Kippur for tactical reasons oppose calling it the Yom Kippur War? Too bad. In English that is the common naming convention. Give me a break.--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your clear and open demonstration of how your own Jewish POV is hopelessly embedded in the title "Yom Kippur War". You've demonstrated unmistakably what I've claimed all along. Unfocused 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't take this the wrong way, but you are being utterly ridiculous. Neither Sadat nor Assad ever disputed that the date of the attack was chosen for any reason other than that it was Yom Kippur and the Israelis would be totally unprepared, so I am not sure why you and your ilk seem to believe it was a total coincidence or an irrelevant point. Your assumption that I am Jewish and have a "Jewish POV" is more revealing of your own prejudices than it is of mine. To call it "Yom Kippur War" reflects the. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Racism is a very bad direction to take this discussion. Jews and non-Jews are entitled to express the whole range of valid opinions, without people personally being addressed for their (perceived) ethnicity. Both the idea that someone must be Jewish to support Yom Kippur War or that Jews must support this title are racist ideas. Are all the scientists who use this title as NPOV also Jewish or controlled by Jews? I advice Unfocused to drop this terrible direction he is pushing Wikipedia at. gidonb 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • What Briangotts has actually demonstrated is that he doesn't care that he's offending many potential users of Wikipedia, in his statement "Too bad." That is the ridiculous POV that I'm referring to. That it is perfectly OK to offend our users because of our own POV. That is NOT NPOV. His giant banner on his userpage is why it is clear to me that he holds a Jewish POV; he has advertised it to the world. I have no clue whether he is Jewish or not, and couldn't care less. There is NOTHING WRONG with the Jewish POV, however, for Wikipedia to be NPOV, "Yom Kippur War" should be the redirect, and "1973 Arab-Israeli War" should be the main article. Unfocused 18:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I find your consistent claims that "Yom Kippur War" is the Jewish name, and that people support it because they are Jews, to be highly offensive. Apparently so do other Wikipedia editors. Yet it appears to have no impact on you. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yom Kippur is a Jewish holy day. The name is of Jewish origin. If you're offended by that, then no one can help you! I've NEVER ONCE claimed that people support it because they are Jews, only that most who use the term, in my experience, are sympathetic to Israeli and Jewish points of view. That is neither racist nor offensive. In fact I've stated several times HERE that I don't know nor care if others here are Jews or not! Please explain, on my talk page, if you would, what you find offensive about recognizing that this name is of Jewish origin. Unfocused 19:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Perhaps Unfocused can explain once and for all what is "Jewish" about the name Yom Kippur War. Does one have to be Jewish or hold a "Jewish POV" to notice that this war started on Yom Kippur? gidonb 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Please read my comments on this talk page from October 2005. It is a question of undue emphasis; Yom Kippur was a single day of the war, and the war wasn't against Yom Kippur. Defining this as the Yom Kippur War places undue emphasis on a single point in time, and is designed to elicit sympathy for the Israeli side. Adding undue emphasis is not NPOV encyclopedic content. If this still remains unclear, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Unfocused 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
                • See What WP is not. We are not here to redefine/rename events as we please but to reflect realities. The reality is, the Jewish state was attacked on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar in order to catch the Jewish defenses off guard. If you have problem that it all was "designed to elicit sympathy for the Israeli side", your complains should have been directed to Nasser & Assad. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Only one side from this conflict celebrates Yom Kippur. WP:NPOV looks like a clear case to move to the non-religious name, especially since the other side names the war after Ramadan. Durova 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I am myself neither Jewish nor Muslim, but the fact of the matter is that "Yom Kippur War" is the term by which this war is popularly and historically known in the English language, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. No doubt the Arabic Wikipedia calls the war in the fashion to which they are accustomed, and I would likewise defend them against any PC-centric fringe. RGTraynor
    • Yes, the English language is full of bias. But there is zero tolerance for bias in wikipedia, no matter what the language. Especially when there is an option that is NPOV and fairly used in other encyclopedias. -Spaceriqui 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Human history is full of violent, unfair and uncomfortable events. Some are offended by the terms judensau or pogrom, so what do we do now? It was not the Muslims who were attacked when their defense was the weakest, so let's not even talk about Ramadan. The choice of the Jewish holiest day was an important part of the Syrian-Egyptian warplan because the IDF in big part consists of reservists (think logistics). Why should we support an attempt to hide this? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Humus, you're a smart sophist, so try a couple of thought experiments. Israel may well bomb Iran in the nearish future. Given Iran's leader's statement that Israel should be wiped from the map, I daresay you would consider such an attack prudent, should Iran not abandon its nuclear programme. So to be clear, I'm not discussing the rights or wrongs of any attack. But if Israel did attack Iran, it would be well advised to do it Friday lunchtime, when everyone is at the mosque. Would you, in that circumstance, agree that the attack should be called the "Sabbath attack"? Now, of course, Muslims don't tend to call Friday the Sabbath, although that's what it is in effect for them, so let's consider the other part of your argument, that those who are attacked should get naming rights. Would you agree that such an attack should be called the "Zionist Murder of the Innocents" if the Iranians call it that? And by the way, if judensau or pogrom are offensive to some, we should describe the debate, not take a stance that we consider more or less neutral. Are you not clear on that? No one is trying to hide anything, by the way. The article describes why Yom Kippur was chosen and were it moved to a neutral name and not one that supports your POV, your POV name would redirect to the NPOV title, so no hiding, just fair representation of all POVs.-- Grace Note.
    • RGTraynor, Arabic Wikipedia actually calls it "The October War", which is an excellent example of NPOV. I suggest English Wikipedia follow suit. Arre 07:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedural grounds. I could not find an attempt to discuss the name change on the talk page before holding the vote, and saying (unverifiably) that sample group X finds Y offensive is not a good motivation to request a rename. Andjam 06:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. "Yom Kippur War" is not a blatant POV, but moving it to "1973 Arab-Israeli War" would get us closer to ideal NPOV. CG 20:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose English usage is clear, and WP is not the place to attempt to impose the Arabic usage, which should be mentioned in the first line of the article. Descriptive names should be preserved. Septentrionalis 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not here to impose the Arabic name "Ramadan War", we're trying to find a compromise between the Arabic and the Jewish usage. CG 12:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't think it's possible to dispute that most English speakers would refer to this war as the Yom Kippur war, although it is something of a pejorative term. There are therefore two competing policies here: NPOV and the principle of using common terms. I think that the problem of having a 'unilateral title' can be significantly overcome by an explanation in the opening paragraph, and that in this sense a title is less of a POV problem than a biased text. However, the absolute non-negotiable nature of NPOV gives me pause on this issue. David | Talk 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Firstly, the Google test proves (or at least gives good support to) the popularity of "Yom Kippur War" over any other name. Secondly, I just do not think that the title of the article matters, as compared to the content of the article. Note that the article itself does not have a POV tag; this is a great credit to an Arab-Israel article. It suggests that the article has not POV, so will quickly dispel any worries one might have over the title (which to be honest I think relativly few people have; note how long it has taken for this issue to be brought up). Thirdly, without wanting to sound contrite, we must consider other article titles. After all, should we call the Second World War "1939-1945 War", in deference to the minority who believe that (say) the Napoleonic Wars were the First World War, the 1914-1918 war was the Second and the 1939-1945 was the Third. This may seem a stupid example, but I really do not think there is enough of a dispute in the "real" (academic history) world to merit risking a whole load of other articles being challenged on, frankly, little evidence of POV. Batmanand 02:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per NPOV tutorial#Article names --Francis Schonken 16:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose naming conventions trump, any off base belief of POV. PPGMD 16:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose i gather from this debate that some people think the name carries POV because it may ilicit simpathy for one side, i disagree. yom kippur war as the name of the conflict is accurate, descriptive, and as others have argued, the popular name. the argument that some people find it offensive is a weak one in my opinion. uri budnik 03:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a reason. Again, 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. The name "Yom Kippur War" should NOT offend Arabs, because this choice of an attack date testifies about a steep advancement in the Arab states' military thought, their understanding of Israel's weaknesses, and their ability to exploit these weaknesses to achieve some success. Guybas 11:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Of course the page should not be named after the religious holidays of either of the sides involved, not Yom Kippur nor Ramadan. And of course it shouldn't have a name that is used by only one of the sides. That is a blatant naming POV. Calling it "1973 Arab-Israeli War" is good (and in line with 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which is not called either "Israeli War of Independence" or "al-Nakba".), but October War would also be fine. Arre 07:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • This page has been listed on the Requested Moves page. There has been a lot of discussion, but no voting... should we put it up for a vote then? -Spaceriqui 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you did not notice that we JUST conducted a vote on renaming this page, it was a voted down unanimously? That doesn't mean "Go ahead and conduct another one right afterwards." Raul654 20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Forgive me if I jump in the middle of a heated discussion, but someone did put it on the move page request under a different proposed name, and second, there is obviously dissagreement. If the majority oppose voting, that's fine. If the name stays, great. But that doesn't give you the right to delete this section. - Spaceriqui 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • And what, praytell, gives you the right to ignore the previous unanimous consensus? Raul654 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
          • The previous vote was before discussion had occurred, and proposed a change to an entirely different, extremely awkward title. Even I voted against moving it at that time because of those two issues. The previous vote was premature, is a red herring, and is completely irrelevant. Unfocused 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
            • In other words, keep doing it until you get a favorable outcome. Gee, this sounds familiar. Raul654 20:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, this is wikipedia after all... nothing is set in stone. Spaceriqui 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Raul654, this is about as good an accusation as your previous statement that you've debunked the claim that this title isn't neutral. In other words, it is also incorrect. You conveniently ignore the following points:
  1. The previous vote was to move the article to a very different title.
  2. The previous vote took place while the discussion was still very heated, and long before the discussion had come to any sort of pause, much less a several month stoppage.
  3. This vote is after the discussion had stopped for over two months, giving ample time for consideration and reflection to understand the opposing points of view.
  4. This vote is for a title that is neither awkward nor difficult to remember.
  5. The previous vote was several months ago.
  6. No issue may be "immunized" against further discussion or voting simply because the previous result matches your POV especially considering the flaws I've pointed out in the previous poll. The results of a kangaroo court trial of a straw man does not bind reasonable people from conducting further debate.
  • Finally, I would sincerely appreciate an explanation for the link you provided. Are you threatening me in some way I don't fully understand because I agree with Grace Note? Unfocused 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you didn't know, Zen/Gracenote was banned by the arbitraiton committee from the Clitoris article for pulling EXACTLY this kind of stunt - constantly re-running the same polls repeatedly with slightly altered phrasing (6 in the span of 5 months) - ALL of which had the same outcome. He was going to keep doing it until he got a favorable outcome, which is why I said this is deja vu. Raul654 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh Mark, for shame! Why lie? I didn't get banned from the Clitoris article for any such thing. I didn't get banned from it at all. I was banned from removing the picture that upset several editors. You pretended you had a "unanimous" "consensus" then too. I didn't constantly run any polls. That's a downright lie too. Why would I? I don't think polls demonstrate consensus and I oppose their use to settle content disputes. I've expressed that view many, many times. The dispute on clitoris in fact centred around a group of editors who were bullying minority-view editors because they had won a vote. They largely refused to discuss the salient issues because, they believed, they had won a vote and that was that. (Careful Tony Sidaway watchers will note that on Talk:Clitoris he was insistent that winning a vote was the same as having a consensus but on Talk:something about B roads, he had changed his tune and thought that votes were evil. Like most of the people who voted here, it's one rule when it fits your POV, another when it doesn't.) This title is shockingly POV. That you can line up a bunch of editors who share the POV that it pushes to vote and say no it's not doesn't actually not make it so, but I've given up trying to get editors to accept that the proZionist stance that is so common in your home country is not actually "neutral". I advise the other editors here that their commitment to NPOV will not be rewarded, because it simply is not shared by everyone here. Grace Note 07:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you compare this to the previous, any reasonable neutral party would see very significant differences as numbered above, especially the part about not having a full discussion come to a natural "stopping point" before running the poll. I thought that this would be obvious and self-evident that it is different. I remind you that I too voted "OPPOSE" in the previous poll. You're welcome to have your own POV about the issue, but I don't think you're being remotely fair in questioning the existence of this current proposal. Unfocused 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Usage:

Encarta
US Encarta uses "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" [5] and is careful to use both the "Yom Kippur War" and "Ramadan War" in the related articles.
UK Encarta calls it the "Yom Kippur War" [6] Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Britannica online uses "Arab-Israeli Wars" as their main article, [7] but also uses "the Yom Kippur War" as a subset of their "Israel" article, [8] but has no match for "Ramadan War"
Britannica online only names it "The Yom Kippur War" [9]; other articles in Britannica do not give it a name. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The Columbia Encyclopedia calls it "The 1973–74 War (The Yom Kippur War)"[10]. Yom Kippur war is redirected to Arab-Israeli Wars. No mention of "Ramadan War"
encyclopedia.com, freedictionary.com, and the Columbia Encyclopedia are all the same source. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia calls it the "Yom Kippur War", mentions "1973 Arab-Israeli War", "Ramadan War" or "October War" as subtitles. Uses "War of 1973" as heading. Uses Yom Kippur War as a category.
The World History Encyclopedia calls it the "Yom Kippur War"[11] and mentions the "October War" and "Ramadan War".
I don't see why it's so difficult to use a NPOV title, when others do. It is NOT an obscure name - Spaceriqui 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why it's so difficult to use a NPOV title either, which is what "Yom Kippur War" is. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


  • I would like everyone to consider two things...
Point Of View
Israelis refer to the war as the Yom Kippur War. Israel saw the war as a military victory because it maintained possession of the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.
Arabs refer to the war as the Ramadan War. Egypt and Syria made initial gains but retreated after Israeli counter-attacks. Because they successfully carried out a surprise attack, the war was a political victory for Egypt and Syria. Though they overextended their forces and did not succeed in regaining control over the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights, Israel’s military vulnerabilities were exposed, particularly because the U.S. air-lifted a large supply of weapons to Israel, without which Israel might not have been as successful in defending its territory.
Differing perceptions as to the outcome, or cause, or nature of the war are not reflected in the terms "Yom Kippur War" or "Ramadan War." It seems to me that the argument is that accepting the Israeli term for the war is equivalent to accepting the Israeli interpretation of the war - which would fallacious thinking.
This is both irrelevant and inaccurate. English speakers refer to this as the "Yom Kippur" war. Israelis speak Hebrew or Arabic. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It is totally relevant! The fact that that you are an English speaker makes you biased. No everyone that uses the English version is from the US/UK. - Spaceriqui 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
If any person uses English WP, they should be adhering to English Language common use. Otherwise, we can call this "Guerra de Yom Kippur", just in case a spanish speaking person is using the English WP. Sorry for the sarcasm, but that particular argument is not very strong. I would support the use of "Ramadan War" in Arabic WP.Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Between you and I, then the only disagreement is how important NPOV is. I think it is critically important, and if I spoke Arabic, I'd oppose "Ramadan War" there just as vehemently as I oppose "Yom Kippur War" here. NPOV is supposed to be non-negotiable, not subjective depending on which version of Wikipedia you use. Unfocused 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We agree there, we just stand on opposite sides on how important the "Common Name Usage" is versus how important what is viewed as NPOV is (I don't quite agree with the fact that is POV, anyway).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastiankessel (talk • contribs)
The other area of disagreement is in your continuing assertion that the name "Yom Kippur War" violates NPOV; as many have already explained, it does not. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If "Yom Kippur War" truly is the NPOV name, then perhaps you should see how well it goes trying to get the Arabic Wikipedia to accept that as the article title. Success there would be indisputable proof that it is NPOV. However, the fact that several here have treated this as if it were exactly the same issue as the last vote rather than addressing this anew makes it very clear that NPOV isn't really as important as I think it should be. Unfocused 19:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(Reset tabs) Actually NPOV is as important as the Use Common Names policy. It doesn't state that NPOV trumps the others, even see here where it states that sometimes we can't use the perfect NPOV name. We all agree that the most common name for ENGLISH speakers is "Yom Kippur War", and according to the policy I linked above, we should be fine. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Given that Jimmy Wales has stated that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" (see the opening paragraph on the NPOV page), and has made no similar claims for "Use Common Names", I believe our obligation is to recognize that "NPOV" does in fact trump "Use Common Names". Although some have tried to subtly portray me as anti-Israeli or worse, this ranking of policies is the only reason I joined this debate. Unfocused 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not accusing you of anything :). The issue is if you follow this link, you'll see that NPOV is not always clear cut. In this case, not only is not clear that "Yom Kippur War" is Israeli POV but IT IS the most used name in English. Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sebastian, I would agree with Unfocused. As I noted under my vote NPOV should be the ultimate goal, and when it comes to titles is should prevail over common names where it makes the sense, such as in this case, and not where it is not convenient or possible (ie. Yom_Kippur_War → Yom Kippur War or Ramadan War and Alfred the Great → Alfred the Great according to most people, but not according to some. I don't think the intent of the article names policy is an excuse to make every title POV. NPOV however, is non negotiable and absolute. Spaceriqui 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Anglo-American focus
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on. [12]
The title of this article is clearly from a western, especifically a US/Israel point of view.
Why is that so clear? All available evidence (read any book on the war) will tell you that it was deliberately set for Yom Kippur to gain a tactical advantage. Is the term "Yom Kippur" so alien to the Arab world that merely uttering the words is offensive? With that logic, we would have to eliminate any non-English words (for example, Storting would have to be replaced by Norwegian parliament) from WP. The term itself does not convey any other meaning than the day the war started by design; what we're left with is the mere mention of a Jewish holiday. And honestly, I don't think we should dignify anyone who is offended by the mention of a Jewish holiday. --Leifern 16:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is a "US/Israel point of view"? Tomertalk 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Writing for the "enemy" POV
I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?
This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says. You aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.
This can be a particularly touchy subject, and a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because it's the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English wikipedia is a highly international project, and its editors reflect many different points of view. It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view. (emphasis added)[13]
Again, this title is clearly from the Israel perspective, not from the Arab perspective.
Arguments regarding the common use of Yom Kippur War in the english language, google hits, lexix nexis searches, and what we use in our everyday language seem irrelevant if we want to achieve NPOV- Spaceriqui 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Argument: Yom Kippur War is by far the most common term for the war.
Support: See Wikipedia convention to use most common name. For the English Wikipedia, we should use the most common name used by English speakers. The less common names are also listed in the intro.
Against: It may be the most common term used, but by whom? The west? English speakers? Even if this is true, it is POV... from the Point of View of these people. [14] Yom Kippur is used by the west. Arabs refer to it as the Ramadan War, which is a sizable portion of the population. It follows that the title should be neither, but something neutral.
  • Argument: I don't understand how the title is offensive? Is the mere mention of a Jewish holiday offensive? Or that the Israelis dare name the war after the day it was (deliberately) launched?
Support: The name is derived from a description of the events, that the timing of the invasion was specifically chosen to occur on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (not Ramadan), precisely because the target (Israel) would be most vulnerable on that day.
Against: It's not offensive, it's POV. The article is titled Yom Kippor using the term used by one of the parties, which totally negates the other's point of view, which was the Ramadan War. The suggested title is politically neutral, not biased.
But the initial argument was that it was offensive to Arabs. If we want to avoid offending Arabs (which is certainly a laudable goal), then let's be clear what is offensive. If we can agree that the term isn't offensive, then let's take that out of the argument. --Leifern 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
My personal experience during visits to the local Islamic center and a Muslim student group on local university campus has been that Syrian and Egyptian Arabs have ALL been offended by referral to this event as "Yom Kippur War". I did not ask why they were offended, alhough several people offered their opinions. It is simply enough that they are, in fact, offended by the current title of the article. Unfocused 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. In fact, I would think they'd be more offended by the term "Ramadan war" - a war started during a holiday? Likewise, it isn't as if Jews necessarily think the term "Yom Kippur War" gives positive connotations to this important holiday. I hate to speculate, but my guess is that the offense they take is simply that common usage accepts an Israeli point of view at all. The term "American Civil War" has a much stronger bias built in, and those who think the war was something more than an insurrection would be justified in taking offense. Please find me a reference that explains why the term Yom Kippur war is offensive, and we can read it. --Leifern 15:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Argument: didn't we just take a poll on this a while back? why are we doing this again?
Support: Editors should have some reasonable level of assurance that the same issue doesn't come up for votes again and again, almost as a strategy of attrition, until they get their way. If something changes that would materially change people's minds, then we can bring it up again, but this has to be reasonable. --Leifern 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Review of the previous poll shows clearly that the article title is very different. This proposed title is already in common use, including as title of similar articles in other encyclopedias. The previous proposed title, which I also opposed, was a gross contrivance designed specifically by the proposer to please no one. Unfocused 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Against: As far as I know there is no policy in the move pages regarding how many times one can request a page move. [15] Second, the initial voting was for a totally different name. Third, this argument will most likely continue if there is a minority, which is usually the case in POV arguments, that there is something wrong with the article. Fourth, just because the article was not renamed does not mean that it is NPOV. It just means that the bias continues. [16]
Support: Actually each of the wikis should reflect the most common name used in the language of that wiki. That's why I would fully expect the title in the Arabic Wikipedia to be "Ramadan War" (in Arabic of course).
When Arab english speaking internet users outnumber Israeli and Israeli-sympathetic users as demographic studies show likely to happen within about 20 years, will you then support the move to "Ramadan War" here? I would not and do not support POV titles in either case, which is why I proposed this move. Unfocused 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Against: This argument represents the cultural bias found in Wikipedia. In the ideal NPOV wiki, both the Hebrew, the English, and the Arab titles should be the same. The body of the article should explain the diference in names and diverging viewpoints. Please see this and this.
  • Argument: The attack was purposely planned for the one day Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur because it was the one day Israel would be at its most vulnerable being essentially shut down for religious observance. That it was the midst of the month of Ramadan was irrelevant to the timing of the attack. This is why Yom Kippur War is the most common name, and it's not up to Wikipedia to invent a neologism for a title. All other less common names by which the war is known are appropriately listed in the introduction.
Support: The name reflects the specific day purposely chosen for the attacks, as mentioned above. The way to NPOV the article to account for multiple names for the war would be to use the most common name in the title, but reflect the reasoning for other names that some prefer in the text of the article itself.
See the section regarding Commonality below: the opposing sides share virtually no commonality with the current title. Misinterpreting use of "common" here as "most popular" changes "NEUTRAL Point Of View" to "POPULIST Point Of View", which is clearly not appropriate for a factual encyclopedia. Unfocused 16:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Against: That it was the midst of the month of Ramadan was irrelevant to the timing of the attack. Irrelevant only to one party in the dispute. The fact is that there are two main names for this war. The Yom Kippur War and The Ramadan War. They are both valid. They are both used by a considerably sized group of people, Arabs and Israelis (etc). Which is right? The one that is culturally biased towards the US/Israeli side? That's POV.
a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because it's the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English wikipedia is a highly international project, and its editors reflect many different points of view. It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view.

This entire discussion is an assault on intelligence, an emotional appeal meant to support blatantly rewriting history, and offensive in its ridiculousness. Go make these arguments at American Civil War in favor of 1861-1865 Confederate States-United States War and see how well you fare there. Tomertalk 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Your example is clearly and obviously unrelated. A civil war is by definition, a war of unity or disunity starting within a nation of some sort, so your counterexample does not apply. Unfocused 17:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Spaceriqui, you neglected to mention or address one of the main arguments, which Ambi mentioned: The attack was purposely planned for Yom Kippur because Israel would be at its most vulnerable being essentially shut down for the religious holiday. That Ramadan happened to occur a few days later was irrelevant to the timing of the attack. This is why Yom Kippur War is the most common name, and it's not up to Wikipedia to invent a neologism. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, let me think about it.- Spaceriqui 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding, I was in the middle of correcting and modifying my comment but was in edit conflict. I am instead going to change the argument you listed rather than my comment above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to edit anything in the above discussion. It's not meant to voice my opinion but opposing views of the discussion. I think it's much cleaner than using drawn out discussion which take a loooong time to read. Spaceriqui 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfocused, your statement is actually quite inaccurate and rather disingenuous. You might consider reading Naming the American Civil War sometime.Tomertalk 13:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Tomer, I was already aware of the article you linked; there is nothing disingenuous in my comments. Regarding Naming the American Civil War, I see it as a clear case of POV-pushing efforts defeated because the war clearly conforms to the definition of "civil war". Is "American Civil War" a little less descriptive of historical events than it could be? Yes, absolutely, but it is also absolutely neutral, unlike most alternate choices. Here, we should also be giving up a tiny bit of description contained in the name to adopt the NPOV name, but it seems likely we will not at this time. Yes, it was a rarer type of civil war; the secessionist war, but it was still undeniably a civil war, and giving up a bit of detail in the title of the war (by not mentioning it's secessionist nature) is not the same as adding a POV. Unfocused 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved, by a margin of 7 to 28, if I counted correctly. —Nightstallion (?) 08:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other

Latest comment: 19 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

Calling it "Yom Kippur War" doesn't intrinsically state that anyone deliberately chose a Jewish holiday. Few if any use "Boxing Day Tsunami" to imply that someone engineered the earthquake to occur on an Australian public holiday.

Grace Note is proposing the move to prove a point. But "Yom Kippur War" is nowhere near as POV as "Occupied Territories" is. Actually, YKW is more western-centric than POV. OT contains a legal opinion, YKW doesn't.

  • For those for whom word frequency is everything, it's consistent to endorse "Occupied Territories" and "Yom Kippur War".
  • For those for whom NPOV is everything, it's consistent to endorse "Territorial disputes involving Israel" and "1973 Arab-Israeli conflict".
  • For those able to tolerate very slight non-neutrality in return for word frequency, it's consistent to endorse "Territorial disputes involving Israel" and "Yom Kippur War".
  • But promoting "Occupied Territories" and "1973 Arab-Israeli conflict" is trying to make a point.

Andjam 01:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


I did a lexis-nexis search -- something I admit I am not very good at -- and plugged in both 1973 Arab-Israeli Conflict and Yom Kippur War, general news, European sources, and came up with twice as many hits for Yom Kippur War as for 1973 etc. As I said I seldom use this resource and encourage others more practiced with it to try to do what I did. Nevertheless, this plus google leads me to think that Yom Kippur War is the more common, and it is what we should use.

My personal opinion on NPOV: I do not see it as a clear NPOV violation: Arab countries attacked on Yom Kippur. Whether they were right to do so, or wrong, is a separate issue. My point is NOT that I think Yom Kippur War is "objectively" NPOV, my point is that POV is necessarily subjective. Let me try to provide an analogy. Some people think revolutions are good things. I am thinking of Jefferson, Robespierre, and Trotsky. Others think revolutions are bad things. I am thinking of Edmund Burke, but I am sure there are many others. Now, to call a particular war a "revolutionary war" -- is using that title supporting the revolutionaries, or supporting the ancien regime? Both and neither, it depends. For someone opposed to revolutions, to call something a revolution delegitimizes it; for someone who favors revolutions to call something a revolution legitimizes it. Sometimes words are not inherently NPOV OR POV, it depends on who uses the words. Back to Yom Kippur War. I simply do not see how it could matter to a partisan whether it is called one or the other. Growing up Jewish and Zionist, I heard people use the term "Yom Kippur War" and "October War" interchangeably and indescriminately. It did not matter to us which one we called it, because in both cases we thought Egypt and Syria were wrong; the Labor government was lax; and the Israelis should have gone all the way to Damascus. I assume that our opponents too would not have cared whether it was called Yom Kippur or October War, that either way they felt that Egypt and Syria were right; thank god the Labor gov't was ill-prepared, and it was a shame that the Israelis eventually mounted a succesful counter-attack.

MY own POV has changed somewhat since then, but I still see no political statement being made in useing "October War" or "Yom Kippur War." We (Wikipedia) should use whichever name is most common. We should have redirects for all other names used, and in the article we should say that the war is also called x, y, and z. If we can be certain that only Zionists use one term or only Egyptians use the other, we should say so, though I would ask anyone making the claim to provide the evidence. And the contents of the article should comply to NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you have no problem with using the commonly used term "Occupied Territories" for the territories Israel is occupying? And you're happy now to use "BC" for dates, because that is overwhelmingly more commonly used? Rhetorical, Steven. If you can't understand that it's a POV that a day is called "Yom Kippur", you're going to struggle to see why your ease with "Yom Kippur War" should extend to other equally commonly used terms. Grace Note 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The "BC" vs. "BCE" and the "occupied" vs. whatever arguments are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the "Yom Kippur War". Please explain what is the view expressed by the name "Yom Kippur War".--Doron 07:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Grace, don't be obstinate. I could argue that "October War" is POV since according to the Jewish Calendar the war started on "Tishrei", not on "October". And if I am really in a combatant mood (which let me assure you I'm not) I could potentially take that argument to every page that includes Israel or Jewish people. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, would you care to re-run your Lexis-Nexis search for me? I don't have access to that resource. I'd like to know the gross hit count for each of the following search terms, searched for in quotes (or whatever convention Lexis-Nexis uses to isolate to exactly these terms): 

Yom Kippur War - 287
1973 Arab-Israeli War - 123
1973 Arab-Israeli Conflict - 2
Arab-Israeli War of 1973 - 25
Arab-Israeli Conflict of 1973 -3

If you could do this for me, I will return the favor with a good faith, content contributing, edit with references cited to any other article of your choice as my way of saying "thank you." Unfocused 16:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfocused, I put in the appropriate numbers. Lexus-Nexus requires I specify certain fields. For all four searches I specified "World news" and "European News Sources." I am afraid I do not have the time to go through all the permutations (different continents' news sources, different categories of news like business, sports -- I assume these are a good basic sample). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What proportion of English speakers even know what "Yom Kippur" means? I would guess that significantly less than half could identify it as a Jewish holiday, maybe about one in five would know that it occurs in the fall, a few less have an idea of what exactly it represents, religiously. I expect that a poll of English speakers that asked them what the "Yom Kippur War" was would generate on the order of 75% blank stares or completely erroneous answers. Almost all English speakers (at least, among those who would ever use an encyclopedia ...) are probably aware that there has been an ongoing conflict between Israel and the Arabs, including a few actual wars. "1973 Arab-Israeli War" would seem best to meet the Wikipedia naming convention policy that, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, ..." Marsden 17:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Since both both google and lexis-nexis seem to favor it, it seems rather clear that your assertion is false. →Raul654 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It's a tremendous stretch to equate Google & Lexis-Nexis hits with general knowledge of Yom Kippur. It is clear that your claim (that Marsden's assertion is false) is itself of dubious value. You've neither proven nor disproven Marsden's point. Further, you should remember that neither Google nor Lexis-Nexis make any attempt whatsoever to be NPOV. On the other hand, here at Wikipedia, NPOV is a founding principle that is completely non-negotiable. Unfocused 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
If you find the google or lexis-nexis approaches inadaquate, then by all means suggest some quantitative way of judging the popularity of a particular name. Also, the claim that google/lexis-nexis make no effort at NPOV is a red herring -- as was discussed-to-death above, the vast majority here seem to believe that there are no POV issues with any of the suggested names. →Raul654 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with both your characterization of the debate above regarding a founding principle as a red herring and your assessment of it as if a quantitative judgement of popularity is the final word. As I mentioned to Sebastian Kessel, I am stepping back (not entirely successfully) from this issue for now with the intention of summarizing the main points of both sides so we have a clearer understanding of our disagreements. Unfocused 23:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfocused, I would recommend starting a new "summary" section with the relevant points and then either submitting a vote or an RfC... this has gone on too long. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a little more data from some other sources: 

                             Lexis-Nexis   Proquest     JSTOR
Yom Kippur War -               287            638        797 
1973 Arab-Israeli War -        123            129        130 
1973 Arab-Israeli Conflict -    2              3          11  
Arab-Israeli War of 1973 -     25              7          36

ProQuest is a large scholarly/business/news database. JSTOR is the major database for social science research, including history and international relations. JSTOR journals using Yom Kippur war included: International Affairs (Royal Institute), Political Science Quarterly, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Peace Studies, Journal of Palestine Studies, Military Studies, but many of the same journals also used 1973 Arab-Israeli War, just less frequently. The only journal I saw using 1973 Arab-Israeli War exlusively was the Journal of Modern African studies. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If the Journal of Palestine Studies uses Yom Kippur War, I don't see how we can say it is POV... john k 15:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I just want to state my strong support for the article staying at Yom Kippur War. It's perfectly clear that the name expresses no POV- it is not used very much by the Arabs, but it doesn't mean that their offended by it, or that it diminishes the Arab POV. Mark is not a POV pusher, he makes perfect sense. The arguments for change do not. Borisblue 21:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

question about 1 sentence

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Minor question about one sentence: Despite the overwhelming odds and the fact that most of the Syrian tanks were equipped with night-fighting equipment, every Israeli tank deployed on the Golan Heights was engaged during the initial attacks. I don't understand why this gets a "despite" unless the word "engaged" is being used to mean something other than what I think it means, which is "fighting". Tempshill 20:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a point that, as it stands, that sentence is an odd one. It looks like it's one of mine, but I cannot for the life of me remember what I was trying to say. Raul654 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Was the decision not to strike preemtively a sound one?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The original sentence was "In retrospect, this descision was the sound one". I think this was POV. Who knows? I changed this to "may have been a sound one". Raul654 changed it to "was probably a sound one", commenting that "given the statement by Kissinger, this is rather self-evident". I am not sure this is correct. There has been long debate in Israel over this, and no consensus. First, Kissinger's words are important, but why they need to be taken at face value? Secondly, Kissinger wasn't the sole US decision maker. Thirdly, he was talking after the event. Fourth, US policiy would have depended on the unfolding of the events on the ground, e.g., involevement of USSR, etc., and fifth, even if all this were true and supplies were stopped, maybe, just maybe, the first strike would have given Israel such a crucial advantage, that it would not have needed the supplies. That's not to say that the decision was NOT a sound one. Just to say that it is very difficult to judge now what would have occurred. However, I am actually reasonably happy with 'probably'. As long as doubts are allowed, it does not really matter. I like the consensus.--BorisG 11:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles on battles?

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Would it make sense to create separate articles on the individual battles? --Leifern 14:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

By most standards, the war consisted of small-unit action. To put it simply, there weren't really all that many pitched battles. Off the top of my head, there was the crossing, Hizayon, the Chinese Farm, and Latakia. Raul654 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the lenght of this article is fine. No need to split it unless you want to add more information about some battles. CG 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's what he meant (I hope not; I'm adamantly against splitting this article). Raul654 15:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean splitting up the article. I would say there were about two major battles on the Golan Heights and a few more than that in the Sinai. The purpose of these articles would be to discuss the tactical, rather than the strategic aspects of the war. If you poke around, you'll see that there are lots of interesting articles on specific battles (e.g., Battle of the Bulge) that are interesting and self-contained. --Leifern 15:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You're free to create as many detailed articles as you want. I was concerned about you deleting or summarizing some parts of this article before moving to a new article. But since you clarified you're point, it's fine. CG 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I wrote most of the battle of the bulge article (Along with user:GeneralPatton) :)
Anyway, as I said, I can't think of any "named" battles in the Golan during the war. As I said above, it mostly consisted of small unit actions like those involving Zvika Greengold. Raul654 16:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, I don't want to do original research, but it seems to me that one could differentiate between two battles on the Golan Heights (e.g., first Syrian attack in the southern Golan; and the Israeli counterattack in the northern Golan), and two or three in Sinai (first Egyptian attack across the canal; Chinese Farms; and the encirclement of the Second/Third Egyptian armies); as well as the Battle of Latakia). How have military historians dealt with this? We can even check with Rabinovich or Oren on this....--Leifern 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I read Rabinovich and cited him heavily in writing this article. The only specifically "named" fighting in the Golan was for Mount Hermon, and the number of troops involved was tiny (<100) - a small unit action if there ever was one, which is why I don't think the word "battle" is appropriate. Raul654 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Populism, popularity & most common versus commonality

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

I would like to make one more appeal to move this article from "Yom Kippur War" to "1973 Arab-Israeli War". The Jewish POV is "Yom Kippur War", and the Arab POV is "Ramadan War" or "October War" (or perhaps one of a dozen other minor titles) but "1973 Arab-Israeli War" is by far the most NPOV title available.

In my arguments in the discussions above I've repeatedly argued that "Yom Kippur War" is not NPOV, and that it is in fact at least mildly offensive to a majority of the combatants and casualties of the war, as well as introducing a subtle bias in favor of one side of the conflict. Since beginning my participation in this discussion, I've had dozens of conversations with various Muslims and Arabs, and repeatedly confirmed this to be accurate. I've visited local university campuses, and the local Islamic center.

"Yom Kippur War" is in fact, the most frequently used name for the conflict, but this is not a popularity contest. "Most common", in the context of NPOV, does not mean "most popular" but instead, that which is most common between two disagreeing sides. Which is most acceptable to BOTH groups, not which is most favored by the majority, should be the guiding principle.

Take the following mathematical example of two number sets:

A: {1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4}
and
B: {3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6}

Two is the most frequently used number in these sets. However, it shows NO commonness, as it doesn't appear at all in the second set! Two is not common between A & B. The "most common" number is 3.

Popularity is not a measure of NPOV. Popularity is a measure of Populism. Commonality is a better measure of NPOV that popularity.

In this article's title, we'll never find pure agreement, but there is a significant intersection, and that is at "1973 Arab-Israeli War".

Finally, to those who defend "Yom Kippur War" based on their own traditions and custom rather than on a purely objective viewing of the events reflected by "Date, Combatants, War" format, please consider the following fact: the Arab world currently has very little internet access, and therefore very little participation in this site or any other. In fact, Arab participation in English language media of all types has been miniscule throughout history, but it is growing very rapidly.

Usage in the Arab world will continue to grow, and some day in the not too distant future, Arab internet users will outnumber Jewish internet users, probably by a very large multiple. When that happens, if the most popular name for this conflict becomes "Ramadan War", will you object to them changing this article's title to "Ramadan War"? When populism no longer favors you, will you still consider "most popular" a good measure of neutrality?

Purely objective view attains neutrality, and remains completely defensible against populism, no matter which side the populist attack comes from.

Finally, so everyone knows where I'm coming from, my own personal POV is that the Israelis were clearly in the right in this war, but that doesn't mean we need to slant the title in their favor. For the purposed of this article, NPOV is far more important than "right" or "wrong" or "justified" or "unjustifiable". Unfocused 19:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole "Yom Kippur War name isn't neutral" claim has already been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Raul654 19:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Raul654, I agree with your point only if you've never actually spoken to Egyptian and Syrian Arabs about this topic. Unfocused 19:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War is not "Jewish POV", it's the common English name. If the Egyptians and Syrians didn't want to be offended, then they shouldn't have tried a sneak attack on Yom Kippur. Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Please tell me, if that is true, then why do other online encyclopedias title their articles "1973 Arab-Israeli War" or "Arab-Israeli Wars"? Perhaps professional editors really are more capable of seeing beyond their own personal POV. Unfocused 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you prefer encyclopedias with "professional editors", then what are you doing here? Here we are working to improve Wikipedia, and we do it via Wikipedia policy. And Wikipedia policies (including WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) indicate that the name should be "Yom Kippur War". Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, by the way, a very brief look shows that Britannica seems to refer to it as "The Yom Kippur War" [17], as does Encarta [18] and The Encyclopedia of World History [19]. Do you think they are employing "unprofessional editors"? Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Nice try to confuse the issue. Try searching for "Yom Kippur War" on Encarta directly, instead of going there through a link from Israel and you'll clearly see that their article is titled "1973 Arab-Israeli War". The same for Brittanica, where the whole article is listed at "Arab-Israeli Wars" and the section you linked is a subpart of the Israel article. Bartleby's Encyclopedia of World History isn't exactly a major encyclopedia, but I'll accept that a few minority encyclopedias support your POV. Unfocused 15:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I did search for Yom Kippur war, and it showed up in an article named that in Encarta. The article itself describes it as the Yom Kippur War, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. As well, the Britannica article quite clearly describes the war as "The Yom Kippur War" in its article on Israel. Ignoring these facts won't make them go away. Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I just found that you used the UK edition of Encarta. Did you intentionally go to the UK edition of Encarta? The US edition at www.encarta.com does not support your claim. I have no idea of your geographic location. Are you in the UK? Further, the Britannica mention you provided is within the Israel article, so the bent of that reference is already clear, and a search of Yom Kippur War there finds the main reference in "Arab-Israeli Wars". I prefer primary references over subsections of other articles. Unfocused 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
            • If you hadn't checked the link out, why did you comment? Encarta obviously uses "Yom Kippur War" in at least some of its editions. As for Britannica, the only place it appears to actually give the war a name, it calls it the "Yom Kippur War". As well, are you claiming now that the Israel article had "unprofessional editors", but the Arab-Israeli wars article, which doesn't actually name the war, had "professional" ones? At this point you're grasping at straws - it has already been shown that both Encarta and Britannica use "Yom Kippur War", and in any event your assertions are irrelevant for this encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Jayjg says. The Lexus/Nexus JSTOR and other data is compelling too. Have redirects from 1973 conflicft or 1973 war or October war so no one will have trouble finding the article. This is not an issue of bias, because if any Jewish Israeli's, or Orthodox Jews, told me they found Yom Kippor as a name for a war offensive, I would still google and use other databases to find the most common name. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC Since redirects are an easy matter, I support the proposal to change this to the most neutral title "1973 Arab-Israeli War." It's common practice in English to adopt a neutral term when one name for something offends a substantial group of people. I don't know of any Wikipedia policy regarding Lexus/Nexus. I do know of a firm policy regarding NPOV. Regards, Durova 12:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Yom Kippur War is how the war is known to the Western World. Renaming it to the assine 1973 Arab-Israeli war, makes no sense. There is already a redirect in place. Particularly since even the government of Egypt call it Yom Kippur War. PPGMD 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, I was browsing the German wikipedia today and found the article on the Battle of Britain (a featured article there) was called "Air battle of England" (Luftschlacht um England) - apparently the accepted German term. This is mentioned nowhere in the English version. David | Talk 21:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War is NPOV

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I never saw User:Unfocused explain why Yom Kippur War would be POV. As far as I can tell he only explained that Egyptians and Syrians never use it. Even that is imprecise. They use it at times in English as there is no POV involved. See for example an history page of Egypt in the 20th century at the website of Egypt's State Information Service (sis.gov.eg): http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:WUu3y4ASY6kJ:www.sis.gov.eg/eyes/egypt2/html/6.htm (currently unavailable). The source may of course be foreign. This article contains a complete chapter about "The Yom Kippur War" gidonb 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, -- Well, I disagree. Egyptians and Syrians do NOT edit this article (only in all probability!) at least not as much as, umm, the other party does so far! If you look up the same article in the Arabic Wikipeida, where Egyptians and Syrians DO edit, you'll find not only a different title for the article, but also, a different SPIRIT, a contrary one, in fact. And yes, so much here is certainly far from NPOV as it is THERE too. Rejoice, if you will! Maysara 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to immediately archive

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to immediately archive all of this déjà vu title discussion as soon as the debate is concluded, again. We really want to keep this article open to items pertinent to the material (informatively, etc.) beyond the issue of the title. So, if I'm not around, do it before me and myself (and Kitty) shall greatly reward you with many wonderful riches. So, let's invoke the scholarship, again, and then... many wonderful riches. El_C 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I strongly OPPOSE your proposal. The discussion should remain, I think, for at least a few weeks, preferably a month or two, to allow for consideration and reflection. Anything quicker than two weeks is nothing more than burying the minority opinion, regardless of which it is. Unfocused 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly... RICHES! Kitty Ə1:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Added POV template to main article

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added this template because the title's NPOV is currently in dispute. I welcome it's removal after the poll concludes, but I won't edit war to keep it in place until then, either. Please respect my posting of this template for this short period of time. Unfocused 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Protest

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I must protest User:Spaceriqui inserting lengthy (and inaccurate) arguments both at the top of the Discussion section, and then inserting them underneath his vote as well. The voting section should be for voting, not lengthy discussion, and inserting your own opinion at the very top of sections is a blatant attempt to unfairly sway readers. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, your criticism and protest are well taken. Thanks for setting me straight... Spaceriqui 07:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Most common among whom?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I disagree that "Yom Kippur War" is the most common used name for the war. That is only the most common name used by Israeli's. I am Egyptian and have heard and participated in discussions on the war (In English) and NEVER have I heard it being referred to by that name. I have heard "October 6th war", "War of '73", and "The 1973 Arab-Israeli War". I would guess in a survey of non-Israeli's, non-Jews and non-Arabs, the most common name would be "The 1973 Arab-Israeli War". I would also venture to guess that the only circumstance in which "Yom Kippur War" would be the most used would be in a survey of Israeli's or Jews. Unfortunately this issue seems to be closed but I think the title should be "1973 Arab-Israeli War" as it is the most common name used outside of the immediate combatants, and even if you were to take into account the combatants the current "Yom Kippur War" would still not be the most common title as Egyptians and other arabs do not use this term. (P.S. Just because a website uses a particular title by no means implies this to be the most commonly used term.)Nasdaqbull 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Nasdaqbull

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yom_Kippur_War/Archive_2&oldid=1136222762"