Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reverts

So nothing is allowed in if it doesn't meet ElUmmah's standards? What was wrong with the line from the Egyptian president? Why did you remove it? Cptnono (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in your talk page, removing that particular paragraph was accidental. Everything else however, was perfectly justified and I think you'll find that I'm not the only to think so.ElUmmah (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ElUmmah.

Unless you have Gawrych's book, "your" edits are actually reinsertions of Sherif's own edits, removed by me, while you even don't have this book. Sherif claims that his edits are based on Gawrych's book, but I think he did not write exactly what appears in the book. Until Sherif gives detailed explanations for these edits and quote Gawrych's words in the talk page, these edits shouldn't appear in the article. I'm still expecting Sherif to do it. You have no write to reinsert edits based on a book you don't have. Stop reinserting Sherif's edits. Megaidler (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, they are my edits, the only re-insertion was the part regarding the 400 destroyed Israeli tanks as well as the countries in the infobox. Sherif has already provided the explanation you required, and so you cannot continue to remove a sourced figure just because it differs from the sources you like.

So now you know what books I have and don't have is that right? For your information, the book is available on google books, if you had taken the time to verify this you wouldn't have made such a false accusation. You, Megaidler, are the one who has no right to remove referenced information and try to impose your own POV upon a featured article that is supposed to be NEUTRAL. You make baseless claims regarding the reliability of many top scholars and you try to undermine their work, when you are hardly a scholar on the subject yourself.ElUmmah (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Fascinating hypothesis there Megaidler but useful only if you're authoring a book. What you're doing is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please remember that you do not WP:OWN this article either; you cannot remove sourced material and order editors to comply with your requests simply because they do not match your POV, all the while throwing false accusations at me. Drop it for everyone's sake, and let's move on to other issues with the article. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Did Ezekiel's Prophecy of Gog and Magog Cause the Americans to Act Out of Fear?

NOTE If we can answer this question, maybe we can give motive to why Kissinger acted as he did, or perhaps acted without the President?Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am an American. I have a question. Are there any reliable sources online that demonstrate that Ezekiel's (chapter 38 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2038;&version=NASB;) prophecy of a King of the North (Gog and Magog) would attack Israel unleashing God's wrath possibly caused Kissinger and others to react (with the nuclear alert) to the Soviet communication to Nixon out of fear, fearing Armageddon? That is how I, as a reader of the pronogisticator Hal Lindsey, interpreted Doomsday: On The Brink when it discussed the Soviet paratroops on alert.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is fortunate that the Soviets were guided more by reason than possible religious panic that day.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

This article has two tags, unformatted citations, an External link farm, and many issues-- it should be cleaned up or submitted to WP:FAR for reevaluation of featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is little chance of this remaining a FA. To address the comments made instead of taking it to FAR at this time:

I don't know why the neutrality tag is on. I assume it has to do with the infobox. However, in hindsight, I agreed it was needed a few months ago when the article was heavily slanted towards the Arab perspective.

Length: This has been brought up before. It is long but it is within WP:LENGTH. It could be tightened. One idea was to spin the Golan part out. I think that is a terrible idea and if anything certain sources need to be limited because they are overused. Rabinovich is one example and this is discussed in the archives. If any sections should be trimmed or summarized with a new article created it should be sections 3 and 4.

The link farm is easy enough and should be cut. Is there anything anyone sees as being essential as an external link instead of a source?

And a note about the infobox : If we could properly summarize the victory conditions at the top of section 3 or 4 as "aftermath" we would not need the disputed info in the infobox. There is no place discussing the info in a consolidated manner for that to be acceptable since the reader would have to go through a dozen paragraphs to find the info.

Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the Israeli-Palastinian conflict partisans have moved in and wrecked this article since I last edited it. I'll see what I can do. I agree that the length tag is specious, and that there are several other things that could be done to fix this article. Raul654 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! It looks and reads like crap.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By way of example, the casualty section is way too long and filled w/ mumbo jumbo psycho babble and other useless and biased crap that is irrelevant and designed simply for the purpose of skewing the article in a certain direction. I made an effort to make it more concise, drawing from a number of sources and setting forth dry numbers and stats. I'll try to re-work it again and trim the fat and BS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath

Apologies to start another subsection but the other ones are being ignored and edit waring is increasing. Would anyone be opposed to fixing the victory bit by using "Se aftermath" in the "Result" parameter of the infobox. We would have to formulate a paragraph at the top of the section discussing claims to military victory and the political outcome. Right now, the section is not suitable for such a link but if we stop bickering we might be able to figure out a concise summary. Although I have been against doing this, it has been based on that section not existing properly (the reader has to comb through too much as is) and what we have now just isn't working. We have precedent for doing this according to the infobox:

1. result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section"). -Template:Infobox military conflict

Cptnono (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this. The relevant section needs to reflect what the sources say, and then the infobox needs to point to it. (Hohum ^@) 00:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent removal

An editor just removed "Egyptian political and strategic victory" from the infobox with the edit comment "No consensus for this edit. Not from editors and not from sources. IDF tactical victory is supported by at least 7 reliable sources)"

The main body text contains "However, the war is described as a military stalemate and an Egyptian strategic and political victory by Major Steven J. Piccirilli, USMC" which is properly cited, and is a reliable western source.

This, as I have argued before, makes the recently removed outcome supported, or more properly for an infobox summary - disputed. Please stop fighting over the wording in the infobox instead of getting the relevant main body text right, and then reflecting it in the infobox. (Hohum ^@) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how one can make the argument for political victory. Piccirili is in the minority on this as evidenced by the numerous sources that I cited and added in the main body text. These additions are now consistent with the infobox. Moreover, in addition to being contrary to the body of sources, several editors have expressed reservations about this speculative conclusion. respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now cited several sources that argue persuasively that in addition to emerging militarily victorious from the Yom Kippur War, Israel gained politically as well. These are reliable sources from respected historians, defense analysts and academics that lay out in cogent, articulate fashion grounds for their claims. There will always be a minority that will argue otherwise. There are those who believe that the CIA was responsible for Kennedy’s death and that 911 was a Zionist conspiracy but that does not make it so. The majority of western sources agree that Israel emerged victorious from the war. Even Garwych begrudgingly acknowledges that the prevailing western viewpoint is that Israel won the war. A core group of Egyptian revisionists and a few of their supporters stubbornly cling to the view of stalemate but these are a minority and hardly represent the consensus of sources and I’ve proven that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to understand why a respectable source has a particular opinion. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. It's disputed, Piccirili is not a fringe opinion. (Hohum ^@) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I’m curious. Is Piccirili an author, historian or academic? Has he published any notable books? Has his article on YKW been subjected to any form of peer review? And aside from “GlobalSecurity,” has it been published or recited in any RS? I did a Google search and found nothing of note. Can you enlighten me as to why we should consider such an obscure writer be an RS? Can you please explain to me why the opinions of a “no name” like Piccirili should be given equal weight to the dozen or so sources that I cited that stand for the opposite position? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So it appears JJG wasted no time in taking advantage of my absence to once again remove "Egyptian political and strategic victory" from the infobox. I am quickly tiring of this constant edit warring. JJG, it's obvious that the matter is disputed, as Piccirili's opinion is shared by other reliable sources, including Hammad, Dupuy and O'Ballance, to name a few. Be it a minority viewpoint or not, the matter IS disputed, and the infobox needs to reflect this. Thus, I am giving you the chance to self-revert, or at least to implement Hohum's suggestion, which I think is highly agreeable, as it allows the reader to examine both sides and come to their own conclusion. I think it is in the best interest of this article that we, as editors, collaborate rather than edit war. Also, regarding the casualty figures in the infobox, they are inaccurate. You say Rabinovich gives the figure as 15,000, which is true, yet another source gives the figure as 8,528. Thus, the range needs to be 8,528 - 18,500. Regarding Arab air losses, you state the range to be 450-514. Yet Gawrych states that Egypt lost 223 and Syria lost 118 (223+118 = 341). Thus, the infobox needs to say 341-514. I also noticed you removed Gawrych's sourced material from the casualties paragraph in the body. He states at least 2800 Israelis were killed and at least 8800 were wounded. He also mentions that some sources give Israeli aircraft losses as closer to 200. I believe O'Ballance provides additional figures, but I don't have the book yet and so won't be able to provide them at the moment. Regardless, Gawrych is a reliable source, and his figures need to be included, and it would be great if you could do so. Another concern of mine is that you reverted me to place Israel's estimate of Arab casualties first (in the Arab casualties paragraph). Other, more accurate secondary sources need to be placed first, otherwise the reader is given an immediate incorrect impression of Arab casualties. I do not oppose its inclusion, as it is relevant, but please put it after, rather than before other most reliable estimates. I hope we will be able to collaborate further on this project, and avoid pointless edit warring. Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Elummah, I too have no interest in edit warring and will make some modifications consistent w/ ur suggestions. Aside from his own quote of 15,000 Rabinovich cites another source as saying 8,528 but he doesn't say which and that's why I didn't include it in the infobox but I did include in in the casualty section. Herzog cites a figure of 18,500 and the London Sunday Times states 16,000. Johnson and Tierney state that the Arab forces sustained between 40,000 to 50,000 casualties (dead and wounded) Nonetheless, in the interest of collaboative editing, I'll make changes that will hopefully meet with ur approval. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good :). I just took a look at Rabinovich's book, and I saw that the 15,000 killed figure is attributed to Israel's estimate, rather than his own. Also, Gawrych states that Egypt and Syria lost 8,000 killed (5,000 for egypt and 3,000 for syria).ElUmmah (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that "disputed" would be better for the infobox than a disputable "Israeli tactical victory" which should only be ther if balanced by "Egyptian political/strategic victory" . The majority opinion of reliable sources assess it as an Egyptian (or Arab) political / strategic victory; it is much harder to see how it can be viewed as an Israeli political victory. As I mentioned above, some of the sources cited to support "Israeli victory" (e.g. Kumaraswamy, Liebman) support the Egyptian strategic/political victory view in other places, call the Israeli victory "pyrrhic" , and/or argue from the position that they are dissenting from the mainstream view that the war was a stalemate or Egyptian strategic victory. "Egyptian revisionism" does not enter into it. The "Egyptian strategic victory" sources, the majority, are not Egyptian, and many were published soon after the war. Whetten's book The Canal War, published in 1974, assesses it as an Egyptian and Syrian political victory: p.283, on their prewar military objectives "Militarily, Syria failed and Egypt partially failed. Politically, however, both Arab states were successful." Dupuy's says the same. General histories like Khouri's Arab-Israeli Dilemma, Morris's Righteous Victims and Shlaim's Iron Wall don't accord with a nonexistent consensus of Israeli victory. e.g. Morris, p.441: "Sadat's gamble, to achieve a breakthrough in Arab-Israeli relations through the application of shock treatment, had paid off. What Israel had been unwilling to contemplate in 1971 ... it acceded to after the Yom Kippur war." Homum is absolutely right. Call it disputed in the box, and work on getting a good text that is pointed to from the box.John Z (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would go with "See aftermath" over "Disputed" but see and agree that it might be a good solution. I lean that way since "too complex" might be more accurate than "disputed" and "disputed" might cause more edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You're right, "See Aftermath" is probably better. I would be happy with either.John Z (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, probably an effective solution. ElUmmah (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay as I see it from the body of sources, militarily, you've got to hand it to Israel. The issue gets murkier when adding the political component. Some sources led by Dupuy argue that politically, Egypt came out ahead while others, including Johnson & Tierney and Luttwak don't see it that way. Rabinovich argues that both sides, Egypt as well as Israel, gained politically. So perhaps as a solution we could write:

• Israel tactical victory
• Political gains for Egypt and Israel
• See "Aftermath" (with a link to that section)

On another issue, ElUmmah expressed concern over the fact that Garwych's stats were omitted from the infobox and he was correct. I have now included Garwych's stats in the infobox and will re-work the "casualty" section so that it remains consistent with the information provided in the infobox.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but I still think there should be some reference to Egyptian strategic successes. I'm not denying that Israel achieved tactical gains on both fronts, nor that they achieved political gains (I do tend to think Egypt gained more, but that in itself is disputed). However, Egypt did achieve strategic successes which is acknowledged by many historians (e.g. surprising Israel, capturing and holding the east bank of the canal, the bab el mandab blockade), which fulfilled Egypt's strategic objectives and affected the long-term outcome. ElUmmah (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay progress. I think there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. Egypt gained politically because a measure of Arab pride was restored and Sadat became immensely popular in Egypt as a result. She gained strategically because she was able to acquire the Sinai through the negotiation process, a process that was jump-started by the war. Israel gained politically because it achieved peace with its most formidable opponent and in so doing, opened doors to relations with other Arab countries including Jordan. Moreover, it was able to achieve peace without conceding on other disputed territories. It gained strategically because its security situation improved drastically with the advent of peace. In light of that, perhaps the following would be suitable:

• Israel tactical victory
• Political & strategic gains for Egypt and Israel
• See "Aftermath" (with a link to that section)

On another note, I have re-worked the casualty section to include Garwych's stats so that it now conforms to the infobox.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that :). Let's put it in the infobox and if anyone has any suggestions they can bring it up here. Now we have to work on the results section so that it reflects the infobox. Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud the recent outbreak of cooperation (and hope that mentioning it doesn't break the spell). Kudos to those participating. (Hohum ^@) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made the edit reflecting above-discussed compromise to the long-standing debate. Hopefully, the recent edits that I made to the infobox and casualty sections will placate some of the concerns expressed by various well-informed and well-intentioned editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian tank strength

Egyptian tank strength as noted in the infobox seems vastly understated and inconsistent with information in the body text. All sources including Garwych agree that Egypt lost 1,100 tanks during the war. The infobox states that she started the war with 1,700. Under the Arab re-supply section Hammad is quoted as stating that Egypt was not re-supplied with tanks. If that's the case, Egypt was left with 600 tanks by war's end (1,700-1,100 = 600). Yet there's a claim in the body text that Egyptian tank strength on the east bank at the time of ceasefire was 700. This amounts to a discrepancy of negative 100 tanks. it would also mean that Egypt had no tanks on the west bank. This makes absolutely no sense and demonstrates the absurdity and inconsistency of Egyptian sources--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked, but can't see a mention of 700 Egyptian tanks at the ceasefire in the current version of the page, or versions before recent edits. If you feel certain sources are "absurd" and don't want them to be used, you will either need to gain consensus here, or have them vetted at WP:RSN. (Hohum ^@) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says 720 tanks, though I don't see the point of this argument. Hammad states that the Egyptians received no tanks in the Soviet re-supply effort. However, looking at JJG's edit which consisted of putting practically the entire Arab world (as well as Cuba, Pakistan and North Korea) on Egypt's side, it's evident that Egypt received much more than just Soviet help, which is more than enough to account for the noted discrepancy.ElUmmah (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"However, looking at JJG's edit which consisted of putting practically the entire Arab world (as well as Cuba, Pakistan and North Korea) on Egypt's side, it's evident that Egypt received much more than just Soviet help, which is more than enough to account for the noted discrepancy."

ElUmmah, that's original research. You've got to find a way so that your numbers jive with your sources. Otherwise, you have to change your sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True, alright I'll get on that as soon as possible. What do you propose we do in the meantime? ElUmmah (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

eh leave it for now. I'll make some of the changes u proposed above but tomorrow, if its okay.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, talk to you tomorrow then :) ElUmmah (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This argument is useless because you have a variety of sources being used for the many figures: one for the pre-war strength, a few for the number of tanks lost (which are controversial, O'Ballance gives a figure smaller than that), and a completely different source for the post-war strength. We can't try to explain the discrepancy ourselves because that would be OR. Obviously it all arises from a dispute on the estimate of Egyptian losses during the war. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FA and EL

External links came up in the mention of a Featured Article Review. There are so many I am just removing them all. They are all shown below so that appropriate ones can be added in. Keep in mind that an inline citation will do if it can be used as a reference. For everything else, make sure that WP:EL is followed.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs—The Jarring initiative and the response
• Jerusalem Post's—Yom Kippur War: Shattered Heights
• Jewish Agency for Israel's Timeline of Israeli history
• Jewish Education Dept., JAFI, Israeli Intelligence and the Yom Kippur War of 1973
• Put an end to Israeli aggression, an article printed in the Pravda newspaper on October 12, 1973 (translation at CNN)
• A detailed account of 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War) – From Ariel Sharon's Biography
• The October War national park, Cairo
• The Bitter Blow - Israeli-Arab Relations after the wars
• The October War, Al Ahram supplement
• The October War and US Policy—Provided by the National Security Archive.
• Lessons of the October War, Ahmad Faruqui
• A Cry From The Bunkers Recordings by IDF soldier Avi Yaffe from inside the IDF position, under attack at the outbreak of the war
• The reasons for the war by Major Ebrahim Al-Jowder Bahrain Armed Forces
• The 1973 October War: The Egyptian Perspective—Provided By Major J.C. Moulton, United States Air Force.
• The 1973 Arab-Israeli War: Arab Policies, Strategies, and Campaigns— Provided by Major Michael C. Jordan, United States Marine Corps.
• Operation Valiant: Turning of the Tide in the Sinai 1973 Arab-Israeli War by Major Richard L. Owen, US Marine Corps Command and Staff College
• Kissinger's Yom Kippur oil shock – Reasons for outbreak of war according to F.William Engdahl.
• Yom Kippur War: Sacrificial Stand in the Golan Heights – by Gary Rashba, Military History Magainze, October 1998 issue.
• Fundamental surprise, by Dr. Zvi Lanir, Tel Aviv University
• Radio program – 6:36 min from radio program about the war. The program includes authentic recordings of the first moments of the war.
• "Another Round in the War of Words" Time Monday, Oct. 29, 1973. Separate interviews, same questions, with the Foreign ministers of Israel and Egypt

Piccirili

I have some serious reservations on citing Major Steven Piccirili in this article. He is neither an author, historian or academic. He has never published any notable books. His article or report on the Yom Kippur War has never been subjected to any form of peer review. And aside from “GlobalSecurity,” it has never been published or recited in any RS. I did a Google search on this chap and found nothing of note. Can anyone enlighten me as to why we should consider such an obscure writer be an RS? Can anyone please explain why the opinions of a “no name” like Piccirili should be given equal weight to the likes of Dupuy, Herzog, Pollack, Garwych, Rabinovich and the Insight Team of the London Sunday Times, just to name a few? Moreover, Piccirili's conclusions are derived directly from Dupuy's, quoting him word for word in his report and we already have Dupuy's opinion noted in the aftermath section. Having Piccrili quoted alongside Dupuy is redundant. Additionally, Piccirili borrows heavily from Badri, universally recognized as an unreliable source. The Journal of Military History criticized Badri's book as being "totally biased in its approach, and should be avoided by anyone seeking a general history of the war." (Review: The Arab-Israeli War of Words: Recent Books Reviewed, Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 200–202, at p. 201). And military historian Simon Dunstan called Badri's book a "mere rhetoric." Reliance on tainted sources necessarily corrupts the "report." But my latter two objections are secondary concerns. My main concern is that this fella, for the reasons noted, is essentially a nobody and should not be considered an RS. His inclusion is to the article's detriment. Incidentally, I feel the same way about Major Richard Owen (also cited as a source along side Piccirili) who feels that Israel emerged victorious. Both of these "majors" should be removed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the Piccirilli report was originaly published by the Marine Corps University Command and Staff College, which surely is an RS? Has Badri been accepted as being unreliable by consensus on wikipedia somewhere? (Hohum ^@) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the latter comment concerning Badri, he has not been vetted at RSN. I just made a point by stating that his work has been deemed by some who are in the field to be sub-par and unreliable. Just by way of illustration, his book refers to a fictitious naval engagement between Israeli and Egyptian Navies that resulted in the sinking of four INS naval vessels. Not one source subscribes to this fantasy. But the fact that Piccirili relies to a large extent on Badri was not my main point. All the sources cited in our wiki Yom Kippur War article cross reference each others works. For example, Dupuy cites Herzog and Herzog cites Hammad who cites Adan and so on and so forth. Of course, each cited author has his own POV and brings a unique perspective but all are recognized authorities and all reference each other in their respective publications. However, not one of these authors, not Liebman, not Herzog, not Shazly, not Hammad, not Garwych, not Rabinovich, etc…, reference Piccirili (or Owen for that matter). He is cited nowhere and unlike the others; his “work” has not undergone serious peer review. Accordingly, he should be precluded.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliability can stem from who deems it fit to publish a work. In this case the Marine Corps University Command and Staff College - who seem unlikely, as a body, to support a pro Egyptian bias, nor poor quality. A writer doesn't have to be prolific to be reliable.

Seperately: If Badri truly is unreliable, it may be worth taking it to RSN, or the military history wikiproject to gain consensus. (Hohum ^@) 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This problem of what is reliable and what not is a recurring and chronic problem in wp. The formal requirements are very low; any newspaper article or book piblished by an established publisher is a RS (unless there is an established consensus to the contrary regarding a specific source). However many communities find it to be too broad and establish their own rules that rank sources related to a group of topics. Maybe some ranking like this can be done for this long article. Would be nicer if it was for a group of articles or a project, but this may be impractical. - BorisG (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Back on the specific topic, Marine Corps University Command and Staff College is just a college. I don't consider a college or university publication to be that reliable, even if it has such a grand name. Pretty close to self-publishing. - BorisG (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly just "a" college. It's the Command and Staff College of the USMC University, which is a center of expertise in Military History, which seems somewhat specialised and relevant to an article on a war. Perhaps we should also exclude the Physics departments of universities in article about Physics? (Hohum ^@) 20:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bar-Lev Line

Hello everybody. I'm back after a long absence. With new sourced stuff. I'm strongly opposing the argument that the Suez Canal was heavily fortified. In fact I would prefer the term lightly fortified, or poorly guarded.

According to Haber & Schiff p 80, 81, 82, 83
The Israelis started to build the Bar-Lev line, at first, for protection from artillery, and not for countering Egyptian crossings. On 15/07/1967 the UN observers were to arrive and many places along the canal were unguarded. The Israelis decided to deploy forces across the canal. The Egyptian army made preparation so the Israelis decided to fortify their positions as quick as possible. The first fortifications were made of outposts located on the water line. Each outpost was surrounded by sand ramparts, and had positions in front of all directions. The posts were lightly protected. Between the outposts mine were laid.
Following an Egyptian bombardment, it was decided to reinforce the bunkers with the tracks of the railroad linking Kantara to El-Arish. During the works there were bombardments and it was later been decided to build a massive fortified line across the canal. The architect of the line was chosen to be Abraham Adan, then a brigadier. The decision was to build strong-points across the canal with intervals of 10 km between them. There were some intervals of up to 15 km. On each strong point there was to be no more than a platoon. On places were Egyptian crossing is more possible, many strong-points would be built next to each other. The strong points were to observe and in case of Egyptian crossing attempts, to stop it together with mobile reinforcements.
In Fort "Budapest" stationary Stalin tanks would be used in dug in positions. In each strong point there was a shelter for resting, kitchen, toilet and systems of electricity, water and sewage. Sand ramps were built along the canal for hiding Israeli patrols. The supporters of strong-points were Adan, Gavish, and Bar-Lev. The stationary positions could counter Egyptian crossings. If an Egyptian small force would cross, and dug in, it would be hard for the Israelis to recapture the land.
This scenario can repeat itself over and over. Unlike mobile forces they are immune to ambush. Generals Tal and Sharon opposed the stationary defense. Sharon claimed that the supply convoys to the strong points are vulnerable. Tal claimed that the strong points can't counter Egyptian crossing because of the large intervals between them. He also claimed that the strong point is an inefficient combat system and it is no more than a shelter. Both claimed that heavy Egyptian artillery fire can neutralize the strong points ability to use fire against Egyptian crossing. Following the war of attrition Sharon received approval to close to dilute part of the double strong points.
14 strong points were closed. Albert Mendler opposed this. Some of the strong points were closed by barbed wire and earth. Others became observation post during day time. Sharon suggested converting some of the strong points into tank position but this didn't take place. Meanwhile, the Egyptians built a sand ramp on the western bank, higher than the eastern one. This exposed many areas on the eastern bank to fire and observation from the west. Shmuel Gonen suggested removing the eastern sand ramp. He claimed that it actually disturb fighting against a possible Egyptian crossing. Later when he became head of the southern command, he had plans to build triangle like sand ramps behind the strong points. This would allow the tanks to hit the crossing Egyptians, to support the strong points, and to be protected from Egyptian fire from the higher western sand ramp. The war broke out before he had time to do this.
Neither of the defensive concepts was implemented on 06/10/1973 14:00. The strong points were manned by insufficient troops who lacked sufficient training and weaponry. There was lack of artillery, the tanks were not in position in time, and the second defense line was also insufficiently garrisoned. When the Egyptian crossing began, southern command was pondering whether to evacuate the strong points or to reinforce them with tanks. Only on 07/10 it was decided to abandon the Bar-Lev line. The forts from north to south were: Traklin, Budapest, Orkal, Lachtzanit, Drora, Ktuba, Milano, Mifreket, Hizayon, Purkan, Matzmed, Lakekan, Botzer, Lituf, Maftseach, Nisan, Masrek, Egrofit.

According to Haber & Schiff p. 274 - 275
30 strong points (each one of them called Maoz in Hebrew) were established on the shores of the Suez Canal following the 6 day war. Abraham Adan was the one who planned them. He was inspired by an Israeli built fort from 1948. Each strong point was made of a square like perimetric sand rampart. Its total length was 400 meters. Within the strong point there was a yard for logistic activity. The entrance was in the rear.
It was possible to place there a tank, with its gun directed toward the exit, or a halftrack. Additional 200 meters of connecting trenches were built. The fences were thickened with coiled barbed wire and mines. On the corners there were firing positions and shelters next to them. The firing positions and the shelters next to them were built from metal scraps captured in the Sinai desert. Their reinforcements were built from the disassembled railroad track.
On the two western positions, the directions toward the canal were sealed. As I understand, it means that only diagonal firing toward the canal was possible. Frontal firing toward the canal was possible from the connecting trenches built in the sand ramparts. Firing up to 1,200 meter was possible with medium machine guns. Later, an 81 mm mortar position was built within the yard, an AA gun position was built in one of the corners, in some bunkers the reinforcing railroad tracks were replaced by rocks and one or two observation positions were built toward the front. The frontal observation post was to be manned by a single soldier even in case of shelling, while the rest were to take cover inside the bunkers.
Within the yard there was a semi open bunker for a generator, a bunker for ammunition, a bunker for fuel, a dining room and a toilet. In some strong points, positions for tanks were built next to the sand rampart. The upgraded strong points were better protected. There were only few cases of penetration of 152 mm shells with delay fuses. The heavy weight of the reinforcements caused the collapsing of some bunkers, but usually, they sustained the Egyptian bombardments.
Each strong point was to cover about two kilometers along the water line by fire and observation. It was expected that the strong points would hold on until tank reinforcements would arrive. Generally, in each strong point there were to be 25-30 men, 2 machine guns in the front, 3 machine guns in the rear, 3 52 mm mortars and automatic rifles. Anti-tank weaponry was very little - one Bazooka and two rifle grenades adapter. Optional weapons were a 20 mm gun and an 81 mm mortar.
Between 01/03/1969 and 07/08/1970 there were 26 Egyptian raids in the Sinai desert. 9 of these were against the strong points. Inside the strong points, Israel suffered 3 dead and 5 wounded. The Egyptian suffered 33 dead and dozens of wounded. The supporter of the strong points was Bar-Lev. The opponents were Sharon and Tal. On 06/10/73 only 16 strong points were occupied. "Budapest" was the only fully manned strong point. 7 were evacuated, one survived and the rest were captured, by the Egyptians.

According to Haber & Schiff p 418-419
A second line of forts was established behind the strong points line. Each fort was called "Taoz". It was build during Sharon service as chief of the southern command and according to his suggestion. Sharon was aware of the possibility that Israel won't have air superiority, and the holding of the first line will be hard. The second line will replace it and will be out of the range of Egyptian small arms and mortars. This concept was fitting with the suggestion made in the same time by Moshe Dayan and Anuar Sadat: Israel will withdraw from the east bank and Egypt will open the canal for sailing. The line was built along the artillery road, some 8-12 km from the canal, and was made of 11 forts.
The strongholds were built on the eastern slopes of hills, for hiding them from Egyptian observations and giving them protection from artillery fire. In each strong hold there were two large bunkers, 4 AA positions, trenches for vehicles and connection trenches that reached dual riflemen positions. In these forts there were to park companies of tanks. The tanks were to move rapidly in case of Egyptian crossing or to reach the strong points in case of Egyptian raids. In case of alert, there were to be between 1 to 2 infantry platoons in each stronghold. Another mission was to establish on the peak of these forts long range observation posts toward the canal and use advanced binoculars.
On the out break of the war there was no Infantry in the strongholds and in part of them there were not even tanks. When the tanks left the strongholds and moved toward the water line, most of the strongholds were left unmanned.

This file describes some of what was on the Sinai Peninsula on 06/10/1973 14:00.
Manned strong points in black, unmanned strong points in red, rear strong holds in orange.
Forts on the Suez Canal (From the north-east to south) were:
Traklin, Budapest, Orkal, Lachtzanit, Drora, Ktuba, Milano, Mifreket, Hizayon, Purkan, Noah (mistakenly marked on the western bank), Matzmed, Lakekan, Botzer, Lituf, Maftseach, Nisan, Masrek, Egrofit, Chelbon.
Strong holds (from north to south):
Yoram, Martef, Maror, Havraga, Nachal, Televizia, Kishuf, Churba, Mitsva, Notsa, Tsidar.
Megaidler (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. The postion was manned by an understrength reserve brigade and when Sharon was OC southern command, he actually closed down three forts. Also, at the time of Badr, there were only three tanks at the Canal itself with an understrength division in the rear.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Even undermanned, the Bar-Lev line wasn't designed to completely repel an Egyptian invasion, it was meant to slow them down enough for the reserves to be called up and the air force to come into action and repel the assault. The canal itself was considered heavily fortified. ElUmmah (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses

Losses – General

According to Gawrych P 243-244:
Israeli losses were staggering for a small country that had come to expect decisive victory with few casualties in short wars. Over 2,800 Israelis had been killed, at least 8,800 had been wounded and some five hundred were prisoners of war or missing in action. Equivalent losses for the United States in the Vietnam War would have been two hundred thousand Americans killed-a figure four times the actual number but inflicted in the span of only three weeks. Arab losses were heavy as well. Egypt lost five thousand killed and twelve thousand wounded; Syria suffered over three thousand dead and six thousand wounded. Tank losses stood at 840 for Israelis (many repaired during the war), 1,100 for the, Egyptians, and 1,200 for the Syrians. Airplane destruction was also high: 102 (some sources claim figures closer to two hundred) for Israel, 223 for Egypt, and 118 for Syria ¹⁰.
Gawrych described his sources for this information on page 255:
10. Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-lsraeli wars, 1947-1974 (1978 reprint, Fairfax, VA: Hero Books, 1984): 609; and Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, No Vanquished: The Yom Kippur War San Rafael, CA: Presidio Press, 1978): 301. Such figures are always controversial, often varying greatly from one source to another. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses in Personnel

According to Dupuy p 609 Israeli casualties were 2838 dead and 8800 wounded. Dupuy noted that:
About 10% has been added to officially reported Israeli casualties to represent approximately the wounded who died of their injuries, and the fact that that officially Israeli figures apparently do not include those wounded not evacuated from aid stations and field hospitals. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Official Israeli Report page 336, many Israeli soldiers were killed after the cease fire.
Between the day of the cease fire and the separation of forces with Egypt on 18/01/1974, 17 Israeli soldiers were killed on the Egyptian front.
Between the day of the cease fire and the separation of forces with Syria, 60 Israeli soldiers were killed on the Syrian front.

On pages 378 and 379 it is mentioned that on 27/01/1977, details of the casualties were presented to the foreign and security committee of the Knesset. The army manpower directorate - casualties department is the source for this information. This report states the following details.

Between 06/10/1973 and 24/10/1973 there were 2,297 dead.
1,488 in the Egyptian front 783 in the Syrian front and 26 other places.
2,222 of these were of combat circumstances and 75 were of non-combat circumstances.
Between 25/10/1973 and 31/05/1974 there were 359 dead.
142 in the Egyptian front 89 in the Syrian front and 128 other places.
166 of these were of combat circumstances and 183 were of non-combat circumstances.
Among the non combat deaths 29 were as a result of illness.

7,251 Israeli soldiers were received treatment on rear hospitals after being wounded due to combat circumstances. This number includes only those who were evacuated to rear hospitals and not those who were hospitalized because of illness.
4,244 were on the Egyptian front and 3,007 on the Syrian front.
5596 were injured during the war and 1655 were injured after the war.
405 were wounded badly, 1337 were wounded moderately and 5509 were wounded lightly.

The following table presents the causes of injuries among Israeli soldiers in percentages.

Cause of injury	Egypt	Syria	General Average
Small Arms	12	13	13
Artillery	29	37	32
Anti-Tank rockets and missiles	18	9	14
Other Anti-Tank weapons	12	15	13
Air Strikes	11	4	9
Other / Unknown	18	22	19

The following table presents the number of Israeli prisoners of war by place and time.

Period	Egypt	Syria	Syria	Total
During The War	232 231	62 (excluding 3 Bedouin civilians)	2	295
After The War	1	3	2	6
Total	233	65	4	301

In the Israeli army, a soldier is considered missing from the moment the general adjutancy declares that he is missing until it is found that he is a POW or until he is declared as a fallen soldier whose body is unfound.
1,085 Israeli soldiers were declared missing. The number of missing soldiers varied through time:
25/10/1973 – 417
13/11/1973 – 907
16/11/1973 – 741, after receiving information on the POWs in Egypt
15/01/1974 – 215
09/04/1974 – 110, after receiving information on the POWs in Syria
27/01/1977 – 34, they all have been declared as fallen soldiers whose bodies are unfound
08/03/1992 – 16, 9 tank operators, 5 aviators, and 2 naval commandos.

This is in contrast to Haber & Schiff pages, 294 and 295.
They claim that 30 after the war the number of missing in action since the end of this war is 17:
2 naval commandos in the Egyptian front, 4 aviators in the Egyptian front, 10 tank operators in the Egyptian front and 1 tank operators in the Syrian front. Their names are listed together with details. Any one of them became missing before the cease fire. Their names are also found in the list of 2,693 fallen Israeli troops on the last pages of the book published by Haber & Schiff.

I am still persisting that the number of Israelis killed is no more than 2,700 troops. Megaidler (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses in Tanks

According to Gawrych P 192:
The Israelis had suffered heavy losses during the first three days of fighting, over four hundred tanks in the Sinai alone. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that every tank was lost. It is more likely that 400 tanks were damaged.
According to Haber & Schiff p 144
On 14/10 some 150 Egyptian tanks were hit by IDF forces while other sources put this figure in 250. 12 Israeli tanks were hit. Megaidler (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Official Israeli Research pages 320 and 322, 1,064 Israeli tanks were hit until the end of the war.
407 tanks were lost permanently. On the Egyptian front 365 tanks were lost. 229 of these were abandoned behind the Arab lines. On the Syrian front 42 tanks were lost. 14 of these were abandoned behind Arab lines. Megaidler (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses in Aircraft

According to Gawrych P 243:
By 23 October, for example, the Israeli air force had lost at least 102 airplanes, approximately one-fourth of its entire arsenal. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All above losses that you mentioned are already reflected in the casualty and infobox sections. I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Official Israeli Research p 319, the Arabs lost some 370 fighter airplanes. Egypt lost about 235, Syria lost about 110 and Iraq lost about 25.
On page 314 it is mentioned that the Israeli air force shot down about 400 enemy aircraft. 370 fighter airplanes were shot down. 350 of these are confirmed kills. 50 of these were shot down by the AA forces. 50 helicopters were also shot down by the Israeli air force, 15 of these were shot down by the AA forces. The AA forces also shot down 8 Kelt missiles.
It is unclear weather this 400-420 is the total number of lost Arab aircraft, or only the number of Arab aircraft shot down by the Israeli air force which contain the AA units. There are other possible causes for an aircraft to be lost: mishaps while airborne, destructions on the ground, getting hit by Israeli units not part of the air force, being captured, etc.
On page 315 it is mentioned that the Israeli air force lost 102 fighter, 5 helicopters and 2 light airplanes. In dogfights the Arabs lost 163 airplanes in the Egyptian front, 17 helicopters in the Egyptian front, 95 airplanes in the Syrian front and 2 helicopters in the Syrian front.
According to Gordon page 493, Israel lost 110 aircraft while 103 of these were fighters. One airplane was badly damaged on 13/10 and after the war, it was decided not to repair it.
Megaidler (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Garwych and Bar-Lev

Okay I think I've identified two issues of contention between some editors. The first concerns the Bar-Lev line and whether it was "heavily defended" and the second concerns Garwych and his claim that IDF tank losses in the initial days amounted to 400. One editor claims that the Bar-Lev line was lightly defended and that Garwych's claims are exaggerated. Another claims that the Bar-Lev line was heavily defended and Garwych's claims are accurate. I have a possible solution to both issues. Concerning the Bar-Lev line we can say that it was undermanned but at the same time stress that the Canal and sand ramparts constructed by Israel presented formidable obstacles. As for Garwych, though I disagree with his figures, I oppose removing them. Instead, an alternate figure using another source should be placed alondside his and the reader will choose which is the more reliable. I'll work on something within the next few days.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

It is fascinating that a honey moon has emerged between the least expectable editors - JJG and ElUmmah. So cute. Miracles can happen, even in wiki.
However, I'm still persisting that my arguments should be accepted. Sorry to break the consensus you have reached. After a long period I have repeatedly requested the Egyptian nationalist editors to quote the sources they are relying on, I have found it is better to do it by myself. Twice I went to library of the Tel-Aviv University, which is not the place I study. I have scanned many pages from many books: Dupuy, O'balance, Herzog, Gawrych and Wagner & Cordesman. I have scanned pages from books in Hebrew as well: Oren, Gordon, and Bergman & Meltzer. I have extracted the text were it's possible. SimpleOCR is a great program.

• O'Ballance, Edgar (1996) [1978]. No Victor, No Vanquished: the Yom Kippur War. Presidio Press. p. 384. ISBN 978-089-141-615-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  

Elchanan Oren was a Lt. Colonel in the Israeli army and he wrote the official research of this war in 1987. On December 2004, an updated version was published. The head of the IDF history department by then was Dr. Shaul Shai, a retired Colonel. He was assisted by Dr. Shimon Golan. This book is a non-classified version of the research. It is an internal document of the IDF and it is not widely published.
Dr. Shmuel Gordon was an F-4 pilot during that war and later he became Colonel. Now he is an independent researcher of national security issues. On 2008 he published the book - Thirty Hours in October, discussing mainly about the Israeli AF during the first 30 hours of the war. There is no ISBN.

• Gordon, Shmuel (2008). Thirty Hours in October (in Hebrew). Ma'ariv Book Guild. p. 604.
  

The Journalists Ronen Bergman Gil Meltzer published their book on 2003. They have criticized the continued censorship of material and researches of this war by the Israeli authorities. They were highly critical against Ariel Sharon. Ronen Bergman is a controversial persona he is suspecting of coordinating testimonies with Eli Zeira regarding Ashraf Marwan. See this article. Throughout the war, Gonen used to record his conversations. Amir Porat was a radio operator and Itzhak Rubinshtein was a radio technician. They stole the recordings, kept them in their homes and gave them to Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv newspapers after almost 30 years. Rubinshtein gave his recordings to Bergman & Meltzer from Yedioth. This material is interesting. It reveals that the first cease fire of 22/20 was violated by Israel. The Israelis initiated provocations to make the cease fire collapse, so they would be able to continue their offensive.

• Bergman, Ronen; Meltzer, Gil (2003). Yom Kippur War – Moment of Truth (in Hebrew). P.O.B. 53494, Tel-Aviv, 61534 Israel: Miskal - Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books. ISBN 965-511-597-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  

Soon, I will quote these sources. Megaidler (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No "honeymoon." I simply tried to reach a compromise that none of us liked but that all can live with. I tried to bring some stability to an article plagued by edit warring and what Elummah, myself and other editors did here can be a model example for other I-P disputes. However, if u feel that changes are in order and mistakes were made, get consensus, provide the sources and go for it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that our arguments with the Egyptian nationalists here are mainly over the issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Although I'm very critical over the attitude of those editors in the YKW subject, I have to admit that most of the disputes in this article are not over the regular question of "who is right". Our disputes with them are mainly over "what was happening during a specific period". Usually they have succeeded to separate these 2 issues and this is something I appreciate. There is another Egyptian - American editor - nableezy, a pure propaganda machine. His only aim is to get sure that any article in wikipedia, that has some connection to Israel or to the Arabs, would be a place for demonizing of Israel. I think this article has to deal minimally with the regular I-P issues, and therefore, methods of solving I-P disputes are unnecessary here. Our job is to write facts not making peace. In the case of nableezy I don't think there is any method of reaching a compromise with him. Megaidler (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a reminder about WP:NPA is in order. Even were the above statements true (IMHO they are not) they would be quite inappropriate.John Z (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting Arabic and Hebrew speakers to visit the website of the Knesset. There is an article dealing with this war. This article appears both in Hebrew and Arabic versions.
[In Hebrew]
[In Arabic]
Unfortunately some one has forgotten to upload the English version. I am not an Arab speaker, but by using Google translation, I have found the 2 versions are quite similar. I know that for many Arabs, the Knesset web site is considered as Satan's house, but if you ignore the fact that this article is from the Knesset website, it is not so terrible after all. Megaidler (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

O'ballance

According to O'balance p 182, On 13/10/1973 2 Blackbirds made a reconnaissance flight over the canal area.
"Based on the information gained, U.S. intelligence sources estimated Israeli losses to be 400 tanks, 3,000 killed, 1,000 taken prisoner, of whom 43 were pilots, and 15,000 wounded. The aerial photographs show amazingly minute detail. The estimated Israeli tank loss was about correct, but the other estimates were high."
This information also confirms the claims of Gamasy and Shazly about the Blackbirds. Megaidler (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hatem Abdelghani, 26 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Obviously the stated Result is biased. The phrase "tactical victory" is meaningless since Israelis lost their defense line (Bar-Lev line) and the Egyptians lost control of the South-West shore of the canal. The result is a stalemate where both sides claimed victory, or simply the war ended indecisively. Hatem Abdelghani (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but later Israel recovered this position, destroyed two thirds of Egyptian military and threatened to annihilate the Sadat's Third Army, so Egypt asked for Soviet intervention and the UN agreed a ceasefire. In other words, at the end Israel had the military victory and, despite some mutual territorial changes, keep its control over the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights.-AndresHerutJaim (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Please provide the exact text you want changed and what you want it changed to, and provide reliable sources. SpigotMap 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What position did Israel recover?! The maps in the article itself doesn't support this!!

I am under the impression that this page has turned into a place for the Israelis to express national emotions!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatem Abdelghani (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Garwych and initial Egyptian airstrike

This edit is very problematic as it does not accurately reflect what Garwych said and in fact, actually distorts it. In connection with the airstrike, Garwych says the following: “At precisely 1405, the Egyptians and Syrians began their simultaneous air and artillery attacks. On the southern front, 250 Egyptian planes – Mig- 21s, Mig-19s and Mig-17s – attacked their assigned targets in Sinai: three Israeli airbases, ten Hawk missile sites, three major command posts, and electronic jamming centers.” Nothing else is mentioned in connection with the strike. Therefore, the edit inaccurately reflects what was actually written by Garwych. He also doesn't say anything about the planes flying at "very low altitudes." Accordingly, I have changed the edit to more accurately reflect the source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, apologies for the mistake. I made an additional edit to yours, mentioning Shazly's stated aircraft losses. ElUmmah (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit, “From October 6–8 over 400 Israeli tanks had been destroyed. Egyptian losses numbered 240 tanks throughout October 6–13,” is also very problematic. I scoured through Garwych’s book twice looking for verification. While Garwych documents Egyptian tank losses until the 13th at 240, He makes no representation that 400 IDF tanks were lost during the battles of Oct 6 through Oct 8. I read it twice so unless my eyes were playing tricks on me, I don't think that I'm mistaken. Accordingly, I will partly revert the edit so that it accurately represents the source.

On another matter, I made this correction to reflect Shazly’s account of early Egyptian aircraft losses, (Per Garwych @ footnote 66).--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Infobox

When did the infobox get reversed? I had changed it so that the attacking parties were on the left, initial side of the box, and the attacked party, Israel, was on the right. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Result

It is unreasonable to state "strategic victory" for Egypt in the infobox. While many sources do claim political victory for Egypt, there is only one who claims "strategic victory" for Egypt and it is Dupuy. There is more than one source that actually claims political victory for Israel. The main body does not support "Egyptian strategic victory" by quoting Dupuy's words. The main body supports nothing by quoting anyone's words. It supports arguments through what is written by the editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no discussion took place, I changed it to only "political victory". I don't own the source, so it would be good if someone could verify that "political victory" does not misrepresent it.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 23:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I quoted Dupuy a bit in the Lead section above. Many sources, probably the majority, would agree.John Z (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

this is a copy of a discussion about this article similar to the discussion already here which started at User_talk:Omarello2; copying so interested parties may be included. note: all unsigned edits are from Omarello2.

Thank you, I have an article by Pierre Tristam who is a famous columinst that describe in details the first and second disengagements in the Egyptian and Syrian borders which made israel lose some previously held territory in Sinai and Golan Heights.In addition I have an article by William Burr an editor in the National security archieve that describes the disengagement and the weight of the Israeli losses compared to the Arab losses.Where should I provide the links?

hi omarello, thanks for getting back to me. could you provide the links here while i go update myself on the article? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit the article (the part were refuse to remove Israeli tactical victory and refuse to add Egyptian strategic and political victory in the infobox). At the end of the war after the first and second engagement Egypt held more territory and controlled the Suez Canal while israel had lost territory so its supposed to be a strategic victory for Egypt(supported by many sources). As for the casualties comparison I have many sources that claim that the Israeli losses in percentage terms was more than the Arabs. According to William Burr it was equivalent to 200,000 losses in the US army.All of the info should be summarized in the infobox. Military stalemate replace tactical victory or at least Egyptian strategic and political victory because in 1975(still at state of war) held more territory.

Here are the sources

Six Part BBC documentary which is supposed to be a neutral source clearly states that it is hard to say whose the clear victor and thatEgyptian side was the side that gained the most.

first part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XztQ28ZUXs0

last part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHpzPCGp1Ek&feature=related

Here is a link that to the national security archieve which states that the israeli 2600 soldiers in percentage was equivalent ::::to 200,000 Americans. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm

an article by Pierre Tristam that describe in details The Egyptian/Syrian-Israeli Disengagement Treaties of 1974 and 1975. http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm--Omarello2 (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

reviewing now... WookieInHeat (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

i've reviewed all the information you provided, let me break down my analysis. the BBC video is informative but doesn't directly support you claims (also youtube is not generally considered a WP:RS, the quote from the national archives has little to do with the information you are trying to insert, and the final link you provided didn't work. any ways, let me ask you more directly about what you want to add. for the statement "territorial gains for egypt", do you believe egypt gained territory because it regained control of the sinai desert? and also, "Political and strategic victory for Egypt" seems to POV compared the statement directly above it that says "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel"; having both right beside each other seems to be somewhat of a contradiction. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking some time to look at my sources. As for my statement on the territorial gains, I did not mean all Sinai but part of the Sinai and this illustrated in my link about the first and second disengagements on the Syrian and Egyptian border. Egypt also took control of the Canal.Here is how you look at it in 1971(state of war) Egypt had no control over the canal and Egyptian troops are on the western side, In 1975(still state of war) Egypt on the eastern side with some territory and full control of the canal, Syrian troops in the previously held town of Qunitera.Peace talks started 4 years after the war during this time did not Egypt held more territory than before 1973 war and werent they and Syrians engaged in a minor war of attrition(wikipedia article even say this). As for the BBC source please research about Peter snow is a very important TV and Radio presenter and BBC is supposed to be neutral if Israel won they would say it but instead they said and I quote"There is no sign of a clear victor in the war". I am sorry for the link that did not open.As for the quote about the causulties Will I be allowed to insert in the yom kippur article I already provided you with its reliable source(national achieve) Here is another link that describe the disengagements (these are undisputed facts you will get the same info if you researched any source) http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ykwar_agreements.php--Omarello2 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)not a problem at all, i am glad you are taking the time to discuss the issue. again, i don't see the relevance of the national archives quote in relation to what you want to add to the article; also the most recent link you provided didn't work (404). saying that the yam kippur war was a "territorial victory for egypt" is somewhat of an overstatement. it would seem the current statement "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel" is mroe neutral and sufficiently conveys the status of egypt after the war. and finally, the additions you would like to make appear to violate WP:OR as you are drawing conclusions from what your sources say rather then using what they say to state facts. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

to be continued, i'm off to bed. night WookieInHeat (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

the links wer not working because they were followed by -- when sigining when signing please try to open the link again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarello2 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ykwar_agreements.php

What were the strategic and political gains for Israel? They lost some previously held territory and lost full control of the canal. I did not say "Egyptian tactical victory" I said "military stalemate" or "Both sides claim victory" would be more descriptive. I can download the series and provide it to you to make it a more reliable source but that is not the issue.BBC documentary said" There is no sign of clear victor in this war" so why should we say its an Israeli tactical victory? You should add "territorial gains" for Egypt and remove "strategic and political gains for Israel" because these were a result of a peace treaty not the war and therefore it should be added in the article about the CampDavid accords not the Yum kippur war.

Here is the other link provided with maps about the disengagement agreements

http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm

another city of Quneitra which came under Syrian rule in 1974 from Israel as a result of the disengagement.How is this not a strategic victory. If the lets say Iran went to war with US in Iraq and the end result was that Iran took control of 2 small Iraqi ciities but were pushed back from the rest of Iraq and failed to invade the rest of Iraq(but still hold the 2 cities), wouldn't this be a strategic victory for Iran?

the links worked now and i read both the articles. what were the strategic and political gains for israel you ask? they regained use of the suez and a new UN peacekeeping mandate to monitor it. any way, i think i may have a compromise to our disagreement. how about we remove egypt from the statement "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel" making it "Political and strategic gains for Israel", and include "Territorial gains for Egypt". this avoids declaring victory for either side and addresses the land israel ceded under the final UN resolution as a territorial gain for egypt. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok that is more informative but we should add Syria too because they got back an important city called Quneitra. But still why did not the BBC documentary(unbiased) say its an Israeli victory but instead said that the victor was unclear. AS for strategic vicrory for Egypt in the Yom Kippur article itself there are many sources that support that.Here a quote from the article "Thus, if war is the employment of military force in support of political objectives, there can be no doubt that in strategic and political terms the Arab States—and particularly Egypt—won the war, even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory".|Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947–1974

your quotes sound more like reason not to use the word "victory" if you ask me. i would really just like to avoid the word "victory" in general as it seems to be drawing conclusions that aren't quite set in stone anywhere. its not like WWII where the germans were totally defeated and occupied, the current use of the word "gains" seems much less presumptuous. as for syria, the town you mention appears to be relatively unimportant, the already quite lengthy yom kippur article doesn't even mention it. adding every minor territorial development to the lead infobox is only going to further clutter the article. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

note: seeing as this has become somewhat of a debate, i'm going to copy the conversation over to the talk page for the article; also a similar debate already exists, see Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Result. lets continue there for the sake of transparency and inclusion of any interested editors. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the lengthy discussion that took a lot of your time. Anyway, as you said to make it more biased I suggest we remove the word victory and replace with "Tactical and strategic gains". We can add also territorial gains for Egypt like you suggested.--Omarello2 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the length of the article.

Ideally, an article should be between 30 to 50 kb long (in terms of "readable prose"). By using Prosesize, I find the length of this article to be 83 kb (excluding html, refs, infoboxes etc). There is a definite need to reduce the size of the article.

Prima facie, the section on "Long term effects" seems to be a culprit, there is too much text referring other people's opinions in direct quotes, rather than giving referenced gist of arguments. I propose to reduce this section first so as to achieve readability rather than the sections detailing facts and events.

Any other suggestions or ideas are welcome. AshLin (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is over the technical accepted limit has been discussed. instead of cutting sections, I would limit certain lines sourced to authors like Rabinovich that require additional lines to counter them since they do not present the subject as clearly as they should. I don't know all of the specifics of this subject but do know this is discussed in the archives and one source from one author was used to craft this article. That author has been questioned and there are a couple other authors that may be over used. Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I had trimming rather than excision in mind. The views should be summarised rather than presented as voluminous quotes.AshLin (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

edit request

I have added some info on the Israeli psychiatric cases and cited my source--Omarello2 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is a mirror of wikipedia, so it is unusable per WP:CIRCULAR. Also, I don't see the relevance of comparing casualty rates to US loss rates in Vietnam. As such, I have reverted it. (Hohum ^@) 14:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

the main point of the paragraph i added is the number psychiatric disorders which is a new info properly cited. The source is not a mirror source and contains new info.--Omarello2 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the source was a composite mirror of older versions of wikipedia articles. (Hohum ^@) 20:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

tactical victory?

How is it an Israeli tactical victory on the Egyptian side? By the end of the war at march 5 1974 Egypt held more territory than before( I have a picture that illustrates tht in details). By the end of the war, 2,200 Israelis soldiers had been killed, which in percentage terms is equivalent to 200,000 Americans( according to william Burr who is an editor in the national security archieve.) which is obviously more than the Arab losses in percentage terms. Israel did surround the Egyptian third army at a certain time but that is a bargaining chip not a tactical victory.Even the article states Israel lost territory by the end of the war on the Egyptian side and that there was a minor war of attrition were about 200 israelis were killed. Also when trying to advance toward the Syrian Capital they were pushed back . I think it would be fairer to say its a military stalemate and to point out to the territorial gains made by Egypt in the infobox. --Omarello2 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read #Recent removal, which is on this page, where consensus was reached on that wording. (Hohum ^@) 14:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

what #Recent removal says is that consensus on Egyptian victory isn't reached, but this does not necessarily mean that the opposite is reached or true, the case is still unproven.. besides all references to the "tactical victory" result are from jewish authors / origins which does not reflect general consensus by itself.. Either get references for this term from Egyptian / Arab / or from widely known and accepted international referrers or mark the statement as not representing NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koraiem (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) forgot to sign Koraiem (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of that thread is at odds with what the people in it said. (Hohum ^@) 14:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm speaking for myself here Koraiem (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the war was a defensive war on the Israeli side, the fact that pretty much nothing was changed by the war means an Israeli victory. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

I added some info in the casualties section with a small comparison to the 67 war.It helps show the weight of the losses in order to not make people draw wrong conclusions.--Omarello2 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with 1967 is pertinent but proportional comparison with Americans is bizzarre. Why Americans? Why not Belgians, Nigerians or Iraqis? BorisG (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you want to add stuff please read the section you are editing and try to incorporate your additions in logical order. And please check your punctuation before saving page. This is a Featured Article and we are trying hard to avoid chaos. Thank you for your contribution. BorisG (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

References typically go at the end of the text you are adding, not before it. I have corrected this. (Hohum ^@) 20:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Because losing 2500 soldiers from the US is different than losing it from Israel or Taiwan or any other small country. Also I compared the losses to US because at that time the US and the Soviets were the 2 major superpowers and thats why setting them as a standard makes more sense than setting the Belgians as a standard.I ask for my edition not be removed you had no right removing a properly cited source because you didn't like it. This info is new and not repetitive like most of the info provided in the article.--Omarello2 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source was removed? (Hohum ^@) 22:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparing casualty rates between a conventional war that lasted 20 days, and the Vietnam war, which was largely unconventional, and lasted years, is completely inappropriate. (Hohum ^@) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove Ariel Sharon quote? I provided a comparison with Us army not the vietnam conflict. This article is becoming more biased every minute, repetition of 500 quotes on the Third Army situation and when I provide a reliable source like Ariel Sharon you immediately remove it. If the section were I provided Ariel Sharon quotes was please provided it in another section but not just delete it ok?--Omarello2 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Ariel Sharon quote, along with everything else that you added which used a composite mirror of old wikipedia articles as a reference, per WP:CIRCULAR, which I have stated twice already. You are welcome to include it using a WP:RELIABLE source. (Hohum ^@) 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Omarello2 is the percentage comparison in the source? Also, why include it for Israeli casualties and not others? - BorisG (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to the number of US soldiers is necessary to show the weight and effect of the amount of Israeli casualties because unlike the Egyptian and Syrians, the Israelis did not have the numbers and that is why they are included and the other participants are not. So please include either in the casualties section or the long term effects section. The Source is the national Security archives which I believe is a reliable source so please include it or I can if you did not want but don't delete it.--Omarello2 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the percentage comparison because it is ridiculous. It is un-encyclopedic. It may be suitable for a blog or a newspaper editorial, not encyclopedia. You will never find something like this in a serious encyclopedia. You single out the Israelis, then single out the Americans, for no reason. You say unlike the Egyptian and Syrians, the Israelis did not have the numbers. What do you mean? Try to stick to the facts. When you include facts, I have no problem. To make it clear, I do not WP:Own the aricle, but I think it is good to reach a consensus here before we include something in the article. - BorisG (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion ok! It is not ridiculous because it helps the reader not to draw wrong conclusions. If China went to war with Taiwan and China lost 2 million while Taiwan lost 1 million the effect and weight of loses suffered by Taiwan is more. In my opinion, the are important editions to compare the loses in percentage to the Americans or the soviets because both were the two major superpowers at that time. Anyway if you have a comparison between the Egyptian losses and the Americans or Soviets then include it but don't just remove other editions just because you don't like them. Also we have reached consensus to replace the word "victory" with "gains" Why wasnt it removed?--Omarello2 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are on a dangerous path here. Israel is often accused of using disproportinate force. Now following your logic, it can claim that this is justified because in proportion to its population, killing 10 Arabs is the same as one Israeli. Is this what you are saying? Be careful that you don't shoot your own goal. Anyway, let us agree to disagree, and wait for others to express their opinions. As for gains vs victory, I did not see any consensus. If there is one, please show me, I may have missed it. I quickly searched this page for the word 'gains' and did not find the relevant consensus. Please note that the infobox was the subject of intense battles in the past, and some consensus was reached. Please handle it with care. Look at archives. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The troop strength comparison makes no sense, as already explained. There has been no consensus to change victory with gains. More editors need to be involved in contentious changes which have previously been argued at length. (Hohum ^@) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

no offence but you are either uninformed or biased. You are mixing different topics into our main topic to divert attention and try to show yourself as an expert so I will not bother responding to the first part of the comment. As for the second part, fine I will get you many editors to discuss the "victory" vs "gains", I will also get you many reliable sources that see the result as a stalemate so you will add it next to the Tactical victory, I will also open a new section on the Egyptians plans to rescue the trapped army and cite Shazly and other parties which were involved in the war.--Omarello2 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Omarello2 you have not pointed out to the consensus as requested. If there was indeed a consensus, it should be very easy for you to show. - BorisG (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

occupied since

The text "which had been captured and occupied by Israel since 1967" does not suggest that the territory is still occupied, only that it was occupied by Israel from 1967 until the point the text is discussing (when Egypt and Syria entered Sinai and the Golan). Removing that word on those grounds is spurious. nableezy - 16:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Poliocretes (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

all good. nableezy - 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

israeli victory

y is this disputed? israel clearly won, the arabs were pushed back a ceasefire went into effect and the us prevented israel from advancing on egypt. ( kissinger used this in order to get egypt to support the us and not the ussr). syria was pushed back and if im not mistaken israel was 45 kilometers away from damascus.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) how is it an isreaeli victory they lost half the country they own before all of sinna and some of al joulan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.129.179 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

dude you are jewish and a proud zionist ofcourse u will see it as an israeli victory how is that possible you lost land —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.129.179 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All historical books document the October war as a clear victory to Egypt. Israel lost the war and its documented everywhere (except in Israel ofcourse !). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.155.245 (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

it's one of the strangest wars ever. the arabs are sure of their victory (as you can see in the comments here). the jews are sure of their defeat (as you can see in the hebrew wikipedia). the only problem is that the truth is the other way around... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.7.80 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Victory is claimed by both sides, even if Israel has had tactical gains in this war, this war is considered as victory for Egypt (not the Arabs) as it made the start of the Peace Talks which resulted in reacquiring Sinai.

You have few mistakes:

1. Israel never claimed for victory. The Israelis keep mourning the 2700 casualties and asking how come that they were surprised in such manner. This is despite the fact that they won the war.

2. At the end of the war the Israeli army was 100 kilometres from Cairo. This is a military fact.

3. The peace agreement shouldn't be considers when discussing who won but if you insist, it should be considered as another Israeli victory. Israel agreed to return Sinai after the six day war in return for peace agreement. Egypt refused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.43 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple really. The proclaimed goal of the Arabs was to destroy Israel. The goal of Israel, as the defender, was not to be destroyed. As we all know how it ended (Israel not being destroyed, not even losing significant land) I think the conclusions are rather obvious. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Region of conflict

What the entire worldview sees as southwestern Syria can not be separated from southern Syria. As was removed here: [1] This claim is a violation of npov, due weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say: "Israeli controlled Golan Heights and regions in southwestern Syria" because GH is already a region in southwestern Syria so "and" doesn't make any sense. And also there is no reason to have "Israeli controlled Golan Heights" when Sinai was also occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is a de facto part of Israel, stating anything else is unreasonable. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is part of Syria occupied by Israel according to worldview sources: [2], stating anything else is unreasonable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

POV is saying "Golan Heights and other parts of Israel" because it ignores one claim. POV is saying "Golan Heights and other parts of Syria" because it ignores the other claim. So obvious solution is to only say Golan Heights as its own territory, and delete all "other parts" references. LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it pov or not neutral to say "Golan Heights and other parts of Syria" ? and how is it neutral to say "Golan Heights and regions in southern-western Syria" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

how is POV or not neutral to say "Golan Heights and regions in southern-western Syria"? - BorisG (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it implies that the Golan is not a region in Syria. nableezy - 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh this did not occur to me. How about "Golan Heights and other regions in south-western Syria"? - BorisG (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. nableezy - 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like agreement by the majority to follow the worldview, and neither LibiBamizrach or Mikrobølgeovn responded to my last posts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit is a tactful way of putting an end to this debate and will hopefully satisfy all. It is accurate and sidesteps the touchy issue of sovereignty.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request quotation

I want to see the quotation here from the source: [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a quote too. This claim strikes me as very dubious, because if it really happened, one would expect to find it in much more recent sources, not just in one that appeared a few months after the war. Gatoclass (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source used in the article, but there is certainly nothing dubious about the claim, as a simple Google search will show you. Check out [4] - p. 363 "Israeli soldiers were subject to interrogation and torture" - an academic publisher (Springer) , book published in 2010. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I intend to significantly expand on this subject shortly drawing from multiple sources in addition to the RS (London Sunday Times} already cited. Unfortunately, real life obligations take precedence so please be patient. As for the precise quote, "Syria ignored the Geneva Conventions, and many Israeli prisoners of war were reported tortured or killed."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the statement. There is a world of difference between something being "reported" and it being an established fact. In any case as I said, there should be a lot more about this in more up-to-date sources if there was any truth in it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the caption per the precise wording of the RS--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Allegations of torture and murder of POWs are serious charges and unattributed and unconfirmed "reports" from a near-40 year old source are not sufficient, per WP:REDFLAG. Please find a better source. Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time understanding why the news article and the book listed above do not easily satisfy WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Gato, I suggest you have a look at the story of Avraham Lanir and while you're at it have a look at this[5] and this[6]. As far as your "doubts" concerning the source utilized for the caption, The Insight Team of the London Sunday Times is an impeccable source, beyond reproach. It is published by a well-known and respected publishing house, has been subjected to peer review and is often cited as a reference in other books about the war.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the additional sources. I consider the torture allegations to be confirmed; since you still don't have a source which confirms that "many Israeli POWs were killed" by the Syrians, I have tweaked the caption accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in edit warring but the cited reference (The Insight Team of the London Sunday Times) is an RS for the reasons stated above and as Brewcrewer points out, complies with WP:V. It is neither an Arab nor an Israeli source which adds an additional level of impartiality. Your argument that the book is 35 years old has no merit because for one thing, most of the sources utilized in this article are older than 30 years including the works of Shazly, El Gammasy and Heikel. The most recent books have been written by Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars (1982), Pollack, Arabs at War: military effectiveness, (1991) and Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War, (2004). I can write a finely crafted article based on these three sources to the exclusion of all others. Would you like for me to start deleting sources that are – say – older than 30 years? It appears that you simply don’t like the content or substance of the caption.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If many of the sources are more than 30 years old, this article probably needs some better sources. However, my point here is simply that this statement is from a book written mere months after the event, when many details would still have been in doubt, and the source states that many Israeli POWs were reported killed - which means they are neither confirming nor denying it, just mentioning that it was "reported". But almost forty years has passed since then, and by now it should be known whether or not those "reports" were accurate, so you should be able to confirm it from a more recent source. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Soviet advisors?

Who claims that Soviet military advisors participated in the war on the Arab side? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of possible FAR

Hello everyone - This article needs some significant attention to bring it back to FA caliber. Hopefully this can be accomplished without needing to go through a full FAR process. Here are a few of the biggest issues:

• The length. I see that this has been brought up on the talk page before, but little has been done about it. WP:SIZE recommends 30-60 kb or 6,000-10,000 words of "readable prose". This article is at 87 kb and 14465 words - far in advance of the recommended maximum. Please note that this count does not include bullet pointed items or block quotes, and so, for example, most of the "Long term effects" section is not included in this count. I would suggest looking through the article for quotes that could be moved to Wikisource or removed altogether, redundancy that could be ommitted, and tangential information that could be moved to other articles.
• Bullet point lists are discouraged in FAs, and there is no reason the "Long term effects" section couldn't be easily presented as prose.
• There are three dead linked references, see this link.
• Web references need to have publishers and access dates at the very least and authors when possible. Many are currently missing information. Also, sources should not have either the author or the title in all caps, even if the source gives this capitalization.
• References in languages other than English need to have the language specified.
• There are quite a few googlebooks references that don't include proper book information - publisher, date, isbn, etc.
• The citation needed tag and the "too many quotes" banner need to be addressed.
• There are quite a few places in the article where statistics or opinions (especially opinions of military commanders or government leaders) are presented with no source.
• Please note that I have not conducted a thorough review of prose, images or reference reliability at this point, so there could be further issues beyond those listed above.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I am hopeful that the issues with this article can be rectified without the need for a featured article review. Dana boomer (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've praphrased or removed some of the quotes where possible. There are a few more that need to be addressed. I'll work on the other issues shortly, (time permitting of course)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this article is getting worse, not better. It is now up to almost 15,000 words of prose (again, not including bullet points or block quotes, which are used extensively in this article), more poorly formatted references are being added, and the constant changes could be read to be a violation of featured article criteria 1.e. (stability), which states "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." (emphasis mine). Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is one particular editor who I believe means well, but has been relentlessly adding superfluous information, making stylistic changes for the worse, and adding unreferenced dramatizations. I don't wish to report him because I believe his edits are in good-faith but he has already been reverted by me, Hohum and Poliocretes. I think a mild warning on his talk page might suffice and then we could get to work chopping things down, getting rid of dead links and other problems. I’d like to hear from Hohum and Poliocretes and get their views on this.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My main comment would be that I think the article does need to go through a full FAR once significantly improved. (Hohum ^@) 18:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My initial comment was posted two weeks ago, and since then nothing has been done to improve the article (and in fact, it has gotten worse, per my comment above). Is there any reason I shouldn't take this to FAR right now? Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have previously said it should go through a FAR once given the opportunity to be improved, rather than wait an extended period for improvement. As far as I'm concerned, take it to FAR now. (Hohum ^@) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a first pass at the infobox (which had lots of unnecessary detail). The long term effects section is embarrassingly bad (a huge portion of it focuses on he-said-she-said about who won rather than discussing the actual effects). I've also listed this articel at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 9 because I suspect that that the historical images in this article are not in the public domain. Raul654 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As always Raul, your analysis is on the mark. I agree with you and I take some responsibility for the mess. I added some of that stuff in that section to balance material inserted by some well-intentioned partisan folks. The result was a long-winded mess. I’ll have some time over the weekend so I’ll give it a good trim. I also agree with you regarding some of the images and suspect as you do that some of the historical images ar not public domain.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Raul, are you asking to hold off on the FAR for a while, to give yourself and other editors time to work on the article? Or are you agreeing with the need for a FAR? Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be salvaged without the need for FAR. I can't do it all myself - I'm going to be away from the 13th through the 27th. But I'll see what I can do. (It would certainly be helpful if the other editors here provided less heat and more useful edits.) Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Non neutral wording

There are several texts in the article that were not following a neutral point of view. They were instead following the minority Israeli pov instead of the entire world pov. For example: the ceasefire line between Syrian and Israeli forces were described as a "border", Golan which is internationally recognized as part of Syria was described as a separate entity from Syria, also "seized" is not a right word for Syrian soldiers in Golan, "regained" better describes the situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For example: the ceasefire line between Syrian and Israeli forces were described as a "border", Golan which is internationally recognized as part of Syria was described as a separate entity from Syria - If this is the best example you can cite, then your complaint is utterly without merit. Everyone describes the post-Six Day War area under Israel control as a border - including militant Palestinians. Raul654 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No they do not, all lands Israel occupied during the six day war is by all countries on earth and all international organs regarded as occupied Syrian and Palestinian lands, so of course a "border" is not what its is. Your link is also talking about something different, it is talking about the 1948-1967 borders, I'm talking about 1967-forward. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

all lands Israel occupied during the six day war is by all countries on earth and all international organs regarded as occupied Syrian and Palestinian lands - be that as it may, border is still the correct and commonly used terminology. bor·der (bôrdr) n. - 4. The line or frontier area separating political divisions or geographic regions; a boundary. The line seperating the defacto area of Israeli control from the area of Syrian control is the border. Border is, as I have already pointed out, the terminology used by palastinians themselves. And if you don't like that particular article, fine, here's another from the exact same site: ". Consider what would happen should Iran or Syria or Jordan or Egypt move to strengthen their respective borders by applying the same tactics as Israel." Do you have a source to show that it's a biased term, or is this simply your own personal bailiwick? Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are cherry picking sources, as I said before, the first link you brought is talking about something else. Here the UN: "The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) continued to monitor the 1974 ceasefire between Israel and Syria and the disengagement of the two countries’ respective forces in the Golan Heights, with the cooperation of the parties. The ceasefire in the Israel-Syria sector was maintained with two exceptions: a shooting incident in January, west of the ceasefire line in the southern section of UNDOF’s area of operation, and an Israeli air strike northwest of Damascus in October. " [7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had time to give input into this article. Raul654 is on point here. The term "1967 border" is widely used even in Arab-Israeli negotiations of any kind, and are used in Arab historiography as well. As for the wording. The Syrians did not "regain" anything in the sense that they did not gain the Golan from anyone in the first place. It was Syrian territory since the country's independence. It is however fine when being used for the Israeli counterattack. Perhaps "liberated" can be used for the Syrian side. It would be NPOV, but better wording may be in order. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside my "Wikipedian opinion", as an Arab myself I find nothing wrong with the term: 1967 border. The inclusion of the date nullifies any possible POVness. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the situation, when people are talking about "1967 borders" they are speaking about those borders 1948-1967, what Raul654 wants to do is to say that the land that Israel occupied from 1967-2010, is a border. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! My bad. I don't know how I mixed that up. In that case I have a different stance. If not because I do think it is not neutral, then because this is a cause for confusion. The 1967 border is frequently used to designate the pre-June 1967 lines. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the post Six Day War border between Syria and Israel. The line in question is: A decision now had to be made—whether to stop at the 1967 border or to advance into Syrian territory. This was changed by SD A decision now had to be made—whether to stop at the 1967 ceasefire line or to advance further into Syrian territory. I don't object to that particular change, but I do object (a) to some of his other changes, and (b) to his claims of bias, which are demonstrably false. Raul654 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is the text in the article that is wrong, if you read the text before you can see that it is really talking about the ceasefire line 1967-1973, not the 1967 border which is 1948-1967. Could you please explain your A and B positions.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that misunderstanding has been cleared up. As for the claims of bias, they are valid IMO. What's far more important though, is that the term "1967 border" is far more frequently used to designate the pre-June 1967 lines, not the ceasefire lines after the Six Day War. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "1967 border" is ambigious and that this article should be changed to avoid using it. Raul654 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as avoid using the term completely. I'm sure if we run through most of the Google search results, we'll find that "1967 border" usually means the pre-June borders, and accordingly its usage should be restricted to that definition only, with "1967 ceasefire-line" being used to designate the post-1967 lines. I'm sure editors won't have an issue with this. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a source for that sentence, the first ref after it comes a long bit after and I cant access it, but the text before the sentence: "By October 10, the last Syrian unit in the Central sector had been pushed back across the Purple Line (the pre-war border).", this shows that the sentence in question is about the 1967-1973 ceasefire line. The quote I brought here should also be changed to "(the pre-war ceasefire line)"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, the Purple Line or the 1967 ceasefire line. The alternatives are abound. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're nitpicking, then no, you can't describe the pre-67 lines as a "border" and the post-67 lines as "ceasefire-lines" since the Arab states never recognized Israel's pre-67 borders as such. That would be anachronistic, and one could argue, an Arab-POV. You would therefore have to change all "borders" to "ceasefire lines", with all the ensueing confusion for anyone unfamiliar with the exact details of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But here's an idea: why don't we forget about this entirely trivial and unnecessary discussion and quit trying to find POV behind every nook and cranny? Poliocretes (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The international community recognized Israel within the pre-1967 borders, not the post 1967 ceasefire line, npov tells us we must follow the view if the vast majority. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And what international community would that be in 1967? what "vast majority"? Would that include China, India and the entirety of the non-aligned movement? Even if it were true, an attempt to rewrite the history of the conflict and hide Arab rejectionism behind supposed international recognition is blatant POV-pushing. Quit wasting everyone's time, enough words have been wasted on this utterly trivial matter. Poliocretes (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not POV-pushing. SD is referring to the int'l community as of today, and to current common usage of the term. No one recognizes the occupied West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan as Israeli territory. As for the Arab states, they've always demanded a "return to the 1967 borders" in negotiations. Regardless of whether they recognize Israel and its borders wherever they may be de jure, they ultimately still refer to pre-June 1967 lines as borders between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

On a side note, don't throw another argument into the topic, then instantly demand that editors stop wasting time on it. I agree nevertheless this topic is largely insignificant... --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the separate 1948 border we can talk about that, but the 1967 ceasefire line is not a border. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

JG, a discussion is ongoing here. Seeing that no objections have been raised to the change in wording (with one editor voicing concern over the cause of the change), you should not revert the edit like that. Care to join in with your opinion? --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not cooperative behaviour from Jiujitsuguy, here we are, I am explaining in detail the pov problems, then he reinserts the Israeli pov which is against the pov of the entire world and calls my edits "POV laced", without even discussing anything or explaining his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This actually is not about being neutral or not neutral. It is more about common sense, and about how most people call it. I just googled for "ceasefire line" and got around 40,000 hits. Of course most hits for "ceasefire line" refer to a ceasefire line and not the one of 1967. On the other hand I googled for "1967 borders" and got about 133,000 hits, with most of them talking about Middle East. So according to the common sense and to the international convenience of naming 1967 borders "1967 borders", I will change the article accordingly.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Following from the above, I think it would be wise to use "pre-1967" and "post-1967" to avoid confusion. I've modified the sentence in question to use this terminology. And I've changed back to using "border" rather than "ceasefire line" because on second glance I realized "ceasefire line" is very confusing terminology to use in the middle of a description about a shooting war (especially one that ended with a different cease fire line). Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in Israeli advance to "Purple Line (the pre-war ceasefire line)", this avoids confusion.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you, Raul654.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the Yom Kippur War map and its text below as the previous map and text was pov, they claimed that territories Israel occupied were "Israels territories", I also explained the "seized" above and someone must have reverted it without explanation, this word "seized" can not be used for Syrian soldiers in GH, "regain" is a more appropriate word describing the situation. Also Israels attack was not a "counterattack", the war was Egypt and Syrias counterattack on Israels invasion and occupation of land in these two countries, so Israels attacks in the Yom Kippur war should just be described as "attacks". Also, Israel can not be described as "defenders" in GH, you are a defender in your own land, not occupying land in other countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Seized is the appropriate word, regained is not. Regained inaccurately implies Syrian control of the areas in question at the outbreak of the war, which is not true.

Your "defenders"->"occupiers" change is substantially biased on its face.

The map you changed (which is identical to the svg except for changing "Israeli territory" to "Israel" which implies a judgement) is worse both technically and is less accurate.

I have reverted your edits for the above reasons. Raul654 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how an image and text below it claiming the territories Israel occupied in the Six day war as "Israels territories" is more factually correct or neutral then my map and text? Regained does not imply that Syria controlled it at the outbreak of the war. Explain how Syrian operations in their own country can be called "seized"? Explain how any Israeli attack in the YKW was a "counter" attack? Explain how what the entire world see as Israeli occupation soldiers in Syria, can be called "defenders", and please explain why you changed it to "the pre-war border"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how an image and text below it claiming the territories Israel occupied in the Six day war as "Israels territories" is more factually correct or neutral then my map and text? - "Israeli territories" (used in the svg you replaced) implies a fluid situation - e.g, that the territories given there are not the final, formal borders of what is considered Israel, which is true and accurate. "Israel" (your png version) implies a finality or officiality of the borders which is not true. And, for technical reasons, under absolutely no circumstances should svgs be replaced with pngs. Raul654 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regained does not imply that Syria controlled it at the outbreak of the war. - in the context of a discussion about the see-saw change of territories that occurred during the war, yes, it most certainly does.

Explain how Syrian operations in their own country can be called "seized"? - seized (sz) v. To take quick and forcible possession of; The Israelis started the war in possession of the Golan, and the Syrians attempted to take them by force. Seize is the appropriate word choice.

Explain how any Israeli attack in the YKW was a "counter" attack? - My position on this is pretty much the same as Sherif9282's below.

Explain how what the entire world see as Israeli occupation soldiers in Syria, can be called "defenders" - occupiers is clearly pejorative in this case. Sherif's suggestion of "Israelis" is fine with me.

and please explain why you changed it to "the pre-war border"? - I don't object to this change. If you want to re-add it, that's fine with me. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about the map and text, the international community recognizes all the land that Israel occupied in the WB and Gaza as occupied and not part of Israel, same thing with the land Israel occupied in Syria, its internationally recognized as occupied Syria and not Israel. Israel is recognized as a state, but not outside the pre-1967 borders. Your map and text implies something not in accordance with the international view, they imply that the occupied territories are "Israels territories" which is factually incorrect and extreme minority pov. I tried to edit the SVG file but it didn't show as I had edited it, so I was forced to create a PNG file, anyway its better to have a factually correct lower quality map then a factually incorrect higher quality map. "Seize" is a word used when someone takes something from someone else, this is not the case here, "regain" is a much better word to describe the situation, how about "The Syrians managed to regain some of the high ground during the night that Israel had occupied since the six day war", this will take care of your interpretation that Syria controlled it at the outbreak of the war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would've suggested the use of "liberate" (which is neutral and used in certain WWII articles), but it would seem awkward in light of the fact that the Syrians lost the Golan just a few days later. Besides, "seize" really isn't problematic at all, because the Syrians really were taking something from someone else! The Golan was under Israeli occupation wasn't it? Seems to me it was under someone else after all. How it got there, is irrelevant in that part of the article body. It should be explained in relevant background sections, and that will suffice. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"the international community recognizes all the land that Israel occupied in the WB and Gaza as occupied and not part of Israel" - Your logic is really flawed. You are using the legal status of those terroritories today to argue about how a historical map should be labeled, which is foolish. Most countries *today* might recognize the pre-1967 border as being Israel, but in 1967, they certianly did not, and it is misleading to label as map as if they did. But with that said, the difference between "Israel" and "Israeli territories" is a minor distinction. I can live with either.

how about "The Syrians managed to regain some of the high ground during the night that Israel had occupied since the six day war" - Retake is probably a better word than regain, but either one is fine with me. Also, avoid the passive voice. I suggest: The Syrians retook some of the high ground during the night that Israel had occupied since the Six Day War" Raul654 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The after 1967 lands were never recognized as Israels territories when Israel occupied them. I don't know if in 1967 the pre-1967 borders were internationally recognized as Israel, but Israels recognized borders did not pass the 1967 borders at that point of time, and never has. Do you have a source for that the pre-1967 borders were not internationally recognized as Israel? If so then "Israeli territory" as the map is now is not correct either. So at least we would fix one part of the problem with my map. What do you say about changing it to "Israeli controlled territory before the six day war"? "Retake" means basically "take" "again", but Syrians didn't "take" it in the first place, it was always in Syria, so "regain" is better. I also support "liberate" as Sherif9282 suggest above as it is the most accurate name to call it, does anyone object to "liberate" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, liberate doesn't sound right when the Syrians lost the Golan very soon afterwards; imagine saying "The Syrians liberated the Golan from the Israelis, but lost it again by the end of the week." Doesn't really fit. I won't object to its use, but regain/retake sounds better after all. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

SD, the wording counter attack is unconcerned with the territory being fought over. An offensive action by a belligerent that follows an attack by an opposing belligerent is called a counter attack. The Israeli offensive actions in the Sinai after the Egyptian crossing are called counter attacks, for example. As for whether they are "occupiers" or "defenders", we could head for middle ground here by going for the entirely uncontroversial "Israeli", abandoning descriptions. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli" can be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Israelis (ala this edit) is fine with me. Raul654 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I carried out the change as Raul didn't object anymore, there is still the issue of the image caption: "control of" should be added to: "Israel had lost control of territory" and "but gained control of territory", does anyone object to this?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I still object to replacing an svg with a png. At the moment, I'm traveling with an extremely slow computer with a poor internet connection. But unless someone gets to it first, I'll be changing the svg and reverting back to it later this week. Raul654 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

I have two points here.

Only manpower losses remain in the infobox. What about armored and air losses; Will they be mentioned only in the article text?

The second point concerns the size of expeditionary forces. Rabinovich states that the Arabs contributed some 100,000 men to the war. I don't oppose the figure, but there are sources that point out several Arab units had arrived to the front once the war had ended, especially on the Egyptian front (taking the very sizable Algerian armored brigade and the Sudanese infantry brigade as examples). Besides Rabinovich only states that they were available/could be provided as reinforcements from Arab nations, but does not explicitly state that this figure had partaken in the conflict. I think this figure should be mentioned in the aid section instead. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No reply for nearly a day. I've altered the infobox to show what I had in mind. All the other numbers seem match those concerning Iraq (except APC's, which I've increased from 500 to 700). Manpower was reduced to 30,000. If available, the number of aircraft Iraq contributed to the war on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts can also be added to the infobox. Being the main contributer among allied Arab states to the war, the reader is informed of their figures in the infobox, and can know about the rest in the text. I thought about adding an "Others" with a link to the aid section, but this will also direct the reader to the Soviet aid provided to the Arabs, while no such link in the infobox will lead the readers to the American supply and intelligence aid, which was generally of more consequence to the outcome of the war. I felt this was unfair, so I did not include it. If the numbers of forces Jordan can be added as well, that country being in the infobox, then very well. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherif I couldn't care less about those numbers, but the statement No reply for nearly a day. is bizarre. It would have made sense if it were a month perhaps. Some people have a life in the real world, you know. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. My bad. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S., in the meantime, it might be necessary to explain edits, but not a requirement to announce them beforehand, so the recent revert, is entirely unjustified. No one reverts edits because they were sudden or because they hadn't had an opportunity to respond to the issues raised. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, the figure of 100,000 comes from an RS and the burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Second, by 23 Oct, Jordan had committed a force equal to a division at the underbelly of the Bashan salient. Third, Moroccan forces were fighting alongside the Syrians even before the Iraqis came on the scene. Fourth, Sudanese troops were fighting alongside the Egyptians in the south and Fifth, Algeria deployed a sizable armored force in Egypt.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, this article says otherwise in the aid section, specifically concerning the Sudanese and Algerian forces, as I had already said. The relevant information in that section is also already referenced. Currently I have Shazly as a source that some forces arrived too late for battle, and I believe you regard him to be reliable. Additionally, the Tunisian unit in Egypt was stationed in the Delta, where it seems they provided non-combat assistance. Finally, the figure provided by Rabinovich is with regards the forces pledged by Arab states to be sent to battle. As we know, some of these forces were posted before the war, such as some air squadrons, some were sent during, and in the case of the Sudanese brigade and the sizeable Algerian unit, they arrived after.

P.S., what's the source claiming the Jordanians sent a division/division-sized force? --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've found the part concerning the Jordanians in Rabinovich. But that was October 23, when the Syrians considered launching a new offensive and called it off. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but Kuwaiti, Saudi and Palestinian forces had also just arrived along with a brigade of Iraqi mountain troops. Since that offensive was canceled, and Syria accepted the ceasefire, these forces can also be counted amongst those that arrived too late to join the war. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above Too late to join the war, You are engaging in WP:OR. You have no idea what impact this Arab deployment had on IDF planners or IDF deployments.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you're performing that deed quite well. Assuming that they had effect on IDF planners/deployments without concrete references is OR. What is stated by Rabinovich clearly points out that these Arab forces had arrived in time for a planned Syrian offensive, which never happened. My argument still stands. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabinovich states that there were 100,000 Arab expeditionary forces who participated in or deployed for combat. You can't revert an RS simply because you don't like what is said. I don't intend on wasting anymore time on this. I am not a perpetual student and don't have an infinite amount of time to engage in circular debates--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't twist words please, whether they're mine or Rabinobich's. Other Arab countries would add another 100,000 soldiers to Arab frontline ranks. I didn't say I want to revert him, I don't even deny that figure, I simply state that part of that number did not arrive in time for combat. This statement doesn't conflict with Rabinovich's figure, it is verified by another source (Shazly) concerning Algerian and Sudanese forces, and is confirmed by Rabinovich concerning Kuwaiti, Saudi, and reinforcing Jordanian and Iraqi troops.

I'm not here to ask your permission for an edit, so I'll be simply going ahead and doing it, because I've provided my references already, while you don't have anything that refutes what I said. The Rabinovich figure should be in the aid section, not the infobox. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The more time I spend here, the more I feel you're simply objecting to object. You not only undid my changes, but removed sourced information that I had added. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have no consensus for your tendentious edits and your last revert placed you in violation of ARBPIA regulations. I strongly urge you to self-revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We've already ascertained though that some had not participated in the war, yet you're adamant to retain the 100,000 figure in the infobox. In that case, a note under the infobox that not all participated will suffice, no?

BTW you're probably right about the Elazar statement. I don't remember adding it there though, but removing altogether isn't a solution either. I thought about where to move it but couldn't find a proper spot. What do you think? --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Elazar, I self-reverted. I'll find a place and stick it somewhere.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, just because someone did not take part in direct combat operations does not mean that they did not have a vital support role for the war effort. For example, the Algerians deployed 200 tanks near Cairo as strategic reserve freeing up Egyptian forces. Moreover, according to Bar-On, the Jordanians had 170 tanks engaged on the southern flank of the Israeli salient. Not an insignificant number. Moroccans fought alongside the Syrians almost from day one as did a Sudanese contingent for the Egyptians. These forces took a direct role in combat ops. However, let me think about your suggestion about the note. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See, that's what you can't do. Whether or not the Algerians allowed the Egyptians to free up more forces we can't establish because that is OR, unless there is a source that explicitly says so. Conversely, by that logic, we should be mentioning the American airlift to Israel, because the American one in particular, allowed the Israelis to free up their resources and expend what it did have more freely (Rabinovich, p.491) The same applies to the Sudanese, who arrived too late (what's the source claiming their participation in combat?). As far as I know, even Dupuy and Hammad, who speak of Palestinian and Kuwaiti forces opposing Israeli forces on the west bank, make no similar mention of the Algerians or Sudanese. After all, the key word here is participated, and as long as they didn't arrive in time for combat, then they didn't do that. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And the Soviets didn't engage in massive resupply efforts? As far as early Sudanese involvement, I got it from rabinovich but I don't have the page ref off hand but can easily supply it for you. But please focus on the positive. I said that your suggestion doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. I assume that the note would be denoted by an asterisk next to the figure of 100,000, is that correct? and if so, what would the note say?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

...mentioning the American airlift to Israel, because the American one in particular... I know the Soviets engaged in resupply efforts, I was just drawing a comparison between you're assumptions that Arab reinforcements freed up Egyptian reserves and the Rabinovich statement that American resupply efforts freed up Israeli reserves. As for the note, it would go along the lines of "Not all participated". --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay Sherif, make the notation as per discussion. Real life obligations prevented me from responding sooner. Aplologies.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I've made the notation, but next to expeditionary forces instead, leaving the details to the article text. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"At the sight of the fleeing Syrians, Israeli troops on the ridge cheered and fired their guns in the air in celebration"

Isn't the article long already? Why do we need this sentence? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than Raul (with honorable mentions to Hohum, Poliocretes, Cptnono, BorisG, BrewCrewer and Mikrobølgeovn) I’ve probably done more than anyone to cut the fluff from this article and trim it to a decent size. So don’t lecture me about the length of this article and your sudden concerns when before I started editing, this article was a mess with fluff and garbage about psychiatric disorders and comparisons to Vietnam among other idiocies too numerous to mention.

As for the subject sentence, there is no doubt that it comes from a reliable source that I’m certain you have not read. Moreover, after four days of incessant non-stop warfare, in which the defenders were taken by complete surprise and outnumbered by 10 to 1, I think it is important to note their reaction when they re-took the heights, especially when it is summed up by one single, concise sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's "lecturing" you? That comment seems a little stand-offish. I'd agree with Frederico. The line in question seems more like something you'd find in a narrative rather than an encyclopedia. NickCT (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NickCT both in substance and in his reaction to the comment style. Who did what to the article (and who read which sources) is completely irrelevant. The sentence is relevant, concise and well sourced but is not encyclopedic. - BorisG (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you recommending that I self-revert?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Or rephrase. I do not have a strong opinion about this. Let's hear what others say. - BorisG (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to rephrasing. Can you propose something?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I also don't have a strong opinion; however, at first glance, I'd weak support simple deletion. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make an attempt to rephrase or substitute. If I can't come up with anything I'll just self-revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if this is more acceptable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed more acceptable. However, it appears to say the same thing as the sentence immediately preceding it. ("By October 10, the last Syrian unit in the Central sector had been pushed back across the Purple Line (the pre-war border)." vs. "After four days of intense and incessant combat, the outnumbered defenders succeeded in ejecting the Syrians from the entire Golan.") --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The preceeding sentence speaks to the central sector. The sentence that I added makes clear that all Srian forces were ejected from the entire Golan. It also sums up the point that the battle was indeed intense, incessant with an unequal balance of forces.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the correction. However, the sentences do say something quite similar as they both speak about the the events of October 10. Assuming this can be verified by a RS, I suggest we skip the second one and modify the first sentence like this: "By October 10, the last Syrian unit in the Central sector had been pushed back across the Purple Line (the pre-war border)"--Frederico1234 (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong picture description

Resolved

 – Disputed photo removed from article page. Also, File:Egyptian t55 destroyed.jpg was erroneously captioned as well as being a duplicate of File:Destroyed Israeli M60.jpg

Hi, the caption of the picture on the right is wrong. That tank isn't an Egyptian T-55, it is an Israeli Magach 3 (AKA M48A4 by the US Army; M48 Patton upgrade with 105 mm gun and diesel engine). --94.39.236.41 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Confirmed, the destroyed tank in the photo is actually an Israeli M60 Patton and for those with a knack of details, please take note that the Soviet made T-54/55 series of tanks (including communist China-made Type 59 & Type 69/79 series) does not use any track return rollers, at all, but the American made M46/M47/M48/M60 series of Patton tanks does have this feature. To cut a story short, this image file is a duplicate of File:Destroyed Israeli M60.jpg and Sysops on commons has been informed of this. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

losses-Tanks and artillery pieces Arab side

Arab countries lost

• 370 aircaft
• 47 SAM batteries
• 2300 tanks
• 700 artillery pieces

Please fix it! --85.65.214.155 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Also in the section on the IDF counterattack you should change the word obfuscate to suppress or any similar word so that it will be more easily understood by a greater number of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.166.13 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

egyptian victory

wikipedia biasand to israel.

This article mainly focused on surrounding of 3rd egyptian army and claimed that Israel won the war and ignored the fact that the Egyptian army of the first and the second Egyptian army were able to destroy the israeli troops which surrounded the 3rd egyptian army. Why did not the article speak about the israeli about the losses of israeli army when it tried to enter the city of suez Why does the article talk briefly about destroying of the Bar Lev Line, despite the strength of this line? Why does the article talk briefly about crossing of suez canal by egyptian army despite of napalm existence Why did not speak about the destruction of 95% of Israeli targets in the egyptian air attack the article ignored the egyptian achievements und focused on the israeli ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraam 2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

if you'll define the war as a 3 day war, you are right, the arabs won. the only problem is that the war lasted 20 days. at the end of these 20 days, the israeli army was advancing towards ciro and damasks.

if the first and second egyptian armies were able to save the third , why didn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.7.80 (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, they were far from advancing to Cairo. They were not even "advancing" as they got repelled in three consecutive attempts to take over Suez city in Battle of Suez. They finally abandoned their tanks. I personally have a photo playing on one of them. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.232.234 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Egypt gained acres of land on cease fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.232.234 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming Back

Hi, I am back after another long time out. Since my latest request of being unblock was declined on 18/10/2010, I ceased to check my account. I have not noticed, I was unblocked on 22/10/2010 until recent week. Now I am ready to continue contributing this article, mainly in statistics as I used to do previously, as well as on the Bar-Lev line issue. I will expect sherif and others to respond in the talk page. I hope internet will be back in Egypt soon. It's ironic that for years the Egyptians were told by the Mubarak regime that their army won in 10/1973, but now the Egyptian editors can't defend this line in wikipedia because that same regime has cut access to the internet in Egypt. Sooner or later, the Egyptian army documents of the 1973 war will be revealed, whether it will be under the presidency of El-Baradei or under the rule of the friendly neighborhood Muslim brotherhood. Megaidler (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Selecting Sources

Government sources should not to be automatically considered as primary source just for being government sources. A military historian employed by his government, may be considered as secondary source as long as he/she meets the criteria. However, El-Badri, which is a secondary source, is considered to be unreliable not for being a government employee, but for reasons already explained by others. Megaidler (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Israeli defenses in Sinai

According to Haber & Schiff p. 274 - 275
30 strong points (each one of them called Maoz in Hebrew) were established on the shores of the Suez Canal following the 6 day war. Abraham Adan was the one who planned them. He was inspired by an Israeli built fort from 1948. Each strong point was made of a square like perimetric sand rampart. The total length of the rampart was 400 meters. Within the strong point there was a yard for logistic activity. The entrance was in the rear. It was possible to place there a tank, with its gun directed toward the exit, or a halftrack. Additional 200 meters of connecting trenches were built. The fences were thickened with coiled barbed wire and mines. On the corners there were firing positions and shelters next to them. The firing positions and the shelters next to them were built from metal scraps captured in the Sinai desert. Their reinforcements were built from the disassembled railroad track. On the two western positions, the directions toward the canal were sealed. As I understand, it means that only diagonal firing toward the canal was possible. Frontal firing toward the canal was possible from the connecting trenches built in the sand ramparts. Firing up to 1,200 meter was possible with medium machine guns. Later, an 81 mm mortar position was built within the yard, an AA gun position was built in one of the corners, in some bunkers the reinforcing railroad tracks were replaced by rocks and one or two observation positions were built toward the front. The frontal observation post was to be manned by a single soldier even in case of shelling, while the rest were to take cover inside the bunkers. Within the yard there was a semi open bunker for a generator, a bunker for ammunition, a bunker for fuel, a dining room and a toilet. In some strong points, positions for tanks were built next to the sand rampart. The upgraded strong points were better protected. There were only few cases of penetration of 152 mm shells with delay fuses. The heavy weight of the reinforcements caused the collapsing of some bunkers, but usually, they sustained the Egyptian bombardments. Each strong point was to cover about two kilometers along the water line by fire and observation. It was expected that the strong points would hold on until tank reinforcements would arrive. Generally, in each strong point there were to be 25-30 men, 2 machine guns in the front, 3 machine guns in the rear, 3 52 mm mortars and automatic rifles. Anti-tank weaponry was very little - one Bazooka and two adapters for rifle grenades. Optional weapons were a 20 mm gun and an 81 mm mortar. Between 01/03/1969 and 07/08/1970 there were 26 Egyptian raids in the Sinai desert. 9 of these were against the strong points. Inside the strong points, Israel suffered 3 dead and 5 wounded. The Egyptian suffered 33 dead and dozens of wounded. The supporter of the strong points was Bar-Lev. The opponents were Sharon and Tal. On 06/10/73 only 16 strong points were occupied. "Budapest" was the only fully manned strong point. 7 were evacuated, one survived and the rest were captured, by the Egyptians.

According to Haber & Schiff p. 306-307 216-217
On the 06/10 afternoon 532 troops were in the strong-points, 9 tanks were in the water line and 7 gun batteries were in range. Since only 16 out of the 30 strong points were manned, there were gaps between them and there was no continuous view over the canal. The first wave of 8,000 troops crossed through these gaps and encircled the strong-points. Many tanks were ambushed before reaching the water line and those who did were hit by direct fire from the western sand ramps that were higher than the eastern ramps.

My conclusion is that there were 30 strong points, each strong point could cover 2,500 meter by machine gun fire. That means that only 75 KM could have been covered by fortified machinegun posts, while the total length of the Suez Canal is almost 200 KM. That leaves almost 125 KM of totally unguarded water line. That is in case all machinegun posts, in all strong points are manned by soldiers with machine guns. However, on 14:00 06/10/1973 only one fully strong point were garrisoned, another 15 were partially garrisoned, and additional 14 were unoccupied at all, or manned by observation troops, who probably had no machineguns. That leaves us only 40 KM actually covered by machine on 14:00 06/10/1973 while 160,000 unguarded at all. The tank position on the eastern sand rampart gave no protection for the Israeli tanks, because the Egyptian built a much higher sand rampart on the western side and could. From that western rampart, the Egyptian could easily hit the Israeli tanks. Megaidler (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in this text make any suggestion on how to improve the article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Frederico

There are content rules in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) and if you violate the rules, they will block you. Editors are not allowed to write statements with no reference to reliable sources, especially when there are reliable sources that contradict these statements. I have already given references for sources supporting my statements but you did not do so.
I know there is a wide consensus in among Egyptians that the 1973 war was a victory for the Egyptian army and a defeat for the Israeli army. However, this is due to a propaganda campaign made by the Egyptian regime for one purpose:
Ensuring the good reputation of the Egyptian army which is sworn to protect Egypt's secular constitution, and thus, reducing the public support for the Ichwan. Megaidler (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a message for an individual editor, why didn't you leave it on that individual's user talk page? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Megaidler (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Defenses

The statement that the Israelis had no effective counter measures against SAMs has no reference. However, there are articles in Hebrew by former IAF historian Yossi Abudi, where it is mentioned that the Israelis had an operational plan, called "Tagar", to knock out the Egyptian SAMs but they had no time for doing so. Later, the Israelis executed, plan "Maftseaach" (cracker), which was a series of air strikes against Egyptian SAMs. That plan went right. Watch the following websites. They are in Hebrew so try google translation.

http://www.iaf.org.il/1213-21478-he/IAF.aspx

http://www.merchav-aviri.org/t1/tiki-index.php?page=%D7%9E%D7%94+%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F+%27%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%A8%27+%D7%9C%27%D7%93%D7%95%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%9F%27%3F

Megaidler (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to cite the sources in the article. - BorisG (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The article that appears in Merchav-Aviri is an html version of a previous document and it is easy for translation by google. It appears on the following web address:
http://www.merchav-aviri.org/t1/tiki-index.php?page=%D7%9E%D7%94+%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F+%27%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%A8%27+%D7%9C%27%D7%93%D7%95%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%9F%27%3F
The Original article is a pdf file and it appears on the following web address:
http://www.fisherinstitute.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/num27.pdf
This is my suggestion for improving the chapter summarizing the combat operation in the southern front:
Egypt (and Syria) had heavily fortified their side of the ceasefire lines with SAM batteries provided by the Soviet Union, against which the Israeli Air Force had no effective countermeasures, and no time to execute a SEAD operation due to the element of surprise.
Notes:

Any objections ? Megaidler (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Which sentence in the article do you want to modify? --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The current sentence is:
Egypt (and Syria) had heavily fortified their side of the ceasefire lines with SAM batteries provided by the Soviet Union, against which the Israeli Air Force had no effective countermeasures.
I have two suggestions for a change. The first one is:
Egypt (and Syria) had heavily fortified their side of the ceasefire lines with SAM batteries provided by the Soviet Union.
The second one is:
Egypt (and Syria) had heavily fortified their side of the ceasefire lines with SAM batteries provided by the Soviet Union, against which the Israeli Air Force had no time to execute a SEAD operation due to the element of surprise.
Notes:

When people read the current version, they might conclude that the Israelis had no effective measures to deal with SAMs back in 1973. The Opposite is truth. The Israelis did have such measures, but had no time to use these because they were caught by surprise. Please read these two documents. Waiting for your comments. Megaidler (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about the facts. One comment though: I think the phrasing ("execute a SEAD operation") need to be put in less technical language. The reader shouln't need to follow a link just to understand what the text says. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bar-Lev line "heavily fortified"?

This edit by Megaidler is reliably sourced and is backed by numerous other sources. Truth is, I concur with his edit and to assert that the Bar-Lev line was "heavily fortified" is somewhat disingenuous. When the attack began there were just over 450 soldiers (mostly of a reserve brigade) manning some 16 forts strung out along the Canal. There was one understrength armored brigade (commanded by Lt. Col. Amnon Reshef) deployed in the vicinity of the Canal and only 3 tanks deployed at the Canal bank itself. According to Pollack, the line, even when fully manned with a full complement was never intended to thwart a full scale crossing. Rather it was meant as a "trip wire and a delaing force," (Pollack @ 106 & Herzog @ 221). A system designed by Israel to flood the Canal with oil and set it alight to thawrt a possible crossing was neglected, went into a state of disrepair and was unusable, (Herzog @ 233). In fairness to Sherif9282, the Canal itself proved to be a natural formidable barrier and Dayan once referred to it a "the best anti-tank ditch in the world." But the fact remains that the Bar-Lev line was neglected and sorely undermanned and even in its hay day, was never designed to stop a full-scale crossing by massed infantry and armor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your compromise is a sensible one. Well done. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit I prefer "heavily-fortified" and could bring sources as well, but I think that's a fine compromise. I concur. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also prefer using the term heavily-fortified but JJG's compromise is acceptable from my end. ElUmmah (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Aid to The Main Combatants

The section covering the American aid for Israel is too long. While the foreign assistance sent to Israel was much smaller than what was sent to Egypt and Syria, the chapter covering the aid to Israel is much larger than the one covering the aid to Egypt and Syria. Why must the chapter covering the American aid contain the chronicles and circumstances that led to the resupply effort, while the chapter covering the Soviet aid, does not contain such information ? This isn't balanced and some data should be transferred from this chapter to the article covering Nickel Grass.
There must be a new chapter describing the total military strength of the belligerents, both in personnel and equipment. This should include the forces of all belligerents including the expedition forces of the nations who were fighting on the sides of Egypt and Syria. It means that some information must be transferred from the chapter covering the foreign aid to this new chapter.
This chapter should be split into two chapters: Israeli strength ,and coalition strength.
The chapter covering the Israeli strength should be split into three:
Israeli ground and air forces, Israeli naval forces on the Mediterranean Sea and Israeli naval forces on the Red Sea.
The chapter covering the coalition strength should be split into four:
Coalition ground and air forces on the northern front, coalition ground and air forces on the southern front, coalition naval forces on the Mediterranean Sea and coalition naval forces on the Red Sea.
Waiting for your response. Megaidler (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Third temple

Twice I have fixed this section and twice it has been incorrectly reverted. The passage in question reads "On the afternoon of October 7, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple". He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[197] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort."[199]"

The problem with this is the implication that Dayan was referring to nuclear weapons when he said "this is the end of the third temple" It is not Wikipedia's place to make such assertions, both times my edit removing the word "again" was reverted, with editors stating that temple is a code word for Israeli nuclear weapons. This is utterly irrelevant, wikipedia can not be asserting what people meant when they say something that is known to have multiple meanings. It is better to simply state what happened "Dayan raised the nuclear topic" rather than asserting that Dayan was secretly referring to nuclear weapons, which cannot be substantiated. Drsmoo (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit history, the Warner Farr paper cited in the paragraph directly addresses this point:

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that “this is the end of the third temple,” referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons.

There is no ambiguity about it. According to a reliable source, Dayan was referring to both Israeli nukes and a possible collapse of Israel. If you disagree, you should find other reliable sources that support your belief.YLee (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the passage you posted does it say he was referring to nuclear weapons. It says that Temple was the code word for nuclear weapons, inferring that he MAY have been referring to that. It does not say that he was actually referring to it. Drsmoo (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Come, now; that's pure sophistry. I am as cautious as anyone about WP:OR, but have no hesitation in standing by the article text in question as it currently stands based on the cited reference. I ask others to see for themselves and state whether I am mistaken. YLee (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As do I. There is nowhere in the articles referenced in that paragraph where it states that Dayan was referring to a nuclear weapon, it implies that there's a possibility that he was, but that is all. The Wikipedia article stating it as a certainty is 100% original research. Drsmoo (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you Drsmoo. It's quite obvious to me the reference that Dayan was referring to nuclear weapons. I don't see the reference as implying a possibility of Dayan referring to nuclear weapons. The article text is accurately worded and does not represent OR. --Sherif9282 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We already know that from your previous edit, it being "obvious" to you is irrelevant and indicative of the OR present, unless the text states that he was referring to nuclear weapons, which it doesn't, your inferring it is original research. The wikipedia article will match the wording of the source much closer if it removes "again", the fact that the encyclopedia article is more sure of his intentions than the source is troubling, and indicative of original research. It is quite basic reading comprehension and logic in fact. If Person X says A, and A can also mean B, did person X say B? The answer is No, because we do not know what he was referring to, we only know he said A. Drsmoo (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But Farr isn't ambiguous in his writing. He essentially writes "Person X said A. A means both 1 and 2." Absent further detail, the obvious interpretation is that Person X intended to refer to both 1 and 2, not just 1 or 2. YLee (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, the statement is "Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that “this is the end of the third temple,” referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons." The only thing stated definitively is that he was referring to an impending collapse. It is quite possible that he was referring to the codeword, but Israel referred to as the third temple occurs very often, and not all of those references are related to nuclear weapons lol. If the article removes again, the only change will be that it will no longer be making inferences, and will cease being original research. It is not Wikipedia's place to infer that he was using an alternate meaning. There is no source in the paragraph that states that dayan was referring to nuclear weapons. Drsmoo (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Drahmed103, 28 May 2011

please change the word "egyptian" to "syrian" in

[[File:Hatzerim 290110 Sukhoi 7.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Wreckage of an Egyptian [[Sukhoi Su-7]] on display at the Israeli Air Force Museum in Hatzerim. The aircraft was shot down on October 6, 1973 during a strike mission over Sinai.]]

as the flag on the airplane is syrian and not egyptian

and i think it was not shot over sinai

thanks

Drahmed103 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It was also the flag used by the United Arab Republic, which existed until not long before the Yom Kippur War. It's possible that some Egyptian aircraft still had UAR markings. The flag would not be used by a separate Syria until 1980, long after the war. See Flag of Syria and Flag of Egypt. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected it, according to the description page for the photo, it was a Syrian jet.--Funandtrvl (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, take that back, the sign in the photo says "Egyptian", so I'll fix it again. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the caption beside the aircraft, there's also Flag of Syria which shows that the flag bearing two stars was in use in Syria between 1958 and 1961 and again since 1980, while Flag of Egypt shows a two-stars flag in use until 1972. Poliocretes (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, just saw that OuroborosCobr said same thing. My bad. Poliocretes (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Since the plane was shot down in 1973, I'm thinking that the Egyptians didn't repaint the flag on this particular aircraft when they changed to the flag of the Federation of Arab Republics in the '71/'72/'73 time period. Since the sign at the museum says it's Egyptian, I'm also inclined not to think that this aircraft could have been a stray Syrian jet that overflew the Sinai area, instead of being over by the Golan Heights. Anyone know out there? --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oil embargo section - unnecessary detail?

The "Oil embargo" section note that it was against the United States - presumably due to their support of Israeli - later expanded to include, "the Netherlands and other states." Why is the Netherlands in particular singled out, since there is no obvious connection? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

army Strength and Casualties

Arabs strength

Egypt 300,000 soldiers. 1700 tanks. 2000 APC etc. 1120 artillery. 400 airplanes. 140 helicopters. Syria 110,000 soldiers. 1200 tank. 800 APC etc. 600 artillery. 321 airplanes. 36 helicopters.

Israel strength Israel 415,000 soldiers. 2350 tanks. 3000 APC etc. 1593 artillery. 600 airplanes. 84 helicopters

arab casualties 8528 soldiers killed 19549 soldiers wounded 1000 tanks destroyed and captured 273 air planes destroyed 28 helicopters destroyed

Israeli casualties 9000-10000 soldiers killed. 20000 soldiers wounded. 1000 tanks destroyed and captured 303-372 air planes destroyed. 25 helicopters destroyed.

please fix it !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.193.234 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Masry guy. What are your sources for those figures ? I have my own ones. Megaidler (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

what are his sources? Egyptian propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.110.193 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Glaring Omission

El-Mansourah air battle Main article: Air Battle of El Mansoura

On October 14, 1973, Israel launched a large scale raid with over 250 aircraft – F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks – attempting to hit the large air base at el-Mansourah. It culminated in an almost continuous dogfight lasting no less than 53 minutes. According to Egyptian estimates over 180 aircraft were involved at one time, the majority belonging to the Israelis. At 10 pm local time, Cairo Radio broadcast "Communiqué Number 39", announcing that there had been several air battles that day over a number of Egyptian airfields, that most intensive being over the northern Delta area. It also claimed that 15 enemy aircraft had been downed by Egyptian fighters for the loss of three Egyptian aircraft, while an even greater number of Israelis had been shot down by the Army and the Air Defense Forces over Sinai and the Suez Canal. For its part, Israel Radio claimed, early the following morning, that the IAF had shot down 15 Egyptian aircraft, a figure subsequently reduced to seven.[6]

Later on, the Egyptian Government changed the country’s "Air Force Day" from November 2 to October 14, to commemorate the Mansourah air battle.[6]

Considering the notability threshold for some of the wartime events mentioned in this article, the absence of any info on one of the largest jet era dogfights in history seems odd. Really odd.

I looked up this article solely to find some information on this engagement, information that I recall was there at one point. What could possibly have lead to its omission??96.239.184.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

How the war is precieved by the Arab and Israeli public

I believe there should be a section about this, specifically referring to the way the war is depicted in the Arab public. They actually believe the war was won, and that they took Sinai at that war. Also, look at the Arabic wikipedia for the disinformation about the war that is widespread (like Israeli casualties) for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.118.86 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

United States role

Please add supported by:United States on the Israeli side , which happened during operation nickle grass : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.145.73 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The US was not a "belligerent". The US were a supplier. Note that the USSR supplied one side as well. They are not listed in the infobox (and I should be surprised). I do not see how either could be listed since they did not engage in combat. Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see.

Expeditionary forces

Why only major combatants must be listed in the table? In the Vietnam War, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Khmer Republic, Laos, China, Soviet Union, North Korea and others weren't major combatants either, but they appear in this article. All countries directly involved in the Yom Kippur War - which sent troops, tanks, vehicles, pilots and aircraft to fight Israel - should be included in the infobox.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We've gone over this a million times. The Vietnam War article can afford to have numerous insignificant belligerents listed on either side because they existed almost equally on either side, you had for instance New Zealand and North Korea contributing roughly 500 men to the war. No comparable listing can be made in this article, because no reinforcements of manpower were sent to Israel, but that doesn't mean eliminating any other Arab contributors aside Egypt and Syria, because that would be biased and ridiculous. A balance needs to be struck since, practically speaking, many readers usually only look at the introduction and infobox and will only skim the article, the infobox should only mention the belligerents who made a significant contribution to the war, which certainly does not include the likes of Korea, Pakistan, Cuba (a contributor mentioned by some suspect source and has not been repeated by ANY contemporary Arab or Israeli source), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Tunis, etc... All this, aside the fact that some belligerents who sent forces may have only arrived too late (such as Algeria's heavily reinforced armored brigade which arrived after the war's conclusion, or Sudan's infantry brigade), or did not participate in any combat operations, and apparently only provided non-essential rear-area support (Tunis). Can you explain all this in the infobox? Not possible. Which is why only major contributors are listed (and, BTW, this confirms to what the guidelines on milhist infoboxes says), while the details are left tot the article. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So why in this infobox, for example, all Arab belligerents are listed? And why this infobox includes the limited 1,552 troops of Spain? (twice less than Kuwait's contribution in 1973) or Swedish contribution in Libya?--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Because, again, look at the list of insurgent groups on the other side of the infobox. Also, it's not clear how extensive (if at all) was Kuwait's participation in the war. However, I think the current revision of the infobox is acceptable. I've made a minor addition to conform it to the article text. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AndresHerutJaim, all involved countries should be mentioned in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem to include Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan and Saudi Arabia as expeditionary forces (according to Kumaraswamy), however Pakistan and North Korea were only said to send some pilots, thus including those countries as belligerents is pretty much an exaggeration. Regarding Libya, Sudan and Kuwait i quote (Kuwaraswamy p.60):

"On the Egyptian front, the Libyan (manned by Egyptians), Algerian and Iraqi squadrons took part in bombing Israeli targets and providing air assistance to ground operations. Additional Arab forces operating on the Egyptian front were a Lybian armored brigade and a Kuwaiti infantry battalion which had been deployed in Egypt before the war, and an Algerian armoured brigade which arrived on 17 October. Neither of these units took an active part in the war. After the cease-fire went into effect, a Sudanese infantry brigade also arrived in the front."

Hence, this is very much undue to include Libya, Sudan and Kuwait, whereas Lebanon and Cuba are not mentioned AT ALL. Also Pakistani and North Korean contribution is extremely limited.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What about Cuba? I quote (Perez p. 377–379, Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution):

"Cuba sent approximately 1,500 troops, including tank and helicopter crews, who reportedly engaged in combat operations against the IDF."--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen any other source besides this one on the issue of Cuban assistance, a source which at any rate is unconcerned with this war or the Arab-Israeli conflict in general. The claim has not been repeated by any Arab/Israeli/Western Source.

I also agree Pakistan and Cuba need to go off the list. So does Tunisia. At least one source (Shazly) writes they were involved in rear-area work in the Nile Delta. No mention of combat involvement whatsoever. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• @Sherif: Please do not make too big of a controversial edit/removal of content on this article as this discussion is still ongoing and you have to respect others so others will respect you in return. Please also bear in mind that this article is no less a powder keg than the Arab-Israeli relations. Read also: WP:Lamest edit wars. Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. There haven't been any replies to my last comment yet. As far as I understand, there's no opposition to striking Cuba off the list, no? I think Pakistan and North Korea should be removed as well as their contribution is quite negligible. Tunisia should also be removed since they were not involved in any combat. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Applying this reasoning, we shouldn't include Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as belligerents either, because Saudi and Kuwaiti troops arrived as reinforcements in time for a new Syrian offensive scheduled for October 23; the offensive was cancelled though. Nations involved in a war are not only countries whose armies directly engaged in combat operations. There are many ways to support a side in a military conflict. We should take this article as an example for the infobox (see Arab Expeditionary Forces in the right side of the table).--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• @Sherif: This article page has been promoted as one of the long list of WP:Featured articles, that means that many editors had poured their effort into making it one and that it had also been vetted by more than one uninvolved editor before it is ready to be nominated for FA. That said, all contents and sources had been verified beforehand so what you're doing right now is nothing less than pushing your point of view (WP:Civil POV pushing), unless you can provide a reliable source that can prove your point of view. Please don't do it again as this article page is one of the most highly visible FAs, if you continue to blindly removed properly sourced content/text without much discussion(s), it can and could result in you being BLOCKED. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave, thank you for wasting your time on me with your information. Just so you know, I am not a retard. I've been in Wikipedia for over five years, so I know full well what the FA status entails. And for your information, this article is twice as much in size and has countless more sources since it was reviewed for FA, and I'm almost certain it would fail a review at the moment should it enter one. I also know that this article is subject to the 1RR rule, as I know what the consequences breaking it entail. Since I've already acknowledged your first notice/warning, which you've followed up with an unnecessary and totally uncalled-for second warning, you can stop your targeted, false accusations and needless threats now. Cheers.

Andres, the Six Day War article isn't something we should imitate here. Its sources are a Pakistani Air Force (PAF) article that states PAF pilots fought alongside pilots from some of the Arab nations, along with a columnist who in quite general terms merely states the Arab nations that sent reinforcements, without identifying their size, type and role played. That article ought to be changed rather than taken as a standard. According to Shazly, pp. 277-278, Tunisian forces were not involved in the war, but were stationed in the Nile Delta (and he is to my knowledge the only source for Tunisian involvement). For the purpose of any war article, the belligerents section should include nations that were actively participating in the war, i.e.: engaged in combat. Widening it to include all nations that offered support would mean including the US and USSR (who are certainly not belligerents) and would entail practical and NPOV problems; how will you explain that some nations' forces arrived too late while others offered very little, in order to put things in focus and perspective, without cluttering the infobox? If Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti forces had arrived in preparation for a Syrian offensive that never took off then they should be removed too, unless another source indicates they were indeed involved in combat. It's the same logic applied to Sudan, which is not on the list.

In addition to those, Pakistan and North Korea need to go. The main combatants involved were fielding nearly 1 million troops, over 4000 tanks, some 1000 aircraft, and we're giving mention to 36 foreign pilots sent without even their aircraft? Cuba should also be off the list; the Louis Perez source is not a reliable one for this article. It hasn't been mentioned as a combatant by any known Western, Arab or Israeli source! Awaiting your reply.--Sherif9282 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sherif. We are not gonna rewrite history to fit anyone POV. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Lebanon, it's contribution is highly insignificant, just like Pakistan's and Korea's. Such minor contributors should not be included in the infobox. See instructions for the infobox: "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." Sudan did not participate in the war, its forces arriving after its end, and so it isn't a participant in any way, shape or form. As for Tunisia, Port Said never came under ground attack, and so Tunisian presence there (if indeed they were) doesn't change the fact that they still were not involved in combat, aside that their contribution was also minor. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Tunisia sent an Armoured unit of 900 men on a 1,800 mile journey on October 10 (It participated in the defense of Port Said)[...]"

It doesn't matter if Arab military support for Egypt and Syria was counter-productive, too little, insignificant or unjustifiable. Only matter FACTS. And the same rules should be applied to every article. If the infobox only should include countries whose troops engaged in direct combat operations, tell me something: why this infobox includes nations like Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway and others? All of them didn't fight against Libya in direct combat operations, but enforced UN resolution about no-fly zones. Applying your reasoning, the 2011 military intervention in Libya's infobox has to include just four or five countries, because only France, UK, USA (maybe Italy and Canada too) fought Gaddafi's forces, while the other 16 countries didn't fire a single missile, bomb or bullet during the conflict... or I'm wrong?

Another example, during the Israeli Independence War, none of the little 300 Yemeni troops engaged in combat with Israel, but Yemen's contribution is included in the infobox.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Andres, it's not my reasoning, it's what the Wikipedia says. We don't work off the top of our heads, but we follow instructions and guidelines. As for those articles you mentioned, I'd say they also need changing. In addition to that, at least one of them is very recent and still rapidly changing, while both are rated as Start or B-Class articles; not exactly what we should be following. Now I can't provide an answer and explanation to every single military history article on Wikipedia because it's exhausting, and repeated use of such examples is ultimately futile. And I am concerned with facts; the fact that Nation X actively participated in combat or that Nation Y did not participate in combat, came after the war's conclusion, or that its contribution was so little it should not be included in the infobox per guidelines. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at this article... even countries which provided logistical support are in the infobox!! I'm not saying all this to receive a detail explanation about every military conflict regarding infoboxes, but showing several examples in order to compare them with our case, so we can apply a unique standard for all articles in wikipedia. Do you understand my point? Or isn't my English good enough? Greetings.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a common understanding in accordance to wikipedia guidelines that logistic support (and alleged logistic support of course) is not mentioned under "belligerents", unless it was exceptionally extensive (like some proxy wars of USA and USSR). I had this discussion several times, and every time we deleted logistics as "belligerents". It makes no sense to do that - just imagine we would put USSR as belligerent in every conflict fought with AK-47's and put USA as belligerent in every conflict fought with M16. Finally, regarding the countries lets make some order - first of all i believe there is a consensus to put Iraq and Jordan as major expeditionary forces; Lebanon had highly limited involvement and in fact other sources say that Lebanon has not been engaged in war with Israel between 1948 and 1982; Libya sent only limited amount of unmanned aircraft and idle ground force - certainly is not a belligerent; Algeria - participated in air attacks, but not in ground warfare (sent troops, but those didn't engage in fighting), i'm tending to include it in "other expeditionary" but that can be argued; Tunisia - involvement of 900 men is according to a problematic source (Hussain Hamid, who is a columnist), better source needed; Kuwait and Sudan - didn't participate in any fighting and actually Kuwaiti unit was stationed in Egypt long before the war. On the same logic ground we should have put Iraq as belligerent of Black September in Jordan, since it had an idle brigade stationed in Jordan (which we of course haven't); Cuba - sources needed on its involvement; North Korea and Pakistan - I'm doubtful we can even put them under the tag "supported by", as i'm not sure it is notable for the belligerent section; Saudi Arabia - participated according to Kumaraswamy, but did it make fighting? was it a significant force?; Morocco - sources needed.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree with Greyshark, it sums up where I stand with regard to this dispute. And let me see if I can get any sources on Morocco. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Owing to the fact that no further reply has been made to what Greyshark and me have stated, I've boldly edited the infobox. If you disagree with this, then do reply here first, as should have been done in the first place, rather than revert. The reasons are plainly stated in Greyshark's statement. The remaining combatants, who's contribution was insignificant, can all be easily found in the article. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

War result ?

Egyptian objective was to get back the biggest part of Sinai possible and that did happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.145.140 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The Israeli tactical victory is from Israeli sources , please take information from neutral sources , thank you.

The London Sunday Times is not Israeli. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote from the article of The times : Israel’s iconic leader Golda Meir was blamed for her country’s near-defeat in the Yom Kippur war. But secret government files reveal that while the war hero Moshe Dayan considered surrender, it was Golda who pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. They are still files from the Israeli government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.144.254 (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel could have eradicated Egypt's third army, and moved to Cairo uninterrupted, and conquer all Egypt. It's one of the biggest victories in military history... since Troy or something. LOL. Don't confuse diplomatic pressure with clear huge overwhelming out of this world military triumph that Israel brilliantly pulled against Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.84.96 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as could have in wars , the IDF failed to conquer any of the Suez canal cities(Suez and Ismailia) which is said in these 2 articles : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.145.73 (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The latest change to the result - to add Egyptian strategic victory and destruction of the Bar Lev Line by the Egyptian troops during Operation Badr, supported only in the edit comments and not within the article with http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/6/newsid_2514000/2514317.stm which only refers to the *first day* of the war, is ridiculous. It also removes all of the references for the phrase Israeli tactical victory", without giving a reason. I ask the editor(s) involved, Ahmedyasserhamdy and Mohamed Osama AlNagdy to explain their rationale. (Hohum ^@) 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

quote from the article: Early in the conflict, Egyptian and Syrian forces retook key positions lost in the 1967 'Six Day' war. This is a major point in the war , it's actually the arab victory so it must be added. Another quote from the article: But ultimately the Arabs buckled under a sustained Israeli counter-attack strengthened by US airlifts. That's the Israeli tactical victory but it didn't achieve anything in the war as the Israeli army failed to conquer Suez and Ismailia as mentioned in these two articles :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suez.I apologize for removing the references , I didn't mean it.I will put them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedyasserhamdy (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I also got something from here :http://i-cias.com/e.o/yomkipwr.htm Quote from the article: October 26: Cease fire on the Egyptian front. US-led talks soon results in a disengagement agreement between Egypt and Israel, and Egypt is left with an increased territory compared to before the war — full control over both shores of the Suez Canal is regained, and a strip of land along the first half of the western coast of Sinai is gained. UN forces are stationed along the Suez Canal to monitor the agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedyasserhamdy (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not result of the war its result of one of the operations.The war ended with Israeli victory.Please remove this.--Shrike (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get how it ended with Israeli victory if the Egypt got more territory than that before the war.I mentioned that the Egyptian victory with during operation badr which was at the beginning of the war.I would add initial Egyptian victory but saying that it was during operation badr is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.146.44 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Article text in wikipedia is not decided by editors drawing their own conclusions from what they feel is evidence. Instead it should reflect what reliable sources themselves say on a specific point. For instance, deciding one side is a victor based on territorial gains, casualties, resolutions, etc, is not valid. You need reliable sources to say who won - assuming there was a winner. You can repeat what the sources say without synthesis - i.e. Egypt made territorial gains, for instance. Please read WP:OR. (Hohum ^@) 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, (i-cias.com) is not a WP:RELIABLE source (apparently self published by Tore Kjeilen), and wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for other wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. (Hohum ^@) 17:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with user:Hohum please provide WP:RS that say that Egypt won the war--Shrike (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Read this article , section THE RESULTS OF THE OCTOBER WAR : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Moulton.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedyasserhamdy (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I also got quotes that proves it : http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/398/oct08.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedyasserhamdy (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The best reliable sources for historical events are works by historians - preferably specialists in the specific subject, not the opinions of a single soldier with no bone fides (the globalsecurity link) or an Egyptian online news source which uses the "State Information Service" as a source. Please reread the links regarding sources and reliability that I have already provided. (Hohum ^@) 00:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/yom_kippur_war_of_1973.htm As mentioned many times , arabs had major initial victories in the war.Israel's victory was a tactical one when the IDF trapped Egypt's 3rd army breaking through the cease-fire THEN it was accepted by Israel on 28th of october.I will edit the sentence to be as follows: Initial Egyptian/Syrian strategic victory and destruction of the Bar Lev Line by the Egyptian troops during operation badr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.145.138 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, historylearningsite is not a reliable source. Per its "about page": http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/about-the-author.htm

Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA set up www.historylearningsite.co.uk in 2000 as he felt there was no easily accessible and comprehensive website on World History on the web. The site has grown in popularity and is now viewed by hundreds of thousands of people each month from around the world.
Chris has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000.

This is a self published site see WP:SPS. He is a history graduate who works at a secondary school who has created his own history site, he is not a published, respected historian with works that have undergone peer review. (Hohum ^@) 18:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well , tell me about a reliable historical website with reliable sources like the source of Israeli tactical victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedyasserhamdy (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, the current sources.

• A bit dubious: ex Isreali President (Primary source) Herzog (1975), The War of Atonement, Little, Brown and Company
• Respectable investigative journalist team backed by respected publishing house. Insight Team of the London Sunday Times (1974), Yom Kippur War, Double Day and Company, p. 450
• Published military historian Luttwak; Horowitz (1983), The Israeli Army, Cambridge, MA: Abt Books
• Published historian and journalist Rabinovich (2004), The Yom Kippur War, Schocken Books, p. 498
• Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, contributor to Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses Kumaraswamy, PR, Revisiting The Yom Kippur War, pp. 1–2
• Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Edinburgh, and an associate professor of political science, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and an official correspondent at The Atlantic. Johnson; Tierney, Failing To Win, Perception of Victory and Defeat in International Politics, p. 177
• Widely published political scientist Liebman, Charles (1993), The Myth of Defeat: The Memory of the Yom Kippur war in Israeli Society (PDF), Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 29, London: Frank Cass, p. 411. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

(Hohum ^@) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In the source : Published historian and journalist Rabinovich (2004), The Yom Kippur War, Schocken Books. Read p.497.

Attackers almost always set foot on the defenders side, yet no other article where the attackers leave has the "initial victory" result. Imagine if the American invasion of Canada was listed as an initial strategic victory with something scribbled below about the American forces retreating across the border. The editor would probably be banned. Yet this is common practice with regard to Israeli wars. It is almost as if the Arab nationalist POV is somehow protected from the rules that apply to everyone else.108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

The "initial Egyptian strategic victory" is still unreferenced, especially to whether any reliable source calls it a strategic victory. All of the sources presented so far have been unusable. Nor is it reflected in the main text, it's dubious as a *result* and goes into too much details for an infobox. It should be removed if no sources are forthcoming. (Hohum ^@) 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture not reflecting Israel's decisive victory in War. Change / Montage recommended

It seems that every war article in wikipedia is either presented by an image reflecting the outcome of the war in a map scenario (which can also be done here - seeing what territory each party held at the end of war), or a montage of pictures. The crossing of the canael in the beginning of the war is just that - the beginning, and should be placed prominently in a battle of the war, but not the war itself. As a series of images, it makes sense, together with images showing Israel's trapping the third army, advancing towards Cario, and winning the war, etc. As it is , it is very leading, and only adds to the propaganda, and not the truth. Someone should prepare a nice montage ASAP. 152.66.83.2 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at the images available on commons, and can't find a set of representative images to form a collage. (Hohum ^@) 12:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of pictures needed:

• Israeli troops crossing west of Suez
• Israeli troops crossing the canal
• another one
• UN_Kilometer_101
• UN_Kilometer_101
• Map following the War
• Damascus strike
• Artilerry fire of Israeli troops - live fire very common in war collages.
• - another one
• Israeli tanks advancing to the Golan Heights
• Iconic picutre of Ariel Sharon during the war
• another one
• another one
• convoy of troops

Israeli soldier, Ismailiya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of author and copyright status makes them unusable. (Hohum ^@) 19:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of them are wikimedia. It's quite simple for someone who knows to do collage to find the right amounts of pictures with free licenses, and use them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry , this can't be replaced.If it won't be in the result of the war then it can't be removed as this was the main objective for the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedyasserhamdy (talk • contribs) 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

IDF Photographs

Matthias Schildner over at Wikimedia Germany managed to convince the IDF to release all of their photographs under a CC-by-SA license. Wikimedia IL has it in their blog (http://blog.wikimedia.org.il/?p=255 - sorry, no english translation yet. I've asked for one.) The photographs are already being uploaded to Commons as I write this. So we should soon have plenty of usable photographs for this article. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - the images are being categorized here. Raul654 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Corrections

1) The Egyptian port which was attacked by Israeli navy is A'rdaka or Ghardaka (the exact Arab name cannot be tranferred into English. The first letter sounds like something between A, R and G) and not as was written.

2) The number of Israeli oil tankers which were sunk by Egyptian mines was one, not two.

Please check if needed, and correct.

109.67.233.24 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless Sentence Fragment

Does the following string of letters and punctuation have an intended meaning? "Mossad Director-General Zvi Zamir, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff David Elazar." Congratulations on making Wikipedia the encyclopedia that anyone can neither edit nor read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.168.4 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the meaningless sentence fragment. Thank you for pointing it out, although it's a pity you were so snide about it. (Hohum ^@) 13:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:October war1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:October war1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Thread closed per WP:Not a forum~!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/ Wizzy…☎ 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories of a solidly unreliable source are not germane to an encyclopedia article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am unfamiliar with the site. Wizzy…☎ 15:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the site - but the author. Space City USA (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pakistan involvment

I have reverted the addition of a poorly referenced material about the involvement of Pakistan. The Dutch Aviation Society is not a reliable source about the war, and "sixteen pilots and an ambulance unit to Egypt and another to Syria." is dubious for noteworthyness anyway, especially since there is nothing to say the pilots flew any missions. (Hohum ^@) 00:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Hohum. "Scramble" is an SPS with little, if any vetting process or peer review. It is a poor source. However, Schiff @ page 281 notes that, "Pilots from Pakistan and North Korea also rallied to the Arab effort." Their quantity and what, if any, role they played is not specified.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Rallied to the Arab effort" could mean anything between an unknown number sending encouraging words to flying their aircraft in combat - it is also unclear whether they were state sanctioned or went of their own accord - with or without their government officially turning a blind eye. I believe more concrete details are needed, and it would still need to be a significant involvement to be included in the article. (Hohum ^@) 17:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed but I would add that no action a North Korean military pilot takes is on his own accord. Orders come directly from the Great Leader--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korean? (Hohum ^@) 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Events leading up to the war

The reality of the situation became apparent when the superpowers met in Oslo and agreed to maintain the status quo.

This is not my era of maximum expertise, but shouldn't that be Helsinki? Or can it just be changed to reference SALT I?

Ammitnox (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Soviet intervention question

I've heard that when Soviet paratroopers were preparing to deploy in support of the Arabs, the Soviets pulled Jewish soldiers out of the units they planned to send. I have so far been unable to find a suitable source for this, so can anyone help?--RM (Be my friend) 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Israeli tactical victory?

Israeli tactical victory? why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.57.125 (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2012

Please Change the result : (Israeli tactical victory and a UN cease-fire after UNSCR 338, 339 and 340, leading to the Geneva Conference and the Sinai Interim Agreement.Political and strategic gains for Egypt) to (Arabs tactical victory and a UN cease-fire after UNSCR 338, 339 and 340, leading to the Geneva Conference and the Sinai Interim Agreement. Political and strategic gains for Egypt)

Hamoda3333 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Currently there are seven reliable sources which support the current wording, and consensus for it. (Hohum ^@) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The wiki entry in arabic shows the correct tactical numbers for this war, which further prove this was not a tactical win for israel. References should be taken from the arabic wikipedia entry for the 6 october war.

Israel's secret decision to withdraw from the Sinai

"The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab states by the U.S. government. The U.S. was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence it was conveyed to Egypt or Syria. The decision was kept a closely guarded secret within Israeli government circles and the offer was withdrawn in October 1967.[32]"

This does not sound believable to me, especially when you consider that Sedat offered Peace for withdrawal from the Sinai three years later, and it was dismissed out of hand by Israel. The citation is " Shlaim, p.254.", but there is no date of publication. Does anyone have any further details on the source so that it can be verified? Dlv999 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look in Bibliography there is only one Shalim book.--Shrike (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I didn't see that, I will look into it. Dlv999 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article fair policy

The article doesn't meet Wikipedia article fair policy as:

1. Most of the images and materials that appears in the article ONLY show what Israeli forces have done and not showing what Egyptian forces have done (Including images that show destroyed Egyptian and Syrian vehicles/aircraft and not destroyed Israeli vehicles/aircraft as well).

2. The numbers 'Casualties and losses' that appear in this article is completely different than the numbers that appear in the SAME article in the Arabic wikipedia which means one of them or both should be edited to show the same numbers.

1. WP:SOFIXIT(of course all the edits should be sourced to WP:RS).As you can't edit the article propose your changes and if they good they will be inserted in the article.
2. The numbers based on what WP:RS report moreover Wikipedia in Arabic can't be used as source to English Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

Belligerents restored in accordance with the agreement of editors from several months ago. See here [8] for further details. Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Cuba and PLO need more sufficient sources on their involvement, otherwise would be removed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Appreciated

The article is clearly showing sympathize to the Israeli side, I don't appreciate the way the article written, the war is known in Egypt and Arabic World as "6 October War", why the article name is "Yom Kippur War" and not "6 October War"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.162.31.31 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives (searchable above) before commenting. Previous discussions about article name. Short version; we use the common English name for article titles. (Hohum ^@) 17:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Appearance of bias

The information about atrocities against Israeli soldiers, and the lack of similar revelations concerning Israeli treatment of captured Egyptian and Syrian forces, gives the impression that there is a bias in favor of the Israeli version of events. 72.42.190.164 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012

I've studied the Yom Kippur War -known for Arabs as 6th of October War- from both Egyptian and Israeli perspectives and point of views and I've come to some conclusions considering that Israel's success was "The Gap" or "The Israeli Pocket" and the Israeli forces west of the Canal.

From the Egyptian point of view: My sources: "Sadat's diaries" Egyptian president by the time of the war and "El-Gamasy's diaries" Egyptian Field Marshall by the time of the war.

From Sadat's diaries, he recorded a conversation with Henry Kissinger and it was as following:

"Sadat: Henry, I'm not asking the Israelis to go back to the East of the canal but, I want them to go back to the 22nd of October line. That was our agreement by the time of the cease-fire so, either they go back to it or I'll bring it back by force.

Kissinger: Why go for a battle?

Sadat: Because the Israelis think that they're scaring us with this gap and I'm not ready to eliminate October War's results actually, I will not let that happen. Do you know the situation of my forces and their forces in the gap?

Henry: Yes, I know. Then Henry got a satellite photo out of his pocket and he said: Before coming to you, I asked the Pentagon for the situation so they gave me this photo which has: 400 ISRAELI TANKS AROUND IT 800 EGYPTIAN TANKS AND YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY A MISSILE AND A HALF FOR EACH TANK BESIDES THE SAM UMBRELLA...YOU TRULY CAN ELIMINATE THE GAP WITH THESE FORCES."[1]

Then the rest of the conversation Sadat basically asked about America's position and the result was an agreement between Sadat and Kissinger to eliminate the gap diplomatically. The rest of the Egyptian generals basically said the events that happened during the war but none of them denied Egyptian military victory.

From El-Gamasy's diaries, he gave the very final results of the war by saying.... "...It was necessary for the Israeli command to secure their forces west of the canal in a limited area of land; And that by invading more land with the result of pushing more forces west of the canal.

The conclusion was a strategic position not so good for Israel: 1) Israel had a huge force (6-7 Brigades) in a very limited area of land, and surrounded from all directions either by natural obstacles or industrial obstacles or Egyptian forces which put them in a weak military position. Above that, they had to experience difficulties for sending supplies and evacuating the wounded forces, the length of the supply lines and the daily loss of personell and equipment. 2) to secure those forces, the Israeli command sent (4-5 brigades)to protect the entrance by the gap."[2]

From the Israeli point of view: My sources: "David Elazar's diaries" Israeli chief of staff and "Moshe Dayan's diaries" the Israeli minister of Defence by the time.

David El-Azar said in his diaries:

"...I don't want to talk about the gap that our army created west of the canal because the Israeli street man now knows very well that it's only meaning was a trap by the Egyptian army to continue the bleeding from the Israeli blood vein."[3]

Moshe Dayan in his diaries:

"The cease-fire remained only on paper. And not continuing the cease-fire was not the only feature about the Southern border, the period between 24th of October and the 18th of January had a lot of possibilities for the combat to be renewed. And there were 3 plans behind this possibility 2 from Egypt's side and 1 from Israel's side. There was an Egyptian plan to attack our forces west of the canal from Cairo's direction. The 2nd one was isolating our bridgehead by connecting both the 3rd and 2nd army on the eastern side. Both plans were going to happen while huge targeted artillery being fired on our forces that were not fortified which was going to cause us severe losses. So, the possibility that was put was that Israel was going to pull back to the east of the canal to spare the lives of it's soldiers which is a sensitive matter to Israel. Egypt had by that time 1700 tanks on the front lines of both fronts, 700 on the East side and 1000 on the west side. Also on the west side there were 600 tanks as a 2nd defensive line to protect Cairo. And they also had more than 2000 cannons, 500 planes and at least 190 SAM batteries around our forces to prevent any air support."[4]

Golda Meir does mention the war in her diaries but she said she's not going to talk about it militarily but it will only be about a "nightmare" that she lived and it's memory will remain with her for her entire life.

Which was confirmed in Henry Kissinger's diaries "Years of Upheaval" "The Golda Meir who arrived in Washington on Oct. 31 was a different person from the leader who had so confidently, even cockily, told Nixon a few months earlier: "We've never had it so good." The war had devastated her; Israel's 2,000 dead were the equivalent of 150,000 dead in the U.S., and she suffered with every bereaved family. In that psychological condition she had to guide her people into a new environment."[5]

So, according to the sources that are stated above from both sides of the conflict; by the end of the war, the Egyptian military was in a better position and literally surrounding all Israeli troops west of the canal while Egypt itself was still in the east of the canal strongly holding what they could achieve. David Elazar the Israeli chief of staff said on 3rd December 1973 "Sharon still continues his irresponsible declaration to journalists trying to lessen the role of other leaders to appear as an unique champion, although he knows well that our crossing to the western side of the canal caused too much losses. However, we could not, along ten days of fighting, overcome any of Egyptian armies. The second army resisted and prevented us ultimately to reach Al-Ismailia city. As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them, they resisted and advanced to occupy, in fact, a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them"

Thus, I more than just humbly ask whoever can edit this article by editing or correcting the section on the very right to be as following:

"Date: 6th of October 1973- 25th of October 1973 (officially) War continued on Egyptian front until "Disengagement of Forces agreement" on 18th of January 1974 signed by Egypt and Israel"

Location: Both banks of the Suez Canal, Golan Heights and surrounding regions. Result: Egyptian military victory and a UN cease-fire after UNSCR 338, 339 and 340, leading to the Geneva Conference and the Sinai Interim Agreement. Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel."

If this is the wrong section to post this, I ask you to please show me where I can post this.

Cites: 1)Sadat, "Search For An Identity" P.305 Arabic Edition 2)Elazar, "From General Elazar's diaries" P.150 Arabic Edition. 3)Dayan, "Story of My Life" P.337 Arabic Edition. 4)Kissinger, "Years Of Upheaval." Time 119.9 (1982) 5)El-Gamasy, "October War 1973" P.435 Arabic Edition JAN94OCT73 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. A big wall of text is not an edit request. Please state your request in the form "please change X to Y". RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 August 2012

That's sub-optimal. But, I only used those diaries as sources or proof of specific historical events and it doesn't mention anything about this person's private life or anything similar. It only tells the situation and I find using those diaries to be more reliable since those are military generals that have actually lived through the event. Also, I'm using sources from both sides of the conflict not only one. So, I can't use diaries anymore? Or there are some exceptions or what-so-ever?

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Mdann52 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sinai is not part of Africa

This part is wrong: "which saw Israel gain a large salient on African soil and even more territory on the Syrian front"

Sinai is not part of Africa, it's part of Asia. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula

Second, that phrase is not the mentioned source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullslash (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased it to say Sinai instead of Africa. (Hohum ^@) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that sentence was referring to Israeli gains west of the Suez Canal, in Egypt mainland proper. That is not in the Sinai. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Change the result to Arab/Egypt victory

By any measures, Egypt won the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmore123 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The measures wikipedia uses is what reliable sources say. (Hohum ^@) 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The wiki entry in arabic shows the correct tactical numbers for this war, which further prove this was not a tactical win for israel. References should be taken from the arabic wikipedia entry for the 6 october war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.180.55 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually this was a major win, both tactically and strategically, to Israel. Israel obliterated Egypt. It was a military knockout. Sorry. A few more days and the Israeli flag would have been in Cairo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.174.106 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian Sukhoi Su-7 has Syrian flag

The text under the photo of the wrecked airplane says: "Wreckage from an Egyptian Sukhoi Su-7 shot down over the Sinai on October 6 on display at the Israeli Air Force Museum."

But the flag on the tail looks very Syrian to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.160.22 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The plaque to the left of the plane says it's Egyptian. Furthermore, Syria adopted the two star flag in 1980. In 1973, its flag bore the Golden Hawk of Qureish. Poliocretes (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Presumably it's actually the flag of the former United Arab Republic, which Egypt retained until 1972, but hadn't yet been repainted on this particular aircraft. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2012 - Page is running soem kind of script - it could be malicious - can you remove it please.

see title 198.103.152.51 (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I do not see what you are talking about. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: Morocco

How come Morocco (with forces equivalent to 3 brigades; expeditionary forces in Syria involved in very heavy fighting) is absent from belligerents in the infobox even though there are listed Kuwait (1 brigade in Egypt; 3000 troops in Syria which did not take any part in fighting), Cuba, Tunisia (1 battalion) and North Korea (20 pilots)?

Our article only says one brigade came from Morocco. Source your claims. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

International Security Assistance Act of 1976: Hearings of the Committee On International Relations, House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, On H.R. 11963 ... Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. pp. 111; Even if it is only 1 brigade, surely that is a more important contribution than 20 pilots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.95.254 (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing the result to a military stalemate?

Israel did indeed encircle the Third Army but the Israeli attacks on the Egyptian mainland were all repelled (see the Battle of Ismailia and the Battle of Suez). I think the most unbiased thing and the closest to the truth would be changing it to military stalemate. Besides, all the sources that claim that it was a tactical Israeli victory are Israeli/Jewish. I have to say, this article is heavily biased in favor of Israel. I know for a fact that there are countless sources that mention that the October War was a stalemate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnopoems (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Most, if not all, non-Arab sources agree this was an Israeli victory because it repelled the Syrian invasion and penetrated deep inside Egypt. Changing the infobox would therefore constitute a breach of Wikipedia's rules of refraining from original research. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and that's it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. Non-Arab sources have explained that the result is "the worst defeat" in Israeli history and a victory for the Arabs and Egypt in particular..Ashafey (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Source? Israel gained more land than they lost, gained as many tanks as they lost, repelled a much larger force, etc.. Victory was not "taking over Egypt and Syria", victory was "not getting destroyed by the many countries attacking them". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.56.82 (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

PLO and North Korea

They're both mentioned in the list of belligerents, but there are no citations for PLO, and the citations for North Korea appear to be talking about Egyptian air losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.56.82 (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a mention of North Koreans in O'Ballance p.147, as well as in the main body of the article with separate references; although I'm not sure it's enough to warrant inclusion in the Belligerents section of the infobox. (Hohum ^@) 17:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So if you attack israel during yom kippur, when they are resting its a higher chance of winning?

Or how is it? there is a gigantic amount of text but what was the main reason of the success of the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.102.241 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Section 1.3 "so much as a nail" wording ambiguity

Under section 1.3, 'Lack of Israeli pre-emptive attack', it said at the end of the fourth paragraph According to Henry Kissinger, had Israel struck first, it would not have received "so much as a nail." This seems ambiguous – is "so much as a nail" referring to Kissinger's belief that Israel would have far less casualties if they made a pre-emptive strike or a statement that Israel would not receive any US aid if they made a pre-emptive strike? Thanks, RandomNoob143 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

War of aggression?

The article, as of this writing, describes the war as a "war of aggression." That's a pretty weighted terminology, isn't it? Especially considering that the Six Day War, which was the precursor of this war, is not so described. What is the defense of such freighted language? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral -- I know suggesting that is farcical when it comes to Israel -- too much blind allegiance, too much blind hatred -- but the middle ground should prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.250.212 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)