Wikipedia

Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 8

< Talk:Yom Kippur War
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Vermondo in topic Oslo? Citation needed
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Jarring peace initiative

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like whoever wrote the paragraph about the Jarring peace initiative did not read the source document carefully enough. The Israeli response included a statement that they were not willing to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines. It is a response to a rather more subtle formulation by Sadat, as he wrote that "just and lasting peace cannot be realized without the full and scrupulous implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 and the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from all the territories occupied since 5 June 1967"; it is easy to read this text as if withdrawal "from all the territories" is an obvious part of the UNSC resolution; it is not: the resolution calls for withdrawal from occupied territories, not necessarily all the territories. It is easy to miss the significance of these two words, and then the Israeli response is made to look like blunt and uncalled-for war mongering. This was an NPOV violation. I re-wrote that paragraph, also adding information about the War of Attrition. -- Heptor talk 12:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't made better by the fact that the statement about the 1967 lines was the only part of the Israeli response that was included in the article. The way it was written in suggested that it was the only thing they bothered to come up with in response to a lengthy and friendly letter with several admissions. Also, the article suggested that this letter exchange represented the Jarring peace initiative in its entirety, which is not the case. Jarring attempted to negotiate a peace treaty for years. -- Heptor talk 13:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate about the French version vs. English version of text. As the text is now in this article, we only know about the pro-Israeli position. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to read up on the debate but I had to give up due to the volume of the discussion. As far as I could understand it the exclusion of "all" and "the" was intensely and extensively debated prior to passing of the resolution. Heptor talk 14:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, it looks like in actual reality the English version was debated and voted on, while the French version was a bad translation. It cannot in good faith be used to advance a legal point. So I am not sure how this is relevant. Heptor talk 22:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Kuwait

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we have Kuwait in infobox? Kuwait had used its military forces in this war per article, Yom_Kippur_War#Other_countries. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Typo in "Failure of the US Intelligence community"

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the "Failure of the US Intelligence community," the last sentence seems to be missing a word: "the report he written to that effect was only rediscovered..." Perhaps "he had written" was the intended phrasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.197.172 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flag?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the Belligerents section in the right column Egypt's flag is shown next to Syria. Should it be this way, as they were allies fighting under a common flag, or is it a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.3.196 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Yom Kippur War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Typos in Background Section: "Isrselis", "seize-fire"

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"While both parties reaffirmed their desire for a peace agreement, the -->Isrselis<-- refused any preconditions to negotiations; the Egyptians on the other hand, refused entering negotiations before Israel had withdrawn their troops from the Sinai peninsula and the 1967 -->seize-fire<-- lines" Should obviously be "Israelis", "ceasefire".— Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmeDave (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Yom Kippur War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear sir/madam I found severe mistakes in this article.The person who wrote this article relied on israeli sources only. It is as if someone say you are dead while you are not dead

Regards,Tito98 Tito98 (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Third lead paragraph

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. After crossing the cease-fire lines, Egyptian forces advanced virtually unopposed into the Sinai Peninsula. After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and halted the Egyptian offensive, resulting in a military stalemate. The Syrians coordinated their attack on the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made threatening gains into Israeli-held territory. Within three days, however, Israeli forces had pushed the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. The IDF then launched a four-day counter-offensive deep into Syria. Within a week, Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts of Damascus. As Egyptian president Anwar Sadat began to worry about the integrity of his major ally, he believed that capturing two strategic passes located deeper in the Sinai would make his position stronger during post-war negotiations. He therefore ordered the Egyptians to go back on the offensive, but their attack was quickly repulsed. The Israelis then counter-attacked at the seam between the two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, and began slowly advancing southward and westward towards the city of Suez[1][2] in over a week of heavy fighting that resulted in heavy casualties on both sides.

This is a bizarrely casual take on the war. It implies that Israel was kind of surprised at first, retaliated and easily waved off the attack. That's nowhere near true. As was written in the Samson Option article (and properly sourced by 5 citations), "In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador warned President Nixon of 'very serious conclusions' if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied." Why is this not even mentioned? Why is the initial success of the Egyptian-Syrian alliance not highlighted, especially after the Six-Day War went so smoothly? It was significant, to say the least. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hammad (2002), pp.237–276
  2. ^ Gawrych (1996), p.60

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section "Egyptian atrocities" based on two references, one of them is based upon a testimony of one soldier and nothing more, the other is based on several testimonies and a blurred picture of what is supposed to be an official document by general Elshazly but offer no proof that it really is official and mentions the existence of photos that prove the incidents but were hidden for political reasons again with no proof of it's existence, I consider these references to be weak and I wish that this section be amended with further proof or removed . 62.114.152.23 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please edit the description of the October 24 photo of Haim Bar-Lev to include the name of the Egyptian general, Brigadier General Bashir Sharif.

[1]

Goodpoints (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Boyne, Walter J. The Yom Kippur War: And the Airlift Strike That Saved Israel. Macmillan. pp. Insert 6. ISBN 9780312320423.
I don't have access to the link, but I was able to access this link. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to bring to your attention a serious error in this page. The page indicates on the right side that there was an "Israeli military victory".

In fact, this line should say "Egyptian military victory", since according to various reliable sources, such as the United Nations and the Camp David accords and the United States government, they all indicate that the war was an "Egyptian military victory".

Also, this same page in all the other offered languages indicates the war was an "Egyptian military victory", except English.

Also, the source cited (source 19) is inaccurate.

I would appreciate that this be corrected as soon as possible.

Regards,

Sergio

Sergio.vicino (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not done - unsurprisingly, this has been discussed at great length before - please type "Victory" into the archive search box above for dome of the discussions.
The current version reflects the current consensus, as "Israel ... maintained possession of the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights." - Arjayay (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is an Israeli victory, a victory in a war is measured by achieving objectives, the Egyptian military never intended to kick Israel out of Sinai, their objective was to advance 14km to kick start negotiations to get Sinai back, which they successfully achieved, they advanced, they kick started the negotiations and got Sinai back! how is that an Israeli victory? what was Israel's military objective? If you want to measure the victory by losses, both sides inflicted heavy damage to each others and severely hampered each others capability to continue the fight.., it was a military stalemate, and an Egyptian strategic, political victory. If you consider Israel being 100km away from Cairo is somehow a "military victory" , please tell me, how exactly? and why didn't Israel advance more than that? why did they stop? and why exactly did they stand 100km from Cairo? umm maybe to save face because they weren't able to continue the fight? and let's talk about the encircling of the 3rd army, why didn't Israel annihilate them? umm let's see, 1st: The 3rd Egyptian army outnumbered them, 2nd: If they attacked them the Egyptian air force would have attacked them, and cut off their supply line... there's just a lot about this that makes the military result of this war a stalemate. Might as well read this > "Kissinger Wants Israel to Know: The U.S. Saved You During the 1973 War" http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.555704 Wasteland1 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how this war is considered as military victory to Israel! Even if success is measured by land occupied; Egyptian army did occupy more than 2000 km sq to the east of the Suez Canal which is significantly larger than the land occupied by the IDF on the west side. Some would claim that because of IDF units that sneaked into Africa on the west side of the canal and encapsuled the Egyptian third army depriving them of supply; it would have been considered a clear victory to IDF if cease fire was not in effect as of the 23rd of October, however in same hypothesis of speculating what-if with no cease fire; Egyptian Air-Forces would have easily bombed and swept the full IDF units on west of canal especially they were on Africa side and away from any Israeli air defenses which was the one thing that Kissinger said to Sadat as "not an option" and hence cease fire was the only political option to both sides. In a more balanced view; this war can split in two halves; first half complete victory to Egyptians and second half as a tie; then overall war would be considered as a victory to Egypt since eventually Sinai was returned to Egypt despite complete and stubborn refusal from Israel side before the war.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


49.248.211.14 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC) It is Komar class boat and not Kumar class.

  Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yom Kippur War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency of the table of losses with the main bulk of the article

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the table estimates israeli aircraft losses from 102 to 387 but doesn't give any account about the different estimation of their losses in the main article, using israeli sources only 77.34.136.85 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Neheart (talk) I need to edit this page, i wanna added some info that the war was laso supported by Pakistan.

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear war

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Yom Kippur War was the closest the world came to nuclear war. DEFCON 2 was secretly enacted as the USSR moved nuclear weapons into Alexandria Harbor. (213.122.144.148 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

Subjective or unreliable source

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The last paragraph residing in 'temporary stabilization' within the 'combat operations' section closes with seriously nothing but a joke in regards of source reliability. The paragraph I am talking about is as follows:

  • Between October 10 and 13, both sides refrained from any large-scale actions, and the situation was relatively stable. Both sides launched small-scale attacks, and the Egyptians used helicopters to land commandos behind Israeli lines. Some Egyptian helicopters were shot down, and those commando forces that managed to land were quickly destroyed by Koah Patzi, a twelve-man squad consisting of officers from the Sayeret Shaked unit. In one key engagement on October 13, Koah Patzi destroyed a particularly large incursion and killed close to a hundred Egyptian commandos.

The paragraph content is relatively fine until its last sentence In one key engagement on October 13, Koah Patzi destroyed a particularly large incursion and killed close to a hundred Egyptian commandos. [1] --- I am not a wikipedia guy nor am I experienced in editing text or with standards in encyclopedias BUT this claim is supported only by the book of Ariel Sharon's son Galid. How can such sentence can find its way even into 'protected' articles like this one? This is what kills Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source each and every day. Galid Sharon f.ex made this statement 2 years ago - Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too [2] -

So, ofc his statement is not related to this article but it shows

  1. that Mr. Sharon clearly cannot be considered a 'reliable source' due to his pov and
  2. that his pov tends to be quite harsh to say politely.

Presenting his record of Koah Patzi as a fact is nonsense and at least needs to be reworded if not removed completely. You guys need to prefix the sentence with a leading-in wording like 'According to Ariel Sharon's son Koah Patzi destoryed....' or 'Based on memoirs by a participant of the engagements...'. At best you people just remove the sentence entirely. It adds nothing useful anyways. This article is about the whole war and not about individual success stories.

To close with some Godwinity I compare this sentence to the same bullshit you read sometimes in WW2 related Articles. Something like ...and there was this fanatic German SS commander who alone with his battalion staff unit held back 2 armies of Russian armored vehicles in a fierce but heroic fight...bladibla... can especially be found on German Wikipedia pages but not only there. I am really done to read this kind of national bias on Wikipedia but I know it will happen due to the nature of this Website. Still it annoys me beyond reason which led me to finally write a comment on one of this occasions. Plz fix this.

Kind Regards tobi 83.135.46.240 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Gilad Sharon, to my understanding, isn't a reliable source for this topic. I tagged the sentence, hopefully a better source would be found. Infantom (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated Infantom. The tag is a start and better then nothing. I still would prefer if it would simply be removed however. I mean, it's up to the the editor to proof his statements before they get online and not up to the visitor to proof a statement is wrong to get it removed. At least imo the 'burden of proof' should be on the editor. Anyhow, the tag shows there is doubt about the statement and that already takes the 'fact' tag away. Cheers for that. --tobi 83.135.46.240 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yom Kippur War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Egyptians won the war

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Egyptians won the war Pwfurius (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian vs. Israeli victory

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Not sure how this war is considered as military victory to Israel! Even if success is measured by land occupied; Egyptian army did occupy more than 2000 km sq to the east of the Suez Canal which is significantly larger than the land occupied by the IDF on the west side. Some would claim it could have been an Israeli victory since IDF units sneaked into Africa on the west side of the canal and encapsuled the Egyptian third army depriving them of supply; it would have been considered a clear victory to IDF if cease fire was not in effect as of the 23rd of October, however in same hypothesis of speculating what-if with no cease fire; Egyptian Air-Forces would have easily bombed and swept the full IDF units on west of canal especially they were on Africa side and away from any Israeli air defenses which was the one thing that Kissinger said to Sadat as "not an option" and hence cease fire was the only political option to both sides. In a more balanced view; this war can split in two halves; first half complete victory to Egyptians and second half as a tie; then overall war would be considered as a victory to Egypt since eventually Sinai was returned to Egypt despite complete and stubborn refusal by Israel before the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latifmwiki (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Latifmwiki: If you've got a lot of time to spare, go up to this page's archive search box, type in "victory" and search. This has been a settled matter for a very long time. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga thanks for your quick response, I went over many of the previous edits re:victory, with all respect I think you turned down every logic, many points like "how things really ended on ground versus intended objectives" are actually missing how things really ended; in fact I agree with you that we can't base a "third party judgement" on one side's intended objective so I am not debating this at all, but to your argument "what happened really on ground" is: 1- Compared to land before 6 October 1973; Egypt occupied 2000 Km.sq on east side of the canal versus 1600 km.sq occupied by IDF on the west side of the canal 2- Threatened situation to significant parts of both armies: 2.a. Egyptian third army deprived of supply by the IDF units on west of the canal and 2.b. those very IDF units completely under mercy of Egyptian airforces, you can easily find these facts in Kissinger's recalls of the war. I really think you should review your position otherwise if I am missing any deal breaker point here please let me know. And about intentions and objectives you have all the rights to debate wether Egyptian army's military objectives were achieved but I am equally shocked you entail in your article that Israel saw the opportunity in this war to establish recognition and peace, firstly you are denying Egyptian intentions on one side yet claiming fulfillment of Israeli intentions in a different point, secondly you are ignoring simple facts and things that actually happened; please go and review your resources, you will find that Sadat offered Israel in 1971 peace and recognition versus return of Sinai and they refused,without this 1973 military victory that you deny, nothing would have made Israel change their minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latifmwiki (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The victory was for the Egyptian Army Nadine khattab (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The war wasn't between the arab and Israel , if you would like to say it like this so it will be Isreal and America VS Arab,this is the fact, the other fact is that Egypt won the war not Israel as i agree with Nadine KHattab on every word she said,THIS SHOULD BE EDIT Mohamed gouda22 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've read extensively on that war and I think the result of the war should've been a ceasefire or the disengagement agreement .Also the Results of this agreement should be stated under Territorial changes pinpointing all its points with both Egypt and Syria.No army surrendered and no army completely destroyed so it cannot be considered Victory for either side .After Ceasefire agreements Egypt kept the strip of land and opened Suez Canal .Israel moved out of the west bank of canal zone and from Syria proper giving in the city of Quneitra back as well.If the war is to be defined by intentions then break of the political stalemate was Egypt military goal while Israel's was to destroy all Arab attackers so they don't gain any edge in negotiations whatsoever.So political gains for Egypt where also more substantial.Syria's Intent though was retaking Golan militarily not politically so Syria can be said to have failed in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSARIOUS (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yom Kippur War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

UNSC 242

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently has this passage

In addition, the Egyptian response included a statement that the lasting peace could not be achieved without "withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from all the territories occupied since 5 June 1967" (emphasis added). The UNSC resolution called for "withdrawal from territories occupied" [1] intentionally omitting "all", and "the"."[2]

The sources for the second sentence are former Israeli ambassador Meir Rosenne and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Relations, both of which can hardly be called unbiased. The question of what territories UNSC 242 refers to is heavily contested. The French text unambiguously calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territories, while the English text can possibly be read to mean some territories, although many people find this reading implausible. We can't use a biased source to make a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. The second sentence above should be amended to make it clear that in Israel's view, the UNSC resolution intentionally omits the word "all." The article should additionally note that there is disagreement on this point, and that the French text is unambiguous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rosenne, Meir. "Understanding UN Security Council Resolution 242". Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs. Retrieved November 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  2. ^ "The Jarring initiative and the response", Israel's Foreign Relations, Selected Documents, vols 1–2, 1947–1974. Retrieved June 9, 2005.

Flags

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It looks like the flags in right hand section near the top of the page are all the Egyptian flags when some of them should be the Syrian flags. I don't have the ability to edit and fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplflyer (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The war was part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, an ongoing dispute that included many battles and wars since 1948, when the (modern) state of Israel was formed. During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel had captured Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, roughly half of Syria's Golan Heights, and the territories of the West Bank which had been held by Jordan since 1948. 209.203.41.155 (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: You didn't specify what you need to be done.  — Ammarpad (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yom Kippur War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please include East German military aid

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following text should be added in section "4.3.4. Other countries":

"East Germany supplied Syria with 75,000 grenades, 30,000 mines, 62 tanks and 12 fighter jets."

That information is taken from the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany%E2%80%93Israel_relations The reference given is this: [1] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:65:E878:3255:F41B:CDE:EB4E:47BF (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marc Fisher. "E. Germany Ran Antisemitic Campaign in West in ’60s", The Washington Post, February 28, 1993

Wrong figure legend

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Instead of "Quneitra village, showing two minarets and an elevated car", please give "Quneitra village, showing the Greek-orthodox church and an elevated car".

Please refer to the Quneitra article: the church is still standing. 213.71.6.130 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Other countries

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To picture "Plaque commemorating...":It was 12 MiG-21 of the NAP's 8th Fighter Wing, not 8 MiG. See also Geheimoperation Aleppo in german WP. Please correct this, i can't. --Billyhill (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit suggestion

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm nervous about making edits to the page because I don't fully understand the big scary warnings. So I'll post it here as a suggestion: In the "Other countries" section, I see that there are two entries for "North Korea". I think they could be advantageously combined --- the second one has some different (I think) references to the first, but it doesn't otherwise add much. STeamTraen (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is off putting isn't it. I suppose that it is meant to be. Good spot there. Have a look at my two edits and see if you think that they have done the job. The second one had two references to the NYT which only dealt with the Korean pilots peripherally; the first reference is better, IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Article check - June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

1) The last sentence in the 1st paragraph of the lede is deceptive - namely "Neither Egypt nor Syria specifically planned to destroy Israel, although the Israeli leaders could not be sure of that." The Benny Morris quote was cherry-picked since the bit "though during the opening hours of the conflict, its leaders could not be sure ... etc", were excised. This deceptive type of editing left the impression that the Israeli leadership was unaware of the Egyptian-Syrian intentions throughout the war. Since it applied only fleetingly I am removing it as UNDUE in a lede. Instead I replaced it with an expert's analysis of Sadat's objectives. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

2) There is a factual conflict in 'Background'. The second paragraph is a mix of "voted" and "never formalised" and of "public"/"not public" particularly illustrated by the Quote in the Avi Shlaim source - "The Americans, who were briefed of the Cabinet's decision by Eban, were not asked to convey it to Cairo and Damascus as official peace proposals, nor were they given indications that Israel expected a reply. At the meeting of 19 June the Israeli government developed policy guidelines; it did not discuss a peace initiative, nor did it ever formalise it as such."). If sources are in conflict on this topic this should be made clear. In fact the Herzog "according to" plus subsequent text looks like a C&P from Gabriel G. Tabarani's book "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: from Balfour Promise to Bush Declaration" page 136. Did Herzog/Tabarani get it right or were Shlaim and Ben-Ami in error? What is sure is that no government decision was made known to Arab countries and any policy decision was therefore by no means "public". I will amend the text accordingly. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent weakly-justified revert

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

יניב הורון (talk · contribs)please justify your POV-based deletion in your Revision as of 15:35, 15 June 2018. You appear to want to remove the fact that Egypt and Israel attacked occupying IDF forces in the alleged interest of brevity. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The fighting took place in Sinai and Golan. That's a fact. There's no need for your POV addition in lead to clarify it was "against Israeli forces."--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Just when being succinct loses necessary information is always a nice judgement. In this case it seems unnecessary to remind the reader that Israel was one of the combatants. That said and assuming good faith it was no doubt inserted in attempt to aid the reader. Pointing out that the main locations of the fighting were occupied territory seems worth a couple of words in the lead to me, although the copy editor in me doesn't like the suggested phraseology; it seems a little clumsy. (I have probably now offended both editors about equally; does that count as NPOV?) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree with your sentiment above, and my recent additions have made it even more clumsy, I'm afraid. My sense is that this level of detail doesn't belong in the lede, at all. The subsequent paragraphs conveys the information needed, I think, when it states "The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories," . Attack Ramon (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The lead is not for such details, specially the first paragraph. I'm in favour of just saying something like "The war took place mostly in Sinai and the Golan, and for a short time also in northern Israel and Egyptian territory west of Sinai." We are not supposed to overwhelm the reader with details in the introduction.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The recent edit does make the lead "more accurate", but there seems to be agreement that it is also too much detail. I think that יניב הורון is on the right lines. I am not sure if they are proposing to remove the Syrian missiles mention. [?] How about The war mostly took place in Sinai and the Golan, with some fighting in northern Israel and African Egypt and several missile attacks on Israeli targets. This to replace the current Other than a flurry of Syrian missile attacks on Ramat David airbase and surrounding civilian settlements during the first days of the war,[56] the fighting took place in Sinai and the Golan Heights, territories that had been occupied by Israel since the end of the Six-Day War of 1967, and in the later stages, on the west side of the Suez canal in Egypt and in areas of the Golan beyond those held by Israel prior to the outbreak of war. I feel that it is shorter, easier for a reader to grasp and has the least consequential event (the missile attacks) at the end rather than the start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with your suggestion. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I like how that part of the lead now reads. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent consensus forming. So we are in agreement that the detail is valid, but belongs in the main text ... right? Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I reserve the right to object to any particular form of words, but from me, basically yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Good. Thanks. I will implement accordingly. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Gog's comment. The text should fairly reflect that, other than for brief flurries in the early days (8 light ground-to-ground missiles in total, if I am not mistaken) the overwhelming bulk of the war was fought on Arab territory, not Israeli - between Arab forces against Israeli forces occupying their lands. The urban legend that the Yom Kippur war was essentially an Arab attack on Israeli territory has no place in Wiki, unless the legend can be demonstrated and added as a section of "Misconceptions Regarding the War". Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Your last addition was unnecessary POV and you know it. It makes the article look horrible for the reader. Please stop doing that. The text is supposed to be a neutral description of historical events. There's no need to clarify that a war is fought by the military of the countries involved, and if civilians participate or are affected, the information is added as well (in the proper place). Also it's already specified that the Golan and Sinai were territories taken by Israel in 1967, so your addition was also redundant and meaningless.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War → 1973 Arab-Israeli War – More neutral name for the war. Israelis call it the Yom Kippur War and Arabs call it the Ramadan War. 1973 Arab-Israeli War is a neutral, encyclopedic title. Seraphim System (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ramadan War is used in tons of sources also. The main justification for Arab-Israeli War is that it is neutral and encyclopedic. Seraphim System (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Which Google did you search? I checked Turkish Google, and there are only 4,630,000 hits for "Yom Kippur savaşı" and 48,400,000 for "Ramadan savaşı". So, by your reasoning, we should rename the article to Ramadan War? Seraphim System (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
As this is the English language Wikipedia I used the English language Google. Not because the result is definitive, but because it is indicative: "[Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not really - at least, not based on WP:RS (per WP:COMMONNAME, common name means the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources.) They are all widely used by WP:RS. And there are other factors here as well - it's not like William Clinton and Bill Clinton. I thought this would be simple, but it looks like it is going to require a more detailed review of sources and explanation.Seraphim System (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Same reasoning as Gog the Mild: if common name means the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources the relevant results are from English-language Google. While I would discount the raw number of hits as being masked by a host of unreliable sources/double counting, etc., Google's "Related Searches" are suggestive (I did these through the Tor Network, with a new identity each time that was used for nothing else, to avoid influencing Google by my personal preferences):
    • For "Yom Kippur war":
      • yom kippur war combatants
      • who won the yom kippur war
      • yom kippur war facts
      • yom kippur war timeline
      • yom kippur war definition
      • yom kippur war video
      • yom kippur war map
      • which countries attacked israel during the yom kippur war in 1973 quizlet
    • For "1973 Arab-Israeli War":
      • arab israeli war 1967
      • 1948 arab–israeli war
      • yom kippur war combatants
      • who won the yom kippur war
      • which countries attacked israel during the yom kippur war in 1973 quizlet
      • yom kippur war facts
      • arab israeli conflict
      • yom kippur war video
    • And "Ramadan War" for good measure:
      • yom kippur war combatants
      • who won the yom kippur war
      • yom kippur war facts
      • yom kippur war timeline
      • yom kippur war definition
      • yom kippur war video
      • six day war
      • yom kippur war map
  • Given that the English Google overwhelmingly suggests searches involving "Yom Kippur war" when searching for "1973 Arab-Israeli War" or "Ramadan War," I think that that argues for the WP:COMMONNAME being the Yom Kippur war. Iwilsonp (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
COMMONNAME is determined by usage in English-language WP:RS, not Google's algorithm. This includes WP:RS closer to the incident - there seems to be a preference in recent WP:RS (written in the last 10 years or so) for Yom Kippur War, but looking at sources closer to the incident and in other disciplines outside politics, 1973 Arab-Israeli War is used more often - or "Fourth Arab-Israeli War" or "October War" - the name October War is more relevant to those topics than the fact that it started on Yom Kippur because their focus is on "stuff that happened that October" — Yom Kippur War makes more sense in Zionist histories — COMMONNAME is the wrong policy here, it is the personal preference of the editors at this article - since there is no clear COMMONNAME, we don't really have any choice but to allow editor's preference to decide.Seraphim System (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that Google's default search is definitely including unreliable sources - I was attempting to use it as a proxy for common usage, which is, I admit, not what COMMONNAME is looking for - it's indicative of what the "general public" is looking for. To search WP:RS, I checked the number of hits in scholar.google.com, which searches scholarly articles/books, so much closer to WP:RS. Here's what I found, searching the English scholar.google.com through the Tor Network, limiting it to articles published between 1972 and 2020, and searching for the whole term using quotes:
  • For ""Yom Kippur War"": 17000 hits (23100 without quotes).
  • For ""1973 Arab-Israeli War"": 4180 hits (18100 without quotes).
  • For ""Ramadan War"": 875 hits (28000 without quotes, but I think this is inflated by books mentioning Ramadan and War without meaning the Yom Kippur War).
So I would argue that this indicates that the usage in WP:RS is predominately Yom Kippur War, which is also in line with the general public usage (as indicated by general Google searches). Iwilsonp (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sympathetic support for the nominators rationale, but Wikipedia doesn't lead in these things, and the onus is on the nominator to make a case that the rationale is in line with sources, or changes in recent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title suggestion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Having discussed the matter with historians I find the title of the article "Yom Kippur War" to include a strong bias towards the State of Israel, which is not ideal in an objective encyclopaedic article. I therefore advise that the title of the article be changed to "1973 Arab-Israeli War", with both the Israeli and Arab names of the conflict existing as alternative names within the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnatoleH1 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Destroyed tanks

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article on the sagger anti-tank missile says that more than 800-1000 israeli tanks were knocked out. Did You include the israeli crew members who got killed in Those tanks? Strijdersvdb (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that what the Sagger AT-3 article actually says is that "Saggers knocked out more than 800 Israeli tanks and other combat vehicles". This is from what seems to be a Russian military press which would not be in a good position to know and would have good reason to exaggerate the numbers. Accepting the 800+ figure, this is not incompatible with the 1,470 armoured vehicles which this articles states the Israelis lost during the war. This assumes that "other combat vehicles" does not include unarmoured vehicles, which it probably does. There seems to be no reason to doubt the Israeli casualty figures, which do not differentiate soldiers killed or wounded by different types of weapons. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Surprise attack location

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

RE this revert, the previous TP section had no consensus for this. The occupied territories are mentioned elsewhere in the lede. In the context of the opening surprise attack - this stmt is false, as the opening attack included multiple strikes at Ramat David (and mt. Miron) from Syria, and an Egyptian Tu-16 launched KSR-2 missles at Tel Aviv. Later in the war, fighting shifted into the Arab side's holdings, but this was not the case in the beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The link to Israeli occupied territories can't be removed, but the first sentence of the second paragraph is somewhat redundant to The war mostly took place in Sinai and the Golan—territories that had been occupied by Israel since the end of the 1967 Six-Day War - Israeli-occupied territories could be piped to "occupied by Israel" in the first paragraph instead. It would also be nice to mention Bar Lev Line somewhere in the lede, it is a well-written and relevant article and the lede is currently underlinked.Seraphim System (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree we could work the wikilink to Israeli occupied territories into the sentence in the paragraph1 with the Sinai and Golan (that I would leave linked too). The Bar Lev line could possibly be worked into paragraph3 (might be too minute in relation to the canal itself, but might bear mentioning).Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose we reformulate The war took place mostly in Sinai and the Golan—territories that had been occupied by Israel following the end of the 1967 Six-Day War in paragraph1 to The war took place mostly in Sinai and the Golan—territories that had been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War - which will incorporate this wikilink. Note that this sentence also contains a mild inaccuracy that I want to fix as well - while the Golan was captured at the end of the Six Day War (the last day), fighting in the Sinai took place in 5-8 June - its capture was fully complete by day 4 of the 6 day war (and to a large extend complete on day 3) - with no fighting on days 5 and 6 - so saying this were occupied since the end of the war is inaccurate. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
How about "occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War" instead of since? Seraphim System (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
So - The war took place mostly in Sinai and the Golan—occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War - yup - looks better.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect statement of Egypt's goals in the war

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The final sentence of the article's opening paragraph is a very misleading quotation of source 58. The quote suggests by context that Sadat's goal in the Yom Kippur War was to recover all territories occupied by Israel. However, the source's intention, clearly, is to say that that was Sadat's overarching goal for his presidency. In truth, Sadat's territorial goal in the Yom Kippur War was very limited: to retake only the eastern bank of the Suez Canal. Not sure of citation etiquette on talk pages, but I take this from:

Shlaim, A. (2014). The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. Norton, 2nd ed. p. 324. ISBN 978-0-393-34686-2

For a revision, I suggest replacing the sentence in question with the following: "Egypt and Syria's objective was to provoke a crisis and bring American and Soviet pressure to bear on Israel to induce the return of territories captured in the Six-Day War." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminrchen (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's more complex than that. For starters - the Syrian goals were completely disconnected from the Egyptian ones (and the Golan is a much smaller expense of land than the Sinai). The initial goal of the war on the Egyptian was indeed to take the Sinai opposite of the canal - not going in deep - mostly to military practicalities (supply, SAMs) - however, after their initial success (and due to it) - they did attempt to push deeper. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Good points, do you have references? Would be good material to add to the article. However, I maintain that the quote from source 58 is taken entirely out of context and misleadingly put into a new context. We both agree that Sadat's goal was not to take all of Sinai, so I suggest at least we delete the final sentence of the opening paragraph and also temporarily delete section 1.2, which posits the same claim and for some reason cites the duplicate source?? (I hadn't noticed that section when I write my first complaint.) Benjaminrchen (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Herzog (1975) p. 37 blah, blah "... This tends to confirm the belief that the Egyptian aim was merely to gain a foothold on the east bank of the Canal. .." blah, blah.
Insight Team of the London Sunday Times (1974) p.15 "... for Egypt and Syria... their stated war aims... [Israel's] continued occupation of the lands it had seized from them in 1967." p. 88 "Militarily the objectives were the recapture of those parts... occupied by Israel... achieved in two phases... Egypt's objective was thus the retaking of a slice of Sinai along the east bank of the Suez Canal. The rest of the Sinai... would come as Israeli concessions."
Herzog (1982) p.321 "Sadat had originally launched the attack in order to break the military and political log-jam."
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Having read the (lengthy) source referred to by footnotes 58 and 82 - don't you hate editors who don't give page numbers? - it seems to support the gist of the three sources I quoted above. I am inclined to amend the relevant sentence in the lead and the opening sentence of "Egyptian war objectives" to reflect this. Do I hear any objections?
Regarding source 58/82, see page 1: " Sadat executed a limited war to achieve Egypt’s political objective of “shaking [almost universal] belief in Israel’s invincibility and Arab impotence”, thus moving from a “no war--no peace” deadlock with Israel to opening the way for negotiation of an acceptable settlement of the Egyptian-Israeli conflict."
I note in passing that the original poster's opinion that final sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is misleading is correct. The omission of the word "stated" from a sentence otherwise given in full seriously changes the meaning. One wonders how that happened... Gog the Mild (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No objection here. If you're taking amendment suggestions, I can incorporate Icewhiz's feedback into my original suggestion (emphasis for talk page only): "Egypt's initial war objective was to provoke a crisis and bring American and Soviet pressure to bear on Israel to induce the return of territories captured in the Six-Day War." Incidentally, pg. 8 of footnote 58 supports this also.
Section 1.2 is still problematic. I personally think it should be omitted entirely, as it doesn't add anything unique to the article.Benjaminrchen (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Initial or pre-war objective would be accurate. Specifically - Battle of the Sinai (1973) was a disastrous Egyptian attempt on October 14, ordered by Sadat himself (and opposed by the Egyptian high command), to advance deep into the Sinai (outside of the canal zone which was well protected by SAMs). Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the wording suggestion. Agree re the use of "initial". I will make some changes, let me know what you think. I very much agree re 1.2. But, something can only go in the lead if it is a summary of something said elsewhere in the text. I have a few ideas on how we might address that and some other things, but first things first. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No Israeli attrocities?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Funny how there's an entire section of the article dedicated to Arab attrocities but not one for Israeli attrocities; and I for one don't think Israelis are excempt from brutality and unable to harm a fellow human being except in self-defense as their name indicates. Could it be the article isn't neutral after all? Or is that an impossible proposition? Can someone confirm me whether there were Israeli attrocities documented during this war or if there weren't any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.230.65.140 (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't know of any reliable sources covering Israeli "atrocities" or mistreatment of Egyptian/Syrian POWs during the 1973 war. I'm all for balance, but we don't get to manufacture claims on Wikipedia or push fringe viewpoints out of proportion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remove the High estimations for Arabs losses since the source being sited isn't reliable. Scu ba (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done for now: Which specific numbers do you want removed? Furthermore, why is the source not reliable. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - is there a specific section which this source violates? DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

doesn't mention Israeli atrocities.

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

why is there a section about atrocities to Israelis but not by Israelis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:4A8F:E00:D5E8:BF23:5896:1B95 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

what atrocities the only atrocity i could think of was that Israel didn't capture Damascus and Cairo עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
This issue comes up regularly. If you have a reliable source which mentions Israeli atrocities, please add this to the article. Or flag it up here where another editor will be happy to do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I know, it's funny how there's an entire section of the article dedicated to Arab attrocities but not one for Israeli attrocities and the people commenting here, whose usernames are Hebrew sound nationalistic and biased; and I for one don't think Israelis are excempt from brutality and unable to harm a fellow human being except in self-defense as their name indicates. Could it be the article isn't neutral after all? Or is that an impossible proposition? Can someone confirm me whether there were attrocities documented during this war by the noble Israeli warriors or if there weren't any? --177.230.65.140 (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You want Israel to commit atrocities next time, so it will be "fair"? What your point, that every bad things the arab side did, the Israelis most had been "just as bad" so you wont feel sad? I suggest that you go to an article about the massacre of Nanjing and claim that the Chinese did bad things too, you know - so it will be fair. 46.121.66.212 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Prisoners of war

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Annual report of the ICRC, 1973: "Under the auspices of the ICRC, repatriation operations by means of four aircraft provided by the Swiss Government were carried out from 15 to 22 November, enabling 8,300 Egyptian pri­soners of war, including 440 wounded, and three Iraqi prisoners of war, to go to Egypt, and 241 Israeli prisoners of war, including forty-seven wounded, to return to Israel. Seventy-one flights were necessary for the transport of prisoners of war from Tel Aviv to Cairo and from Cairo to Tel Aviv. The capture of two Israeli pilots by the Lebanese armed forces was notified on 12 October 1973. The ICRC delegate in Beirut visited them three times. On 31 December, Israel held 384 Syrian prisoners of war, ten Iraqi prisoners of war, six Moroccan prisoners of war, and sixty- seven Egyptian prisoners of war, captured after the end of the repatriation operations. In Syria there was an undetermined number of Israeli prisoners of war." Annual report of the ICRC, 1974: "At the beginning of 1974, there were in Israel altogether 501 Arab prisoners of war, of whom 386 were Syrians, 99 Egyptians 10 Iraqis and 6 Moroccans... " --213.57.230.186 (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
62.215.187.148 (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

|result=Egypt military victory{{refn|See Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).(In Arabic) details that the war was actually a draw. And both sides, Israel & Egypt never claimed victory, but they rather like to claim a draw. As to why this was a stalemate to both sides, it has been detailed that while Egyptian forces may have possibly not been able to invade Israel(Speaking of which, they still managed to invade the canal and cross Sinai), Israel's side has also managed to fail to invade through Ismailiah(See sources below). This proves to be a stalemate which was most likely the reason why it ended with the Camp David Accord. However, another argument as to why Israel would've lost the war, is the video of Moshe Dayan himself admitting to loss [1][2]. Keep in mind that Moshe Dayan was the Minister of Defense at the time, and he was the one majorly responsible for commanding the war, hence he is a primary source, and cannot be disregarded. Any attempts to disregard him as some "politician" would be subjective analysis.


As per [3][4][5], and (In arabic)[6][7] , as well as the Arabic Wikipedia entry [8]

Donyunderscorey (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeHgyDGlSYw
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2fWp0k7yKs
  3. ^ https://thearabweekly.com/remembering-october-war-46-years
  4. ^ https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/2/75543/October-War-Embodies-Defense-of-Land-Sovereignty-Kuwaiti-Amb
  5. ^ http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/352279/Egypt/Politics-/-October-war-victory-was-a-unique-demonstration-of.aspx
  6. ^ https://www.bbc.com/arabic/inthepress-49926126
  7. ^ https://www.youm7.com/story/2019/10/6/أبرز-مكاسب-اقتصادية-حققتها-الحرب-فى-ذكرى-انتصارات-أكتوبر/4446029
  8. ^ https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8_%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1

Requested move 20 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago24 comments16 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War → 1973 Arab–Israeli War – Both the names "Yom Kippur War" and "Ramadan War" is non neutral violation of WP:NPOV favoring one sides holiday. The name "1973 Arab–Israeli War" already redirecting to this article is neutral and a better summary than the non neutral name. KasimMejia (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support move, I guess. Though I'm not a fan of NPOV being used in this manner, the proposed title makes sense. O.N.R. (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - is there any evidence that one name is used more than the others? I've only ever heard the war referred to with the present title. While maintaining NPOV is an important consideration, you might want to consider WP:NPOVTITLE, which specifically addresses issues like this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yom Kippur War gives 4 mil results on Google, while Ramadan War gives 30 mil results. Which is normal considering the Muslim population around in world compared to the Jewish population. 1973 Arab-Israeli War gives 3 mil results. I'd say its best to go with the neutral name 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Though Ramadan War seems to be the most common one. Most Wikipedia editors probably only heard of this name since the title was unchanged since the creation of the article. KasimMejia (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Odd; I get a smidge under 900k hits for "Yom Kippur War" and 32k hits for "Ramadan War"; "1973 Arab–Israeli War" nets about 107k hits. Are you using quotation marks in your searches? Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I searched it on Scholar too and Yom Kippur War gives 44,500 results[3], 1973 Arab Israeli War gives 141,000 results[4], while Ramadan War gives 56,600 results[5]. I've linked the searches. KasimMejia (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid that you haven't set your searches up properly. The fifth result under your search for "Ramadan War" is "Revisiting the Yom Kippur War".
Try Yom Kippur War (24,900), 1973 Arab–Israeli War (4,610) and Ramadan War (996). Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It may be the common name but its non neutral. Calling an Arab-Israeli war by its Israeli name is WP:NPOVTITLE. KasimMejia (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe it's not neutral – it would only be POV if the title lent weight to the views of particular side on the cause or purpose of the war (for example, calling the 1948 Arab–Israeli War the "Israeli War of Independence" would not be NPOV). Simply being named after the day it started does not suggest any POV as far as I'm concerned. Number 57 11:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title [...] Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids [...] In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
  • Google Scholar
  • Yom Kippur War: 25,000 (link)
  • Ramadan War: 1,000 (link)
  • 1973 Arab–Israeli War: 4,630 (link)
  • Google Trends shows a similar trend in non-academic web searches (link)
So 82% of the time, it is referred to as the "Yom Kippur War", meaning that is the overwhelming common name. A hatnote or paragraph in the lead should do, but WP:NPOVTITLE is clearly a rationale for the title remaining as it is.
SITH (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Egyptian Atrocities

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding the Egyptian atrocities section, It was stated that "The order to kill Israeli prisoners came from General Shazly, who, in a pamphlet distributed to Egyptian soldiers immediately before the war, advised his troops to kill Israeli soldiers even if they surrendered." However, This is disputed by General Shaazaly himself in an interview with Al Jazeera in 2009. So it should at least be pointed out that Shaazaly himself has denied it. It's in Arabic but it's from almost 28:19 to 29:18 from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alpzapfX5M4 LeonardoSkylar (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi LeonardoSkylar That's really interesting, but you are linking to a primary source, and so it is not usable on Wikipedia. Is this repeated elsewhere? Ideally in a scholarly publication. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to look for another source but I couldn't find any and the sources that claim that general Shaazaly himself was the one to give the order were scarce and the one listed on the main page, Upon closer inspection, Actually had major faults in it that it seemed that it itself was biased from my point of view and trying to whitewash somethings. It claimed that the Israeli policy was to respect P.O.Ws and yet there are clearly documented cases of human rights violations then by the Israeli during the 1967 war and others regarding P.O.Ws. But all that aside, My original intention was to make it seem less absolute, To say that while there were Israeli reports that claim he was the one giving the orders, He personally denies them. To leave to the reader the benefit of the doubt to both sides since the Israeli media was more closely related to Western media than Arab media so that can create a sense unbalance between views and a tilt towards Israeli's claims. My intention was not to claim that it's a reputable source that denies and completely dismantles the claims but to say that it is disputed by the man that's accused himself. I don't think I will be able to find anything else of value given both the scarcity and the archaic nature of the event and that Arab governments are notorious for not releasing official documents and declassifying them about major events. So I think I made the current best case for this edit as much as I can and I hope that my intention is conveyed correctly here and the decision is up to whoever is in charge of editing and according to the guidelines of editing in wikipedia. Thank you for your time. LeonardoSkylar (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, I have noticed something else that's disputed by Shazaly himself, It's said in the 'The Egyptian failed attack' section that the attacking forces were 800 tanks according to one source or 1000 tanks according to another. While they were up against 700-750 tanks according to the same two sources respectively. Shazaly says it was 400 Egyptian tanks vs 900 Israeli tanks. Not saying one or the other is correct but there are contradictions here that should be at least pointed out like it was pointed out in the Operation Badr page that one of Shazaly's claims was disputed. I think that there's systemic reliance on more easily accessible sources that end up causing problems like this. And that of course is justified given that there's no official account from the Egyptian side. LeonardoSkylar (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Find a Reliable source. (Hohum @) 00:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Egypt has won the war Israel was defeated 197.63.76.242 (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Soviet support?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was the Soviet Union supporting Arabs in the war or provided direct assist? There were number of Soviet units that actually were attacking Israelites. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Cuban casualties

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The figure of 180 Cuban dead and 250 wounded is the exact same figure that appears for Cuban casualties in the infobox for the War of Attrition. Can someone work out which is which?--RM (Be my friend) 21:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This one. From the source cited "Cuban troops returned to the front when an Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria launched an offensive against Israel in October 1973. Known as the Yom Kippur War ... the Cuban forces on the Golan front reportedly suffered casualties of approximately 180 killed and some 250 wounded (Ra’anan, 1981)." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
However, Ra'anan, who is cited as the source states that no Cuban troops were present for the Yom Kippur War,(Page 36) and gives these casualties for the War of Attrition.(Page 37) So I am removing the Cuban involvement from the infobox, pending anyone coming up with a reliable source. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Faulty information

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are two different stories on your website First story stating that Israel won the war against Egypt in the English language. Second story that the Egyptian army was sieged by the Israeli army as the Israeli army failed to invade Suez and Ismailia cities and this was known as Operation Abirey-lev that is in the Arabic language. I believe you have to change the false one so you can be a trusted source of information. Farida bey (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious information in Events leading up to the war'

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The '20000 Soviet advisors' expelled were actually regular servicemen of an anti-aircraft unit of Soviet Union. Also, the claim that Egypt only got air-defense material is contradicted in a previous paragraph, by mention of planes, tanks and missiles acquired from USSR. The claim that Soviet advisors were expelled from Egypt is questionable - and has been questioned in 'The Soviet-Israeli War' with various sources. There is evidence that Soviet troops were present in Egypt during the war. The section needs a rewrite. Teerthaloke102 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Soviet regulars - the air defense crew - left Egypt in 1972. They left as they tranferred control of the air defense system to Egyptian military. Two seperate sources- air defense expert Murzintsev and General Gareev - said that new advisors were arriving in Egypt - according to the former for replacement. Also, USSR continued supplying all types of weapons till and during the war. GeorgeCray (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction of Israel's victory in the war Israel did not win the war

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Israeli victory should be removed the right is Egypt victory as many encyclopedias says Saleh Emad (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Israeli victory should be removed from the results

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Israel did not achieve any military victory except its siege of the third Egyptian army on the west of suez canal on the other hand Egypt achieved a victory by demolition of Bar Lev line and taking over of the eastern bank of the canal, so how it is said that Israel gained a victory. the war results is closer to a draw MOHAMED TARIQ MOHAMED HEGAZY (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be several reliable sources for this. Demolition of Bar Lev and taking over the east bank is Operation Badr, that is, of course, a victory for Egypt. And if Egypt had kept it, maybe it would have been something between draw and victory for Egypt. But as later Israel broke the defense lines and captured some piece of the east bank and some territories on the west bank, it can't be called Egyptian victory. Maybe something between Israeli victory and draw. Don't forget also about the Syrian front that is clearly a victory for Israel. --Oloddin (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
let's get into an academic and non POV discussion regarding this point. It's an extreme point of contention and dispute every year on the 6th of October on all Arab Broadcasting outlets the fact that Wikipedia lists the results as: Military Victory for Isreal while reading the entire article there just does not seem to be any indication there was a victory so decisive to be quoted in such an assured way in the headliner, at most it could be said to be a Military victory for Isreal if based upon the number of casualties and for Egypt if based upon acquiring the strategic intent of initiating the war or something of that nature.
So, let's discuss it, how are wars decided in terms of history and loss? Numbers of casualties, numbers of victorious battles, acquiring land, or achieving goals set prior to starting war? Answering that question would directly lead to a correct answer on what should be put on the headliner Result. In terms of sources, I can gather you about 100 acceptable sources claiming absolute victory on both sides, so acquiring sources after we know what's Wikipedia's policy or the standard encyclopedia policies of stating war victors, should be the least of our concern, it's a highly debated and sensitive war thus "reliable" sources are abundant claiming both stories, that will not be an issue. So how are war results drawn for Wikipedia War articles? Especially ones that are historically proven to have been ended in a stalemate and both sides gaining particular victories and many losses, and in wars where the end comes by an international intervention rather than simple annexation of a state by another where debates would be futile. What's "military" victory anyway? Why doesn't it say Victory like all war articles? How was that conclusion drawn, and are there any other ways of being victorious that militarily in an international armed conflict? But again, I am an Egyptian and might be perceived as biased, so let's discuss it academically and factually, how are war conclusions drawn, when we do so, we can clearly edit it for the correct statement whatever that will be. Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


Israel did not achieve any military victory except its siege of the third Egyptian army on the west of suez canal on the other hand Egypt achieved a victory by demolition of Bar Lev line and taking over of the eastern bank of the canal, so how it is said that Israel gained a victory. the war results is closer to a draw Sherifff Ashrafff (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume there's some reason for all these new editors here

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could it be this article? I can't read much of it. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no political sympathy in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Teerthaloke102 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Flags

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The flags in the infobox are unhelpful because Egypt and Syria both used the Federation of Arab Republics flag in 1973. I suggest using anachronistic flags, and explaining why with a footnote. jnestorius(talk) 15:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

big bias

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a big bias on this page that favors the Israeli point of view, just as the majority of sources are Jews or Zionists who support Israel. The first notable prejudice is the number of participating forces, which I mentioned as a million Arabs against 200,000 Israelis. In fact, this is a comprehensive number of all Arab armies. Actually, soldiers how foughg in battles do not exceed 300,000, and there are minimizing Israeli losses. Arab sources are: from 9,000 to 10,000 dead and 20,000 wounded. check:Edgar O'Ballance. No Victor, No Vanquished. p. 265 and 30 حديث المشير أحمد إسماعيل حول بعض جوانب حرب أكتوبر بصحيفة الأهرام". موسوعة المقاتل. 14-10-1974. مؤرشف من الأصل في 6 نوفمبر 2016. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 05 نوفمبر 2016. Hyi9900 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I also heard in a documentary that Israeli dead were around 9,000 and not 2800 stated in this Wikipedia page Nlivataye (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ottomanempire192 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Decisive Egyptian Military Victory

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ed talk! 15:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Chaim Herzog and Israeli propaganda

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Herzog tells us that during the war the Arabs lost 334 aircraft in air-to air combat, i quote from the page "334 of these aircraft were shot down by the Israeli Air Force in air-to-air combat for the loss of only five Israeli planes"

So, in air-to-air combat Israel only lost 5 aircraft, and shot down 334 Arab aircraft... (those were Mig-21s, Mirages VS F4 Phantoms and Mirages, it wasn't F-22 raptor vs Mig21, those were close range engagements)

What i want to say is, is this a joke? How long will it take for us to fix this reference bias in all Arab-Israeli wars, especially the Yom Kippur? It's so disgustingly biased it doesn't even make sense, it's actually hilarious, but these 'historians' or 'authors' (actually the former president of Israel himself and a military general) are cited here and supposed to be credible and unbiased!! It completely ignores things we know took place such as "The Air Battle of Mansoura" and the repeated and expected (failed) attempts by Israel to destroy Egyptian airbases, but of course your credible historians don't mention this (and they probably deny any attempts by Israel to destroy Egyptian airbases) because they get their "accurate, credible historical information" from Israeli sources (like Chaim Herzog), be it Israeli authors, historians, or Israeli military/government. But the Egyptian/Soviet sources are yikes! biased! they exaggerate! which is basically the exaggerated information we are getting from the Israeli sources (and American historians get their info from Israeli sources). The Egyptians unfortunately failed to accomplish what Israel did by reaching out to the world and sharing their POV of events.

But yeah, let's spread the Israeli propaganda on Wikipedia, they are god-like pilots and god-like warriors.Wasteland1 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't rely on first-party sources like Herzog. However, the way forward is to bring high quality independent sources. Do you have some in mind? Zerotalk 05:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately It's not possible to provide independent sources, because the sources have to either get the information from Egyptian or Israeli sources, Israel succeeded and worked on sharing their POV with the world (with the help of the US), and it's the POV we see here on Wiki from Israeli and American historians/authors/government and others, Egypt failed the history war. What i find to be possible is sharing both POVs (or claims) of the events (everything) with or without excluding bits of information that seem exaggerated or don't make sense according to the capabilities at the time (such as Herzog's claims, that's disgusting). American sources for example accept the Israeli exaggerations as 'facts' or 'possible', but they denounce the Egyptian/Soviet claims calling it propaganda or flat out call them liars. Both should be looked at as liars equally (the US knows Israel best, take the USS Liberty incident for example, but they still covered it up to not embarrass Israel even when it directly affected them) What I'm trying to say is, of course we know and expect the US bias towards Israel, and towards their military equipment, etc...This is just too complicated tbh.Wasteland1 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

As a wikipedia contributer, I noticed a lot of uprising on social media about how one-sided this specific article was against Egypt when it comes to 'Result of War'

The article result contradicts the two other wikipedia articles on this war, which are much more nutreal. A lot more accurate version that I have seen is in (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War), (https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8_%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1) as well as the Egyptian victory side of the war entirely mentioned in ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Badr_(1973) ), claiming Yom Kippur War as an Israeli victory is false information since Israel was victorious on the Syrian front but not on the Egyptian front. It was a stalemate in Sinai which led to the agreement between both countries, both Arabs and Israel claimed victory though no military victory can be announced for the entireirty of Yom Kippur/October War. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Wikipedia is supposed to be a nutreal encyclopedia, when it comes to war simply, using Israeli sources and books only for declaration of the winner is not okay and has offended loads of people online, please check my sources and consider the following changes:

Under the Infobox, 'Result':

Change "Israeli military victory" to "Egyptian victory on the Egyptian front and Israeli victory on the Syrian front"

Change/Add "1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty"

The article also condradicts itself as I quote from the article "The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. Egyptian forces crossed the cease-fire lines, then advanced virtually unopposed into the Sinai Peninsula. After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and halted the Egyptian offensive, resulting in a military stalemate." It was an Egyptian victory on the Egyptian front, Israeli victory on the Syrian front. Therefore the overall result of the war in the infobox should not be "Israeli victory". Very biased and misleading.

Thank you. Ziad Rashad (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Ed6767 Jonesey95

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/10/8/the-october-arab-israeli-war-of-1973-what-happened#:~:text=Both%20the%20Arabs%20and%20Israel,the%20Israeli%20parliament%2C%20the%20Knesset.
  2. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2013/10/06/a-short-history-of-october-6-1973
  3. ^ https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2013/10/09/The-legacy-of-the-October-war-in-Egypt-and-Israel
  4. ^ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Moulton.htm
  5. ^ https://thearabweekly.com/remembering-october-war-46-years
  6. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-look-at-the-landmark-egypt-israel-peace-treaty-sealed-40-years-ago/
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Please also find better reliable sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sure thing. My point is simple: if it wasn't for the war then Sinai would have remained an Israeli land to this day. Since Egyptians had an upperhand in the war they managed to get a deal and reclaim Sinai after the attacks, Syria on the other hand had lost the war and that's why Golan Heights are still under Israeli occupation to this day. When Egyptian forces crossed to Sinai and got circled by Israelis, Soviet Union threatned to send troops for Egypt's aid and after that the US threatened with nuclear bombs. Therefore, it was simply a stalemate but Egypt had the upperhand in the negotiations since Sinai was already breached. (the attack was only halted by Israel until Russia and USA interfered)

Summary: Egyptians won the peace treaty by crossing Sinai and leaving no option other than a treaty to take the rest of Sinai without more loss of lives. And Syrians have lost the Golan Heights, to this day it is occupied by Israel.

The 'Result' inside the 'infobox' seems to account for Israel's win against Syria only. So once again, please change "Israeli Military victory" to "Egyptian victory on the Egyptian front and Israeli victory on the Syrian front"

I also forgot to mention that it is very biased to use only Israeli and American sources for the article, I could mention 30 Arab or Soviet sources that are reliable in the Arab world and all of them talk about Egypt's victory and stalemate in Sinai. But I won't do that, I'll link American and Israeli sources that say the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziad Rashad (talk • contribs) 02:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources:

CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/international-relations/arab-israeli-war/nixon-arab-isaeli-war.pdf

BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icaeBubBbDg

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/dr/97192.htm

"No Victor, No Vanquished" Edgar O'Ballance, pg. 161 & 162 https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://www.hativa14.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Edgar_Oballance.pdf

"The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north. Politically speaking, the war drastically changed the situation in the Middle East from the almost crystallised one of No Peace, No War, to one of No Victor, No Vanquished."

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R1864.pdf

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/u-s-state-department-summary-of-the-yom-kippur-war

Moreover, the first battle of the war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Badr) was a decisive Egyptian victory.

Last two major battles of the war before United States ceasefire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suez) were also both an Egyptian victory.

Ziad Rashad (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: @Ziad Rashad:, repeating your argument is not "establishing a consensus". You need to open a separate section here, possibly as a Request for Comments, that will establish (or not) that there is a substantial agreement among interested editors that the proposed changes are necessary and comply with the Core Content Policies. I suggest reading this instruction section and this essay for advice on how to go about creating this discussion. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The casaulties needs adjustment

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Instead of saying that "1,063 Israeli tanks were destroyed, damaged or captured", you should state "400 tanks destroyed, 63 tanks captured", because almost all tanks that were damaged in fact returned to active service within a week. IdanST-EDITOR (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually the number is much higher than 1,063, you should replace "returned to service" with "replaced with new tanks from US inventory" Wasteland1 (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Or both of you should put up sources for your claims if you want the article to actually be changed to reflect said claims. Right now, this is just two armchair historians talking at each other, and no reason for us to think either of you is correct and not just pushing your own ideological viewpoints. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not pushing anything, everyone with a little bit of knowledge about this matter knows about Nickel Grass and the US replacing Israeli losses with equipment directly from their own inventory. Wasteland1 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The standard of Wikipedia editing isn't "everybody knows this," you must provide reliable sources for any claim. Besides which, your claim isn't that the US replaced Israeli losses with equipment from the US inventory, but that tanks claimed to be damaged, but not destroyed, and claimed to be returned to service in fact weren't returned to service, but were in fact destroyed and replaced with entirely different vehicles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Rfc about the result section in the infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus against this change, due to lack of verifiable, reliable sources cited to support it. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


In the infobox 'result', shouldn't it be called a stalemate on the Egyptian front and Syrian loss on the Syrian front? As per the article itself mentions. Ziad Rashad (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC) -It looks fine as it is. Eccekevin (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: "As per the article itself mentions." Policy states that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What RSs are you offering to support the suggested changes? Without them this RfC is dead on arrival. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the Egyptian front was a stalemate with both countries controlling new territory in both sides and it should include a stalemate in the info box Ridax2020 (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The October Arab-Israeli War of 1973: What happened?". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2021-03-06.
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
2603:6011:DE00:E345:4414:3070:5F98:47AF (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

result is egypt win isreal and they return sini

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Israel gifted Sinai to Egypt in 1982 (in phases starting in 1979 and the last one was in 1982). It was due to a peace deal signed up between Egypt under Sadat (which later he was assassinated for that) and Israel. Both Syria and Egypt lost the war, but Egypt gained political power. IdanST-EDITOR (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

In yom kippur war the result was egyptian millitary victory not the israeli😊

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
154.239.129.168 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Egypt started the war and won the war and gained what she wanted and then she took all her land 196.132.9.251 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Look at the above discussions. Caius G. (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The outcome the war inconclusive on the face of egypt , The kilo 101 negotiations are over, The War is disengaged 41.236.199.39 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021 (2)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

References 1- https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/history/modern+history/israel+wars/the+yom+kippur+war+-+october+1973.htm

2-octobr war Saad ElDin elshazly Page (282)

3-youm kippur war moshe dayan page (366)

4-https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2013/10/09/The-legacy-of-the-October-war-in-Egypt-and-Israel 41.236.199.39 (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: Duplicate request Deauthorized. (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021 (3)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change (Result: Israeli military victory) To ( The Result of the war is inconclusive and ended with the 101st kilo negotiations , and separate forces)

Reference : 1- https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/history/modern+history/israel+wars/the+yom+kippur+war+-+october+1973.htm

2- Book : October War Saad aldin al shazly page (282)

3- Book : Yom Kippur war moshe dayan page (366)

4-https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2013/10/09/The-legacy-of-the-October-war-in-Egypt-and-Israel 41.236.199.39 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: The current revision has thirteen reliable sources stating that the Israeli military won the war. Deauthorized. (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change (Result: Israeli military victory) To ( The Result of the war is inconclusive and ended with the 101st kilo negotiations , and separate forces)

Reference : 1- Saad al-Din al-Shazly, “Diary of the October War page 278 2- Marshal Muhammad Abd Al-Ghani Al-Jamasy, “Al-Jamasy’s Diary - October 1973 War Page 426 3- Jamal Hammad, “The War Battles on the Egyptian Front,” page 483 4- youm kippur war moshe dayan page (366) 5- Taha Al-Majdoub, “The October War ... The Way to Peace” page 85 6- Hafez Ismail (Egyptian National Security) page 380 7- Abdo Mobashr (the Egyptian-Israeli wars) page 329 8- Anwar Sadat's (Self-Search) page 355 9- Mahmoud El Meligy (War and Peace in the Middle East ) page 341 10 - Edgar O'Ballance، "No Victor, No Vanquished: The Arab-Israeli War, 1973"، Edition 1996، 384 Pages. 11- Gawrych, George (2000). The Albatross of Decisive Victory: War and Policy Between Egypt and Israel in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars 12- https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8_%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1#cite_note-%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-4 13- https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/10/8/the-october-arab-israeli-war-of-1973-what-happened 14- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/u-s-state-department-summary-of-the-yom-kippur-war 15- https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/the%20yom%20kippur%20war%20-%20october%201973.aspx 16- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/u-s-state-department-summary-of-the-yom-kippur-war 156.199.68.200 (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

i thought these articles were supposed to be unbiased, you are clearly siding with Israel. Sinai already belonged to Egypt but israel decided to take over it and in doing so they destroyed the Egyptian air force in Sinai. Egypt won THEIR OWN LAND back but ofcourse make Israel the victim

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

change Israeli military victory into Egyptian military victory 41.238.217.7 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War - 19 Days

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

MODERATOR: 19 days should be add to the introduction. 2601:589:4801:5660:B1C7:7A45:9E90:1C31 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

1973 War Results are not correct

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

War results are wrong. It was a military stalemate in Sinai and an Israeli victory on the Golan Heights. Both Egypt and Israel held land at sinai at the end of the war and Egypt achieved all it’s political goals.

https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/10/21/sadats-war-strategy-political-gains-vs-military-victory 41.232.27.223 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. The "Result" section should be changed to "Israeli military victory; Egyptian political gains." The Yom Kippur War could hardly be considered an Egyptian military victory anymore than it could be considered a Syrian military victory. Granted, both Arab armies made offensive gains in the opening of the war, but the Israeli military had not only encircled the Egyptian Third Army by the war's end -- it had also come within 100 km of Cairo and regained the majority of the Sinai Peninsula. Sources include, but are not limited to: Encylopedia Britannica, History.com, Air Force Magazine, Foreign Policy Research Institute.

2. This article should be not considered "part of a series about Anwar Sadat" anymore than it could be considered part of a series about Golda Meir. This article should be considered part of a series about the Arab-Israeli conflict, below the righthand summary section. 155.247.134.187 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 (2)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Change Result from "Israeli militay victory" to "Victory disputed"

You want to establish a consensus, but the current Version does not have a concensus either.

Wars have military objectives and if you achieve them, then you claim victory. Both sides might achieve their objectives, and as long as no side surrendered you can't claim a clear 'military victory', although both sides claim it. No matter how many sides claim that according to their strategic analysis how the conflict would have turned.

You need to use the facts, which show that only Egypt kept its position on the East Bank after the cease fire and Israel withdrew, which is not the outcome a victorious army would agree to. However, the Egyptian situation and the Syrian were not those of an army that would have been able to claim a clear victory too, if at all.

If concensus is missing, you should at least state that there was no clear military victory or that the outcome is disputed. The current version does not at all follow concensus or based on facts 178.83.159.223 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. If you want the edit made it's up to you to get consensus for the change. Opening multiple edit requests will not help you get consensus, opening a discussion on the talk page explaining your points and showing your sources will. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay I will

I agree with this opinion, Israel did not win At least, both sides are supposed to claim victory--Ahmed88z (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Israels victory is described as a Pyrrhic victory 2601:403:201:4010:7C5B:E776:5722:BB4A (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

I want to remove the protection of this page so that I can modify it, because Israel did not win an absolute victory. For example, on the Egyptian front, Egypt won and crossed the channel, and despite the Deversoir gap, Sharon was unable to occupy any of Suez and Ismailia, and by his own admission he said that he was defeated on the Egyptian front and I have sources --Ahmed88z (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmed88z: post those sources here so we can see them. (Make sure they comply with WP:RS). - Daveout(talk) 21:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

ok i have many ssources

  • Dupuy, Trevor N. (2002). Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974. Military Book Club. ISBN 0-9654428-0-2.[page needed]
  • Gawrych, George (2000). The Albatross of Decisive Victory: War and Policy Between Egypt and Israel in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-31302-4.[page needed]
  • Hammad, Gamal (2002). Military Battles on the Egyptian Front (in Arabic) (First ed.). Dār al-Shurūq. ISBN 977-09-0866-5.[page needed]
  • O'Ballance, Edgar (1997). No Victor, No Vanquished: The Arab-Israeli War, 1973. Presidio. ISBN 0-89141-615-3.[page needed]
  • Rabinovich, Abraham (2004). The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East. Schocken. ISBN 0-8052-1124-1.[page needed]

if you have not time check this simple sources



@Ahmed88z: Could you please add the page number to those first references you mentioned. That would save me a lot of time thanks. - Daveout(talk) 13:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I have no particular view on who, if anyone, "won" this conflict, but I note Ahmed88z's "so that I can modify it, because Israel did not win an absolute victory (emphasis added)." The article does not claim this. The infobox has " Israeli military victory", with 13 RSs supporting it. The notes in the template for this parameter state that it is optional and that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict" followed by further useful guidance. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The page number is there, and if you want to shorten a lot of time, read the Battle of Suez and the Battle of Ismailia page in the wiki and click on the last source related to Moshe Dayan's confession of his defeat, you will save a lot of time Ahmed88z (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Individual battles were won by the Egyptians, mostly during in the initial phase (canal crossing, Bar Lev line fortifications). But the outcome of the war was an Israeli victory, per multiple sources. The war didn't end on October 17th, and Dayan commenting on having suffered a lot of casualties does not contradict that Israel won in the end. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Inf-in MD this is an interesting statement "per multiple sources". The sources need to be unbiased. You cannot be foe and judge at the same time. I have disputed most of those so-called sources here on the discussion page. Engzizo79 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • How did Israel win and could not achieve any of its goals? Its first goal was the occupation of Sinai for life, and its second goal was the occupation of Suez and Ismailia, and it did not succeed in achieving any of them

--Ahmed88z (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC) At least we can say that it is an Egyptian victory on the Egyptian front and a Syrian defeat on the Syrian front

  • That Israel's goal was "was the occupation of Sinai for life" is your opinion, I have not seen that stated anywhere. And if it was, then at the end of the war, it still occupied it. At the end of the war, it was Saadat begging the Soviets to intervene to save the encircled 3rd army, and the Soviets threating to do so unless the UNSC forced a cease fire. Not the other way around. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


Please stick to the discussion literature. I can respond to you in the same way. As for your individual statement, it is that if Israel had a different goal, it would not have entered to occupy it in the first place. Sharon and Moshe Dayan were also besieged and lost in the Battle of Suez and the Battle of Ismailia, and they failed to occupy the cities west of the Canal. Sharon himself was wounded during these The battle is very poor, despite your military ability and your plane, which was coming from America, you could not occupy Sinai --Ahmed88z (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

As for your talk about the Soviets, you know very well that the Soviets were taking advantage of Egypt, and Sadat responded to their actions in a speech to him. I hope you will see it. speech You can also read about the Badr operation and know the reason for the failure of the Egyptian army to advance and annex the rest of the Sinai lands

The Battle of Suez was indeed an Israeli failure, but the discussion here is about the war, not individual battles. I suggest you read a bit on whose behalf the Soviets were intervening. It wasn't Israel. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Zionists won on the Syrian front, but they did not win on the Egyptian front, according to Moshe Dayan himself, who said that the Deversoir loophole was useless and he failed to control Suez. --Ahmed88z (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That's false, according to multiple sources. The Israelis won on the Egyptian front by encircling the 3rd army, crossing the canal and advancing toward Cairo, on the Western side of the canal, only being stopped by a forced cease fire, and threats of Soviet intervention. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You give inappropriate replies and you accuse me of lying without evidence . I gave you evidence. SO Give me one evidence to prove that Sharon occupied any city west of the Canal. Give me evidence regarding the Zionist advance towards Cairo. You are without evidence. --Ahmed88z (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Calm down. I did not accuse you of lying, I said wat you wrote is false, and unsupported by sources. You are aware that the cease-fire talks were held at the Km 101 marker, on the West side of the canal, and on the road to Cairo, yes? And that before the war, there were no Israeli forces on the West side of the canal? And that much of the talks there centered on how to provide food to the encircled 3rd Army? That doesn't seem like an Egyptian victory, and most reliable sources agree. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No, no, your are wrong. The deversoir loophole that the Americans leaked to the Zionists began in October 15 and ended in October 23, after the decision to cease fire from the United Nations and supplies were arriving to the Third Army through the city of Suez, which the Zionists failed to occupy. Although the Third Army was besieged, it recovered new lands in the east of the canal, and this is considered a victory despite all the circumstances that the Americans provided to the Zionists to eliminate the Third Army. --Ahmed88z (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The 3rd army was encircled. If it had supply routes, then supplying it would not have been a topic of discussion at the talks of the 101 Km. Suez was not captured, but as the article notes, this was not needed in order to encircle the 3rd Army: "Israeli troops finished the drive south, captured the last ancillary road south of the port of Suez, and encircled the Egyptian Third Army east of the Suez Canal". See "A Chess Game in the Middle East: Dr. Kissinger's Diplomacy against the Ussr during the Yom Kippur War", BRUNO PIERRI, Rivista di Studi Politici Internazionali, Nuova Serie, Vol. 76, No. 3 (303) (Luglio-Settembre 2009), page 370: "The Third Army was by then cut off from supply routes". Inf-in MD (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The map in the article is also inaccurate. The map shows that the Zionist forces occupied huge parts west of the canal, including Suez and Ismailia. I hope you delete this map because it is wrong.--Ahmed88z (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Israeli forces odd indeed capture some 1600 square km west of the canal (part of the reason why this was an Israeli victory), but the map shows Israeli forces well south of Ismailia. Please pay more attention. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The map shows the city of Suez under the Zionist terrorist occupation, and this is not true --Ahmed88z (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to engage with someone who describes the result of a war his side initiated and lost as "terrorist occupation". Good luck with your attempt to change this article, with that kind of attitude. Inf-in MD (talk)

Who started the war, my friend, who entered and occupied Sinai? Ahmed88z (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If the Egyptians really lost the war, as you say, why didn't you do to them the same as you did with Syria? You have not given up the Golan area yet + my brother, you know very well that these are just aggressor Zionist gangs that do not differ much from ISIS Ahmed88z (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You were not able to reply, , and you are against the consensus now. You must open this page to edit Ahmed88z (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

The article contains errors. Among these errors is that Sharon occupied the cities west of the canal, and this is not true. Sharon failed to occupy any city west of the canal and lost in the battles of Ismailia and Suez.

  Not done: What changes do you wish to make? The article does not say Sharon's division captured Ismailia, it says the opposite : "Sharon's division had failed to capture Ismailia". Inf-in MD (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This topic was mentioned indirectly, as it was mentioned that Sharon occupied the cities west of the canal, and this is not true --Ahmed88z (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The article states "None of the Canal's main cities were occupied by Israel". How would you like this to be changed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I will get you the text in detail --Ahmed88z (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC) This is the text

((Final situation on the Egyptian front By the end of the war, the Israelis had advanced to positions some 101 kilometres from Egypt's capital, Cairo, and occupied 1,600 square kilometres west of the Suez Canal.[250] They had also cut the Cairo-Suez road and encircled the bulk of Egypt's Third Army. The Israelis had also taken many prisoners after Egyptian soldiers, including many officers, began surrendering in masses towards the end of the war.[251])) --Ahmed88z (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Are you Turkish?

this text seems accurate, and supported by the sources. What do you want to change? Inf-in MD (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I want to change the map and this text, and I have sources --Ahmed88z (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Egyptian army won for several reasons.

  • Egypt's goal in this war was to control the east of the canal and not to recover the entire Sinai, and this goal was achieved.
  • Secondly, the Zionist military position was weak for several reasons, the most important of which is that Sharon's forces were also surrounded, like the Third Army
  • Third, Sharon failed to occupy the cities west of the canal
  • Fourth, the Egyptians succeeded in achieving their goal by destroying the Barlev Line
  • Fifthly, the Egyptians succeeded in the diplomatic talks in recovering all of Sinai
  • Sixth, according to David Lazarus, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Command, on December 3, 1973: “As for the Third Army, though we surrounded them, they resisted and advanced to in fact occupy a larger area of ​​land in the East. We cannot say that we defeated them or We defeated them."--Ahmed88z (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Inf-in MD

I am familiar with these Egyptian talking points. During the Km 101 talks, when Gamasi made the same argument ("Israeli forces are encircled, too)) Yariv reminded him they were discussing how to supply the 3rd Army to save it from starving, not the Israeli forces. It is certainly possible to argue that the Egyptians were able to leverage their limited initial successes on the East bank into a later diplomatic breakthrough, but this article is about the war - and Egypt lost that war, handily, as sources show.Inf-in MD (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Inf-in MD This is a funny statement. You know that this was months after the cease fire after Kissinger told Israel to violate it in order to have a better position on the battle ground? Therefore the Egyptian army did not have an opportunity to open a supply line while the Israeli bridge-head was still there. This is only your opinion and there should be no original research. The army would starve after a cease-fire means that the army lost? Are you kidding? --Engzizo79 (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The talks at the 101 KM began less than a week after the ceasefire ordered by UNSC 338. The main topic was supplies to the encircled 3rd army. This is not my opinion, but facts. That Egypt lost is stated by numerous reliable sources Inf-in MD (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inf-in MD Whatever the facts are, it is indeed your opinion that a surrounded army means a loss. We might argue if this opinion was wrong or not, it won't change the fact that it is merely an opinion which is not relevant and should not be taken into account. --Engzizo79 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


No, it did not lose the war. Neither side surrendered, and it ended with Egypt achieving all its goals, at least it should be (both sides claimed victory) --Ahmed88z (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources that explicitly say who won. Your opinion, original research and synthesis do not count. It's that, or WP:DROPTHESTICK. (Hohum @) 02:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hohum And where are the unbiased reliable sources that state that Israel has won? See this Link for an unbiased source Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Outcome_disputed_among_the_warring_parties --Engzizo79 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
My opinion (and yours) are irrelevant - we go by what reliable sources say, and the vast majority of them say it was an Israeli victory. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have audio and video videos with confessions from the leaders of the Zionist army themselves, who say that they were defeated, and I have an official source from Sadat himself and from the officer Saad El-Din El-Shazly and Marshal Tantawy Say it was Egyptian victory Ahmed88z (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@user:Hohum at http://www.historytoday.com/archive/no-victor-no-vanquished-yom-kippur-war you have a clear statement: "Edgar O'Ballance, an experienced military author, has produced the best and most objective account of the October, l973 War, which nearly resulted in Israel's defeat, but actually ended in a stalemate." The author is respected and unbiased and had first hand sources Engzizo79 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

So, you're changing your assertion to it being a stalemate now? In which book, and what page does O'Ballance say it was a stalemate? Second hand from a website isn't properly sourcing it. (Hohum @) 16:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@user:Hohum you are mixing up, I'm not Ahmed88z. I have not claimed an Egyptian victory. "The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff" is the original statement. The complete quote is in the victory claims section on this talk page. Engzizo79 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. Assertion stricken. But the question on which book and what page remains. (Hohum @) 14:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@user:Hohum

Both sides claim to have won the October War. Neither will admit defeat, and, as there was no clear-cut military decision on the battlefield, myths are being manufactured to be written into national history books. The Israelis now give the impression that they were merely caught by surprise, and that, once they had recovered their balance, all was well. They insist that their "quality" was still superior to Arab "quantity" and that their young, energetic, capable generals were superior to those of the Arabs as was the Israeli soldier to his Arab counterpart. The Israelis like to say they drove back the Arabs on both fronts, crossed the Suez Canal, penetrated into Africa, and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army with ease. They further claim that only intervention by the superpowers saved the Third Army from surrendering and the Israelis from advancing further into Arab territory, as the road to Cairo lay open before them. This was by no means the correct picture [..]

On the other hand, the Egyptians are also trying to persuade themselves, and others, that they won the war. They point to the fact that the Israelis are no longer on the east bank of the Suez Canal, that the Bar Lev Line no longer exists, and that the Suez Canal is now open to normal traffic. In doing so, however they blind themselves harmfully to Israeli military achievements and the fact that they penetrated no more than some sixteen or seventeen miles into the Sinai. Even Syria has convinced itself that its defence of the Sasa Line was a victory, while both Iraq and Jordan feel the cease-fire was premature, preventing them from driving the Israelis back to the River Jordan. The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north.

— Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, no vanquished: The Yom Kippur War, https://www.hativa14.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Edgar_Oballance.pdf pages 161-162

Engzizo79 (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a reliable source to me, and is unambiguously saying the result was a standoff. However, there are already many other reliable sources supporting an Israeli victory. This is where WP:DUE would come into play. Normally, this would mean including the dissenting view in the main text alongside the other views, and making a decision on what to do in the infobox. In my opinion one dissenting view isn't enough to change it to stalemate, but may have been enough to remove the result there and refer to an outcome section. However, this article doesn't really have an "Outcome" section - presumably because of the strong polarized feelings of editors and a lack of agreement on its content.
If someone manages to write a balanced outcome section, that would be great, and I encourage the attempt, but it will be difficult. (Hohum @) 14:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Results should be disputed / Concerns about Bias.

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

While Israel most definitely gained a military victory in the Golan heights front, we certainly can not claim the same for the Egyptian front, there, I believe it is only fair that "Military Stalemate / indecisive" should be add to the Egyptian front.

Also, I am in the belief that a few people here are extremely biased, and I am particularity talking about Hohum and ScottishFinnishRadish. Russavot (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I Agree with you --Ahmed88z (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, they state Israeli generals as sources and don't accept Arab sources. They should accept neither. Unbiased sources are ignored too and when you state them and refute their sources they argue that it's too long to read, and that there is no consensus. Really funny. No matter what you do, you can't win cause they want it to be an Israeli victory.--Engzizo79 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
There are 13 sources used for the "Israeli victory" statement, and most of them are not "Israeli", let alone "Israeli generals". Inf-in MD (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inf-in MD I have commented on these sources and have shown that most of them are in fact biased or are just making statements without explaining their reasoning to come to such a conclusion. See Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Bias_and_reliability_of_the_quoted_sources_supporting_Israeli_victory --Engzizo79 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
All sources are biased in some way, even if I were to accept your characterization of them as such (which I don't - an Indian professor of contemporary Middle East in Jawaharlal Nehru University is not "biased" just because he did some work at an Israeli university). Wikipedia does not require unbiased sources, only reliable ones, which these are. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inf-in MD Fair enough. But just because someone says that it was a great victory, doesn't mean that it was one. You know Egypt has defined the crossing of the canal and holding the position there as victory, therefore it has allowed itself to get one of its 2 armies surrounded. Israel usually defines victory as something like destroying the enemies capabilities and force him to surrender with minimal losses. They did not achieve that. But still when the IDF would compare the situation on October 9th when they feared being overrun by the enemy, the later turnaround would surely feel like a big victory. It all depends on your perspective. Therefore it is important to take a look at the context of the statements, not just at the wording. --Engzizo79 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
If the war had ended on the 10th, with Egypt holding almost all of the Bar-Lev line and a strip of land along the canal some 15km deep, you could call it an Egyptian victory. Arguably, if it had ended on the 13th, with the Egyptian attack toward the passes repulsed and sufferings huge armor losses on the process, that would still have qualified as (a more costly and limited) victory. But the war did not end then. It ended 10 days later, with Egypt losing more territory on the West side of the canal than it gained on the East side, and with its 3rd army encircled. At that point, I don't think it is fair to say Egypt achieved all its goals. I don't doubt that many Egyptians still felt this was a victory - certainly when compared to the 6 day war. But ultimately, we go by what reliable sources say.Inf-in MD (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD But you shouldn't cherry-pick on your reliable sources. I don't want to keep repeating sources and quotes, but here you have 3 neutral non-Arab sources, none of them says that it was an Israeli victory.

“You will not be permitted to capture that army,” Kissinger told Dinitz. As long as the United States called the tune, there would be no decisive victory. What the Americans were determined to achieve, indeed, was a decisive tie.

— Rabinovich, Abraham, The Yom Kippur war: the epic encounter that transformed the Middle East (2013) page 538, isbn: 0307429652, 9780307429650

Although the Israelis were able to eventually counter Egyptian gains, Sadat accomplished the initial success necessary to break the diplomatic stalemate he faced. He restored Arab pride and thus set the stage for a negotiated settlement that would return most of the territory lost in the 1967 War.

— NATIONAL WAR COLL WASHINGTON DC (Spofford, Cosmas R. Henderson, Warren L. 2001), Anwar El Sadat and the Art of the Possible: A Look at the Yom Kippur War, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA441681.pdf page 19-20

Both sides claim to have won the October War. Neither will admit defeat, and, as there was no clear-cut military decision on the battlefield, myths are being manufactured to be written into national history books. The Israelis now give the impression that they were merely caught by surprise, and that, once they had recovered their balance, all was well. They insist that their "quality" was still superior to Arab "quantity" and that their young, energetic, capable generals were superior to those of the Arabs as was the Israeli soldier to his Arab counterpart. The Israelis like to say they drove back the Arabs on both fronts, crossed the Suez Canal, penetrated into Africa, and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army with ease. They further claim that only intervention by the superpowers saved the Third Army from surrendering and the Israelis from advancing further into Arab territory, as the road to Cairo lay open before them. This was by no means the correct picture [..]

On the other hand, the Egyptians are also trying to persuade themselves, and others, that they won the war. They point to the fact that the Israelis are no longer on the east bank of the Suez Canal, that the Bar Lev Line no longer exists, and that the Suez Canal is now open to normal traffic. In doing so, however they blind themselves harmfully to Israeli military achievements and the fact that they penetrated no more than some sixteen or seventeen miles into the Sinai. Even Syria has convinced itself that its defence of the Sasa Line was a victory, while both Iraq and Jordan feel the cease-fire was premature, preventing them from driving the Israelis back to the River Jordan. The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north.

— Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, no vanquished: The Yom Kippur War, https://www.hativa14.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Edgar_Oballance.pdf pages 161-162

Engzizo79 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Israel did not win on the Egyptian front

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Egypt achieved its goals in this war, which is the recovery of Sinai. The successful invasion of Sinai(Operation Badr 1973)moved the course of negotiations and forced Israel to change its position and work for a complete withdrawal from Sinai. As for the military aspect, we cannot also say that it was an Israeli victory, at least, it must be a military stalemate between the two parties.--Ahmed88z (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:V and WP:OR (especially WP:SYNTH). Editors interpretation and argumentation of what constitutes a victory are irrelevant. Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources, not editor opinion. This article currently uses multiple reliable sources to support the statement of victory. All of this has been pointed out to you. Opening multiple sections all arguing the same thing is not constructive. (Hohum @) 16:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently, I have sources that say that victory was Egyptian. If I brought it to you, would you Edit the article?--Ahmed88z (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you posted a group of books without page numbers, a youtube video of unknown reliability, circular references to wikipedia, and a couple of links to items which talk about specific actions, not the outcome of the entire war. (Hohum @) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Take this reliable source supported by official documents from the Egyptian government saying that it is an Egyptian military victory ((the source )--Ahmed88z (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

What is your response now? Will you edit the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed88z (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope not. No government is a reliable source regarding the outcomes of activities of its own military. Do you have any reliable sources - see WP:RS - supporting your assertion? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The source I sent to you has a copy of an official document written by Anwar Sadat himself, have you not seen it yet? ((the source )--Ahmed88z (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that is an Egyptian government website, if it is, I'd suggest you read WP:PRIMARY. If it's not a government website, what makes it a WP:RELIABLE source? What makes "Ahmed Abd El Moneim Zayed" a WP:RELIABLE author? That it's written as a tirade of invective doesn't help its credibility.
Statements by Anwar Sadat are obviously WP:PRIMARY (Hohum @) 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not a website for the Egyptian government, but this website contains a picture of the document that came out of the Egyptian government, which is related to the October War, do you understand me? --Ahmed88z (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I do. Government documents are WP:PRIMARY sources. (Hohum @) 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You want a copy of the document from an official government website? The document was written nearly 50 years ago, so how can I bring you a site 50 years ago? Read what was written in the document, please, and Sadat's signature --Ahmed88z (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC) You oppose consensus and logic, and you asked me for sources, and I gave you many sources, yet you oppose consensus and logic. You are violating Wikipedia's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed88z (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF is starting to wear thin, and WP:COMPETENCY is starting to apply. No. Read the wikipedia links about reliability, original research, primary sources, etc., you have been given. Also WP:CONSENSUS. (Hohum @) 19:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum: These are sources from Egyptian government websites describing the war as an Egyptian victory over the Sunnis, Egyptian chiefs and generals who participated in the war. first source The first source from the official newspaper of the state The second source is from the Presidency of the Republic website--Ahmed88z (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)User:Hohum

Result (military victory vs victory)

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Who removed the word "military" from the results section and why? Several sources that are there include it. The article states that Camp David Accords and Peace treaty are direct consequences of the war; and Israel made concessions for which it wasn't ready before the war (unlike Egypt). Also under Israel-Egypt Disengagement Agreement of 1974 the whole situation changed back to what was after Operation Badr (Egyptians controlling the whole Suez Canal — both banks). Since then Egypt had controlled the territory it captured during this war (and it was extended even further in 1975) until the Peace treaty of 1979 (when this control was formally established), but Israel had not. The situation is comparable with Suez Crisis in this part. So maybe the word "military" should be placed there again or "political gains", accords and treaty should be cited as equal with "Israeli victory". Actually these political gains are the main result of the war (both sides weren't confident that they would dominate militarily after it and both sides realized that they need to negotiate). --Oloddin (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  • @Oloddin:Even militarily, Israel did not win. After the breach, Israel did not succeed in storming Suez completely, nor any other major city. The Israeli forces were surrounded and lost heavy losses west of the canal, forcing them to enter into negotiations according to which they withdrew from the west of the canal and then withdrew from all of Sinai after Camp David years later--Ahmed88z (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Is anybody going to respond to my suggestions?--Oloddin (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Until you back it with a reliable source I doubt it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Sources for what I have said are already in the article. I'm talking about the infobox. Read carefully please. --Oloddin (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Israel’s victory came at the cost of heavy casualties, and Israelis criticized the government’s lack of preparedness. In April 1974, the nation’s prime minister, Golda Meir (1898-1978), stepped down. Although Egypt had again suffered military defeat at the hands of its Jewish neighbor, the initial Egyptian successes greatly enhanced Sadat’s prestige in the Middle East and gave him an opportunity to seek peace. In 1974, the first of two Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreements providing for the return of portions of the Sinai to Egypt were signed, and in 1978 Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (1913-92) signed the first peace agreement between Israel and one of its Arab neighbors. In 1982, Israel fulfilled the 1979 peace treaty by returning the last segment of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt

— history.com, one of the source for "victory"

. --Oloddin (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

First of all, my dear , according to what I have read, Wikipedia's policy is to rely on sources and not personal opinions and analyzes 99% of Arab sources say that the war was a victory on the Egyptian front, including the Official Gazette of the Arab Republic of Egypt But I will continue with you to the last and,we will reach an agreement

  • First - Egypt's goal in the October War was to destroy the Barlev line and penetrate into the Sinai to the maximum extent that the Egyptian defenses can cover, which is equivalent to 20 kilometers east of the canal, and this is exactly what happened in Operation Badr or popularly known as Operation Crossing✅.
  • Second - the Egyptians made a fatal mistake when they tried to develop the attack without air cover, which caused the deversoir loophole that the American aircraft leaked to the occupying entity. True ✅_
  • Third - Sharon has already penetrated and was able to penetrate the gap and his goal was to occupy the cities of the Canal (Suez-Ismailia), but he failed ✅
  • Fourth - After the Zionists were defeated in the battles of Suez and Ismailia, they incurred heavy losses, then the UN Security Council met for the third time on October 25, and issued a third resolution No. 340 in which it repeated its call for an immediate cease-fire, and decided to establish an emergency force of the United Nations composed of individuals provided by the member states of the International Organization, except for countries that have permanent membership in the Security Council Following the issuance of this decision, the shooting stopped on the Egyptian front, so General Encio Silasvuo, commander of the International Emergency Force, called Egypt and Israel to hold a meeting to discuss the necessary arrangements for a ceasefire.

__________

  • Fifthly and most importantly - according to what Lieutenant-General Kamal Hassan Ali, director of the Armored Corps, said that the Israeli forces west of the canal were also besieged, as for David Elazar (on the crossing to the west of the canal, David Elazar, chief of staff of the Israeli command said on December 3, 1973):

(Sharon knows very well that our crossing to the western side of the canal caused great losses. However, we could not fight for ten days to conquer any of the Egyptian armies. We resisted the second army and eventually prevented us from reaching the city of Ismailia. The most important part of his sayings is (As for the Third Army, despite our besieging them, they resisted and advanced to in fact occupy a larger area of ​​land in the East. Therefore, we cannot say that we defeated them or defeated them) The source here Ahmed88z (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

So, a bunch of editor opinion, no reliable secondary sources, and one primary source who is only talking about a battle / portion of the entire war. (Hohum @) 13:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Apart from that, most of the battles in the war were won by Egypt and the only one in which it lost was the battle of the Chinese farm. @Hohum:There are many sources, and I sent you many, many primary and secondary sources during my long discussion with you in the past requests--Ahmed88z (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

..and I noted how they either weren't WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources, or weren't about the outcome of the war. (Hohum @) 15:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum:They are indeed (secondary sources) related to the outcome of the war--Ahmed88z (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

To repeat myself:
"As far as I can see, you posted a group of books without page numbers, a youtube video of unknown reliability, circular references to wikipedia, and a couple of links to items which talk about specific actions, not the outcome of the entire war."
You replied to this with a site of unknown reliability showing what it says is an Egyptian government document (which, if authentic would be a primary source, anyway). (Hohum @) 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum: Al-Ahram newspaper, the official newspaper, says it is an Egyptian victory here

President Sisi, President of the Republic of Egypt, describes the war as an Egyptian victory here 2- here 3- here

These are government websites belonging to the Republic of Egypt--Ahmed88z (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

State run websites and documents are WP:PRIMARY sources. I have told you this multiple times. The official state position on whether it won a war it was involved in isn't usable, other than to describe it's own position. You need to provide WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLE sources. Please read and understand the links you have been given which tell you what is usable. Until you do (and it will be clear if you have or not), there is a WP:COMPETENCE problem which means you will continue to get nowhere. (Hohum @) 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum:@ScottishFinnishRadish: Are the joint officers' memoirs involved in the war a reliable source?--Ahmed88z (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but you would still need consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:I need consensus from who ? from editors?Most editors want to adjust the outcome of the war--Ahmed88z (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Memoirs of participants in the war would be WP:PRIMARY sources. I posted a link about that before you asked. Do the reading. Throwing mud against the wall and hoping some will stick is not going to work. (Hohum @) 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum:Respect yourself and stick to the etiquette of discussion. Are primary sources acceptable or not?--Ahmed88z (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Read the links provided and find out for yourself. Do the work yourself instead of repeatedly ignoring advice. (Hohum @) 15:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum:The Egyptians do not take advice from anyone, but they are the people who give advice to everyone and they are the people who taught writing to humans. Stick to the literature of discussion and don't tell me that I ignore advices--Ahmed88z (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC) According to what I have read. Secondary sources are relied upon by Wikipedia. Accordingly, I have provided you with secondary sources from the Official Gazette of the State and the Al-Jumhuriya website I have also attached primary sources, the most important of which is what David Eliezer said.--Ahmed88z (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to help you. You're on your own now. (Hohum @) 16:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum:Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, believe me, you're repeating the same qustions, and I'm repeating the same answer, so I'm tired. I put secondary and primary sources for you and videos of confessions, and yet you still keep repeating your question, so no more time wasting on Wikipedia.--Ahmed88z (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The article indicates that it was an Israeli military victory, and this is wrong because Israel was defeated on the Egyptian front Sources say that a war ended with an Egyptian victory IN the Egyptian Front

I have provided a detailed explanation of the war and its points from my point of view and from the point of view of many writers and editors that the war was inconclusive militarily on the Egyptian front. I hope you will look at it 

Ahmed88z (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Don't you see the huge number of editors who asked to edit the article!! Is this not a consensus?--Ahmed88z (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I see a number of random IPs and accounts far below the threshold for editing in this topic area making passing comments and requests, and I also see the established editors on this page explaining why they oppose this edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:You mean all these users are not real? What an obvious bias!!--Ahmed88z (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean that. Consensus is not a vote, and the better reasoning has been provided by established editors explaining to the drive-by editors why such edits don't have consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Explain to me why this modification is not suitable? The consensus already exists. Dozens of calls to edit the article from the editors--Ahmed88z (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Providing a Thesis by a USMC Major to change the Result on the war.

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Jordan.htm

Thesis by Major Michael C. Jordan, United States Marine Corps


To skip to the conclusion : " The 1973 Arab-Israeli War ended with no clear decisive outcome on the battlefield. Militarily, the war was a stalemate, though on 24 October when the cease-fire took effect, Israel had seized the initiative, crossed the Suez Canal and maneuvered elements of three divisions on the west bank between the Egyptian Third Army, located primarily on the east bank, and Cairo. The Egyptians, however, clearly were not defeated, as was readily apparent by the significant casualties their forces inflicted on Adan's division in Suez City immediately prior to the cease-fire. Both sides suffered casualties and equipment destruction and supply consumption at rates neither could support, even with resupply from the superpowers. Time worked against the Israelis much more so than against the Arab side. Thus, whether the Israelis could have destroyed the Third Army in detail, as they claim, one may only speculate "

Let us hope the editors will take this seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A report by a Major isn't a *great* source. Is he a historian or known expert on the matter, or was this a thesis he made as part of his own education?
Additionally, I'll repeat myself from earlier:

However, there are already many other reliable sources supporting an Israeli victory. This is where WP:DUE would come into play. Normally, this would mean including the dissenting view in the main text alongside the other views, and making a decision on what to do in the infobox. In my opinion one dissenting view isn't enough to change it to stalemate, but may have been enough to remove the result there and refer to an outcome section. However, this article doesn't really have an "Outcome" section - presumably because of the strong polarized feelings of editors and a lack of agreement on its content.
If someone manages to write a balanced outcome section, that would be great, and I encourage the attempt, but it will be difficult.

(Hohum @) 00:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Major Michael C Jordan is a military historian if I recall correctly, and he did this thesis not as a part of his own education, but at the War College if I recall. Again, You are being dishonest, Hohum, mulitple people here have given you dissident views, for example, Edgar O Balleys book No Victor No Vanquished states the same thing. Both sides claim to have won the October War. Neither will admit defeat, and, as there was no clear-cut military decision on the battlefield, myths are being manufactured to be written into national history books. The Israelis now give the impression that they were merely caught by surprise, and that, once they had recovered their balance, all was well. They insist that their "quality" was still superior to Arab "quantity" and that their young, energetic, capable generals were superior to those of the Arabs as was the Israeli soldier to his Arab counterpart. The Israelis like to say they drove back the Arabs on both fronts, crossed the Suez Canal, penetrated into Africa, and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army with ease. They further claim that only intervention by the superpowers saved the Third Army from surrendering and the Israelis from advancing further into Arab territory, as the road to Cairo lay open before them. This was by no means the correct picture [..]

On the other hand, the Egyptians are also trying to persuade themselves, and others, that they won the war. They point to the fact that the Israelis are no longer on the east bank of the Suez Canal, that the Bar Lev Line no longer exists, and that the Suez Canal is now open to normal traffic. In doing so, however they blind themselves harmfully to Israeli military achievements and the fact that they penetrated no more than some sixteen or seventeen miles into the Sinai. Even Syria has convinced itself that its defence of the Sasa Line was a victory, while both Iraq and Jordan feel the cease-fire was premature, preventing them from driving the Israelis back to the River Jordan. The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavot (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"if I recall correctly," isn't a presentation of his credentials.
If you read higher on this page, I already accepted O'Ballance as a reliable source who supports a stalemate. I ask you to strike your personal attack on me and act in a more collegiate manner.
If you want to improve the article, propose the text and references for an outcome section which gets consensus, which can then be reflected in the infobox. As noted, I believe this will be very difficult because of polarised opinions. (Hohum @) 11:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you are the one blaming everyone else for being polarized, yet this page went from an Israeli Military victory, a dubious claim at best, to a "Israeli Victory", perhaps you should point the finger to someone else.

If your concerns about polarized opinions were truly legitimate, you would have put an "Inconclusive" at the Egyptian Front, even the Arabic wikipedia had the deceny for that. Again, I got multiple people who support the claim of a military stalemate or a lack of an Israeli superiority in the long run in the Egyptian front, yet oddly enough, the only reaction you ever gave to them being mentioned was that a TLDR rule applied to them.

As for his creational, the closest I can get is some website talking about his service, however it does not talk much about his studies he did on the Middle East.

as for other sources supporting a Military stalemate, Colonel Trevor Dupoy states the same opinion, saying that : "it was clear that Brigadier Badawri and his Third Army were not on the verge of collapse." Further, Drew Middleton, military editor of the New York Times, wrote, "The Egyptian armies did not break. They were outmanoeuvred, not outfought. They were still in being." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavot (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason it's difficult to gain any consensus for the outcome of the war is polarised editor opinion. That's just fact - one that you alluded to yourself immediately before saying *I'm* casting blame.
The infobox is part of the Lead of the article. It should reflect what is in the main body of the article. However, the article doesn't have an "Outcome" section, or really properly discuss the outcome anywhere. Until it does, the current infobox entry, with its supporting references for Israeli victory is unlikely to get changed.
Giving sources which don't directly state the outcome of the war are not useful for that purpose. Editor interpretation isn't allowed.
I'm not the arbiter of what goes in the infobox. I'm pointing out wikipedia processes and how change can be achieved: By someone taking on the arduous and thankless task of trying to write a decently sourced Outcome section, and getting consensus from polarized editors. If you feel up to this, go for it. You won't get anywhere by being combative though.
That even telling people what the challenge is gets ME abuse, so the vitriol and argument while trying to make a well sourced, nuanced, and balanced outcome section is likely to be unpleasant.
I see you haven't stricken your accusation of me being dishonest. WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and is a policy. It is not optional. (Hohum @) 19:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, yeah, sorry for calling you dishonest Hohum. So tell me, I am interested in this Outcome section, how can we make that thing possible to establish a well-made fact based section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavot (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Accepted. (The convention is for the relevant editor to WP:STRIKE retracted comments on talk pages.)
Please WP:SIGN your messages.
Ideally, editor(s) who fully understand wikipedia processes, and who are well read on the subject, and have access to multiple reliable sources, would write a balanced draft version on the talk page. Other editors would accept it or make suggestions to improve it. Eventually, through consensus, one would hope it would be accepted to be included in the article. (Hohum @) 15:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Russavot (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Change Result from "Israeli Military Victory" to "Military Stalemate" "Disputed, both sides claim Victory"

“You will not be permitted to capture that army,” Kissinger told Dinitz. As long as the United States called the tune, there would be no decisive victory. What the Americans were determined to achieve, indeed, was a decisive tie.

— Rabinovich, Abraham, The Yom Kippur war: the epic encounter that transformed the Middle East (2013) page 538, isbn: 0307429652, 9780307429650

Although the Israelis were able to eventually counter Egyptian gains, Sadat accomplished the initial success necessary to break the diplomatic stalemate he faced. He restored Arab pride and thus set the stage for a negotiated settlement that would return most of the territory lost in the 1967 War.

— NATIONAL WAR COLL WASHINGTON DC (Spofford, Cosmas R. Henderson, Warren L. 2001), Anwar El Sadat and the Art of the Possible: A Look at the Yom Kippur War, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA441681.pdf page 19-20

The Israeli military was ascendent, but it was not victorious. The US supported Israel only to prevent the Israeli loss. See quote above to see that a tie was the desired outcome for the US. Israel was not to lose but it was not allowed to win either, therefore a tie was the outcome desired. Both sides claim victory but no military victory was achieved by either side.

Desperate mobilization during the first few days barely prevented an Israeli collapse and, by 8 October, Arab forces had made consolidated gains in both the Golan and the Sinai.

Israeli determination and skill, Arab mistakes, and US material support slowly turned the tide of the conflict. On 13 October, US President Richard Nixon ordered the resupply of Israel. The resulting operation, Nickel Grass, included the airlift of large quantities of US equipment and weapons and the delivery of combat aircraft from front line American units to Israeli squadrons. Thus supported, the Israeli military countered effectively and took advantage of Arab operational mistakes to advance beyond their original positions on both fronts. Israeli forces were thus militarily ascendant when a ceasefire was declared on 24 October. Israel had turned potential defeat into battlefield success; however, the Jewish state’s financial and human losses had been enormous.

— Joseph S. Doyle, Squadron Leader, Royal Air Force, The Yom Kippur Warand the Shaping of the United States Air Force (2016), https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/28/2002094404/-1/-1/0/DP_31_DOYLE_THE_YOM_KIPPUR_WAR_AND_THE_SHAPING_OF_THE_USAF.PDF, page 2

I can get you more sources if you need to, including revered military sources. 178.83.159.223 (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Reopened the request, as there is no objection to Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Yom_Kippur_War_Outcome_-_Victory_claims for more than 6 weeks, therefore consencus should have been established --Engzizo79 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. WP:SILENCE is not a particularly strong consensus for what is a rather important change; it's possible that nobody has noticed this because it was conveniently an already answered edit request. In addition, see number two here for why I'm unwilling to make this clearly controversial change based on simply an unopposed edit request (and yes, WP:TLDR does apply). I'll leave a relevant message at the most appropriate Wikiprojects. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Sources are needed to support a statement, and it's important to show the bias of the sources upon which the current statement of an Israelian victory is based and quote more neutral sources. Of course this is long, and no you don't have to read it all. The fact is that there are disputes. I don't know how the current outcome got consensus, it's clearly biased. Engzizo79 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Reopened and changed wording. We might argue about the results but this should be an encyclopedia that states facts. It's not supposed to make a final judgement but leave it to the reader. Therefore the only factually correct statement is that both sides claim victory and that the outcome is disputed. Such statement does not need consensus as it is a compromise and everyone can see that there is no consensus in primary and secondary sources. Why do the editors here think that they are supposed to choose a side? Engzizo79 (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Still needs consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Engzizo79: I support the requested edit and commend you for the presentation of sources while eloquently pointing out a very clear bias in the existing sources that are used to deny any changes to the current formulation. I made an effort myself in the past to do this but was met with staunch gatekeeping by certain authors who fiercely resisted all my suggested changes and attempts to compromise because they veered off the currently presented narrative. The infobox of this article is not an infobox at all, to me it's a list of Israeli achievements presented in a way that paints a picture of a complete Israeli victory, supported entirely with Israeli sources. I take particular issue with the list of territorial changes which mentions the distance from Cairo and Damascus for no reason. Without context it implies that Cairo was an objective for the forces that crossed the canal to outmaneveur the Egyptian forces on the east bank, failing to take into account the actual situation that these forces found themselves in on the west bank which would have made any advancement an impossibility, i.e. no supply lines, isolation from the rest of the Israeli forces and having been beaten back in the siege of both Ismailia and Suez in the final days of the war. The Egyptian 2nd Army on the east bank of the canal was 200km away from Tel Aviv but that doesn't mean they were going there. While the narrative of an undisputed victory perpetuated by the Egyptian government is highly questionable, it is very evident to me that the other side isn't more devoted to the pursuit of truth and this Wikipedia article is simply a patriotic battleground for image dominated by an Israeli narrative. I hope you stick around to see these edits through and that this article will one day paint a more balanced picture. Turnopoems (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"supported entirely with Israeli sources"
How are these Israelis sources? : Insight team of the London Sunday Times, PR Kumaraswamy, Johnson & Tierney, History.com, Office of the Historian, Simon Dunstan, Ian Bickerton.
(Hohum @) 19:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a bit disingenous to pretend that Israeli authors aren't overrepresented. I scanned the list of references and I found a total of 36 Egyptian references out of 492, mostly Shazly and El Gamasy. That's 7%. Meanwhile Rabinovich alone accounts for 21% of all the references in the article, and I'm not even going to bother counting the rest but at a quick glance I can tell it is at least 50%. Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with using biased sources, all sources are biased one way or another. What's problematic is that me and many other authors feel that we are being dismissed for pointing out the fact that the narrative of this article is entirely dominated by Israeli and Western sources, and we are locked out and unable to present the other narrative alongside it. I'm convinced that this is a problem that many of us from the 3rd world face whenever our narrative is pitted against that of the West, as there is always a sense of academic superiority involved. I've been involved in this discussion multiple times before and I've seen it every time, Egyptian claims are almost automatically dismissed as propaganda and it doesn't matter how many sources you bring they will always be deemed as less credible. Objectively we all know that Egyptian sources, just like the Israeli, claim victory and that the infobox should reflect that. Personally, I have given up due to the fierce gatekeeping by certain people but I do hope that other committed authors will change that one day. Turnopoems (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Where did I pretend that? Will you be withdrawing/striking out your blatantly inaccurate assertion that they are entirely Israeli? Bringing facts, with supporting reliable sources, is more likely to gain consensus than personal opinion and hyperbole. You might note, if you read discourse on this page, that I accept O'Ballance as a reliable source which supports stalemate, but I also describe the challenges involved in making changes to the lead/infobox/main body. (Hohum @) 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see why you feel personally accountable for the content of this article to the point of defending it against a hyperbole. My comment was intended as a show of support for the person who actually was trying to present reliable sources and facts in an effort to establish consensus, as I've done in the past to no avail. I will not engage in a back and forth discussion about who said what and how, and seeing how you've clarified that we both agree on the general premise of the argument I don't see the point of continuing this discussion. I've clarified the meaning of my statement and I don't think there's grounds for any further misunderstanding. Turnopoems (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War Outcome - Victory claims

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Summary

The current page states that the outcome of the war was an Israeli Military Victory. The Egyptian do claim victory too, based on the fact that the Egyptian troops crossed to the East Bank of the Suez canal and held their positions on the East bank.

As Wikipedia should only state proven facts, propaganda from both sides should be disregarded and therefore the Result should be either "Victory disputed" or "Military Stalemate"

Supporting References

Outcome disputed among the warring parties

Both sides claim to have won the October War. Neither will admit defeat, and, as there was no clear-cut military decision on the battlefield, myths are being manufactured to be written into national history books. The Israelis now give the impression that they were merely caught by surprise, and that, once they had recovered their balance, all was well. They insist that their "quality" was still superior to Arab "quantity" and that their young, energetic, capable generals were superior to those of the Arabs as was the Israeli soldier to his Arab counterpart. The Israelis like to say they drove back the Arabs on both fronts, crossed the Suez Canal, penetrated into Africa, and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army with ease. They further claim that only intervention by the superpowers saved the Third Army from surrendering and the Israelis from advancing further into Arab territory, as the road to Cairo lay open before them. This was by no means the correct picture [..]

On the other hand, the Egyptians are also trying to persuade themselves, and others, that they won the war. They point to the fact that the Israelis are no longer on the east bank of the Suez Canal, that the Bar Lev Line no longer exists, and that the Suez Canal is now open to normal traffic. In doing so, however they blind themselves harmfully to Israeli military achievements and the fact that they penetrated no more than some sixteen or seventeen miles into the Sinai. Even Syria has convinced itself that its defence of the Sasa Line was a victory, while both Iraq and Jordan feel the cease-fire was premature, preventing them from driving the Israelis back to the River Jordan. The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north.

— Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, no vanquished: The Yom Kippur War, https://www.hativa14.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Edgar_Oballance.pdf pages 161-162
Dispute about the seriousness of the Israeli encroachment West of the canal

The current version of the Wikipedia article states that the israeli position was weak and that Egyptians pushed for a cease-fire because the situation "could result in a catastrophe". This shows that there was no victory, as supported by following quote:

The Egyptians say that on the twenty-eighth the Israeli brigades were well extended along a seventy-five kilometre front in a thin screen. They claim the Israelis did not physically occupy all the terrain they encompassed but only the dominating features, which enabled the Egyptians to pinpoint their positions and forced the Israelis to move daily to avoid Egyptian shelling.

Egyptian rangers and other troops in small sections were in and among the Israelis, passing back information about them. The Egyptians claim the Israeli pocket was surrounded by three tank and two mechanised divisions, but these formations were not immediately available to close in battle because of slow Egyptian reaction and movement. Regarding territory taken or lost on the Suez Canal front, the Israelis claimed they had gained about 500 square miles on the west bank, although they admitted there were many Egyptian pockets within that area. The Egyptians had gained and held about 300 square miles on the east bank, but their Third Army was surrounded. However, at the Israeli Symposium on the October War held in Jerusalem in October 1975 Colonel Trevor Dupuy stated that "it was clear that Brigadier Badawri and his Third Army were not on the verge of collapse." Further, Drew Middleton, military editor of the New York Times, wrote, "The Egyptian armies did not break. They were outmanoeuvred, not outfought. They were still in being."

— Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, no vanquished: The Yom Kippur War, https://www.hativa14.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Edgar_Oballance.pdf page 129
America and Kissinger helped Israel to avoid defeat, but didn't allow them to win

Supporting Quotes:

“You will not be permitted to capture that army,” Kissinger told Dinitz. As long as the United States called the tune, there would be no decisive victory. What the Americans were determined to achieve, indeed, was a decisive tie.

— Abraham Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur war: the epic encounter that transformed the Middle East (2013) page 538, isbn: 0307429652, 9780307429650

Desperate mobilization during the first few days barely prevented an Israeli collapse and, by 8 October, Arab forces had made consolidated gains in both the Golan and the Sinai.

Israeli determination and skill, Arab mistakes, and US material support slowly turned the tide of the conflict. On 13 October, US President Richard Nixon ordered the resupply of Israel. The resulting operation, Nickel Grass, included the airlift of large quantities of US equipment and weapons and the delivery of combat aircraft from front line American units to Israeli squadrons. Thus supported, the Israeli military countered effectively and took advantage of Arab operational mistakes to advance beyond their original positions on both fronts. Israeli forces were thus militarily ascendant when a ceasefire was declared on 24 October. Israel had turned potential defeat into battlefield success; however, the Jewish state’s financial and human losses had been enormous.

— Joseph S. Doyle, Squadron Leader, Royal Air Force, The Yom Kippur Warand the Shaping of the United States Air Force (2016), https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/28/2002094404/-1/-1/0/DP_31_DOYLE_THE_YOM_KIPPUR_WAR_AND_THE_SHAPING_OF_THE_USAF.PDF, page 2

Although the Israelis were able to eventually counter Egyptian gains, Sadat accomplished the initial success necessary to break the diplomatic stalemate he faced. He restored Arab pride and thus set the stage for a negotiated settlement that would return most of the territory lost in the 1967 War.

— NATIONAL WAR COLL WASHINGTON DC (Spofford, Cosmas R. Henderson, Warren L. 2001), Anwar El Sadat and the Art of the Possible: A Look at the Yom Kippur War, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA441681.pdf page 19-20

Bias and reliability of the quoted sources supporting Israeli victory

A short review of the quoted sources supporting the victory claim (19-32):

  • [19] Herzog (1975). The War of Atonement. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 9780316359009.
Mr Chaim Herzog is clearly biased as he was the former head of the Israeli military intelligence branch. His claim of an 'astounding Israeli victory' are to be taken into this context and cannot be seen as fact.
  • [20] The source is not sufficiently described. Only stating "Insight Team of the London Sunday Times, p. 450" without further description to make the reference actually findable.
  • [21] Luttwak; Horowitz (1983). The Israeli Army
This source does not mention the 1973 war at all and ends in 1971
  • [22] Rabinovich (2004). The Yom Kippur War. Schocken Books. p. 498
I have quoted the same author above, who states clearly that Israel was only allowed a decisive tie -- therfore it cannot claim a victory, which it might eventually have achieved, but ultimately didn't.
  • [23] Kumaraswamy, PR (2000). Revisiting The Yom Kippur War
This author is biased as he is researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. However, the reference page 1 does not speak of a military victory, only that "nothing stood between its advancing troops and the Egyptian capital". As much as this might sound like an indication of a victory, it is no hard evidence of a victory, nor would the Israeli forces had the will or desire to attack Cairo. The Egyptian armies were not defeated and kept their positions on the Eastern bank for political reasons. See "Anwar El Sadat and the Art of the Possible" quoted above.
  • [24] Johnson; Tierney. Failing To Win, Perception of Victory and Defeat in International Politics
I do not have access to the book, however, I quote from a review of it:

Failing to Win is vulnerable to critique from a number of perspectives. The authors' profession that the score-keeping framework is not a “straw man” argument (p. 24) may ring false for adherents of the rationalist model. After cataloguing the many match-fixing biases that humans are known to possess, the authors conclude that “[n]one of this makes Framework 1, score-keeping, a realistic model for explaining human evaluations much of the time…. T]hese predisposing factors often fix the match so that one side is bound to win, almost irrespective of its gains or losses on the ground” (pp. 48–49). This sentiment, combined with the stripped-down nature of the authors' score-keeping model and the case-selection criteria, suggests that they may be engaging in some match-fixing of their own.

— William A. Boettcher, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 5 Issue 4, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/failing-to-win-perceptions-of-victory-and-defeat-in-international-politics/DD1DB70F3B1E20284EB8C5E983A1DA01
  • [25] Liebman, Charles (July 1993). "The Myth of Defeat: The Memory of the Yom Kippur war in Israeli Society"
Hardly an unbiased article, citing Chaim Herzog again to prove the victory which is, according to his own account, perceived in Israel as a disaster. Quote: "Many think of it as a disaster or a calamity". Now if even in Israel the outcome of the war is disputed how is a victory of Isreal is stated here as fact?
  • [26] "Israel's victory came at the cost of heavy casualties, and Israelis criticized the government's lack of preparedness." Yom Yippur War at history.com
This article makes a claim of an Isreali victory and an Egyptian defeat. However, the article does not support this claim, only that the Israeli military started "beating back the Arab gains at a heavy cost to soldiers and equipment" which is hardly a good enough explanation of a victory.
  • [27] The 1973 war thus ended in an Israeli victory, but at great cost to the United States." The 1973 Arab-Israeli War at website of Office of the Historian
"The 1973 war thus ended in an Israeli victory, but at great cost to the United States" is again the conclusion of the writer, not supported with facts proving it.
  • [28] Simon Dunstan (18 September 2007). The Yom Kippur War: The Arab-Israeli War of 1973. p. 205. ISBN 978-1846032882
Unfortunately I don't have access to the reference
  • [29] Asaf Siniver (2013). The Yom Kippur War: Politics, Legacy, Diplomacy. Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-933481-0. (p. 6) "For most Egyptians the war is remembered as an unquestionable victory—militarily as well as politically ... The fact that the war ended with Israeli troops stationed in the outskirts of Cairo and in complete encirclement of the Egyptian third army has not dampened the jubilant commemoration of the war in Egypt." (p. 11) "Ultimately, the conflict provided a military victory for Israel, but it is remembered as 'the earthquake' or 'the blunder'"
101 kms away from Cairo and the encirclement of the 3rd army might be a strategically concerning issue, however it is not a clear military victory. One might argue that the Egyptian army was stubbornly holding its position and not too concerned about the Israeli breach on the West Bank. Stretching the supply lines too far to the West for the Israeli Army is not desirable, the potential resistance unknown. Sadat might have pushed for a cease-fire to prevent a defeat and save his soldiers. However a military advantage is not necessarily a victory.

Just as Kissinger could not countenance a defeat for Israel, an Egyptian defeat had become just as intolerable, not least for the dangers of superpower intervention.

— Document 83: Hotline Message from Brezhnev to Nixon, 26 October 1973, complete translation received 29 October 1973, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/#VI
  • [30] Ian Bickerton (2012). The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Guide for the Perplexed
Unfortunately, the full text is not available online, and only a few pages, including the cited quote are available in the preview, without context showing the reasoning behind the conclusion
  • [31] P.R. Kumaraswamy (2013). Revisiting the Yom Kippur War. Routledge. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-136-32888-6. (p. 184) "Yom Kippur War ... its final outcome was, without doubt, a military victory ... " (p. 185) " ... in October 1973, that despite Israel's military victory"
As stated in [23] the author can hardly be considered unbiased


Engzizo79 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


WP:TLDR applies here. (Hohum @) 16:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to structure it a bit betterEngzizo79 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How did Israel win when it could not defend the occupied territories in the 1967 war and did not win in entering the Suez and also Egypt's control of the Suez Canal and Israel's resort to the United States for a cease-fire and resort to the peace treaty in 1979, which was one of the results of this war and Egypt's victory Diplomat in the recovery of the occupied territories in the 1967 war “the Sinai Peninsula” I hope to amend the publication and recognize Egypt’s victory in the October War Alexander bed112 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional references

Since I've already dragged myself into this discussion once again I might as well be useful and present my list of gathered sources and references that support a military stalemate, other than O'Ballance, if anyone wants to rummage through it and make use of it. Turnopoems (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

References

  1. ^ Aker, Frank (1985). October 1973: The Arab-Israeli War. Archon Books. pp. 126–130.
  2. ^ "Behind the Headlines Israel Leaves an Area Where Its Bloodiest Wars Took Place". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. April 1982.
  3. ^ Currie, Kenneth M.; Varhall, Gregory (1985). The Soviet Union: What Lies Ahead? : Military-political Affairs in the 1980s. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 226.
  4. ^ Dee, Liz (2015). "Negotiating the End of the Yom Kippur War". Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training.
  5. ^ Dupuy, Trevor (1992). Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974 (3rd ed.). ‎Kendall Hunt Pub Co. p. 603.
  6. ^ Gawrych, George W. (2000). The Albatross of Decisive Victory: War and Policy Between Egypt and Israel in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 232.
  7. ^ Kacowicz, Arie M. (1994). Peaceful Territorial Change. University of South Carolina Press. p. 131.
  8. ^ Telhami, Shibley (September 2001). The Camp David Accords: A Case of International Bargaining. Columbia International Affairs Online (CIAO). p. 4.
@Hohum: As you're more knowledgeable than me on the process of establishing consensus I welcome your input and suggestions for any editor that wishes to use these to write a draft. Turnopoems (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe the article needs a well balanced "Outcome" section, created through consensus, in draft on the talk page, which reflects the contents of reliable sources, taking WP:DUE into account. This can then inform what is said in the lead and infobox. Anyone trying this will need to have a strong understanding of the subject, access to a wide variety of sources, extreme patience, a willingness to listen to alternative opinions, exceptional negotiating skills, and a very thick skin. It will be an utterly thankless task and will invite vitriolic abuse from many.
My main thought is that it shouldn't try and get into the weeds of who had forces where, who won what battle. It should just reflect what various reliable secondary sources specifically state as the immediate military outcome, grouped by that outcome. That way, each WP:DUE point of view gets its say. (Hohum @) 17:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are aware of any precedents on Wikipedia where a similar issue has been sufficiently resolved with an outcome section I believe it would be helpful if you can provide a link so we can look at it. I personally think a balanced outcome section would be structured in a way that begins with a neutral introduction that conveys the ambiguity of the final situation prior to ceasefire from the stalemate perspective and then presenting why various authors have interpreted it as an Israeli and Egyptian victory respectively supported by relevant sources for both viewpoints. I acknowledge though that this will be met by opposition by some for using the stalemate-line to set the tone. In any case, while I'm more than willing to chime in with my input I'm by no means well-versed enough on the subject, or military history in general, to write the bulk of the text myself. Turnopoems (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Metric to Imperial mis-conversion

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed on the "Territorial changes" part of the sidebar it says that "...Israeli forces occupy 500 km2 (190 sq mi) of the Syrian Bashan region on top of the Golan Heights, bringing them within 30 km (20 mi) of the Syrian capital of Damascus." However the source [35] states that "Bashan ... 500 square kilometers ... which brought it within 20 miles [32 km] of Damascus". Here is the correct conversions:

500 km2 = 193 mi2

20 mi = 32km

Thus the territorial changes should state, "...Israeli forces occupy 500 km2 (193 sq mi) of the Syrian Bashan region on top of the Golan Heights, bringing them within 32 km (20 mi) of the Syrian capital of Damascus." -- Chxeese (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. There were some rounding and some reverse converting issues.(Hohum @) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias to Israel point of view

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Even egyptian soldiers were killed and mistreated by Israeli troops No mentioning of that instead a big subtitle with atrocities against Israeli soldiers Guess who occupying others lands till now and doing atrocities to defenseless Palestinian People

Shame 197.53.175.76 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Agent1000023 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The Victorious Country in the "Yom Kippur War" Is Egypt. And not Israel.

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See frequent discussions above and in archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Biased article to Israel

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article tries to show that the heroic Israel with the support of the United States was able to defeat 15 countries !!!! but the truth is that Israel was supported by the Netherlands and South Africa militarily, and it was politically supported by Japan portugal and several other countries You can read the first oil crisis against Israel’s military and political allies instead About when Sudan, Pakistan and East Germany entered the war, I demand that this article be biased towards Israel and say that it is not decisive over Sinai or an Israeli military victory and an Egyptian strategic victory and the situation of the countries that helped Israel such as South Africa and the Netherlands and the expulsion of the countries that did not help Egypt and Syria is like Pakistan Sudan Tunisia 

and East Germany. You lack the status of God the planets the moon and the sun as allies of the Arabs and America’s status of American aid as weak Hamed2139 (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The results of the war was the victory for Egypt not Israel! And this is obvious because Egypt took her land again which is sinai and forced Israel to leave Egypt. 196.155.11.233 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AwfulReader (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Emphasis missing on why Israel was attacked specifically on Yom Kippur

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The summary section at the start of this article fails to underscore the key reason that the war was started on Yom Kippur -- the reason is that during this sacred holiday, the Israeli soldiers were fasting (not eating food) and were with their families and not ready for a rapid mobilization to defend the country against the attack. A parallel situation would be an alliance of non-majority-Christian nations choosing Dec 24/25 (Christmas) to attack a majority-Christian nation in order to catch their army off-guard and unprepared (without any regard for the religious sanctity of the chosen day of attack for the victim nation). It is astounding that Israel managed to repel such an attack that caught the army so unprepared, though it required several days before the army could mount its defenses.

There is an attempt in the summary section to hide the fact that the aggressor countries started this war on Yom Kippur by pretending that an equivalent name for the war is "the Ramadan War". Again, this would be akin to aggressor countries attacking a majority-Christian nation on Christmas, but then in retrospect stressing that Christmas fell in the month of December and that this was actually "the December War" (not a perfect analogy because "December" isn't a religious month-long holiday, but you get the point). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.218.68 (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I want too edit the weapons links. Bleu Tzy (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to edit the weapon links thank you. Bleu Tzy (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the winner of the war is egypt and the strongest evidence is that sinai is in the egyptians hands right now 197.46.94.38 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian strategic victory

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An Israeli military victory? The Egyptian efforts were in vain since the Badr operation until the battle of Suez and Ismailia. The width of the Egyptians was 160 km, and their depth was 12-18 km, they only lost the Deversoir point. At the very least, you should say an Egyptian strategic victory. In fact, American planes participated in the war, and he was the one who told Sharon about the military loophole and they were watching the Egyptian army. The first and second armies participated in the war with 200 thousand soldiers, 1024 tanks, in front of 450 thousand Israelis who had tanks, at the beginning of the war 1700, and then doubled after the American intervention. When did Pakistan, East Germany, Sudan, Kuwait and Tunisia participate in the war? Hamed2139 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hamed2139 For Pakistan check this out, https://tribune.com.pk/story/855837/50-years-on-memories-of-the-1973-arab-israeli-conflict

https://twitter.com/DGPR_PAF/status/1519042488480059392?t=GGnz4_yIoqjmVS2Oqglc_g&s=19 Pretty weird you guys don't know about this. nonetheless i think you'll have to edit out the Israeli victory thing yourself, just get a good source which says Egyptian Victory and edit the statement as required while keeping a neutral POV. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The victory

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ok how is that isrealI victory it's egyptian phyric victory Because 1 egypt gained territories 2 so did syria 3 isrealis agreed that they got defeated 4 the divisions of the Jewish army almost got incircled and they had to act fast 5 most importantly the fear egyptians made in jewish minds concerned about conflicts reaching tel Aviv If there is any other opinions discuss them with me calmly 102.46.232.218 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Israel's losses in violent post-war clashes

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Yourself. If we were in a position of weakness, would I have issued this order two days after the ceasefire with all its possibilities? It was an undeclared war of attrition on our part, and he was satisfied with the communications of the enemy and the reports of the United Nations. The objectives of this undeclared war of attrition were: - To cause the enemy the greatest losses in its human forces, equipment and weapons, and to make it impossible to put it in the pocket as it continues to mobilize the reserves, which the enemy cannot bear for a long time. Not enabling him to establish his feet by destroying his engineering equipment and equipment that appear in the area. Acquisition of more land in the east and west. The following statement can clarify the extent of the activity of our armed forces in the period from 10/31/1973 to 1/1/1974, that is, the day of the signing of the Separation of Forces Agreement. We carried out, according to enemy data, 439 operations, including 93 in November, 73, 213 in December, 73 and 133 in January 1974. These operations, according to the reports of the International Monitoring Authority and the reports of the Israeli forces themselves, resulted in the following losses in the enemy: 11 aircraft. 41 tanks and armored vehicles. 10 heavy machine guns, 36 “dozers, engineering equipment and a vehicle, hitting the Israeli oil tanker (Serena). Sinking a sea landing boat, killing 187 enemy people. In addition to the number of wounded, which can be estimated times the loss of life. The reader may conclude that the losses are many times that, if these are the statements of the enemy. I assure you, and before I go into explaining the planning of the operation to liquidate the enclave, that the 7th and 19th Infantry Divisions of the Third Army (Badr Forces), which are located east of the Victory Field Marshal, the Canal and the city of Suez, had all their needs of ammunition, fuel, water and appointments that would allow them not only to withstand But to participate in the attack, which was decreed. The supply of these two divisions continued by various means even before the supervision of the United Nations over this supply. - As for planning to destroy the enemy in this enclave, I would first like to clarify that the Haed Metwaly with the beloved was essentially: his narrow neck (only 6 kilometers) and his "bottle" size so that it could be cut, and that he was very far from his supply lines and supplies. And that our forces, close to its supply and supply, were outnumbered and outnumbered and surrounded on all sides, and a plan to liquidate the enclave began on Vergth (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt from the memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail Vergth (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oslo? Citation needed

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this article it is said: "The reality of the situation became apparent when the superpowers met in Oslo and agreed to maintain the status quo."

I wonder when did this meeting of USA and USSR take place in Oslo? In what framework? What did they actually discuss and decide? I cannot find any information about this issue. I hope that someone can help me and the readers of the article. Thanks. --Vermondo (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yom_Kippur_War/Archive_8&oldid=1137339215"