Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Yom Kippur War: 19 days from Oct. 6-25, 1973

I propose adding "19 days" to the opening description so it should read "19 days from Oct. 6-25, 1973". - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 39

To footnote 39 (about the clashing superpowers) I want to add: Melvyn P. Leffler, Odd Arne Westad, The Cambridge History of the Cold War, volume II: Crisis and Détente (Cambridge 2010) p. 154. 77.175.45.61 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2013 (Yom Kippur war)

Israeli losses in Yom Kippur war were far more than 2,8000. At least 8000 died and here's my source : Edgar O'Ballance. No Victor, No Vanquished. p. 265 Kramer2000 (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There are multiple sources in the article that put it at 2,521 and another at 2,800. Jumping to 8,000 is a pretty significant difference. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Information from SR-71 overflight helped end the war

I'm not familiar with the topic, so I'm not changing the article myself, but this July 2013 article on the BBC seemed to me to reveal new and essential information. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130701-tales-from-the-blackbird-cockpit/3 Someone else take the helm if this proves to be the case?

"Blackbirds ended the Yom Kippur War: "An average mission was probably three-and-a-half to four hours. A long mission would be eight or more. Through the whole history of the programme, through 22 years, we had 13 sorties that were over 11 hours; very, very long missions. But they were very rare.

"Twelve of those missions were flown out of the East Coast of the United States during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and we flew to the Middle East and all the way back to the East Coast, and the product was given straight to the President. The President wanted to find out whether the Arabs and the Israelis had really moved back from the front line like they said they did. We went over there, took the imagery, came back and showed photographic proof they were both lying about where their forces were. He called both countries and said, 'Get them back, I've got proof you're not where you're supposed to be.' That’s what ended the Yom Kippur War."

Leptus Froggi (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2013

Pls change link to non-existed page "HenrI Kissinger" to correct one - "Henry Kissinger". The link is within "lack of israeli preemptive strike" topic. Thanks 92.36.19.103 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A New-Old Issue

I would just like to register my disgust at the general biasing of the article, that is not to mention the flagrant conotations and myriad of implications posing as inferences. To the writers, rest easy this probably means nothing specific for you to fix. Seeing as how a single side is continuously expressing its horrification, I suppose you can have the decency to guess which one it is; far be it from addressing the issue properly on the other hand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.163.13 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.123.80 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WTF?

Is this system-wide or just this article? --Pete (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flag for Syria

"Belligerents" section in right-hand panel shows wrong flag (Egypt) for Syria! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.64.247 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not the wrong flag. It is the flag of the Federation of Arab Republics, which comprised Egypt, Syria, and Libya at the time of the War. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Main picture not representative of Israel's ultimate victory - needs montage

The crossing of the canal by Egyptian forces was only the beginning of the war. Would you represent World War II by the Nazi invasion to Poland without the Russian and American offensives and ultimate victory? Makes no sense.

I suggest adding this picture of the Israeli crossing to the west side of the canal, on their way to Cairo (!) or pictures to this effect, showing more parts of the war: http://www.inn.co.il/static/Resizer.ashx/news/250/168/443251.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.37.120 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 September 2013‎

About as much sense as missing out the British (not to mention Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc.) on the Allied side, you mean? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

Result: Egypt victory

not for article: stop lying to the world egypt had sinai now not you so we own the victory !!!

Fahd4world (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No Israeli atrocities against captured Syrian/Egyptian soldiers?

Shouldn't there be a section concerning any israeli atrocities against the opposite side? All in all, this seems like a biased article, considering the thousands of Syrian/Egyptian soldiers captured by Israel, and the current human rights violations committed by Israel against Palestinian prisoners, the Israelis must have tortured/killed some of them, especially since many of Syrian or Egyptian captives never returned to their homes and no media team ever dared to ask questions on their whereabouts. HannibalBarcaXXI (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, I support, there should be such as per WP:POV, just the citing of atrocities of one side is not correct, therefore other atrocities from the other side should also be cited along with references. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. But what if there were no atrocities committed by Israelis against POWs? After all, NPOV doesn't mean to lie.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. In 1974, Amnesty International reported of Arab POWs, "They are being treated well...and they seem to be getting the best medical treatment possible." Though there are many instances of Israeli soldiers being tortured or murdered while in captivity, studies have concluded that Syrian and Egyptian soldiers were treated humanely by Israel. You cannot "balance" an article by saying both sides committed atrocities against prisoners if one side evidently did not. --1ST7 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There were massacres of POW by Israelis in '56 and '67 but I don't have in mind reports of such events in '73. Wp:rs sources should be provided. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess we can't do much about it, but if one considers the Sabra and Shatila massacres in the late 80's, coupled with the cases of killing POWs before the Yom Kippur war, Israel has a history of human rights violations and mistreating/torturing POWs. Amnesty International's report may be biased, considering the fact that it was based on mere studies, and that Israel isn't famous for accepting international inspection committees, unless their reports were supportive of Israel.It's unusual that in such a war, Israel would not have mistreated any POWs. Nevertheless, I'm with the evidence. Thanks for your informative post, 1ST7. HannibalBarcaXXI (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What if references were provided for the atrocities in 1973? Faizan -Let's talk! 06:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess this changes the situation, and we'd have to make a section for the same. HannibalBarcaXXI (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The atrocities at Sabra/Chatila were committed by Lebanese militants not by Israel. What next - citing the bogus "atrocities" claimed at Jenin, 2002? The article is refreshingly free of anti-Israel bias; why manufacture dirt on Israel and call it "balance"? 121.99.116.233 (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Even if there is no atrocities committed by Israeli force, there should still be a section concerning treatment of Arab POW by Israel. Amnesty International's report can be used as reference.Tryst Nguyen (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support' especially because the citiation on the Egyptian atrocities is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.103.237.210 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Arab countries supporting Egypt and Syria in the infobox

I suggest we shorten the belligerents list by merging Arab states other than Egypt and Syria into "Arab League". There's no point of having a long list like that because we also have Sudan, Morocco and Palestinians who aren't mentioned. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - unlike NATO, the Arab League doesn't function as a military alliance. I think any country that participated in combat can be mentioned as a combatant. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't an organized military alliance, but it involved almost all Arab League members at the time except the newly ceded: Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and UAE. "Arab League" doesn't necessarily mean the organization itself but it also represents the Arab world in general (check the infobox in Arab-Israeli conflict) just like when we say "the Arab League had occupied Gaza and the West Bank following the 1948 war" equally meaning Egypt and Jordan had occupied Gaza and the West Bank respectively. Iraq and Jordan were involved in 1973 as expeditionary forces but so were Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco...etc. We don't need to make a huge list of all the countries that supported Egypt because there were so many of them from all over the world not only in the Arab world. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

number of Israeli Casualties

Garwich himself says (in page 75 of this paper) that the number is 2800. 8000 dead is obviously wrong. can someone please fix it? http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP21_The1973Arab-IsraeliWar.pdf thanks, 147.237.70.62 (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Israeli civilian casualties

This article makes no mention of any civilian casualties on the Israeli side. I have tried to look it up, but haven't found anything. Does anyone have any knowledge about this? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC) There were few Israeli civilians who were killed or wounded. Some of them by a Syrian missile which missed the air base in Ramat David, in the northern part of Israel. Generally civilians were not involved.147.237.70.62 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but do you have any clear figures? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014

Hi there! I noticed a type-o in this article. It mentions the word "feast day" instead of "fast day." Hope you can make that change! Sguttbinder (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Countries in the infobox

There is no sources to confirm Arab countries intervening on the Egyptian-Syrian side operated as a coalition organized by the Arab League, so listing the organization as a "supporter" is directly misleading. It is also customary to include countries that sent troops in the infobox - especially in the case of Jordan and Iraq. The current revision of User:Fitzcarmalan presents it as if Egypt and Syria fought alone, which is clearly wrong. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it is misleading to put countries who actually had troops on the ground and participated in combat under Supported by; especially when this label includes the US/Soviet Union who merely supported financially/Ideologically and had no direct involvement in combat.
I suggest re-arranging the belligerents so the Supported by category includes only those who did not have troops on the ground, i.e. Soviet Union/United States. --Tachfin (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about a totally different thing here. My debate with Mikrobølgeovn was about whether or not to group Arab countries that supported Egypt and Syria under Arab League or to mention them separately. But your proposal is still unacceptable in my opinion because Egypt and Syria were the official players here and to mention other countries that supported them in "combatant2" rather than "combatant2a" means that their role was almost equal to that of Egypt's and Syria's in combat while they only sent expeditionary forces that fought either unofficially under Egyptian and Syrian command or solo (which still doesn't make them as equal in importance as Egypt and Syria). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagree I never said nor have i even doubted that Egypt and Syria fought alone. I just think that it's better not to make a big and silly list out of countries that supported Egypt and Syria (Arab or non-Arab countries) because like i said before in a previous section that there were other countries that supported them not mentioned in this list such as Sudan, the PLO and South Yemen. So my proposal is still to gather all Arab countries under "Arab League" and i had already boldened it like the US and the Soviet Union are in the list. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, Algeria, Morocco and many others had similar roles to those of Jordan and Iraq so why specifically mention those two in the "combatant2" section with the primary combatants, Egypt and Syria? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well "silly list", that's what infoboxes are made for. For one, Arab League doesn't have an army (it's more of a tea party) and not all its members participated, so to fudge everybody there isn't the best of options IMO. Countries who did participate in combat operations should definitely appear as per the norm on other battle articles.

I found this earlier discussion and I agree that countries: who were only involved insignificantly (as Pakistan/North Korea/Lebanon) or just provided equipment (Libya) or arrived too late (Sudan, KSA?) shouldn't appear as belligerents. But for the rest there is no reason to exclude them as long as they DID participate in combat because "the list is too long" or "Egypt & Syria were the main forces" is not a serious argument. Which leaves us with Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Cuba as belligerents and the rest as Logistical/Material support. However, I have no idea on the degree of involvement from Kuwait. --Tachfin (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If they did participate in combat, that still doesn't mean they should be in the "combatant2" list with Egypt and Syria. "Egypt and Syria were the main forces" IS a serious argument. The offensives started from Egypt and Syria, war plans were made in Egypt and Syria, most casualties were from Egypt and Syria, and so on.. I don't need to explain this much further.

As for "Arab League", i had already explained what i meant about it just a few sections above this discussion before Mikrobølgeovn decided to start a new one.

"The list is too long" is also a serious argument because like you said, countries with smooth and almost negligible roles like North Korea, Pakistan and others shouldn't be listed with major players like Iraq, Algeria, Morocco..etc. They can be found easily in the article and they don't need a major representation in the infobox like Iraq and the Soviet Union for example. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Extinguishing between "major" and "minor" players is perhaps a good idea. Listing certain countries under "combat support" and others under "diplomatic/material support" could perhaps be a way to mention all countries involved whilst not giving a wrong picture. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Diplomatic support isn't a form of support you need to add in a similar infobox. There were countries that supported Israel diplomatically in the war like Portugal, the Netherlands and South Africa. And i also think i read somewhere before that countries like Argentina, Chile (after the coup) and Taiwan supported Israel too, though i don't have any sources right now supporting this claim. Do you think we should also mention those under diplomatic/material support in the infobox? Because i don't think we should.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and usually I'm critical of adding countries that did not participate in combat (just look at the Portuguese Colonial War, that's a real mess). However, the Soviets played such a significant role, both in terms of material aid, diplomatic involvement and the threat of direct military intervention that it deserves being mentioned somehow. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so who do you suggest should be removed and who should stay on the list? Because i still think Arab countries should be gathered under "Arab League" because it fits better than mentioning them all and it would save us from many future conflicts with Arab users who would like to see their countries represented on the list. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It would have made sense if the Arab League had organized a coalition of some sort, but I doubt that is what happened. I again suggest we include all countries that participated in combat and place any remaining supporters under "non-combat aid" if not removing them altogether (Lebanon, Sudan, Soviet Union etc.). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, how about a collapsible list with Arab League as the title?

Apart from that, who do you think should be removed from the list? I personally find North Korea, Pakistan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia unnecessary to be mentioned in the list because they're already well represented in the article and their roles weren't that notable in combat. Kuwaiti troops on the other hand also had an almost negligible role but they have clashed several times with Israeli forces in the war more than the ones i suggested to be removed so this, in my opinion, gives them a bit of credit to be mentioned unlike Saudi Arabia and Sudan for example. Opinions?

I'm still worried about future edit conflicts though.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

North Korea actually did have some battle involvement. I am not sure if the Pakistani pilots acted as volunteers or not, but as far as I'm concerned we can throw out Lebanon, Sudan, the Soviet Union and the United States. Do you know if the Saudis participated in combat or not? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually you misunderstood one of the most important parts of the argument which said that Egypt and Syria should be mentioned separately. Just scroll up a little and check out how i was discussing with Tachfin about how other countries shouldn't be mentioned in the "combatant2" section with Egypt and Syria, not even Iraq and Jordan, but rather in the "combatant2a" part. The whole process of grouping other belligerents should occur beneath the section containing Egypt and Syria. The arrangement i suggest simply goes as following:
Combat support:

• Algeria
• Cuba
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Morocco
• Tunisia

As you can see, i removed all forms of negligible support whether logistical/material or even combat because countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, North Korea and Pakistan because their support wasn't notable or significant in any way. This goes for the United States, the Soviet Union and Lebanon as well who didn't participate in any combat. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with removing Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since they did both send 3,000 troops, and I believe North Korea should be mentioned somehow since they did in fact contribute, albeit not equally to the two mentioned above. How about a collapsible list for countries that sent troops but didn't fight? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about notability here. Saudi Arabia had no significant role during combat and their troops arrived too late to participate in major fighting operations like Algeria for example. Kuwaiti troops were stationed in Egypt long before the outbreak of the war, and quoting User:Greyshark09 in the discussion previously mentioned by Tachfin: "On the same logic ground we should have put Iraq as belligerent of Black September in Jordan, since it had an idle brigade stationed in Jordan (which we of course haven't)". As for North Korea, it is documented by Egyptian sources in the article that they "suffered no losses but claimed no aerial victories in their engagements" and according to an Israeli source, two of their aircraft were shot down, one by Israeli F-4s and another was mistakenly shot down by Egypt's air defense. So this adds to their minor role. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if the Saudis arrived too late, I'm fine with removing them. But do you think that they should still be mentioned somehow (like in a collapsible list, as I suggested), or should they be removed alltogether? By the way - sorry for misunderstanding you twice, I don' have any strong opinion on this issue apart from combat involvement being the key and I'm not trying to do dirty tricks here (like making you appear as the bad guy by making you revert me). I will not make any more unilateral edits :) Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, it was just a simple misunderstanding that's all.

Well the whole idea in my opinion was to make the list as short as possible, limiting foreign involvement to "significant" combat support only, with perhaps a "see here" link to other types of involvement in the article, just like the Syrian civil war infobox. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait's roles were minor in combat with most of their troops arriving too late for an offensive that was scheduled 2 days before the end of the war and was later cancelled. And even if they did participate in some fighting before (though sources are needed), their contributions weren't as crucial as were the others' to be listed in the infobox. So an option i suggest would be a link referring to the "Participation by other states" section in the article while keeping only major combatants like Iraq, Jordan, Algeria..etc. I'm still suspicious of Tunisian involvement and think Libya had a bigger role than that and should replace Tunisia but i'll have to find sources of course. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Tunisians saw real combat when facing the Israelis at Port Said, but otherwise I'm not sure. Libya sent both troops and planes, and it's likely that they saw combat of some sort during the war. What if we make combat involvement the "key" and mark Egypt and Syria with bold letters to show that they were the "main" combatants? This would make it possible to mention North Korea whilst making it clear that they were -not- a "major" combatant. If Kuwait and Saudi did not get involved in combat, I won't object to their removal. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, though i still maintain my point on North Korea and Pakistan. Don't you think it's enough for them to be mentioned in the article itself? And what do you think about the "see here" link proposal to solve that? Because i honestly believe it's unfair to compare their efforts to those of Iraq for example to be listed together on the same list.
Anyways, what do you suggest the list should look like? According to the last two entries an update to the list i previously suggested would only include Libya.
What reminded me of Libya is that i came across their combat role before in several Egyptian sources though i don't have them right now nor do i remember their location. As for the Tunisians, i'm fine with adding them but i still believe more sources are needed to confirm their engagements. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this?

• Egypt
• Syria
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Algeria
• Cuba
• Libya
• Morocco
• Tunisia

I'm still not sure about North Korea, but I won't insist on keeping them if you strongly believe in removing them; your argument IS a serious one, and I do by far agree with it. How about a "limited/non-combat" column for Saudi, Kuwait and NK? Then we can throw out the superpowers. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I find this list quite perfect (although i think we shouldn't add Libya till we find more sources about how big their involvement was). And i definitely agree with removing the superpowers. I don't think we need any more additions and adding Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and North Korea would trigger other users in the future to add other countries to the list. So a simple "For other forms of foreign support see here" note in small font at the bottom of the two belligerent lists would do just fine in my opinion. And i also think there should be a line with "Combat support:" between Syria and Iraq in your list. Thanks.

By the way, sorry if i reply late sometimes because i'm quite preoccupied these days. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! Apart from looking into the scope of Libya's involvement, I think we can considered ourselves to be done here. Thanks for a solution-orientated and nice discussion! (and you're very fine, I have exams too). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree no consensus--Ersroitasent (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

discussion DID Not enD!!!! not seeing your active participation!!--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

infobox

Disagree Do not include countries that sent troops in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

countries that sent troops in the infobox had no significant role during combat and their troops arrived too late to participate in major fighting operations Do not include in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What a decent argument... --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have any interest in being a serious contributor then follow the basic rules of Wikipedia--Ersroitasent (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "argument" has already been discussed to death. Iraq, Jordan, Algeria, Cuba, Morocco and Tunisia DID participate in combat, and this is well-sourced in the article. That being said, I don't care much about reporting people for breaking the 1RR, but I advise you to self-revert before someone else "cares". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

i Disagree with you note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

it was not supported by any solid consensus the edits you DID and countries that sent troops DID Not participate in major combat there's no evidence to back it up stop your disruptive edits Do not edit war Instead discuss it!!!!

you and Fitzcarmalan is Not consensus --Ersroitasent (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Look up the sources you keep deleting, as well as the Aid to Egypt and Syria/Other countries section. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

checked the source Aid to Egypt and Syria is Not participate in major combat the countries in the infobox DID Not participate in major combat major combat!!!! What argument!!!--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i DID Not have any claims to support i reverted No consensus edits stop cite misleading information--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

the countries that sent troops are in the Aid to Egypt and Syria section and Not in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not include countries that sent troops in the infobox Instead include in the Aid to Egypt and Syria section--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Not moved. For reference there were three previous move discussions one in 2005, one in 2006 and one in 2010. None of these prior discussions found a consensus to move. There is a paragraph about neutrality here in WP:Article titles but we don't seem to have a problem with that. Editors here point out that the reference to Yom Kippur is not a concession to the Israeli point of view but a reference to the strategic significance for the Arabs of choosing that day for an attack. The !vote here was quite lopsided against performing the move just as in the prior discussions. Nobody offered a convincing refutation of WP:COMMONNAME. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Yom Kippur War → 1973 Arab–Israeli War – This has been discussed before (last time was four years ago), but now we have some WP:RS to underpin the discussion:

• Oxford University Press: "Yom Kippur War: The Israeli name for the Arab–Israeli war called by the Arabs the October War"[1]
• Neil Caplan, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories, "Similarly, to use the name “Yom Kippur War” to refer to the October 1973 attack by Egypt and Syria against Israeli forces lined up along the Suez Canal and on the Golan Heights would be to present the war as seen from an Israeli perspective that underlines the ruthlessness of the enemy for choosing Judaism’s holiest day for the surprise attack. Generally, the best way to approach neutrality in such naming is to refer to wars by their calendar dates."[2]

Not only is "1973 Arab–Israeli War" a neutral name, it is also a very WP:COMMONNAME - see for example: The US Department of State, BBC News, The CIA, Foreign Policy Journal, New York Times, and googlebooks ([3] + [4] + [5]) Oncenawhile (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support As evident above, "Yom Kippur War" is POV since its preferred by one of the sides. I wouldn't say "1973 Arab–Israeli War" the most common name for the war, (in Google Books there are 110,000 results for "1973 Arab–Israeli War" as opposed to 164,000 results for "Yom Kippur War"), but it certainly is the most neutral one. Also, for people who do not know much about the conflict "Yom Kippur War" doesn't really mean anything, while "1973 Arab–Israeli War" is pretty obvious. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Yom Kippur War is the most common name (including for historians). Just like Six-Day War is the standard name instead of "1967 Arab–Israeli war" or the Suez Crisis instead of "1956 Arab–Israeli war". Check out other Wikipedias: Yom Kippur-krigen, Jom-Kippur-Krieg, Guerra de Yom Kipur, Guerre du Kippour, Jom Kipoeroorlog, Guerra do Yom Kipur, Războiul de Iom Kipur, Chiến tranh Yom Kippur, etc, etc, etc.--Hiefer Kabalarian (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia doesn't use the most politically correct name, it uses WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". Google books results for "Yom Kippur War" -inauthor:"Books, LLC" versus "1973 arab israeli war" -inauthor:"Books, LLC" gives ~163,000 vs ~108,000 (Hohum ^@) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - can't stand these bland, boring, generic, lifeless, politically correct, tedious names. Poliocretes (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Hohum. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Still the commonest name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is the commonest name even though Yom Kippur is observed only by Jews and not by non-Jewish Arabs. Even some of these sources which the proposer says do not use "Yom Kippur War" do in fact use it - it's all over BBC News, Foreign Policy Journal, Google Books, etc. (though interestingly, maybe not the NYT? Gets a lot of hits, but they seem to be in opinion pieces, older stories, and non-A-section theatre and book reviews - I can't say I looked too hard, but it would be interesting if they phased it out - anyway, TLDR). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: In addition to its widespread use, "Yom Kippur" is significant because it's the biggest holiday in Israel, which was why Egypt and Syria started the war that date. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yom Kippur War is most commonly used by western sources. 23 editor (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

The Victory

Israeli tactical victory? like for real? a victory shouldn't be measured by sources or media avoiding bias. Define a victory? Did Israel achieve what they wanted?

A victory is "achieving what the war started for" and I don't think that Israel achieved what they want, Did they occupy Sinai to withdrew and call it a victory, or I am missing something? if the victory is tactical then who did retake his land at the end? what did Israel win? again a discussion away of bias.

Btw this is the command from Sadat to Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail the leader of the Armed forces then: http://group73historians.com/images/uploads/maps/41%202.jpg

The Command to start the war showing the aims of the war asking for :

1- Ending of the current indolence status and ending of the ceasefire starting 6/10/1973

2- Burdening the enemy with all the losses possible in persons and weapons.

3- working on retaking the occupied land on levels according to the military ability.

Which Egypt has achieved all. but the victory is Israeli? Destroying the country Israel wasn't a goal of the war as some claimed. It's even stupid talk according to Egypt's ability then. Amrtarek (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that content should reflect what WP:reliable sources say about their subject, not original research based on editor interpretations of issues. (Hohum ^@) 19:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

So it should be about what the media say more than the truth? Amrtarek (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The "tactical victory" is a Wikipedist's interpretation of sources. It is beyond doubt, that it can be argued that the war was an Egyptian victory as well. Reclaiming Sinai and inflicting substantial casualties on Israel, plus the effect it had on Israeli mentality about the country's invincibility. Even this source that is used among others to back the "tactical victory" claim admits this (see pages 400–401). And at this documentary film's end (ep. 3), there are several expert statements that assess that Egypt can claim victory in these regards.

Either way, the sources are obviously not unanimous in opinion about the result of the war. Regarding the "result" field that is in question here, the {{Infobox military conflict}} instructions state:

this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

So I think the way forward should be either omitting this parameter or providing a link to i.a. the article on the peace treaty that ended the period of hostility, and describes the results in-depth. Using a term like "tactical victory" is speculative and up to interpretation, and its use specifically discouraged. --hydrox (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. so "tactical victory" will be removed. Then, we are talking about both sides claim victory, but I am talking about Egyptian victory. It's about achieving what the war started for not about causalities or anything else, and Egypt started the war and achieved it's goals and retook the occupied land. what did Israel gain at the end? Amrtarek (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot just swap 7 reliable sources by claiming the term "tactical victory" is inappropriate. Even if the Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal did surprise the Israelis, the fact that Tsahal had completed their encirclement of the Third Army by the time the ceasefire was negotiated proves that Israel had the advantage at the end of the conflict. Answering to Amrtarek's question, "what did Israel gain at the end?" Can you tell me what Egypt won at the end? The standard definition of a tactical victory is when "the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor." By glancing at the casualties, we can observe that Egyptian losses are far more important than those of Israel. Evoking an Egyptian victory at the end of the conflict seems totally inappropriate to me. Hydrox cites an Al Jazeera documentary (which is not quite the most neutral source)... As to this source, reclaiming Sinai and inflicting heavy casualties is described as the rational interpretation of the Yom Kippur War, and the author is specifically trying to counter these arguments:

With regard to the surrender of territory argument -the Yom Kippur War, it is true, resulted in the surrender of the Sinai desert captured in the Six Day War. But the surrender of Sinai was part of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, a treaty which the overwhelming majority of Israelis acclaimed.

Eventually, the term "tactical victory" is used in many conflicts: Pearl Harbor, the Coral Sea or in the Korean War... Even though it may be discouraged, it may be sometimes the best way to describe a partial victory. This subject has been dealt with many times already, and I frankly see no need to go over it again. Regards, --Bright Darkness (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All I can see from the archives is that there has been continuing discontent with "tactical victory". I do agree that military-wise Israel obviously had the upper hand position at the end of the conflict, and all sources, even the one you claimed was not neutral, agree on that. Yet, when you consider the whole picture, Egypt achieved its primary strategic goal of reclaiming the Sinai in the end. So while the Israeli victory was on the military level, the victory of Egypt was on the strategic or political level:

Egypt’s new leader, Anwar Sadat, was bent on recovering the Sinai Peninsula and eager for America to push Israel to the negotiating table even as he prepared for war. [...]

[...] Sadat had already decided to throw his lot in with the Americans, who, he realized, alone could deliver peace between his country and Israel. His motives for attacking Israel were more complex than he let on. Sadat appears to have understood all along that he could not win back the Sinai through force of arms alone. His primary purpose was political, not military. By 1973, he had come to believe that the diplomatic impasse over the return of the Sinai could be broken only by war.

Sadat also knew that compromise with Israel would be almost impossible as long as Egypt’s humiliation of 1967 hung in the air. Kissinger understood that as well. He believed that America had to ensure an Israeli victory but that the victory should stop short of humiliating the Arabs to that degree again. Charting a middle course would require deft diplomacy.

— "How We Used to Do It", M. Loyola, National Review

So as a compromise, what about "Israeli military victory" (to avoid using the discouraged term "tactical"), combined with a link to the peace treaty for an in-depth explanation of the gained Egyptian goals? --hydrox (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe you've quite well summed up the situation. Israeli success wasn't substantial on the political level, as the country had to lead discussions with Egypt afterwards, something which was seen as unimaginable after the 1967 humiliating victory. The Yom Kippur War, in my opinion, put an end to Israel's sense of complacency and pretended invincibility, as the country fully understood the threat of an organized Arab coalition. As to me, I utterly agree with the "Israeli military victory" compromise. --Bright Darkness (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

ه

A war victory is not measured by the causalities but by it's goals achieving. about the third army, yes the third army was surrounded and the Israeli troops were 100 KM away from Cairo, the truth is the Egyptian Army was in a critical situation, but so does the Israeli! occupying a land is easy ,keeping it isn't. Israeli forces didn't fully control the area they took and the Supply lines were completely exposed to the special forces attacks. + The Israeli forces didn't have the ability to move toward Cairo as there were "The 4th armored division supported by a republican guard's brigade and behind them an Algerian armored brigade) blocking them from reaching Cairo. Any Israeli move towards Cairo would affect the Israeli situation negatively. if the Israeli forces were unconcerned about their situation so why did they change the bridge on the Suez Canal into an asphalt one instead of pontoon bridge?

I refuse limiting the war in the military efforts, the war isn't just series of battles but a political a political conflict too. am not even trying to prove just military success but a war victory achieving it's goals as I showed at first. a war result doesn't stop at the last day but includes the long term results also.

about Bright Darkness 's Question, what did Egypt gain? Egypt has gained what they started the war for. and that is what called victory. Amrtarek (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Amrtarek, you appear to be missing the point. Wikipedia follows what WP:reliable sources say. That's it. To answer your earlier question - "So it should be about what the media say more than the truth?". No, and if you read the link about reliable sources, you'd know that. News organisations usually barely meet the criteria of reliable - while the work of favourably peer reviewed historians would be more preferable - even more preferable, historians and political analysts who specialise in the military and political theatre in question. So I suggest you read the reliable sources which deal with this war and see what they say, and then refer to them in this thread.

Repeating why *you* think will get no traction at all. Pointing out what reliable sources say, will. (Hohum ^@) 18:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Amrtarek, Egypt's goal was indeed to take back Sinai, which spurred Sadat to start another conflict. Despite initial victories on the battlefield, the Israeli tactical (or military, which seems more appropriate) achievements stood as an obstacle for Egypt to fulfill its objective. So, Sadat did not achieve what he started the war for, and he only had Sinai back 5 years after, in U.S.-brokered negotiations with Begin at Camp David. Political negotiations which happened 5 years after the conflict may seem too far-fetched to be included in the immediate result of the war, especially in proclaiming an Egyptian political victory! I think we may look at this conflict in many ways, but considering the war a success only for Egypt seems totally inappropriate to me. We can spend hours here trying to analyze the deep political consequences of the war, but, militarily, Israeli had the advantage. Thus, I see no point in arguing about the Israeli military victory, an outcome substantiated by a number of reliable sources from many historians specialized in Israeli-Arab conflicts. And the article should reflect this consensus, while leaving open further developments for the political gains for each entity. Why should we focus on some more debated aspects of the war, instead of referring to an outcome commonly accepted by most? Again, Hydrox's solution appears to me the most logical one. --Bright Darkness (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Hohum , I see. I won't argue that until providing sources for my story, until that I support the "military victory" one. @Bright Darkness "working on retaking the occupied land on levels according to the military ability" was the goal for the war not taking the full land although the whole land was re-taken. Sadat wasn't stupid to think of re-taking the whole land and destroying Israel as some claimed. and there wasn't any military victory either but I see arguing is useless without providing sources. so I will have to wait until getting that. Amrtarek (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the argument about reliable sources, i personally prefer this variant by Hydrox and i'm wondering why we can't simply use it? This is a fragile and extremely controversial debate with millions of people around the world believing Egypt was victorious and other millions believing that it was Israel who won, so a few sources some random person found and placed on Wikipedia can't change the minds of millions who though Egypt had achieved victory (and the same goes for Israel if someone had used sources claiming it was an "Egyptian military victory" and thinks it's reliable info just because this user has many of them). And it definitely can't change a historical fact with such a highly divisive debate like this one. This isn't about "balancing" or "neutrality" but it's about being fair and i think this edit was fair enough. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

same goes for Israel if someone had used sources claiming it was an "Egyptian military victory" It would help greatly if you could cite sources that make a claim for Egypt achieving military victory. I was not able to find any English-language literature dealing with this subject that was not more or less written from the point of view of Israel or the U.S. (which does not necessarily mean that they are unreliable accounts.) But the al-Jazeera documentary hints of such sentiment existing in the Arab world, yet it's understandable that Western sources would not necessarily explore those arguments to a sufficient depth. --hydrox (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the article highlights an "Israeli military victory" utterly disregards the political consequences of the conflict, which may be in Egypt's favour (as the country reclaimed the Sinai partially because of the war). The Israeli victory does not only rely on the multiple sources which substantiate this outcome, but also on the casualties at the end of the conflict. The initial version was "tactical victory", which does merely account for Israel's superiority in terms of losses. I know that determining the strategic and political outcome of this conflict is controversial, but I think we should focus on the military aspect, as most specialized historians agree on the fact that Tsahal successfully overturned the conflict and gained the upper hand at the time of the ceasefire. The Arab/Egyptian sources rarely claim that Egypt defeated militarily Israel, but only that they forced the enemy to negotiate a compromise which was at the advantage of Egypt. Again, I think we should leave it this way, while leaving open further developments for the political aftermath of the war (as the infobox does). --Bright Darkness (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. all the arab sources are talking about a military victory also. Historians as well. Group 73 Historians as an example, they had an interview with Israeli newspaper called Yedi'ot Ehronot as far as I remember regarding Egypt achieving military victory. I can find a link. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 09:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it is better to avoid the issue of "who won" at all. Although the Israeli army turned a catastrophic situation to a tactical victory, it was a Pyrrhic victory: "one more such victory would utterly undo him". Israel paid heavy toll ,with lot of mourning parents, and the prime minister, defense minister and the chief of staff resigned.

Moreover, both sides were depending heavily on military and diplomatic super power support, without it both should have stopped the war earlier. Israel decisively won against the Syrians, but the the Egyptian front was in stalemate. The Israeli air force commander deliberately reported a false and low number of available aircraft, (he wanted to advance the Suez canal crossing), which in turn caused the Israeli government to propose the Egyptian a truce with the current armies location, although this border was bad to Israel. The too confident Sadat refused and Kissinger decided to pressure him by supplying Israel with a lot of arms and supplies. With those supplies, Israel decided to cross the canal and won. Kissinger didn't allow an Israeli landslide victory and stopped the Israeli army just before it could crash the besieged Egyptian southern army.

None of the opposing armies could have win the war without a superpower support, hence the question of "who won" is not so important. Later Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty , and this was the real victory for both sides. (BTW I am an Israeli) Ykantor (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I do too think that describing this war as a victory on either side (Egypt / Israel) is quite a pointless exercise. This was my original proposal; the total effects of the conflict are such far more complicated than can be adequately summarized in a few words of an infobox. But my proposal was rejected, on the basis that it meant dismissing a large number of literary sources – even if the editor who originally added these sources has since been banned from editing all Wikipedia articles relating to the Arab-Israel conflict for purposedly introducing misleading and biased information. Before this banned editor (User:Jiujitsuguy) started editing this article in September 2009, the article did not name a victor for the war, and the infobox summary was quite like my proposal, that was just recently still rejected. The ghost of the banned editor lives on? --hydrox (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Many users participated in the debate regarding the result row in the infobox, and User:Jiujitsuguy did not run solo on the issue. Your logic is badly flawed, and your argument is a clear Ad hominem which you should apologize for. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended, I am just stating what is an indisputable fact that this user has been since banned for, among others, pushing biased material to articles. To advance the debate, I would recommend you refrain from making such dramatic demands and rather address the factual points raised i.e. Why do we need to even specify a winner for this war, since the question of the victor seems to be so complicated? The {{Infobox military conflict}} instructions say "it is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much". --hydrox (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for overreacting, I've pulled back the last line of my post. As far as I've understood, victory claims on behalf of Egypt is based on it 1) achieving its political goals, 2) experiencing military success in the early phase of the war, and 3) changing the psychologial aspect of the conflict by shattering Israeli illusions of invincibility. While all three claims are arguably correct, none of them make this war an Egyptian military victory. The degree of political success Egypt achieved is already reflected in the infobox, and given that Israel and Egypt fought two different wars and percieved the character war in different ways, this mixed outcome should come as no surprise. I think changing the infobox to not reflect this will only make the article obscure. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course you're right, the factual basis seems pretty much agreed upon. My thesis is, that because outcome is actually so convoluted and there are multiple layers to the outcome of the war (Israeli military victory, yes, but it's not that simple), there are maybe good reasons to refrain from specifying any victor altogether. But it's maybe a point of minor importance, and there does not currently seem to be a consensus for changing this. I for one am satisfied with the current composition of the result row of the infobox otherwise. --hydrox (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

hi, first of all it is really disturbing wt u put in the infobox ---israeli military victory--- but dont u think the political gains is clearly ---strategic defeat to israel--- and this of course was strategy.as i read before from ur great dicussion in this topic tactical victory is a discouraged term so i suggest to write strategic defeat to israel instead of pure military victory to israel which is wrong in the context it will make the reader disturbed and cant get the whole truth about this important military conflict in history

you really have 7 sources about this great israeli historical victory but all of them either non military specialist , israeli leaders , israeli authors or israeli sympathizers therefore all of them are not neutral, not correct in judging the military battlefield situation

so i have to you instead this great military website which can clearly judge the situation at the end of war in terms of 'who won it military'

it says "The 1973 Arab-Israeli War ended with no clear decisive outcome on the battlefield."

"What seems clear, however, is that the Arab grand strategy eventually proved successful in achieving most of their Arab's strategic policy objectives. While as an immediate result of the war, Egypt recovered only a small portion of the territory seized by the Israelis in 1967, and the Syrians lost some territory, a clear shift in the political balance occurred in the Arab's, particularly Egypt's favor"

"This restored Arab confidence and morale, a psychological victory for them, while conversely, Israel was downcast and very paranoid about its future"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Jordan.htm#_ftn127

it is ABC about yom kippur war 1973 who won the war and now the great wiki is saying israel won it 'military' while defeated in 'politics' actually it did not say that but lets assume. my fellows politics is only reflection to the military battlefield situation which is huge loss in souls , equipments and too many causalities as most sources said. i really sorry i hope i will not see such mistakes which is hopefully not intended.the last thing to say to you its all about wikipedia and its reliability , credibility and are we able to show the truth or right information to the world or not . hopefully we are ,anyway thanks --Ridoking (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ridoking "its all about wikipedia and its reliability". Yes, it is, which is why it uses WP:RELIABLE. Wikipedia should reflect what the most reliable sources say, which is why your multiple deletions of well sourced information keeps getting reverted. Please follow WP:BRD. Blathering about unproven bias isn't helpful. (Hohum ^@) 15:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The present infobox is a result of long discussions, some of which are in the archives and date back to the early beginnings of the article. The fact that this was an Israeli victory is widely supported by many reliable sources. Basically it was a tactical military victory because Israel repelled the invading forces and conquered even more territory both in the Golan and Egyptian territory west of the Suez Canal, trapping and almost destroying Egypt's Third Army. Egypt didn't recover the Sinai in the Yom Kippur War (as Amrtarek said), but after it signed a peace treaty with Israel six years later (while Israel withdrew between 1982 and 1989). In fact, Sadat recovered the Sinai because he traveled to Jerusalem, recognized the State of Israel, opened diplomatic relations and after a long peace process it was reached a political solution acceptable to both countries. Furthermore, Egyptian forces during the war made only extremely limited territorial gains (as this map shows), while Israel also conquered territory beyond the Sinai. To claim that Egypt got the Sinai back by starting the Yom Kippur War it would be so absurd as claiming that if a Palestinian state is established in the future, it's a result of the Second Intifada instead of a peace process and a political solution. I'm not saying the Yom Kippur War and the Camp David Accords are not related, but it doesn't refute the Israeli tactical victory during that specific war. Israel returned the Sinai after reaching the conclusion that it was more convenient for them to have peace with Egypt than having the Sinai, not because it was defeated in the battlefield. Besides, despite Israel was caught by surprise at the beginning, the losses on the Arab side were far greater. Check the sources before removing properly sourced information. Thanks.--Hiefer Kabalarian (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I see a few Egyptians have had their feathers ruffled. There is an easy way to discover who won this war: look for the photograph of the ceasefire negotiations between Israel, Egypt and UN in a tent in the Sinai. Look at the expressions on the Israeli faces and on the Egyptian faces. This will tell you who thought the had won the war and who thought they had lost the war. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/Jogg/29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.21.225 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Atrocities

Apparently in December 1973 Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass did address the Syrian National Assembly, and make some statements regarding the award of the Medal of the Republic. However there are two issues with this. Firstly he seems to have referred to Israeli soldiers, not prisoners. There is a big difference. Secondly it is highly improbably that anyone killed 28 Israelis with an axe, and then ate the flesh of one. This improbable claim really needs corroberration before it can be cited as an actual war crime. If it did happen I am sure the IDF could confirm it - and would have done so.119.224.91.84 (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Syrians eating the flesh of their enemies? Plus ca change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.21.225 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What is highly improbable is that a Syrian soldier killed 28 Israeli soldiers with an axe without being killed. As we can see from the Syrian Civil War, it is highly improbable that a) no Israeli prisoners were murdered and b) none of them had their flesh eaten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.21.225 (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox results edit war - yet again.

User:Ali Osama please stop edit warring and explain the rationale for your edits. "In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." You have reverted at least three times. A very obvious warning of this is shown every time you edit. If you continue, you will likely be reported to WP:AN/EW and be blocked. (Hohum ^@) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to report multiple violations. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Syria deployed only 50,000 troops no 150,000

In 1973 the Total military personal in Syria was only 111,000 (page 25) http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/070815_cordesman_israel_syria.pdf

According to this pro Israel documentary Syria deployed 50,000 troops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHDH48U3Ik

Total force deployed =

50,000 troops 1200 tanks 600 artillery pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

Please change "Israeli military victory" to "Egypt's victory over Israel" because Israel lost Sinai militarily to Egypt!

Thank you

Kassab's (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done Please see the long discussion further up this page.
With regard to your statement "Israel lost Sinai militarily to Egypt!"; Egypt didn't regain Sinai in the Yom Kippur War, it regained Sinai only after the peace treaty, and after Sadat recognized the State of Israel - which many would see as a significant Israeli victory. Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In the last battles defeated the Egyptians and Syrians(eg. Suez, Ismailia). Our article is based only on Israeli sources. Where Egyptian sources? Syrian Where? Article about the Yom Kippur War is more like propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flak155 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

result of the Yom Kippur War is completely identical to the Iran-Iraq war. Both armies suffered heavy losses and could not advance further. It's not Syrian victory and the more it is not Israeli victory. Only for Egypt, the war was successful, but it is a diplomatic victory.Flak155 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox - "Stalemate"?

@Flak155: An editor is repeatedly adding "Stalemate" as a result in the infobox. The source being used is here (page 25). I can't see it characterised this way in the source. (Hohum ^@) 18:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Just adding a little support for Hohum: went through the entire document and couldn't find anything that would support a 'stalemate'. Please don't indulge in WP:OR, Flak155. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Cyri486 (in reference to this edit) and User:Flak155, please stop tampering with the result in the infobox using the same document to draw conclusions that simply don't tally with the actual outcome of the war. If you have a case to argue, bring it here, to the talk page, per WP:BRD. BRD does not mean bold → revert → 'don't bother to discuss, just do it again'. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/1699355/1975-09-01A.pdf 1973 Arab-Israeli War: Overview and Analysis of the Conflict. CIA. p.25 "Egyptian army was not defeated", "Syrian army was not defeated" - Central Intelligence Agency, more than reliable source. Why you ignore CIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flak155 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy on the use of primary sources. I have read the document carefully and, while I could draw a number of conclusions myself, I understand this to be your own WP:OR reading of a primary source. All I have ascertained is that you have cherrypicked a portion within a broader analysis. As a layperson, I do not consider myself competent to draw any conclusions from this document. Are you able to produce reliable secondary sources? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

the egyptian military had won not the israelian please dont lie on people 41.236.250.242 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

not English or not true ?

"and Golda have verified it to him.[68]"

Ahem.

142.162.21.54 (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed this one. -- ferret (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014

Please change Israeli military victory to Egyptian military victory The reason for this is that 1- the third army wasn't entirely surrounded except after breaking the ceasefire by Israel 2- The third army even by the end of the war did not surrender, in fact it occupied even more land east of the canal 3- The Israeli army was in a very weak position west of the canal either surrounded by natural or man-made obstacles or by the much stronger egyptian divisions west of the canal 4- The idea that the Israeli army was on the road to Cairo is invalid strategically since there were multiple divisions and brigades along the way including the Algerian one guarding the gates to Cairo. Also the Israeli army supply line was very unstable due to SAM sites covering the deversoir area.

Please also remove the 'Arab invasion of Israel repelled'. It is a well known fact that the objective of the Egyptians and Syrians was not to invade Israel (since Sadat previously called for a peace treaty in 1971 which the Israelis refused) but to regain lost territories in 1967, which was accomplished on the Egyptian front and partially on the Syrian front.

Sources: "Sadat: Search For An Identity" P.305 Arabic Edition "El-Gamasy, October War 1973" P.435 Arabic Edition "David Elazar's diaries" p.150 Arabic Edition "Moshe Dayan: Story of My Life" p.337 Arabic edition

NadermunRa (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I've taken some time to read the history of this talk page, and see this has been requested (and rejected) multiple times. Based on the longer discussions in archive 6, I am going to reject this request as well. -- ferret (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

no victory

Israel hasn't won the war and especially not against Egypt because they suffered heavy casualties and requested support from the USA after most of their army was destroyed, they failed to take Ismaillia city and Suez buy the end of the war and their tanks were stuck in the Egyptian dessert with nothing except stronger Egyptian forces in front of them and they were cut off their base in the center of Sinai with no air support unlike the Egyptians, plus they were also surrounded and they surrounded the egyptian 3 army with fewer forces than what Egyptians had during a cease fire, don t forget how the us gave away the location of weak spots in egyptian lines to the Israelis.And egyptian president Sadat never asked for peace, it was the us and Israel who asked for it. plus the objective was only to get back lost territories not invade Israel as it is written. now we can either put Arab victory even tough you don't like the sound of that because you are pro Israel and racist or we can put both Factions claim Victory plus erase the invasion of Israel repelled because it never happened and the Arab forces were still there, especially the Egyptians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.223.223.235 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I also agree Israel no won so the war over in a Negotiation when Israel lost part of the Golan and Entire Sinai — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Causalities are not important anyway focus on the objectives objective were regain territories losses in 1967 and both states Egypt and Syria did it total or partiality - Israel ceded small territories to Syria and huge territories to Egypt - You cant call that a "military Victory" when the side who claim win no get a single meter after the Negotiations

Both Side claim victory is the better description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Both Side claim victory , but actually, there is no victory for any side, Israel actually failed to destroy Third Army or occupied Suez City, where is the victory ? Ibrahim.ID »» 07:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, they failed to occupy Egypt again or destroy the Egyptian army yet i can't figure out how they keep posting here about a victory! Egypt took every inch of Sinai back which was occupied, before the Egyptian military 1973 attack. --ScienceAuthority (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was reached about an Israeli victory long time before: [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]--Wlglunight93 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Egypt changed it's status from an occupied land to forcing Israel to sign papers of never attacking Egypt because of this. From then the two states became friends. It's totally false in Political Science to claim a victory in the side that lost the lands that the war was made to free it in the first place. --ScienceAuthority (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss something that was addressed several times before. Read the links that I provided you from the archives of this talk page. The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was not part of this war. You are removing information supported by many reliable sources. Next time you break 1RR and force me to engage in edit-warring, I'll report you. It's you who need to gain new consensus to make such an important change.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the discussion. Israeli-biased and Israeli links can't be reliable sources, as they are one sided and disagree with all political science logic. Our main discussion here is that Egypt was occupied before this war, and because of the war and Egyptian military attacks in which their main purpose was freeing Egypt's lands till the fact that they kept leading and they reached Ber Lev line and fully destroyed it. So, because of this war and mainly the Egyptian military attacks, Israel signed papers to never attack Egypt again or ever assault the Egyptian lands. Victory sides can't lose the claimed lands, Egypt won all it's lands. There is no Israeli victory here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceAuthority (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your lies and misconceptions (supported only by your own original research) until you revert yourself back to the long-standing version of the article.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No victory Consensus

the sources: [12][13][14] [15]

Your claim is already mentioned in the result list. Moreover, your sources don't contradict or rule out the "Israeli victory" claim and the other 7 sources that support it. Infantom (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox currently has a number of cited sources that state it was an "Israeli victory." If you want to remove or modify this you need to provide sources that contradict this. You list a bunch of sources but I could not find in any of them where it is stated that it was not an "Israeli victory." The fact that Israel suffered losses does not make it a non victory as every victor suffers at least some losses. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Now User:Dexterous B reverted[16] and added a source from http://egyptholidaysdirectory.com [17] that is not an Israeli victory. I'm sorry but that "source" does not comply with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and must be removed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

At the war end, Egypt wished to end the war when they realized that the I.D.F canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe. (Morris, 2011, Righteous Victims, p. 436 ). So, who is the victorious side? Ykantor (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Henery Copt, Please explain why you removed "Israeli military victory", it is supported by 8 sources and a consensus in this article. Plus, you didn't explain what your sources are supposed to support. Infantom (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR violations?

Unless I'm miscounting, on 8 October three successive editors just broke the WP:1RR. This article is most likely on the watchlist of several admins, so please be careful. Notice the talk thread #No victory Consensus that is open just below. It would be reasonable for all parties who have edited in the last two days to wait for its outcome. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which editors? I did a single revert (yesterday?) and when my revert was reverted and accused of being vandalism (despite my edit summary being clear on reasons and citing Wikipedia policies, so even if my edit is disagreed with, it's not vandalism), I chose not to re-revert and instead contacted the editor who accused me of vandalism. I have edited a few times since then, but not as reverts, rather as specific point edits. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

Ykantor, is this really a "result" of the war? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Fitzcarmalan. The information in Ykantor may belong in the article (is it not already present?), but it doesn't belong in the sidebar, especially not in the "results" section. Egypt's reasons for wanting to end the war are not the results of the war, but one of the many things leading to said results. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I removed it and added:

-The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[14]

-The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo, which worried Egypt.[14]

-The Israeli Army advanced to a 40 km distance from Damascus, which worried Syria. Ykantor (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014

it is sad how Wikipedia is so biased and side with Israel as usual. Good luck finding readers

166.137.209.144 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are not meant for baseless whinging Cannolis (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Result list in infobox

The result list in the infobox is too busy, it should be a brief list. Some of the listed claims are unnecessary or not a direct outcome of the war. I think it should basically include the Israeli victory, UN ceasefire, Israel–Syria Disengagement Agreement and maybe the political gains for Israel and Egypt. What do you think? Infantom (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality of Benny Morris and the cluttered Infobox

First things first, let me express my great disapproval with the inconsistency that this article brings to Wikipedia with its cluttered Infobox where people are attempting to fit the entire article (and more) in a pocket edition. Clearly there seems to be a massive misunderstanding of what the "result"-section represents on Wikipedia so I will take the liberty of explaining it once and for all in an attempt to ease the inherent bias of this article.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict

I believe the logical conclusion is that long-term effects are what constitutes a "result". As such only five out of the existing TEN points are to remain, those are as follows:

• Political gains for Egypt and Israel
• Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty
• Israel–Syria Disengagement Agreement
• See long-term effects

This point should be redundant by now but I will bring it up regardless for future reference. Benny Morris is by no stretch a neutral source, the following is an extract taken directly from his Wikipedia article:

Morris's work on the Arab-Israeli conflict and especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has won praise and criticism from both sides of the political divide. He is accused by some academics in Israel of only using Israeli and never Arab sources, creating an "unbalanced picture".

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

The current use of his work is in direct violation of the guidelines provided in WP:NPV. For sake of neutrality it is necessary to avoid referencing his work in factual contexts without offering other viewpoints for balance, especially when it is not backed by academic consensus. I will pursue sanctions for any continued misuse of biased sources such as these in the article.

For more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Thank you, Turnopoems (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

First, the Israeli military victory is backed by many reliable sources. Second, Morris is widely used in several Wikipedia articles, just like other "new historians" (who are critical of Israel), precisely because he's very reliable and precise to report events of Israel's wars.--Dreddis Rules (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Benny Morris is about as WP:RS as it gets. He's a prominent and prolific writer whose works are widely quoted, in both mainstream media and academic discourse. You should head over to WikiProject Palestine and notice how many of their articles make use of Morris' writing. You would cut that project's content in half by removing him. The fact that he has critics does not in any way prevent him from being a WP:RS, not to mention the fact that a wikipedia article alone is not remotely sufficient to disqualify him as one. Besides, in an article that widely quotes Saad El Shazly, a prominent actor in the events described within, Morris is a non-issue. Poliocretes (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have said nothing about the "Israeli military victory" even though I will be tackling it in the future in an attempt to level out bias. I did not question the reliability of Benny Morris, do not put words in my mouth. What I did say is that using his biased sources in a factual context is a direct violation of the guidelines provided in WP:NPV if not balanced by opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia does not forbid the use of biased sources but it demands that they be balanced to reach a fair representation, this has not been achieved. As I'm fully aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not a one-man-project I'm trying to reach consensus before removing the following points from the result box:

• The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 40 km distance from Damascus.[16]
• Failure of the Arab reconquest of Sinai and Golan
• UN ceasefire

As mentioned earlier they simply do not belong there, these are not long-term effects of the war and the result box is not for summarizing the conflict. They provide a narrow point of view and they are also inconsistent with the content of the article. Claiming that "Failure of the Arab reconquest of Sinai and Golan" was an outcome of the war disregards the claims made in the article about Sadat pursuing a limited victory to gain a bargaining chip during negotiations; which were rejected by Israel before the war. Turnopoems (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

- according to your quote ofTemplate:Infobox military conflict , there should be ""X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"" only.

1. If we decide to stick to this rule, than it should say "Israeli victory", which is well supported. Otherwise, if phrase like "Bar Lev Line destroyed" stays, than the text that you deleted should be stated as well.
2. there is no support for your usage of "long term". It is a plain result.

- Concerning your claim that "Benny Morris is by no stretch a neutral source", it seems that you are unfamiliar with wp:secondary. I suggest you read it again.

- Yours "which were rejected by Israel before the war.", is not accurate.

1. Sadat proposals before the war were an extreme example of unrealistic demands, that no Israeli government would have accepted it, even in an hindsight. For Instance, he demanded full Israeli withdrawal from all of Sinai (and more) before he would start an indirect negotiations with Israel. Taking into account that the main (and may be the only) Egyptian reason for the peace was the return of Sinai to Egypt, would an responsible Israeli leader accept this ultimatum?
2. Israel agreed before the 1973 war, as a part of the peace agreement, to declare all of Sinai as an Egyptian soil, and to return nearly all of Sinai to Egypt while leaving some Israeli civilians at few strategic points. Sadat have not replied to this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs)

You're missing the point, once again, I'm not arguing against the reliability of the author. Citing him as a source is perfectly fine. The author, however, is controversial and is known for only using Israeli sources thus rendering his work one-sided. According to Wikipedia guidelines outlined in WP:NPV this presents us with a situation where both sides need to be represented to create balance and paint a neutral picture. This has not been achieved.

I suggest you read my response more thoroughly, the "Israeli military victory" was excluded deliberately as I only mentioned the ten, following points and not eleven, including the aforementioned. By simply adhering to the common definition of the word "result" logic dictates we exclude the above-mentioned points. Merriam Webster defines "result" as "to proceed or arise as a consequence, effect, or conclusion". If you can explain HOW the following points are an outcome or direct consequence of this military event as a whole I will drop my attempts to remove them from the Infobox:

• The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 40 km distance from Damascus.[16]
• Failure of the Arab reconquest of Sinai and Golan
• UN ceasefire

If consensus has yet to be reached after my request I will seek help at the noticeboard. Clearly there is an unbalanced representation among the authors of this article and sentimentality runs high.

1. What you speak of is completely irrelevant to the point I'm conveying and whether it's realistic or unrealistic is subject to both debate and subjective opinion which I'm not interested in. Nothing that I said is incorrect and is substantiated by the content of the article itself.

2. I'm not going to comment on the absurdity of the implication that Israel occupies some kind of moral high-ground; colonial settlements, relinquishment of sovereignty... Equally unrealistic. Let's keep this discussion about the topic at hand please. Turnopoems (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"As I'm fully aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not a one-man-project I'm trying to reach consensus" ... "If consensus has yet to be reached after my request I will seek help at the noticeboard."

This reads to me very much as: "If my lone voice doesn't gain consensus after *two days* I'm going to try forum shopping". I don't think that is helpful, and isn't likely to build consensus. (Hohum ^@) 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we to disregard my legitimate request which attempts to reconcile the content of the article with Wikipedia guidelines simply because others choose disregard them? Your conclusion is absurd and insulting, my intention was not to get my way but merely to receive input from a knowledgeable third-party that is not influenced by sentimental attachment to either side. If I recall correctly that is the appropriate method to solve a dispute upon reaching an impasse as outlined in the WP:DR. Perhaps you should refresh your memory in regard to those guidelines instead of attacking people who are trying to make serious contributions. Thank you, Turnopoems (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that you'll get more consensus with honey than with vinegar, but it's entirely up to you. (Hohum ^@) 16:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Is it just me, or does the introduction seem exceedingly long to anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.183.18 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Do these changes comply with the guidelines pertaining to territorial changes?

There is a long, ongoing dispute between me and two other editors over the content under "territorial changes" due to differences of opinion on how to apply the guidelines in Template:Infobox military conflict, these are the changes that are being discussed:

• Removing the reference to the "Third Army".
• Adding a reference to the subsequent land deal decided upon in the peace treaty.
• Removing the reference to the distance between Israel's army and its opponents' capital cities at the end of the conflict.

What is the correct application of the relevant guidelines in regard to the above-mentioned content? Please see "Territorial changes" in talk section for prior discussion. Turnopoems (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Background Edits

@Tuylrnicracker666:Please follow Wiki guidelines and use "Talk" for discussion as opposed to one-liner summaries in the History page. Regarding your revision as of 01:11, 30 December 2014 - my edit was perfectly factual, records a key characteristic of the War, and is eminently justified to be in the lead. Your revert simply re-introduced the possible impression that the War was fought against the country of Israel and not against its Occupying Forces in Egyptian and Syrian territory. Please refrain from reverting to less informative content. It shows bias towards wanting to maintain ambiguous text, which is not good Wiki content. This is such a clear case that I have restored the original without waiting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Yom Kippur War, as any war, is first and foremost a war between nations, in this case Syria and Egypt against Israel. The assertion that it was fought against "Occupying Forces in Egyptian and Syrian territory" is both tedious and factually incorrect as witnessed by the launch of AS-5 missiles against Tel Aviv in the opening salvo of the war, the launch of FROG-7 rockets against military and civilian targets in northern Israel in subsequent days, and the attempted imposition of a naval blockade, to name a few. Poliocretes (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Poliocretes:Let us examine your insinuation that the war was in fact fought mainly on Israeli territory: a) The AS-5 rockets. Two TU-16 bombers fired two of these missiles, yes, one each [see The Yom Kippur War 1973 by Simon Dunstan - page 39], at Tel-Aviv (neither reaching the target). Compare that to 200 Egyptian aircraft attacking the Israeli occupying forces in Sinai. b) The Frog-7 rockets fired at northern Israel: In fact 25 such poorly-performing missiles were fired at the Ramat David air base in northern Israel (also reported to have been 10 missiles) [18]. Compare those numbers to over 2000 guns that bombarded the Bar-Lev line in Sinai, plus the fire from tanks, mortars, 'Katyusha rockets, plus more Frog missiles; to the 10,500 shells estimated to have fallen in the Israeli defences in Sinai in the first minutes of Operation Badr; to the 4000 assault infantry in the first wave in Sinai; to the 720 dinghies that crossed the canal into Sinai; to the 80,000 Egyptian soldiers active in Sinai versus the number involved in the fighting in the Israeli Negev; to the number of Syrian tanks that rolled into Israel (zero) with the 1400 involved in Golan (Dunstan p. 157); compare the number of SAM-6 missiles fired at Israeli aircraft over Syria with those used over Israel proper; compare the number of strikes by aircraft against Damascus with those that hit Tel-Aviv

Perhaps far more illustrative, I challenge you to review the battlefield maps for the Yom Kippur war, and to guestimate how much of the action took place in Golan and Sinai compared to Israel proper.

So please, when you intend to use historical facts, try not to pick cherries quite so obviously. Yet, I do concede that limited attacks were made on two localities in Israel. I will therefore revert your deletion, but change the text to reflect that NOT ALL attacks were against the Israeli occupying forces in the Egyptian and Syrian territory, but that a small minority targeted Israel proper. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My, that is a certainly a long rebuttal of an argument I actually DID NOT make. At what point did I say (sorry, insinuate) that "the war was in fact fought mainly on Israeli territory"? The fact that it took place mainly on the Golan and in the Sinai is a rather trivial matter of geography, strategy and capabilities. The Arab desire for an Israeli withdrawal from territories in occupied in 1967 does not in any way mean that they limited themselves to engaging these forces alone, a demonstrable falsehood. Also, the fact that the offensive capabilities of the Syrian or Egyptian air forces were poorer than Israel's is not even disputed (despite Egyptian claims to the contrary, the initial strikes were rather ineffective. That's not me, and not only numerous Israeli accounts, but also Hussein Haikal). Are you suggesting Egypt or Syria would not have attempted to disable Ramat David or Tel Nof if they could? Straw man as you will, you completely fail to address the fact that the war is fought between entities, and not between two nations on the one hand and politically expedient but ultimately meaningless label on the other. Tell me, during ceasefire negotiations, were the Arabs facing representatives of the "Occupying Forces in Egyptian and Syrian territory" or representatives of the State of Israel? Your edit is a rather transparent POV pushing attempt to inject justification for the actions of one party into the lead. It does not belong there. Poliocretes (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

- Poliocretes is right.

- You claim that this is not true: " the War was fought against the country of Israel and not against its Occupying Forces in Egyptian and Syrian territory". Where is your wp:rs who support your view ? Ykantor (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean you want WP:RS confirmations that the vast majority of the Yom Kippur war actions took place in the occupied territories and not on Israeli soil? That as a result the Arab forces never attacked (with very minor exceptions) the State of Israel, but instead engaged her occupying forces? Sure; although I have already quoted above from what is probably the most-quoted book on the Yom Kippur war:

1) In probably the next most popular book on the 1973 war – ‘The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle east’ by Abraham Rabinovich, he describes pretty much the same battlegrounds and the same confinement of the conflict to the occupied Arab territories of Sinai and Golan. His battlefield maps are extremely well illustrative of this (page 2). The only real differences are that Rabinovich focusses on the Israeli perspective and that he myopically refrains from calling these two territories “occupied”. Instead he refers to them as ‘fronts’. He does make a concession to historical reality on page 44 when he mentions the Egyptian goal of “recapturing” Sinai. But the battlefield names remain the same – the Bar-Lev line; the Purple line; Mount Hermon; Hushniye; Gidi Pass, Tasa, etc. [None of these are in Israel]

2)

• • • “to force the Israeli Army to retreat from positions it occupies … (page 9)
    • “only a major war to liberate most, if not all, of Sinai in a single campaign made any sense …” (page 11) [note, Sinai is not part of Israel]
    • Convincing the enemy “that occupation of our land exacts a price too high for him to pay …” (page 12)
    • “to work for the liberation of occupied land …” (page 13)
    • “A military assault on the Bar-Lev line and the capture of land to the east would suffice … Though not primarily interested in seizing territory … his attention focussed on the rapid capture of Qantara East … located on the east bank of the Suez Canal … (page 22)
    • “250 Egyptian planes … attacked their assigned targets in the Sinai …. 2000 artillery pieces opened fire along the Bar-Lev line … 8000 commandos and infantrymen … crossed the Suez Canal … raising their flag to signal the Egyptian return to Sinai”
    • “Dawn on 7 October found the Israelis facing some 50 000 Egyptian troops and 400 tanks on the east bank of the Suez Canal [this is not in Israel]
    • Map 3 on page 45 shows all the Egyptian action being confined to Sinai, as does Map 4 on page 47, Map 5 on page 58, Map 6 on page 61, Map 7 on page 66, Map 8 on page 72.
    • The lethargy in the Sinai battlefield led to the turning of the tide of war … (page 57)
    • The names of all of the key battle locations are in the Sinai – the Bar-Lev line; Port Tawfiq; Ras Sudar pass; Romani; Artillery Road; Port Suez; El Qantara; Giddi pass; Tasa; etc.
    • On the Syrian side all activity takes place in the Golan Heights or in adjacent parts of Syria – (page 40); the Purple line; etc.
    • The Syrian inability to capture the Golan Heights and their forced retreat back into Syria … (page 55)

If you don’t consider the US Army Command publication to be WP:RS, we can turn to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Combat_operations where you will find a Sinai section and a Golan Heights section, but no Israel section for the war theatre.

Alternatively

• • • Princeton Edu: “Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively, which had been captured and occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War” - http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Yom_Kippur_War.html
    • National Defense Library: On October 6, 1973, thousands of Egyptian troops massed on the west bank of the Suez canal awaiting the order to cross and retake territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 six-day war. As more than 200 jets roared overhead en route to Israeli targets in the Sinai, the Egyptians swelled into action, eager to reclaim not only the occupied territory, but their honor. The Yom Kippur War was more than an Arab attempt to evict Israel, ….” - http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w416373/PS%20331/Anwar%20Sadat%20and%20the%20Yom%20Kippur%20War.pdf
    • “Preparations for a war to liberate Sinai” – in ‘The Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippur War: An Analysis’ by Dani Asher; also pages 9, 14, 22 and 61.
    • ‘Revisiting the Yom Kippur War’ - edited by P.R. Kumaraswamy: “Egypt's national goal is to eradicate the Israeli occupation of Egyptian territory"
    • “In a concerted effort to regain the territory and restore the honor lost in their humiliating 1967 defeat, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat sent his forces across the Suez Canal while his ally, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, attacked the Golan Heights” - http://www.historynet.com/yom-kippur-war-embattled-israeli-bridgehead-at-chinese-farm.htm
    • ‘Inside the Kremlin During the Yom Kippur War’ by Victor Israelyan: On October 4, 1973 “Assad stressed that Syria’s goal was the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all Arab territories occupied by Israel”

• I, also, agree with Poliocretes. Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Erictheenquirer user page:"I respect the documented historical truth". So, please stand by your word and support your claim with a wp:rs. Please avoid flooding the talkpage with irrelevant information, and instead try to prove your claim, that this is not true: " the War was fought against the country of Israel and not against its Occupying Forces in Egyptian and Syrian territory". Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Epeefleche, Ykantor, and Poliocretes:Let's take this in small tranches. Do any of you dispute: 1) that the battle history of the Yom Kippur war was for the great majority fought on the Egyptian and Syrian territories of Sinai and the Golan Heights? That these two non-Israeli territories are where almost 100% of the fatalities and injuries occurred, where almost 100% of the ordnance and ammunition was expended; and which include almost 100% of the locations mentioned in the battle records? 2) that the attacking armed forces of these two Arab countries engaged Israeli forces occupying those two Arab territories? I find it regrettable that YKantor believes that my "Talk" post providing referenced factual historical data supporting these two key facts is considered by him to be but "irrelevant information".

So of course the war was fought between Egypt and Syria on the one hand and Israel on the other, but which version has more information value? The current one is a trivial political statement providing very little informative value. Whereas "The Yom Kippur war was fought between Egyptian and Syrian armed forces, and the Israeli forces occupying the Sinai and the Golan Heights" remains a fact verified by half a dozen perfectly WP:RS sources (notwithstanding YKantor's unsubstantiated claim to the contrary), and indeed besides simply listing the protagonist countries, it provides additional useful introductory informations: Where was the war fought; Who was the occupier; Why was it fought. I invite you to read that first paragraph and tell me whether the current text is anywhere near as informative. Unless, of course, Wiki is not meant to be informative, and it is perfectly acceptable to convey the erroneous politically-driven impression to the casual reader that Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli sovereign territory in 1973. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Poliocretes:I am still awaiting your WP:RS source demonstrating that the following original text of mine was "factually incorrect" (your stated justification for deletion): "the 1973 Arab–Israeli War, was a war fought by the coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israeli forces in occupied Sinai and the Golan Heights, from October 6 to 25, 1973." If the statement is factual, I see no reason for deletion. So I need to see your contrary evidence. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Eric -- can you shorten your posts? They are so long and meandering they are often difficult to follow. You can probably better explain yourself if you follow the rubric that brevity is the soul of wit. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

It seems there have been eight or more reverts of the lead since 29 November. Since this is an WP:ARBPIA article, it is unlikely that a dispute like this can escape the notice of admins. Please consider opening a formal WP:Request for comment or use some other technique of WP:Dispute resolution. Full protection or sanctions against individuals are possible if people keep reverting prior to getting talk page consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer and EdJohnston:Brewcrewer's revision of 02:37, 4 January 2015‎ is yet an additional example of his disrespect for Talk Page consensus. He has been documented as making a habit of this on WP:ARBPIA articles. Regrading his one-liner 'justification' - "rv random factoid. does not belong in opening paragraph of lede", I strongly refute his reasoning as follows: 1) The text deleted by Brewcrewer - "Military combat actions during the war took place exclusively on Arab territory, mostly in Sinai and the Golan Heights, except for isolated attacks on Israeli territory during the early phase." is 100% factual and fully referenced 2) It does not fit the definition of a "random factoid". 3) The first reason is that the theater of war (location) is a key aid to classification of any war since without it an essential essence of the conflict - Wars by type - cannot be determined, as in Defensive war; War of Liberation; War of Occupation, and, more importantly, distinguishing defensive aggression from offensive aggression becomes nigh impossible. I point to the heated discussions involved in the Six Day war on the aggressive versus defensive nature of a first-strike. 4) Without a description of the military forces involved key classifications cannot be made, such as Civil War; War of Liberation, not can the role of the protagonists be determined - allies; occupiers; defenders; liberators; conquerors.

So a description of WHERE action took place and BETWEEN WHICH FORCES are key to the description of any war, perhaps more so than the mere date of the conflict. They therefore deserve a prominent place in a lede. Instead of crude deletion, Brewcrewer might have discussed relocation or rewording as an alternative option, but that is not his established style. I invite comment before acting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC) One of the most obvious key pieces of information, which I omitted above, is the reason for embarking on the war. Added Egypt's stated goal to the Lead; same source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The location of the fighting is stated in the infobox, and is further described in the lead ("Egyptian forced crossed the cease fire lines..."). There's no need for your clearly POV formulation of "took place exclusively on Arab territory" (which is immediately contradicted by "..except for the attacks on Israeli soil") . That's redundant, clumsy and confusing writing whose only purpose is to push a POV. All Rows4 (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All Rows4, where is the Wiki rule that if something is stated in the Infobox, it is denied a presence in the actual text? I have checked various articles and found duplicated information to be present without apparent problem - including the Six Day War; the Falklands War; Suez Crisis. Rejected justification. Secondly, since when is crossing a ceasefire line equivalent to conducting war in another country? I suspect that you are of the belief that when a ceasefire is agreed, that occupied territory becomes sovereign to the invader/occupier? That belief would be in error. Rejected justification. So we are left with some clumsy syntax. I will correct that. In future, please wait for appropriate discussion before editing an article in the Palestine-Israel category. Many thanks in anticipation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4:Since you have not been able to show that duplications between the info-box and the text are prohibited in Wiki and also failed to substantiate your claim that there were "several attacks on Israeli territory" (besides the two AS-5 Kelt missiles on 6 October and the attacks on Ramat David on 9 October) your unfounded accusation of non-NPOV is rejected. The text has been corrected so as to address your valid criticism of ambiguity. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected due to edit warring until 12 March

Please see the result of this edit warring complaint (permalink). Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. An RfC was opened on 27 December but it's so vaguely-worded it's unlikely to be helpful. Anyone who is interested in this issue would be performing a service if they could nudge the participants to clarify the options and vote on them. The dispute is about just a few words in the infobox. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 January 2015

94.59.38.145 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC) egypt and syria by now had excellent weapons

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. Also, please provide reliable sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 February 2015

Put hyphens in "surface to air missile": "surface-to-air missile". Chris the speller ^yack 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015

I want to edit this page IS985 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
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. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Partial" military victory?

Many books present the war as a "partial" military victory.

>1 Alienation Or Integration of Arab Youth: Between Family, State and Street - Roel Meijer Citation

>2 Youssef Chahine -Ibrahim Fawal - British Film Institute, 26 janv. 2002 - 240 pagescitation 2

>3 Arab political thought in the twentieth century - Shahid Jamal Ansari -Cosmos Books, 1 janv. 2007 - 164 pages Citation 3

>4 Newsweek, Volume 82 Citation 4

Tought? Should we add that somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzLuz31 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning these books:

1. Using your the given link, the page is not available. Looking at the book name, it hints that the author experience is not close to the issue of this article.

2. Looking at the book name, it hints that the author experience is not close to the issue of this article.

3. This Author might be considered a wp:rs for the purpose of this article. Will it be possible for you to elaborate ?

4. Using your the given link, it seems that this is a second half of a "if..then..partial military victory" sentence. will it be possible for you to elaborate? Ykantor (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 January 2015

My request is to Change the Results of the War from "Israeli Military Victory" to

Syrian Front : Israeli Military Victory

Sinai Front : Both Sides Claim Victory (Camp_David_Accords , Egypt–Israel_Peace_Treaty)

Because the Egyptian Government Claims it won the the war on the Egyptian Front Operation_Badr_(1973) and that the status of the War in the Egyptian front was a de facto Egyptian Victory because The Israeli Armed Forces Failed to defeat the Egyptian Armies on the Eastern Bank of the Canal and that the Egyptian-Israeli talks for peace began BEFORE the Israeli Breakthrough and that it did not affect the peace talks because of the repeated Israeli failures to capture any strategic or significant Location on the western Bank of the Canal

http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Templates/Articles/tmpArticleNews.aspx?ArtID=83065#.VMoqKWP9ldg (Official Egyptian Governmental Site) http://www.group73historians.com/

Saif hazem1942 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Israel lost the Entire Sinai
• Israel and Egypth were the Same side in 1973
• Israel lost the Quentria City and severals others towns in Syrian Front.

You cant call a thing a "Military Victory" when you lose ground in all front--LogFTW (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Yes. Both sides did claim victory and that should be written as the result rather than only saying one of them won. I agree with changing the result as to that above. You may want to look at the 'Overall Result of the War' section at bottom of page. Thank You and please reply. Infor4fun (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No Israeli Military victory Egypt won the last battle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suez — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have to agree on this. Does not this means Wikipedia's claim on this war is biased? Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents

I would like to come back to the consensus of 2011 discussion on listing participants - it is clear that the main forces were Israel vs. Egypt and Syria. Israel was logistically supported by US. Arab major expeditionary forces also included Iraq and Jordan. In addition, active support was provided by Algeria (air force). Passive support (logistics, finance and non-combat units) was provided mainly by Soviet Union, and to lesser degree by Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Morocco, Tunisia and Sudan. Lebanon provided very limited logistics (radar stations), thus is redundant to be named among belligerents; same goes for Pakistan and North Korea, who allegedly only had several individuals operating in Egypt and Syria, perhaps as intelligence.

Saudi Arabia and Morocco forces may have participated in some engagements, but we don't have sufficient sources to include them in active support so far. The only source in the infobox regarding Morocco is in Spanish, so somebody needs to provide something better to keep it in the infobox. Cuban forces were present in the region during the war, but it is not clear whether they participated in the fighting - i couldn't verify it in the presented sources; unless a quote is give, i shall remove it. Tunisia was certainly not involved in fighting, but its troops stayed idle in Port Said during the entire war. I therefore removed Tunisia from infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 08:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I also propose to add US as support of Israel and Soviet Union as support for Syria and Egypt (as supported by subsection).GreyShark (dibra) 08:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed in detail in January 2014 (although for some reason I can't find it in the archive). The discussion involved every country you're mentioning. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Territorial changes

I'd like to thank the involved editors for heeding my request and I appreciate the compromise and the addition of "territorial changes", I must however comment on the pervasive Israeli bias which seriously puts to question the intention of some of the editors. In what sense is "The third army was besieged there" a territorial change? Does every addition have to contain a clause that glorifies Israel and undermines the achievements of Egypt and Syria? Furthermore, I would like to add that it is misleading to claim that Israel advanced to a distance of 100km from Cairo, as far as the content of the article goes there were no attempts to advance towards Cairo. During Operation Abiray-Lev the Israelis merely crossed the canal and attempted to surround the Third Army, as a part of this operation Magan, Adan and Sharon attempted to occupy Ismailia and Suez, which they failed to complete. Their advancement on the west bank targeted Suez with the intention of cutting off the Third Army. The fact that these cities are located roughly 100km away from Cairo is not enough to make a case of it. This is equally absurd as claiming that the Jordanian army advanced to a distance of 50km from Jerusalem or that the Egyptian army advanced to a distance of 350km from Jerusalem, neither of these cities were ever a target for either side during the war. A more accurate way to describe the Israeli positions on the Egyptian front by the end of the war is that they crossed the Suez Canal and advanced on the west bank towards Suez, which, unlike Cairo, was an actual target.

"According to the plan set for the Israeli crossing, Operation Abiray-Lev (Hebrew for "Stouthearted Men"), the designated crossing point lay near to Deversoir, at the northern end of the GBL on the Suez Canal. The Israelis had to open the principal route to Deversoir and secure a corridor stretching 5 kilometers (3.1 mi) north of the crossing site (known as "The Yard"). Paratroopers and armor would then cross the canal to establish a 5-kilometer-deep bridgehead (3.1 mi) after which the bridges would be laid, with at least one to be operational by the morning of October 16. The Israelis would then cross to the west bank and attack south and west, with the end goal of reaching Suez, thus encircling and cutting off two Egyptian divisions on the east bank. Southern Command allotted 24 hours for the setting up of the bridgehead and 24 hours for Israeli forces to reach Suez, with the latter expected to be under Israeli control by October 18 at the latest. It would soon be shown that the execution of Operation Stouthearted Men would deviate from planning and schedules, and that the realization of the time-frame had been highly optimistic and extremely unrealistic.[11][12][13]". Turnopoems (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing here glorifies Israel. This is a description of the territorial positions at the war end. If you do not like the words "advanced to a 100 km from Cairo" . them Morris exact wording may be used. At the war end the Israeli army occupied all positions around the The Egyptian 3rd army (together with the city Suez), so it was besieged. I fix it accordingly. Ykantor (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the absurd claims that are being inserted left and right have little relevance and present twisted facts intended to belittle the achievements of Israel's opponents. I like this format better but I would like to review the source of these numbers, they are not found in the cited source; page 437 in Righteous Victims by Morris. I'd appreciate it if you could double check the source and revert, I will leave things as they are until further notice. Turnopoems (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The returning of the Sinai is not a direct outcome of the war. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed 6 years after the war and is a "long term effect". Territorial changes in infobox should be only relevant to the situation at end of the war. Infantom (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't specify that it has to be a direct outcome of the war though, the template says as a result of the conflict. I see no harm in including it especially when its status was mentioned as the casus belli of the war. Including subsequent treaties that put an end to the formal state of war between combatants seems to be standard procedure on Wikipedia and I see no reason why this article should be an exception, in the absolute majority of cases these negotiations take place years after ceasefire has been declared and the war effectively ends. Turnopoems (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The peace treaty is not a result of the war, but a result of a negotiation that had taken place years later, and is, at most, a long term effect. The template is unclear, "Territorial changes" should reflect the positions at the end of the war. I'll wait for other opinions before further actions. Infantom (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think personal interpretation should dictate our course of action when the nature of the issue is controversial. My personal stance on the issue is that it should stay, as mentioned earlier, it is standard procedure to include subsequent treaties. The following is an examples of that:

• Turkish War of Independence, ended in 1922.

• Treaty of Lausanne, ratified in 1924.

Furthermore, we have a clear-cut example of how the "territorial changes"-section is used in, for example, the article pertaining to the War of the Pacific.

Territorial changes

• "Litoral Department (Antofagasta) ceded by Bolivia to Chile in 1904."
• "Tarapacá Department ceded by Peru to Chile in 1884."
• "Puna de Atacama ceded by Bolivia/Chile to Argentina in 1889/1899"
• "Tarata occupied by Chile in 1885, return to Peru in 1925."
• "Arica province occupied by Chile in 1884, ceded by Peru in 1929."
• "Tacna (Sama River) occupied by Chile in 1884, return to Peru in 1929."

If you're still adamant on changing it then the best course of action is asking for a clarification of what this title implies at the relevant noticeboard. Turnopoems (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You ignored the first part of my reply, the peace treaty and the returning of the Sinai are not a result of the war. It occurred years later and isn't related specifically to this armed conflict, but the entire Egyptian-Israeli conflict. Therefore it has no place in the infobox, it could be labeled, at most, as "a long term effect". Infantom (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Turnopoems, yours: " these numbers, they are not found in the cited source; page 437 in Righteous Victims by Morris". I rechecked, and the numbers are in the quoted source. Ykantor (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I must have missed it. I wholly disagree with mentioning anything about the Third Army in a section pertaining to territorial changes. I would also like to open a discussion regarding the 100KM from Cairo and 20 miles from Damascus claims, while they are indeed substantiated by the source I question their relevance in the present context (it is already mentioned in the article itself). It is not a territorial change, i.e. no territory changed hand, and if we look at the example cited earlier this is definitely not the format we should be looking at. Turnopoems (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Infantom, I just noticed now that you had replied again, Ykantor's reply caught my attention. I assumed you were referring to your old reply. I did respond to the first part of your reply, the template doesn't specify that it has to be a direct outcome of the war and if we follow the example that I have shown here clearly this isn't a condition, the War of the Pacific ended in 1883 yet they've listed a number of events after that date. You're interpreting this from a personal standpoint and there is no academic consensus to substantiate your claim that the peace treaty wasn't a result of the war. Had this peace treaty been the result of a larger Egyptian-Israeli conflict then the prospects for peace should have remained static with or without factoring in this particular conflict, would this war and the subsequent peace treaty have happened had Sinai not been under Israeli control? What is the cause of the "Egyptian-Israeli conflict"? Has the status of Sinai remained the same throughout and have the objectives of the armed conflicts defined by this term been the same throughout? We know for a fact that this particular war, unlike the previous wars, was fought specifically with the intention of regaining control of Sinai. Furthermore, the term "Egyptian-Israeli conflict" is ambiguous and is not referenced or defined in academic literature. Again, I must insist we present this case at the relevant noticeboard if you're hellbent on changing this per your definition of "territorial changes" and "long-term effects" as the template alone fails to substantiate your request. Turnopoems (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you've violated the WP:1RR, you got to stop reverting all the time as you still have no consensus and you're the one who added the content in the first place. Second, you didn't respond to the first part, the template explanation is unrelated to the question whether it's a result or not. Now, your hypothetical questions are completely irrelevant; what would have been or could have been if something had or hadn't been or happened is not an argument. There's a fact, the returning of the Sinai is a result of the peace treaty which is a result of peace talks and negotiations that had taken place years later. These are not associated specifically with this war but more with an ending to the all violence since 1948, that's why i mentioned the "Egyptian-Israeli conflict" example. "there is no academic consensus to substantiate your claim that the peace treaty wasn't a result of the war"- that's the other way around, you made the claim- you need to provide sources. Infantom (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Turnopoems, yours: "the 100KM from Cairo and 20 miles from Damascus claims, while they are indeed substantiated ... It is not a territorial change, i.e. no territory changed hand," What do you mean by "not a territorial change" ? . It is a clear territorial change. e.g. The Israeli starting point was the canal ( about 130 to 140 km) from Cairo, and the end point was about 100 km from Cairo. Ykantor (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Infantom, I have violated nothing, it's called the One Revert Rule, not the One Edit Rule. I also explained that my edit was the result of a misunderstanding. How am I making a claim when I'm merely rebuking yours and asking for proof, saying that the peace treaty isn't a result of the war is just as much a claim. Why are you still spinning on this overused rhetoric? Unless I'm reading someone else's reply: "The returning of the Sinai is not a direct outcome of the war". It's inclusion is not predicated on it being a direct outcome of the war, it was an 'OUTCOME' of the war nevertheless. I don't think I need to argue that a peace treaty that returned Sinai to Egypt directly pertains to a war fought to return Sinai to Egypt when common sense dictates that it is, subjectiveness aside. The Arab-Israeli conflict was fought over the status of Palestine, the October War was fought over the status of Sinai, the peace deal was between Egypt and Israel and specifically dealt with that situation and not more. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but here goes another attempt; since you're the one requesting to remove content that doesn't contradict the template and complies with the prevalent disposition you should inquire about this at the relevant noticeboard because I can't find anything that supports your request.

@Ykantor, it is merely a vague and irrelevant description 'OF' the territorial changes. The territorial change is not that they were 100KM from Cairo, had it been a territorial change it would have said "they occupied an area of 100KM2 in and around Cairo". We might as well add that Egypt was 350KM away from Jerusalem and that Syria was 100KM away from Jerusalem. What is Cairo's relevance in this matter? They were also 450KM from Alexandria, 2600KM from Istanbul and 9000KM from New York City. You say the starting point for their advance was the canal; Cairo was not the target of this advance, the city of Suez was. Do you have any source that ascertains that Cairo was a legitimate target during this operation or at least strengthens it relevance in this context? I also want an explanation for why you reverted my edit, please present a motivation for including "encircled the Third Army". As far as common sense goes it is not a territorial change, the Third Army is not territory. Turnopoems (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your first revert was removing the third army issue from the previous version, the second was your last one, never mind. I could argue your reply again but it would be an endless circle- i'll make it more clear so you understand what i mean. You made a claim that the peace treaty is a result of the war and added it to the territorial changes list, i removed it since it's dubious. it should be settled by sources given by the one who made the claim to begin with. Now, what do you by "prevalent disposition"? the only criteria is reliable sources, "rebuking" is not enough.Infantom (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The first was an edit, the second was a revert. If by any chance my edit falls under the definition of "revert" then I apologize. Let's not twist the issue because this could go on forever, this has become a debate over semantics and I'm certain both of us have more important things to do. You said the treaty doesn't qualify as a territorial change because it happened years later despite this not being a criteria outlined in the template, I showed you a concrete example of the application of "territorial changes" in a different article which supports the inclusion of the peace treaty and other long-term results but you ignored it. If you didn't see it the first time then here it is again: War of the Pacific. Turnopoems (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, i made 2 arguments during the discussion. 1.The treaty isn't a result of the war (and i explained why). 2. if it was, would it be correct to put it in infobox as it happened years later? Your answer regards only the second argument (and i still have a disagreement, but i'm skipping it for now). You decided to evade answering the first one and dismissed it by the argument of "common sense". I ask for reliable sources that support the claim that the war resulted the peace treaty- this is the only criteria. Infantom (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Your explanation is that the treaty dates a few years after the actual war, that alone does not disqualify it. You said the treaty pertains to the "Egyptian-Israeli conflict". There is no academic definition of this term, you coined it yourself. 2. According to who or what? This is the only criteria according to you, once again, the template makes no mention of this and other articles make extensive use of this format. Turnopoems (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

1. My explanation is that the peace treaty is a result of peace talking and negotiation that are unrelated specifically to this war but to the all violence regarding Israel and Egypt since 1948, especially the six day war. No need for academic definition as it was just an example, i'm not adding it to the article. The template states "as a result of the conflict" you still haven't provided any proof for it to be a result, you keep evading responding to this while this is the most important thing you should have. 2. according to guidelines here on Wikipedia: WP:RS, WP:CON. I think you had enough time to do so, please don't revert it until you reach consensus and provide reliable sources. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

-Turnopoems: " The territorial change is not that they were 100KM from Cairo". This is a direct quote of a wp:rs and if you oppose it, will you please quote a source who negates it?.

- Concerning the 3rd army encirclement, will it you accept "encircled the Egyptian Third Army area", which is a pure description of a territorial change . Ykantor (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Infantom, first of all, there is no consensus for you to revert my edit in the first place. You're arguing over semantics and I asked you to submit a formal request to a knowledgeable third party who would help us in defining the implications of the guidelines. Since you're hellbent on a source I will heed your call and I will add a source. Meanwhile, for your own peace of mind you can review it yourself:

To most Egyptians Sadat had gained a famous victory in the October War. The Egyptian Armed Forces could now hold their heads high in the knowledge that the crossing of Canal had been an operation of great skill and courage. The war also led to substantial political gains. Although a military defeat, the war did break the political log jam and thus succeeded in this wider strategic aim by securing Egypt first an interim agreement on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and finally a peace treaty that returned the entire area of the peninsula in April 1982. - Page 92 in The Yom Kippur War 1973 (2): The Sinai, by author Simon Dunstan Turnopoems (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor, my issue is not with factual validity but rather the context. I have no qualms with it being mentioned in the article itself (which it is), even though the claim fails to take into account the strategic objectives of the Israeli crossing in an obvious attempt at glorification. It is not explicitly a territorial change, which the template is asking for, nor does it explain the relevance of Cairo.

Regarding the 3rd Army, I don't agree. There is no definition of what the "3rd Army area" is which makes it ambiguous and the issue is properly covered by content of the article itself, I think most people would agree with me that this simply doesn't describe a territorial change, less so than the former. Under this pretext we could also mention the destruction and crossing of the Bar Lev Line for example, which we haven't (because it's not a territorial change). I also don't think "encirclement", no matter how we phrase it, qualifies as a territorial change. The actual territorial change is covered already, the encirclement itself did not yield additional territorial gains that differ from the already occupied territories. Turnopoems (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

-Turnopoems: "the claim fails to take into account the strategic objectives of the Israeli crossing in an obvious attempt at glorification". What do you mean by strategic objectives? I guess that Israel wanted to defeat the Egyptian army (e.g by besieging the third army) and ending the war. The territorial change was a by product.

- The glorification issue, is meaningless in my opinion. This war is still seen in Israel as a failure because the contrast between the pre-war military self assessment and the amount of killed soldiers during the Israeli initial defeats and later. So although eventually Israeli won the war, there is hardly any glory associated with this war.

- territorial change: It is not easy to convey the territorial changes , unless there is an attached map, which can show an encircled Egyptian army. How would you describe an enclave with a sizable amount of Egyptian soldiers within the Israeli occupied territory? Ykantor (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

- Israel's objective after crossing the canal was to occupy Suez, not Cairo. Cairo is not relevant in this context.

- Irrelevant, it is undoubtedly intentionally misleading and attempts to glorify the Israeli army, there were no advances towards Cairo and its relevance in this context is only what you make of it. It is no different than claiming that the Egyptian army advanced to distance of 350KM from Jerusalem.

- You have a section that specifically ask for territorial change, it's as simple as that, no 3rd Armies, no 2nd Armies, just a brief description of the territory that changed hand. In this case Israel occupied 1600KM along the southwestern bank of the canal, whatever tactical maneuvers Israel chooses to perform on this occupied land is irrelevant in the given context.Turnopoems (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

-I have asked you for your proposal but you avoid it. So how can we advance ?. I'll repeat:

1. territorial change: How would you describe an enclave with a sizable amount of Egyptian soldiers within the Israeli occupied territory?
2. -Yours: " The territorial change is not that they were 100KM from Cairo". This is a direct quote of a wp:rs and if you oppose it, will you please quote a source who negates it?. Ykantor (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is that it follows the same approach seen in other articles.

- I wouldn't describe it at all. The text mentions that Israel occupied land on the southwestern side of the canal and that Egypt occupied the eastern bank of the canal with the exception of the Israeli crossing point. Knowing that the remainder of Sinai is under Israeli occupation, in what regard is this insufficient to describe the territorial changes at the time of the (final) ceasefire?

- You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not opposing the quote; which I have explained countless times. I oppose its inclusion under territorial changes because it's not a territorial change, the territorial change is that Israel occupied 1600KM2 southwest of the canal in an area stretching from Deversoir to Suez. Aside from that the quote is also misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target during Operation Abiray Lev, it being sourced does not diminish that fact in any way. Turnopoems (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Turnopoems: You need the consensuses since you made the addition in the first place, what don't you understand? When Ykantor made the "territorial changes" edit, he didn't include this, you added it based on your own will and although other objection. I didn't add anything, what consensus do i need? Discuss and reach it first! Now, as for the source, where exactly do you see a result in that? "the war led to political gains", "the war did break the political log jam", "...and finally a peace treaty...". It qualifies pretty well as a "long term effect" and matches perfectly the description of "paved the way to the peace treaty", so a future peace agreement is irrelevant here. (BTW i think "The Agreement on disengagement in 1974" should be included). Infantom (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

-@Turnopoems: You are not interested in mentioning the "encircled the Egyptian Third Army" (or similar) but you have no problems with " including the Bar Lev Line ". How come?

- Yours: "misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target". Is this claim a wp:or ? Ykantor (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Infantom, I need your approval to add sourced information which fully complies with Wikipedia guidelines? Ykantor's additions are not set in stone, you're acting irrationally. Your definition of what qualifies as a result is not the standard on Wikipedia nor does it constitute a good enough reason to remove sourced information that complies with established guidelines, we have no reason to assume that your definition is correct when the content of the template simply doesn't support your case. I have my source which explicitly substantiates my addition and the guidelines are crystal clear. I will leave you with the option to either undo your revert or submit an inquiry to a third party at the relevant noticeboard, either way I will personally seek assistance to evaluate the situation since you have been unwilling (for whatever reason) to do so.

@Ykantor. The Bar Lev Line is a fixed territorial landmark, the 3rd Army is an army unit. This is elementary.

I'm simply trying to make you understand the absurdity of the claim itself, notwithstanding that it is irrelevant in the context that it's currently presented in. Turnopoems (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

-@Turnopoems: You have not replied to the questions. It does not matter whether it is a fixed landmark. I ask you again:

-You are not interested in mentioning the "encircled the Egyptian Third Army" (or similar) but you have no problems with " including the Bar Lev Line ". How come?

- Yours: "misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target". Is this claim a wp:or ?

- User:Infantom is right. Ykantor (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

- I did reply to it, because one is a fixed territorial landmark and the other an army unit. That's why. It does matter if it's a TERRITORIAL landmark or an army unit, the guideline specifies TERRITORIAL changes.

- Please see my previous reply.

- What is he right about? Please present a reference to the guidelines you're alluding to. I hardly think an argument entirely based on assumptions and far-fetched interpretations of guidelines have any legs to stand on. Since he's the one wishing to remove sourced content in a relevant section he's the one who needs to counter with facts and gather consensus, not me. Turnopoems (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Turnopoems: The problem is that your source doesn't substantiate your content, that's why i removed it. I don't know what definition of mine you referred to, your source is insufficient, it clearly points out a territorial change as a result of a future agreement and not your so-called facts about "as a result of the war". Infantom (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Infantom. Following your incorrect logic I could remove the "Israeli military victory" if I based on personal interpretation alone disagree with the referenced sources. The guidelines specify "results", Merriam Webster's dictionary defines "result" as:

1. to happen because of something else that happened or was done before : to be caused by something else
2. to proceed or arise as a consequence, effect, or conclusion <death resulted from the disease>

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/result

This whole misunderstanding seems to stem from an inaccurate interpretation of this word. Please explain how my source insufficiently describes territorial changes (see Template:Infobox military conflict for the definition of this term) that arose from this conflict.Turnopoems (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I support Ykantor version of the territorial changes and oppose [this editing]. I propose to delete the "including the Bar Lev Line" which is not a territorial change. Tzahy (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please argue for your standpoint as the point of these edits is to reconcile the content with the guidelines outlined in Template:Infobox military conflict. I fail to see the logic behind a claim that says that the "3rd Army" qualifies as territory but an actual territorial landmark such as the Bar Lev Line doesn't.Turnopoems (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In order to have a compromise, I won't recover both of the Barlev line and and the encircled 3rd army, but recover the enclave. Your deletion of the supported 100km or 40km is not logical, and you do not have a concensus for. Ykantor (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop editing on your own accord, a compromise is reached between two or more people, not one. It being supported is not enough, you can't put any sourced information wherever you deem fit. Read the guidelines, it is not the place for extended descriptions with little relevance. I'm willing to reach a compromise but it involves removing the distance to both capitals and the mention of the 3rd Army in exchange for removing the part about the Bar Lev Line, I can accept leaving some information out for the sake of compromise but not adding information that violate the guidelines. Turnopoems (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Turnopoems: You couldn't remove anything as the sources clearly and unambiguously state "victory" or "military victory", something that your source lacks. I already gave you an explanation in previous comments, your source tells the chronology of the political development that "led", "eventually", to the peace treaty, indicating it's a result of a later political matter and not the war. By your logic and definition, it's also a result and a consequence of the six day war and, to a large extent, the 1948 war. Therefore, it has no place in the infobox. Infantom (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Infantom. I couldn't and if we were to apply the same standards universally you most certainly wouldn't either. That is a far-fetched interpretation if I ever saw one. To save us both time I'm going to ask you for an extract from the guidelines that specify that long-term effects aren't allowed, to see if you have a case to begin with. If you can do that I will go ahead and present other sources that support my claim, with less "ambiguity". Turnopoems (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Turnopoems, i don't have to reply and participate an infinite discussion, unless you have something new to contribute. forcing your opinion won't help you with your goals.

And yet, regarding your last comment(i'll no reply again if you use the same old arguments)- Of course not, the two cases aren't equal. One case is supported by sources that use the identical terms of the template's guidelines and leaves no room for interpretations, the other case is not even close to that. If you really wish to "apply the same standards" then please provide a source that use specifically the terms "result" or "as a result of" (just like the victory case) that ,of course, regards the peace treaty and the returning of the sinai. The template says nothing about long-term effects, that should be enough. Infantom (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Infantom: If you don't see any positive outcome from discussing the issue here then the other option is to seek other means of dispute resolution, if you revert every attempt at adhering to WP:BRD, which is well within my authority to invoke (just like every other editor), then you will be reported for edit warring as this behavior is prohibited as outlined in WP:EW. Consensus is a two-way street, it is not a pretext for you or any other editor to indiscriminately revert other peoples' edits. Wikipedia does not belong to a specific group of people, consensus has to be achieved by both opposing groups with no bias towards pre-existing versions of any given article (see WP:OWNER). If you stop responding on the talk-page then I will edit (see WP:BRD, if you arbitrarily revert then this behavior will be reported for edit-warring (see WP:EW). I suggest you discuss your grievances here or opt for dispute resolution or other legitimate means for building consensus. I have already reported another user for his behavior on this article and I think it's necessary to highlight the importance of adhering to WP:OWNER because it seems to be common practice on this article to disregard this particular set of rules.

The word "result" implies both short-term and long-term effects as I have demonstrated by citing Merriam Webster, please see my earlier replies.

Since you're unwilling to continue this discussion further I'm going to add two more sources that support the inclusion of the text. If you still have any qualms we'll attempt to go over it but note that any rebuttal should come in the form of sources. In the spirit of compromise I also suggest altering the text to a more accurate format:

| The conflict was followed by a series of agreements between Egypt and Israel that culminated in the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and full Israeli withdrawal from Sinai by 1982. Turnopoems (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

- User:Turnopoems complained about an edit warring. My response was: user:Turnopoems complain is a bit bizarre, as it seems that he is the one who violates the rules.

- The discussion summary: User:Turnopoems is for inclusion of Bar-Lev line as a territorial change, and inclusion of the Egyptian Israeli peace treaty as a result of the war. I oppose both.

- I am for mentioning the distance to Cairo as a territorial change, while User:Turnopoems oppose it. Ykantor (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Turnopoems, How is it a compromise? More accurate description won't make it relevant to the infobox. Infantom (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Infantom: It's a compromise in the sense that it attempts to address your concerns about the addition not accurately describing the situation but I'm beginning to doubt that historical accuracy is your main concern in all this as you keep digging for new excuses to exclude it. I fail to see how it qualifies as irrelevant when it deals with a significant territorial change, arguably the most important and notable territorial change pertaining to this conflict with three sources that support its inclusion. Please elaborate, how is it not a territorial change and how does it fail to comply with relevant guidelines? Turnopoems (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Turnopoems, i ceased the discussion since i wasn't interested in wasting my time with your allegations and repeating my arguments all over again, as you hadn't provided any new arguments. Regarding your last edit, please post your additions on that matter here for discussion first, as it appears to be controversial all the time. Your new sources don't "address the concerns" whatsoever; the first one was already discussed. the second points out 3 agreements, two of them with Egypt that "paved the way" for the peace treaty. the third source points out the american involvement in the peace negotiation (started after the war) that led to the peace agreement. This actually proves the opposite, that the peace treaty is a result of late negotiation process and not the war. Definitely irrelevant to the infobox. Infantom (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Infantom. Let's ignore all that for a second. What makes you think it is okay for you to persistently do exactly what you are accusing me of doing? Consensus is not a one-way-street. There is no consensus whatsoever, whether it's for my version or your version. My edits are in compliance with WP:BRD since neither of you have been willing to engage in dialogue, your edits are in violation of both WP:DE and WP:OWN. If there is no consensus; why are you editing rather than trying to address this issue?

Now, going back to back to the other issue. This is absurd. You're removing sourced content based on personal whim. It's not going to hold, I have posted three sources. I feel like a student whose handing in my assignment to a teacher for grading. You don't get to decide what content stays and what doesn't, if you're not planning to post a rebuttal then you should disengage. Turnopoems (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you see what i mean when i say i have no will to waste my time on the same arguments all over again? You added the content, you need consensus for that. What consensus do i need for not adding anything? We can say that there is consensus for not adding your edits(at least until one is achieved) if you wish. As for engaging a dialogue, i (or anyone else), do not have to participate an infinite discussion repeating arguments and i will no go further if the discussion won't develop. About the sources, you can post as many as you want, if they don't support your case then they are unhelpful. My request is fundamental, reliable sources that point out your claims(clearly and with no ambiguity), just like what the template states and the way it is applied to the victory. would you consider to include solely the disengagement agreements instead? Infantom (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue. I'm asking you why you're editing and reverting when consensus has not been reached, Wikipedia guidelines clearly define this behavior as disruptive editing. There is no bias towards pre-existing versions, regardless if that implies no content or old content. Please review the guidelines again (see WP:TALKDONTREVERT). You can accuse me of exhausting this discussion but that doesn't change the fact that I haven't violated any guidelines. I have tried other means of dispute resolution and I did try compromising only to met with quiescence and disinterest. You're more than welcome to take the wheel.

"The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus can't always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated."

I don't think including the disengagement agreements is more relevant as a territorial change than the actual territorial change that is Israel's withdrawal from Sinai. I do genuinely wish to understand your qualms with this particular wording. The disengagement agreements also fall outside your arbitrary scope of this particular conflict, why would we include that under a list of territorial changes but not the withdrawal from Sinai?

This discussion is unproductive and I think we can both agree on that. If you'd rather end it than scour the dictionary for synonyms to shuffle the words then I propose we remove all contentious content from the infobox which means all territorial changes. Turnopoems (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the disengagement agreements is an act of compromise, they are more related to the war in the sense of "result". I can't really see another way to compromise in this case. Infantom (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point in moving from something you deem irrelevant to something with no relevance whatsoever simply because it's loosely connected to the point I'm trying to include, it seems like an incredibly counterproductive initiative relative to your earlier stance. Clearly your issue is with mentioning the Israeli withdrawal and I genuinely wish to understand your perspective. Where do you stand on my proposal? Turnopoems (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, Infantom: I would like to propose a final compromise regarding this matter. Since the issue at hand is the wording under "territorial changes" I believe we can resolve the issue and tidy up the cluttered infobox by simply adding a reference/link to the following map thus avoiding any conflict that might arise from the wording. What do you say? Turnopoems (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you propose to to replace the content of the territorial changes in the infobox with a link to a map, although the current text is correct and well supported. I wish to achieve a consensus and to positively consider your proposal but I am worried that the next step might be returning to the opposition to the infobox's Israeli military victory. Ykantor (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have problems with your suggestion, but don't you think the current content is informative and illustrates the positions at the end of the war (size of captured territory and distance from capitals)? Because i think that even if we use a map instead, the content is still appropriate and deserved to be used as a description of the map. Infantom (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Military victory

- A strange phenomena : (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" Siniver2013p6

-"the Arab has suffered repeated military defeats at the hand of Israel-in 1956, 1967, and 1973" Bickerton2012p128

-"(p. 184)Yom kipur war...its final outcome was, without doubt, a military victory...(p. 185) in October 1973, that despite Israels military victory" Kumaraswamy2013p184

User:Ykantor, I think the sources you posted can be added to the article. Infantom (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better to hold on a bit, to see whether Ed Johnston may respond in his talk page. Ykantor (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Infantom and Turnopoems:- Yes, we should add it to the article. Ykantor (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you perhaps summarize the change you're trying to push for? I would like to weigh in with a couple of sources but I'm unable to do so in the weeks to come as I'm away from home. Turnopoems (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

- @Infantom and Turnopoems:- in my opinion the Siniver text should be added to the Commemorations section: "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". Siniver2013p6 Ykantor (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi I was directed here for a discussion about the war's result. This is quite interesting I must say. However, I will point out one thing that is usually missed. The very last military battle was an Egyptian Victory. Is this another reason Egypt claims military victory? Wikipedia's page claims Israelis victory, yet both Egypt and Israel claim victory. However, the odd thing is both countries are able to sufficiently support their claims of victory. From this would not the result from the military point be stalemate? Israel surrounding Third Army, loses last battle, sandwiched between Egyptian armies, yet both armies were in a weak position. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: i have added the references to the info box. Infantom (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Article in Politico Magazine

Politico Magazine - Tim Weiner - That Time the Middle East Exploded — and Nixon Was Drunk, 15 June 2015.     ←   ZScarpia   12:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Overall Result of the War

I have been researching this war for quite some time now. I do not find that Wikipedia's claim of Israeli Victory to be valid. Israel was successful in turning the tides against both armies; however, Israel lost the very last military battle with Egypt, her forces were seen as weak due to being a large number in limited area of land, sandwiched between two Egyptian armies. Nevertheless, Israel surrounded the Third Army, was a 100 km from Cairo (although forced to retreat after defeat in last battle) and still held its fighting position (as did the Third Army). Now for the Political side, Israel claims that it traded land for peace. Egypt claims that she succeeded in the Political War for the land it wanted back. In the end, Egypt regained the Sinai completely, established diplomatic relationships with Israel and a lasting peace effort. Syrian side: Israel pushed back the Syrian forces and won the last battle (unlike in Egypt), which means she achieved a Military Victory on the Syrian Front. In the political battle, Syria regained a strip of the Golan Heights, this is a loss to both sides. Syria wanted to retake the Golan Heights completely, this was not achieved, only a small strip was regained. Israel wanted to maintain the whole Golan Heights, this was also not achieved (although better than the Syrian efforts). From this should not the result be something like this:

Result: Israel and Egypt claim Military Victory on Egyptian Front(see note). Egyptian Political Victory(see note2). Israeli Victory on Syrian Front.

If anyone disagrees or agrees please reply to this and support your replies. All replies are welcome. Please, no POVs. Thank You

Note: Egypt won the last military battle: Battle of Suez. Israel was 100km from Cairo although could not proceed further.

Note 2: Egypt accomplished Political goal of regaining Sinai.

Infor4fun (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I may agree with most of what you wrote here, but, regarding those three refs you provided, YouTube is best avoided in this context. Same thing goes for other Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see you provide reliable sources to back your claims, otherwise we are in WP:OR territory. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok Thank You. I was obliged to use YouTube because of the BBC Documentary, I cannot get it elsewhere. Here is another source

Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The BBC doc is fine (haven't watched it though), and I didn't say that it is forbidden to use YouTube (see here). It's just that it would be preferable to avoid it when no written alternative can be found, especially when it comes to historical conflicts like this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok Thank You for tip. Infor4fun (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

- In order to prove your point, you have to back it with a wp:rs. (please click it and read it) such as respectable historians. When you find such a support, then the editors will discuss it here in the talkpage, and decide together what to write in the article. if there are contradicting views of wp:rs, then the editors may decide to mention both of them.

- Generally, I am not aware of wp:rs that judge who won the war according to the results of the last battle, but I might be wrong.

- In my opinion, there are some signs that indicates who won. e.g. the side that want to stop the war may be the looser. at the 12 Oct 1973, after the first week, Israel accepted an American proposal for a ceasefire with Egypt , but Sadat refused. If he would have accepted it, he could have been the winner. However the war continued, and in after the 20 Oct 1973 he pressed urgently for a cease fire, while Israel was not in a hurry. That means that the winner is Israel.

- As for the political victory, it is not so clear. The peace agreement between Israel and Egypt was signed about 5 years later, and the war was just one reason among other reasons. The peace agreement negotiations were very difficult for both sides and included some severe crisis where it could have failed easily. The best description is that both sides won. However, if you find a wp:rs that support your view, then the editors here may decide together with you to accept your view. Ykantor (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Ykantor. After further rereading about this topic, the best solution would be to say that both Israel and Egypt claim Victory. Israeli Victory on Syrian side. Otherwise, it just seems like endless arguments will arise when trying to claim a victor since both countries have sufficient claims. I have been doing my best to use credible sources but many are nationalists or simply do not have enough facts/evidence to support their claims. That is why I have had to resort to the BBC Documentary which is fairly accurate. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

An important message to all interested in the Yom Kippur War: the Wikipedia article about this war is biased towards Israeli views. The claim of Israeli Victory is correct yet the Egyptian claim of Egyptian Victory is also correct. Both sides have been able to sufficiently back up their claim. Therefore, it is our duty as Wikipedia editors to display both views rather than attempting to decide which is correct because too much bias concerning this topic exists. Too many attempt to convince others that Israeli victory is the solution by missing out certain pieces of evidence for the opposite. The same applies for Egyptians who also push for their view and do the same. It is most appropriate to do this:

Result: Both Egypt and Israel claim victory on Sinai Front.

This way bias is avoided, both views displayed -- a new section will need to properly explain why both claim victory -- and the truth is displayed. If you are interested in this war please add your reply to this section so we as Wikipedia editors can make this article more accurate and unbiased. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Infor4fun, have you looked at the sources in the article? As already mentioned, what is needed is wp:rs and currently there is a large number of sources stating, clearly, an Israeli victory. Please review them. Infantom (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Infatom. I have looked at the sources. Have you realized most are Israeli or without sufficient support? There must be a balanced view of sources, not just Israeli, I was unable to find Egyptian sources in English or with sufficient evidence (just as most Israeli sources are, sadly). Most sources I have seen support both claims of victory and the 'no winner' claim as well. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Israeli" source doesn't mean it is not reliable. I really don't know why the sources seem insufficient to you, because they really provide a very clear and solid support for the Israeli claim of victory. Can you write the doubted sources and explain why do you think they are insufficient? Please take into account the sources in the "Military victory" section above. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You for your reply. The sources claim Israeli Victory that's fine. However, where is the evidence? That part is not very clear in those sources -- unless they have later been altered which may be the reason for this. Furthermore, if you read my previous posts, you will see that I talked about both sides claiming victory and that they both have the evidence for their claim. Pushing to only show one side of the war is bias. I am not against Israeli sources and/or Arab sources only bias. May you please explain why the result: Both sides claim victory is not acceptable to you? Remember Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral not Israeli POV or Egyptian POV! Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Infor4fun. What do you mean by "evidence"? The sources seem legitimate according to wp:rs. The difference between the two claims is that the Israeli claim is well supported while the Egyptian isn't, and even ruled out by some sources (e.g [19] (see last paragraph) and [20]). While i do think that the Egyptian perspective of the war should be expressed in the body of the article, the infobox should reflect the "bottom line". Considering the large number of sources we have, i really don't see any violation of neutrality here. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Infatom. By evidence I mean something like this: "The war is an Israeli Victory because...", "The war is a stalemate because..." "The war is an Egyptian Victory because...". Also, your link does not allow to read the topic: I have to pay money! About Egyptian sources, there are sources but there is a problem. They are in Arabic NOT English! As a 'general' reply as to why Egyptians call it a Victory (other than initial success): Israeli forces failed to capture Suez City and were forced to retreat. They were now 'trapped' between Egyptian forces, attempt to destroy Third Army or re-attempt to capture Suez City was seen as highly unlikely. Operation Nickel Glass saved Israelis from defeat -- this was also claimed by American sources. Egypt succeeded in altering the Status Quo, which along with diplomatic talks lead to the complete regain of Sinai.

I am not against the claim of Israeli Victory, I am against claiming only one side won when the other side has sufficient reasons. I wish the Egyptians had bothered to translate their sources into English would make this easier. Thank You and I appreciate your interests in this topic Infatom. Infor4fun (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are looking for reasoning, then the sources address all your concerns, starting from the initial success to the end, just read them. I don't know why the links require payment from you but anyway- from Encyclopedia Britannica: "Nevertheless, although Egypt did not win the war in any military sense, its initial successes in October 1973 enabled President Anwar el-Sādāt to pronounce the war an Egyptian victory and to seek an honourable peace." the second link also mention the Egyptian claim but later state that "Ultimately, the conflict provided a military victory for Israel..." . It's all there in the sources, but if you really can't notice it i'll write it for you. BTW, given that the Arab side included two organized armies, several task forces from other Arab states and assistance from the USSR, i can hardly see how Nickel Glass can serve as an argument against Israel in this case. (just my personal opinion). Thanks. Infantom (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I tried it said: "To read the rest of the article start your 7 day risk free trial!" I clicked the link (hesitantly) and it asked for my credit card! It would be nice if you could post the article or a screenshot of it. The reason Egypt says Nickel Glass saved Israel is because the operation gave Israel more supplies than whatever Egypt got from the other countries -- or so they say. The Egyptians (and several American and Israeli sources) claim that America gave Israel intelligence documents along with satellite help to increase its (Israel's) ability in the war. Furthermore, Egypt's goal was according to Sadat, was to have a limited tactical battle in which he could jumpstart peace talks and from there gain Sinai. This did happen and so gave him another reason to claim victory since the goal was accomplished. That's just an Egyptian view, I think we both know the Israeli view so there's no need to go over it again, yet. Please note: I will probably not be able to further discuss this issue for a while since I'm really busy. I will respond when I am able to do so though so please do not think I have withdrawn from the discussion. Thank You for your understanding. Infor4fun (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What you are saying is interesting but unless it is backed up by reliable sources there is not much to do. We shouldn't care about Egypt's or Israel's positions, only about what is stated in sources. That's why i constantly urge you to read the sources in the article, they regard all the issues you brought up. Don't worry, you can proceed with the discussion whenever you wish. Infantom (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am finally back (don't know how long for though) and have been able to find a rather interesting source [21]. However, it is in Arabic, so I am not sure if you will be able to read it or not. If you cannot read it you can tell me to tell you what the source says. However, if you can, I am sure you will find it to be reasonable and justifies the reason as to why the Egyptians claim victory. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Infor4fun, I can read Arabic but my understanding of the language is poor. But first, what is this source? Is it reliable? and how does it counter the other sources? Thanks. Infantom (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Yes the source is reliable with accurate explanations of the war. The sources is from group73historians, made by historians (Egyptian) dedicated to explaining the war and the victory -- as the name of the website suggests. The sources directly answers questions like "Third Army surrounded, Israeli forces only 100km from Cairo. How is it a victory?" and "Was Sadat's goal to regain Sinai by military means?". In comparison to other sources it has a direct explanation on the Egyptian view as to why the victory is claimed. There is an explanation of what happened during a secret meeting between Kissinger and Sadat and the threat made by Kissinger against Sadat. If you want me to tell and explain to you what is written on the website do tell me. Thank You. Infor4fun (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• We need RSs. If material is non-RS, it is not acceptable. The publisher should be an RS, with an editorial board, etc. Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Group 73 historians are not a WP:RS, they're barely a WP:SPS. Calling yourself a historian does not make you a notable source. Wikipedia requires peer-reviewed publications, not sites that publish "scoops" such as Truth of sinking Destroyer Yafo at the same day of Eilat. Poliocretes (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. What do you mean by "peer-reviewed publications"? Infor4fun (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP Poliocretes (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank You. The page I was reading on the group73 historians was actually quite accurate - I crossed checked it with reputational sources like the BBC Documentary. Can you read Arabic? Infor4fun (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't, but then neither you nor I are in a position to decide how accurate sources are. That's precisely why we need proper sources, as in scholarly academic research. Poliocretes (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. So be it! Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way. I want to emphasise that I am only pushing for the result to say Both Sides Claim Victory. Not who won and lost, since both do claim victory. I will submit a few sources soon, just trying to see if there's more. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source . Remember I am only pushing that the result be changed to Both sides claim victory. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Infor4fun, thanks for your effort to find sources in English. The source you brought suggesting only political victory while, i believe, we are discussing the militarily aspect of the war. The source, with regard to the militarily aspect, states - "Although neither side claimed complete victory, momentum was clearly in favor of the Israelis, especially considering the massive U.S. airlift in progress at the time of the cease-fire. On the other hand the Egyptians achieved honorable successes and were spared another defeat by the cease-fire. Militarily, the war achieved little, but as the culmination of Anwar Sadat's grand strategy, it achieved a great deal." - clearly not supporting any Egyptian claim of a military victory. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am suggesting the result be changed to both sides claim victory. However, if you wish that result state Israeli Military Victory and Egyptian Political Victory then that is also fine. I still have other sources though. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The article had "Political gains for Egypt and Israel" before, but it was dropped per Template:Infobox military conflict. thanks. Infantom (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Interesting word "gains", yet Egypt calls the gains a victory. Anyway that's not our point, here is a source you may find to be interesting. The source supports my claim of Both sides claim victory. I am NOT pushing for the result to say Egyptian Victory but that both claim victory since that did happen. Thank You PS: would a video of Sadat's victory speech be evidence??? Infor4fun (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, again, what Egypt claims (or Israel) shouldn't instruct us, only the consensus among reliable sources. Your source indeed seems to support the "both sides..." claim but i find it somewhat insufficient. For example, it states that "By the “numbers,” Israel won the war" and "Unquestionably the best argument for an Arab victory is the changed political situation." Notice that, again, the Israeli justification is militarily while the Arab/Egyptian is politically. I can't see how it stands against 12 sources that state Israeli victory. As for Sadat, does a speech by a belligerent leader seem unbiased to you? Anyway, perhaps we should reword the lead section regarding the end of the war, so it would be more representative for the Arab side claims. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

12 sources that state Israeli victory, 12 sources that are perfect for explaining why Israel claims victory (that is good) , 12 sources that fail to correctly (if at all!) address why Egypt claims victory (that is bad). Moreover, the source does use other sources as well so its a 'combo source' as one may call it. "even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory." Furthermore, "Both sides claimed victory, and both sides had a reasonable case." and "Arab claims of victory are not far fetched." Nevertheless, you yourself said "your source indeed seems to support the "both sides..."". Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read 2 recent additions to the article ( by myself) :

-According to Chernyaev , on 4 Nov 1973, the Soviet leader Brezhnev said: We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn’t have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, “Save me!” He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them.[341]

- Egypt wished to end the war when they realized that the I.D.F canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe.[208] The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[2][195] The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo, which worried Egypt.[2] The Israeli army had open terain and no opposition to advance further to Cairo; had they done so Sadat's rule might have ended. Ykantor (talk)

Hello. I must say that is interesting. However, have you read the source I put above? Moreover, there was opposition to an advance to Cairo, of which one was Suez City. At the battle for Suez City the IDF was defeated. Furthermore, I still expect a reply from Infantom, with all due respect this is not a discussion in which I will be tossed from one person to the next. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Infor4fun, i understand you're expecting an answer and that's fine, but you can't ignore other editors arguments. thanks. Infantom (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the sources doesn't mean they 'fail to correctly address why Egypt claims victory". They address all issues concerning the war and reach an Israeli victory conclusion. Could you point out where you think they don't provide a sufficient proof?

There is such an overwhelming consensus regarding an Israeli victory that your single source (that doesn't support any Egyptian military victory BTW) cannot match it. However, if you wish, we can put back "Political gains for Egypt and Israel" and reword "Israeli Military victory" (for a better context). Thank you. Infantom (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

- @Infor4fun: You have to verify your claims before pasting here. Suez city was within the Egyptian 3rd army enclave, that was besieged by the Israelis, and it was not in the way to Cairo. The Israeli army block the road between Suez city and Cairo and as the source says: "The Israeli army had open terrain and no opposition to advance further to Cairo; had they done so Sadat's rule might have ended." Ykantor (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Infantom: Thank You for your reply. I did not ignore Ykantor's argument nor did I intend to send such a message that is why I said "with all due respect" to avoid such a misunderstanding -- clearly that did not happen. For an instant I felt as if I was in some sort of battle against several editors - put yourself in my place - it did not feel good. I do not entirely disagree with the sources, only partially. As I said the sources are good for explaining the Israeli perspective and that is a good thing. However, last time I checked (for some reason I cannot open the sources anymore) they do not properly explain why Egypt claims a victory especially from the military side. As for my source, I am not seeking sources for Egyptian military victory but that both sides claim victory (indication of stalemate), you yourself admitted the source abides this. If it is more sources you seek in support of 'my' claim then that is absolutely fine. Yes I think the political gains should be put back as politics was the one of the most vital parts of Sadat's plan. I appreciate your arguments here. Thank You

@Ykantor: Yes you are correct. Sorry there, I messed up with my geography for a moment. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What you need is to undermine the consensus for 'Israeli militarily victory' among the sources. Unless you point out specifically what are the problems in a source, i can't really help it. I reviewed the sources and they certainly address all the issues you brought up(i.e initial success, Suez battle, US assistance... ) and still support Israeli victory. Note that nobody underestimates the Arab side achievements and those are mentioned in the body of the article, but the info box should mention the bottom line. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. First I will say Thank You for putting the political gains for Egypt and Israel. Now, actually undermining them is a bit against my claim. In the end support for Israeli Victory helps the "Both sides claim victory" as long as other sources commit to the "both sides..." claim. Would a consensus of sources for "Both sides claim victory" allow the result to be changed. PS: I noticed that at the article it says "Egypt's stated goal was to destroy the State of Israel." May I please change that to "Egypt's plan was to liberate part of the Sinai by military and the rest by diplomatic talks" since that was the actual goal of the war? Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Infor4fun, you don't need my permission for editing the article. If you have reliable sources then you can change it, the problem is with controversial issues then we have to discuss it. How exactly supporting an Israeli victory confirms "both sides claim victory"? Both sides claimed, yes, but only one side's claim is accepted. In order to change the result you need a consensus among the editors here (there's a long standing consensus- see the archives) and reliable sources that back your arguments will help you. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Ok Infantom, I will find the source for the Egypt's goal and put that. Sure, I will try to find other (reliable) sources for the "Both sides claim victory". Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Infor4fun: Since you are a newcomer we have to be more responsive to your edit, which is not sufficiently supported. Will it be possible for you to source it to a proper wp:rs such as one of the historians listed in the references? thanks Ykantor (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Ykantor: Thank You for your input but according to the News Reporting section it says ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". The source I listed is from the BBC and it seems to fit in that category. Also, do note that statement (before my edit) had no source to back it up. Thank You 02:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

- As you quoted, the BBC is a wp:rs for news, while your edit is not about news. As you already know, an editor in Wikipedia is expected to support his edits with wp:rs, which you have not done yet.

- As an example, Morris says: Sadat and Assad "sought to regain the territories lost in 1967. Neither aimed to destroy Israel, though during the opening hours of the conflict, its leaders could not be sure of it.". (Morris, victims, p. 396). Feel free to quote other wp:rs. Ykantor (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank You. I'll add that quote in and go through my files for the sources that said that. Thank You 22:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infor4fun (talk • contribs)

I have searched further for sources to back up the "both sides..." However, since the Israeli Military Victory consensus vastly out numbers the few sources I have been able to find, I think it is just better to leave it at that. Although, from what I have read I think the fact that Israel was able to defeat the Syrian army entirely and deeply threaten the Egyptian army (although no-one really knows what may have happened had the war continued since many predictions in this war have proven incorrect) made the Israeli army's victory seem more reasonable than that of Egypt's although it was more of a sort of stalemate since the Egyptians held their ground yet Israel crossed the canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army. Furthermore, Sadat's weaving of limited military objectives for political gains makes it even harder to assess -- interestingly, I found a book (fits in the wp:rs) that claims Sadat wanted to achieve his goal without military success, i.e. he did not entirely worry if he achieved a military victory as long as his political goals were accomplished, which they were in the end. Thank You to all those who participated in this discussion and have enriched my knowledge concerning this historical event. Special Thanks to @Infantom: and @Ykantor:, it has been a pleasure to talking to you. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

References

this is definitely a controversal topic,but Israel won on the Syrian Front,no argument,on the Egyptian front it did achieve progress and victory,but the Egyptians retained most of their gains in Sinai,so in a sense it could be considered a tatical or strategic victory for Egypt,but overall it is an israeli military victory.Alhanuty (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006083108/http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/10011.pdf to http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/10011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131014191251/http://letempsmag.com/Articles/14/Le+jour+o%C3%B9+Hassan+II++a+bombard%C3%A9+Isra%C3%ABl/568 to http://letempsmag.com/Articles/14/Le+jour+o%C3%B9+Hassan+II++a+bombard%C3%A9+Isra%C3%ABl/568
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110513095626/http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightLog/FlightLog.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=40&folderID=48&subfolderID=322&docfolderID=939&docID=13279&docType=EVENT to http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightLog/FlightLog.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=40&folderID=48&subfolderID=322&docfolderID=939&docID=13279&docType=EVENT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403130751/http://www.israeled.org/PrimarySource/Memcon_Dinitz_Kissinger_100773.pdf to http://www.israeled.org/PrimarySource/Memcon_Dinitz_Kissinger_100773.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140903050613/http://www.army.mil:80/professionalWriting/volumes/volume2/september_2004/9_04_4.html to http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/september_2004/9_04_4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150403142318/http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=625&PID=0&IID=8194 to http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=625&PID=0&IID=8194
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113215035/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline6f.html to http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline6f.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522012146/http://www.sis.gov.eg:80/VR/october/english/5.htm to http://www.sis.gov.eg/VR/october/english/5.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Caution about edit warring

If the reverts continue, it is likely that an admin will intervene, either with blocks or with article protection. It should not be a major sacrifice for a person to wait for consensus before making a controversial edit. If agreement can't be reached here, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The war was certainly an Egyptian victory,The Egyptian Objective was to cross the canal,destroy the Bar-Lev line hold on against the Israeli counterattack and regain the rest of the Sinai by negotiations.

The war began on the 6th of October 1973,10th of Ramadan Yom Kippur. Egyptian artillery began firing on the eastern bank of the canal at 2 o'clock clt,More than 200 Egyptian aircraft began bombing Israeli targets along the Suez canal,Egyptian Commandos began crossing the canal in boats followed by regular infantry,While Egyptian soldiers where fighting the Israelis on the eastern bank of the canal, military engineers were using water to demolish the sand barrier so that the tanks and other vehicles can cross the canal.It took just six hours for the Egyptians to capture the Bar-Lev Line. Israeli air force attempted to attack the Egyptians at the canal but many of their aircraft were shot down by the Egyptian Surface to air missile umbrella

The Israeli army begins it's counterattack 8th of October 1973. Israeli Tanks and Infantry begin their advance towards the two Egyptian armies,They are met by Egyptian tanks as well as infantry armed with rpg's and sagger missiles.The Israelis lost many tanks and soldiers.The Egyptian Army manages to defeat the Israeli counterattack.

Little fighting followed except for a few skirmishes until Sadat gave the order for large numbers of tanks and infantry to move forward (away from the anti-aircraft umbrella)and apply pressure on the Israelis who were successful in fighting the Syrians.The Egyptian military loses many infantry and tanks to Israeli Tanks and aircraft.

Israelis detect a gap between Egypt's two armies and move towards it but meet heavy resistance in the Chinese farm,they are unable to break this resistance and take heavy casualties,eventually they were forced to bypass the Chinese farm and they cross the canal,they wanted to improve their political and strategic position by capturing the cities of Ismailia and Suez, their are defeated in both battles by small groups of Egyptian paratroopers and civilian resistance.

The Israeli Army did surround the 3rd army but they were weakened by their defeats in Suez and Ismailia,they were not capable of launching more attacks.

As for being 80 km from Cairo.Distance does not matter because the Egyptian army in 1948 was 30 km away from Tel-Aviv but Israel won.The Nazi Germans were close to Moscow in WW2 but the USSR won. As for having lost more soldiers and tanks in the war Egypt's ability to take casualties far exceeds that of Israel,Number of Casualties does not fully determine the outcome of war,In WW2 The Soviet Union took casualties more than any other nation but they still won the war

Result: Egyptian Military Victory

       Syrian Military Defeat

Peace Negotiations lasted for years but eventually Egypt regained the Sinai, Israel gained Egyptian recognition and both sides are at peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khafraa (talk • contribs) 08:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't actually read all that you wrote. However, do not try to get it to change to Egyptian Military Victory since that is biased - like the current Wikipedia article which is supported mainly by Israeli and thus pro-Israeli sources. Backup your claims with sources. There are many good ones both in English and Arabic (not sure about other languages). Try to get the result to be changed to Israel and Egypt Claim Victory. Decisive Israeli Victory on Golan Heights What do you think? In my view, neutral is better. Promoting Egyptian or Israeli views (like now) is just a way to feed propaganda. Now don't misunderstand what I say. Israel did win but so did Egypt. Egypt and Israel both achieved their goals, Sadat maintained the foothold he wanted and Israeli put Egypt's army in a critical condition (Third Army). Oh by the way, on note about the 100 km from Cairo, yes you are correct but that is also a strong supporting fact for Israel's victory (not saying Egypt lost). Israelis were being repulsed but then they ended up closer to the capital than before. However, in my view, had they wanted to cross the canal anyway, Egypt would have ended up in a worse position - possibly occupied. Just remember back up your statements. Do not go against Israel's claim but support the Egyptian one -- there's lots of sources don't make the same mistake the guy up top (inforfun) did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.96.136 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Background section on the Israeli negotiating position

I am trying to improve the presentation of the Israeli negotiating position after the Six-Day War. Before my last edit, the only thing that was mentioned was the israeli government vote to return Sinai and Golan respectively to Egypt and to Syria. It looks like the Israelis essentially did not tell anyone about this vote; this severely reduces its historic impact, one way or another.

For this reason I am trying to write about the actual negotiating position that was held by Israel after the end of the Six-Day War. I searched through the New York Times Archive for the relevant period. Unsuprisingly, I found no mention of the Israeli vote to return Sinai and the Golan Heights; I did find two articles about statements made by the israeli foreign minister, and I summarized them in the article. Hopefully, somebody can expand on that further. Heptor _talk 21:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Watch where you place your comments!

Someone added to my words regarding the overall result of the war. I have reverted this edit because those are not my words. The commenter with IP address 197.162.53.28 added these words him/herself. All editors, please do not put your comments in the midst of someone else's ultimately using that person as a shield for your words. I am sure that is against Wikipedia's rules. Thanks and sorry about the bother guys and gals. Infor4fun (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Victory based on objective?

About the "who won the war?". No one disagrees (except mainly Egyptians) that the war ended in an Israeli military victory. However, when reading about the topic, the Egyptians did claim victory. They based this on their goal of crossing the canal, establishing bridgeheads and retaking and holding a portion of the Sinai to break the political stalemate. So I was wondering, can we put a bullet point under Israeli military victory, that says Egypt claims victory based on objective of crossing canal and establishing bridgehead? Thanks and please do not think I'm against Israeli military victory, I just want others to know why the Egyptians think they won - this will provide more knowledge for the readers. Thanks 122.60.122.147 (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest that doesn't seem like a bad idea. I personally would accept it but I won't make the change so I don't simply get reverted for nothing. Wait until someone else comes along to discuss it. They may disagree or agree it depends. Infor4fun (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Why should a result of a war be determined by the claims of the involved sides? It should mention what had really happened and claims aren't proves. The Egyptian perspective is described in the body of the article, if you think it's insufficient you can add more information backed by sources. Infantom (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Did not mean to determine result of war. Just wanted the readers to know what Egyptians claim and why they think that. I had to use other sources as this article did not deeply explain it. When I have some time I'll find the sources and show them to you. Would you then please make the necessary changes since ip users can't edit? Thanks 125.239.116.72 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a tip. Unless you're gonna flood this place with sources for your claim. Don't bother. Clearly, what you're trying to achieve is like telling the editors on the Arabic Wikipedia to say that Israel claimed military victory based on excellent military operations and repulsing the Syrians - although none deny that Syria did not win. By the way, my other tip is not to bother with this, you'll waste your time - even if you convince the other editors and your goal achieved - since in the end, not many actually resort to this article for researching. We all know they both claimed victory with legitimate reasons, the problem is in whether we choose to believe them or simply be biased towards others. Israelis claim the Egyptian claim is false (to a bigger extent stupid) and that they repelled both armies - contrary to what happened. Egyptians claim that they overpowered the Israelis, did the 'impossible' and the Israeli surrounding of Third Army as something achieved by the support of the Americans (the American spy plane told them about the gap) and that it was achieved by using the cease-fire as cover. Bye Infor4fun (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. After thinking your tip through and through, you're right. I think if I should waste my time I should do it in something more useful. Thanks Infantom and Infor4fun. 125.236.157.191 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Logically Inconsistent?

Hi All. I hold no strong views on the Arab-Israeli conflict generally. I'm not especially knowledgeable on the topic and haven't edited here before. Apologies in advance if the following has already been discussed or if I am re-opening old arguments. I just came here because I saw a reference to the Yom Kippur war elsewhere and wanted to check some detail.

In the lede, the following appears;

With the exception of isolated attacks on Israeli territory on 6 and 9 October, the military combat actions during the war took place on Arab territory, mostly in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Egypt and Syria wanted to regain the Sinai and the Golan Heights respectively.

It seems logically inconsistent to say "actions during the war took place on Arab territory" and in the next sentence to say "Egypt and Syria wanted to regain the Sinai and the Golan Heights respectively."

If Egypt and Syria wanted to regain those territories, then I assume they were held by Israel at the time of the war? That being the case, these areas aren't really Arab territories are they? Aren't they are former Arab territories held by Israel?

That being the case, I suggest these two sentences should read;

With the exception of isolated attacks on Israeli territory on 6 and 9 October, the military combat actions during the war took place on [former Arab] territory held by Israel, mostly in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Egypt and Syria wanted to regain the Sinai and the Golan Heights respectively.

Words in square brackets seem superfluous, but maybe include them? As above, I am not knowledgeable in this area although I am aware of the tensions, so I am not going to change this myself. I'm sure there are enough regular editors watching that can make the change if warranted.

cheers Thepm (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good catch - the text in the article is misleading as it stands. A reader who is not familiar with the history of the region may be led to believe that it was a war of expansion by the Israelis.

The status of the territories was complicated. They were held by Israelis since the Six-day war. The Arab states had a valid claim to it principally through UNSC resolution 242 (they were not willing to respect their obligations rising from that resolution, specifically aknlowledging the right of Israel to exist). So the territories were Arab in the sense that Arabs had a legitimate claim to eventually get them back, and they were Israeli in the sense that they were under Israeli control. Writing that they were Arab without further explanation is misleading. -- Heptor _talk 20:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a change to the article, basically dodging the entire issue. It is not Wikipedia's place to ascribe ownership of territories. Heptor _talk 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The former text was good and it didn't give any impression "that it was a war of expansion by the Israelis". Your change removed several parts of what was written. The text was changed from:

With the exception of isolated attacks on Israeli territory on 6 and 9 October, the military combat actions during the war took place on Arab territory, mostly in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Egypt and Syria wanted to regain the Sinai and the Golan Heights respectively

You changed it to:

The military combat actions during the war mostly took place in the Sinai and the Golan Heights, territories that were occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War.

So it was not only what you describe as the question of "ownership of territories" that were changed. The status was actually were clear: they were/are part of the Israeli-occupied territories and not Israeli in any sense of ownership. There is no contradiction in being Arab territory but occupied by Israel. If the wording about Arab territory is unclear, it is easy to just change it to "... mostly in the Sinai and the Golan Heights, which were occupied by Israel" or similiar. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it back and kept the part "that were occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967". That should clarify the issue about being Arab territory. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Military intelligence in the lead

"Neither specifically planned to destroy Israel, although the Israeli leaders could not be sure of that."

The first phrase of the sentence is military objectives. This is so standard a fact for war articles that it is included in the info box. The second is a somewhat dubious assessment of Israeli military intelligence (at best): what the Israelis could surmise as to the nature of their enemies' objectives at the start of the war (which is an important distinction given in the original text but is not included on WP). While this second phrase is a fascinating piece of information, I think it should be included in the pre-war decision making process part of the article, the "preemptive" section. Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Beginning of article

Could this long winded and confusing section perhaps be replaced by something shorter but still evenhanded?

"as the Israelis repeatedly refused to make commitments to abandon territories prior to direct negotiations.[67] In response to a letter sent by Jarring to governments of Israel and Egypt, Sadat wrote that Egypt would be "ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel" if Israel committed itself to "withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip", to "achievement of a just settlement for the refugee problem", and to implementation of other provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242. 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" [68] intentionally omitting "all", and "the"; the Israeli response included a statement that they were not willing to "withdraw to the pre–June 5, 1967 lines."[69]"

Something simpler like:

Had failed to produce a permanent peace agreement. While both parties reaffirmed their desire for a peace agreement, the Isrselis refused any preconditions to peace talks. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.185.207 (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I like your proposal. But I think we should merge it into the existing text, instead of replacing it. The text you proposed, while brief and clear, does away with certain details that I think are noteworthy. Heptor _talk 16:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I just changed the article, here is the diff link. Heptor _talk 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Information on Soviet/Cuban/NK supplies

I didnt see any objections to the proposed change in the beginning of the article, so I'm going to open an account on Wikipedia, and try to make it shorter and more reader friendly.

I've also managed to find some new sources concerning Eastern block help to Syria and Egypt. These are reports and memorandums from the Hungarian government concerning:

• Hungarian deliveries of military hardware (Tanks, planes).

• Soviet support for the Arab states was much more significant than US support for Israel.

• The Soviets had low thoughts about the skills and level of preparation of the Arab pilots.

• Cuba sent personnel of an armoured regiment and 10 well-trained pilots. North-Korea also sent a number of pilots.

• Direct involvement of Soviet personnel in the war. Mainly as part of the anti-aircraft defence.

• Two Soviet “advisers” were decorated after the conflict with the merit of the Hero of the Soviet Union, since they were very successful in shooting down Israeli planes.

Any thoughts? I'm not planning a huge rewrite, just add the information where it is relevant. While the article as it is has a lengthy section on US military help, the part about Soviet help is somewhat shorter and less informative. Some of the above information is already in the article, and in those cases I'd merely add a footnote/reference since I can see that they're missing in some cases. 94.191.186.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally researched the war. Hungarian deliveries of hardware has not taken place - unless it was used a transit - according to Western, Soviet, Israeli and Arab sources. Your second point is somewhat vague. Syria was the one that received more supplies. Egypt received less and did not need it - Russia sent it in hope to sway Sadat more towards its demands. About significance though, the sometimes overplayed US support for Israel, is because Israel depended on the supplies, without them Syria may have had the chance to attack Israel itself. The third point is acknowledged by all sources. Cuban involvement was rather insignificant and well-trained is hard to actually assess. Well-trained for Cuba could mean untrained to another. The only Soviet personnel that are believed to have participated were those who fired the Scud missile without Egyptian knowledge and consent. At one point Soviet's fired on Israelis after an Israeli air strike hit a Russian Cultural centre in Syria as retaliation - but this doesn't qualify as soviet military involvement. Soviet's shooting down Israeli airplanes - are you sure you're not confusing this with the War of Attrition? 219.89.221.142 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again!

The source I found is a paper from the Wilson Center entitled "Bittersweet Friendships: Relations between Hungary and the Middle East 1953-1988"

I'll post the whole relevant section below, along with the web address. The information is based on confidential breeding a between the SU and Hungary, as related to the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party (Document; MOL M-KS 288 f. 32/1973 1. ő.e. - Report for the HSWP Central Committee regarding the events in the Middle East 8 October 1973)

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/bittersweet-friendships-relations-between-hungary-and-the-middle-east-1953-1988

During the 1973 Yom Kippur war Hungary was playing an active role in supporting the Arab states. János Kádár, the leader of the HSWP, received a confidential report from Moscow about the imminent attack in the afternoon of 5 October, just one day before the start of the offensive.[14] On 9 October 1973, when the Israeli counter-offensive gathered momentum on the Golan-Heights, the Syrian leadership turned to the Soviet Bloc (except for Romania) for support, which they received. The Hungarian decision-makers decided the dispatching of 90 T-54 tanks, 12 Mig-21 planes and F-13 fighters with rockets, anti-tank weapons and ammunition to the Syrian army via the air-lift provided by the Soviet Union.[15] Cuba sent personnel of an armoured regiment and 10 well-trained pilots. North-Korea also sent a number of pilots, since Soviet advisers regarded Arab pilots unprepared for the flying missions.[16] Hungarian army personnel did not take part in the actual fighting, but a number of Soviet soldiers did, mainly as part of the anti-aircraft defence. Two Soviet “advisers” were decorated after the conflict with the merit of the Hero of the Soviet Union, since they were very successful in shooting down Israeli planes.[17] It seems Soviet support for the Arab states was much more significant than US support for Israel in this conflict. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/bittersweet-friendships-relations-between-hungary-and-the-middle-east-1953-1988#_ftnref15

94.191.185.240 (talk)

Well, the source appears to be reliable. If you expand the article I don't think anyone would stop you. Heptor _talk 16:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. However, the part about Soviet soldiers taking place, which nation? If it's Russia please provide another reliable source to back it up. Don't say 'well trained pilots', as I previously said, well-trained is hard to assess. Country X (to avoid any offense) could claim it has 30 well trained pilots, these pilots may be assessed as 3rd grade in another country's opinion. Also about Soviets taking part in air-defence, if my memory is accurate, only the Syrians allowed this. Sadat wanted practically 0 direct interference in his plans. By the way about significance, don't say or imply that the Soviet support for the Arab states was more significant, someone would probably start a bit of an argument about that - it is hard to assess 'significance' here. On one hand the Soviet resupplies were greater - since there were two countries but Syria got most due to higher losses and need - and the excellent US technology in the resupplies. That part is still argued today, Arabs had more tanks but worse than the Israeli tanks due to the US technology being far superior. At the same time, everyone (US, Israel, Arabs, Soviet) agreed that if Israeli hadn't been resupplied it would have lost the war. Yet, Syria was urgently needing resupplies, its tank losses were far too high and its capital was at threat. Egypt on the other hand had little need for tank supplies, even after October 14, surprisingly.

Belligerents

As usual, some editors are adding uninvolved parties based on verbal announcement of support or even with none. Just to be clear - announcement of support is not sufficient to be listed as belligerent. There has to be an active role in combat. Supporters have to actively assist in weapons, advisors or at least finance and logistics. There has been a status quo set to include the following factions in this war:

• One side
  • Israel
  • Supported by US;
• Second side:
  • Egypt
  • Syria
  • expeditionary forces:
    • Iraq
    • Jordan
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Algeria
    • Cuba
    • Morocco
  • Supported by Soviet Union, Libya.

Any objections to this scheme (with references please)?GreyShark (dibra) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't feel like repeating this debate every 3 months. We can achieve consensus now, and in a matter of time, someone will change it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point - see below.GreyShark (dibra) 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello GreyShark. Not sure what I am missing here, it seems that the addition of other belligerents is supported by the sources. For example that [North Korea sent a MiG-21 squadron]. Heptor _talk 12:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I now restored the infobox to the state it was in before November 2015. The content is supported by the sources, and the terminology is consistent with how other conflicts are listed (see e.g. Korean War). GreyShark, if you see issues with individual sources please discuss those issues here. There is no cause for a general content blanking. -- Heptor _talk 09:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please wait for a reply before your revert. Sometimes i'm not editing day by day. Regarding the sources - some added "sources" on countries, which had troops in the region, but never took place in the fighting. Those are often confused as "belligerents", but are not. Regarding N.Korean squadron - please bring an good quality source, which proves that N. Korean squadron represented its country and took part in action; sometimes countries send classified missions to support some war effort, based on unnamed volunteers, but this doesn't make them war-involved (like the case of United Kingdom in the North Yemen Civil War, which sent mercenaries via a private company). Also see some previous discussions on this page as mentioned by user:Mikrobølgeovn.GreyShark (dibra) 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

GreyShark, I did wait for three days for you to respond on the talk page before making the revert, so I hope we can avoid accusing each other of uncivilty just yet. I found some previous discussions on this topic in the archives, but they appear to be very messy and most of the discussions seem to have happened in the edit summaries. If I overlooked something, please point me where I can find a representative discussion.

There has been many situations where a country sent support clandestinely or ostensibly clandestinely, and they are considered to be involved as a belligerent because in actual fact they were involved even if they claim that they were not. We don't have to go far for an example: during the Korean War, China and Soviet Union clandestinely sent troops to support Kim Il-sung; they are now listed as combatants because in actual fact they were. Sources for N-Korean invlovement include following: [22][23][24]. Heptor _talk 21:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My friend, i hope that you do realize that the three sources you brought cannot be considered reliable - the Aviationist is a blog, the Jpost resource is an "opinion" and the last book is a self-publication by Simon Dunstan who writes conspiracy theories and has no official history background. Please refer to WP:RS policy.GreyShark (dibra) 07:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Sure, those were not the best sources. Normally it's not controversial if a country participated in a given war or not, but with North Korea I guess normal should not be expected. I digged a little deeper. What I found is that 1) It is confirmed that North Korea made and announced a decision to provide military assistance , and 2) The US defence department reported that North Korean pilots were flying missions for Cairo . So it appears that North Koreans did in fact have some participation in the conflict. It's not obvious if this level of participation should warrant their flag in the list of combatants. I'll check if there is a precedent from other war articles. Heptor _talk 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I added that "North Korea was reported to have sent pilots to fly for the Egyptian Air Force." diff link. Heptor _talk 16:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Untitled

Egyptian forces retake the Seuz canal Destruction of the Bar Lev line Egyptian and Israeli military stalemate Egyptian Strategic & Political Victory 1978 Camp-David Accords Israeli decisive victory in the Golan Heights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.54.138.202 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Need to add more additional info.

 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. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

62.114.221.234 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The result :

• indecisive on the Egyptian front
• Egypt achieved a strategic and diplomatic victory
• political gains for Egypt and Israel
• Israel achieved a tactical victory on the Syrian front

The result :

• Egyptian forces retake the Seuz canal
• Destruction of the Bar Lev line
• Egyptian and Israeli military stalemate
• Egyptian Strategic &Political Victory

1978 Camp-David Accords

• Israeli decisive victory in the Golan Heights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.54.138.202 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 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) 22:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

Egyptian victory Ahmed88z (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

Hello. The article indicates that it was an Israeli military victory, but this is not true. Both sides claimed victory, at least. It is supposed to be a military stalemate, or the two sides claimed victory. There are also some errors, such as the one that says that Sharon occupied 65 miles west of the canal and this is not true. Sharon could not occupy any The city west of the canal has failed in the battle of Ismailia and failed in the battle of Suez and became besieged as well as the Egyptian army. I hope to open the article for modification Ahmed88z (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — {{re|LauritzT}} (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(pinging Ahmed88z) — {{re|LauritzT}} (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How Ahmed88z (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

Hi, I request to do units involved which are: Syrian Army, Moroccan Royal Army,Iraqi Army, Saudi Army and Lebanese Airforce. And Israeli Defense Forces Mohammed12313893 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 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) 18:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit the Israeli victory

I submitted two requests before that. I said that the Egyptian victory was on the Egyptian front, and that Egypt achieved its goals from this war, unlike the Syrians, who could not achieve their goal. Therefore, I asked many times to amend the Israeli victory to turn into an Egyptian victory, but then I backtracked and said I want it to be (both sides pretend victory ) and provided very reliable sources and evidenceAhmed88z (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop opening new sections on the same topic. The reasons your edit requests haven't been made are in the existing sections. (Hohum ^@) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

what is it--Ahmed88z (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

This war resulted in an obvious Egyptian military victory.

Please do not be involved in any sorts of deceiving actions since Wikipedia is trusted and well-reputed worldwide. 197.46.104.60 (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you this was egyptian vectory

Correcting intentionally misleading information

The Israeli victory must be modified to remain an Egyptian victory 37.39.243.49 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Daveout(talk) 18:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)