Talk:Yom Kippur War

• Archive 1 - Includes discussion of whether the article title is POV, and a poll concerning page move to Arab-Israeli conflict of October 6–October 24, 1973. Outcome of poll was 0/15/1.
• Archive 2 - Includes discussion of whether the article title is POV, and a poll concerning page move to 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Outcome of poll was 8/30/0.

Overall Victory

To discuss bottom line and to the point overall outcome of this war, i suggest a short description added to the top stating that Even though there were many Combatants in this war, it is afterall when looked up in history a war between Egypt and Israel, and overlooking the casualties, the victory in this war was Egyptian, simply because the war's main reason was to restore parts of egypt occupied and they were recovered. And the outcome is peace talks between Egypt and Israel that gave positive results existent till this day, afterall Egypt is probably the only Arab friend for israel, if we look on arab israeli relations, egyptian israeli relations if considered not too good, still the best among the rest of arab countries. And the evidence is touristic israeli trips to egypt, israeli prime minister visits to egypt and meetings with foreign relations egyptian minister.

And if we may add a personal opinion, we should point out that egypt and israel should work more on their friendship to prevent hatred between the people of both countries and benefit from both countrys' resources to boost both economys.

war costs more than peace. Pagliaccimontague 11:40pm, June 24 2007

Captured vs Invaded

I don't understand why some insist that the Israeli occupation of Sinai and Golan Heights in 1967 doesn't qualify to be an "invasion". "Invasion" is defined (according to wikipedia) as a "military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity" which is exactly what happened in 1967. The word "captured" is a lighter tone of full scale military operations that resulted in the death of thousands and the change of political map of the region till present day. I'm going to leave this comment for 24 hours then yet again replace "captured" with "invaded" if no sound argument is presented to support the insistence on the usage of "captured".

>> Hey. Considering the fasicst methods of the pro-Izzies on Wikipedia, it's a miracle that it's mentioned at all!

I don't know how to do the indent thing to indicate I'm replying, but I say captured is more accuate than invaded since invaded implies agression, and Sinai and Golan Heights were captured in self-defensive wars.

What does this mean?

In the Golan Heights, the Syrians attacked the Israeli defenses of two brigades and eleven artillery batteries with five divisions and 188 batteries. At the onset of the battle, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced off against approximately 1,400 Syrian tanks. Despite the overwhelming odds and the fact that most of the Syrian tanks were equipped with night-fighting equipment, every Israeli tank deployed on the Golan Heights was engaged during the initial attacks. Syrian commandos dropped by helicopter also took the most important Israeli stronghold at Jabal al Shaikh (Mount Hermon), which had a variety of surveillance equipment.

Particularly the phrase, "Despite the overwhelming odds..." I don't see why it's surprising that every Israeli tank was engaged with that kind of disparity in numbers?

I agree - I read this paragraph through about ten times, and I can't make out what the author intended to say. I am just going to eliminate everything from 'Despite' to 'equipment,' so the sentence will just read 'Every Israeli tank...' The fact that the Arabs had night-vision equipment on their tanks is mentioned elsewhere, and the 'overwhelming odds' thing just doesn't make sense (and those odds are mentioned elsewhere as well).

Reference needed

Could someone please provide a reference for this strange statement from the article?

"The Arab world, which had been humiliated by the lopsided defeat of the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian alliance during the Six-Day War, felt psychologically vindicated by its string of victories early in the conflict. This vindication paved the way for the peace process that followed, as well as liberalizations such as Egypt's infitah policy..."

I have no idea where this statement could possibly come from. This war was a humliation for the Arab nations involved. Not only did they attack on their opponent's most sacred holiday, which in itself was widely perceived at the time as cowardly, most importantly they were soundly beaten. In fact, they were utterly trounced on the battlefield. If I recall correctly, both the Syrian and Egyptian armies were widely mocked for their incompetence. I think it would be far more correct to say their embarrassment lead to the Camp David Accords or simply to leave their motivation out entirely. Certainly, vindication played no part in it. Non-Riemann Hypercube 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rabinovich says this several times. Page 512: The Yom Kippur War marked a major turning in the Israeli-Arab confrontation. By restoring pride to Egypt and a sense of proportion to Israel, it opened the way to the Camp David peace agreement in 1979" Raul654 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting this meaning of this statement. (You may also way to consult a dictionary for the meaning of "vindication.") The Egyptian populace may well have rejoiced in the start of the war but certainly not in how it ended. Your assumption they found vindication in unambiguous defeat flies in the face of logic. Non-Riemann Hypercube 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The arabs were vindicated in the sense that after the 6 Day War, their armed forces were humiliated - derided as incompetent. The Crossing, and their successes early in the war, provided this notion to be false. Thus, they were vindicated. The statement in the article is accurate. Also, I'll note that the cited quotation totally debunks your claim that the Egyptians were humiliated in Yom Kippur War. Raul654 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your insistence does not make it so. Egyptians do not remember the consequences of this war fondly. It was and remains a source of national discontent. I'm not sure how you read Egyptian pride into their sound defeat. The paragraph I cited above should have its POV removed.Non-Riemann Hypercube 06:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to cite a reputable source that supports your claim that the war is a source of national embarassment for the Egyptians. Until then, we'll take the published author's word over yours. Raul654 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This article cites Rabinovich 42 times, which strikes me as utterly unbalanced. The article seems to larely focus on Rabinovich's view of the war, which has been criticized for ignoring the Arab perspective. Yes, Egyptians still sing patriotic songs about crossing the Suez, and they took much pride in their initial short-lived victories. But the turn to diplomacy is generally viewed as a realization that they could not defeat Israel in battle. They gave up on war because they simply could not win it. There is no pride or vindication in this realization. The above cited paragraph is simplistic and makes Egyptians sound like war-mongering Klingons. The Egyptian governement turned to diplomacy because it finally realized that war would not and could not solve their problems with Israel.Non-Riemann Hypercube 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You flatly admit that Egyptians sing songs of pride about the war. By this, I'll take it you conceed the article's description saying that the early victories restored Arab pride. Your comment that the reason they turned to diplomacy is because they realized they couldn't defeat Israel military is accurate, and is already in the article in the Long Term effects section - "the war helped convince many in the Arab world that Israel could not be defeated militarily, thereby strengthening peace movements." As to the claim that this article lacks an arab perspective - that has been discussed here before [1] -- if true, it's not the fault of this article, so much as it is those Arab governments and leaders therein who pointedly avoided disclosing their thought processes. The Arab perspective is lacking because (unlike the Israeli side) none was ever published, so historians are left to guess at many of the important pieces. And as I said above, if you think this article is over-reliant on one source, feel free to add others; on the other hand, that one source flatly debunks your claims that the war humiliated the Egyptians (as does your own statement that they sing songs about it). Raul654 07:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The point I am taking issue with is that "vindication" lead the way to ensuing peace talks. Outside of Rabinovitch's opinion, there is nothing to demonstrate this. Realizing that Israel could not be defeated is what lead to peace. As for your comments about the Arab perspective on the war, there are plenty of sources available, but they are in Arabic. By the way, I have zero sympathy for this war or the Egyptian and Syrian armies. But if this is supposedly among the best articles wikipedia has to offer, one must question citing a single author 42 times within it, pariticuarly given the strong NPOV policy here. (And I should specifically point out that Rabinovitch has been somewhat widely criticized for not interviewing Arabs or consulting Arabic sources.) Non-Riemann Hypercube 08:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a source to offer, but I've discussed the war many times and at length with Arabs from Egypt and several Mashreqi countries, and anyone who has done so knows that it is endlessly touted as a wonderful, pride-restoring success for the Arab world. That may bear little resemblance to the reality of the war, but that's how it's generally regarded by Arabs. Also, politically conscious Arabs seem to agree that the perceived success of the war allowed Egypt to make peace because it allowed Sadat to tell his population that they were negotiating from a position of strength after "chastening" Israel in '73. This was much more palatable to the Egyptian population than negotiation from a position of post-'67 humiliation, though of course the peace agreement was still unpopular. Anyway, like I said, no source, but the "triumph" of the war and its helping of Sadat to make peace seem to be almost universally accepted among Arabs, in my experience. I think Avi Shlaim in The Iron Wall affirms the latter point as fact, too. Babajobu 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your position that there is a joy associated with this war if you restrict your discussion to its beginnings. However, talk about the ending, i.e., the military defeat and eventual peace treaties and I wonder if any of your friends are still left smiling. And no doubt, the war ironically made it possible for Sadat to pursue peace, but again, none of this was the point of my original comment.Non-Riemann Hypercube 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Non-Riemann is making what I regard as a false assumption that the Arab military operations could only provide 'vindication' (yes, that is an odd term) for the Arab peoples involved--i.e., only provide them with positive patriotic feelings about their national characters--if the Arabs were at least marginally successful in the conflict. They were not even marginally successful, so your argument continues, therefore claims to the effect that their patriotism was increased are dubious or simply false. However, the assumption I have identified seems false: the war increased their patriotism in part because they did not know just how bad they fared in the war. One explanation for this contention would involve a look at censored media coverage of the conflict in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere in the region. Ryan Nichols (Nichols.141)

I'm obviously not making my point clearly. I think we are all in agreement that the Egyptian attack was a gross military failure but even so, it brought great joy to the Egyptian people. Their joy made it possible for the government to pursue non-military options, which would have appeared a sign of weaknesses had they not been preceeded by the attack, however it turned out. That being said, the peace negotiations were run by the Egyptian government, not the Egyptian people, and the government's motivations were due to their realization that they could not defeat Israel militarily. End of story. So, while the "vindication" helped control public opionion, it had no role in influencing the decision to turn to diplomacy. I think introductory comments like the one in this article sometimes grossly oversimplify extraordinarily complicated events and serve no good or informative purpose. Thank you everyone for your responses to my comments. I have learned much and enjoyed the discussion. Best. Non-Riemann Hypercube 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indisputable that the War is regarded at best as a great Egyptian triumph (you would not believe the fuss that is made of it here - I speak as an Egyptian living in Egypt). That said, some educated people are aware that it was more of a psychological victory, enabling both sides to come closer to negotiations. But the overwhelming - truly overwhelming - idea is that the Egyptians won the war. I have ben hearing about the Bar Lev crossing practically since birth, and it is only when I studied history in university that I learned what really went on.

That said, this article is quite seriously one sided.

Pictures at top

Now i dont know too much about wikipedia but since this is about to go onto the main page shouldnt the pictures allocation be more balanced in this article. like i mean there are none at the top and a lot of pictures at the bottom

The warbox goes at the top (that's the standard for articles), and the pictures align with the revalant part of the article. The picture of Golda Meir goes with the section describing her decision not to launch a first strike, the picture of the US airlift goes with the text that describes it; the Isreali soldiers running across the desert goes with the descriptiong of fighting in the sinia; the picture of Sadat and Begin shaking hands at the Camp David Accords goes with the text describing the peace process; 'etc. Raul654 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to condense article

It seems to me that thecurrent article is too long (59KB). As a first step, I suggest condensing the Background section, which is 18KB. I created Background to Yom Kippur War (content moved as-is from this article). I now suggest leaving just a summary (+link to the detailed article) in the main article here. I made similar changes in Six-Day War which seem to have improved the article's legibility. Before I do a similar thing here, I want to get consensus on this action. altmany 15:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, but I don't think it's really necessary. I consider this article as one of the best of Wikipedia, and shortening it would cause a little loss of quality. 59Kb is still fine and fast to download (there's a lot of articles much longer). So I don't recommend your move unless there's a lot more info you want to add concerning the background. CG 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ceder-Guardian. Raul654 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is a good read, and the level of detail seems reasonable to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since no new information have been added to Background to Yom Kippur War, is it OK if I delete it? CG 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Raul654 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. CG 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Go and Search

Entering Arab-Israeli War or Arab Israeli War in Wikipedia Go or Search brings the reader nowhere near this article - it fetches up in the cul de sac of 1948. What does this mean?--shtove 22:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there were many Arab-Israeli wars, and many articles relating to them. The 1948 war was the first such war, Yom Kippur was the fourth. In such cases, in order to get more relevant search results, you need to fine-tune your search query with more specific terms like "1973" or "Yom Kippur". altmany 22:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My point is about the search-availability of this article, and even entering Arab-Israeli War 1973 gets the reader no further. There are reams of debate about the title of this article, but none of the participants seems to have arranged a re-direct/disambiguation while popping out for a ciggie. Why not? It's not good enough that the reader has to enter Yom Kippur War to find his way to this article without relying upon links in other articles. I'm not getting mixed up in this, but after the debate is done with (soon), it's the text of the article that matters.--shtove 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The search function needs some impovement. MEanwhile, I have created redirects for the links above. BTW, we already have Arab-Israeli war, Arab Israeli war, 1973 Arab-Israeli War , Arab-Israeli War of 1973 and many other permutations. The capitalization matters, please check WP:NC. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But opening Arab-Israeli conflict (the result of some of your existing links) still leaves the problem over direct connection. Shouldn't entering Arab Israeli War (or any other of the "general permutations" you refer to) simply bring the reader to a disambiguation page that provides a link to this article? Good housekeeping for Wikipedia's visitors.--shtove 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that those looking for wars would get the best info at the conflict article as the central and most comprehensive one. An alternative is Wars of Israel and if the consensus is to redir there, it's a 1 sec. change. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

11/3/2006

Suggested corrections: The Camp David accords did not lead to normalized relations between Egypt and ISrael. They led to a peace treaty, but relations are still cool, not normal. Also, the Arabs chose Yom Kippur for their surprise attack not because the Jews were fasting but because Israeli radio is shut down on Yom Kippur and emergency mobilization, they knew, was carried out by issuing coded calls on radio. (See, Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War, page 46) Also, the Rabinovich citations make up most of the references in the article but in your Reference list you cite an article by him in the JerusalemPost about a specific battle. It is his book that should be listed there because that is what the references are relating to.)

moshe dayan was the defence minister of israel and so it is incorrrect to refer to him as a commander which would give the impression that he was an army officer. itzhak hoffi the commander of the northern front should certainly have been included in the top section of the page under commanders.as should benny peled the commander of the israel air force.

Israelie Army medic insignia?

Does any one know what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They probably used Magen David Adom; it protected them to the extent it was visible red symbol on white, I'm not sure how pertinent that official recognition is in terms of actual battle conditions. Comprare, for example the lion and red sun that Iranian military used during brutal reign of the last Shah (pre-1979). What's key is that troops in battle are able to recognize who is a medic and try to avoid shooting them, which of course dosen't always happen (whether recognizable as usch or otherwise). And, of course, it's the sort of unwritten rule/sanction any side can employ in retribution for the other intentionally disregarding it (official recognition aside). El_C 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wanted - the person who made this edit

Could the person who made this edit please step forward and be recognized? There are three cited sources in there that I had to remove because there's no actual reference. (e.g, it says 'Shlaim, probably a reference to Avi Shlaim, but it doesn't say what work/page it is citing). I thought it might have been Humus sapiens based on this edit, which uses the same Herzog citation, but he doesn't think it's him. Anyway, I really want to restore these sources, but I can't until someone tells me what they actually refer to. Raul654 04:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the Hebrew Wikipedia's series of Yom Kipur articles & pertinent bibliograpies, as well as briefly google.co.il'd some items, but nothing striking came up for these specific sources vis.a.vis the material they currently cite. El_C 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me such a long time: Chaim Herzog, Heroes of Israel ISBN 0316-35901-7 p. 253. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Obvious comments

this article is well written..I would like to point out a few obvious things..I maybe wrong here but the US nuclear alert has not been mentioned here..nor has the serious consideration the US had of invading Saudi oilfields if the embargo continues. Also there has been no breakdown of the weapons airlift..to my knowledge that airlift was the largest at the time by the US. The same could be said of the Russian one..I think the picture of the camp david accord is a bit wasted here. A picture of the barlev crossing should be added..it is considered by many a major military achievement. --Zak 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The nuclear alert is descibed in detail in the section titled (cryptically enough) "Nuclear alert" Raul654 00:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

my bad missed that bit Raul--Zak 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I find the claim that it was the largest US airlift questionable. I suspect the Berlin Airlift was bigger. Raul654 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

== The Importance of the American ReSupply == I am not prepared at this time to give all the supporting data, but I will have to come back and flesh out this comment. I have always understood that the initial Israeli losses on the Egyptian front were quite staggering. This was due to the shoulder held anti-tank and anti-air craft missles employed by the Egyptians. I have read that the Israelis would have had to resort to their nukes had Nixon not resupplied them with replacement aircraft and tanks. This is truly momentuous. America resupplied Israel in a war of occupuation on Egyptian land held contrary to UN resolutions. And as a result of the resupply America was subject to an Arab Oil Embargo that caused a significant oil shock to the economy. Prior to the war, America and Israel had sat silent and ignored Peace entreaties. Uri Avnery, the Israeli Peace Activist, in one of his columns, writes that Golda Meir, used to ignore Sadat's peace pre-war overtures, saying "that's just Sadat trying to get the Sinai back." The importance, extent, and context of the resupply is put into context in a column by Charles Krauthammer, a US Jewish right right wing Likud supporter columnist. "And what were Nixon's outer acts vis-a-vis Jews? Well, in 1973, he saved Israel from possible destruction with his massive weapons airlift during the Yom Kippur War." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer101899.asp will314159--Will314159 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

>>>Welcome to AIPAC! Making sure the US Congress is done as it's told.

Your point being? The Soviets were supplying the Egyptians, the Americans supplied the IDF, it's a classic example of the Cold War policy of war through proxy. Beyond that all I see is the other classic the anti-US/Israeli rant. PPGMD 04:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Starting point is the 1956 Suez War. Eisenhower ordered Israel out of the Sinai because appropriation of territory through aggression is what the UN fought World War II and Korea to reverse. Israel was in occupation of Arab land in violation of UN Security Council Rsolutions. Ask Saddam Hussein about UN Security Council Resolutions. The U.S. was purported to be and was an ally of major arab states such as Saudi Arabia. The US purported to be an even handed broker and mediator for Peace. At the time of the war, Sadat had kicked out his Soviet advisors. The result of the resupply was the Arab Oil Embargo which had an oil shock and a significant inflationary effect on the US economy. There was a serious economic consequence to the resupply. It was quite a reversal from Eishenhower who had ordered the Israelis out of the Sinai to actually abet their mililtary occupation. BUT, that was not the main point, I was making. The main point was that the resupply was CRUCIAL. I have friends who are now US citizens but served in the Egyptian military at the time that say the resupply extended to airplanes landing in the desert disgorging armor driving away fully manned with Israeli crews and jet airplanes flown into the Sinai from American stockpiles to replace Israeli losses. Charles Krauthammer would not have idly made his remark about Nixon "saving" Israel. Many who are commited to the preservation of Israel behind the Green Line and the internationally recognized Israel borders balk at expending American treasure and lives to help Israel hold on to and settle "Occupied Territories." But I understand I will have to mine the Israeli newspapers and books to "verify" events that I have lived through and absorbed day by day by watching television and reading the newspapers. Will314159--24.179.98.1 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadat used the Soviets to get the equipment and training his forces needed, then launched a surprise attack on a Jewish holiday, the Israelis, an American ally now and then, needed help and the US provided that help, it is no different from the Soviets supplying the NVA. We paid the price in the 1973 oil crisis. Occupation of territory is a normal thing after a war, many other countries do it, the modern US is one of the few that doesn't believe in such action but even we have taken territories in war as recently as WWII. PPGMD 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Such Sophistry for justifying aggressive wars to take and occupy land done with a straight face is excellent. It has led to the twilight of the secular Arab states and the growth of militant Islam but that is my editorial comment. Such is the price of suffering sophistry lightly and not challenging it, a present two- trillion dollar war and the lives of our youngsters, But back to the points covered here, all of my points are made in the compantion article Operation Nickel Grass which covers the resupply- about the tanks, the jets, the cruciality of the resupply, the lone-ranger styple of it (no European nation except Portugal participated), and the economic consequences. The reason it was a lone-ranger effort without allies is because the Israelis 1)had turned down the Sadat Peace offer, 2)preferred to rely on their military to keep the rich prize of the Sinai and found none except Nixon that would help them to defend a war of Occupation! I would like to see the article incorporate more of the Nickel Grass components in it. That's the central lesson of the 1973 War- Security lies not in military might and Occupation but building up in obeying UN resolutions and Security Relations with Neighbors. Take Care! --24.179.98.1 17:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Militant Islam was building well before the Yom Kippur War, you are also being drawn in by your source. Your sources have a POV of their own, in this case it's a pacifist Israeli, thats why Wikipedia relies on academic sources, and looks for confirmation, where you see a Lone Ranger actions of the US, I see a classic extension of Cold War policies. And who's to say that Sadat wouldn't have still attacked even if Israel took the olive branch, Egypt after all was the one that attacked, and it's the policy of a number of the Arab nations to drive the Jews into the Sea. I don't believe either side was wrong or right in this war. PPGMD 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Two points I'd like to make:

1. The American resupply was not important as regards the direct tactical situation. It had an important strategic effect in showing the Arabs a new "hot" War of Attrition was useless.

(Not important???? GIMME A FRICKIN BREAK!!!)

1. The "Lone Ranger" interpretation doesn't take into account that the USA at the time had a very direct say about most NATO assets. We the Dutch e.g. were stripped of part of our Centurion fleet in October 1973 to bolster the Israeli one: after all, these Centurions were simply US property, leased to us for free. We fully cooperated of course. The situation for Germany was no different. Obedience to the American Liege Lord was an automatism. That only changed when Reagan came to power.--MWAK 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain I agree. Based upon my reading of the material presented by the comannder of the airlift in his book The Yom Kippur War : And the Airlift Strike That Saved Israel it would appear that critical supplies would have been exhausted without the airlift.

== The Peace Plans before the War == I alluded to Uri Avnery's comment about Meir and Sadat above. Here is a quote from one of his columns "One proven method is to concentrate on one word and argue that it shows the dishonesty of the whole offer. For example, before the October 1973 war, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt made a far-reaching peace offer. Golda Meir rejected it out of hand. Her Arabists (there are always intellectual whores around to do the dirty job) discovered that Sadat spoke of “salaam” but not of “sulh, which “proves” that he does not mean real peace. More than 2000 Israel soldiers and tens of thousand Egyptians paid with their lives for this word. After that, a salaam treaty was signed." http://www.nahost-politik.de/friedensbewegung/saudi.htm In other columns he writes about the efforts of Kissigner's predecessor at Sec'y of State William Rogers and his Peace Plans which Kissinger promptly torpedoed. The Wikipedia article is clearly deficient in this area by being one sided and it gives the topic short shrift.will314159--Will314159 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And here we go, he gets to the point Israelis are a bunch of blood thirsty savages, with the United States also helping the savage attacking on the peace loving Arabs. </Sarcasm> Please link to academic references, if this is a true event, there must be some academic references, not some links to a german mid-east news site. PPGMD 04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"links to a german mid-east newsw site." The comment is taken from a column from Uri Avnery, the Israeli Peace Activist. his site is at http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html. The google search for that particular comment turned up that particular cite. Avnery fought in Israel's War of Independence and the 1956 Sinai War. He was a contemporary of Ben Gurion and many Israeli leaders. He speaks of first hand knowledge having lived through that era and this one. Wikipedia is not an Israeli, or even an American or British encyclopedia but is a worldwide enterprise. It needs to be fair and balanced. I did not use an Arab source but a veteran Israeli source, and a well respected journalist often writing in the Haaretz newspaper. Further, being 56 years old, and just have come from Vietnam, I am old enough to remember those events. I remember Willilam Rogers, the cartoons about the Egyptians waving the olive brances and the Israelis ignoring them. How many of us remember there were settlements in the Sinai. Back then as now, the issue is Piece of Land versus Peace. will314159--24.179.98.1 16:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The site you linked to is a Mid-east news site, in what appears to be german, the description is accurate. Also unless we are talking about current event internet and news columns are not proper sources. Wikipedia relies on confirmed academic sources. What you write might be true it might not, but IMO it reads more like a Urban legend and without a confirmed source it has no place in this article. PPGMD 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on PPGMD http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html, surely you can see the "english" in the URL site. It is a dual hebrew and english site. But that is OK, the article is shaping up better. It unequivocally says Sadst made his peace offer and says the Israelis flatly turned it down although it say they were feeling "militarily secure." That all those people died needlessly is without debate and need not be in the article. That's an editorial comment, Avnery's and other wise heads. Take Care. --24.179.98.1 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates?

The article says October 6 through 26, but the info box says October 6 through 24.

A valid point. The 26th is the correct date to use; that's the day when the last of the fighting ended. Raul654 05:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Alert

It is known by many, that the Isrealy General Staff descided to use a nuclear bomb in order to destroy the Aswan Damb, (causing a great flooding in all the Nile banks and delta area) in case of an Egyptian invasion to Israel's natural borders, (not including Sinai). If i recall correctly the descision was made to do this, in case of egyptian forces reaching "Ad Halom" which is a crossroads 2 miles southern of Ashdod. There is ofcourse no legitimate sources that would comment on this, nor would the Israely goverment, as the existance of Israely mass destruction weapons is still a secret, known to all. I think that this fact should be noted inside this article, however said it is just a widespread belief without any official confirmation

There are so many urban legends about intended Israeli usage of nuclear weapons that you could likely fill an article with them. My favorite is the story about the Israeli Army telegraphing an "aleph bet," (the letters A B in English) in an effort to convince the Egyptians they were about to use an atom bomb. These stories are always unsubstantiated and generally border on the absurd. Without a highly reputable source, they certainly have no place here. Non-Riemann Hypercube 09:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This link points to a letter from Secretary of State Rusk to President Johnson and discusses this strategy in point 2. This is a full eight years before Yom Kippur, and there is no mention of a trigger or of Egypt knowing, though their strategists had probably worked it out. Not really relevant to the YKW, though it might bear mentioning somewhere as a source of Egyptian fear, though you'll want to be careful not to speculate.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/arms14.html Shermozle 10:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic article!

Wow, what an incredibly well-written article. Well done everyone who's worked on this. Shermozle 10:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

O, dear. In reality the core of the article simply perpetuates the usual mythology as if no more research had been done since 1973. The tactical and strategic analysis is fundamentally flawed. Especially the events on the Golan are distorted beyond recognition. Of course the writers can't be blamed for this; it's just that this is a war of which the carefully fostered public perception is so at odds with the real events, it might have well been of an entirely different battle.--MWAK 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the politics, it is very poorly written. I assume it has become a featured article because of its size rather than its quality. Ideally it should be revised by one or more qualified writers and then locked from future editing, with periodic and moderated updates as new information becomes declassified. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To respond to one unspecific comment with another - this article is accurate, well referenced, and comprehensive, your comment not withstanding. Raul654 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

disputing the NPOV status of this article

Come-ooon !!! Regardless of whether it's true or false, with that all-times, all-situations, and all-events Rabinovich reference! Why is it important to tell Lieutenant Zvika Greengold's story of valour at war in here:

During the night, Lieutenant Zvika Greengold, who had just arrived to the battle unattached to any unit, fought them off with his single tank until help arrived.

I don't believe it.
Please reconsider the neutrality of this article in many other examples as well. Thank you, Maysara 11:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting case. Some points:

1. The story is authentic.
2. Greengold's action came at a very critical moment, when the entire defence of the Golan was on the point of collapse.
3. As his action gave the Syrians the false perception they were advancing into a trap, they withdrew into a defensive position for the night. This basically saved the Golan front and, arguably, Israel itself.
4. Had they not done so, the Israeli cabinet most probly would have resorted to nuclear weapons. So the courage of one man (and his crew :o) saved the world from nuclear war.
5. Should the very situation seem incredible, the special tactical setting should be remembered. There are only a limited number of access points to the eastern Golan. An equally limited number of tank battalions can beat off enemy attacks almost indefinitely with an excellent loss ratio (also meaning that the "1400 - 185" ratio was irrelevant, as the Syrians could and would only deploy 300 tanks at a time for lack of space). So the Israelis allocated only that limited number plus a single mobilisable reserve brigade, saving the bulk of their forces for the Sinai. The two active battalions in border service were however spread out along the Purple Line. The six reinforcing battalions therefore each had to be split, as there was likely no time for withdrawal and regrouping. To ensure that no mistakes were made a strict plan had been prepared for the distribution of the companies. When however the first active reserves arrived, only hours after the attack, some companies were sent to help the line battalions and not according to the preconceived scheme. When further units arrived they were distributed according to plan, not taking into account some of them had already been committed. As a result of this confusion one access point in the middle near Rafid was left without reinforcements; the border company there had beaten off the first attacks but was down to three tanks. When this was realised around 20:00, hurriedly one company from the south and two from the north were sent to close the gap. However the former company was ambushed by a Syrian airborne commando ATGW-unit and wiped out; in the case of the latter companies due to a communication error two infantry companies with M 113s were sent instead of tank companies. Around 22:00 an entire Syrian armoured brigade couldn't believe its luck as it simply drove on, practically unopposed. There were no directly available reserves to contain it as these had been deemed unnecessary. The Syrians drove on past Hushniyah, turned right at the crossroads and were not a mile from Nafekh, the main northern maintenance and mobilisation centre holding probably no less than 200 Centurions in storage, when suddenly the first three tanks of their extended column were destroyed by Greengold's lone tank. He then left the road and advanced parallel to it, hitting Syrian tanks along the way and giving the impression of a "box" ambush.
6. Yes, at the time some other crews had been put together to man a handful of other Centurions. You shouldn't spoil a good story by emphasising details too much ;o).
7. Duel for the Golan has much of this story, even though the writers apparently don't quite understand this themselves :o).--MWAK 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, MWAK, and thank you for the elaborate reply. Well, when I said "I don't believe it", I didn't mean the truth about the occurrence of what Greengold's might had actually done. He must be a real glorious HERO if he did that, worthy of all respect and admiration, etc. But what I did not believe was that someone actually brought it here, into the ENCYCLOPEDIA! It's by all means one hill of an interesting and dazzling story about the guy and what he did. But why here?! And what would we do, if an Egyptian or Syrian comes up with a similar mythological achievement from the other side (well documented as well, by some mythologist!), and by the way, I have absolutely no doubt that such glorious and almost supernatural war mythologies, real or unreal, DO exist on the other, Arab side. What will we do then. Why is it that this article, apart from the brief description of the ingenious doings of the Egyptian engineers, entirely neglects the other war achievements of the Egyptian army. For example, from one hand, an editor writes:

"In 1971 Israel spent $500 million fortifying its positions on the Suez Canal, a chain of fortifications and gigantic earthworks known as the Bar Lev Line, ..."
But then we learn that that magnificent Bar Lev line was almost entirely destroyed by the Egyptians. We're never told HOW goddamn it. How did those Egyptians do it. And then, this sort of detail about war stuff, is so devotedly done with in the thrilling Sharon detail. And even earlier with the failure of the Egyptians in one first attack of them.
Come-ooon! This encyclopedia is not about doing that, being politicized and biased. For what?! If I was an Israeli I would have been a lot more alarmed at the intentional directionality and orientation of this article, at its one-sidedness and one-dimensionality, even ambivalence. Why is it so important to prove something to the world on that matter? What threat there is, if we're talking about knowledge, information, and NPOV?
Tell you what, it's up to you guys, do whatever you want with that article. But hay, so far, the only thing this article proves, somehow, is your still need to VICTORY!
Go on, rejoice if you will lead! And again, thank you for the reply. Maysara 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, when small causes have very large effects, they should simply be mentioned :o). And obviously Arab heroic feats should not be negelected. There are indeed numerous Arab accounts of the war, only nobody cares to translate them. In one respect your misgivings about the article could easily be assuaged: if only it were made clear that Israel had planned for a possible "surprise" attack and that merely because of grave mistakes that attack became dangerous, all the heroism could be seen in the proper light: a narrow escape from your own incompetence. BTW, the Egyptians overcame the Bar Lev-line by using waterhoses to demolish the earthworks, wrecking the Israeli time table. It allowed them to cross at five sectors simultaneously, while there were only three Israeli brigades ready to contain them. Foolishly nevertheless an attempt was made to block all sectors, with the result that the Israeli front disintegrated within half a day, forcing them to fall back for a last stand at the Sinai mobilisation complex. Small causes, large effects. They were saved by the Egyptian decision to consolidate.--MWAK 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

this article is a revenge attack to the zionist article featured

few days ago.

Discuss before removing FARC

I strongly believe that this article includes so many problems as to be a feature article. Please discuss. And also, Natalinasmpf, please discuss before removing the FARC so promptly! Thank you, Maysara 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's strange.. (Victors and POV)

From a military science perspective Israel was the clear victor in this war. At the endstate Israel had half the Egyptian army encircled and cut off in the open desert with the Golan hights secured. In addition, the casualty count was in Israel's favor.

Although there is plenty of POV as to the merits of starting the war or to foreign reaction thereof, there should be no POV problem with calling Israel the military victor.

This very detailed article contains lots of useful information. Two aspects seem to me to be troubling/puzzling:

1) It seems very odd to present the Yom Kippur War as a triumph for the Arabs and a Israeli military failure. 2) Although the article endeavours toward even-handedness, battlefield events are presented almost exclusively from the Israeli point of view. (While there is adequate discussion of the situation in Egypt and Syria leading up to the war, we learn little about what was going on in Damascus and Cairo during battle). While the Israeli point of view is valuable, the article would certainly have benefitted from greater treatment of the how the war was being managed from the Arab side.

--Philopedia 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree..there seems a dearth of arab references or pictures. --Zak 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Factually, considering territorial gains and physical losses - Israel emerged the winner. However on the psychlogical side, the Arabs finished the war elated (although their capitals were threatened and armies moderately damaged or incapacitated) and the Israelis dissapointed and shocked. Thus it depends how you define "triumph" - physical or psychological? Of course it is a combination of both, but the weight of importance has much meaning here.

2) The arabs did not have independent open investigations into the actions of their military and political leaderships following the war, or publish much more than gloryfing media material. Many of the arab publishers of the time were mostly mouthpieces to their respective regimes. Thus your search for additional honest and accurate info will take you to outside sources, or to material published by more recently by retired Arab personnel who participated in the war and are living outside their respective nations.

Wikipedia doesn't care who "actually" won the war. We're encyclopedians, not political analysts. Well, sort of encyclopedians... Anyway, it's POV unless we quote somebody saying the same thing. --Chodorkovskiy 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A comment on references...

Given that this is a featured article (and will almost certainly remain one), the situation with its references is extremely unsatisfactory. Firstly, there is a mixture of Harvard and Chicago citation styles: several quotes are referenced using Harvard inline (e.g. "Rabinovich, 355") while much of the rest of the article uses footnotes. WP:CITE requires consistency in citation styles. Secondly, several statements in the article that require references are unreferenced (especially direct quotations). Moreover, some sections of the article (e.g. "At sea") seem POV/OR without attribution and referencing. Could someone who edits this page please fix these problems? (Note: please don't tell me sofixit, I read the article because of its FARC listing and don't intend becoming an editor... I have other fish to fry.). Mikker ^(...) 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Casus Belli Edit

I thought that the original second and third paragraph were too scattered and confusing. The second paragraph jumped from the creation of the Bar Lev Line to a convoluted sentence about Israeli complacency. The second sentence of the third paragraph was just a restatement of material from the first paragraph.

I changed the material around to something that I think will be less confusing to the reader. I, of course, welcome any criticism.

• The line..."The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The US was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, who thus apparently never received the offer." also shows up in the Six Day War article. Can we get a source that shows that the US was informed?? Thats one part I question. Tom 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Biased

I wish to point out that the article seems to me biased in several aspects, starting from the first picture showing Israeli soldiers advancing on the Egyptian front. The first picture should show the egyptians breaking the Bar Dov line: that how the war started. Such a picture would also make clear who started the war. Then, lower, you could put a picture of the Israeli counteroffensive. A more general problem is that basically almost only american and Israeli material, quotations (and authors) were used. Al the Israeli myths of war are in. The guy who fought a Syrian division with one single tank, etc...Also Syrians and Egyptians have developed their legends, they have their heroes. In both cases that's clearly a propaganda effort to heal the wounds of a war which nobody clearly won. So either take out all these Israeli 'heroic actions' or put in the arabic one's. I could provide tons of that, if you prefer the second option, but that would be silly. Casualty estimates on the arab side are inflated. Why should you publish the Israeli estimates on Arab casualties (I wonder how they could verify their accuracy, especially in the first dramatic days of the conflict). Then you should publish arab estimates on Israeli casualties, which are available (Mohammed Hasnain Haikal, Nasser's Advisor and most important Egyptian journalist, published several books on the war which are considered the best in giving the Arab side of the war). best thing would be to remove the Israeli estimate of 15.000 killed. This is a free encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool. Please help to improve it by using an unbiased approach. Make sure that if I read a pro-arab biased article, touting a great victory, I would have complained as I'm doing now, asking to give more space to the Israeli side of war.

Sindbad

This article has received many complaints, and I'm afraid that there were ignored by the community. About the picture in the infobox: If you could provide us with one that shows the Egyptian army breaking the Bar Dov line, we may discuss this solution. And yes you're right. Out of 13 references, only one is from an Arab source. I'll encourage anyone who has Arab sources to compare and try to correct the POV statements. As for the arab casualities the sources are Western, Israeli and Rabinovich. To apply the NPOV policy, we should equally include for both side, Israeli and Arab analysis. As for the "myth" you're talking about, I have no problem if we remove it. CG 12:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Sindbad, of course, below or above that one-tank valour myth, we could add the famous story of that Egyptian superhero who stood some 999,999,999 bullets for the sake of fixing the Egyptian flag on top of some-symbolic-where in the field! And who knows what else; the missiles are said to had been derived to devastate the Israeli airplanes not only by heat-attraction, but also by flying-angels, of course, a type of angels that is quite DISCORDANT with the holiness of Yom Kippur(!) Do you think we could add this too?!

But no! We do not want to do this. Not only because we care for the objectivity and integrity of Wikipedia (though somehow this lowly article is being featured!), but also, because we do not want to represent OUR actual history and life-experience in such a self-unconscious way (that mythology is the thought of the unconscious). One truly despises oneself only when one does not want and does not seek the truth about oneself.

Well this article does not represent serious truths about OURSELVES and about the war and untruth is being manifest most in the representation of the article instead of in the information and knowledge it represents (such as the Israeli war-mythology, not that it is either accurate or entirely false, but the interest and care to represent it). WE, cannot do that article, and let's not forget Wikipedia, any good by promoting OUR mythologies in it. Not only the article, but as I tried to say earlier, We cannot do OURSELVES any good by doing so as well. Not only that, it seems, that any attempt towards improvement will eventually fail under what User:Unfocused called "a certain degree of uncorrectable populism".

By the capitalised our, We, and ourselves, that I spoke of in here, you perhaps will refer to Egyptians, Syrians, or Arabs, or whatever in that category - of course you will not refer to the Israelis, we simply cannot do that, and this article speaks well for itself - up to the present! But I personally will refer them to those who want to remain civilised, and to those who want to become so.

Have a great time editing and improving Wikipedia, Maysara 13:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How was this response useful? The user has raised serious issues about this article. Please give him practical solutions instead of making fun of him. CG 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Other Sources for unbiased casualty figures

World Political Almanac, 3rd Ed. (Facts on File: 1995) by Chris Cook:

Egypt: 5,000 Syria: 3,000 Israel: 2,812 Other Arab: 340 TOTAL: 11,152

Jacob Bercovitch and Richard Jackson, International Conflict : A Chronological Encyclopedia of Conflicts and Their Management 1945-1995 (1997):

Egypt: 5,000 Syria: 3,000 Israel: 3,000 Iraq: 200 TOTAL: 11,200

Sindbad

a little important thing isn`t mentioned

i think it`s very important to mention that Syrians consider Saddat as a betrayer for his acceptance of the cease-fire,and that he is the main reason for not scoring a big victory over Israel..i know that cuz i am Syrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Am Searching (talk • contribs)

had he not done that, and had war continued, you'd be negotiating today not for the return of the Golan, but for the return of Dar'a. The main reason syria did not socre a big victory is mentioned in the article- their forces failed to capitalize on thier initial success, and stopped thier forward movement in the Gamla area for some unexplained reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

And this is relevant to what I Am Searching just considered about the unmentioned thing? No?! -- Maysara 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be true that "Syrians consider Saddat as a betrayer for his acceptance of the cease-fire", but to claim that "he is the main reason for not scoring a big victory over Israel" is simply untrue, however popular an opinion in may be in Syria. If the war hadn't ended when it did, the debate wouldn't be over Israeli control of the Golan and East Jerusalem -- it would be over Israeli control of Cairo and Damascus. -- User:Spock 23:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, again, I Am Searching just said that this belief is being considered by Syrians and not that it is true. What he/she believes worthy of mentioning is this Syrian consideration itself and not whether it is true or false! Don't worry, okay okay, KHALAS, you won the goddamn war! Maysara 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

well..Isarig..i think that noone can know what the result would be if the war continued,,maybe we would be part of Israel right now,but also maybe there wouldn`t be such a country as Israel,don`t forget that the Syrian were preparing for a massive counter attack.anyway this is not the point and as Maysara have siad:it`s what Syrians consider whether it`s true or not,all i am trying to say here is how Syrians look at the war from their prespective..take careI Am Searching 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While noone can know with certainty, the facts on the ground do tend to point in one direction: when the cease fire was put into place, Israeli shells were raining down on Damascus suburbs, and not the other way around, and the Egyptian 3rd army was encircled and at the mercy of the IDF, and not the other way around. That said, I have no problem with you adding a line in the "aftermath" section saying something like "Syrians consider Saddat as a betrayer for his acceptance of the cease-fire", if you can source it. I don't think this reflects well on Syrians, if true, but go ahead, knock yourself out. Isarig 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig - it (Syrian belief that Sadat betrayed them) is worth mentioning, if (and only if) it can be attributed to a reputable source. Raul654 17:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, only if attributed to a reputable sources like all other statements in this article! Yeah, that's right! (said mockingly) Maysara 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any of the sources currently cited, let's hear it, and we can discuss and possibly modify the article. Isarig 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

NO NO, no no no no! I have absolutely no problem with the cited refs. I just don't know whether USE has been seriously made-of from them! Currently, I can only see the godhood of "Rabinovich"; the great ultimate reference of Wikipedia's article on October's War. The article is not well referenced, even if the listed refs. are ultimately outstanding. I have a problem with the article itself, not the list of its refs. It simply cannot be a well referenced article when it is in such quality. (see here). Best, -- Maysara 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This *is* a good article, despite the people who are constantly trying to turn it into the crap-fest that most islam-related articles are. We can see from that FARC page just how much credence other people give Maysara's criticisms - e.g, none. Raul654 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve. You've complained that the article is written from one POV, and relies too heavily on one source. Here's your chance to introduce a little balance (presumably the Syrian view of Saddat is the opposite POV from the one you allege the article has) as well as intorduce a new source -but instead of doing that you're here on the Talk page rehashing old arguments that have been debated at length, and which ended with you in a distinct minority position Isarig 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

well,first i wanna say that this article is great and impressed me,and i disagree with Maysara who nominated this article for deletion as a feature article.however i think that Raul must learn how to calm down and not offend a whole nation like he did in his last post. about the source:i really can`t bring any source but all i can say that i lived in syria for 21 years and this is what they tought us in our school text books.Oh,one more thing:why do you think Saddat had been assisinated for?.I Am Searching 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A cite from a Syrian text book would do just fine. WRT to Saddat - he was assassinated for making peace with Israel. Isarig 22:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reluctancy to return territories

The claim that "Egypt and Syria both desired a return of the land lost in the Six-Day War. However, victory in that war as well as the three-year-long War of Attrition had left the Israeli leadership confident in its grip on these territories and therefore reluctant to negotiate their return" was deleted by 129.241.11.200, and reinserted by Raul654. Are there any sources for that claim? The first part is pretty obvious by itself (though it does seem to imply that return of that land was their sole intention). But the claim that Israeli leadership was reluctant to negotiate their return is a serious claim and needs to be sourced. -- Heptor _talk 10:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Now removing the claim while waiting to see if there are objections. -- Heptor _talk 10:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already supported in the article, although I don't like the phrasing and placement - in 1.1 concerning Israel's negative response to the Jarring initiative and Sadat's offer of a peace treaty (very much like the one signed later) in return for the Sinai and Gaza. There's no question that Israel wanted to hold on to territory, and preferred it to peace. Cf. Dayan's famous statement that we would prefer Sharm-al-Sheikh without peace to peace without Sharm-al-Sheikh.4.231.209.200 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of deployed troops

I just noticed that in the Warbox/Strength, in addition to the numbers of troops, deployed numbers appeared. I don't see it in the reference cited, therefore either an additional ref is needed or the "deployed" numbers have to go. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian/Arab commanders

I've just added some Egyptian commanders. I only know one Syrian commander (Field Marshal Mustafa Tlas), who I've also added.

If any of them seem to be irelevant, please feel free to delete them.

Hosni Mubarak (Egypt): commander of the air forces, deputy minister of war, air marshal. After the war, he was appointed vice-president of Egypt and air chief marshal.

Mohammed Aly Fahmy (Egypt): commander of the air defence forces.

Anwar Sadat (Egypt): supreme commander of the Egyptian Armed Forces, field marshal. Sadat used his presidential right to lead the armed forces and make his title more than a symbolic title.

Abdel Ghani el-Gammasy (Egypt): Field marshal, director of operations.

Wassel (Egypt): major general, commander of the third field army.

Abd-Al-Minaam Khaleel: major general, commander of the 2nd field army.

Zikry (Egypt): vice admiral, commander of the naval forces.

Tlas (Syria): field marshal, deputy commander in chief.

Adam Abdel Khalik/02/05/06.

Title and NPOV

For npov, should not the title be the october war and should not the introduction state : The october war (1973) also called yom kippur war or ramadan war ? Alithien 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length here, and the answer is , no, it shouldn't. Read the archives and the previous disucssions. Isarig 19:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Raul654 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Alithien, YES! you're right! But THEY wouldn't let ya! Don't even try. Don't even attempt to try! __ Maysara 13:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ROFL THis show again the lack of undestantind between the wikieditors. Great Wikipedia!!

External links

I added some external links I found on the subject and I intend to increase the number of Arab sources and references in the article, but this will take some time, as I will need to translate the books I have on the subject...--N0v3r 20:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I also edited the picture in the info box as it was requested above..--N0v3r 00:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just by curiosity, could you give me the titles of the books. And by the way, great picture in the intro. CG 13:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well,I currently intend to translate parts of these books:

• "Octobar 6: the six year war" by Mursy ata allah.
• "Octobar 6: The first electronic war" by Muhammad abd el menam.
• "In Search of Identity" by Anwar al Sadat. (I know it has been written in the references, but littel has been actually qouted or extracted from it.)--N0v3r 14:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, this article desperatly needs for arabic sources. My main concern is in the infobox which contains only Israeli and Western statistics. CG 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath in Syria?

I was wondering if someone could go into greater detail of the aftermath of the war in Syria? Right now the political ramifications only really discuss the Egyptian side. I'm curious as to what happened in Syria. --Spectheintro 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

In a word - not much. Some of the Syrian officers were punished for their failure ("On the Syrian Front, the Druze commander of an infantry brigade taht had collapsed during the Israeli breakthrough - Col. Rafik Halawi - was executed even before the war ended. The seventh division commander, general Omar Abash, who had failed to break through Ben-Gal's brigade, was alternately reported to have been killed in teh fighting or to have died of a heart attack" - Rabinovich, 507). Beyond that, there was no investigation, no attempt to learn from mistakes, and no change in the Syrian political leadership. Raul654 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for NPOV violation

This article carefully presents the prevailing image of the "Yom Kippur" War. However, that image isn't necessarily correct. This article makes the Arab nations seem hellbent on war and completely uninterested in diplomacy before the fact. In reality, they had been trying to negotiate the return of their territory that was seized by Israel in the previous Arab-Israeli war. It was Israel that refused to negotiate. Also, the article presents the Arab offensive as a surprise attack, but manages to contradict itself in the process. In reality, Egypt had been quite vocal about its intentions to attack (barring a diplomatic breakthrough from Israel), as evidenced by the included quote by Sadat alluding to a willingness to incur massive casualties. How can the article include such statements but still maintain that the offensive was a surprise? I have a source to back up my assertions. If nobody takes exception, and I know some will, I would like to mend the appropriate sections with the inclusion of my source.--64.122.49.30 23:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The threats made by Sadat (as well as the reason the war was a surprise) are already covered in the articel: "Sadat had so long engaged in brinkmanship, that his frequent war threats were being ignored by the world." Raul654 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

However, the article fails to mention what is exactly meant by "the world", in fact, it only further underlines the inherent NPOV violation of the article. Certainly Egypt's Arab allies weren't ignoring his war threats. The article fails to cite a source indicating that the world was indeed ignoring Sadat's warnings. You failed to also comment on what I brought up concerning the diplomatic situation before the war. Am I to take it as acceptance of that suggested change? Also, the Casus Belli of the article is flagrantly inappropriate and in violation NPOV. It describes the (non-NPOV) summary of the war, but not the reasons for it.--64.122.49.30 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First, you are flatly wrong about the diplomatic situation. Egypt demanded Israel return to its pre-1967 border as a precondition to negotations, which the Israelis rejected out of hand (Rabinovich, 15). Kissinger told Ismail "My advice to Sadat is to be realistic. That fact is that you have been defeated so don't ask for victor's spoils". (Rabinovich 16) Failing that, they *were* determined to go to war, and Sadat's own widow confirms that.

Second, frankly, this article has been reviewed a number of times and everyone agreed it was neutral. The fact that you claim it's not is an indication of your own bias more than the article's. Raul654 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So who was being politically inflexible, Israel for refusing to entertain the notion of returning to its pre 1967 borders, or Egypt for insisting that it did? There were actually political initiatives (some by the United States, before Kissinger took control of foreign policy) that Egypt initially agreed to and Israel rejected. Have you heard of the diplomacy efforts by the Swedish diplomat named Gunnar Jarring? I agree that Egypt was determined to do anything it had to to in order to restore its previous borders - including war. Stating that Egypt was "determined to go to war" is misleading when taken out of that context. Now you're claiming unanimity when it simply doesn't exist. On this very talk page, I see others questioning the NPOV nature of this article, Maysara for one. Your assertion that "everyone" agreed it was NPOV reflects the non-NPOV statement in the article that the "world" ignored Sadat's warnings of war. It validates the view being presented, aligns the reader with what is presented, and, by implying unanimity, marginalizes any dissenting views. Dissenters may be a minority, but even majority agreement does not equate to NPOV; it only increases the odds that the majority POV will be presented as NPOV.--64.122.49.30 04:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, I know you're biased, but please take care not overstate your case. For example, this article has been reviewed a number of times and everyone agreed it was neutral is not only unprovable, but very likely false. It may be true that the editors expressing an opinion here have stated their opinion that the content referenced is neutral, but to say "everyone agreed" is confabulous support of your own opinion. The fact that someone is now taking the time to express an opposing opinion indicates that everyone did not agree. Lack of argument is not the same as agreement; it may be that many abstained in favor of spending their time elsewhere. Further, since this is a wiki, you cannot legitimately foreclose any further discussion of an issue simply because new editors have arrived too late for the previous discussion. This isn't a printed encyclopedia; there are no press dates to force us to stop revising the content. So instead of trying so hard to appeal to the article's own history and previous discussions as a final authority of sorts, simply address the concerns of other users and leave it at that. Unfocused 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Violation

Israeli military victory as a POV violation

In the sense that they are contests wars have winners and losers. The objectives of taking land and destroying components of an enemy's army can be quantified. In both these respects Israel was the winner of the war. As for the armies Israel was the decisive victor. Half the Egyptian army was encircled in the open desert cut from supply and in the north the Syrians suffered a severe attrition of armor. For land Israel gained land in the Golan and only allowed a beach head on the Suez canal, deep in Egyptian territory.

It would be one thing to dispute this with other figures that show a military victory for the other side, but it is not a proper argument to simply dismiss Israeli victory as a POV violation, in fact, it is probably a greater POV violation to present the side of totalitarian propoganda masking as history. The only people who knew the facts on the ground and told people Egypt won were involved in the doublethink operation of Nassers dictatorship.

Egypt and Syria did not invade Israel as they had crossed territory that belonged to them Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively. Neither Egypt nor Syria penetrated Israeli territory. It is impossible for a country to invade its own territory. Israel illegally seized territory in 1967 following its unprovoked aggression. Despite immense condemnation from the international community, Israel refused to return lands that were illegally robbed from Egypt and Syria which left these two countries with no choice other than to take back what is rightfully their's by the use of force.

Looks like another person is questioning the NPOV nature of this article.--64.122.49.30 04:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Invaded v captured

Which is preferable "Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been invadedby Israel in 1967" or "Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been captured by Israel in 1967"? It seems to me that the relevant matter is the capture not the invasion and invasion has negative connotations anyways, so capture is more NPOV. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment before posting this comment. Anyway, Invasion is the mere act of occupation and has no negative connotation. Actually, "captured" sets a much lighter tone to what happened in 1967 than it deserves.

I'll replace "capture" with "invade" while waiting for this discussion to jump start (if ever).

For God's sake Raul645 hold yourself. You're showing how biased you are. I keep up bringing this up to discussion even on your Talk page and you insist on your absurd blocking policy. Would you care to explain how the usage of "invade" is a non-neutral point of view? You just keep on reverting changes and blocking without taking the time to discuss. Why on earth is the use of this discussion page if it is to be ignored and bypassed by an admin who clearly believes that his own views are the only "neutral" point of views. Let me remind you Raul645 that I brought the issue of your outrageous blockings up on your own talk page and you choose not to reply and went further to delete my comment. Yet again, I'll wait a considerable amount of time for discussions before replacing "capture" with "invade". The fact I repeatively bring the issue to discussion and wait for replys (which I don't get) before making my edits cleary proves that I'm not pushing a POV as you claim. On the contrary, he who suppressively blocks me atleast three times (once without even mentioning a reason) without discussion is the one who's pushing his biased POV on the article.

Capture is both more accurate and less inflamatory than invade. Raul654 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that capture is more accurate isn't even an argument. How come the Israeli forces "capture" of Sinai and Golan Heights which were righteously controled by the Egyptians and Syrians doesn't qualify as invasion. What's "invasion" if that's not it? As with being inflamatory, you can't be inflammatory by merely stating the fact that happened on land.

I think the most accurate statement would be "invaded and captured". Invaded or captured alone is ambiguous, because land may be invaded without being captured (i.e. the invading force was not victorious), and land may likewise be captured without being invaded (i.e. it was captured through diplomatic negotiation after the war itself). --JaceCady 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

Are the items listed on the to do list still wanted by consensus here? Neutralaccounting 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos

The image of Egyptian soliders crossing the Suez canal in the template is a misrepresentation of the war in its entirety. I am leaving it in the article but moving it out of template (which is already too long) and adding a famous photo of Sharon & Dayan. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And how is it a misrepresentation? Raul654 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It represents only the initial phase. IMHO, a neutral and informative image for that infobox would be Image:Jom_kippur_war.jpg. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly neutral. Just because you claim is it not neutral does not make it so. Can you tell the author's opinions on the war because of the picture at the top of the article? No. Therefore, it is by definition neutral.

Moving on, I'm willing to accept alternate placement in teh article; however, Amuroso's suggested replacement is truely awful. The top picture in the article should be an action shot (which it was), just like it is for every other war infobox. Raul654 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. See 1948 Arab-Israeli War . Amoruso 23:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Humus. I feel that photos should stay in the infobox as it's powerful but I believe the best solution is to add another picture or two to represent a better view of the war, similar to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Amoruso 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as I don't think an image of victorious French troops would be a fair representation of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the Egyptian crossing Suez are only a half of the story. I didn't know about the "action shot" rule. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the initial picture to be a good representation of the war and a nice action shot. Right now the info-box looks just aweful, and I truly hope it doesn't stay that way. The way it stands now, by looking at the pictures it seems pretty pro-israeli; food to egyptian soldiers, Dayan, Sharon, Meir etc. I'm not sure I see how the initial picture does not represent the war. It does not represent the outcome, but surely it is a very good representation of the war, especially on the Sinai front. galar71 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not . Really. If you read military books concerning this war, you'd know that Israel's victory was huge, bigger than the victory in 1967. In fact, Israel was very close to conquer Cairo. I agree with Humus that it'll be very similar to portraying advancing French troops in Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Amoruso 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. Obviously their victory was big, albeit at a great cost, but my point was that if it is to represent the war itself, the picture is fine. However if the picture has to represent the outcome of the war - Israel as the victorious nation - it would be wrong to use the egyptian soldiers. Outcome - yeah, show something Israeli, since they won, The war in itself - Show anything that is representative of the war (not only the outcome, but the war from start to finish). The fact that Israel was taken by "surprise" is very noteworthy and an important part of the war. The fact that Egypt managed to cross the impenetrable east-bank of the Suez canal was also very noteworthy - so that's why I think the picture of the egyptian soldiers entering the east bank of the Suez canal fit in. galar71 00:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Galar. Raul654 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo needs to represent what best describes the war. According to your logic, we can also put a photo of a Kuwaiti soldier managing to kill an Iraqi during the 1991 invasion of Iraq to Kuwait. It gives a false impression. Egypt lost this war on the battleground and portraying such a photo gives a wrong notion and perpetuates a certain myth. Amoruso 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is about the entire war (as opposed to the initial phase), I think that an image (if any) in the warbox should represent the entire war and not only the initial phase. Back to my example: the fact that Napoleon entered Moscow is not as important as that in result he lost 98% of his army and the Russians conquered Paris. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

other photos/ways it can be represented:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Amoruso 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Humus sapiens on the photo that (was) there; I think the Egyptian crossing of the canal is THE iconographic image of the war. Also, its hard to find a single photographic that potrays the entire war (on two fronts). But then I looked at the Iraq War and World War II articles and they used 4 or 5 photos in the infobox which I think worked very well, and would be nice here. Lipsticked Pig 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article should be retitled

This article should be retitled "October War" or "1973 Arab-Israeli War" as the name "Yom Kippur War" is not a NPOV term; it is an Israeli and pro-Israeli term. In the Arab and Muslim countries, the war is known as the Ramadan War. Both Ramadan War & Yom Kippur War carry POV weight and suggest that the author(s) support one side exclusively. Changing to a more neutral term would be a vst improvement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aminaa (talk • contribs) .

Though I see where you're coming from, I think Yom Kippur should stay because this is the name it is known by in English. WP:NAME says (policy in a nutshell): "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Few English speakers would know either "Ramadan War" or "October War" (i.e. which October war? And quite possibly could be confused with October Revolution). Mikker ^(...) 22:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed. See the archives at the top of this page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Arab Israeli War of 1973" be the clearest then and most self-explanatory? I most frequently hear it called "the 1973 War" [User: Aminaa|Aminaa]]

For the 100th time, no, for the same reasons as before. Raul654 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup; it's important that we make sure that only the Israeli POV is privileged here. Other societies and countries and their viewpoints only matter as they affect Americans and/or Israelis. If you disagree, feel welcome to post on an Arabic language wiki, but not here. FrPizzaballa 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm... I have no idea what you could possibly mean. "Yom Kippur War" is, as a sheer matter of fact, the way this particular war is referred to in English. ("Yom Kippur War" has 519,000 hits on google; "Ramadan War" has 15,900 hits). Just like it isn't POV to call the conflict between Britian and Argentina in 1982 the Falklands War instead of "Guerra de las Malvinas" or the conflict between the Boers and British at the turn of the 20th century the Boer War and not "Die Boere Oorlog", so it isn't pov to call it the "Yom Kippur War". Mikker ^(...) 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"October War" or "1973 War" is the term used by the United States government. "Yom Kippur" is not a meaningful term to non-Jews while "October"/Tishrin or "1973" are. Aminaa

Also, your point about the Second Anglo-Boer War actually IS an argument in favor of not using the Israeli nomenclature; in case you hadn't noticed, this is written in English and not in Hebrew! Aminaa

Aminaa, by your logic we should rename Intifada. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... "Yom Kippur" isn't a meaningful term to non-Jews? What? It's an English term now (it was imported from Hebrew), just like "Ramadan" and thousands of others. Another example then... Wikipedia calls it the Vietnam War, but the Vietnamese call it "Resistance War Against America". Is that also an argument for renaming? But, anyway, this is getting overly complicated. The facts are these: (1) Wikipedia's naming policy says an article should be named that which it is most widely known as in English and (2) the war in question is known as the "Yom Kippur War" in English. Ergo... we should call it Yom Kippur War, not some alternative. Mikker ^(...) 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite the 100th time, but it's certainly been gone over many times, and defeated by huge margins whenever it has come to a vote, for very good reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty amazing that someone contends the title when you think about it, seeing as Arab states chose the specific date to attack. any other day in the month and "October War" would have probably been used. Amoruso 19:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this discussion is very interesting and shows how important it is to try to be dispassionate! It looks like almost everyone has an axe to grind here or is otherwise not exactly "neutral" in their POV! Personally, I would think that there are many wars where, by giving a certain name to them, one is displaying partisanship; "The War of Northern Aggression" in the USA comes to mind! Closer to this topic, one finds three names for a major war, "The Imposed War", "Saddam's Qaddisiyya" and "The Iran-Iraq War". Clearly, only one of those approaches neutrality and non-partisanship. I think the same is true in this case; both "Yom Kippur War" and "Ramadan War" as titles strike me (a non-Muslim, non-Jew, non-Israeli, non-Arab) as being rather partisan. I would expect a book titled with either of those terms to give the history from the perspective of one side and one side alone. Thus, IMHO, titling the article either "the October War" or "the 1973 Arab-Israeli War" would be much more preferrable (if neutrality/nonpartisan scholarship is the desired goal.) Stampcollector 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds logical in theory, but if you checked you'd see that Yom Kippur War is the name used by almost everyone whether in favour of Israel or very much against it. Wikipedia works by WP:NAME and this conforms with it... anyway, I think that all viewpoints were probably discussed endlessly in the surveys and people made their minds, so it's in history. Jayjg said it was discussed numerous times "and defeated by huge margins whenever it has come to a vote" .Amoruso 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Stampcollector, I rather resent being accused of partisanship. Please assume good faith. And as a 'a non-Muslim, non-Jew, non-Israeli, non-Arab' myself, my reasoning was exactly as Amoruso outlines. Please see WP:NAME. Maybe this policy is itself problematic, but then go try and change it at WT:NAME, not here. Mikker ^(...) 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Article is biased need revision or to be removed

This article is biased.... and this is against Wikipedia rules and guidlines.

• Cite your case!

Number of troops

I think only deployed troops (not all available troops) should count as "strength". I don't understand why Jayjg, Humus, and Amoruso reverted my change without addressing this. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would less information be better than more information? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the reserve capacity of the combatants was a consideration of all participants, and had influence on the decisions made both in deciding when to go to war, and when to stop. For example, do you really think there is no value in knowing that Egypt committed 3/8 of their forces? Wouldn't the decision be viewed in a different light had they committed 90% or even 100% of their forces? Removing information about non-combat troops deprives the reader of the ability to accurately assess this conflict. Unfocused 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Unfocused, it is a vitally important & encyclopedic detail. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But have a look at another war article. None of them list all of their army in infobox. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not follow a good example and improve incomplete articles? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Title

There must be a total absence of any reference to an "invasion" or "attack" by either Egypt or Syria. Since Golan and Sinai belonged to both of them, it was impossible for them to attack their own territory. Plus, the title of this is violation of NPOV guidelines. "Yom Kippur War" is a term employed by Zionists and Israeli propagandists. The non-biased term for this conflict would be "Arab-Israeli War of 1973"

Absolutely not. In so far as Israeli troops were in those areas after 67, those areas were attacked (you might have a point about the use of the word invaded but attack is certainly accurate). As to the second point, history textbooks and such often refer to the matter as the Yom Kippur War. That's the well-known name and it returns far more google hits than "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" JoshuaZ 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a founding principle and one of the few things Jimbo has declared "non-negotiable", so it's supposed to trump WP:NAME. That is why the article name remains a point of dispute for so many new editors as they arrive. Google hits are not NPOV, so use of them to defend the status quo is a nice feel good effort for those who like the current title, but it's not really a valid point. I certainly don't expect any change in the article's name in the near future, though. Unfocused 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, not this again. That horse has long since been beaten to death. Raul654 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Raul, I'm sure you have more than enough associates in Wikiproject Judaism and Wikiproject Israel with this on their watchlists to make sure this article remains at your preferred title for quite some time. Populism winning over founding policies is rarely as obvious as this, though. I'll ask you again to consider how you'd feel if the readership demographic changed and the article was moved to "Ramadan War". I'd bet we'd have a bid to move it to a mutually agreeable neutral title in a heartbeat rather than have it at a POV title that is claimed to be neutral yet frequently disputed. No need to reply, but this should illustrate why ideally, consensus involves consent of the minority, not just majority rule. Unfocused 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Google hits are POV in that sense. It would be POV to use a name for the article that isn't the common name. Both Ramadan War and "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" simply aren't common names for it in English. I would completely understand if on the Arab language wiki this was titled "Ramadan War" because that's the name that shows up in that language, that is the most NPOV term. In English it is known as the Yom Kippur War generally and thus that's the most NPOV term. NPOV does not mean we need to engage in what amount to borderline neologisms in the interest of making editors feel comfortable. JoshuaZ 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Popularity has nothing to do with NPOV. The logic you use would lead to some very strange and terrible conclusions. Consider, for example, the history of blacks in America and what your logic demand was NPOV regarding their humanity in 1795. No, true NPOV is truly neutral, even if it requires a dry, scientific notation-like naming convention to get there. Further, your claim is incorrect; "Arab Israeli War of 1973" is actually quite popular, although not the most popular.

Regarding most popular, it would be dead simple to re-write the introduction to point out that "Yom Kippur War" is the most frequently use name for the war in the English language. Pointing out that fact in the introduction is the appropriate degree of emphasis for something that is, in fact, merely a popularity comparison. Doing so would not subvert NPOV as is currently being done. Unfocused 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide what people should call things and shouldn't be using a title that isn't the common term. (And if we were writing in 1795 it would perfectly NPOV to observe that the vast majority of people consider blacks to be subhuman (if this were true, it actually wasn't, but that's a separate issue). On the other hand, there may be a point, in that the most neutral sources online seem to use other names. For example, Encarta uses "Arab-Israeli war of 1973" [5]. However, Onwar uses "Yom Kippur War" mentions the term Ramadan war and doesn't even mention the term "Arab Israeli War of 1973" [6]. JoshuaZ 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but you've couched your language, my debate friend. Sure, in 1795 most white Americans probably considered blacks subhuman, and to say that they considered them thusly would be an NPOV description of a common opinion, but to directly state they were subhuman as if it were fact, even in 1795, when adequate proof to the contrary was widely available and generally known (interracial reproduction capability, for one), stating such would be completely POV! Astute editors of Ye Olde Wikipedia, 1795 Edition, would be compelled to remove that POV, regardless of how popular. Unfocused 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that analogy is very good. A better analogy might be what do we call the French and Indian War which is labeled as such and not labeled as the War of the British Conquest or "The Conquest War" or "North-American Chapter of the Seven Years War"(which would be the equivalent to "Arab Israeli War of 1973"). JoshuaZ 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1795 is not the best analogy, but there are others available in the archive. This article, however, is very different than the example you provide in an important way, too; this article's title itself is challenged as POV by new readers and editors on a very regular basis. The example you provide has not a single mention of POV or NPOV on the talk page, but instead appears to be a simple ongoing discussion of how to properly refer to this war. No one to my knowledge has ever said that French and Indian War (or any of the other variants!) expresses any significant POV regarding the conflict itself, either. That certainly cannot be said here, where the cultural biases are evident in both "Yom Kippur War" and "Ramadan War". Unfocused 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's presumably because we haven't had many Native American editors on the topic and Brits don't care much about their colonies using silly names and acting like the events in one combat theatre constitute a "war" JoshuaZ 04:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if people complain about French and Indian War, what is the POV complaint? No, wait, don't manufacture controversy where there currently is none! Regardless, I think you see the point regarding this article that I and many other editors have tried to address. It is currently using an Israel-sympathetic POV for the title. Which is fine for now. Maybe in a few years, you'll support a move to a neutral title. Unfocused 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also reverted your edit since describing anywhere as someone's "rightful territory" is not NPOV. JoshuaZ 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand how calling it the Yom Kippur war is POV in any sense. I would understand it's POViness if Arabs/Muslims denied that such a day exists, but obviouslly they don't. They recognise too that such a day exists for Jews. There's no dispute by anyone that Syria and Egypt started this war and they chose this particular day. Since it's the common name in english and apparently in almost all languages btw I really don't see how this can be an issue... a POV title is 1973 Israel war's against evil, but this simply isn't POV in any way. It should go by naming conventions etc but WP:NPOV simply has nothing to do with the issue. If Syria and Egypt attacked on Valentine's Day and it became a commonly used name it would be called that. (It is a common name of the day to designate the day of the attack. Note that Ramadan signifies the month, not the day). However, they chose Yom Kippur and some say not in mistake. Amoruso 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two pages of archived material linked at the top that explains it. Please post again if reading those pages (and the balance of this one) doesn't clarify for you why many feel that this is not a neutral title but an Israel-sympathetic title. Unfocused 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Golan Action

Saw this statement in the Golan Heights section of the Article:

"On 22 October, the Golani Brigade and Sayeret Matkal commandos recaptured the outpost on Mount Hermon, after sustaining very heavy casualties from entrenched Syrian snipers strategically positioned on the mountain."

Could someone please provide verifiable evidence that this sentence and the paragraph it belonged to is accurate? As far as I know Sayeret Golani was the unit that spearheaded the recapture of Mount Hermon, not Sayeret Matkal. Sayeret Matkal found itself unemployed and were chasing mission assignments in both the Sinai and Golan fronts. No mention in Sayeret Matkal's known history ties them with Mount Hermon's recapture. On the other hand Sayeret Golani's history mentions Mount Hermon and it is perfectly logical seeing that it is part of the Golani Infantry Brigade. It is the brigade's reconnaisance-commando unit. Cat Balou 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, jointly. See Muki Betser's Secret Soldier (ISBN 0871136376). El_C 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

...that is if you're counting "Yoni" and a insignificant number of reservists, some of whom were former members of Sayeret Matkal, as being SAYERET MATKAL, if you know what I mean. THE UNIT was operating in the Sinai at the time, as Muki had stated in that book. Wikiphyte 06:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Misleading image caption

The caption of Image:Food for 3d army.jpg states:

Food and water given by Israel to the trapped Egyptian 3rd Army.

while under "The cease-fire and immediate aftermath" segment, it states:

As a result, the United States exerted tremendous pressure on the Israelis to refrain from destroying the trapped army, even threatening to support a UN resolution to force the Israelis to pull back to their October 22 positions if they did not allow non-military supplies to reach the army.

This implies that they did give in to the United States' requests, meaning that the Israelis only allowed supplies to reach the Egyptian army and not give it to them, as the caption states. This was also clearly stated in the forth episode, entitled Peacemaking, of the BBC documentry, "The 50 Years War - Israel and the Arabs" in which the narrator says, and I quote, "Each side's dead were returned... and Israel allowed supplies through to the trapped Egyptians" about 26 minutes and 10 seconds into that episode.

Misleading Line

The Line in the first section that states: "led to normalized relations between Egypt and Israel—the first time any Arab country had recognized the Israeli state." While this is technically true, it should be noted somehow that Iran, a Persian Muslim state, recognized Israel long before. Most readers will have a difficult time separating Muslim from Arab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.7.118 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Well written Vs. NOT well written

The article is biased... The article is not referenced well... The article hides a lot of real events... The article uses unfamiliar Heberow words...

When I see comments like that, could I believe the contents of the article? How could I? How could I trust Wikipedia afterwards? especially when the facts are clear everywhere else. One of the facts that is very clear to all that Sinai land is Egyptian before 1967 war and returned back to Egypt after 1973 war. So, the interval in time since the creation of Adam up to now, in which Sinai was occupied by Israelis, is between 1967 and 1973. So, the article is really well-written to hide the facts :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmed.ashry (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Casus belli

Launching a surprise war is not a legitimate way to resolve territorial disputes, therefore WP cannot state that "Refusal of Israel to return territory taken from Egypt and Syria in Six-Day War" was the casus belli. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The casus belli is the act used to justify a nation going to war. In this case, Egypt and Syria went to war to recover their lost territory. The "legitimacy" of this decision is irrelevant - that was the justification given, and therefore it's the casus belli. Raul654 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens your thinking is so much POV that I will never understand you. In your logic in article Six-Day war (on which you have worked) it is OK that Israel has attacked Egypt because of naval blockade of 1 harbour and military buildup (for which is no sources other of Israel) but is it not OK to liberate territory under occupation. Simple speaking in your thinking it is strong Pro-Israel or Anti-Arab sentiment. Rjecina 06:18, 14 April 2007 (CET)

I reworded the casus belli from "Israel's refusal to return territory ..." to "Israel's retention of territory ..." Israel didn't refuse to return territory. The Israelis accepted Resolution 242 which promoted the "land for peace" formula to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Shortly after rejecting 242, the Arabs issued the infamous "three nos" at the Khartoum summit of the Arab League. So the claim that Israel "refused" to return territory is demonstrably false. The most one can say about Israel's "refusal" is that Israel refused to return territory without recognition or peace negotiations from its Arab neighbors. --GHcool 00:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

GHcools is correct.

On casus belli (CB): Correct me if I am wrong, I thought that CB is the initial act of war committed in the ensuing conflict. Is there a reliable source for the claim that the result of a war concluded in 1967 may serve as casus belli for a war in 1973? BTW, I noticed a lot of inconsistency across WP articles in this field of warbox, so I am going to bring this to attention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Until we sort this out, perhaps we should leave that field empty, just like Invasion of Poland (1939), Operation Barbarossa, Winter War, Anglo-Iraqi War, Iran-Iraq War, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe casus belli is Latin for "case for war." The party that strikes the first blow must make develop case, or at least a justification, for doing so either implicitly (such as in the Israeli War of Independence) or explicitly (such as in the Iraq War). Determining the justice and credibility of the case for war is not a factor in determining the casus belli for any given war. --GHcool 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Casus belli in warbox has good suggestions. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

Combatants list was misleading, other conflicts on wikipedia do not show the providers of political or "military-aid" (ie USA, UK, FRANCE) are not listed on the Israeli side of this conflict in the information pane. This section was obviously skewed for political reasons to make the "arab coalition" appear to represent more arabs than it actually did in terms of forces deployed in the war. The nations who did not actually provide troops should be removed.

I note that the infobox on the Hebrew wiki is more minimalist, with only the flags of Egypt and Syria noted. El_C 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The countries listed in the "aided by" section are countries that sent fighting troops to fight in the war against Israel (e.g, combatants, as the section name implies). Nobody sent any troops to help Israel. I'm OK with listing only the major combantants only (Israel, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq), or all of the ones (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and all the smaller mostly arab countries that helped Syria and Iraq), but listing the US, France, etc as combatants is plainly false. Raul654 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly agreed about the US and France. But I really think we should consider following the Hebrew wiki's infobox model for the flagicons/combatants: that is, only have the Egyptian and Syrian flag icons, but in the forces also note Iraq and Jordan. Thoughts? El_C 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Raul654, aided by should only include countries that supplied direct military participation. If the providers of arms and training are to be listed, then let's not forget the Soviet Union. Anynobody 09:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox should match article

The box listed countries not mentioned in the article, like Pakistan. I'm not sure about including countries that provided financial aid, so I left out Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (token forces seem to be just that, token). Anynobody 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do see that Pakistan sent pilots, but the infobox makes it seem like Jordan and Iraq were part of the initial attack. They weren't of course, and if Jordan had decided to participate in the initial attack, they would have simply attacked over their border in the beginning instead of sending an expeditionary force later. I therefore added Jordan and Iraq to the aided by section. Anynobody 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Victory proposal

As I look at the outcome and consider what each side gained and lost, it looks to me like Israel and Egypt won, Syria lost.

Israel got more territory in the Golan Heights, and normalized relations with Egypt. Egypt got the Sinai peninsula and it's Third Army back. Syria took a beating and lost territory (I bet if they had been more like Egypt they would have gotten most of it back.) Anynobody 09:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tank ditch image

I corrected the image description of the image below some days ago but someone reverted it to the old wrong version. The (wrong) description reads:

This description is wrong as: There is only one bridge across the ditch. A Mobile Tank Bridge as seen in the picture consists of two ramps that are laid parallel across an obstacle- in the image the left ramp of the bridge is still in place while the right ramp has collapsed and lies behind the only tank in the ditch. Where someone spotted "another knocked out tank" that "lies in the ditch" is a mystery to me and it is also incomprehensible to me how someone could believe that this are two distinct bridges, when the tanks that are supposed to cross over them are twice as wide as the ramps themselves. I corrected this error once more and hope that with the above explanation no more reverts will occur.--noclador 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Early warning of imminent war from Mossad needs to be explained in this article

I am busy, otherwise I would add the importance of the early warning from a Mossad double agent. He died in suspicious circumstances today. See http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21986885-2703,00.html 222.153.228.12 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)