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.
• Archive 3 - Includes discussion of whether the article title (and the article itself) is POV, casus belli, number of troops, and various other things.

Egyptian Flag

The Egyptian Flag back in 1973 war was the one made during Nasser's era (with 2 green stars not the eagle) which is now syria's flag so i think this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.17.176 (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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).

I think that's pretty obvious, actually. If there are overwhelming odds, and you have an additional disadvantage due to the night, then the obvious action is to retreat a bit and wait until the situation is better. Despite that, they engaged every tank they had, which means they could have *lost* every tank they had. Who knows, maybe I have a lack of understanding of military strategy. Does that make sense to anybody else? Stdarg 02:26, 6 August 2007 (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)

My reading of the history (which may be tainted by the perspective of my sources) is that Israel pre-emptively attacked Syria and Egypt (and Jordan) at the start of the Six Day War. Some argue whether the pre-emptive attack was justified. That is reasonable but the Israeli perspective is that Israel 'captured' the Golan and Sinai. The Arabs consider that those territories were invaded, but that implies that the Israeli attack was entirely unprovoked, which I think is an unreasonable stretch. Even if the Arab nations did not intend to attack Israel in 1967, Israel could not have known that for sure. Therefore Israel acted in self-defense by its own perspective and the use of 'Captured' seems more balanced than 'Invaded'. This is especially true since Israel has already returned the Sinai to Egypt and seems to generally accept that the Golan will someday be returned to Syria.SimonHolzman 23:38, 19 July 2007 (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" [1]. However, Onwar uses "Yom Kippur War" mentions the term Ramadan war and doesn't even mention the term "Arab Israeli War of 1973" [2]. 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)

Personally, I think that this article should probably be renamed "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" or something similar, but that there should be a redirection page called "Yom Kippur War" that points to it. That seems like the best balance of providing a NPOV title to the article while preserving access to it for the majority of English speakers. It seems sensible to me that the article have a title that is both accurate and that is impossible to confuse with any other possible war. The same naming process should apply to the other wars between multiple Arab countries and Israel.SimonHolzman 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, simply because "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" is more of a description than a title. When a common use title is available, that should be preferred. For instance, "World War I" is used instead of "Global Military Conflict of 1914 to 1918". Beyond that, don't you think it's significant that the war was scheduled for Yom Kippur? Just like the date was significant to the Saint Valentine's Day massacre?

On another note, how are article names for Civil War battles decided? According to Naming the American Civil War, generally the Northern names are more popular, and it seems that Wikipedia articles adopt them, even though that could (by the logic presented in this debate) be considered POV. Stdarg 03:40, 6 August 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)

12 Pakistan Air Force pilots did participate in the war and one was able to shoot down one of the Israeli Mirage.Chanakyathegreat 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this page, the infobox lists only the major combatants. Raul654 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Nickel Grass

Why is this mentioned so briefly in this article? As I understand the history, O:NS was instrumental in Israel's victory in the war. Without it, Israel could not have afforded to go on the offensive in any of the combat theatres, which would have led to very different negotiations at the end of the war. We can pull sources directly from its wiki entry; it should at least have a small section devoted to it, considering its immense strategic importance. Spectheintro 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Possible anachronism

According to this article some of the combattant nations listed were not sovereign states at the time of this particular war. Did these countries retain their separate armies while in political union? Should the use of flags, names and casualty statistics etc be revised to reflect the number of states involved in the war?

The article says plainly that it was an "abortive attempt" - e.g, it never got off the ground. Raul654 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

I am not quite sure about that casus belli, I have to look at many sources. It does not explain why Egypt and Syria had made a plan to meet in Tel Aviv. Yes, Egyptian troops stopped at the Sinai border, but Syrian troops certainly passed the Golan Heights and occupied parts of the Galilee. --Shamir1 04:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The above statement makes no sense. Raul654 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. Do you have any questions?

Encyclopedia of the Orient says

Egypt and Syria used this laxity to launch a surprise attack on Israel. The goal of the war was to win back lost Arab territory from preceding wars, first in 1947-49, then 1956 and especially in the last, the Six-Day War of 1967.

--Shamir1 04:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the article says that (almost verbatim). So what does that have to do with "a plan to meet in Tel Aviv", "Egyptian troops stopped at the Sinai border", and Syrian troops occupying parts of Galilee? I've never heard of any such plan to meet in Tel Aviv, the Egyptians were most certainly not stopped at the border, and I'm fairly sure the Syrians never got past the Golan heights into Galilee. So like I said, your comments here make no sense. Raul654 04:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian politics and Egyptian missiles in Harb Ramadhan

Casus belli was in President Sadat's personal political plans (!) That's why I see it necessery to look in this article at the October War 1973 or "Harb October" or "Harb Ramadhan" from the Egyptian initial point of view, because all the ivent was President Sadat's initiative and his political success in changing political and economical orientation for his country. Sadat sucseeded politically in pan-Arabic construction of "silaah al-bitrul" = "oil weapon" or an organized oil embargo against the West to make it better with Arabs and their problems. He also succeeded in getting "Luna-M" and "Scud" Soviet-made tactical and operational SS missiles to destroy Israeli command network in Sinai and to threten Israeli terretory without using his aviation. October 22, 1973 ca. 18:55 p.m. three Scud missiles were fired by Egyptians on Israeli forces crossing the Suez Canal - the historical fact described in Saad ad-Din al-Shazili's book only. --Mutargim (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

L-29 missing?

Didn´t EAF use the Aero L-29 "Delfin" jettrainer in the Sinai during Yom Kippur War? RGDS Alexmcfire

"In the end, the Soviets reconciled themselves to an Arab defeat."

I don't think the Soviets were ever against an Arab defeat. They were seeking to prevent the complete destruction of Egypt and Syria. In short, the reasons why the Soviets didn't get directly involved were more complicated. -bosoxrock88 March 12, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosoxrock88 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 March 2008

I don't think the Soviets were ever against an Arab defeat. - incorrect. Egypt and Syria were both Soviet satellite nations, even if Egypt had strayed a bit. Egypt's defeat would have given (and did give) the Soviets a black eye, and they did everything they could to prevent it. Raul654 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Egypt not Russia

in yom kippor war all The units and the soldiers was Egyptian and no one Russian soldier was fighting in it , Just was some weapons cuz Egypt was'nt have ther own Weapons at that time ( 1970/1980 ) The victory was Egyptian not russian or for any other country.