Talk:Yom Kippur War

Typo in "Failure of the US Intelligence community"

In the "Failure of the US Intelligence community," the last sentence seems to be missing a word: "the report he written to that effect was only rediscovered..." Perhaps "he had written" was the intended phrasing.

Wrong flag?

In the Belligerents section in the right column Egypt's flag is shown next to Syria. Should it be this way, as they were allies fighting under a common flag, or is it a mistake?

Territorial changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Turkish War of Independence, ended in 1922.

• Treaty of Lausanne, ratified in 1924.

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

Territorial changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Please see my previous reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 29 January 2015

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

Syrian Front : Israeli Military Victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Israeli Military victory Egypt won the last battle

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

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

Military victory

- A strange phenomena : (p. 6) "For most Egyptians the war is remembered as an unquestionable victory- militarily as well as politically...The fact that the war ended with Israeli troops stationed in the outskirts of Cairo and in complete encirclement of the Egyptian third army has not dampened the jubilant commemoration of the war in Egypt....(p. 11) Ultimately, the conflict provided a military victory for Israel, but it is remembered as "the earthquake" or "the blunder" Siniver2013p6

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

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

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

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

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

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

- @Infantom and Turnopoems:- in my opinion the Siniver text should be added to the Commemorations section: "For most Egyptians the war is remembered as an unquestionable victory- militarily as well as politically...The fact that the war ended with Israeli troops stationed in the outskirts of Cairo and in complete encirclement of the Egyptian third army has not dampened the jubilant commemoration of the war in Egypt....(p. 11) Ultimately, the conflict provided a military victory for Israel, but it is remembered as "the earthquake" or "the blunder". Siniver2013p6 Ykantor (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015

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

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

"Partial" military victory?

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

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

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

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

>4 Newsweek, Volume 82 Citation 4

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

Concerning these books:

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

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

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

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

Belligerents

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

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

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

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

Overall Result of the War

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

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

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

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

Note 2: Egypt accomplished Political goal of regaining Sinai.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Infor4fun. What do you mean by "evidence"? The sources seem legitimate according to wp:rs. The difference between the two claims is that the Israeli claim is well supported while the Egyptian isn't, and even ruled out by some sources (e.g [1] (see last paragraph) and [2]). While i do think that the Egyptian perspective of the war should be expressed in the body of the article, the infobox should reflect the "bottom line". Considering the large number of sources we have, i really don't see any violation of neutrality here. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. I am finally back (don't know how long for though) and have been able to find a rather interesting source [3]. However, it is in Arabic, so I am not sure if you will be able to read it or not. If you cannot read it you can tell me to tell you what the source says. However, if you can, I am sure you will find it to be reasonable and justifies the reason as to why the Egyptians claim victory. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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