Jump to content

Talk:Yom Kippur War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Infor4fun (talk | contribs) at 08:33, 21 September 2015 (→Watch where you place your comments!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleYom Kippur War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 30, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
April 8, 2006Featured article reviewKept
November 6, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

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?

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) [1] [2] [3][reply]

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)[reply]
Ok Thank You. I was obliged to use YouTube because of the BBC Documentary, I cannot get it elsewhere. Here is another source [4]

[5] Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

[6]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello. What do you mean by "peer-reviewed publications"? Infor4fun (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP Poliocretes (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK. So be it! Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is a source [7]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[8]. 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)[reply]
Well, again, what Egypt claims (or Israel) shouldn't instruct us, only the consensus among reliable sources. Your source indeed seems to support the "both sides..." claim but i find it somewhat insufficient. For example, it states that "By the “numbers,” Israel won the war" and "Unquestionably the best argument for an Arab victory is the changed political situation." Notice that, again, the Israeli justification is militarily while the Arab/Egyptian is politically. I can't see how it stands against 12 sources that state Israeli victory. As for Sadat, does a speech by a belligerent leader seem unbiased to you? Anyway, perhaps we should reword the lead section regarding the end of the war, so it would be more representative for the Arab side claims. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12 sources that state Israeli victory, 12 sources that are perfect for explaining why Israel claims victory (that is good) , 12 sources that fail to correctly (if at all!) address why Egypt claims victory (that is bad). Moreover, the source does use other sources as well so its a 'combo source' as one may call it. "even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory." Furthermore, "Both sides claimed victory, and both sides had a reasonable case." and "Arab claims of victory are not far fetched." Nevertheless, you yourself said "your source indeed seems to support the "both sides..."". Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read 2 recent additions to the article ( by myself) :
-According to Chernyaev , on 4 Nov 1973, the Soviet leader Brezhnev said: We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn’t have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, “Save me!” He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them.[341]
- Egypt wished to end the war when they realized that the I.D.F canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe.[208] The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[2][195] The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo, which worried Egypt.[2] The Israeli army had open terain and no opposition to advance further to Cairo; had they done so Sadat's rule might have ended. Ykantor (talk)
Hello. I must say that is interesting. However, have you read the source I put above? Moreover, there was opposition to an advance to Cairo, of which one was Suez City. At the battle for Suez City the IDF was defeated. Furthermore, I still expect a reply from Infantom, with all due respect this is not a discussion in which I will be tossed from one person to the next. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Infor4fun, i understand you're expecting an answer and that's fine, but you can't ignore other editors arguments. thanks. Infantom (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you disagree with the sources doesn't mean they 'fail to correctly address why Egypt claims victory". They address all issues concerning the war and reach an Israeli victory conclusion. Could you point out where you think they don't provide a sufficient proof?
There is such an overwhelming consensus regarding an Israeli victory that your single source (that doesn't support any Egyptian military victory BTW) cannot match it. However, if you wish, we can put back "Political gains for Egypt and Israel" and reword "Israeli Military victory" (for a better context). Thank you. Infantom (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Infor4fun: You have to verify your claims before pasting here. Suez city was within the Egyptian 3rd army enclave, that was besieged by the Israelis, and it was not in the way to Cairo. The Israeli army block the road between Suez city and Cairo and as the source says: "The Israeli army had open terrain and no opposition to advance further to Cairo; had they done so Sadat's rule might have ended." Ykantor (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Infantom: Thank You for your reply. I did not ignore Ykantor's argument nor did I intend to send such a message that is why I said "with all due respect" to avoid such a misunderstanding -- clearly that did not happen. For an instant I felt as if I was in some sort of battle against several editors - put yourself in my place - it did not feel good. I do not entirely disagree with the sources, only partially. As I said the sources are good for explaining the Israeli perspective and that is a good thing. However, last time I checked (for some reason I cannot open the sources anymore) they do not properly explain why Egypt claims a victory especially from the military side. As for my source, I am not seeking sources for Egyptian military victory but that both sides claim victory (indication of stalemate), you yourself admitted the source abides this. If it is more sources you seek in support of 'my' claim then that is absolutely fine. Yes I think the political gains should be put back as politics was the one of the most vital parts of Sadat's plan. I appreciate your arguments here. Thank You
@Ykantor: Yes you are correct. Sorry there, I messed up with my geography for a moment. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you need is to undermine the consensus for 'Israeli militarily victory' among the sources. Unless you point out specifically what are the problems in a source, i can't really help it. I reviewed the sources and they certainly address all the issues you brought up(i.e initial success, Suez battle, US assistance... ) and still support Israeli victory. Note that nobody underestimates the Arab side achievements and those are mentioned in the body of the article, but the info box should mention the bottom line. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. First I will say Thank You for putting the political gains for Egypt and Israel. Now, actually undermining them is a bit against my claim. In the end support for Israeli Victory helps the "Both sides claim victory" as long as other sources commit to the "both sides..." claim. Would a consensus of sources for "Both sides claim victory" allow the result to be changed. PS: I noticed that at the article it says "Egypt's stated goal was to destroy the State of Israel." May I please change that to "Egypt's plan was to liberate part of the Sinai by military and the rest by diplomatic talks" since that was the actual goal of the war? Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Infor4fun, you don't need my permission for editing the article. If you have reliable sources then you can change it, the problem is with controversial issues then we have to discuss it. How exactly supporting an Israeli victory confirms "both sides claim victory"? Both sides claimed, yes, but only one side's claim is accepted. In order to change the result you need a consensus among the editors here (there's a long standing consensus- see the archives) and reliable sources that back your arguments will help you. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Ok Infantom, I will find the source for the Egypt's goal and put that. Sure, I will try to find other (reliable) sources for the "Both sides claim victory". Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Infor4fun: Since you are a newcomer we have to be more responsive to your edit, which is not sufficiently supported. Will it be possible for you to source it to a proper wp:rs such as one of the historians listed in the references? thanks Ykantor (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ykantor: Thank You for your input but according to the News Reporting section it says ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". The source I listed is from the BBC and it seems to fit in that category. Also, do note that statement (before my edit) had no source to back it up. Thank You 02:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As you quoted, the BBC is a wp:rs for news, while your edit is not about news. As you already know, an editor in Wikipedia is expected to support his edits with wp:rs, which you have not done yet.
- As an example, Morris says: Sadat and Assad "sought to regain the territories lost in 1967. Neither aimed to destroy Israel, though during the opening hours of the conflict, its leaders could not be sure of it.". (Morris, victims, p. 396). Feel free to quote other wp:rs. Ykantor (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. I'll add that quote in and go through my files for the sources that said that. Thank You 22:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infor4fun (talk • contribs)
I have searched further for sources to back up the "both sides..." However, since the Israeli Military Victory consensus vastly out numbers the few sources I have been able to find, I think it is just better to leave it at that. Although, from what I have read I think the fact that Israel was able to defeat the Syrian army entirely and deeply threaten the Egyptian army (although no-one really knows what may have happened had the war continued since many predictions in this war have proven incorrect) made the Israeli army's victory seem more reasonable than that of Egypt's although it was more of a sort of stalemate since the Egyptians held their ground yet Israel crossed the canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army. Furthermore, Sadat's weaving of limited military objectives for political gains makes it even harder to assess -- interestingly, I found a book (fits in the wp:rs) that claims Sadat wanted to achieve his goal without military success, i.e. he did not entirely worry if he achieved a military victory as long as his political goals were accomplished, which they were in the end. Thank You to all those who participated in this discussion and have enriched my knowledge concerning this historical event. Special Thanks to @Infantom: and @Ykantor:, it has been a pleasure to talking to you. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Yom Kippur War BBC Documentary" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icaeBubBbDg
  2. ^ "Egyptian Victory in Suez Battle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ_16rM3Gh8
  3. ^ "Suez Battle" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suez
  4. ^ "Aljazeera Report on War" http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/10/remembering-war-october-2013107122612930786.html
  5. ^ http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/YomKippurWar.htm
  6. ^ http://group73historians.com/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1/124-%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%9F.html
  7. ^ http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w416373/PS%20331/Anwar%20Sadat%20and%20the%20Yom%20Kippur%20War.pdf
  8. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.au.af.mil%2Fau%2Fawc%2Fawcgate%2Fnavy%2Fpmi%2F1973.pdf&hl=en&sa=T&oi=ggp&ct=res&cd=0&ei=5vRjVfidA8rI0QHv7IDACQ&scisig=AAGBfm02S2GAwD58GG_6aezqE-_Sqn3MnQ&nossl=1&ws=1368x623

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

Caution about edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result: Egyptian Military Victory 

       Syrian Military Defeat

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Yom Kippur War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background section on the Israeli negotiating position

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

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

Victory based on objective?

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

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

Watch where you place your comments!

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yom_Kippur_War&oldid=682061143"