Talk:Yom Kippur War

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2024

I believe some parts of this article should be rewritten so they are not just copied from "The Yom Kippur War" by Abraham Rabinovich. Most notably this part is word-for-word from the book and quite awkward, in my opinion: On the night of 25 September, Hussein secretly flew to Tel Aviv to warn Meir of an impending Syrian attack. "Are they going to war without the Egyptians, asked Mrs. Meir. The king said he didn't think so. 'I think they [Egypt] would cooperate.' Shlokie (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Given that it's a quote, you expect it to be copied word for word. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please address the concerns presented. Geardona (talk to me?) 01:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The result is inconclusive, not “Israeli victory”

It is getting tiring with how useless bringing up this topic is and how it falls on deaf ears, but the second the result of this war gets changed from “Israeli victory” it gets reverted immediately. This is a bias that is not even present on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and makes Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality falter

Here are why the result of this war are “inconclusive”

https://time.com/6322802/yom-kippur-war-israel-history/

“ In 1973, Egypt’s goal in crossing the Suez Canal was to force Israel to the negotiation table to make a peace deal and get back control of the Sinai peninsula. According to Avi Shilon, a historian who teaches at Tel-Hai College in Israel, “The Egyptian and the Syrians didn't plan to conquer Israel. They planned to hit Israel and to force Israel to go into negotiations. For them, it was enough to hit Israel to show that they can beat Israel in the first days, and they preferred to stop, so it was easier for Israel to launch a retaliation attack.”

This outlines Egypts goal of the war, which was to cross the suez and not conquer Sinai or Israel proper. Israel counterattacked, but they failed to repulse the Egyptian army occupying most of the suez

The Israeli military failure to capture two small towns in their supposed legendary encirclement that Wikipedia uses to construct the basis of the delusion of “Israeli victory”

A declassified CIA document

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1975-09-01A.pdf

The CIA asserts is as a fact that the war was inconclusive.

Not only that, but mentioning Israel was “100 kn from Cairo” is another perpetuation of Wikipedia delusion. If I am 50 metres from a house, and I step outside and take two steps it is not worth mentioning I am 48 metres from it. Israel’s starting point was the Suez Canal, “100 km from Cairo” is another form of coping, to legitimise a victory that doesn’t exist The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The first conclusion is your own, not a specifically stated result in the source. The second, while it does at least say "the fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note." on page 24. However, this is a 49 year old primary source report made 2 years after the events - it lacks any information gathered since. It was released in 2012, so it has been available for historians to use in secondary works for over a decade.

You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians. The article already uses these to support a different conclusion though. (Hohum ^@) 15:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Several sources do describe it as a stalemate or inclusive, far from the “Israeli victory” oversimplification, which isn’t even correct neither militarily nor politically

Many sources regard the war as a stalemate, even on the Syrian front

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1974/03/who-lost-the-yom-kippur-war-a-military-inventory-of-the-middle-east/670833/

Here Henry Kissinger states “it would be a nightmare if either side won”, implying neither side got a conclusive victory

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/henry-kissinger/2019-08-09/kissinger-told-soviet-envoy-during-1973-arab-israeli-war-my-nightmare-victory-either-side-soviet

This one is hidden by a paywall

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/history/article/2023/10/02/50th-anniversary-of-yom-kippur-war-the-enduring-ambiguity-of-pax-americana_6143516_157.html

The new Arab, I am not sure if it’s RS, also states that it is a stalemate

https://www.newarab.com/analysis/october-war-nothing-bloody-stalemate?amp

“Which had nearly resulted in Israel’s defeat, but ended in a stalemate”

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/no-victor-no-vanquished-yom-kippur-war

This is ignoring Israel’s defeat at two small towns during the final battles of the war, as well as an air battle, which saw an Egyptian victory. “Israeli victory” also COMPLETELY ignores the result of the war, seeing Israel actually come to negotiate Sinai which is had adamantly refused in the [[Rogers Plan]] and [[Jarrings Plan]], both before the war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians. "

Shotgunning google search results isn't helpful. Kissinger "implying" is actually you inferring. (Hohum ^@) 17:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve given plenty of secondary sources no? What would “if either side had won” would otherwise imply? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger memoranda of telephone conversations – or telcons – from October 1973, uncovered by the National Security Archive, provide blunt and fascinating vignettes from a significant moment during the Nixon presidency. In one record about the Yom Kippur War, the secretary of state candidly tells Soviet envoy Anatoly Dobrynin it would be a “nightmare” if either side won.

The leading sentences, and the tense of the statement make it very clear that he is speaking before the war has ended.

You are also ignoring half of this sentence: "You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians."

Don't expect another reply unless you provide useable sources that explicitly support your point. (Hohum ^@) 17:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, the war being “an Israeli victory” can be disproven with common sense instead of some strange criteria about the species of sources considering you have been dismissing everything I provided even though it is beyond sufficient to explain why the “result” is something from an alternate history timeline. But here we go, hopefully this is good enough.

https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/2021/11/23/what-was-the-yom-kippur-war-1973/

“Despite being surrounded, the Third Army managed to maintain its combat integrity east of the canal and keep up its defensive positions, to the surprise of many. According to Trevor N.

Dupuy, the Israelis, Soviets and Americans overestimated the vulnerability of the Third Army at the time. It was not on the verge of collapse, and he wrote that while a renewed Israeli offensive would probably overcome it, this was not a certainty.”

There are some military men who argued that the encirclement would have destroyed the third army, let’s look at what David Elazar, one of the generals during the war said according to this source

“According to David Elazar, Chief of Israeli headquarters staff, on 3

December 1973: "As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east.

Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them””

And further

“Shortly before the ceasefire came into effect, an Israeli tank battalion advanced into Adabiya, and took it with support from the Israeli Navy. Some 1,500 Egyptian prisoners were taken, and about a hundred Egyptian soldiers assembled just south of Adabiya, where they held out against the Israelis. The Israelis also conducted their third and final incursion into Suez. They made some gains, but failed to break into the city centre. As a result, the city was partitioned down the main street, with the Egyptians holding the city centre and the Israelis controlling the outskirts, port installations and oil refinery, effectively surrounding the Egyptian defenders”

Showing an Israeli failure at the defeat too. This is also not mentioning the fact that Wikipedia completely ignores the effect of the war and its result which led Israel to negotiate after adamantly refusing 2-times pre war

The CIA says it’s inconclusive

Several sources and military analysts say it’s inconclusive

Israeli generals say they couldn’t defeat the Egyptians

Yet Wikipedia is adamant to simply this war with the most incorrect, misleading, and simplified result that ignores reality itself The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So, after failing to gain consensus, you just go ahead and make changes which have led to many reliable sources which frame the war as an Isaeli victory being discarded, and add few pretty poor ones that say it's inconclusive. diff. (Hohum ^@) 00:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the result should say "Israeli victory" there's no consensus to change that, please put that back Andre🚐 00:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The result being “see aftermath” does not seem to be disputed either way. The aftermath section is more comprehensive, and explains why the result is not an Israeli victory. It has several sources, including Israeli officer David elazar who resigned after the war, stating that they had been unable to defeat Egypt in the war. I have included several sources and citations, including books that demonstrate the result of the war was a stalemate on both fronts

Do also note, that I initially said “inconclusive”, which has been changed to “see aftermath” which is usually the case with wars that have controversial results, and this is a notable example of such. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. 1) No consensus for your changes. 2) See aftermath clearly shows that military historians agree it was an Israeli victory in the war, which is why that is what the infobox should read. Andre🚐 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The aftermath section very clearly states how it is a stalemate, and not an Israeli victory. If I am not mistaken, you initially assumed that this was the six day war (and it’s fine, the wars were close and had the same belligerents so confusion is possible)

The “Israeli victory” does not seem to be established, looking through the old page archive it is a simplification of the old result (Israeli tactical victory, Egyptian pyrrhic victory, and the un ceasefire) about a decade and a half ago. The assertion of “Israeli victory” is also disproven by the page’s very lede, which shows that Egypt was able to successfully achieve its goals in the war (capture eastern suez, and negotiate the rest of the Sinai peninsula), both of which did happen The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That's OR and SYNTH. Every history text clearly establishes. We have about 20 references. More importantly, you've not established a consensus for your changes here. And I have no idea what you're referring to about confusion with the 1967 war. That seems to be a groundless assertion. I'm bringing this to WP:NPOVN. Andre🚐 18:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s a good place to discuss it there. I’ve seen the message there and will participate too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Short-form (harv/sfn) reference formatting

This is a minor issue compared to the content questions, but the short-form references in the article are in a wide range of formats (plain-text vs templated, parenthesised vs without brackets). I propose to convert them all to parenthesised style and to use templates – i.e. to use {{sfnp}} and/or {{harvp}} – and to flag any references where the long-form bibliographic information about the source is missing. I'm happy to do the conversion myself, but, given this is a fairly sensitive article, I would like to check for disagreement / consensus here first. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Since nobody has commented in a week and a half I am going to start on this, using sfnp/harvp. Given the article has 485 references it might take me a while, though... Wham2001 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

Change:Adding the United States of America to the Israeli side. Reason:Operation Nickel Grass. Here is an article explaining how important the operation was (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/yom-kippur-war/). This clearly shows the USA was on the side of Israeli,it saved the whole country. Grinch the great (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Skitash (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia language differences

Thanks,uh also quick question,why are the pages so different in other languages. For example,the spanish translation has France, the UK,USA and Greece on the Israeli side, and on the Egyptian side,somehow east Germany is on there?? This makes no sense as the results differ in other translations. Grinch the great (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Some articles in other language show the supporters in full, like any country that supported Israel with weapons in for example the Yom Kippur war. Wikipedia English generally limits the infobox to countries that directly participated in the conflict, though conflicts sometimes have a “supported by” section The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s just extremely confusing and stupid. The whole page in each language should be 100% accurate,any thing that doesn’t show the same exact information could be considered altering history and being biased. This page is very controversial since both sides still dislike each other to this day and would do anything to look stronger,so if the pages are not the same in all languages,then Wikipedia can’t be trusted anymore,if one single page has an biased view,how am I supposed to trust the others?

also I read through the other shit on this thing,it’s very clear that many of the editors who replied to your suggestions are biased. That’s like letting a nazi sympathizer edit the holocaust page. Grinch the great (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In an ideal world, articles in different languages would match. We don't live in an ideal world. This article is available in 79 languages. It is difficult enough getting agreement on article content between editors of the same language, let alone many different ones. I also suggest you go and read WP:AGF and cease berating other editors. (Hohum ^@) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstood my words. I am not berating anyone,just at least make the dominant languages similar,like Spanish, English,Arabic,etc. And so what if we don’t live in an ideal world? What’s wrong with trying? That point was just so hypocritical since I could use it on anything: “in an ideal world,child rape is punishable with death. We don’t live in an ideal world.”

I am willing to learn any language in a few weeks/months just to correct one single mistake. Grinch the great (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Good luck. (Hohum ^@) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)