Talk:Yom Kippur War

Egypt victory in the war

I do not know how Israel won the war. How could Israel win the war, if it lost land? That's like saying Germany won WW2. (Israel first gained land then lost, Germany gained land then lost). Also if you need a source, . The Reliable Israeli Website Itself says It was a Egyptian victory against Israel. Here's Another one. WikiHence (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel REGAINED lost territory from both Egypt and Syria.

Uou clearly haven't read a single word in the article. 2.54.49.153 (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

References

You clearly haven't read either source. (Hohum ^@) 12:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

But bro how can still Israel win the war... 2407:D000:F:ABF5:59D3:37D7:718F:585C (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In brief, multiple Arab armies joined together in 1973 with the goal of destroying Israel, admittedly inflicting devastating damage on Israel. But Israel survived and flourished. Fifty years later, Israel still exists and has treaties with Egypt and Jordan. The Arab armies completely failed to achieve their clearly stated objectives, lost far more casualties than the Israelis did, and it wasn't until five years later that the Israelis withdrew from almost all of the Sinai peninsula, a very lightly populated area. They made that decision willingly, not at all under the barrel of a gin. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt's objective was to recapture Sinai, but they didnt do that in the war, that came as a result of the Camp David Accords. nableezy - 07:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt’s goal was to capture the suez, which they mostly controlled by the end of the war, not Sinai The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Just saying it does not make it so. The goal wasn’t just the Suez, but territory lost in 1967, as stated and cited throughout this article. Additionally, “controlled” is a rather relative term, given that their forces at the Suez were… rather surrounded. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus or source for "Egyptian victory" and why are there 3 topics about this? Read a damn history textbook. Egypt lost massively. Andre🚐 22:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

How did they lose massively exactly? Egypt invaded Israel to occupy the eastern bank of the suez and negotiate the rest of Sinai, and the war ended with Egypt occupying most of the eastern bank of the suez and negotiating the rest of Sinai. How is that a “massive loss?” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

[4] How’s this for reframing: The Egyptians celebrate this military conflict – where they lost thousands of soldiers (Cairo never released official casualty figures, but the numbers are believed to be between 8,000 to 20,000 dead) and where their capital was left undefended – as a great victory. Meanwhile, Israelis, who miraculously turned the initial tide of the war from disaster into a head-turning success, view it as a catastrophe. Andre🚐 02:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In the result section it will be more accurate to says "

Result Israeli military victory

Egyptian political victory

(see aftermath) Noosh155 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We can't, per Template:Infobox military conflict. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok understood Noosh155 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

“Israeli victory”

In the results sections, we see the outcome of two fronts that played out very differently get simplified to “Israeli victory”, implying the Arabs completely failed to achieve every objective (to recapture the eastern bank of the suez and the golan). The outcome on the Syrian front was undeniably an Israeli victory, nobody is challenging that, but reducing the outcome on the Egyptian front to “Israeli victory” is wildly inaccurate. Not only was Egypt able to achieve their goal in the Yom Kippur war, which was to establish a foothold in the eastern bank of the suez, but they were also able to halt the Israeli counterattack and prevent the encirclement of their army at the battles of ismailia and suez. At most it’s a stalemate, not an Israeli victory when most of the occupied suez bank was now under Egyptian control The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to back this up? Also, it is not the job of Wikipedia articles to help you with implications you may be concluding incorrectly. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

For Egypt’s claims

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.

The war ended with an Israeli counterattack, however it did not restore control over the suez bank and was defeated in the closing battle of Sinai, failing to defeat the Egyptian army in the city

Archived citations:

As for the implications, it’s not that they’re incorrect but just heavily simplified as it doesn’t even specify what kind of victory Israel attained (It used to say “Israeli military victory”) as it was in no way shape or form a political victory for Israel, and neither could it be a military victory against Egypt, though it is was an undeniable victory in Syria The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I Agree, if we talk Land gains the northern front was an Egyptian victory and the southern was israeli victory so it was a military stalemate Kelcoz (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have been trying for ages but the editors are adamant on labelling this an “Israeli victory” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The citations seem to refer to tactical/operational results, not the definitive result of the whole war. What page of the source is the "stunning defeat" quote on? (Hohum ^@) 11:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’m talking about the Egyptian front specifically and their closing victories at suez and Ismailia, not the entire war which included a northeastern front. Im having a hard time specifying the page for the first citation as much of it seems to have been lost in the archive The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Egypt's military resigned in disgrace after the war. It was a disaster for Egypt. More importantly, your bold change lacks consensus or reliable sources. Andre🚐 22:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you’re talking about the six day war. I’ve brought several sources to prove that Egypt managed to achieve its goal in the war, and the suggestion for an “inconclusive” result has also been brought up with sources by another user in the talk topic above The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are WP:PRIMARY and outdated, not high quality reference sources, and don't say what you are claiming. And it would be WP:UNDUE to blow away the whole academic field of Arab-Israeli studies for some random cherry-picked military studies you happen to like because they say the ahistorical thing you want it to say. As any student knows, in 1973, Israel was taken by surprise and fought to the brink of trouble before the US bailed them out and defeated Egypt. Therefore, an Egyptian defeat; your argument that they achiveved their strategic aims is not supported by any historical or academic material. Andre🚐 02:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Defeated Egypt how exactly? Egypt still controlled most of the suez by the ceasefire and prevented the Israelis from capturing suez city in the closing stages of the war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt and Syria did not win the war militarily, but they got what they needed out of it in terms of domestic and regional legitimation and cracking Israel’s veneer of invincibility. If fighting continued, the Arab states likely faced the prospect of another defeat. For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat,[5] so again, a military defeat of Egypt on the battlefield for Egypt even though Israel had political problems as a result of the war. They still controlled more territory as a result of the war. Andre🚐 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This is also including Syria, which absolutely did not win in this war and had their capital Damascus threatened by the Israeli advance. I have given my citations to explain how this was not a full victory for Israel on this specific front, and I will also quote your citation

”For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat, and the country was reeling from the loss of life on a scale it had not experienced since 1948.” The “controlled more territories” here more likely refers to the advance on the Syrian front as aside from a crossing and occupation southwest of Sinai Israel had lost control of most of the Suez Canal The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The Suez was Egyptian territory occupied since 67. The Egyptian had made gains and then Israelis were surrounding Suez when the ceasefire was agreed to - but that doesn't mean Egypt got more territory. That was Egyptian territory. Again, as it says, it was a military defeat for Egypt, but even though it was a military win for Israel, it was a political defeat. But, the infobox refers to military defeat in the war. Israel’s victory came at the cost of heavy casualties, and Israelis criticized the government’s lack of preparedness. In April 1974, the nation’s prime minister, Golda Meir (1898-1978), stepped down. Although Egypt had again suffered military defeat at the hands of its Jewish neighbor, the initial Egyptian successes greatly enhanced Sadat’s prestige in the Middle East and gave him an opportunity to seek peace[6] It's History.com which isn't RS but it's still better than the weird old CIA studies or whatever. Andre🚐 05:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

1967-1973 Egypt only controlled the western bank of the suez, the eastern bank of the suez was occupied by Israel. by the end of the war Egypt controlled most of the eastern bank and after the ceasefire was signed Egypt retained control of both banks. In the war Israel failed to retake the eastern bank of the suez which negates an “Israeli victory” as this article simplifies it, while Egypt achieved its goal. The Israeli advance in the south however threatened Egypts encircled army however they inflicted two defeats on israel (battle of Ismailia and battle of suez)

The combined Egyptian paratrooper-commando force managed to achieve a tactical and strategic victory at a time when Egypt's general situation on the battlefield was deteriorating, and GHQ was in a state of confusion. Sharon's advance toward Ismailia had been halted, and Second Army's logistical lines remained secure.

not to mention the admission of David Elazar, 9th chief of staff during the war (Not sure if this specific one is RS but there are many sources mentioning the quote)

https://yom-kippur-1973.info/eng/west.htm#:~:text=As%20for%20the%20third%20army,or%20conquered%20them)%20David%20Elazar.

“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”

Your initial article admits that Israel suffered a major political failure, so Egypt managing to achieve its goals in the war reasserts my view that simplifying the entire conflict to a “isralei victory” is inaccurate, and far from Egypt being “severely defeated” in this war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not, you've proven no such thing. Sounds like WP:IDHT Andre🚐 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan I thank you for sharing this very recent source.

well since it mentions "For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat" then I'll have to agree with the @The Great Mule of Eupatoria on this one , you actually gave support to his point , the result was edited back from "israeli military victory" to "israeli victory" by this guy's logic @Modrenebe :-

Done Liu1126 (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but could you also remove the word "military" from "Israeli military victory"? It wasn't there before. Its use can give the impression that Israel only won militarily, while the political or other aspects were not or instead were won by the other parties. Modrenebe (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, missed that in the last edit. Liu1126 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

His argument was that political or other aspects were not included in "military victory" , the other aspects he hadn't mentioned . Osmarion (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, you might have an argument that Israel had a political defeat, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the infobox, since the infobox is about a war. Andre🚐 20:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

war is only means to achieve political objectives and if there is a political defeat then the war has failed. Osmarion (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think there should be an RFC owing to the proven Egyptian inconclusive front as well as a major political victory for Egypt The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

Pakistan may have participated in Yom Kippur War? Can you double check and add to the list if so? 119.148.103.99 (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Time Styles

There are inconsistencies in the page on time between 12h style and 24h style. I suggest edits to make consistent across and specifically recommend 24h being superior for the purposes of both the narratives and the thematic content Hans K Pauley (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan

Why shouldn't it be in infobox as it's pilots participated in the war and there's a whole article on a pilot who took part in this war Sattar Alvi and north Korea is mentioned which didn't even score a kill. Waleed (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum, @Skitash Waleed (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Expeditionary forces, and Sattar Alvi , have multiple sources detailing Pakistani involvement @Skitash and @Hohum Waleed (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The source would need to state that the country in question was a belligerent, not that there were just members of that nationality taking part. The source would also need to be WP:RELIABLE, ideally in a historical work on the war itself. Wikipedia can not be a source per WP:CIRCULAR. North Korea probably shouldn't be there either, I think it has been removed several times. (Hohum ^@) 18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well the source states that they were

sent by Pakistan and they were active duty members of Pakistan armed for who joined this war and allegedly shot down an Israeli plane ces

were Waleed (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are some news articles which I cited but you've removed, moreover the ones I mentioned are cited, and used those citations including three already in this article about Pakistani involvement, books I mean and you've removed, so i gave others but again removed Waleed (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum Waleed (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe they were self published sources, and the uninterpreted recollections of a primary source and/or didn't name Pakistan as a belligerent. (Hohum ^@) 11:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I give news articles stating so, would that be fine Waleed (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

the result should be changed to:

Both sides claim victory

• Military stalemate
• Egyptian political victory
• Egypt ultimately regains full control of the Sinai peninsula
• Military stalemate on Syrian front
• 1978 Camp David accords 2603:6010:1C00:325:E9E2:1FBA:BE32:1F0 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been trying this and discussed this with several sources in a previous discussion. I’m not sure why but Wikipedia editors seem to have an allergy to admitting Israel lost anything. Even the Hebrew Wikipedia admits that Egypt’s front was inconclusive The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2024

To fix grammar in the Disengagement section of the article, I recommend adding a comma to change "After the failed conference Henry Kissinger started conducting shuttle diplomacy, meeting with Israel and the Arab states directly." to "After the failed conference, Henry Kissinger started conducting shuttle diplomacy, meeting with Israel and the Arab states directly." Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Article length

The article is about 22,000 words readable prose. This is far beyond the upper limit of WP:SIZERULE. Any article should be readable in a single reasonable length sitting per WP:CANYOUREADTHIS. Subsections is not a cure for this; an encyclopedia caters to people who know nothing or little about a subject, and need an overview. However complex an many faceted an article subject is, is not an excuse for excessively long articles; they can always be made more concise, with additional articles made for detailed aspects. (Hohum ^@) 14:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's horrendous. It's also rather hard to edit down while retaining necessary detail and balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A potential first step: Any section that has an article dedicated to it should probably be reduced to a single overview paragraph. (Hohum ^@) 09:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)