Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Stop siding with Israel

Incredibly exaggerating the losses of the Egyptian army, Israel in the navy lost more than 11 heavy targets in naval confrontations. The losses of the Egyptian army are 5,000 martyrs. They are based on Chaim Herzog's book on the losses of the navy, which is not objective and inaccurate to say the least. Vergth (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The only source that you have presented was the Commander-in-Chief of Egyptian armed forces during said war. At least Herzog hadn't been in the Israeli military for over a decade at the point of said war. Of the two, it is very clear which is less likely to be objective, and that would be one of the literal top commanders in the conflict. That being your only provided source. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Chaim Hertzg in his book, The Arab Tours of Israel, to say the least, that it is subjective and dishonest. Even historians of Israel do not rely on the book of Hertz and J. According to Abraham Rabinowitz and others, the human losses of the Egyptian army are 5000 dead, the official Egyptian army data indicates the same number 5000

By the way, Chaim Herzog's book contains more than 200 lies. Including the battle of Ras al-Esh and many others Vergth (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no separate reports on the Egyptian naval battles, as it did with the naval battles for Israel. The Egyptian navy sank four targets in a naval confrontation mentioned by Trevor Dubewe in his book on the Yom Kippur War, and another battle that the Egyptian navy sank five targets mentioned by the head of the Operations Authority, General Al-Jamthy, in his book on the war and others. Many want separate reports as well, like the navy of Israel Vergth (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, in the article, you are relying extensively on the allegations of Chaim Herzog in his book The Doomsday War. Herzog’s book, which he published in 1975 on the 1973 war. Naturally, it was based on the book of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail because it represents Egypt and speaks only facts Vergth (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In an article, War for Six Days, a lie about the dumping of an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture by the naval commandos of Israel's six in a failed raid, unfortunately reached the degree of bias to the fabrication of lies Vergth (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Six Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage a single ship or a single Egyptian minesweeper. This is documented in Russian sources, Israeli sources, and Egyptian sources. Vergth (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

For this, please, I ask you to reformulate the article to give Egypt its right. There is great prejudice and massive bias in the article on the Yom Kippur War and the War of Attrition and a big lie in the article on the Six Day War. Vergth (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

We can cite many sources, my friend, but what is important is the actions of Dr. George W. Georges, a neutral historian on which you can base a book on the 1973 war in 2015. Albatross Birds This decisive victory in addition to prejudice, which amounted to fabricating lies in an article of the Six Day War and the War of Attrition The Yom Kippur War Vergth (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The stage of bias towards Israel has reached the sky, not only the huge bias, but the degree to the fabrication of lies. I can tell you these lies and you check them yourself and you will see that they are terrible lies Vergth (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I can list many lies and you verify them and amend them after verifying them and their truth Vergth (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Nixon

The war was the closest the world has come to nuclear conflict. Nixon enacted DEFCON 2 secretly when the Soviets began moving nuclear missiles through Alexandria harbour. Nixon sent military aid to Israel before the USSR used nuclear weapons. (81.147.63.216 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

Change "Sharm el-Sheikh on the Gulf of Suez" to "Sharm el-Sheikh on the Red Sea" In the "Naval war" section as Sharm el-Sheikh is directly on the Red Sea not the Gulf of Suez. Wikiuser552 (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"War crimes" rather than "atrocities"

The section dealing with israeli prisonners need to be renamed "War crimes against israeli prisonners", the term "atrocities" clearly indicate support from the writers for the israeli side of the conflict. I would even say that dedicating a whole section specifically to that issue rather than putting that subject in the "Casualties" section is in itself rather strange.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarcky1996 (talk • contribs)

Not war crimes. This is retaliation for the Israeli war crimes that were committed in the war of 1967. Sauce5544 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

massive bias

The losses of the Egyptian army in the Yom Kippur War, according to the official Egyptian army data, 5,000 martyrs. This is documented in the book of Abraham Rabinowitz and others. The Egyptian navy sank 11 Israeli naval targets, and this is well documented in the book of Commanders B, in addition to Trevor Deboye. Vergth (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

it's so damn biased they won't add the part of how the Egyptian army beat the bar lev line with a water hose.

let alone the other biases and false information and i believe someone admitted to only using israeli sources? UnknownWisp (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

Just a quick question, fact checking requires all involved parties to actually tell their stories and fact check them not just the Israeli side which contradicts with the actual events that took place. As an example, why did Israel make an offensive on The Sinai in the first place and why would they leave the Sinai if as mentioned in the article was a decisive victory for them. It's funny that Wikipedia allowed this, or maybe not. it shows the real face of Wiki's brainwash and falsified facts promotion. Hussein Se7s (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dekelegypt.co.il/100515 Vergth (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an Israeli source on the War of Attrition and the October War Vergth (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop siding with Israel

In an incredible magnification of the losses of the Egyptian army, Israel lost in the navy more than 11 heavy targets in sea confrontations. And the losses of the Egyptian army 5000 martyrs. It is based on Chaim Herzog's book on naval losses, which is, to say the least, subjective and dishonest Vergth (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The official data of the Egyptian army indicates the number of 5000 fuses Vergth (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Chaim Herzog in general in the war cannot be relied upon. Even historians of Israel do not rely on Herzog's book. Vergth (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dekelegypt.co.il/100515

Vergth (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an Israeli source, former Israeli intelligence officer Eli Dekel. In the war of attrition and the October war Vergth (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Israel's losses in the violent post-war clashes

Yourself. If we were in a position of weakness, would I have issued this order two days after the ceasefire with all its possibilities? It was an undeclared war of attrition on our part, and he was satisfied with the communications of the enemy and the reports of the United Nations. The objectives of this undeclared war of attrition were: - To cause the enemy the greatest losses in its human forces, equipment and weapons, and to make it impossible to put it in the pocket as it continues to mobilize the reserves, which the enemy cannot bear for a long time. Not enabling him to establish his feet by destroying his engineering equipment and equipment that appear in the area. Acquisition of more land in the east and west. The following statement can clarify the extent of the activity of our armed forces in the period from 10/31/1973 to 1/1/1974, that is, the day of the signing of the Separation of Forces Agreement. We carried out, according to enemy data, 439 operations, including 93 in November, 73, 213 in December, 73 and 133 in January 1974. These operations, according to the reports of the International Monitoring Authority and the reports of the Israeli forces themselves , resulted in the following losses in the enemy: 11 aircraft. 41 tanks and armored vehicles. 10 heavy machine guns, 36 “dozers, engineering equipment and a vehicle, hitting the Israeli oil tanker (Serena). Sinking a sea landing boat, killing 187 enemy people. In addition to the number of wounded, which can be estimated times the loss of life. The reader may conclude that the losses are many times that, if these are the statements of the enemy. I assure you, and before I go into explaining the planning of the operation to liquidate the enclave, that the 7th and 19th Infantry Divisions of the Third Army (Badr Forces), which are located east of the Victory Field Marshal, the Canal and the city of Suez, had all their needs of ammunition, fuel, water and appointments that would allow them not only to withstand But to participate in the attack, which was decreed. The supply of these two divisions continued by various means even before the supervision of the United Nations over this supply. - As for planning to destroy the enemy in this enclave, I would first like to clarify that the Haed Metwaly with the beloved was essentially: his narrow neck (only 6 kilometers) and his "bottle" size so that it could be cut, and that he was very far from his supply lines and supplies. And that our forces, close to its supply and supply, were outnumbered and outnumbered and surrounded on all sides, Vergth (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt from the memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail Vergth (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dekelegypt.co.il/100515

Vergth (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an Israeli source, former Israeli intelligence officer Eli Dekel. In the war of attrition and the October war Vergth (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The article must be rewritten

The facts that happened must be rewritten impartially, not made-up illusions. Where are the details for preparing for the war and planning Why is the war not considered from a really realistic Egyptian perspective? In the article, the Six-Day War, the War to Attrition, and the October War, a total of 270 intentional and unintentional lies Vergth (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources from intelligence officers and others that you can rely on Vergth (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Cuban intervention - Wrong info - Forged sources

Hi, the information regarding Cuban participation is wrong. Cuban troops took part in combat in the Middle East only *after* the Yom Kippur war.

This is actually stated quite clearly in most of the works quoted as reference (note 63, Ra’anan, G. D. (1981). The Evolution of the Soviet Use of Surrogates in Military Relations with the Third World, with Particular Emphasis on Cuban Participation in Africa. Santa Monica.)

The same goes for Gott, Cuba, A New History, P. 280. I quote literally:

"[Ochoa] had been with the Cuban tank troop in Syria in 1973-4, defending the Golan Heights against the Israelis after the Yom Kippur war." (it clearly says *after* the war).

One citation is simply forged: note 8, Perez, Cuba, Between Reform and Revolution, pp. 377-79 says nothing about Cuban involvement in the Middle East, it is actually a section about bibliography. I can provide copies of these pages.

Note 8 is also used as a reference for the (forged) "1,500 troops" figure. The reference for the "4,000 troops" figure (note 51) is a book with no page number, i.e. it's not a reference.

The 180 dead, 250 wounded figure included in Casualties and losses cites Ra'anan, G. D. (1981) again as a reference (note 63), but as I already explained, this work is clearly talking about Cuban involvement in the Middle East *after* the Yom Kippur war. By the way, this work is available online for free at https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6420.html

Note 442 is a repetition of the forged note 8. Note 443 is a repetition of the fake note 51.

This is not a mistake, but clearly a forgery. In any case, please correct this. I cannot do that because the page is protected. 95.247.230.107 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've found at least one source that says there was a 500-man strong Cuban tank battalion in Syria during the war [4]. I would also note that the quote above about one individual being in the Golan Heights after the war does not preclude the wider tank troop contingent being present beforehand. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the details on Cuba's presence based on the Rand report detail and the force size figure in the Atlantic. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

massive bias

I have a question. Doesn’t Egypt also have the right to report the events that took place impartially and objectively in the Navy Department? Totally unrealistic allegations about what happened on the ground. The reality is that Israel lost two ships and more than 11 missile boats. This was never mentioned, despite it being documented in all. The commanders wrote and also about the role of the mines that the Egyptian Navy planted in the Gulf of Suez, which caused the sinking of two ships, as well as the losses of the official Egyptian army 5,000 martyrs. The data of the Egyptian army refers to the same number 5,000. This was also documented by Abraham Rabinowitz and Dr. George Goresh Vergth (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, the failure to highlight the raids of the Egyptian commandos, which the Israeli books described as enormous in the war of attrition, there is a very large bias and completely unconvincing because Israel did not activate the air forces of Israel, not because of the activities of the Egyptian commando raids in the events of the upcoming large losses in equipment and deaths B, in addition to the great damage and this was also done Documented in Israeli sources Vergth (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The war of attrition intensified more and more with the killing of more Israeli soldiers in the outposts and on the roads along the Suez Canal. The Egyptians used effective artillery as commando ambushes, and in response, Israel activated the Israeli air force due to the effectiveness of the Egyptian commando raids. Vergth (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, the one-sided war of attrition article is a literal propaganda article that does not reflect reality Vergth (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

And the article of the Six Day War literally fabricates lies 6 Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage an Egyptian minesweeper, and this is also documented in the book The Righteous Victims of Benny Morris and Russian and Egyptian sources. I also trusted this

Vergth (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

But the editor, unfortunately, has reached the point where he lies and makes up lies, claiming that the commando destroyed an Egyptian minesweeper, and this is completely untrue. It was fabricated by the editor. Literally a big lie Vergth (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

We want to completely correct this Vergth (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vergth Who specifically are you accusing of lying? That's a very strong accusation. You also need to link to reliable sources if you expect anyone to do anything. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not know him personally, but in the article of the Six-Day War there is a completely false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper, they were captured, and this is not true at all. Benny Morris in his book The Righteous Victims did not mention that. One and so also mentioned the Russian and Egyptian sources Vergth (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

6 Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage a single ship. This was also documented in a report on the history of Chattet 13 and Benny Morris in his book The Righteous Victims, as well as Russian and Egyptian sources documented this. Vergth (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of reliable sources such as Benny Morris' book The Righteous Victims indicated that they were captured without being able to damage anything and there is also a report on the History of Chattet 13 that indicated that as well. Vergth (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Shayetet_13.htm

Vergth (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This link is a report on the history of the Israeli naval commandos from the Israeli encyclopedia Vergth (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Please brother, enter the link and see for yourself Vergth (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage Israeli divers were sent to the ports of Port Said and Alexandria, but they failed to damage a single ship. 6 Israeli divers were captured in Alexandria and captured page 784 in Benny Morris' book The Righteous Victims Vergth (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The Commando History Report from the Israeli Encyclopedia, in addition to Benny Morris' book, Righteous Victims

https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Shayetet_13.htm Vergth (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify I didn't make stuff up. The zionism-israel source says outright that they sank a few naval craft. If you want to contest its reliability or delete it pending us finding another source for these claims, fine by me, it was 12 years ago when I was a much newer editor anyway. I'll see if I can find something from a more established source later on. However, deliberately accusing someone of inventing stuff out of thin air is serious. RM (Be my friend) 06:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Benny Morris in his book The Righteous Victims indicated that 6 Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage a single ship, page 784 in the book. General Al-Shazly indicated that the Egyptian navy did not suffer any losses in the 1967 war. Field Marshal Mohamed Fawzy indicated in his book The 3-Year War of War Attrition The Egyptian Navy did not incur any losses in terms of personnel or equipment in the 1967 war. The encyclopedia of Israel indicated that the commandos were captured, and they were captured without there being ships. The encyclopedia said the task of neutralizing enemy fleets, since the Israel Navy did not have sufficient regular forces. to do so. The idea was that use of commandos would allow a small number of quality troops to compensate for marked inferiority in ships and fire power. In the event, Shayetet 13 saw little action, but on the other hand, the enemy navies were relatively inactive as well. It infiltrated Port Said, but there were no ships there to be targeted. It infiltrated Alexandria harbor, but the six divers sent there were stranded and captured by the Egyptians. As a result of this infiltration, the Egyptians increased their port security. Other missions failed as well, including one in Syria that was not carried through by the commander Vergth (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Then it is a lie, whether intentional or not, it is not the only one Vergth (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

In the losses department, an exaggerated number in terms of casualties. The families of the victims meet annually to talk about their children and children who have been killed and to have other discussions. Our casualty count is 6,882, but that's not an exaggerated number. 2 ships were lost from an attack by the Israeli Air Force, not the Navy, on the other hand, the Egyptian Navy sank 5 ships of the Israeli Navy, Bat Yam, Bat Glim, Bat Shiva, the ship Hydroma and others. Vergth (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This is in the war of attrition article Vergth (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The war of attrition article is propaganda that never reflects the reality of that war. There is a book called A Soldier in the Sinai by Monauel Escal and a book on the Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippur War by Danny Usher, on which you can base your books on neutrality. Vergth (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in the losses section, there are huge exaggerations in the Yom Kippur war, and the article in general is not balanced Vergth (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

So we want to highlight the raids of the Egyptian commandos in the war of attrition, which was described as enormous, and it is many and its sources are also abundantly present. Vergth (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

We want to correct all of this Vergth (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

She wrote Operation Tiger inside her article. The operation was halted after the first attack wave destroyed many of the Egyptian Air Force bases, due to the need for more air power on the Syrian front and the implementation of Operation Doogman 5. This is not true. It resulted in only minor damage to seven air bases and this is mentioned in the article on the war itself, or in the article on the same operation, he wrote something else. This is also an intentional or unintentional lie, but it is not absolutely true, only slight damage to seven air bases.

Vergth (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It only resulted in minor damage to seven air bases but not destruction and this is mentioned in all the books as well Vergth (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I did everything on purpose in the Six Day War article. I added other Arab countries under the khanate of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. You want to imagine that Israel won over 10 countries in the Six Days and the Yom Kippur War. In the article that is subjective, insincere and unbalanced, I added more than 10 countries to say that Israel defeated more than 15 countries. It's really obvious that you don't count any lies Vergth (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

In the Yom Kippur War, Israel incurred 3,020 dead more than the losses of the Vietnam War in terms of population, and Israel incurred that in only three weeks for a matter not only related to the lie of the commandos, but rather the article of the War of Attrition, which you obviously made more propaganda and biased towards Israel than before, and the Yom Kippur War did everything What can you do to make the war a crushing victory for Israel even though this is never true Vergth (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You even claimed that the position of the Soviet Union, according to Cheryanev. By the way, it was Leonid Brezhnev himself who pressured Egypt to develop the offensive outside the defensive umbrella to help the Syrians. Vergth (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

And Andrei Gromyko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, even sent a congratulatory telegram on the Egyptian military success in the Yom Kippur War and the achievement of all goals. Vergth (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The position of the Soviet Union spread based on your allegations, and this is completely incorrect, according to Oleg Greenevsky in his book The Third Egyptian War Scenario. Leonid Brezhnev sent a telegram of congratulations to the President of Egypt and was intending to visit Egypt, but Sadat changed Egypt's position in favor of the West and the United States, and accused Sadat, after canceling the visit, of being a traitor in of the Soviet Union through the Soviet media Vergth (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

And everyone knows that Sadat had a phobia of the Soviets, so they hated him so much that when he carried the air bridge to Egypt, it was without tanks, in return, because Syria was a priority because Assad’s Syria was allied with the ideologically closest Soviet Union, Egypt at the time of President Gamal Abdel Nasser had priority because it It was closely allied with the Soviets, unlike Sadat, since the expulsion of Soviet experts Vergth (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

After all this, because I have now confirmed that you are the one who made the article of the war of attrition more biased and propagandist in a more unrealistic way than before, and you also added the flags of countries that did not provide the slightest support to Egypt or Syria in a box to inform me in an article about the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War Vergth (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

In short, you have erased in your propaganda article any military success of Egypt. On the other hand, Israel portrayed the hero, defeating 15 countries in the article, the October War, the War of Attrition, and the Six-Day War. All articles did not escape your prejudice and in an article for the six days as well. I doubt what you did there was unintentional. , although your role is to present articles in a neutral and objective manner. and balanced Vergth (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vclFmcaroPAMpRM6j1EM7aujxdH9Zx_y/view?usp=drivesdk

This article is from the Israeli historian about the role of the mines planted by the Egyptian Navy and caused the sinking of two ships Vergth (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dekelegypt.co.il/100515 This article is from the book of Eli Dekel, a former Israeli intelligence officer in and a participant in the Yom Kippur War, about the Egyptian army in strategic planning, preparation, a war of attrition, and other facts.

Vergth (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That is why I demand to delete the lie and give Egypt its right. That's her right Vergth (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This false claim in the Six-Day War article and others must be ended Vergth (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Benny Morris in his book The Righteous Victims noted that 6 Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage a single ship, page 784 in the book. Major General El-Shazly pointed out that the Egyptian Navy did not incur any losses in the 1967 war. Field Marshal Mohamed Fawzy indicated in his book 'The 3-Year War of Attrition' that the Egyptian Navy did not incur any losses in terms of personnel or equipment in the 1967 war. The Israel Encyclopedia indicated that That the commandos were captured, they were captured without ships. The encyclopedia said that the task of neutralizing the enemy fleets, since the Israeli Navy did not have enough regular forces. Let's do it. The idea was that the use of commandos would allow a small number of high-quality troops to compensate for the perceived lack of ships and firepower. In the event, Shayetet 13 saw quite a bit of action, but on the other hand, enemy fleets were relatively inactive as well. I infiltrated Port Said, but there were no ships to target. It crept into the port of Alexandria, but the six divers who were sent there were stranded and captured by the Egyptians. As a result of this intrusion, the Egyptians increased the security of their ports. Other missions also failed, including a mission in Syria that the leader did not implement Vergth (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian minesweeper

I suggest omitting the claim that the Egyptian minesweeper was sunk by commandos prior to its capture, because this is an unrealistic claim in an article about Six Days of War in all sources, including Israeli sources. I wrote without any source Vergth (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Israeli Encyclopedia also referred to this Vergth (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Shayetet_13.htm Vergth (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And also many other sources Vergth (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vergth: It would be helpful if you could explicitly state what information you think is incorrect and what should replace it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In a war article for Six Days, a claim was made that the commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper, and they were captured. This is an unrealistic claim without any source.

Vergth (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage Israeli divers were sent to the ports of Port Said and Alexandria, but they failed to damage a single ship. Six Israeli divers captured in Alexandria are captured on page 784 of Benny Morris' book The Righteous Victims. Vergth (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

They were captured without being able to damage a single ship or a single Egyptian minesweeper Vergth (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vergth: I don't understand: why aren't you posting this edit request on Six-Day War - if that is the article this is about? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Benny Morris in his book The Righteous Victims noted that 6 Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage a single ship, page 784 in the book. Major General El-Shazly pointed out that the Egyptian Navy did not incur any losses in the 1967 war. Field Marshal Mohamed Fawzy indicated in his book 'The 3-Year War of Attrition' that the Egyptian Navy did not incur any losses in terms of personnel or equipment in the 1967 war. The Israel Encyclopedia indicated that That the commandos were captured, they were captured without ships. The encyclopedia said that the task of neutralizing the enemy fleets, since the Israeli Navy did not have enough regular forces. Let's do it. The idea was that the use of commandos would allow a small number of high-quality troops to compensate for the perceived lack of ships and firepower. In the event, Shayetet 13 saw quite a bit of action, but on the other hand, enemy fleets were relatively inactive as well. I infiltrated Port Said, but there were no ships to target. It crept into the port of Alexandria, but the six divers who were sent there were stranded and captured by the Egyptians. As a result of this intrusion, the Egyptians increased the security of their ports. Other missions also failed, including a mission in Syria that the leader did not implement Vergth (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I brought it up but I'm going to try again Vergth (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about a lot of prejudice and that's just one of them Vergth (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dekelegypt.co.il/100515

Vergth (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is about the preparations for war in Egypt, planning, the war of attrition and the October war Vergth (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A part is wrong

The part that Israel won is not true please change it 82.129.165.250 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

No air war?

There is nothing on the air war in the table of contents and I couldn't find anything in the article (although I am unwilling to read through the whole thing just to find such items). I think there should be section 2.4 on this topic. Asgrrr (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

the numbers of israeli tanks and tanks destroyed are not accurate bc only in 1 battle israel lost more then 400+tanks (operation badr) the israelis also lost about 330-340 tanks in the battle of Valley of Tears Misse156 (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Could you Please add Palestinian Volunteers as a combatant in the war? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

ok here is the source

when on the article press ctrl + f which opens up a search bar, then type in "clashing with scattered Egyptian, Kuwaiti and Palestinian troops" PreserveOurHistory (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

so are you going to reply? I just told you the source. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not true, the Kuwaiti forces did not fight because they ran away with the first shot, according to the Russian Tatar general Mahmoud Gariv. Vergth (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Palestinian volunteers, as if their role was very limited due to their poor armament and training, this is well documented Vergth (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

everyones role in the "support section" is limited. Pakistan send like a couple pilots. I mean I'm also wondering why Bangladesh isnt here for medical aid. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Battle of the Green Island

Ami Ayalon admitted that out of the 40 people who actually fought on the island, only 2, were not injured or killed, and the goal was to occupy the island. This is a recognition of the outcome of the battle. Vergth (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

On the hudsonunionsociety channel Vergth (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Video name Ami Ayalon, former Head of Israel's Secret Service Talks About Operation Bulmus 6 Vergth (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Flags

Egypt, Syria and Libya had the same flag? Maybe we should use other flags to differentiate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.43.225 (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We use the flags of belligerent nations/parties at the time of the events. In 1973, Egypt, Syria, and Libya were part of the Federation of Arab Republics, and officially changed their flags to be the same flag. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

Results: Egyptian Military Victory

Sources 1- https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=Qjd0PwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Sunday+Times+Sunday+Times+Insight+Team%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

2- https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=vGQAwQEACAAJ&dq=egypt+won+1973+war&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

3- https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=n_9gIR6Fi3UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=egypt+won+1973+war&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7-8HG2qv9AhVYiVwKHWK3DUkQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=egypt%20won%201973%20war&f=false Unknownmmm (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. This has been significantly discussed. Please look back in the archives and start a discussion about this if you believe your arguments are novel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a mistake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Egypt's victory not Israel's victory!!! If Israel won so how Egypt has sinai right now?? 197.47.195.195 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Shockingly, events can take place after one another. A separate event, that being the negotiation of the Camp David Accords and signing of the Egypt–Israel peace treaty, happened 5 years after the Yom Kippur War ended. It was due to the Camp David Accords, and not the Yom Kippur War, that the Sinai was returned to Egypt. This is also why Israel withdrew from and Egypt regained control of the Sinai in stages from 1979 to 1982, a process which did not begin until 6 years after the end of the Yom Kippur War. It was also a process that was started by and outlined in the Egypt–Israel peace treaty that followed the Camp David Accords, and not in the Yom Kippur War ceasefire. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Then why does egypt celebrate the 6th of october? Its obvious bc of their victory. Hey lol7 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

They can celebrate whatever they want, it doesn't change anything that happened. Israel celebrates their victory in the same war, but I doubt that you would consider that evidence of their victory. North Korea celebrates July 27th as Day of Victory in the Great Fatherland Liberation War, even though the Korean War ended in a stalemate and armistice, and not a victory of North Korea over South Korea or the UN. They also celebrate February 16th as the birthday of Kim Jong-Il at Paektu Mountain, even though he was actually born in the Soviet Union. Celebrations are not conclusive evidence of historical events. No one is disputing that Egyptians claim victory in this war. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Im from egypt, I know exactly why they celebrate. And besides the “evidence” You are asking for was photos from war when israeli leaders i don’t really remember their names, but they were crying bc of defeat. And other photos showed that they were under the Egyptian military’s foot. 62.114.201.155 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Being from Egypt does not make you an expert on this. Yes, you know that the celebration of victory in the war is a celebration of victory in that war, but so what? An Israeli could come here and say the same thing about Israel celebrating their victory, and I doubt you would accept it as proof of Israeli victory (nor should you, just as I am not accepting your claim based on a holiday). It doesn't mean that victory actually happened. I haven't asked for photos of any kind, be they Israeli leaders, Egyptian leaders, Syrian leaders (remember, they were in the war too), etc. What I have asked for is exactly what our policies at Wikipedia demand, and that is reliable sources. Not personal anecdotes, not pictures of crying people, I've asked for reliable sources, because that is what is required by Wikipedia. To back to the North Korea example, I'm sure almost any North Korean today can tell you that they celebrate Kim Jong-Il's birth as having taken place at Paektu Mountain, but that never happened. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra very biased towards Israel , the whole story is told from the perspective of Israeli narrative, Shameful media. 49.226.212.152 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Easy to throw stones when you aren't presenting any sources to support changes to the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Before the war, Israel was refusing to return Sinai to Egypt, but after the war, it quickly decided to make peace with Egypt only considering it the strongest country among the confrontation countries and other considerations. Vergth (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dekelegypt.co.il/100515

This is a report by Eli Dekel, a former Israeli intelligence officer, on the success of the Egyptian army in the Yom Kippur War Vergth (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the reasons Moshe Dayan listed, which is to bring out the fourth wheel represented in Egypt, and then the cart will not move. He said that to an American administration. Vergth (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In other words, Egypt is the leader of the Arab countries. When you get out of the conflict, the remaining Arabs will not be able to wage war to regain the lands Israel conquered without Egypt. Vergth (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Even ask William Quandt Vergth (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you define "quickly"? At the time of the Yom Kippur War, Israel had controlled the Sinai for 6 years. Following the war, it was another 5 years before Israel agreed to negotiations on its return, so nearly as long as they had held it before the war. It doesn't seem like the war sped up anything. It wasn't until 9 years after the war that the Sinai was fully returned to Egypt, longer than Israel had held it before the war. How is that "quickly"? By your definition of "quick," Egypt had "quickly" abandoned any attempt at negotiation, and instead went to war. After all, it had only been 3 years since the end of the War of Attrition, the shortest timespan I've listed. As for your website source, it doesn't look to me to meet the standards of WP:RS, and is almost entirely information about before the war, and not during or after. It certainly illustrates failures of Israeli intelligence to notice Egyptian preparations for war, but doesn't seem to say anything about Egyptian victory in the war. One party can be caught surprised in war and still win said war. Indeed, by your source, Egypt had started preparations for war in 1968, only 1 year after Israel captured the Sinai, and so Egypt apparently (by your source) spent 1/5th the time trying negotiation as Israel took to "quickly" decide to enter negotiations following the war. Doesn't seem like Israel's response was "quick." As for your Moshe Dayan quote, I'd like to see a reliable source on it and its interpretation, and how it means "Egypt won the war." It could equally mean that, years after the war, Israel decided it was a higher priority to get Egypt out of the conflict, and so made a concession. It doesn't mean that the war caused that concession, or that Egypt won said war. As for your last point, please present a source for what Quandt has to say on it. I personally don't have contact information to "ask" him about it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Israel strongly refused to return the occupied lands to Egypt after 1967 because it was victorious. The war of attrition has begun. During this, Egypt fought a vigorous war and professionally rebuilt the army. Then, after Israel rejected the Egyptian peace proposals and sent Yaring, Israel concluded that Egypt would not go to war. This is well documented in Uri Bar Yosef's book, The Watcher Who Sleeps Vergth (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Then the proposals of the Jaring expedition from the United Nations were rejected Vergth (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Also by Israel Vergth (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.noor-book.com/en/ebook-%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B0%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%88%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1-1973-%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF-pdf Vergth (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

These are the memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail, Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces. Please read them in detail Vergth (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It mentions the heavy losses of the Israeli forces in the clashes that followed the war and other details Vergth (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Egyptian army was able to seize it in the lands it occupied from Israel, east of the Suez Canal, while repelling the Israeli attacks and causing heavy losses to the Israeli army. Part of the dispute stems from the question: What? Were Egypt's goals in the war?

If its goals are political - to change the status quo that has existed since the end of the War of Attrition, and to make Israel realize that there is no point in controlling Sinai (as expressed by Sadat).  The strategic instructions of Defense Minister Ahmed Ismail Ali on October 1, 1973[95] as well as in Sadat's speech after the war) After all, in fact these goals were achieved Vergth (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This way of attempting to get changes made to the article is doomed to failure. I'm pretty sure you've already been told this multiple times.

If *you* wamt a change to be made to an protected article, *you* need to do the work, find the reliable source, present the exact wording of the changes to be made, and support it with the correct page number. Without original research or synthesis.

Making repeated arguments on the talk page and telling others to read sources will amount to nothing. (Hohum ^@) 22:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

6 kilometers.

In fact, the actual cease-fire was at 11:00 noon on 10/28/1973 - and I issued my orders to start a new war of attrition starting on 10/73/31, that is, two days after the cease-fire, and you can ask yourself if we were in  The position of weakness Was it possible for me to issue this order two days after the cease-fire with all its possibilities?  It was an undeclared war of attrition on our part, contenting ourselves with what the enemy's declarations and United Nations reports were declaring.  These unannounced attrition are: - Causing the enemy the greatest losses in its manpower, equipment, and weapons, even if they were targets.  war

208

His pocketing becomes unbearable as he continues to build up reserves, which the enemy cannot sustain for long.  - Not being able to establish its feet by destroying its engineering equipment and equipment that appear in the area.

Acquisition of more land east and west.  The following statement can show the extent of the activity of our armed forces in the period from 10/31/1973 to 18/1/1974, i.e. the day of the signing of the Separation of Forces Agreement.  According to enemy data, we carried out 439 operations, including 93 in November 73, 213 in December 73, and 133 in January 1974. These operations also resulted, according to reports from the International Monitoring Board and reports from the Israeli forces themselves, in the following losses to the enemy: 11 aircraft  .  41 tanks and armored vehicles, 10 heavy machine guns.  36 bulldozers, engineering equipment and vehicles.  The Israeli oil tanker Serena was hit.  Sinking of an offshore landing craft.  Killed 187 enemy personnel.

In addition to the number of wounded, which can be estimated at multiples of its loss of life.  The reader may conclude that the losses are much more than that, if these are the enemy's statements.

As I assure you, and before I go into explaining the planning for the operation to liquidate the enclave, the 7th and 19th Infantry Divisions of the Third Army (Badr Forces) located east of

209 Vergth (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

These are excerpts from the memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail Vergth (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There are many sources, but unfortunately, the article on the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War is propaganda and one-sided. It does not mention the losses of the Israeli forces, whether by sea, air, or land in a realistic manner. Vergth (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The heavy losses of the Israeli Navy were not mentioned either Vergth (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Egypt also entitled to report the events that took place impartially and objectively in the navy? Absolutely unrealistic claims about what happened on earth. The truth is that Israel lost two ships and more than 11 missile boats. This is never mentioned, although it is generally documented. The leaders also wrote about the role of the mines laid by the Egyptian Navy in the Gulf of Suez, which caused the sinking of two ships, as well as the Egyptian army's official losses of 5,000 martyrs. The data of the Egyptian army indicates the same number of 5000. This is also documented by Abraham Rabinowitz and Dr. George Goresh. Vergth (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

So, immediately, more arguing, accusations, and no listening to advice. Some people refuse to be helped. I'll be surprised if anyone bothers replying to you. (Hohum ^@) 22:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hohum@OuroborosCobra thnis editor has been blocked for disruptive editing on this talk page - after an earlier block. Maybe delete all this thread? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right in everything you say Vergth (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hohum You are absolutely right I am sorry but I feel hopeless and frustrated Vergth (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For now, all I can do is send the leaders books in English Vergth (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.noor-book.com/en/ebook-%D9%85%D8%B0%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%8A-pdf Vergth (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Memoirs of the Chief of Operations in the Army during the Yom Kippur War Vergth (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot include what William Quandt or former Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko said because they are videos, not articles. Unfortunately, the discussion does not accept videos.

Vergth (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

About what he said about Israel's goal of negotiating with Egypt and the fourth wheel, represented by Egypt, which leads those countries in the war Vergth (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

،‏Ouroboros Cobra-‏

I want to make clear the pleas of Syria under pressure from the Soviet Union, which made Egypt develop the offensive outside the defensive umbrella on the 14th of October, and this only made Israel able to infiltrate one West Bank into another. Vergth (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Secondly, Eli Dekel, a former Israeli intelligence officer, not only lists the Egyptian preparations for war, but also the Bar Lev Line, the reason for its construction and the reason for its reinforcement, likening it to the Siegfried Line. and the Maginot line Vergth (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

At that time in that era Vergth (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Egypt has fully achieved its goal, which is not only to gain a foothold in the East Bank, but the entire East Bank, should not be ignored. Vergth (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typo in Background section

"Eban also the prospect of a mediated peace, insisting of the need for direct negotiations with the Arab governments." Should read "Eban also rejected the prospect of a mediated peace, insisting of the need for direct negotiations with the Arab governments." 2603:8001:6802:B800:C54:C6E6:3B0D:5795 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

The introduction says that US and Soviet support for the warring parties

led to a near-confrontation between the two nuclear-armed superpowers.

Later in the article, we read The war saw the largest naval confrontation between the United States Navy and Soviet Navy of the entire Cold War. A confrontation isn't a near-confrontation. Please change the introduction to read:

led to a confrontation between the two nuclear-armed superpowers.

Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023 (2)

In this phrase:

Egyptian air defense radars detected an aircraft

Please change "radars" to "radar" or to "radar installations". "Radars" sounds wrong, but it's fine to refer to the Egyptian radar system in general or to the installations specifically. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

In the "Disengagement agreement" section, there's a link to Shuttle diplomacy in the phrase's second appearance. Please de-link this appearance and add a link in the first appearance, one paragraph earlier. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Special:Diff/1151439315. DanCherek (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

The whole article is from Israely perspective,egypt has won the war and reached gaza , that’s why USA threatened to contribute in the war, so the war stopped and the peace treaty was signed. 41.69.1.171 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart ^(talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Can a link to the Wikipedia page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis' please be added to the See also section of this article?
• Why it should be changed: The addition makes it easy to find in the page.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): No further references needed, it's already referenced in the page.

82.27.230.241 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Already linked in "Arab Oil Embargo" subsection. Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, articles mentioned in the body should not be repeated. ARandomName123 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Bloated "result" and "territory" infobox parameters

The "result" and "territory" parameters in the infobox are meant to be simply, with the former containing either "X victory" or "Inconclusive", and the latter is simply an overly long monstrosity [5]. At the same time the article does not even have a simple results or aftermath section summarizing the same information in the body. A lot of the information and sources currently bloating these two parameters should be moved into a section where such explanation is actually due. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:TOOLONG

This page is currently grimly overlength. At 130+ kB of readable prose, and with a scattered structure, it is a terrible resource for readers. Heavy trimming and splitting are both possible solutions. Suggestions welcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A Mistake

Egypt was actually the one who won , According to Dave Elazar chief of Israeli Headquarter staff on December 3,1973 : As for the thrid army in spite if our encircling them They resisted and Advanced to occupy infact a wider area of land at the east, Thus we can not say we defeated or conquered them. And many other things I can say , I hope this get fixed , If there's no enough proof I will provide more proof that's egypt won. Tabs420 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As you can see throughout this talk page and its archives, you need to provide a reliable source for this chance. It's also not enough for it to be a single person's opinion of the events. Also, the claim is not (and never has been) that Israel "conquered" Egypt. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The war ended up by negotiations which returned all Egyptian territories previously invaded by Israel in 1967. The Syrian borders did not change much, We determine the Victory of countries if they:

1.Achieved their goals (and this is the most important rule).

2. Get permanent benefits.

3.And the least important thing which is having less casualties.

Now let's analyze this war:

Did Egypt achieve They goals?

Yes, They Absolutely did..

Their goals were:

1.Crossing the canal ✓

2.Destroying the barlev line ✓

3.Taking Sinai back by peace ✓

4.Causing huge damage to Israel ✓

5. Retrieving the honor and dignity of the country that is lost in 1967 ✓

6. Advancing further than the SAM umbrella ×

Now we can all agree that Most of these goals were achieved.

Now let's look at Israel.

Their goals were:

Keep the Sinai ×

Push the all the egyptians back in a counter attack ×

Take suez ×

Take Ismailia ×

Encircle the 2nd army ×

Make the 3rd army surrender ×

Destroy the SAM umbrella of egypt ✓

Now if we determine Victory by The achievement of goals then undoubtedly Egypt Won.

Now let's look at the casualties:

Unfortunately the casualties are super debatable, the arabic sources say that egypt had Casualties about 8528 soilders killed and about 19,000 soilders wounded, The English sources however says that: Egypt had about: 15,000 soiders dead and 30,000 wounded.

So I asked my grandfather who is a Yom Kippur war veteran that fought for egypt, and he said that the casualties of egypt are no more than 9,000 soilders which indeed confirm that the arabic sources are TRUE!

The Arabic sources also claim that Isreal had about 10,000 dead and 20,000 wounded, which actually makes sense because how on Earth would you fight on two fronts and have only 2600 Casualties it's impossible!

So of we talk about casualties I will have to give this point to egypt, because it just makes sense.

Now let's move on to permanent benefits: Egypt obviously wins this round too, because DUH they got the Sinai peninsula back, every inch of it..(even if it was because of the peace deal, cause the main objective is getting back the Sinai, doesn't matter how Egypt gets it)

As for isreal they gained too, they still kept all of the golan heights, and ALSO Syria lost this war completely it was a total failure for them, and both countries gained peace.

I hope I helped, May peace flourish around the world , may we live in a world with no wars or blood spilled on the ground. Poke10000 (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be at least "Both sides claim Victory " since both Israel and egypt is claiming they won Tabs420 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

Egypt won this war, it is quite controversial to claim Israel won this, it's a great victory achieved by the Egyptian army, thank you. 154.178.56.246 (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Change Israeli Victory to Syrian Front: Israeli Victory

Egyptian Front: Initial Israeli Success. Egyptian Victory at ==Operation Badr== and retaking of ==Sinai==

Syrian Front: Israeli Victory

Egyptian Front: Initial Israeli Success. Egyptian Victory at ==Operation Badr== and retaking of ==Sinai== HelloMynameisaughhh (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

As with every time this request has been made, you need to provide reliable sources. Our current result section in the infobox has 12 reliable sources supporting it, and every time this topic is brought up, practically no one provides any sources at all, and no one provides anything resembling reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Cuban losses

I've already seen and addressed this issue once before but in the Infobox, the Cuban losses are the exact same ones that appear in the War of Attrition article. Unless by an astonishing coincidence they were the same, something clearly got mixed up. Can we please once and for all confirm which war these casualties correspond to?--RM (Be my friend) 22:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Can someone add an explanation explaining who Gunnar Jarring is?

Hello! I'm fairly new to wikipedia so I have no idea if this how I'm supposed to request an edit but here is my request:

I was reading this article and noticed that a guy named Gunnar Jarring was referred to. I figured my skimming must've made me miss something and I continued. He was referenced again so I used control + f and found that even at the first instance of his name, there is no even small explanation of who he is or why he is relevant or why he is negotiating a peace. I went to add a tag but saw it's edit protected. I understand that there is a lot of heat and anger from nationalists from countries who participated in this war so I understand that, but can someone who does have permission to edit this add some context as to who this guy is?

Cheers! 162.154.240.33 (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Also there is already a wiki article on Mr. Jarring so that should probably be linked with brackets.

From his wiki, I found this explaining who he is/was:

"After the 1967 Six-Day War and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 242, Jarring was appointed by the UN Secretary-General U Thant as a Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Middle East peace process, the so-called Jarring Mission, during which he worked with the Four Powers who included United States UN Permanent Representative Ambassador Charles W. Yost."

Perhaps a shortened version of this can be added. 162.154.240.33 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've linked the first instance of his name as a start. (Hohum ^@) 13:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

And one more thing I've noticed as I read this article. Under the "Onset" heading it says "The war began on October 6, 1973...The attack by the Egyptian and Syrian forces caught the United States by surprise."

However in the previous paragraph, it mentions that Kissinger was trying to stop the war from breaking out, and if I recall correctly, the article also mentions the Soviets trying to stop the war. All of this seems somewhat contradictory.

It may not be of course, but could we at least get some sort of citation that the war (or at least opening attack) took the US by surprise? 162.154.240.33 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Algerian participation in the Yom Kippur War article

I don't edit on this topic but I'm just noting here a newly-created article, Algerian participation in the Yom Kippur War, that experienced editors here may want to look at. I see that Algerian participation is detailed in this article already, that no discussion on a WP:SPLIT occurred here, and that no other article like this exists for other countries involved, so it seems like an unnecessary stub. But I leave it to others to judge/discuss. R Prazeres (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

I would like to edit the result and say that it was also an egyptian victory because egypt regained sinai. 2603:6010:1C00:325:2A25:2FBD:51C:491 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Yom Kippur War was fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria from October 6 to 25, 1973

. Egypt managed to win the war by launching a surprise attack on Israel during the fast of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement that is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar

. The Egyptian and Syrian armies, with advanced Soviet weapons, launched a two-front offensive on Israel, from the north and the south, and managed to cross the Suez Canal and capture the Bar Lev Line – a fortified sand wall on the east

. The war began with early successes for the Arab coalition, but Israel ultimately repelled the attack and regained lost territory

. However, Egypt achieved political gains from the war, including the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty 2603:6010:1C00:325:2A25:2FBD:51C:491 (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

As with every time this request has been made, you need to provide reliable sources. Our current result section in the infobox has 12 reliable sources supporting it, and every time this topic is brought up, practically no one provides any sources at all, and no one provides anything resembling reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. HouseBlaster^talk 23:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

I would like to edit the result because: The Yom Kippur War was fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria from October 6 to 25, 1973

. Egypt managed to win the war by launching a surprise attack on Israel during the fast of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement that is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar

. The Egyptian and Syrian armies, with advanced Soviet weapons, launched a two-front offensive on Israel, from the north and the south, and managed to cross the Suez Canal and capture the Bar Lev Line – a fortified sand wall on the east

. The war began with early successes for the Arab coalition, but Israel ultimately repelled the attack and regained lost territory

. However, Egypt achieved political gains from the war, including the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty So I would like to add that it was also an egyptian victory 2603:6010:1C00:325:2A25:2FBD:51C:491 (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

As with every time this request has been made, you need to provide reliable sources. Our current result section in the infobox has 12 reliable sources supporting it, and every time this topic is brought up, practically no one provides any sources at all, and no one provides anything resembling reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources that explain how Egypt managed to win the Yom Kippur War:

The Jewish Virtual Library provides an overview of the Yom Kippur War and explains that Egypt's initial objective was to use its military to regain the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had seized in the Six-Day War of 1967. Although Egypt lost the war, Egyptians saw the conflict as a victory because it retrieved Arab honor and shifted the psychological balance of power in the region.

Al Jazeera features an article that explains how the Egyptians and Syrians launched a surprise attack on Israel on the Yom Kippur religious holiday to catch Israel off guard. The article explains that Egypt sought a limited war to focus the minds of the world's superpowers and jump-start the stalled peace process. The article also explains that the war ushered in a new reality in the Middle East and that it had far-reaching implications.

The U.S. Department of State's Office of the Historian provides a detailed account of the Yom Kippur War and explains that Egypt and Syria attacked Israel's forces in the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. The article explains that despite initial Israeli setbacks, the United States intervened and helped broker a ceasefire that ultimately saved the Third Army from annihilation. The article also explains that the war had significant implications for the region and for U.S. foreign policy.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard provides an overview of the Yom Kippur War and explains that Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel to regain lost territory. The book explains that the war was a turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict and that it had far-reaching implications for the region.

The Illusion of Defeat: Egyptian Strategic Thinking and the 1973 Yom Kippur War by LTC Steven R. Meek provides an in-depth analysis of the Yom Kippur War and explores Egyptian strategic thinking during the conflict. The book explains that although Egypt lost tactically, it won strategically, and that the war had significant implications for the region. 24.172.129.23 (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So none of your sources say Egypt won the war? It isn't the job of Wikipedia to change what the sources are reporting because anyone personally thinks it is describing Egypt as winning the war. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

yes they do say that egypt won the war, if you don't believe me, check out these links:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-yom-kippur-war

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/10/8/the-october-arab-israeli-war-of-1973-what-happened

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/dr/97192.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Middle-Conflict/dp/0028632613

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1022141.pdf 24.172.129.23 (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Please quote verbatim the specific passages for each that say Egypt won, plus page number where relevant. (Hohum ^@) 15:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ok fine whatever, but why don't we just change it to both sides claim victory instead of just israeli military victory? you know egypt also achieved its military goals too right?? Ali36800p (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Because that is not what our dozen or so reliable sources that are being cited say. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Egypt achieved some of its objectives, including:

Egypt's initial war objective was to use its military to seize a limited amount of Israeli-occupied Sinai on the east bank of the Suez Canal.

Egypt and Syria secured victories in the Sinai and the Golan Heights during the first few days of the war.

The intensity of the Egyptian and Syrian assaults rapidly began to exhaust Israel’s reserve stocks of munitions.

Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat declared the war a victory for Egypt, as it retrieved Arab honor and shifted the psychological balance of power in the region.

In summary, while Egypt did not achieve all of its military goals in the Yom Kippur War, it did achieve some of its objectives and saw the conflict as a victory.

are you sure there isnt any source that mentions this?? if so then where did i get this ??! Ali36800p (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

How difficult is it to back yourself up with reliable sources? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/timeless-lessons-october-1973-arab-israeli-war/, says that Egypt and Syria successfully launched coordinated surprise attacks against Israeli forces in the Sinai Ali36800p (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

according to https://www.britannica.com/event/Yom-Kippur-War, Egyptian forces successfully crossed the Suez Canal with greater ease than expected Ali36800p (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

according to https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/10/8/the-october-arab-israeli-war-of-1973-what-happened, Egypt and Syria regained a portion of their territory and UN buffer zones were established between them and Israel. Ali36800p (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

according to https://www.ajc.org/news/4-lessons-from-the-yom-kippur-war, the 1973 war was an Egyptian success. It ended the territorial and political status quo and started a political process that ... Ali36800p (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

according to https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1022141.pdf, Egypt had lost tactically, but won strategically. so you're wrong, there is a source, and this is just one of them. Ali36800p (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Only the "ajc" link is about winning the war as a whole, and how is that a WP:RELIABLE source? What is the exact quote in the dtic.mil source that supports what you say. Please read and understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR before making edit requests. (Hohum ^@) 18:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see the phrase in the dtic.mil documents. Howevers, please note that the document also says:

The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other government agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.)

This is a student monograph, not a reliable source, imo. (Hohum ^@) 18:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel like you've been given plenty of guidance, and additional requests without providing sound sources is going to fall on deaf ears. Googling search terms about Egypt winning, and throwing them all into the mix in the hope that one is good is not the way to do this. (Hohum ^@) 18:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

bruh, you yourself said in my opinion, so that doesn't change anything Ali36800p (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, well then, I'm here to say that isn't just his personal opinion. A student's monograph or essay is not a reliable source that we can cite. Literally anyone enrolled in an institution, regardless of credentials or background knowledge or research, can write student essays. That does not make them authoritative, reliable sources. @Hohum was likely trying to speak with a polite and conciliatory tone, which was lost on you if you are going to call them "bruh." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ive literally given you so many reliable sources and you're just ignoring them, how about this, give me a reliable source that says israel won the war. Ali36800p (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There are twelve cited reliable sources right in this article. You can find them right at the victory section. Most of yours have been ignored for not at all supporting your claim, and the only one that has was a student essay. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

who is in charge here? because this is not just Ali36800p (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you don't know how Wikipedia works if you are asking that question. Please familiarize yourself with the various policy pages. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

have you ever heard of sarcasm?? i can literally give you more reliable sources and you'll just ignore them Ali36800p (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

do you want me to give you more sources or are you just going to keep ignoring them? Ali36800p (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

While you are learning Wikipedia policies, please read no personal attacks and assume good faith. I didn't ignore your sources; your sources did not back up your claim or was a student essay. We have twelve sources supporting the current infobox on the result. I could ask if you are ignoring them, but I'm assuming that you've read them in good faith. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. HouseBlaster^talk 23:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

i have more sources to back up my claim that egypt won the yom kippur war:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Yom-Kippur-War

https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/xx1yju/yom_kippur_war_and_egypt/

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/10/8/the-october-arab-israeli-war-of-1973-what-happened

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1022141.pdf

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-10-19/ty-article/.premium/so-who-won-the-yom-kippur-war/0000017f-e02b-d75c-a7ff-fcaf8d740000 Ali36800p (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You've already posted most of these sources and they either don't support your position, are opinion pieces (thus not RS) or student essays (see above). Again, read Wikipedia policies, and then come back here and try this again. I'll add WP:SYNTH to the list. You cannot synthesize the position that "Egypt won the war" from a source saying "Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal more easily than expected" and "Egypt's goal was to cross the canal." I'll put it another way; UN forces reached the outskirts of the Yalu river during the beginning of the Korean War far more rapidly than was expected, and doing so was an aim of UN forces, but the result of the war wasn't a UN victory. Reliable sources generally agree that the result was inconclusive, and there was little in the way of territorial change. Synthesizing a position by mixing together statements from multiple sources together to say something that isn't individually in any of those sources violates Wikipedia policies. Have you read the policies we have directed you to? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

no, i haven't read the policies, all i'm aasking for you is to include egypt's military victory or just say that both sides claimed victory, why can't we agree on that?? Ali36800p (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Because this website operates on Wikipedia's policies, and not the personal wishes, dreams, and gentlemen agreements of individual editors. I'm telling you flat out, you will not get the changes that you want on any of the pages you've been trying to do this doing it this way. To get your edits approved, you must follow Wikipedia policies in your proposal and supporting evidence (reliable sources) for them. Otherwise, they will not happen. That's just plain how this website works. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

ok fine then, where can i find the policies?? Ali36800p (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

By following the wikilinks to them that I and other editors have been giving you for this entire conversation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

can you please give me the wikilink one more time please? Ali36800p (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No. There all here in this conversation. You are perfectly capable of reading through it. I'm kind of done trying to help you. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

is AI a reliable source? Ali36800p (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No, of course it isn't. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

why? it's unbiased and get its information from reliable sources, what if i can quote what AI says and cite the sources for you? Ali36800p (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You've no way of knowing that the sources AI is using qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia, especially since (by your own admission) you have not read such pages. AI is not unbiased, it is biased by what is used for its training library and database, and has been found to be quite unreliable. Hell, I've asked it scientific questions and it has given me factually incorrect answers and made up sources that literally do not exist. Ali, what you need to do is drop the stick and not come back until you have read Wikipedia policies. That means end this conversation, because you will not get your requested edits made until you request them in a way that doesn't violate WP policies. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah well, this page right here has factually incorrect answers and i'm trying to edit it but you won't let me, so it's not any different, and i will give you a 100 more reliable sources Ali36800p (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2023

"A destroyed Israeli M48 Patton tanks on the banks of the Suez Canal" This caption disagrees on the number of tank in the picture. There appear to be two tanks, so I would suggest: "Destroyed Israeli M48 Patton tanks on the banks of the Suez Canal" Francis2559 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

"A Syrian FROG-7 artillery rockets struck the Israeli Air Force base of Ramat David"

Should likely be "rocket," singular. Must agree with the first word at least. Francis2559 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I went for "rockets" plural based on what I could find in sources, though it's admittedly weak, so if this gets changed to "rocket" later with better support then that's cool.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023 (2)

" with last Israeli troops exiting on April 26, 1982"

with "the" last, I expect. Francis2559 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2023 (2)

"There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."

'That this was,' perhaps? I can't see the source but this seems an obvious typo. Can anyone review? Francis2559 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Commenting here since I resolved all the others; only reason I didn't do this one was because I couldn't access the source, would like to leave this to someone with access to that to review.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I don't have access to the source either, but even if that is the original phrasing, it can be corrected as it's obviously erroneous. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

Egypt won this war and this is obvious as Egyptians returned their stolen land back and Israel's leaders said this by their tongue so why writing wrong info plz update Youssef AbuElSoud (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, your statement that "Egyptians returned their stolen land back" doesn't make any sense in support of your claim – generally you don't give up land when you win a war. Tollens (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

Can anyone see if the word humiliation in lead "the Arab world had experienced humiliation in the lopsided rout of the Egyptian–Syrian–Jordanian alliance" feels unencyclopedic. Can anyone change it to "experienced defeat"? 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

the result is wrong: Egypt's military victory*, Israel lost. McKenzie-Smith, R. H. (1976). CRISIS DECISIONMAKING IN ISRAEL: THE CASE OF THE OCTOBER 1973 MIDDLE EAST WAR. Naval War College Review, 29(1), 39–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44641386 Christineguindy (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Would you mind actually reading your source before claiming it supports your incorrect view? Per your source: "from the purely military point of view, the fighting ended with a clear-cut Israeli victory". Also, see above sections on this talk page Cannolis (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

Remove "Partial Egyptian political victory" from the result. It was added on October 13, 2023, at 07:36 by a user named The Great Mule of Eupatoria, with an edit summary:

(Mentioned in the source, Egypt saw some sort of victory unlike the lopsided wars of before and some vindication. Direct quotation from the citation: 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...)

The book the user cited seems to be this one, page 6. But I don't see anything in it that clearly states or even implies that the result was objectively a partial Egyptian political victory. Here's a screenshot of the page: https://imgur.com/ZI2GQDI Modrenebe (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of the text (based on the material in the middle of the page) is that the war led to the 1974-1975 disengagement agreements and the regaining of the Sinai Peninsular in the 1979 peace treaty. I suppose this could be considered a political victory, and this content has been mentioned in the Yom_Kippur_War#Aftermath section too. Liu1126 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

no, its correct Ali36800p (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liu1126, here, one of Wikipedia policies states:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Modrenebe (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

per Template:Infobox military conflict "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"". It's for the immediate military situation. Anything more complicated should refer to the relevant section in the article. The included sources all support Israeli victory, and a link to the aftermath section was already included. The result should be reverted to this state. (Hohum ^@) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

ive never heard of X victory, but it was also a military and political victory for egypt Ali36800p (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion needs to be based on wikipedia processes and reliable sources, not editor opinion. (Hohum ^@) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and @Liu1126's understanding above is just original research, which shouldn't be included according to Wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Modrenebe (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hohum: @Modrenebe: I agree with your reasoning. I will revert the result statement back to the original state. Liu1126 (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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

 Comment:If it is stated that "At the 1978 Camp David Accords that followed the war", "the war served as a direct antecedent of the 1978 Camp David Accords", it can be a "political success" for Egypt. And the statement "[military victory] wasn't there before" is wrong, it actually was there for a long time (along with "political gains" for both sides, Camp David Accords and the peace treaty which makes sense). It was removed by Parham wiki quite recently to reconcile with the guidelines regarding the result parameter.--Oloddin (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

Egypt won this war and freed the occupied land of Sinai. 41.35.47.129 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: As you can see above, a lot of users disagree. Maybe for many people the link between the war and the peace treaty is not straightforward. --Oloddin (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

41.34.158.201 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The result of this war was the victory of EGYPT

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Egypt won this war

As Poke10000 said: The war ended up by negotiations which returned all Egyptian territories previously invaded by Israel in 1967. The Syrian borders did not change much, We determine the Victory of countries if they:1.Achieved their goals (and this is the most important rule).2. Get permanent benefits.3.And the least important thing which is having less casualties.Now let's analyze this war:Did Egypt achieve They goals?Yes, They Absolutely did..Their goals were:1.Crossing the canal ✓2.Destroying the barlev line ✓3.Taking Sinai back by peace ✓4.Causing huge damage to Israel ✓5. Retrieving the honor and dignity of the country that is lost in 1967 ✓6. Advancing further than the SAM umbrella ×Now we can all agree that Most of these goals were achieved.Now let's look at Israel.Their goals were:Keep the Sinai ×Push the all the egyptians back in a counter attack ×Take suez ×Take Ismailia ×Encircle the 2nd army ×Make the 3rd army surrender ×Destroy the SAM umbrella of egypt ✓Now if we determine Victory by The achievement of goals then undoubtedly Egypt Won.Now let's look at the casualties:Unfortunately the casualties are super debatable, the arabic sources say that egypt had Casualties about 8528 soilders killed and about 19,000 soilders wounded, The English sources however says that: Egypt had about: 15,000 soiders dead and 30,000 wounded.So I asked my grandfather who is a Yom Kippur war veteran that fought for egypt, and he said that the casualties of egypt are no more than 9,000 soilders which indeed confirm that the arabic sources are TRUE!The Arabic sources also claim that Isreal had about 10,000 dead and 20,000 wounded, which actually makes sense because how on Earth would you fight on two fronts and have only 2600 Casualties it's impossible!So of we talk about casualties I will have to give this point to egypt, because it just makes sense.Now let's move on to permanent benefits: Egypt obviously wins this round too, because DUH they got the Sinai peninsula back, every inch of it..(even if it was because of the peace deal, cause the main objective is getting back the Sinai, doesn't matter how Egypt gets it)As for isreal they gained too, they still kept all of the golan heights, and ALSO Syria lost this war completely it was a total failure for them, and both countries gained peace.I hope I helped, May peace flourish around the world , may we live in a world with no wars or blood spilled on the ground. , And I think that more than enough proof , But I think this is a "Both Country claim victory" as Tabs said ,Since Egypt Celebrate it and Israel also claim they won it but For this proof We know Who actually won and I think setting it to Egypt won would be better Mohamed2046 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Once again, as has been said many times on this page, you need to provide reliable sources to support your claim, or no changes will be made and this discussion dismissed. This article currently has 12 reliable sources as citations for the Israeli victory, and no amount of coming here with walls of text and not a single reliable source provided is going to result in any change when we have so many citations supporting the article in its current form. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what I am supposed to do?, Like send a website source or just getting info from trusted website and use -website name at the end? Mohamed2046 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Also why is Simple Wikipedia Saying That Egypt was the one who won:

The Egyptians celebrate victory that day since they successfully attacked at the start of the war. The Syrians, on the other hand, do not like to talk about the war, as much of it was seen as a defeat, rather than a victory or stalemate. Mohamed2046 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, and follow it. I do not know the policies or editors of "Simple Wikipedia," nor do I care. They are an entirely different project from this one. Here on Wikipedia, we follow our policies, and there on "Simple Wikipedia," they follow there's. What holidays Egyptians celebrate isn't really all that relevant anymore than what holidays Israel celebrates or Syria celebrates (or doesn't celebrate, as the case may be). Celebrating a holiday isn't really evidence of a historical fact. As an example, much of the western world celebrates December 25th as the birthday of Jesus, even though basically all evidence (if any even definitively shows Jesus existed at all) wasn't born on December 25th. Holidays established by governments can also be used for propaganda purposes to push a specific narrative, one way or the other. The United States celebrates Columbus Day in part to promote Italian cultural acceptance in the US and the American narrative of the history of North America, despite the fact that Columbus didn't land in what would become the US, other Europeans likely preceded him to what would become the US, and native Americans definitely preceding Columbus in reaching North America by tens of thousands of years. Wikipedia requires our information to come from and be supported by reliable sources (see the policy that I've linked you to). Given that this article currently has 12 reliable sources supporting an Israeli victory, we absolutely cannot use the celebration of a holiday (whether in Egypt, Israel, or Syria) as proof of victory, and the bar is probably going to be high in refuting our 12 existing sources. I'll leave the latter to when sources are presented, which over the many times this topic is brought up, basically no one does. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you need reliable resources here is one from Cambridge University https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/arab-world-and-western-intelligence/yom-kippur-war/1E9171C96853CA45F585BB061C108F00

citation: Rezk, D. (2017). Yom Kippur War. In The Arab World and Western Intelligence: Analysing the Middle East, 1956–1981(Intelligence, Surveillance, and Secret Warfare, pp. 249-283). Edinburgh University Press.

And here’s one

https://www.routledge.com/Revisiting-the-Yom-Kippur-War/Kumaraswamy/p/book/9780714680675

citation: Peretz, Don. (2002). Revisiting the Yom Kippur War (review). Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies. 20. 135-136. 10.1353/sho.2002.0077.

Check these 2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285222220_The_Watchman_Fell_Asleep_The_Surprise_of_the_Yom_Kippur_War_and_Its_Sources_review

citation: Miller, Rory. (2008). The Watchman Fell Asleep: The Surprise of the Yom Kippur War and Its Sources (review). Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies. 27. 134-136. 10.1353/sho.0.0282.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235143284_Strategic_Analysis_Anwar_Sadat_and_the_1973_October_War

citation: Hilkowitz, Steven & Jeter, Drew. (2023). Strategic Analysis Anwar Sadat and the 1973 October War. 20.

check this This is the Jewish JTA daily new bulletin December 14, 1979

https://www.jta.org/archive/mrs-meir-was-close-to-suicide-at-early-stages-of-the-yom-kippur-war

let me know if you want more, if there are 12 reliable citations and recourses about Israel's victory we have millions about the Egyptian victory. 41.34.135.117 (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

For each, quote the phrase which says Egypt won the war. Then we might check if the sources are reliable. (Hohum ^@) 14:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

it seems you need help to find the truth well like no one knows it, this is a history of taking sinai back and a strategic endeavor that has left an indelible mark in history and is studied in military academies around the world not a quote to highlight, i won't say anything other than the egyptian President Mohamed Anwar Sadat, the hero of war and peace, ordered the return of the Israeli prisoners wearing Castor pajamas produced by the famous Mahalla spinning factories, and the prisoners actually arrived in Tel Aviv wearing these pajamas, and Golda Meir; She had been confident of ultimate Israeli victory, Hazan said, even during the worst moments to the war. But she felt — as she told him — that her own life had become worthless as result of the pre-war catastrophe, and she no longer wished to live. Why, then had she not carried out her suicide urge? Because, Hazan quoted her as saying, she felt that to do so would be to weaken the resolve of the young fighting soldiers on the battlefield.

change it to the truth or not it does't matter because wikipedia is not considered as a reliable resource for any information, but you can't change the history. Hehe bye 41.34.135.117 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@41.34.135.117 You know that you could change the article if you present reliable sources right? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@41.34.135.117 Indeed, with reliable sources actually supporting your claim. The return of territory nearly a decade after the war ended due to a treaty signed several years after the war ended (and not directly related to said war, but to the overall relations over several decades), these are not evidence of a victory or defeat for either side in said war. Nor are pajamas, if that even happened. Nor is a prime minister contemplating suicide at the start of a war (lots of things can change between the start of a war and the end of a war). That's what at least one of the new sources presents; not anything about who won at the end of the war, just suicidal thoughts by a prime minister at the start of the war. If your other sources are of this caliber and content, then you have not presented anything in support of your claim. Quote in your sources where it says Egypt won the war. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Again it’s not a quoted phrase it’s a strategy you won’t understand it except when you read it, i think you need to add to your knowledge so open any trusted research site with citation and write yom kippur war, or 6th of October war. Because again there’s no quoted phrase said that israel won but there’s a quoted phrase says “israels 1973 intelligence failure”

again the whole world knows that wikipedia is not a reliable resource so this is just for your knowledge 41.34.135.117 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

An intelligence failure at the start of a war does not mean that the war was lost by the party with the intelligence failure. The two are not in any way synonymous. Unless your sources actually say that Egypt won the war, you do not have sources saying that Egypt won the war. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you hate Wikipedia so much, you are free to leave, no one is forcing you to be here, and you shouldn't care what is said on this website. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

Result Israeli victory[25] (see aftermath) I want to change the above to : In the 1973 war, Egypt emerged triumphant, securing a notable victory over Israel. This conflict marked a significant turning point in the region's history. Fadwa hany (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done please see WP:NPOV Andre🚐 20:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Result

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

What should be written in the Result field in the infobox?

• Option 1: Unchanged
• Option 2: Egypt victory
• Option 3: Only "(See the Aftermath section)"
• Option 4: Israeli military victory, Egypt political victory
• Option 5: Format not mentioned in other options

Parham wiki (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Note

Survey

Discussion

We have twelve cited sources supporting the current phrasing, and in opening this RFC, you've not presented a single opposing source. I don't think this even merits having an RFC at this time. There is not a disagreement remotely following Wikipedia policy to be commented upon. The article status quo is well sourced, and those opposing it just seem to not like it as written, but not based upon any policy dispute or present sources actually supporting a change to the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: I have no idea about changing the result. My only intention is to reach a consensus like what happened in Talk:Battle of Bakhmut. Please review WP:RfC. Parham wiki (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki Consensus is not the only standard for how Wikipedia articles are to be written. See WP:RS and WP:V. No sources at all have been presented that would support changing the current phrasing. If anything, this page should see a return to partial protection against anonymous and not-autoconfirmed editors spamming it, not having an RFC. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Noting for the record, that this Rfc was closed in this edit by Parham_wiki at 15:43, 27 October, citing "Per User:OuroborosCobra" in the edit summary. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

How come Israel won while Israelites are now out of Sinai?

How come Israel won while Israelites are now out of Sinai 154.176.137.109 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The same question could be asked about the Six Day War in 1967. More events can follow other events. You are fallaciously assuming that because Israel doesn't control the Sinai in 2023, it must have lost it in 1973, forgetting that with 50 years in between, other events may have occurred. Do you know who controlled the Sinai in 1975? It wasn't Egypt. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

130.204.57.207 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

In the category of ‘result,’ neither side achieved a clear and decisive victory

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2023

Change: "General Al-Shazy ordered the execution of Israeli POWs during the Yom Kippur War." to: "No credible sources support the claim that General Al-Shazy ordered the execution of Israeli POWs during the Yom Kippur War." Lyon11 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Our article doesn't say "General Al-Shazy ordered the execution of Israeli POWs during the Yom Kippur War." anywhere Cannolis (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Lyon11, in this case, your edit is not going to happen as you are asking for a polar opposite changing of a sourced statement without providing any source of your own to support your change. That's just not how Wikipedia works, in this article or any article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

on the egyptian front, it was an egyptian victory, it was only an israeli victory on the syrian front, i have sources to back up this claim: 24.172.129.3 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

References

So, you've pasted all the sources already in the article being used to support a general Israeli victory, to say it wasn't a victory against Egypt? I try to assume good faith, but I don't believe you've reviewed these sources, since they directly contradict your assertion. (Hohum ^@) 14:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There are literally tons of sources to support the claim that the war ended in a stalemate, do you want me to list them?? 2603:6010:1C00:325:9835:7F52:753:C950 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and if you do, do it in a new edit request. This one has been answered. I suggest you read this talk page and the archives of it, and fully understand what a reliable source is, first though. (Hohum ^@) 00:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

ok, i just made a new edit request below 2603:6010:1C00:325:9835:7F52:753:C950 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2603:6010:1c00:325::/64 blocked three months - block evasion. Adakiko (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wth is that?!

Its all basically israelis narrating their side of the story and the estimates of losses. You a basically trying so hard to make it look as if israelis were bunch of spartan warriors that won every battle outnumbered and took few losses. I would like to see a full egyptian side of the story. Also where were those other country’s soldiers? Like saudi and morocco? Just adding flags to enforce the idea that it was a coalition fighting against israel which is not true. There were very few units. The number of egyptians who crossed were around 80000 while israel had over 180000 in sinai. The egyptians were outnumber and outgunned. Israel doesn’t give away lands for free or peace, if thats the case they would have given back the golan heights and west bank to palestinians who are asking for exactly that or they would have given back sinai before the war because thats exactly what sadat offered. I will get proper sources from unbiased sources and post them. And don’t come bringing me some american sources, although they wont be as biased as the israeli which looks like an unfunny joke they would still try to make israel look like it won the war and the conceded the land because israelis are bunch of peaceful white doves😂 94.21.98.52 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any specific edit suggestions, supported by reliable sources? Also, can you demonstrate that you even read the article? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, Israel won. The Egyptian and Syrian goal was not reached. AstroSaturn (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that why Egypt retained control of most of the suez at the end of the war? The Egyptian goal was 100% reached The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The goal was to regain the land by force and to humiliate Israel which obviously failed. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt’s goal was to gain a foothold in the eastern bank of the suez, which it did, and to humiliate Israel, which it did The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM. We go by what WP:RS provide, not editor opinion. (Hohum ^@) 20:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I still get confused by the forum policy, which to be fair to myself m is a blurry line. I’ve already made my case in another discussion on this talk page with the necessary citations The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypts goal was to regain the territory that was lost in the 6 day war by force. Instead, they lost more land and faced another humiliating defeat. Look, I know that certain people can't accept facts about the yom kippur war but at some point you have to. AstroSaturn (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Egyptian army's objective, known as Operation Badr, was to cross the canal and advance 30km into the Sinai to establish a defensive line, and on this basis begin negotiations with Israel. (30km because that was the range of the SAM missiles, and beyond that it would have been suicidal to advance the tanks, knowing that the Israeli air force had the upper hand thanks to US weapons)... The objective was achieved in a matter of days, and in the 2 weeks that followed no Israeli offensive was able to break through Egypt's lines.

The frightened Israel then assembled a Gerico missile and more or less threatened the US to provoke World War 3 if it didn't provide air support, which the USA did, and thanks to these weapons counter-attacked Egypt. The Egyptian army held the 80km front except at one point

Egypt's aim was to be in a position of strength, or at least in an equitable position with Israel, which was arrogant and wouldn't give up after the '67 war. Sadat even spoke of taking "even 10 cm of Sinai".

Then I'd really like to know if this is a joke or not, why are Jewish authors quoted for the figures (soldiers present, dead...), really, is it a joke? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a serious, neutral site? OlafLePacha (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Egypt was not militarily or strategically on par with Israel, even without direct American involvement in the war (emphasis on in the war), regardless of how cheap the Israeli victory is, it is still an Israeli victory in the military and strategic sense, but politically Israel was (still is and will continue to be) the overall loser.

I do believe the page (like it's Arabic translations) has a lot of bias, especially considering the fact there are no segments for Israeli atrocities (surely those didn't happen, us Arabs are always the baddies!), but I think the reason why Western sources are often cited over Arab ones is because (and I'm speaking as an Egyptian here); we lie a lot! and when we don't lie, we omit and mislead, and when we're not doing that, we're speaking in exaggerated prose about heroism and martyrdom and blah blah blah.

Of course, the US does too, but it has higher standards over who can be called a professional, and those professionals adhere to legal and moral codes: like citing other sources (these numbers aren't magic), while Arab authors aren't held to the same standards and usually receive praise for going along with the Arab perspective.

If Egypt was aiming to be equal with Israel, it failed and will continue to fail, if Egypt was aiming to win back the Suez by force, then they failed at that too by the time the ceasefire was drafted (don't just cut out the conclusions), and if Egypt was aiming to regain Sinai: they sorta did it...but not in the way military command had hoped.

I remember the Results section in the Infobox showing "Israeli Military Victory, Egyptian Political Victory", I'm in support of bringing that back, as it's the most inclusive and representative of the overall timeline of events. MagiTagi (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself, I've made myself quite clear. Find out more about this war, this war on the Egyptian side was the continuation of a political action to take back Sinai through negotiation.

There was NEVER any question of taking it back by force. Egypt knew it couldn't do it because of the material air superiority conferred by US equipment.

As I said, it was a question of restoring a certain balance in the face of an arrogant Israel that refused to negotiate following the success of the 6-Day War.

Sadat's words and the course of the war on the Egyptian side confirm this. And we can consider that it went according to plan.

Then there's no question of Western or Arab sources, but of Jewish ones. I'm certainly not talking about putting in Arab sources, but putting in Jewish sources is just as silly. OlafLePacha (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've notified you of the special rules in editing about this topic area on your user talk page, you are not permitted to edit about this topic until your account is extended-confirmed(30 days and 500 edits). 331dot (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

Egypt won in the war and Israel lost. In the end, Egypt regained full control over Sinai until this day. 154.180.118.56 (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. As you can see above, there have been numerous discussions about this issue that failed to reach consensus. If you wan't to start a new one (if there's any point in doing so), you should create it under a new section, not as an edit request. Liu1126 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Inconclusive/Stalemate on Egyptian front suggestion/consideration

PRIMARY SOURCES (Tightly coupled with the conflict)

this one can be considered secondary as its an analysis of data but since its CIA , it can be considered closer to a primary source .

I had found a secret CIA intelligence report that got declassified on 2012 , it was created on 1975 , 2 years after the war , on the last paragraph of page 24 to 25 it states that the fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note .So it states it as a fact . It also states and I paraphrase that the arab armies had remained undefeated until the end of the war , so a full military defeat seems to be a bit offshore and more of a stalemate or inconclusive as the report had indicated . I think this source is more credible than alot of the books or articles published on the war's conclusion as the CIA was monitoring the war via satellites and more closely via multiple SR-71 black bird passes , this report had been made even though the US has been Israel's ally during the war so that also should give it immense consideration .

Here is the report :-

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

citation: CIA, (1975). The 1973 Arab-Israeli War.Overview and Analysis of the Conflict.

---

This source from the US National security archives in a military briefing between the israeli general Elazar and Henry Kissinger on October 22nd . On page 2 general Elazar states :-

"Unfortunately, we didn't manage to finish the Third Army "

And

" the idea was to encircle the third army and destroy and capture its forces

Here :-

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf

citation: NSA , (1973) ,Military Briefing The Guest House

Golda Meir as well as Dayan had also been in this meeting , so its basically team blue .

---

Elaborating on the above report I found from israeli commanders themselves on a video from the AP archive on the Egyptian front at the time of their counter-attack on 19/10/73. From 1:05 to 1:33 again by Chief of Staff David Elazar who said that they are creating the necessary conditions to open their major offensive and not an end in itself ,also at 1:54 by Shmuel Gonen .

Here is the AP Archive video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSr6ndq6gnw

So the objective was clear to the military generals until October 22nd to not just surround third army but destroy it . Surrounding occurred but the destruction part they didn't achieve . So a good tactical position they got without using it to decisively beat the Egyptians as planned .

---

This other source again from Henry Kissinger himself the US secretary of state in a MEMORANDUM in 1975 where he states to the Jewish community in NY the US policy before and after the war .In it he finally admits it  :-

Some have claimed that it was American strategy to produce a stalemate in the 1973 war. This is absolutely wrong. What we wanted was the most massive Arab defeat possible so that it would be clear to the Arabs that they would get nowhere with dependence on the Soviets. What caused the stalemate was the fact that the Israelis were not ready for the war. Also, if anything, the Israelis did not give us sufficient information during the war. Near the end, we did not even know that they were headed south. I even asked them.

He also states :-

We went to Moscow because we wanted to delay Security Council consideration. We wanted to delay the Security Council in order to give Israel 72 more hours to fight. Going to Moscow was our way to give Israel more time. If the Israelis had trapped the Third Army during the war it would not have been an American problem and we could have left it alone. But trapping the Third Army after a US-arranged ceasefire was in effect made it our problem, and even then the United States went on nuclear alert to scare the Soviets out of unilateral action. So this group should understand that stalemate was not our goal.

Here is the Memorandum

https://merip.org/1981/05/kissinger-memorandum-to-isolate-the-palestinians/

citation: Kissinger Memorandum: “To Isolate the Palestinians”," Middle East Report 96 (May/June 1981).

---

SECONDARY RESOURCES

Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, No Vanquished: The Arab-Israeli War, 1973, Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1997,

https://archive.org/details/novictornovanqui0000obal/page/374/mode/2up?view=theater

• From the website you can borrow for 1 hour

PG 268

The situation was as much a stalemate as a siege, although the Israelis did not like to see it that way.

&

PG 330

The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north. Politically speaking, the war drastically changed the situation in the Middle East from the almost crystallised one of No Peace, No War, to one of No Victor, No Vanquished. In short, both sides gained advantages and suffered disadvantages, the Arabs perhaps gaining far more than the Israelis. The Palestinians, in whose cause the Arabs fought, also gained politically, and by mid-November 1973 the Soviet Union was calling for implementation of Palestinian “national rights,’ as opposed to the customary but less definite “legitimate rights.” The U.S.S.R. was followed by Japan which recognised the “legitimate rights” of the Palestinian people, while in March 1974 Italy recognised their “national rights.’

---

Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin, Summary of "Tactical Stalemates"

the parties declared a cease-fire which left both sides stalemated.

---

Association for diplomatic studies and training , Negotiating the End of the Yom Kippur War, September 18, 2015

https://adst.org/2015/09/negotiating-the-end-of-the-yom-kippur-war/

So there was a kind of stalemate on the military front, or at least the signals coming from both the Israelis and the Egyptians were: Let’s get serious about the cease-fire.

---

Aljazera the-october-arab-israeli-war-of-1973-what-happened

The counterattack majorly turned the tide of the war in favor of the Israelis, and the fighting came to a stalemate.

---

Tzabag, Shmuel. , Termination of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Syria: Positions, decisions and constraints at Israel's ministerial level,  Middle Eastern Studies; London Vol. 37, Iss. 4, (Oct 2001)

https://www.proquest.com/docview/203258534?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

The first page in this source states that :-

Israel's primary objectives included the frustration of Egyptian and Syrian goals, the protection of its territories and the prevention of any military achievement by its rivals. Israel's ensuing goals included the staging of a counter-offensive to repel the Syrian and Egyptian forces from the Golan Heights and from the Sinai, and to terminate the war in a better military and political position than it had when the war started.

Zooming in on :-

1. prevention of any military achievement
2. repel Egyptian forces from the Sinai
3. terminate the war in a better military and political position

according to the current wiki article there was a military achievement by the Egyptians , Egyptian forces were not repelled from the Sinai as their armies stayed intact and at war's end yes they may have been in a better military position but not in a better political one since there was the first disengagement and resignation of Golda Meir a year later .

---

I think it would be safe to change "israeli victory" to "israeli military victory on the Syrian front and Stalemate on the Egyptian front"."Egyptian Third army surrounded" can also be added.

These sources are very closely coupled with the conflict and well documented and thus require consideration .

--Osmarion (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmarion (talk • contribs)

From that source. "The October war was complex and the information available to analyze it is flawed and incomplete"

Far more information has come to light in the intervening 48 years. (Hohum ^@) 20:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Hohum, I had rectified my argument and added more resources to support it , I also want to state that the CIA report mentioned the inconclusive result as a fact ,& I quote "the fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note" Osmarion (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources are WP:PRIMARY, rather than WP:SECONDARY, which is far from ideal, especially for supporting drawing a definitive fact spoken in wikipedias voice. (Hohum ^@) 11:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hohum Thanks ! . I'll try to find them secondary sources then, but for now I mainly want to maintain these sources as provisions to help build support for the argument ; I think they are good preliminary sources as I haven't modified any of the quotations , they were directly copied from source and I honestly think they are , just that , straightforward descriptive statements of facts as the WP-PRIMARY link you had shared stated in its 3rd point , if you think they are subject to double meanings then please let me know :). However , thanks again Hohum :) Osmarion (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

These sources aren't usable anyway, they are cherry-picked WP:PRIMARY WP:OR and WP:RGW POV pushing against consensus in reliable recent scholarly historical material, which this is not. Andre🚐 02:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes your right :) , I told Hohm that I'll try finding them secondary sources which Iam currently doing , and there are :) . The problem is that there are alot of interesting recent declassified material from both CIA ,NSA and Israeli archives that I believe would cause alot of scholarly revisions of this relatively recent conflict . So consensus isn't so absolute as we might think it is :).

The NSA sources specially were recorded conversations that actually took place , they aren't speculations or analysis thats why I stated that they are good preliminary provisions to build an argument Osmarion (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Those sources aren't usable since they are primary. You'll need to wait for them to be interpreted by reputable secondary sources. Andre🚐 20:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I made an update with some secondary resources ,let me know its necessary to add more .2A02:8071:5280:9000:9DC4:858:CD12:91D1 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

[6] 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)

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 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)

“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)

So it's Unanimous, in the Suez front the north is Egyptian victory and the south is a partial israeli victory so logically it's a Stalemate, thats excluding the Egyptian political victory Kelcoz (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Despite all my explanations and several sources including admissions from Israeli military staff, the editors seem adamant to simplify the entire outcome of this war as “Israeli victory” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:20, 29 May 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,[7] 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[8] 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 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 think a consensus has been reached in February 2024, as the argument has been settled since Kelcoz (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus reach. I have shown several sources and no rfc or no discussion has taken place. “Israeli victory” is incorrect and a distortion, that not even the Hebrew Wikipedia article of this war states The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:48, 8 June 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 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)

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)