Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 4

"Nuclear Alert section

I propose renaming this section as it has little to do with any country's nuclear alert. Instead it should be renamed and rewritten into a section on US and Soviet reactions to the conflict. According to this section, the only forces being 'spun up' during the crisis were conventional Soviet forces in the event they would intervene on the Arab countries' behalf. PTPLauthor (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jordan didn't participate

it says in the article that king hussein of jordan secretly flew to tel aviv and warned golda meir of an impending attack....besides why would jordan then side with egypt and syria if they warned israel of an attack by egypt and syria (doesnt make any sense!!!)

--71.251.15.105 (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Six Day War, Jordan lost the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. As a result half of Jordan's population came under Israeli occupation, and refugees flooded the country. Hussein didn't want another confrontation with Israel, and hence he warned Golda Meir, to ensure his country would not be under threat of Israeli attack. During the war, Hussein was pressured to reinforce Syria on the battlefield. The token Jordanian troops sent to help the Syrians were more of a show of Jordan's solidarity with the Arab World than a real desire to help the Syrians and influence the war's outcome. Hussein made this clear to the Israelis, which is why they did not attack Jordan during the war. It makes perfect sense. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi reinforcements

From the introduction, this sentence is slightly confusing : "By the second week of the war, they had been pushed out of the Golan Heights as the Israelis launched their own attack and Iraqi reinforcements arrived to the battlefield." This makes it seem as if the Iraqi reinforcements joined the Isreali counter-attack and help them in pushing the Syrians back. Yet in the main article it says (correctly) that the Iraqi reinforcements were sent to help the Syrians. So the line in the introduction should be changed ? 84.196.118.120 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Flag

The Egyptian Flag back in 1973 war was the one made during Nasser's era (with 2 green stars not the eagle) which is now syria's flag so i think this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.17.176 (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the Golan Heights, the Syrians attacked the Israeli defenses of two brigades and eleven artillery batteries with five divisions and 188 batteries. At the onset of the battle, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced off against approximately 1,400 Syrian tanks. Despite the overwhelming odds and the fact that most of the Syrian tanks were equipped with night-fighting equipment, every Israeli tank deployed on the Golan Heights was engaged during the initial attacks. Syrian commandos dropped by helicopter also took the most important Israeli stronghold at Jabal al Shaikh (Mount Hermon), which had a variety of surveillance equipment.

Particularly the phrase, "Despite the overwhelming odds..." I don't see why it's surprising that every Israeli tank was engaged with that kind of disparity in numbers?

I agree - I read this paragraph through about ten times, and I can't make out what the author intended to say. I am just going to eliminate everything from 'Despite' to 'equipment,' so the sentence will just read 'Every Israeli tank...' The fact that the Arabs had night-vision equipment on their tanks is mentioned elsewhere, and the 'overwhelming odds' thing just doesn't make sense (and those odds are mentioned elsewhere as well).

I think that's pretty obvious, actually. If there are overwhelming odds, and you have an additional disadvantage due to the night, then the obvious action is to retreat a bit and wait until the situation is better. Despite that, they engaged every tank they had, which means they could have *lost* every tank they had. Who knows, maybe I have a lack of understanding of military strategy. Does that make sense to anybody else? Stdarg 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

we should mention that Egypt won the war and returned half of sinai and the other half returned after peace contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrafmoh2000 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe the fact that not a single tank battle was fought during the night, and that every single israeli tank was capable of destroying any kind of vehicle at ranges of some 3000 meters, while the best tank syria had was not even able to engage israeli tanks beyond 1600 meters. ie. israeli tanks had 1400 meters "free of charge" in terms of enemy fire. that would mean being able to destroy the emeny without losing a single unit for about 3 hours, since the T-62 article mentions that it's off road speed is 40 km/h, and regarding the L7 105mm gun rate of fire -which every single israeli tank used-, i would feel comfortable to but 150 units with such specification to stop 1400 steal boxs.

in the other hand, the egyptian participating in the war with even less capable armour fleet than the syrians, knew that their armour was no match for the israeli armour in that war. the solution was relaying on infantry -the only arm in which egypt had the superiority, excluding the navy- to protect tanks, while tanks were actually invented to protect infantry.

And it worked, the israelis lost about 100 tanks, while destroying 400 on the syrian front; and lost about 500 tanks, while destroying the same number on the egyptian side; according to them.

The Egyptians however combined the mistakes of both: the syrians who relied on their outclassed armour to stop the israeli one, and the israeli mistake of relaying only on high performance armour, nearly neglecting the infantry rule; when they -the egyptians- throw 2 armoured brigades without infantry cover to face well-prepared islaerli tanks in defense positions wishing an egyptian armour attack, which they knew they were able to stop, and cause sever losses on the already badly outclassed enemy armour. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If Egypt won the war then there would have been no need for the Soviets to intervene on their side, as they threatened to do. The Egyptians DID win a very credible battle - that the Israelis can be defeated. They were in fact NOT defeated, but were made to retreat, the land (Sinai) that was in their possession was overtaken initially, and their positions overrun. Truly it was a brilliantly executed maneuver on Egypt's side. Unfortunately for them, they out ran their supply lines, their air cover, and ran straight into Israel's reinforcements. In Syria's case, there was no real chance for the Israeli tanks to outclass the Syrians, simply because the defenders (Israel) where overwhelmed, and quickly the battle was fought at extremely close distances - hundreds and sometime tens of feet, and at night. In this case as well the fault is with the attackers who after their initial victories stopped short and waited in what they considered to be advantageous positions, expecting reinforcements to soon start a counterattack. bullwhip 13:23, 23 December 2009 (PST)

Invaded v captured

Which is preferable "Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been invadedby Israel in 1967" or "Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been captured by Israel in 1967"? It seems to me that the relevant matter is the capture not the invasion and invasion has negative connotations anyways, so capture is more NPOV. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment before posting this comment. Anyway, Invasion is the mere act of occupation and has no negative connotation. Actually, "captured" sets a much lighter tone to what happened in 1967 than it deserves.

I'll replace "capture" with "invade" while waiting for this discussion to jump start (if ever).

For God's sake Raul645 hold yourself. You're showing how biased you are. I keep up bringing this up to discussion even on your Talk page and you insist on your absurd blocking policy. Would you care to explain how the usage of "invade" is a non-neutral point of view? You just keep on reverting changes and blocking without taking the time to discuss. Why on earth is the use of this discussion page if it is to be ignored and bypassed by an admin who clearly believes that his own views are the only "neutral" point of views. Let me remind you Raul645 that I brought the issue of your outrageous blockings up on your own talk page and you choose not to reply and went further to delete my comment. Yet again, I'll wait a considerable amount of time for discussions before replacing "capture" with "invade". The fact I repeatively bring the issue to discussion and wait for replys (which I don't get) before making my edits cleary proves that I'm not pushing a POV as you claim. On the contrary, he who suppressively blocks me atleast three times (once without even mentioning a reason) without discussion is the one who's pushing his biased POV on the article.

Capture is both more accurate and less inflamatory than invade. Raul654 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that capture is more accurate isn't even an argument. How come the Israeli forces "capture" of Sinai and Golan Heights which were righteously controled by the Egyptians and Syrians doesn't qualify as invasion. What's "invasion" if that's not it? As with being inflamatory, you can't be inflammatory by merely stating the fact that happened on land.

Capture is more accurate because Israel did not start any of the wars. Even the 1956 war and the Six Day War was caused by Egyptian actions.

I think the most accurate statement would be "invaded and captured". Invaded or captured alone is ambiguous, because land may be invaded without being captured (i.e. the invading force was not victorious), and land may likewise be captured without being invaded (i.e. it was captured through diplomatic negotiation after the war itself). --JaceCady 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are incorrect about the use of the word captured. Usually if it happens through negotiation, you would say too possession.

My reading of the history (which may be tainted by the perspective of my sources) is that Israel pre-emptively attacked Syria and Egypt (and Jordan) at the start of the Six Day War. Some argue whether the pre-emptive attack was justified. That is reasonable but the Israeli perspective is that Israel 'captured' the Golan and Sinai. The Arabs consider that those territories were invaded, but that implies that the Israeli attack was entirely unprovoked, which I think is an unreasonable stretch. Even if the Arab nations did not intend to attack Israel in 1967, Israel could not have known that for sure. Therefore Israel acted in self-defense by its own perspective and the use of 'Captured' seems more balanced than 'Invaded'. This is especially true since Israel has already returned the Sinai to Egypt and seems to generally accept that the Golan will someday be returned to Syria.SimonHolzman 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the Arab countries had already starting working on a plan to cut off water to Israel by diverting water from the Jordan River, I would say that is enough provocation. Additionally, Egypt and other Arab nations had made plain that they were looking for additionally conflict with Israel by expelling UN forces. This included a letter from the UAR to the UN commander. Finally making the Straits of Tiran off limits to Israel was more than enough provocation.

I believe that the sinai, and the golan cannot be having the same description. they were both captured in 67, name that captured or invaded, but the sinai was returned to egypt only by direct, and indirect results of the 73 war. the golan was invaded in thr 67, and israel captured even more lands from syria as a result of the 73. saying that they were not invaded in 67 is ridiculous, since weather the invasion was justified, or not, it stills an invasion. the word captured cannot be a description to the possession of lands through politics.

Dear Raul, i understand that some people would like to make it's actions justified. they also might want to prohibit editing articles that talk about the 73 war.

But please, remove the protection level of the article -added by u-, or at least discuss the matter. there are numerous way in which u or any other editor can stop vandalism, other than prohibiting editing the article even on registered members. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is "invaded" so contentious? Why do people think it has connotations of unjustified action? After all, everyone says the Allies "invaded" Normandy in 1944, and few people think that was unprovoked or unjustified.Manormadman (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Manormadman

POV Title

There must be a total absence of any reference to an "invasion" or "attack" by either Egypt or Syria. Since Golan and Sinai belonged to both of them, it was impossible for them to attack their own territory. Plus, the title of this is violation of NPOV guidelines. "Yom Kippur War" is a term employed by Zionists and Israeli propagandists. The non-biased term for this conflict would be "Arab-Israeli War of 1973"

Absolutely not. In so far as Israeli troops were in those areas after 67, those areas were attacked (you might have a point about the use of the word invaded but attack is certainly accurate). As to the second point, history textbooks and such often refer to the matter as the Yom Kippur War. That's the well-known name and it returns far more google hits than "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" JoshuaZ 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a founding principle and one of the few things Jimbo has declared "non-negotiable", so it's supposed to trump WP:NAME. That is why the article name remains a point of dispute for so many new editors as they arrive. Google hits are not NPOV, so use of them to defend the status quo is a nice feel good effort for those who like the current title, but it's not really a valid point. I certainly don't expect any change in the article's name in the near future, though. Unfocused 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, not this again. That horse has long since been beaten to death. Raul654 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Raul, I'm sure you have more than enough associates in Wikiproject Judaism and Wikiproject Israel with this on their watchlists to make sure this article remains at your preferred title for quite some time. Populism winning over founding policies is rarely as obvious as this, though. I'll ask you again to consider how you'd feel if the readership demographic changed and the article was moved to "Ramadan War". I'd bet we'd have a bid to move it to a mutually agreeable neutral title in a heartbeat rather than have it at a POV title that is claimed to be neutral yet frequently disputed. No need to reply, but this should illustrate why ideally, consensus involves consent of the minority, not just majority rule. Unfocused 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Google hits are POV in that sense. It would be POV to use a name for the article that isn't the common name. Both Ramadan War and "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" simply aren't common names for it in English. I would completely understand if on the Arab language wiki this was titled "Ramadan War" because that's the name that shows up in that language, that is the most NPOV term. In English it is known as the Yom Kippur War generally and thus that's the most NPOV term. NPOV does not mean we need to engage in what amount to borderline neologisms in the interest of making editors feel comfortable. JoshuaZ 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Popularity has nothing to do with NPOV. The logic you use would lead to some very strange and terrible conclusions. Consider, for example, the history of blacks in America and what your logic demand was NPOV regarding their humanity in 1795. No, true NPOV is truly neutral, even if it requires a dry, scientific notation-like naming convention to get there. Further, your claim is incorrect; "Arab Israeli War of 1973" is actually quite popular, although not the most popular.

Regarding most popular, it would be dead simple to re-write the introduction to point out that "Yom Kippur War" is the most frequently use name for the war in the English language. Pointing out that fact in the introduction is the appropriate degree of emphasis for something that is, in fact, merely a popularity comparison. Doing so would not subvert NPOV as is currently being done. Unfocused 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide what people should call things and shouldn't be using a title that isn't the common term. (And if we were writing in 1795 it would perfectly NPOV to observe that the vast majority of people consider blacks to be subhuman (if this were true, it actually wasn't, but that's a separate issue). On the other hand, there may be a point, in that the most neutral sources online seem to use other names. For example, Encarta uses "Arab-Israeli war of 1973" [1]. However, Onwar uses "Yom Kippur War" mentions the term Ramadan war and doesn't even mention the term "Arab Israeli War of 1973" [2]. JoshuaZ 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but you've couched your language, my debate friend. Sure, in 1795 most white Americans probably considered blacks subhuman, and to say that they considered them thusly would be an NPOV description of a common opinion, but to directly state they were subhuman as if it were fact, even in 1795, when adequate proof to the contrary was widely available and generally known (interracial reproduction capability, for one), stating such would be completely POV! Astute editors of Ye Olde Wikipedia, 1795 Edition, would be compelled to remove that POV, regardless of how popular. Unfocused 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that analogy is very good. A better analogy might be what do we call the French and Indian War which is labeled as such and not labeled as the War of the British Conquest or "The Conquest War" or "North-American Chapter of the Seven Years War"(which would be the equivalent to "Arab Israeli War of 1973"). JoshuaZ 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1795 is not the best analogy, but there are others available in the archive. This article, however, is very different than the example you provide in an important way, too; this article's title itself is challenged as POV by new readers and editors on a very regular basis. The example you provide has not a single mention of POV or NPOV on the talk page, but instead appears to be a simple ongoing discussion of how to properly refer to this war. No one to my knowledge has ever said that French and Indian War (or any of the other variants!) expresses any significant POV regarding the conflict itself, either. That certainly cannot be said here, where the cultural biases are evident in both "Yom Kippur War" and "Ramadan War". Unfocused 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's presumably because we haven't had many Native American editors on the topic and Brits don't care much about their colonies using silly names and acting like the events in one combat theatre constitute a "war" JoshuaZ 04:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if people complain about French and Indian War, what is the POV complaint? No, wait, don't manufacture controversy where there currently is none! Regardless, I think you see the point regarding this article that I and many other editors have tried to address. It is currently using an Israel-sympathetic POV for the title. Which is fine for now. Maybe in a few years, you'll support a move to a neutral title. Unfocused 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also reverted your edit since describing anywhere as someone's "rightful territory" is not NPOV. JoshuaZ 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand how calling it the Yom Kippur war is POV in any sense. I would understand it's POViness if Arabs/Muslims denied that such a day exists, but obviouslly they don't. They recognise too that such a day exists for Jews. There's no dispute by anyone that Syria and Egypt started this war and they chose this particular day. Since it's the common name in english and apparently in almost all languages btw I really don't see how this can be an issue... a POV title is 1973 Israel war's against evil, but this simply isn't POV in any way. It should go by naming conventions etc but WP:NPOV simply has nothing to do with the issue. If Syria and Egypt attacked on Valentine's Day and it became a commonly used name it would be called that. (It is a common name of the day to designate the day of the attack. Note that Ramadan signifies the month, not the day). However, they chose Yom Kippur and some say not in mistake. Amoruso 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two pages of archived material linked at the top that explains it. Please post again if reading those pages (and the balance of this one) doesn't clarify for you why many feel that this is not a neutral title but an Israel-sympathetic title. Unfocused 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that this article should probably be renamed "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" or something similar, but that there should be a redirection page called "Yom Kippur War" that points to it. That seems like the best balance of providing a NPOV title to the article while preserving access to it for the majority of English speakers. It seems sensible to me that the article have a title that is both accurate and that is impossible to confuse with any other possible war. The same naming process should apply to the other wars between multiple Arab countries and Israel.SimonHolzman 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, simply because "Arab-Israeli War of 1973" is more of a description than a title. When a common use title is available, that should be preferred. For instance, "World War I" is used instead of "Global Military Conflict of 1914 to 1918". Beyond that, don't you think it's significant that the war was scheduled for Yom Kippur? Just like the date was significant to the Saint Valentine's Day massacre?

On another note, how are article names for Civil War battles decided? According to Naming the American Civil War, generally the Northern names are more popular, and it seems that Wikipedia articles adopt them, even though that could (by the logic presented in this debate) be considered POV. Stdarg 03:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

Combatants list was misleading, other conflicts on wikipedia do not show the providers of political or "military-aid" (ie USA, UK, FRANCE) are not listed on the Israeli side of this conflict in the information pane. This section was obviously skewed for political reasons to make the "arab coalition" appear to represent more arabs than it actually did in terms of forces deployed in the war. The nations who did not actually provide troops should be removed.

I note that the infobox on the Hebrew wiki is more minimalist, with only the flags of Egypt and Syria noted. El_C 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The countries listed in the "aided by" section are countries that sent fighting troops to fight in the war against Israel (e.g, combatants, as the section name implies). Nobody sent any troops to help Israel. I'm OK with listing only the major combantants only (Israel, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq), or all of the ones (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and all the smaller mostly arab countries that helped Syria and Iraq), but listing the US, France, etc as combatants is plainly false. Raul654 16:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly agreed about the US and France. But I really think we should consider following the Hebrew wiki's infobox model for the flagicons/combatants: that is, only have the Egyptian and Syrian flag icons, but in the forces also note Iraq and Jordan. Thoughts? El_C 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Raul654, aided by should only include countries that supplied direct military participation. If the providers of arms and training are to be listed, then let's not forget the Soviet Union. Anynobody 09:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox should match article

The box listed countries not mentioned in the article, like Pakistan. I'm not sure about including countries that provided financial aid, so I left out Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (token forces seem to be just that, token). Anynobody 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do see that Pakistan sent pilots, but the infobox makes it seem like Jordan and Iraq were part of the initial attack. They weren't of course, and if Jordan had decided to participate in the initial attack, they would have simply attacked over their border in the beginning instead of sending an expeditionary force later. I therefore added Jordan and Iraq to the aided by section. Anynobody 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

12 Pakistan Air Force pilots did participate in the war and one was able to shoot down one of the Israeli Mirage.Chanakyathegreat 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this page, the infobox lists only the major combatants. Raul654 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Nickel Grass

Why is this mentioned so briefly in this article? As I understand the history, O:NS was instrumental in Israel's victory in the war. Without it, Israel could not have afforded to go on the offensive in any of the combat theatres, which would have led to very different negotiations at the end of the war. We can pull sources directly from its wiki entry; it should at least have a small section devoted to it, considering its immense strategic importance. Spectheintro 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

I second that sentiment. Golda Meir has praised Richard Nixon - not someone she was likely to have kind thoughts about, given that he was a Republican anti-Semite and she was a socialist Jew - for saving Israel with the airlift. It's kind of ridiculous that it only merits an off-hand reference in this article. 66.82.9.54 (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible anachronism

According to this article some of the combattant nations listed were not sovereign states at the time of this particular war. Did these countries retain their separate armies while in political union? Should the use of flags, names and casualty statistics etc be revised to reflect the number of states involved in the war?

The article says plainly that it was an "abortive attempt" - e.g, it never got off the ground. Raul654 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

I am not quite sure about that casus belli, I have to look at many sources. It does not explain why Egypt and Syria had made a plan to meet in Tel Aviv. Yes, Egyptian troops stopped at the Sinai border, but Syrian troops certainly passed the Golan Heights and occupied parts of the Galilee. --Shamir1 04:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The above statement makes no sense. Raul654 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. Do you have any questions?

Encyclopedia of the Orient says

Egypt and Syria used this laxity to launch a surprise attack on Israel. The goal of the war was to win back lost Arab territory from preceding wars, first in 1947-49, then 1956 and especially in the last, the Six-Day War of 1967.

--Shamir1 04:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the article says that (almost verbatim). So what does that have to do with "a plan to meet in Tel Aviv", "Egyptian troops stopped at the Sinai border", and Syrian troops occupying parts of Galilee? I've never heard of any such plan to meet in Tel Aviv, the Egyptians were most certainly not stopped at the border, and I'm fairly sure the Syrians never got past the Golan heights into Galilee. So like I said, your comments here make no sense. Raul654 04:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian politics and Egyptian missiles in Harb Ramadhan

Casus belli was in President Sadat's personal political plans (!) That's why I see it necessery to look in this article at the October War 1973 or "Harb October" or "Harb Ramadhan" from the Egyptian initial point of view, because all the ivent was President Sadat's initiative and his political success in changing political and economical orientation for his country. Sadat sucseeded politically in pan-Arabic construction of "silaah al-bitrul" = "oil weapon" or an organized oil embargo against the West to make it better with Arabs and their problems. He also succeeded in getting "Luna-M" and "Scud" Soviet-made tactical and operational SS missiles to destroy Israeli command network in Sinai and to threten Israeli terretory without using his aviation. October 22, 1973 ca. 18:55 p.m. three Scud missiles were fired by Egyptians on Israeli forces crossing the Suez Canal - the historical fact described in Saad ad-Din al-Shazili's book only. --Mutargim (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

L-29 missing?

Didn´t EAF use the Aero L-29 "Delfin" jettrainer in the Sinai during Yom Kippur War? RGDS Alexmcfire

"In the end, the Soviets reconciled themselves to an Arab defeat."

I don't think the Soviets were ever against an Arab defeat. They were seeking to prevent the complete destruction of Egypt and Syria. In short, the reasons why the Soviets didn't get directly involved were more complicated. -bosoxrock88 March 12, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosoxrock88 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 March 2008

I don't think the Soviets were ever against an Arab defeat. - incorrect. Egypt and Syria were both Soviet satellite nations, even if Egypt had strayed a bit. Egypt's defeat would have given (and did give) the Soviets a black eye, and they did everything they could to prevent it. Raul654 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets were against the complete destruction of the Arab forces. They, along with everyone else, realized that there was little that could be done to prevent an "Arab defeat".

They did not do everything they could to prevent it. The Soviets threatened to send troops to the region because they sought to prevent the complete destruction of the Arab forces. Once the US showed the Soviets that they were serious about making the Israelis accept the UN resolution, the Soviets backed down. The United States alerted their nuclear forces, and placed incredible pressure on the Israelis, more or less forcing the Israelis to accept the cease-fire.

In essence, the Soviet position was more nuanced than simply "wanting the Arabs to win."

Scott D. Sagan has written extensively on the subject. I could only find a jstor link: http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228(197923)36%3C160%3ALOTYKA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23&cookieSet=1

-Bosoxrock88 4-18-08

Egypt not Russia

in yom kippor war all The units and the soldiers was Egyptian and no one Russian soldier was fighting in it , Just was some weapons cuz Egypt was'nt have ther own Weapons at that time ( 1970/1980 ) The victory was Egyptian not russian or for any other country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud-Megahid (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Initiation of hostilities

The Egyptian and Syrian viewpoints as to what side struck first have to be considered. [3]

On 6 October, Egypt, in a letter to the President of the General Assembly, said that Israeli air formations had that morning attacked Egyptian forces in the area of the Gulf of Suez, while Israeli naval units were simultaneously approaching the western coast of the Gulf. These units had been engaged by Egyptian forces, the letter said.

On 6 October, in a letter to the President of the Security Council, the Syrian Arab Republic said that during that day Israeli armed forces had launched a military attack against Syrian forward positions all along the cease-fire line. Syrian forces had had to return the fire, the letter added. Formations of Israeli aircraft had penetrated Syrian air space in the northern sector of the front, leading to confrontation with the Syrian air force. The battle was still raging on land and in the air, the letter said, revealing Israel's intention of waging a total war.

Sounds like an fictitious pre-texts to justify the surprise attack they had been planning for a year. Do you have any sources (besides the obviously self-serving claims made by Arab governments) that describe these supposed attacks? Neither Rabinovich nor Heikal make any mention of them. Raul654 (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these were statements admitted to be false or quietly ignored soon after they served their function of creating a little diplomatic smoke during the fighting. Israel similarly made such statements that they were attacked first in the Six Day war. Nobody gives either any credence.John Z (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At any rate the Egyptians did not need to justify their attack. They had a legitimate cause to attack the Israelis and liberate their land. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Soltam M-68

Could someone please add the Soltam M-68 155 mm howitzer into the table beside the French 155 mm model that was also in use during the war? Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation

{{editprotected}}

In the second paragraph, please remove the quotation marks around seam. They are incorrect and unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in the "At Sea" section, include the template at the top: {{|Main|Battle of Latakia}}. Thanks! Spencer^T♦C 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Jon513 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Spencer^T♦C 11:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Link FA - update

Hello. The article on the zh-WP is not 'featured' (any more?). Thus, could somebody please remove the <{{Link FA|zh}} markup? Thanks in advance. --Guandalug (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection level

the 1st protection level was good enough. now the current one unables me for example to contribute. please lower the protection level so that members can contribute; if u think that a certain user is vandalising, warn him/her, and if he/she did not stop try banning, but please do not prohibit contributions by registered users. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Map

The Map shows the land situation after the war is wrong. Gaza were captured during 1967 not 1973 and the land west of the canal contains city Suez and Ismaillia that Israel failed to captured. --24.211.162.187 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Result of Yom Kippur

The result of this war is incorrect, it should be changed to an Israeli victory. Despite the UN resolution ended the war, the Israelis prevented all surrounding Arab armies from achieving there goal of destroying the state of Israel. Furthermore when the treaty was signed, Israeli tanks were only 40 kilometers away from capturing Damascus and on the Egyptian front the IDF has crossed the Suez canal and were only 101 Kilometers away from capturing Cairo. I propose changing the result too: Decisive Israeli Victory leading to UNSCR 338. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikowaz (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence provided in this article the goal of this war was to destroy Israel. (It may have been one of the ultimate goals of some of the people involved, but there is no evidence they expected to achieve it with this particular war.) In reality, the primary goal appears to have been to retake territory (which failed), to convince Israel they had no choice but to aim for peace with their neighbours which would include some degree of give-and-take rather then the previous policy of doing whatever the hell they want (which partially succeeded), to avenge for the losses in the Six-Day war (which partially succeeded) and to increase the stature and support base for the various leaders involved (which succeeded). In any case, this is all too POV for the infobox, the article discusses the situation fairly well. Unless the other parties surrended, which they did not, then the most accurate NPOV way to describe the situation is as is done now, the outcome was the ceasefire. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

the eyptian, and syrain "aided by arabs" ampitions, and results were not the same

maybe it was one war for israel, but the situation on each front was way different than the other. the arabs lost that war, but the egyptians did not why?

• regain foot hold in the sinai for paving the way for latter negotiations that could result on regaining the whole sinai again. Success.

in fact, saying that israel was about to capture cairo is very ridiculous since the IDF could not, and would not have even reached it. the IDF struggled to pass through a narrow lightly-defended gap between the two egyptian armies that crossed, failed to hold the Suez cities to the end of the war, and did not advance to meat the first army, and independent battalion, or destroy the 3rd egyptian army as claimed that it had the ability to do so. it even did not succeed in stopping the food supplies for it, since the egyptians threatened with the fate of the israeli pows "exceeding 340". at the end, the israelis did not repel the attack, and recapture the lost bank of the canal, did not succeed in destroying the egyptian armies, did not succeed in holding the canal cities to the end of the war, and did not succeed in reaching cairo, not even capturing it. the matter of that they were some 110 km from it does not mean any thing, since the egyptian royal forces were about 30km from telaviv in 1948. However, we cannot say that israel had a complete failure in the egyptian front, neither that egypt had a complete victory, because of the gape; but surely we cannot say that israel had victory in the egyptian from, neither that egypt was defeated. One last pharaoh (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

israel was far from victory if you have read the book "harb octobar documents" you would have understood that therer were plans to close the gab and eventually a four sides attack would have been lanchued at the israeli divisons in the west and by the way the missile shield which had been torn was replaced by a better one not to mention that the iaf was in no shape to get airsuperiority so i think it was a strategic victory for Egypt as idf was simply handicaped in the egyptian front so either you let it like that or change it to Egyptian strategic victory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightshadow 2007 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

this article seems to be strongly biased

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the history of Israel or its relationship with the Arab World, but when I came into this article and one of the very first things I read was,

"The Arab World, which had been humiliated by the lopsided defeat of the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian alliance during the Six-Day War, felt psychologically vindicated by its string of victories early in the conflict, despite the endstate."

I cant help but notice a gross abundance of emotional and strongly-opinionated language, all with a lack of citation, which seems to boldly personify and then psychologically assess a diverse group of people, who, if it was even possible to personify and then asses in that way, would probably have a bit more complex range of emotions than "humiliated" and subsequently "vindicated".

Describing the entire arab world which such broad and emotionally-charged strokes seems like something that belongs nowhere near an encyclopedia. I'm baffled at how this is accepted, and with no citation at that. Usually I just edit things like that out of articles, but this seems to be a featured article with many contributors, so I decided to make this post instead.

69.14.90.87 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the World Book Encyclopedia Year Book for 1973 characterized the war using those exact words. "Humiliated" by the 1967 defeat. "Vindicated" by the 1973 performance. But then characterizting the Battle of Cannae as a "humilitating" Roman defeat would seem step over the NPOV line as well. Or we can just acknowledge the limits to historical revisionism and recognize that contemporary sources sometimes do get it right the first time.216.181.47.130 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an encyclopedia from 35 years ago would be classified as "contemporary," but none-the-less, if such strong psychological (and, in my opinion, biased) language is accepted, it would at least be nice to cite it in the article? (I'm the original author of this discussion section (69.14.90.87) posting under a different IP, by the way) 152.160.58.175 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought I was making it clear that I meant contemporary to the Yom Kippur War. I mentioned it to establish what was the widely accepted mind set at the time of the conflict. Perhaps is it does reflect a bias but its hard to describe the Arabs as being "thrilled" about the outcome of the Six Day War. Nor do I find it unreasonable to assume that many Egyptians weren't feeling a sense of vindication at the performance of their army during the first 4 days of the conflict. But, hey, what do I know...You're the original author of this discussion section.216.181.47.130 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha sorry, I didn't say "I'm the original author of this discussion section" as some kind of status thing, I was just mentioning it so it wouldn't appear that I was trying to use multiple IPs to support a position ('meatpuppeting' is what I think you guys call that). You have a good point and I am inclined to agree with you, but I just think the language seems a *tad* biased and should at least have a citation. 152.160.58.175 (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that struck me also - I also wondered why the enormous impact on Israeli psyche would not be discussed, if psychologizing about the Arabs is acceptable. And I'd like to know why the massive U.S. airlift that basically bailed Israel out is barely mentioned - only in passing under "lack of an Israeli pre-emptive strike" and not at all under "Participation by other states," which is all about other states participating on the Arab side. OK, there were some Cubans and Tunisians and Libyans and so forth, but none of them played a decisive role. The U.S. airlift clearly did - Israel might well have been overwhelmed without it. Freshly delivered American weapons counted for the majority of destroyed Arab tanks, and included two full squadrons of combat-ready F-4s. There seems to be a trend on Wikipedia of Israel-related "featured articles" that have these kinds of gaps and deficiencies... <eleland/talkedits> 23:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually most of the armor used by Israelis in their counter offensives on both the Egyptian and Syrian fronts came from Israeli Reserve War stocks that were mated with reservist soldiers then being mobilized. I won't deny that airlifted US equipment wasn't needed to plug holes in the Israeli order of battle, but the limiting factor on the both fronts was whether the reservist callups would be in time to staunch the arab advances. As is often pointed out, the Soviets were also engaged in their own airlifts to Syria and Egypt to replinish their war stocks as well.216.181.47.130 (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But I wasn't talking about armour. I was talking about antitank weapons - freshly supplied American TOWs accounted for the majority of Egyptian tank losses - and aircraft - two full squadrons of American F-4s were flown to Israel, hastily painted over with magen davids, and flown into combat within hours. Does anybody think that the Cubans or Tunisians did anywhere near this much for Egypt? And yet we have a section called "participation by other states" which says nothing about the Americans. What is up with that? <eleland/talkedits> 07:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's some thing i tried to fix, but Raul654 do not seam to be very much accepting that fact. See the history tab to know what i am talking about. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

-It doesn't seem to be that biased upon my review, it was certainly a much, much, MUCH better result for the Egyptian and Syrian Armies than 1967 ("The Six Day War") was, which is generally perceived (and probably correctly) as an outright Arab nation rout.

With 1973 Yom Kippur, Egypt in particular, from what I have read into the subject, felt "vindicated" by the results of the conflict- in negotiations it eventually got back the entire Sinai Peninsula through the Camp David Accords, and in the actual front of the conflict, with only about 300,000 mobilized troops and 80,000 only actively crossing the Sinai border, seemed to have an extremely impressive result with their Soviet-supplied RPG-7s, Main Battle Tanks, and SA-2 and SA-6 SAM Battery systems, which, from the readings of the casualty lists and "The Cold War" (NATO Col. John Hughes-Wilson, Ret.) remarked that the SAM performance was absolutely exemplary. With Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies caught the IDF totally off guard and it was, seemingly, an Arab-Israeli conflict that for once started with the Arab nations first striking. And within the first 72 to 96 hours of the conflict, I had read the results were absolutely appalling to the IDF and they seriously dropped the ball on that intel of the Egyptians mobilizing in the Sinai, and the Syrians mobilizing in the Golan. Had no emergency American aid (in the form of millions of dollars of military equipment) gotten to Israel, as Col. Hughes-Wilson pointed out (and voiced by other posters), "Israel may have been totally destroyed." Or, at the best in that situation, forced into an extremely unfavorable UN ceasefire resolution with overwhelming concessions in favor of the Egyptians, Syrians, and Soviets.

As far as the "result" is concerned, I am happy and content with what is grounds of essentially a "Tactical Stalemate", which is indeed was in the Battle Tank count (an almost exact 1 to 1 kill ratio, which is probably why the war ground later to an alarming halt because in my opinion and reading experience, the IDF was used to destroying Arab armor by the absolute score.) Given the fact that seemingly highly outdated T-55s and T-62s were performing to those standards (coupled with some AT-3 Saggers and other such anti-tank help,) were performing well against Centurions and M48s, it seems like a good synopsis.

Very good casualty/equipment destroyed report. I was in a military history store yesterday and saw the *exact same* equipment loss account in a book just titled "Yom Kippur"-"The Arab-Israeli War of 1973"- 1000 destroyed Israeli tanks (600 later restored, 400 permanently lost) out of about 2000 deployed, and 2250 destroyed Arab (Syrian/Egyptian) tanks, out of about 4000-4500 deployed.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thought I should just add them in the "Talk" section since I do not edit Wiki pages in regards to history matter (I feel there is always someone/some history buff on the subject, with better sourcing than myself) and this is only my second post in a "Talk" forum (the first was my question about the Casualty counts in the Battle of Stalingrad, which were seemingly changed to a lopsided 1.1M dead Soviets to 1.5K dead Germans- that's another discussion for another board, though.)

Thanks for reading. -Jregley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jregley (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with you, the article seems to be overly charged with pro-Israeli emotionalism, reinforcing the notion that History in Written by the Winners; there's no doubt in my mind that Israel achieved a tactical military victory in this war, but to brag on about that fact in a 20-page long encyclopedic article deriding Arabs while praising the IDF's bravado, courage and competence on the field is not something I want my children reading about if they feel the urge to research the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I'm very knowledgeable about the Six-Day War, the causes leading up to it, the fighting that took place, the diplomatic efforts that underpinned the Israeli victory and the geopolitical changes in the region. But all I know about Yom Kippur is what I read here, which diametrically opposes the consensus in Egypt. And I'm not surprised; this IS is a biased article in its own right. It's actually one big excerpt from Rabinovic, a highly emotional Zionist nationalist whose historical accounts are filled with more biased sentiments than Nasser's personal diary.

Whatever, this article is shameful. There's little reason to believe that there is any accuracy in the accounts of Rabinovic, and the conclusions and remarks drawn on said accounts are highly personal and emotional, almost as thought they were written by a band of Likudnik college kids with hardline views of the conflict...

But then again, if you let the Arabs take a whack at it, I suppose it would be a whole lot worse...Ahm2307 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how sourced informations about aiding israel were removed, while unsourced claims about aiding the other side seams to be not forming a problem here?

Isn't it hilarious that i get a warning for including a neutrality disputed tag to the article after this long discussion that not one disagree that the article is biased?

The article should include a neutrality-disputed tag untill the issue is solved, who does not agree? One last pharaoh (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A weak have pased, yet no opposition what so ever !

3 more days people, please say your opinion. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that a lack of interest in commenting here implies support for your desire to tag this article. This is false. This article has passed the FA process, which means that it is neutral, your own biased claims not withstanding.

Furthermore, your presence on this article has been wholly negative - you have consistnetly made detrimental edits - badly written, uncited or cited to poor sources, making claims that are outright false. If you continue to disrupt this article, I am going to follow up on my previous warning to you. Raul654 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those people said that the article is biased and u say that that's my biased claim ?!!

Who do u think ur self are? the owner of this article or some thing? guess what, no one does -wikipedia is a cooperative work of editors- !

Who gave u the right to describe my edits in such a way? well...what have u done? u did not even "fix" them, u only deleted the whole contribution just because of ur point of view, and claimed that it was poorly sourced.

It seams that u and only u is opposing the tagging, there for i am creating a hole new sub-article now and let's wait to the end of the hole month and see what those editors think. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is fuming with bias; 13 Israeli sources to one Arab source! This is very disappointing. Some of the information about the war is not only obviously biased, but is illogical. Has anyone read the article about the Battle of Ofira (written wholly from Israeli sources), where supposedly some 20+ Mig-17s and Mig-21s faced 2 Israeli Phantoms, and the result: 8 Migs were shot down, and no Israeli casualties! This is ridiculous. I have seen pictures in Egyptian books of Egyptian Migs engaging against Israeli air forces, and pictures of Israeli Jets being shot down, not by SAM missiles, but by Mig fighters. These were not exceptions. Even the Arab casualties are written from either Israeli sources, or Western sources. What about Arab sources? To say that the Israelis were positioned to capture Cairo is absurd. There were not enough Israeli troops on the West side of the Suez to destroy the third army, let alone contend with the 220,000 Egyptian troops who had not crossed the canal and were on the Western part of the canal, let alone "threaten" Cairo. Official Egyptian military sources say that the army was ready to perform a counter-attack and eliminate whatever Israeli forces had crossed the canal. After all, the Israelis were only able to perform such a maneuver with the aid of the Americans, first and foremost in the form of the massive US airlift which not only replenished Israeli losses but also bolstered the Israelis. This fact is greatly neglected in the article. Egyptian sources also state that this Israeli success was made possible to a large degree by US intelligence.

Official Egyptian history states that once the canal had been crossed, the Egyptians wanted to end the war, but as the Syrians were facing setbacks on the Golan, Sadat prolonged the war to relieve pressure off his ally. He was ready to remain in the war even longer, and was ready to counter-attack the Israeli penetration, but the interference of the Americans in the form of millions of dollars of financial and military aid, the Soviet pressure, and the UN cease-fire resolution, prompted Egypt to end the war.

I agree, this article is one big excerpt from Rabinovic, and it needs a serious rewrite, and it must include more Arabic sources, such as the Egyptian government's official history of the war, and the Syrian history as well. All battles related to this article need to be revised, especially the Ofira battle, also, why is there no article about the crossing? This is a battle in it's own right is it not? It is an important one as well. What about the Mansourah battle? It too is not mentioned in Wiki, even though it was an important battle (see Egyptian Air Force). The Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi casualties need to be separated as well. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gentelmen, I will try to respond to some of the claims raised in the above discussion. I will start by saying that I am from Israel, and most of my knowledge of the 67 and 73 wars is from Israeli sources. I do know that Egyptian sources paint the war from an entirlyh different perspective and I do not claim to know who won and who lost, too many emotions are are invloved in this question. Personaly, I think that there are no winners in wars, only loosers. To the point... Obejctively, this war started with tactical victories to Syria and Egypt, and ended with tactical victories to Israel in both fronts. I doubt that any of the participants, even with material support from Soviet Union or USA could further push their positions and 'really' win anything. So let's start by saying that nobody won. conquering a 10km strip in the Siani, overpowering roughly 500 soldiers with 20 times more infantry is not a sign of military genious. Nor is it intelligent to hold a 500km front with only 500 soldiers... I could go on and point similar mistakes in the Golan made by both sides. So what am I trying to say?

1. Both sides are biased. I think Egypt and Syria both exagarate in their claims, calling this a victory, and Israel is wrong in calling this war a defeat. As the war halted, it was a draw. Egypt had some surprises for Israel (i.e. the achieving the strategic surprise, using new SAM's, anti tank AT-7's, breaching the canal obstacles and accomplishing the crossing - these were impressive moves).

2. Israeli army, tanks and especially the IAF were far more effective than the combined armies of Syria and Egypt. Look objectively at the numbers and the final results - strategic surprise and tactical victories, ending with territorial losses and huge losses in men and equipment. As to the claims that Israel was within striking distance from Damascus and Cairo... come on, these are bullshit bravado claims and can be deleted. At any given moment the IAF could strike anywhere it wanted to (as it did, hitting the Syrian High Command building in the heart of Damascus).

3. There are two claims made here that I personally must repond to. First, the Ofira air battle did happen, but it was only 7 downed migs. Secind, the El-Mansourah air battle never happened. I personally know pilots who flew in the 73 war, I asked them and got some raised brows... I have yet to see a single piece of hard evidence produced by the egyptians (15 downed F-4 are 30 dead and captured pilots, where are they?). The Israeli air force did suffer losses, but mainly from SAM missiles and not from Egyptian migs. Do some research about IAF losses (not official Israeli sites), there was only one F-4 lost on the 14th, both crew ejected above Israeli territory and were recovered.

4. As to the quantity of Israeli sources vs Egytian sources - Egypt was and in many ways still is a totalitarian state (I am sorry if I offend anyone, it's NOT a democracy and there the government has a large degree of control over the flow of information). The academic world of Israel is full of researchers who looked at this war from almost every aspect - from the politicians' mistakes, to the army generals', and to individual battles fought. I have yet to see this amount of words written objectively from Syrian or Egyptian researchers, especially views that critique their leadership as much as Israeli researchers do. I challange any of you to publish criticism about your presidents. So, please contribute academic references to counter any bias, instead of complaining about the lack of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.242.65 (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me say that you have bring life back to this section. There is more than one point that i disagree with you about here, but let me respond to only two for now at least; The Mansourah battle did take place, and if you asked some war time pilots of israel, and got raised brows, Dr. David Niclle is a good source, besides the war time Egyptian pilots who would probably give more than raised brows, when asked about the battle. A C I G . com is a good reference if you want to read more. About the 30 downed pilots, president Hosni Mubarak stated that the egyptian command was easy with the Israelis about "the bodies they took from the delta"; call him a liar if you want, but let me say that in jet aircrafts the downed pilot do not have to die, ha can eject; here ACIG stated some thing about a downed IAF pilot that ejected safely, and was taken to hospital. AnwarElsadat . com has some pics of Israel POWs if you want to be sure. Israel have stated that the battle took place, changed the estimates for it's loses, and finally denied the battle -see ACIG-.

Now, about the Offira battle, it's talk page contains some explanations about why is it logically impossible in the first place, Egypt never stated that it happened -Egypt stated that the armoured attack in day 14 was rebelled with sever loses, so i think they would have mentioned this one too if it took place-, and no non israeli/pro-israeli reliable source was found that states that it happened. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply, I wasn't sure anyone will see this... I'll start by saying that I am glad we don't seem to have a difference of opinions about my basic belief (that as in all wars, in this one there were no real winners...), all we have is an argument about a couple of skirmishes between some fighter jocks, that in the big picture do not have a real meaning.

So, after I read your comment I went back and asked my father what his memories are from that time and about these incidents. He was an F-4 pilot during that war and actually participated in an attack on Mansourah a few days prior to the 14th, however, it was never in the magnitude described (over 100 IAF fighters), just 2 formations totaling about 4 to 8 jets trying to punch holes in the runways. Incidently, he was shot down on the 14th during a 'routine' attacks on the Suez bridges. He was hit by SA3 or SA6 and managed to eject safely over Israel.

Unfortunately, he has no memory of a huge attack, nor of the IAF loosing 17 fighters in a single mission or of missing 30 or so pilots in a single day. I do not think that 35 years after the war he would still try to hide a huge cover-up if there was one, in the last 15 years, every year the newpapers here are full of stories about mistakes that were made during the war, every year around Yom Kippor. Including infantry, armour and IAF losses (there is a famous story about the 'One' squadron, loosing 7 fighters in a single sortie in the northern front, so I do not think anyone in trying to protect the airforce or people in it). As to the Ofira battle, I'll get back to you on that one, but I'm pretty sure that the Mansourah attack, at least as described by the EAF, never took place.

Winning or loosing, it was a traumatic war here. Although casualties were not the highest the IDF sustained, the shock and the huge gap between the public expectations vs the initial outcome of the first week or so, caused an outcry that led to the change in government a few years later. It also had an impact on the Egyptian public and leadership that enabled the Camp David peace accords that hold to this day. We can argue about how warm that peace is, but the fact is that no soldiers lost their lives in hostilities since then, and that Sharem El-Sheikh is a tourist hot-spot and an economic success for Egypt, so if there is anything that we need to learn from this, is that although we can disagree on details, the large picture is positive and from time to time we need to look at it and remind ourselves that both sides, we, suffered and that those days should never be allowed to come back.

I am not saying that your father is a liar, but actually the IAF did not strike using all of it's attacking force at once. they came in formations, so yes he may have attacked in a formation of 4-8 air crafts, but that was not every thing, only a small scale of the general attack. I have given you the sources that makes me believe the mansourah battele took place, so i disagree with you about it did not take place.

No doubt that the war was a strategic victory to both Egypt, and israel, specially Egypt -Israel did not get much more than it already had before the war-.

Stating the facts of history does not mean that we hope it rewinds.

Personally, i live, and study with non muslims every day -Christians-, and have friends of them, so mainly i am tolerant with non muslim societies, and individuals specially people of the book in general, and christians specially. That means that i am not against a jewish society, i am only against a zionist one -i think you know the difference between both of them-. If i continued with that, i would probably take about as far as the establishment of israel, and i think this is not the right place for that, but the general idea is that for one, i do not have any problem with a jewish society that live in tolerance, and peace with it's Muslim, and christian nighpors, but i do not accept the presence of a zionist society that lives in constant wars with it's neighbors -and let me tell you some thing, that series of wars has 2 possible scenarios; either Israel manages to defeat all of it's neighbors, and be the largest country in the middle east, or that israel get overcome by it's neighbors, and vanish; but i would like a scenario where israel get rid of zionists, and live in peace with it's neighbors.- . One last pharaoh (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought a long time weather to reply or not, I do not wish to have a political or ideological argument and certainly not here. I am not a religious person, I think there might be a god, I think I'll find out sooner or later like everyone else... I would like to face this god with a clear conscious and a life well lived. Enough said about religion, to each his own ways, I respect them all. I disagree with fanatics, from all sides, I generally disagree with people who tell me how I should live my life, I make my own opinions and decisions. People are people everywhere - all they want is to live and grow old, see their children become their betters and smile proudly to them as they do. This is my belief, and I think that in the names of ideologies, religions, money, power and politics this basic human desire is being corrupted.

I did not like your remarks about Israel, I did not like your remarks about zionizm. I am not offended, insulted or anything of that kind. I just think they were based on lack of information and a basic misunderstandings. Israel has a complex society, with many people from many origins, with different views about anything and everything (you couldn't put 3 israelis in the same room without having an argument...). Much like your Egyptian society which is composed of many people from different ethnic origins. I am sure your country is not just what I see on CNN - President Mubarak vs Islamic Jihad, but a diverse society that enjoys rich history and culture. So do we, here in Israel. Please come and visit, see for yourself, meet Israelis, talk and argue with them, you might discover a thing or two. I will be honoured to have you as my guest. All the best, Modi.

Thanx in advance, but i am not saying that israel is made up of only zionists. i know that many israelis are just normal citizens that want to live in peace, but i also know that the policies of the israeli government do not always follow their point of view.

I am a national geographic fan -some times spending almost all of the time watching it, when i am watching the TV-, and i have seen "Do not tell my mother" when they were in israel, and palestinian territories; the general scene when reporting with israelis was dispute between tolerant israelis vs. zionists/extremists, in which the latters were always in the offensive insulting tolerant israelis, and god knows what happens behind the camera.

In another word, societies have tolerant, and extremist people; those who are tolerant are the majority in most cases, and when they -whose who want to live in peace- have the power, the whole society is safe, and peaceful.

In my opinion, until now, those tolerant israelis are not the ones fully in charge of israel.

And i would be happy to see people like you for example in charge of israel. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of military establishments around the world studied the Yom Kippur war in great detail; especially the Americans, the Soviets, and the Europeans. The October War was the first large scale conventional conflict since WWII and it employed the best offered by both sides across the curtain. This war was seen by both sides a rehearsal of what a war in Europe might look like. This war was studied and over-studied! I don't think there is an aspect of this conflict that is not known - not because someone is trying to hide something but because it is simply impossible to hide anything provided the historical importance of this event especially in the annals of 20th military history. This was simply by far one of the most important battles of the Cold War. I am very sure that Egyptian military staff also studies this conflict in great detail. Now to answer some questions:

1. TOW missiles. Israel's main arsenal of anti-tank missiles on the eve of the war was mostly made of French SS-10, SS-11, LAW and DRAGON systems. According to Trevor Depuy at the start of the war Israel made a request to the United States for TOW systems and that it is assumed that some were already delivered on the first airlift on the 14th. It is known that Israeli students in American colleges were mobilized for a crash course on the TOW at Fort Benning, Georgia, however, these trained individuals did not enter Israel until the 25th. There are also claims that on the 14th Sharon's division has already received the TOW and its soldiers were trained in its use. n fact Depuy claims that Elazar has explicitly told him that TOWs have been used by the IDF during the war. Adan, on the other hand, indicated to Dupuy that his division never received any TOWs. Egyptians and Jordanians claim that some of their tanks were hit by the TOWs, however, Israeli officers claim that the Arabs confused the TOW with LAW and DRAGON missiles. In any case officially Israelis claim that no TOWs were issued to IDF units before October 24th or 25th. Yet even if any TOWs were used by Israelis during the war it was only a trickle.

2. On October 10th Egypt claimed to have shot-down over 16 Phantoms and Skyhawks as these tried to hit Mansura and Qatamia air bases. They never claimed that these have been shot down by EAF but rather by the air defense system. All Egyptians boasts have to be taken with a grind of salt provided that Arabs often claimed to have shut-down more Israeli planes that were in Israeli possession. That some planes were shot-down or hit was most likely, however, sixteen... impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.67.21 (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I have done some additions to the sub-part "In the Sinai", based on official US documents concerning the war, and they can be found at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/ . I have also taken into account the views that the financial, military and intelligence aid provided to Israel by the US was understated in the article. Definitely other parts of this article need to be updated from these documents, and we also need to bring forward official Egyptian and Syrian reports on the war. Hopefully this is the beginning for some serious improvements to this article. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also added some details about the crossing of the canal, and this I got from http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/398/oct12.htm. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The sub-section on Egypt's third army needs to be changed. "Egypt was totally dependent on the United States to prevent Israel from destroying its trapped army...As a result, the United States exerted tremendous pressure on the Israelis to refrain from destroying the trapped army". That Israel was able to destroy the Third army is debatable, as it is not clear how many Israeli units had crossed the canal (probably dew since by the end of the war only 4 bridges were made across the canal). What information was used to say that Egypt was "totally dependent" on the US? More high ranking Egyptian officials than not revealed immediately after the war that a major counter-offensive was ready to be carried out to eliminate Israeli units that had exploited the opening, cross the canal and seal the gap on the Eastern side of the canal. Keep in mind that there were nearly 220,000 Egyptian forces that had not yet crossed the canal. However political pressure on Egypt from not only the US and the UN, but also from the USSR forced Egypt to accept a cease-fire. The map depicting the gap is also misleading because the Israelis were never able to enter or capture Suez; the city was successfully defended by and remained in Egyptian hands throughout the war. Sherif9282 (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Self made map" ?!

Seams the article is using a "self-made map" that has no thing to do with neutrality. On which basis was that map considered reliable ? besides, it shows a grave history error showing that israel held parts of egypt as a result of the war -the "held by israel after the yom kippur war" parts-. Incase no free reliable map is available, a non reliable map that shows personal view rather than facts should not be used

Suggestions? One last pharaoh (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The map is a line drawing of now-deleted File:Jom kippur war.jpg, which came from the polish Wikipedia, which got it from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So yes, the image comes from a reliable source. Raul654 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right !

Are you sure u have actually read the description of it? ofcourse you did since u are the one who used the perfectly matching description "self-made".

Let me make it easier; here is the link to the map's description page on the commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yom_Kippur_War_map.svg

If the map is based on another version that is not self-made by a wikipedian, that is reliable, and that is neutral, the source image it self should be used not a self-made version claimed to be based upon it.

It's just like providing a link that does not work as a source of an information.

This "Self-Made" image is made by an editor, and is not sourced since the assumed source is now deleted. To fix that, we need to find the source it self, OR another reliable neutral source.

BTW, how can the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs be used as a neutral source in this article any way ? One last pharaoh (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware it's tagged as self made -- I'm the one who made it. As I already said, it is a line drawing - which means that I took another map, traced the lines on that map, and recolored it, to avoid copyright issues. Nothing in the content of the map actually changed. And yes, the Israeli ministry of Foreign affairs is a reliable source. Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was very clear, but let me explain that again

The Israeli ministry of Foreign affairs is not a neutral source for this kind of articles -ie. the ones about conflicts directly involving israel-, however it can be used as a reliable source only when the statements it is used to source is highlighted as "according to israel".

About the map, i think that i stated the proposition very clearly; find a link to the assumed source, or find a free map that comes from a reliable, and neutral source.

Some thing to be mentioned, is that we are still in the first step of actually finding the source, if it was found, we should move to the step of checking it's reliability. Once done, checking it's neutrality is the final step.

A Lot of work eh? let's do it. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do that, and you find one that is superior to the one already in the article, go ahead. However, until you do, the map we already have is more than suffecient. Raul654 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have said it twice, and i am saying it again; Where is the source ? One last pharaoh (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Participation by other states

that section is beyond being biased ! as if not mentioning the american air lift that changed the outcome of the war was not enough, the informations about the participation by other states is not accurate with words like "dozens", and "squadrons" used instead of accurate numbers. that makes them non neutral claims that needs to be removed incase it was not changed to accurate neutral informations. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, there is no mention of United States participation. They not only provided aid in finance and equipment, but also provided the Israelis with all the intelligence they needed. I haven't seen any mention in Egyptian history of Cuban and Ugandan soldiers participating in the war either. Also, Israel had around 2,300 tanks at the beginning of the war, not 1,500, here is the proof: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-21a.pdf. The casualties suffered by either party in the war should be reviewed as well. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read the file, and i think it says they had 1,800 not 1,500 but not 2,300. That is a very reliable source that should be used. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No you misunderstood. The IDF had 1,800 tanks remaining after they lost 500. This source, and the other US documents I have listed at the external links section on US policy during the war should be used to detail the US airlift to Israel. Do you have a source on Israeli casualties and Egyptian casualties? Sherif9282 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the article to October War, as the current name is not neutral, any comments? Sherif9282 (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this article has been suggested and rejected multiple times. No, we will not be doing that. Raul654 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to find out how many IDF units were in Bar Lev at the start of the war. It is written there was only one battalion, but I don't think so. They are not enough to man the fortifications. Furthermore, there were armored counterattacks against the Egyptian troops that had crossed. They came soon after the beginning of the attack, which means there were reserve troops behind the Bar Lev line (there were artillery strikes against tank concentrations behind the line), and there were reserve troops, but how many? David Elazar had also made a limited call-up on reserves on Oct 5, so some of these reserves might have reinforced the Golan and Sinai before the attacks began. After the attack began, 100,000 were mobilized on October 6 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-18.pdf. These probably participated in counter attacks on the same day, especially in the Golan. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the manpower on the bar lev line. I rechecked, and Rabinovich (pg 7) says the Bar Lev line was manned by the Jerusalem brigade, not battalion. Raul654 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Rual654's last changes to the article need to be explained, since he have deleted sourced informations. assuming good faith, he did not intend to vandalize the article, yet his deletion of sourced informations needs to be explained.

Unless ofcourse it was an intended vandalism. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already told you once, I have neither the time nor energy to follow behind you, repairing your bad writing. If you are incapable of following Wikipedia's guidelines with regard to citing information to reliable sources in an inline fashion, using Wikipedia's citation style, and presenting ideas in a succinct, ordered manner (that is, mentioning US aid in the section about participation of other countries; mentioning the Egyptian-related facts in the egyption section; etc) then do not edit this article or complain when your damaging edits are removed. All the more so given that this is already a featured article. Raul654 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT YOUR DELETION OF SOURCED INFORMATIONS ? One last pharaoh (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been experiencing some connection problems, but have now returned. Concerning the article's name, forgive me Raul654, but I wasn't here when it was discussed, so I think can reopen that discussion. Using the name Yom Kippur War is Israeli POV, and using the name Ramadan War is Arab POV. Using the name October War is nobody's POV, it would be neutral and more suited to the article. Just because this is already a featured article doesn't mean it doesn't require improvements, which I think is the case. I have also edited the paragraph concerning the Israeli Brigade on the Bar Lev Line. I hardly think that around 4,000 soldiers would be vastly outnumbered and overwhelmed by the initial attacking force of 8,000 soldiers, which by the way, is the force that captured these defences, not the subsequent reinforcements, see http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/398/oct12.htm. The troops which crossed the canal thereafter were five infantry divisions and around 500 tanks, not 100,000 troops. Using the term division is more accurate. The aforementioned link states several estimates which I will state in the article. One last thing Raul654, this article will not change overnight; it's going to take a lot of time, so if you don't have the energy or the time to devote to this article, then I suggest that someone who does have the time and energy to do so takes over your position. More than once you have taken action independently without relating your views and opinions to anyone, reverting my edits several times for instance without telling me why, even though if you had told me the problem would have been solved (as in the in-line citing of sources). Concerning the sub-section on US support to Israel, I find my writing to have been quite well, and I don't understand what you found "bad" about it. If my writing was so intolerable, you could have simply rectified it; you had no reason in my opinion to delete sourced information that was very, very reliable and beyond doubt. Furthermore, why are my external links at the end of the article being deleted?

At any rate, I think we should re-discuss whether or not to rename the article, and I suppose the article would make use of a few pictures. Well? Sherif9282 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) The name of this article has been discussed many many many many many many times before. Discussion of that topic is closed - the article will remain exactly as it is currently titled.

(2) I'm all for adding more pictures to this article, I just don't know where to find any with copyright status acceptable on Wikipedia. If you do, by all means, add some.

(3) The comment above about bad writing was not directed at you, Sherif9282. It was directed at One last pharaoh, whose previous edits to this article have been highly detrimental. Your edits have been better, which is why I went through the time consuming process of fixing them, although you must learn to use correct mediawiki citation style (using the <ref> and </ref> tags)

Does that mean that all the times you raised the protection level of the article -without discussion-, ignored other users opinions, deleted sourced informations -without discussion also-, and giving warnings to a user for adding cited informations, were because you did not consider their contributions good enough ?

If so, you have severely violated wikipedia's rules by "owning" the article. Take it as a friendly advice: Try to improve your attitude with other editors. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do not you say what was wrong with the contribution you provided a link for? was it completely wrong, and required being deleted? because that is the only reason that gives any one the right to revert an contribution, right? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW why do not you click that little (next page) several times? maybe you would see that i made a contribution, i deleted an unsourced part, and then you deleted the rest of it -the sourced part-. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

4) As for the number that crossed, your own source says 8,000 followed by 80,000 more, which I summarized as "approximately 100,000". Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read another paper http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Moulton.htm on the war. If you read the sub-section on the results of the October war, third paragraph, you will read that the Israeli counter-attack on Oct 8 numbered up to three brigades, not one brigade as mentioned in the article. I am going to add this, but we need to find at least one other source. There is something very important as well. Saad El-Shazly's book on the war says that Egypt had Mi-24 Hind gunships which it used in the war. While I did not find this written anywhere else, I think that source is sufficient for mentioning that piece of information in the article. As you can see, the USAF Major who wrote the paper mentioned above used the name October War. I have another paper by another US officer which uses The Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Yom Kippur War is a POV name, because this article is not made just for Western readers with whom the name is popular, it is made for readers all over the world including Arabs like myself. In the Arab world the Ramadan War is the most commonly used name, but using that here is POV as well. October War is neutral. However, this is not a priority at the moment so I will leave the matter for now. Since I have the time and energy I will fix One Last Pharoah's edits and find some reliable sources, because I have encountered this incident several times in Egyptian History of the war written by officers. Sherif9282 (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Mi-24 Hind, our own article states clearly that its first combat use was in 1977, and does not list Egypt as an operator, at all. So no, Saad El-Shazly's book is not good enough, since it contradicts other articles. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the statements about the Israeli counter-attack on October 8. In short - Abraham Adan's division (3 brigades) was ordered to counter-attack. One of them was stuck in a traffic jam, and the other two were each at half-strength. (Rabinovich, 235). I've tweaked the article accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Look CanadianMonkey, Saad El Shazly was chief of staff during the war, I hardly think he would make such a mistake. Perhaps your article is wrong. Perhaps I am mistaken rather; I found this information on the internet as an excerpt taken from a book, but it was not clear if it was El Shazly's book. Raul654, if you had read my source carefully you will have seen that there is a mention of an Israeli attack on Oct 7: "The following day, we succeeded in moving the bridgeheads an additional four kilometers eastwards, in spite of a powerful enemy assault." The "following day" refers to Oct 7. I will mention this in the article. Sherif9282 (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, i am happy that finally Raul654 is concerning active participation in discussion pages. Since this section have turned into discussing the article in general, who thinks that the unsourced map mentioned in the above section should stay ? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly not me. Sherif9282 (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Me neither. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So it will be removed, but before we do so, we must obtain another map as Raul654 said, one which is reliable and clear. Until we do so, the current map should remain. Could you get such a map One Last Pharoah? Besides that, I just wanted to say that the progress that has been done on this article has been relatively significant, though there is still much more to be done. But so far, several Egyptian sources have been added. We still need to add some Syrian sources, if only some Syrians would help with this article. We also need to make some work on attached articles, such as the article on the crossing, and we need to make an article about the Air battle of El-Mansourah. But first comes first. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We d not have to wait for syrian editors, any one can add any source. I think that the map is not neutral, and most probably unreliable, besides the fact of being unsourced.......what more should any attached file be to prohibit it from being used in an article, specially a featured one?

The article already contain maps for the war. this certain map is not critical in the article, and until we find another that is neutral, reliably sourced, and free, the article wont lose a useful information by removing the mentioned map, since it does not represent a neutral point of view and there for is damaging the article. Actually the map contains wrong claims that are proved to be wrong by this very article -what i mentioned about the "parts held by israel after the war" areas-.

Ofcourse, all of that mess can be solved if Raul654, or any other editor provided a source for it. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

UH, no. The map is reliably sourced (to the Israeli Foreign affairs ministry, by way of the polish wikipedia, although I do not have acces to the deleted image revisions on the polish Wikipedia). The map will stay until you find a better one. Raul654 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you are following here.....No one said that the Israeli Foreign Affairs ministry in not a reliable source -however, no doubt it is not neutral in this article-. The point is that, how can we be sure that the map actually did come from the source you say it comes from -no offence- ?

You have been asked to provide a source, which in this case would be a link to the supposed original map. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

One Last Pharoah is right, Israeli Foreign Affairs ministry may be a reliable sources, but it certainly is not neutral. I think the map should be removed, even before we find another map. It is misleading, and damaging to the article. That's my opinion. Anyways, I will be receiving three books at the end of this month made by different Egyptian authors who participated in the war. The authors are Saad El Shazly, Abdel Ghani El Gammasy, and Hssan El Badri. These should provide me with a plethora of info to add to the article.

By the way Raul654, I have reversed your edit to the article because this call for an end to the fighting came on Oct 9, not 8. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If the Israeli Foreign Affairs ministry is really the source for the claims on that map, it should not be used as a reliable, neutral map that describes facts -the way it currently is used-. The only way to use it is that the Israeli Foreign Affairs ministry be nominated as it's source, or any other way, so that it's known that it represents an Israeli point of view, not a neutral one.

That means that even if the map was reliably sourced -some thing that still did not happen-, it still has to be moved. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another important issue to be addressed. About the Soviet and American airlifts. As far as I know, the few times I have read of the Soviet airlift in books mentions nothing more than an airlift to resupply ammunition on a small scale, not to replenish losses. The only source used in the article is Rabinovich, which is biased. At any rate, the Soviet airlift is by no means comparable to the American airlift, which some consider to have bailed out Israel. So the American airlift cannot have been a response to the Soviet airlift. It is clear from US documents that this airlift was in response to Israeli blunders on the battlefield. I will adjust the article accordingly.

Also, you need reliable, unbiased sources to say that the Soviet airlift replenished Egypt and Syria's losses in tanks, aircraft and weaponry. Another point; Israel did receive immediate supplies, before October 13, in the form of aircraft.Sherif9282 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading some thing about that the soviet supplies never reached Egypt. It was supposed to, but some thing happened....unavailability of transporting vessels from the port the soviets downed their supplies or some thing like that; so all the supplies sent were used by syria, and non reached egypt.

I do not have any source for that, but maybe some one else can come up with some thing. Also, i remember very clearly reading an article in Al-Ahram that mentioned that the soviets did not even sent tires for jet aricrafts wheels ! One last pharaoh (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On the airlifts, it is clear form both American documents and other sources that this was in response to the Soviet airlift. See for example, Detente and Confrontation, by Garthoff, p.414:

"the two powers then began in parallel to resupply the two sides with arms and munitions (the Soviet Union from October 10 on, the United States from October 12 on). p. 415: "From October 6 to 13 the Soviet leaders...promptly began an airlift of arms to Syria and Egypt.. Footnote 38: "On the American side, the chief factor determining the amount of the arms supply was at least to match the size of the Soviet effort.". There are many sources that say the same thing = please don;t removed sourced material from the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"please don;t removed sourced material from the article.", was that directed to me ?One last pharaoh (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no. This was directed at me, though it is wrong; the material was not reliably sourced. Sherif9282 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not wrong. Rather, you and One last pharaoh have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Rabinovich is an historian, and the material is sourced to his book published by a mainstream press - which meets our guidelines with regards to reliable sources. Rabinovich might be biased - that's your opinion - but every source is biased in some way. There is no requirement in WP:RS to use "neutral" sources, whatever that means in this context. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What source ?!

Reliable sources can be used. it's not about weather it is used or not it is about where, and how is it used. In a conflict that directly involves israel, a pro-israeli source can be used to represent a pro-israeli point of view, not a neutral point of view. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That the Soviets provided an airlift of military supplies to Syria and Egypt is not 'a pro-israeli point of view' - it is a well documented historical fact. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you saying?! When I mentioned the American airlift, I used unquestionable sources; documents detailing conversations between Kissinger and Dinitz, clearly showing that the airlift was carried out due to Israeli losses on the field, not in reply to the Soviet airlift. So I don't see how it can be a well documented historical fact using solely Israeli sources. I also mentioned statistics. What statistics do you, or Rabinovich, have? Furthermore, what sources does Rabinovich use to support his claims? This airlift has no mention whatsoever in Egyptian and Syrian sources. More importantly, it has no mention in Soviet sources, as far as I know. Indicating it never even happened or was so small in scale as to be negligible.

In all probability, if I had mentioned the American airlift from, say, Saad El-Shazly's book, you would have neglected it as biased, non-neutral, or even unreliable, even though El-Shazly would be a more reliable source than someone like Rabinovich; he was actually involved in the war. But then even I agree that I can't use Arab sources to claim that the Americans airlifted 22,000 tons of materiel to Israel. Knowing this, I brought American sources to the article. What do you have? Israeli sources? If you want to detail Israeli operations in the Golan or the Sinai and use Rabinovich for a source, be my guest. But you can't claim that the Soviets made a massive airlift to Egypt and Syria using an Israeli source, because it wouldn't be neutral, and in such a case, the source would lose its reliability. Rabinovich is not a reliable source for writing this kind of information in the article. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Rabinovich needs a third party source ? [[4]]

I've provided an impeccable reliable source, Sachar, in addition to Rabinovich, which says the same thing, including using the word "massive" to describe the airlift. If you persist in the nonsensical claim that Rabinovich is not a reliable source, or that it is a "self-published" source, I strongly advise you to familiarize yourself with our basic policies regarding sources before you continue to edit, as it is clear that you do not know what they say.Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"our basic policies..."  ?!

would you explain to me how rabinovich is not considered a self-published source, please ?

I have stated that Rabinovich can be considered a reliable source in certain ways, but not a neutral one. did you miss that !

I want to direct your attention to that you have just broken one rule regarding treating other editors, and came very close to break another using "The our". would you consider that a friendly advice? Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

would you explain to me how rabinovich is not considered a self-published source, please ? - a self-published source is one in which the person doing the writing pays to have it printed. Rabinovich did not pay to have his book printed. Therefore, contrary to Sherif's latest absurd claim, Rabinovich's book is not self-published. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This article does not deserve to be featured. The article should be revied Wikipedia:Featured article review One last pharaoh (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to Wikipedia:Featured article review. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i wonder what would Raul654 do, do not you ? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume he would respond to the whatever claims you bring up there, in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies. Since you have a userbox on your home page which states that you assume good faith, I have no doubt that you assume the same. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Listen up, people; there are three ways to get that article going; the easy, hard, and normal ways.

• The East way means that we would separate the sources; we would have three sub sections in each section; one for the egyptian.syrian claims which used egyptian, and arab sources, one for the israeli claims, which used israeli, and pro-israeli sources, and one for the neutral point of view which uses neutral, and reliable sources.
• The hard way comes, when sources like Rabinovich are considered main sources in an article like this one. So....we get a ciaos of sources, where non neutral sources from all sides are used as reliable sources in this article.
• The normal way is wikipedia way; to use reliable neutral sources that cites facts insteed of baised sources that brings false claims, and lies to this article.

I go for the third choice, the normal way, the wikipedian way. That means that sources like Rabinovich would not be used as reliable citations for informations here unless it was nominated that that is a pro-israeli point of view that reflects baised claims of a person who was not in the field of command, or even direct informations, but just a civilian who did not have access to classified informations. instead, the official American documentation of the war which was declassified after the war ended.

We can go through that, or we can use Rabinovich as a reliable source for basic vital informations in the article, but taking that course means that i for one would fill this article with informations from egyptian, and arab sources as reliable sources.

So, what do you say ? One last pharaoh (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What I say is that we will edit this article just like any other Wikipedia article - in a NPOV way using reliable sources. Rabinovitch is a reliable source, and we will continue to use it, without attempting to censor information from it on spurious grounds. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to reply to what has been recently said here. I am bewildered how CanadianMonkey and Raul came to understand that I saw Rabinovich as a self-published source, as I did not write that statement asking if Rabinovich needs a third party source, and that is obvious, since I did not even sign that question. I am surprised to see the level of respect Raul shows me as an editor with his "Sherif's latest absurd claims", which left me wondering how many absurd claims I had made until now, and I hope Raul can answer that. Anyways, I too am disappointed; that this article would be a featured article despite its all but complete lack of Arab sources is something below Wikipedia's standard. What I am trying to say is this. What sources do Rabinovich and Sachar cite to support their claims concerning the Soviet airlift? The sources that are used determine whether Sachar and Rabinovich are reliable sources to use when writing about the Soviet airlift, note: the Soviet airlift, not the whole article. Egyptian and Syrian sources, written by military officials, have usually said that the Soviet airlift supplied nothing more than ammunition, and usually on a small scale. I do not have these sources at the moment, but if this is true, than we have a contradiction. In such a case what will be done? Sherif9282 (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

..."The Arab side of the war is poorly documented. A notable exception to this is the war diary of the Egyptian Chief of Staff, Gen. Saad el Sahzly. Unfortunately, books by other Egyptian generals published in English are heavily laden with fantasy, but interviews granted by General Gamasy and Egyptian intelligence officers to the Israeli press offer valuable information. A lively and valuable political account is by journalist and Sadat confidant Mohammed Hassenien Heikal. There is nothing authoritative at all from the Syrian side but light is shed on military aspects by outside sources. These include an official Iraqi report on the Syrian front - one of the most straightforward Arab accounts of the war - and articles by former Israeli intelligence officers as well as books by Egyptian and Soviet officials. Victor Israelyan's inside view of the Kremlin nicely balances Kissenger's book depicting the superpower's role in the war. The written record has been amplified by more than none hundred and thirty interviews" - the intro to Rabinovich's biography. Raul654 (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pages 59-63 of Israelyan's book (available on google books) describe the Soviet Airlift in general terms. It doesn't give hard numbers on the exact quantity and types airlifted, but it is *quite* clear that it was more than just ammunition. He also says "[William] Quandt's research contains approximate figures on the Soviet sealift and airlift to the Middle East during the war. They sound reasonable, but I can neither confirm nor challenge them." I believe he might be refering to this document by Quandt. Raul654 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Quandt puts the total Soviet resupply effort (airlift + sealift) at 63,000 tons (see the table on page 35 of the pdf) Raul654 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

American airlift was not what saved Israel. The airlift really started on the 14th by which time the Syrians were already on the retreat and in Sinai plans were already been made to cross the canal. Most of the deliveries from America was ammunition especially the 105mm tank rounds and .50cal for the M2, both of which Israelis were afraid they might run out of as the expenditure of these particular munitions were massive. As it turned out the Israelis never ran out of their pre-war supplies during the war and the airlifted supplies were mainly used to replenish Israeli stocks. Only a few dozen tanks were delivered, for logistical reasons, and 56 A4s and F4s were transferred from American bases in Germany and from carriers of the Sixth Fleet. During the hostilities 16 A4 replacement airframes were also delivered, 50+ helicopters, and 16 M60 tanks.

On the other hand Soviet deliveries started as early as October 4th/5th and went unabated till the end of the war especially to Syria. In fact the Soviets could, and did, sea-lift, in addition to airlift, supplies straight from USSR due to physical proximity of the Middle East from its shores; and sea-lift meant heavy equipment and greater capacity ( the Soviets delivered 206 aircraft to the Arabs, for example). The Soviet main supply strategy was based on sea routes and not on the airlift for obvious logistical and geographic reasons. In addition Soviets did not possess anything compared to American C-5s and could only compensate with more sorties. The fly time from USSR to ME, compared from USA to Israel, was also a lot shorter - 1700 vs 6500 miles. At the end Soviets delivered over 16,000 tons (935 sorties) vs. American 22,400 Tons (565 sorites). 5,500 tons were also flown in by El-Al (250 sorties). Flying expensive transport planes in the a battle zone was also dangerous and American transports were escorted by either American or Israeli airforces.

Most of Soviet delivir [by Mike]

All of this information is readily available in such sources as Trevor Dupuy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.67.21 (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

in the intro

Jewish day of atonement - surely should be capitalised as is the translation to Jewish Day of Atonement as are all holidays everywhere--124.183.78.230 (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lybian contribution

Plans or planes?--124.183.78.230 (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Planes. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Aid to Combatant Nations

The information I added to the article was from Lt. Gen. Saad El Shazly's book on the war. Shazli was the Egyptian Chief of Staff of the war. I believe he constitutes a more reliable source than William Quandt. The sealift did not begin on Oct 6, but on October 30, while the airlift began on Oct 9 and lifted 15,000 tons. Sherif9282 (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Either Shazli is wrong or you are reading it wrong, because you are claiming that the sealift began 4 days after the war ended, which is absurd on its face. The sealift began at roughly the same time as airlift. Quandt includes a day-by-day count of the ships passing through the Bosporus to resupply Egypt and Syria, whereas (per Rabinovich's comment above) Arab sources of the war are heavily laden with fantasy and not to be trusted. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No I did not read it wrong and I think it is very unlikely that Shazli is mistaken either. Besides Raul654, it's ridiculous to consider all Arab sources of the battle as untrustworthy and unreliable on the basis of Rabinovich's comment. Arab authors also put Israeli sources as biased and untruthful, but that doesn't give me reason to treat Israeli cited information in the article as such. Nevertheless, I bring it to your attention that Rabinovich exempted Lt. Gen. Saad El Shazli from his claim, and appears to have exempted Gammasy as well. It is not clear on what information Quandt's research is based, and Victor Israelyan was neither able to confirm nor chalenge his research. Besides, I don't understand your reason for claiming that it is absurd to say that the Soviets began their sealift after the war. If it is as you say then I suppose the US sealift also started on the same time as the US airlift, or at least only a few days later. Also, Quandt states from Israeli claims that the Soviet Union had been preparing for the sealift long before the war, when Shazli states that the Soviets were only given a hint on Oct. 2 that an engagement (not a war) was going to occur. The Soviets were only certain full scale war was going to take place on Oct. 4.Sherif9282 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sherif, I am quickly getting tired of correcting your numerous mistakes. Here's a second source that debunks your claim: "...According to Dismukes and McConnell, who base their figures on released Soviet documents, the sealift to Egypt amounted to 23,090 tons by 22 October, with an additional 24,980 tons by 9 November. They put the airlift figure for Egypt at 6,380 tons by 26 October. (Bradford Dismukes and James McConnell [eds], Soviet Naval Diplomacy, New York, Pergamon, 1979]) American airborn aid to Israel amounted to about 23,000 tons in 566 round trips, supplemented by a further 5,500 tons in El Al aircraft (Strategic Survey, 1973, p 27) Egyptian Chief of Staff Saad el-Shazly (The Crossing of the Suez, p 187) puts the American sealift supply figure at 33,210 tons. -- Stopping Wars: Defining the Obstacles to Cease-Fire. James D. D. Smith. Westview Press, 1997. ISBN 0813399807. Page 53, footnote 115. Google books link

If, according to Soviet documents, the Soviets had delivered over 20,000 tons by sealift by October 22, then *clearly* it did not begin on the 30th.

Furthermore, If it is as you say then I suppose the US sealift also started on the same time as the US airlift, or at least only a few days later. - yes, that is logical and probably true, though irrelevant to this discussion. Raul654 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Caption of title POV

"When the cease fire came into effect, Israel had lost territory on the east side of the Suez Canal to Egypt (shown in red) but gained territory west of the canal and in the Golan Heights (shown in green)." Even though the map is wrong, with respect that ismailiya was not captured, the caption reads as if it was from an Israeli perspective, using the word "but" . A more neutral version is "When the cease fire came into effect, Israel had gained territory to the west of the canal and the golan heights, and Egypt had gained territory to the east of the canal " or in fact just put "Map after cease fire" and the caption should be fine . Kakaka79m (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The current caption is fine as-is. There is nothing POV about it.

but (bt; bt when unstressed) conj... 4. With the exception that; except that. Often used with that: would have joined the band but he couldn't spare the time; would have resisted but that they lacked courage. - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/but

The suggested alternative caption ("When the cease fire came into effect, Israel had gained territory to the west of the canal and the golan heights, and Egypt had gained territory to the east of the canal") conveys exactly the same information in a less elegant, clumsier way. And the other alternative "Map after cease fire" is entirely devoid of useful information. Raul654 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then why doesn't the sentence say the same thing but starting with "Egypt gained land on the east...", since after all Egypt gained the the territory first, and then lost western territory. on top of that Egypt starts with an E and israel starts with an I , alphabetically and chronologically my arguement holds. The information is the same, I agree with you, but there is no reason to emphasize one country over the other by having it the subject of the sentence. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakaka79m (talk • contribs) 06:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Kakaka79m may be right, although only in the case of Israel would anyone complain—unless there have been fights because of Venetian-POV'd maps over at War of the League of Cambrai of which I'm not aware. In any event, "had captured ground" is more accurate than "had gained territory"—the terrain on which the armies stood was not annexed or claimed by either party. Albrecht (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be sarcastic, as I am genuinely trying to improve the article. And I agree about "captured ground" part, although I am not an expert in semanticsKakaka79m (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Size of Third Army

The size of the surrounded third army should be included in the section dealing with the surrounded third army (around 45,000 based on Shazly) so that the size of the Israeli leverage could be better understood. I also suggest a section detailing the amount of forces on each front of the war, number of divisions, tanks, etc. so a Quantitative understanding of the belligerent's capabilities are better understood as well as the distributions. For example the capabilities and generation of the weapons used by the belligerents should be atleast given a qualitiative treatment. Kakaka79m (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on the war, not a book. For a qualitative discussion of each of the weapons used, we link to the appropriate articles.

Insofar as the size of the forces involved, that is already given in the infobox. I do not disagree with your suggestion about including the size of the third army, provided reliable source is located by someone other than me. (Shazly - with a page number - is fine by me) Raul654 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Violation of Cease-fire , section "Egypt's trapped Third Army"

"During the night, the Egyptians violated the cease-fire in a number of locations, destroying nine Israeli tanks. In response" This is really subjective view. I agree to everthing until "In response", This implies that Israel broke the cease-fire only because the Egyptians did. However in a pure military point of view, there is no need to accept a cease-fire while you have a great advantage and complete control ( which Israel did) and come out with nothing out of the conflict. The tone of the section later strongly implies Israel was going to surround the third army, cease fire or not. In general, there is no need to put "in response", implying that the intentions of people in the middle of warfare are somehow known by the writer. And justifications are generally not needed in a non-biased factual article, unless accompanied by an indication that the belligerents said so , for example "according to" etc. One can easily make an article with "in response" starting whenever he/she wants to justify a belligerent's actions. Kakaka79m (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This implies that Israel broke the cease-fire only because the Egyptians did. - Yes, it does imply that, because that is what happened.

The tone of the section later strongly implies Israel was going to surround the third army, cease fire or not. - this is a bizarre comment, given that the preceding statement explicitly contradicts this. It's like seeing the sentence 'Germany did not win World War II' and saying that this is POV because everything after the "not" strongly implies that Germany won World War II. Raul654 (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just a laughable comment, you personally attack my comments saying "bizarre" and you are supposed to be the moderator of this section? And I am sorry, but I didn't know that you knew the intentions of all of what happened on the battlefield. Why don't you fill the whole article with "in response" , "because of" etc. to enlighten us even more about why the command took decisions !? I repeat again, claiming to know the intentions of the belligerent parties extremely degrades the quality of the article. Also I was referring to the quoted conversation with Kissinger and Golda Mier. In many interviews Kissinger claims that "I didn't want a cease-fire, I wanted to give them more time", I guess you already know that. To make myself clear, I am not pinpointing on this sentence but anywhere in the whole article, I support removing "intention" key words. This is a war article, not a telly tubbies fairy tale. Kakaka79m (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The leading elements of the Israeli army were told to cease fire, and to "steal ground" (e.g, advance until they reached non-shooting contact with the enemy) [Rabinovich, 461]. At midnight, Avraham Adan informed Shmuel Gonen that the egyptians has violated the cease fire, and requested permission to resume attacking. Gonen denied his request. [Rabinovich, 462] At 8:00 AM, Elazar informed Dayan of the events from the preceeding night and requested permission to resume the attack. Dayan granted it. [Rabinovich, 463]

Therefore, your claims that we cannot know what prompted their response are false. There is historical documentation to back-up the accurate claims in this article, your unsourced conjecture not withstanding. Removing the "in response" would make this article less accurate. Your suggestion is detrimental, therefore it will not be implemented. Raul654 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and your (again, unsourced) Kissinger quote gets 0 google hits and directly contradicts the sourced Kissinger quote in this article. Therefore I give it no weight at all. Raul654 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So assuming the field commander claimed that the egyptians had broken the cease-fire (and I have read accounts that the opposite happened), was true , then thats ok. In fairness, Shazly , page 268 (http://books.google.ch/books?id=SPSkaqL945oC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=shazly+breached+ceasefire&source=bl&ots=Se_Yu0ndRJ&sig=T9eGDwkXTseM782Ged25eMgIUFg&hl=de&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA268,M1) , says that the israelis breached the cease-fire so atleast that view should be put as well. See also http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm#VII Kakaka79m (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Further more it is wikipedia's NPOV policy that if two reliable sources point to different reasons of an event, both need to be mentioned. So I think it needs to be rewritten to take in that view. Kakaka79m (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Strength of Army

"690 airplanes (220 crossed, about 60 participated in the Mansourah battle)," I find it a bit strange to quote how many airplanes "crossed", especially since "crossing" is very easy for an airplane :) maybe 220 "took part" is better ( If ofcourse the number is correct) Kakaka79m (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that section from the article. We don't put details like that in infoboxes. Raul654 (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heading towards the passes on the 14th october

The following completely laughable : "Despite stiff resistance, Egyptian forces managed to advance a distance varying between 12 to 15 km, occupying some positions and inflicting heavy casualties. Estimating that the attack eastwards had been successful and had served its purpose, the Egyptian General Command gave orders for the attacking troops to return to their positions."

It is agreed by both Egyptian and Israeli sources that the 14th october push towards the passes was a complete disaster for the Egyptians .Shazly puts the losses at 250 tanks. The source cited for this is also questionable and reads like a fantasy article ,and should be removed. The source even denies that the third army was trapped! Furthermore its illogical that 400 egyptian tanks could cause "heavy casualties" to 900 better Israeli tanks. Kakaka79m (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it does read like fantasy. As the Rabinovich quote I've copied elsewhere on this talk page notes, this is not an uncommon occurrence in the memoirs of the Arab side of this war. I've deleted that section. Raul654 (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sealifts

Resolved

 – No sources found that contradict this article

I was experiencing several connection problems but fortunately I am back. Good to see that Kakaka79m has removed the incorrect information about the attack on Oct 14. I was going to do so myself but I had forgotten about it.

Anyways I wanted to resume the discussion on the sealifts. Raul654, the fact remains that Saad El Shazly is a reliable source that is not to be dismissed. James D. D. Smith quotes information about the American airlift from his book. Besides, how can you confirm the reliablity of the Soviet sources upon which Dismukes and McConnell base their research? Saad El Shazly says:...the Soviet Union mounted a sea-borne resupply operation: no less than 63,000 tons, mainly to Syria, by October 30.

With regard to the American sealift: ...the USA mounted a seaborne resupply operation of 33,210 tons to Israel by October 30. By definition, 'mount' means to prepare. Hence the resupply operation was en route to Syria and Egypt by Oct. 30th.

Shazly also states that the Soviets had not planned for any resupply operations, contrary to William Quandt's opinion, and anyway, was not certain war was to take place before Oct. 5th. Furthermore, before starting the sealift, the Soviets reinforced their presence in the Mediterranean with a naval fleet. So how could the Soviets moblize and send an entire fleet, and prepare a large naval supply operation, delivering 23,000 tons within 13 days only 3 days after the start of the war, all without any prior preparation? Besides, I think the Soviets would have been really worried about the possibility of the Israelis attacking the Soviet ships out at sea, which might lead to an escalation of the conflict. So I still await your reasons for claiming that to say the sealift began on Oct. 30 is absurd inspite of the reference mentioned. Rahter it appears logical that the sealift should begin after the ceasefire: the Soviets could guarantee the Israelis won't attack their ships, and the Arabs would have prepared a list of supplies for the Soviets based on their losses during the war.

Saad El Shazly is a hgihly reliable reference and it cannot be simply discarded, and it is extremely unlikely that he would be mistaken as to the details of the Soviet sealift.Sherif9282 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are reading Shazly's statement wrong. "To mount" an action means to prepare and execute it. When a source says that X mounted Y, it does not mean that X prepared to do Y; it means that X actually did it. When Shazly says that the "Soviet Union mounted a sea-borne resupply operation: no less than 63,000 tons, mainly to Syria, by October 30." - that means that Syria and Egypt received 63,000 tons by October 30. It does NOT mean they started receiving the materiel on October 30 or afterwards.

As far as I'm concerned, this point has already been beaten into the ground. I have provided 3 sources that provided explicit, detailed, day-by-day breakdowns of the resupplies to the Arab nations based on Soviet documents. You have provided a single sentence by Shazly which you failed to understand correctly. Until and unless you can provide a reliable source that explicitly contradicts the already-provided sources, this discussion is over. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken with respect to the meaning of mounted. Searching define: mounted on Google, the following two definitions came up: assembled for use and prepare and supply with the necessary equipment for execution or performance. I have not seen any definition which says that mounted means to prepare and execute. Hence, the word mounted in Shazli's statement means that the Soviet sealift was ONLY prepared and supplied with the necessary equipment for execution by October 30, meaning that the sealift had not yet comenced until October 30.

My argument still stands. Furthermore, you you have only provided me 2 sources: William Quandt, and James D. D. Smith. There was no third source. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) I have provided three sources - Quandt, Smith, and Rabinovich.

(2) Your understanding of the english language is wrong. . To prepare and set in motion: mount an attack. - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mount (emphasis mine). The Shazley paragraph you showed above does not state what you think it did. Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In that particular website there was another definition which says To organize and equip. Keep in mind that Shazli's book is an English translation of the original Arabic text, and it is entirely possible some words may have not been accurately translated. By the way, Gen. El Gammasy states in his book, p.274, that the first US vessel belonging to the resupply operation reached Israel on November 2. In context with Shazli's statement ...the USA mounted a seaborne resupply operation of 33,210 tons to Israel by October 30. then mounted means that the sealift was prepared/organized by October 30, and hence the first vessel arrived on November 2. The word mounted in the sentence concerning the Soviet sealift must hold the same meaning, ie: To organize and equip. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, there are 4 sources (Quandt, Smith, Rabinovich, and Shazley) that confirm what is in the article, and 0 that contradict it (unless we are to believe that Shazley is a mistranslation, the Soviet documents about the sealift are wrong, and both of the other authors are as well). Your point now stretches the bounds of credulity. Raul654 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you completely oblivious of what I wrote? I said that Shazly's statement might have been a mistranslation. I gave you an argument based on Gammasy (who constitutes a reliable source), to prove that the word mounted means that the sealift was only prepared by October 30.

Thinking of it now, the phrase set in motion means get going; give impetus to:"Her actions set in motion a complicated judicial process". Therefore, assuming the definition is as you say, the Soviet Union mounted a sea-borne resupply operation means that the Soviet Union prepared the sealift and got it going by October 30. In other words, the sealift only began by October 30. So whichever way you put it, the statement clearly shows that the sealift did not begin on October 9. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We're just talking in circules. Sherif, until and unless you provide another source that explicitely contradicts the statement in this article, I'm marking this discussion closed. Raul654 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"To mount" means to organize and execute on an operation. Raul654 has 4 sources that confirm his view; you have none. The discussion is indeed closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. I am changing the information in the article about the American sealift in order to suit Shazli's statement. Sherif9282 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Provided you have accurately summarized Shazli's statement, I don't object. Please quote the sentence from Shazley pg 276 you are referencing in this edit. Raul654 (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I hope this isn't a poor attempt at WP:POINT...--OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This definitely wasn't. I don't go for these kind of cheap methods. I have already discussed this here. I have quoted Shazli's statement on both sealifts in both citations.Sherif9282 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Engagements on October 9

Recently I added some information from Shazli about engagements on October 9. Raul removed these addtions on the basis that the the previous paragraph refuted them, citing from Rabinovich that following the Israeli attack on Oct 8, both sides digged in and waited for the other to attack. I think the new information should have proved that Rabinovich was mistaken. If Shazli states there were Israeli attacks on Oct 9, then he wasn't imagining it, disregarding the opinion that Arab sources are unreliable.

This is another source by Doctor George Gawrych, which proves that there were significant engagements on October 9 http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gawrych/gawrych_pt5.pdf. See the last paragraph on page 54. Gawrych uses a micture of Egyptian and Israeli sources for his information.

The first paragraph on the following page, page 55, explains why Elazar replaced Gonen, and later it is stated that both sides siezed attacks on October 10 rather then October 9. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I changed the number of aircraft under Egypt's disposal. Saad El Shazly stated that Egypt had 400 combat aircraft and 70 transport aircraft instead of 690 aircraft, and 140 choppers instead of 160. Since transport sircraft does not account for a combatant's strength, I have not included it. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, I have a question to for you. Gawrych's publication contains some pictures and maps. Since they are available to the public domain I think it will raise no legal issues if they are added to this article. Some images were omitted from the online version of the paper due to copyright issues, and hence are not available at all. The other images and maps were all featured in the paper. Can these pictures be added? The site on which Gawrych's paper is found is an official US army website. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full listing of all of their works.

Work products of US government workers are public domain. Anything that Gawrych or another US government employee wrote, drew, or photographed while on the job is public domain. This includes the text of the work, but almost certainly does not include the pictures. The maps, I can't really tell. If you want to use the maps, it would be perfectly acceptable to do a line drawing of them (basically, import them into inkscape and trace out the edges, like I did with the map currently in this article). Raul654 (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth emailing the Israeli Government Press Office and asking them to release some pictures under a Wikipedia-friendly copyright license. Raul654 (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-tank weapons

Rabinovich's statement that one of every three Egyptian soldiers would mean that out of the 80,000 soldiers who had crossed nearly 27,000 would be armed with AT weapons. The statement is absurd, wrong, and a gross exageration of the number of AT weapons in Egypt's arsenal. Shazly states that the five infantry divisions that had crossed the canal had, in total, 2100 RPGs and 350 Sagger launchers, ie: a total of ~2,500 portable AT weapons were available to the 80,000 troops who had crossed. This means that in fact one of every thirty-two Egpytian soldiers had an AT weapons. In light of this, Rabinovich's quote that immediately follows could be debated, as well as the statement that says: the Egyptians had armed their first wave with unprecedented numbers of man-portable anti-tank weapons. For now, I will remove the incorrect figures.Sherif9282 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I rechecked the source. "Unprecedented" accurately summarizes one paragraph of that page, and the "Never before" quote is there, but not the 'one in three' comment. Raul654 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but on what foundation is the "Never before" quote based? How can he know for sure that portable AT weapons were never used in such numbers before? Nearly all combatants had used portable AT rockets in WW2, the US used bazookas in North Korea, RPGs and AT-3s were used in the Vietnam War and a variety of US AT weapons were also used in that war. The number of portable AT weapons used in any of these wars could easily exceed the 2,500 deployed by the EgyptiansSherif9282 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For the first time since tanks lumbered onto the battlfields of the First World War, the greatest danger they faced was not from enemy tanks or crew-served anti-tank guns but from individual infantrymen. Bazookas had been used by infantrymen in all previous wars but never in such quantity as the RPGs or with the range and lethality of the Saggers. The Egyptian troops had been provided with the anti-tank weapons in prodigious numbers. At Shazly's orders, Saggers had been stripped from rear units and added to the spearhead forces. Each of the five attacking divisions had infantrymen armed with 72 Saggers and 535 RPGs. In addition, 57 anti-tank guns and 90 recoilless weapons added a more conventional but no less deadly tank-killing capability. This added up to 800 antitank weapons per divion apart from the 200 tanks attached to each division. Never before had such intensive antitank fire been brough to bear on the battlefield." - Rabinovich, 108. Raul654 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be confusing absolute totals with concentration. In Vietnam, the US might have more total anti-tank weapons (although even that is disputable since the Vietnamese didn't use tanks so anti-tank equipment was probably rare), but if they did those weapons were certainly spread out over more than 5 divisions. Raul654 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Vietnamese did in fact use tanks, as in the Ho Chi Minh campaign where they were used in quite large numbers. At any rate, the Vietnamese themselves made extensive use of RPGs and Saggers as well. Anti tank weapons were used in very large numbers and concentrations in the second world war, such as the 2nd Battle of Alamein and the Battle of Kursk, the latter involving 20,000 guns and 3,600 tanks on the Soviet side alone, in which the Red Army deployed more artillery regiments than infantry regiments with gun densities reaching over 20 guns per km defensive zone (see article on Anti-Tank warfare).Sherif9282 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, the number of ~ 500 RPGs per division almost exactly corresponds to the number of bazookas in a WW2-era US infantry division. DMorpheus (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, that number is concerned with bazookas alone, and it does not take into account the number of AT guns. This, and the number and density of AT weapons used in battle such as El Alamein and Kursk in particular is proof that there was nothing particulary unprecedented with Egyptian use of AT weapons. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in part - the density of weapons systems was probably not unprecedented. But a sagger or RPG is a lot more effective than a bazooka or even a panzerfaust. So there was a huge qualitative difference. Also, the Egyptians pushed these small AT teams forward essentially in an offensive manner (tactically defensive but operationally offensive); that was not done at Kursk or in Normandy, for example. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

True, RPGs and Saggers were more effective, but then tanks used in this war were also much better (Centurions, M-60s, etc). They had better armor and armament, better speed, and were not plagued by the mechanical problems which German tanks such as the Tiger and Panther suffered from. AT guns, bazookas, panzerfausts and panzerschrecks were all quite effective against WW2 era tanks. If you would read the article about the Sagger missile, you will realise that it was a difficult weapon to handle, with a low hit probability. So relatively, there was not much of a profound difference. Sherif9282 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

With regards to offensive use, I think AT weapons were used offensively by the Allies in Normandy, and by paras in Operation Overlord, and I think also by German troops (panzerschrecks, panzerfausts, etc...) in the Battle of the Bulge. Anyways, it's not how they were used that's discussed here, it's their numbers specificaly. Regards, Sherif9282 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, we strayed off the track a bit ;) There's little question the man-portable AT weapons of 1973 were a lot better relative to the tanks they were facing than in 1944-45, especially in terms of range. So *if* the density of systems was roughly equal, it is still true that more terrain could be dominated by those systems.

I've handled both systems myself (not in combat, thankfully) so I am familiar with how they work ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But weren't the tanks used in 1973 also better against AT weapons than their predecessors in 1944-1945, once again, in terms of mobility and armor? What was the penetrative ability of RPGs at that time against M60 and Centurion tanks?

The Egyptians used a total of 3,000 AT weapons in the war (Saggers, RPGs, recoilles rifles (which were not portable), AT guns, etc...). The Sinai front was nearly 190 kms long. So how do we calculate weapon density? You will note that Rabinovich essentially concentrates on the number of AT weapons used by the Egyptians, not their effectiveness (except when mentioning the Sagger). That is the central point of this argument. Awaiting your reply. Regards, Sherif9282 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many 1973-era tanks were better (don't forget there were still some 1945-vintage tanks in use). The man-portable AT weapons were better. The question is whether there was a relative difference compared to 1945. The aspects of that are range, accuracy and penetrating power. Based on range alone I would say most certainly. A WW2 infantryman with a bazooka or panzerfaust had to be damned close to get a hit. The RPG has greater range than either; the sagger obviously far outranges any of these. The RPG is marginally more accurate than either; a sagger is potentially far, far more accurate with a skilled gunner who isn't getting incoming fire. In penetrating power, bazookas were marginal against the heaviest German tanks; panzerfausts, RPGs and saggers could easily defeat their era's tanks. A Cent or M60 had nowhere near the level of protection needed to survive.

Weapon density can be calculated as systems-per-Km of defended terrain (the entire front is sort of irrelevant unless you're assuming a continuous front), which is a very crude measure useful mostly for comparing the intended strength of each sector. A better way to look at it is to look at the Egyptian fire plan if they had one ;0 . The fan-shaped piece of terrain covered by each system, and the degree to which they overlap, is a good indicator of density. This is where range plays a big role.

I think the real reason the Egyptian AT weapons were effective has little to do with how many there were. It was that they were facing a tank-heavy force that forgot about combined-arms. Sophisticated artillery support would have gone far to neutralize these AT teams.

Yes, I know, we're straying again.... ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps artillery support would have done as you say, but then the Egyptians had neutralised a large number of Israeli artillery stationed in the Bar-Lev Line and beyond in the Crossing operation and in the first airstrike. Besides the Egyptians had well entrenched themselves. The IDF didn't forget about combined arms, they were confident that their armour would achieve a swift 2967 style victory. Rather, I think that explains why Israeli casualties in the Sinai were low in contrast to their tank losses, ie: if infantry also had participated in the attack on October 8 then the result would only have been more disastrous for the Israelis. But hey, who am I to say? You're the military expert ;)

I read in the books that I have that the Egyptians were fighting along a coontinuous front of 175 kms. As the Egyptians had 3,000 AT weapons in total, that gives a density of 17 AT weapons per defensive kilometer, less than the Soviet density of over 20 guns per kilometer. Anyways, I'm still waiting for the article's admin, Raul654 to come over and enter the discussion. I don't want to make an edit only to find him reverting it for a reason I don't know.

Note Raul: in the references section, the first reference states an estimate on Arab and Israeli casualties,

Arab: 5,000 dead, 10,000 wounded, 1200 tanks destroyed, 370 airplanes destroyed.

Israeli: 2,355 dead, 9,000 wounded, 500 tanks destroyed (instead of the article's 400 completely destroyed), and 115 airplanes.

I will mention this in the article on the Arab side, since the author of that reference uses a large variety of Arab and Israeli sources, and what he writes largely corresponds to what is written here and so he can be regarded as a reliable source. Sherif9282 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Raul654 has not replied to what has been said here for the past 5 days, and since it has been shown that the number and concentration of AT weapons used by the Egyptians was not unprecedented, I will change the information provided in the article accordingly. Sherif9282 (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Protection

Unfortunately, it seems that the article needs to be semi-protected once more, in light of the recent detrimental edits, yes? Sherif9282 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

At sea

I must say I disagree with how the "At Sea" is divided into Syrian and Egyptian Operations. On the one hand, the article on the Battle of Latakia states that At the outset of hostilities, the Israeli Navy set out to destroy the naval capabilities of the Syrians... so the that engagement cannot be mentioned here as paert of Syrian operations. On the other hand, Israeli Commando raids are mentioned under Egyptian Operations, and the engagements largely involved the Egyptian navy patrolling Egyptian coastlines or setting out to counter Israeli naval maneouvers. I'm going to return that section to its previous format. Sherif9282 (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with going back to the old description, but I'm concern about bias in the description of the naval operations of the Egyptian navy. In particular, I find it suspect that the section describes one Egyptian victory after another, but not a single Israeli one. I don't recall much mention of sea warfare in Rabinovich's book, but I'm sure they Israelis had to have had some victories. Raul654 (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find any source about Israeli victories. I think it's due to the "first-time" record set by the Battle of Latakia that other naval engagements throughout the war were largely ignored. Before editing this section it was mentioned that Israeli commando raids against Egyptian vessels were unsuccessful and did not have much of an effect upon the war. I will remove the unnessecary details about these Israeli raids. Keep in mind that the Egyptians also had a larger navy than Israel.

Asides that, the first part of that section talks about the Battle of Latakia. So it's not entirely one Egyptian victory after another. In total, seven Israeli vessels (and a fast attack craft) were sunk against six Arab vessels sunk. Sherif9282 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In the "Events leading up to the war" section, it is written that Egypt went on improving its military tactics, based on Soviet battlefield doctrines. No such thing is mentioned in Shazly's book, who shows that the preparation and planning of the war was largely carried out by Egyptian commanders, and he focuses in particular on the things that he did. I don't think its true that the Egyptian army improved itself on the basis of Soviet battlefield doctrines. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that so many Sa'ar 3's and Sa'ar 4's were sunk? I have never read this before and find it a bit suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are in fact no records that show Israeli naval losses in this war. Egyptian (11 boats sunk) and Syrian (7 boats sunk) navies, lost two major sea battles (first of a kind 'missile battles'), where Israeli doctrine based on EW and Israeli missiles proved superior to Soviet equipment. Following Battle of Latakia and Baltim, these two navies remained at port where they suffered some losses by Israeli raids (commandos and naval bombardment). However, the naval battles had no effect on the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.196.97 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peace attempts

It seems to me more needs to be added to the article concerning peace efforts post the Six Day War. Preferably this information should be in a sub-section of its own under Background and before Casus Belli. In such a case that section will probably need some rearragement. Raul, can I expect your help in rearranging the Background section if necessary? I will try to add all the information concerning peace attempts in one go. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the background section is sufficiently detailed as it is. Your changes would be more appropriate at Arab-Israeli_conflict#1967-1973 Raul654 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Liberated" vs "Captured"

In the section "Combat operation", subsection "In the Sinai", it says "During the nights of October 7 and 8, the Egyptian 18th Infantry Division liberated the city of Qantara." I think it should say "captured the city of Qantara" instead. Boriskin (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)boriskin

Liberation is the more appropriate term. See the Liberation of Paris. Sherif9282 (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: the archived US documents clearly state that the US airlift was a response to Israel's mounting losses and in reply to Golda Meir's request. Ichanged the info in the article accordingly.Sherif9282 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Baltim

I've just created this article and was about to add a wikilink, when I noticed that the information regarding this battle on this article completely contradicts what the sources I used say. According to my sources, three Egyptian boats were sunk on October 8-9, while the Israelis lost none. This is also supported by this source (p. 114), this one, and this one. This article currently is currently sourced to Badri, an Egyptian General who is probably a primary source. Can anyone comment? Thanks, Nudve (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Badri was a Professor of Military History. If you read the At Sea section carefully, you will realise that the engagement mentioned in the article took place at around midday, while the Battle of Baltim took place at midnight. Sherif9282 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Other sources make no mention of the "midday battle", and at least one of them, Dunstan, explicitly says the Israelis lost no vessels. Are we talking about a different Badri? -- Nudve (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A different Badri? I'm not sure what you mean. Badri was a professor at the Nasser Military Academy. By the way, Dunstan gives incredible figures on Egyptian losses in the war. Not even the Israeli estimates on the total KIA for both Syria and Egypt, provided in the article by Rabinovich, reached such a propstrous number. I'm not sure whether he's reliable in providing casualty figures.Sherif9282 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean Major-General Hassan al-Badri, the army's chief historian at least after the war. -- Nudve (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They are one and the same. Badri was the army's main historian, and a professor of history. He did not participate in the war, which means he is not a primary source. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I still think the two versions are incompatible. Perhaps WP:ASF is possible. I think I'll ask around again. -- Nudve (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I think that sufficient Egyptian sources have been brought, along with other sources, to the article. So I've altered the article's to-do list.Sherif9282 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• I could not believe my eyes. Badri? are you serious? We might as well just start citing Cairo Radio as a source for the 1967 war, stating that "victory in near" while Israeli forces already held Sinai. Badri is a military propagandist employed specifically to hide military losses. NO Israeli missile boats were lost in the war. This is a well established FACT recognized by all military historians (other than Badri). Israel did lose one or two patrol boats (I think) in the Red Sea, but that was it. --Omrim (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether he can be considered an independent source, or does he meet WP:QS. On one hand, he was employed by the Egyptian army. On the other hand, the book was published by a respectable publisher. Also, since all military historians, as Omrim said (and the article conveys), contradict him, maybe his is a fringe theory. What do you suggest? -- Nudve (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire section on the naval battles should be revised. It should start with the acceptable facts about the battles of Latakia and Baltim. Only towards the end of the section Badri's "accounts" should be breifly mentioned (something like: although the outcome of the battles at sea are well accepted by most military historians, one Egyptian historain claims that... bla bla). The ref to his accounts should be considerably shorter. Right now the section starts with Badri's bogus accounts, bringing them in a very detailed manner, and only then the real facts are breifly mentioned. This is outrageous, and should be turned 180 degrees. --Omrim (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Feel free to revise. -- Nudve (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

DONE! take a look and let me know what you think.--Omrim (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have poisoned the well a bit too much with all those negative reviews of Badri's book in the article, no? -- Nudve (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in retrospect you may be right. On the other hand, I don't want to just delete the reviews, because some day someone will come and say "Hey, why did you delete Badri?" and the reviews are a good answer for that question. What do you think? Maybe we should just leave the assertion that Badri's book is the only such account, and put the reviews (including the citations) in the footnotes? any other thoughts? --Omrim (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. Remove the reviews and leave just the fact that he is the only one who wrote it. If someone has doubts, they can always be referred to the talk page and see this discussion (you can post them here if you want). Do you have any review that discusses the naval war in particular, one that explicitly say the engagements Badri describes never happened? -- Nudve (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look, but I doubt it. Most military Historian simply ignore his accounts. Countless sources describing the naval battles of the war only describe Latakia and Baltim. The simply don't describe things that didn't occur. I truely believe it is as simple as that. Even articles written by other Egyptian authors don't account for such an engagement. But I'll look.--Omrim (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced information

Raul654, why did you remove all that information in the section about Egypt's trapped third army? I provided citations to reliable sources. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, because (a) it's explicitly contradicted by Rabinovich and (b) as written, it's extremely biased. ("With these skirmeshes as an excuse, Adan decided to continue his attack on the 23rd."; "When Sadat protested Israeli truce violations, Israel claimed that Egyptian troops had fired first") Raul654 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for your information, that's almost exactly what Gawrych said and the USMC report said. I didn't invent all this. In fact, both Shazly and Gamasy assert that there had been no violations of the ceasefire from the Egyptian side, and that the Israelis had broken the ceasefire by advancing towards Suez City. As for Iraqi forces, I gave a reference for those as well. The first reference was this one. The second reference was Shazli, who wrote that Iraq sent one infantry diivision and one armored division (Shazly was Assistant Secretary General of the Arab League for Defense, and he organized what reinforcements each Arab country would send and where to). An armored division probably woudn't reach 500 in number anyway.Sherif9282 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why you removed this established fact from that section as well: "and Sharon's division had failed in repeated attempts to capture Ismailia and cut off the Second Army's supply lines.", since reaching Ismailia was a goal set by the Israelis.Sherif9282 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, what about the Israeli attack into Suez City? I believe that should be mentioned under the ceasefire and immediate aftermath section.Sherif9282 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the information you removed regarding the ceasefire and immediate aftermath. I will try to make it as unbiased as I can, but if you still consider it to be biased then edit it accordingly.Sherif9282 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright Raul, I restored the information that had been removed from the ceasefire section. I made some minor edits as well. Everything I added matches the sources I used. Sherif9282 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Casus Belli?

Why this and not "Justifications for War?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.75.50 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote formatting

Though I'm not exactly a Wikipedia style expert, I believe a large portion of the quotes in this article are poorly formatted. What concerns me primarily is that, "for quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation" [emphasis added]. That said, I also believe there are a few large quotes in this article (e.g., the one underneath Northern front de-escalation.) that should be reformatted as block quotations.

I would love to make these changes myself, but I don't seem to have editing privileges for this article. --PwnzerfaustMonk (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is permanently semi-protected to prevent anonymous and newly registered users from editing it. Once your account reaches a certain minimum age (approximately 5+ days) and mimimum number of edits (around 15) you can edit it. Raul654 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me, Raul. I'll work on reaching that milestone ASAP. --PwnzerfaustMonk (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I corrected that noted instance, though other ways are possible. Raul knows more, but there also is/was something called the 'whitelist'. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear alert(s)

Nudve reverted my edit discussing Israel's nuclear alert on 8 October 1973, saying that it's already and better referenced later on in the article. Am I mistaken, or is the only nuclear alert already mentioned the American one about two weeks later in response to the Russian intervention threat, not the Israeli "third temple" one? YLee (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry. The citation format confused me. I'll edit it back in. -- Nudve (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaponry

In weaponry section, it should be mentioned that Arabs were supplied with soviet monkey (export) models, which were far inferior to the original models made for USSR. For example, M48 Patton tank was inferior to soviet made T-55 in terms of armor and firepower. As for the export model and ammunition it used, it was inferior to the western tank and its western ammunition. Same holds for Soviet T-62 and western M60 respectively, and, as people probably understand, for the rest of the equipment also. American tests of Soviet T-72B in 1997 concluded that USSR would have superiority in armor in 80's (Jane's Defence Review magazine is the reference). 99.231.50.118 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

If you can cite that the Arab equipment was known to be inferior, then add it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Raul654 (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

A minor point, but shouldn't the 'Belligerents' section of the table be expanded to include the other nations involved (e.g. Algeria, Cuba, etc.). Most articles regarding a battle or war include any nations that supplied combat troops per Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The template explains that if there are many participants, it would suffice to mention only the three or four major belligerents and to describe the rest in the body, this is already done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Iraq and Jordan equally participated in the conflict on the northern front. Indeed they even coordinated their activities. To include the Iraqi flag without the Jordanian is somewhat misleading. I do agree with you that the other participants, such as Algeria, who played a minor role, should be excluded fron the belligerent section.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Iraq may have committed more forces than Jordan but there are four counterveiling arguments for Jordan's inclusion. First, the forces (Iraqi and Jordanian) that actually made it to the front and committed themselves to combat were almost equal. This is so because some of the Iraqi columns were destroyed by the IAF on route to the front. Some simply deployed by Damascus. Second, Jordanian tank crewmen are far superior to their Iraqi counterparts and the Israelis took Jordanian intervention more seriously because of that. Third, Jordanian and Iraqi forces coordinated their activites (or at least attempted to do so). Fourth, Jordan is a frontline state and Iraq isn't. Inclusion of Jordan is therefore appropriate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Being a frontline state doesn't justify its inclusion in the article. No battles took place on the Jordanian-Israeli border. Do you have a source stating specifically stating that Jordan was a major player in the war? Do you have a source stating that Jordanian troops were more experienced, or that only a small portion of Iraqi reinforcements participated in actual fighting? As far as I know, Iraqi forces were far more numerous, and almost all reinforcements took part in the fighting. Jordanian forces were less numerous, and it is clear from the article King Hussein was reluctant to send his troops to battle. How does any of this make Jordan a major participant?

Algeria and Libya sent significant support to Egypt, several air squadrons. Yet they are considered minor players in the conflict. Iraq also committed its air force, unlike Jordan, which did not even intercept numerous Israeli penetrations into Jordanian air space during the war. Jordan is a minor participant of the war. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely I have a source "Yom Kippur War," Insight team of the London Sunday times, Double day & Co, 1974 @ pages 308 to 317. Check it out before blindly reverting--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I had cause to revert. You were adding unsourced information. If you have a source, use it. --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Article lead

I've made a few changes to the second paragraph in the article's lead.

My main reason for making these changes is the misleading sentence that "The Egyptians and the Syrians advanced during the first 24–48 hours, after which momentum began to swing in Israel's favor". Instead, I've mentioned that the Egyptians were successful in the first week of the war (October 6-13), and also mentioned that they failed to renew their offensive. I've mentioned that the Israeli counteroffensive cut Third Army supply lines after the Israelis broke the ceasefire, as is established in the article's body. The lead remains largely the same in describing the course of the war on the Golan Heights. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your change was inaccurate and misleading. The Egyptians advanced for about the first 48 hours, after which they stopped advancing and the front lines settled down into a stalemate. I've also reverted your addition of "broke the cease fire" because (according to Rabinovich) it was the Egyptians broke the cease fire. I've restored the old version. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You persist in keeping Rabinovich as the ultimate source for this article. I have provided you with three sources: The October War and U.S. Policy, the paper by the USMC Major Piccirilli, and George Gawrych. All these sources say either say that it is unclear which side broke the ceasefire, or that both sides initiated regular firefights due to the troop dispositions at the start of ceasefire, which were intermingled as they were. What is clear is that Israel broke the ceasefire by advancing southward, and by crossing enormous amounts of equipment across the canal. I am going to reinsert the "broke the ceasefire" once again. Note that Kissinger was angered by Israeli claims that they had not initiated military operations when they were the ones on the offensive. I have added a secondary Egyptian source asserting that the Israelis broke the ceasefire. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

–The current paragraph is misleading. Contrary to Rabinovich, opposing lines did not settle down after October 8. The Egyptians proceeded to expand their bridges while the Israelis resumed their counterattacks on October 9. The lines settled down on October 9. This is the first mistake with the current paragraph.

–The second mistake lies with the sentence: "The Egyptians and Syrians advanced during the first 24–48 hours, after which momentum began to swing in Israel's favor". Suggesting that momentum swung in Israel's favor after the first 48 hours is misleading. Israel did not begin its counteroffensive against Syria until October 11, and in the Sinai, Israel began taking the initiative from October 14 onwards.

My change to the paragraph was not misleading, and it was factually accurate–the Egyptians were successful throughout the first week of the war and did not experience major setbacks during that time. There is no implication that the Egyptians were continuously advancing during that time, because the following sentence starts with:"After a disastrous Egyptian attempt to renew their offensive..." The same goes for Israeli violations of the ceasefire. At any rate, it is wrong to say that the Israelis cut off Third Army lines as a UN resolution came into effect; the Israelis cut off Third Army lines after UN ceasefire resolution 338 was implemented. If it was not well-written, you could have improved the language. Even if my version won't be implemented, the current version of the paragraph needs to be changed. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: In Combat Operations On the Golan Heights, it is stated that the Syrians outnumbered the Israelis in tanks by 11 to 1. According to the numbers we have, the Syrians with 1,200 tanks outnumbered the Israelis with 177 tanks by 6½-7 to 1. Anyways, to what source are the ratios in the article referenced? --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Rabinovich does discuss the ceasefire. This has to do with different interpretations of the ceasefire and when it took effect. Perhaps we could add some info on that, but I think Raul is right: saying, as fact, that Israel did something "in violation" is endorsing the Egyptain interpretation, which we shouldn't do. -- Nudve (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

At least, we should change it to say that Israel cut off Third Army lines after a UN ceasefire had been implemented; other details would be left for the article's body. I think all sources agree that UNSCR 338 came into effect on October 22, and Israel cut off Third Army lines on October 23. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A note for anyone interested: "Rabinovich is overwhelmingly concerned with the Yom Kippur War and not with the October or Ramadan War, as all Arabs call it. The impact of domestic and inter-Arab politics on the war, the dynamics of Arab decision-making, the view from the Arab lines -- all are scantily explained. Portraits of Arab participants are mostly two-dimensional and meant to serve as targets for Israelis. The reason Rabinovich gives for this shallowness -- "The Arab side of the war is poorly documented" -- is simply untrue. Myriad books and articles on the Arab side, and even some documents, are available. Arab veterans, no less than Israelis, are willing to share their stories. Accessing these sources requires knowledge of Arabic and the ability to travel freely through the Arab world -- clearly obstacles for Rabinovich. Of the 125 interviews he conducted for the book, very few are with Arabs." -- Book review by Michael B. Oren, The Washington Post. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Two invalid external links

The following two links in the external links section of the take you to 404 Not Found and need to be deleted :

• Maps: Egypt
• Maps: Syria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha150 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jordan as combatant

The main Arab combatants were Egypt and Syria. Iraq and Jordan participated along side Syrian forces in the northern front. Since Iraqi flag is shown evidencing Iraq's participation, adding the Jordanian flag is more factually accurate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Weapons

I added a section on Sea to Sea missiles used by the belligerents. Important since the war witnessed the first Sea-to-Sea missile engagement in naval history. In addition Israel took delivery of the M16 rifle after the war. The principle weapons used by the IDF infantry were the Uzi, FN and AK-47, the latter captured in large quantities during the Six Day War and issued to elite units. Israel also utilized The Soviet BM-24 MLR and M-46 130mm artillery piece, also captured during the 6 Day War. Egyptian and Syrian infantry were issued the SA-7 hand held AA weapon and I added this to Arab weapons arsenal under AA weapons.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that IDF infantry/paras employed the M16 during the Yom kippur War? If so what is the source?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Air Force rendered useless?

To say the the SAMs rendered the IAF "almost useless" is false. The SAMs posed a problem (at least in the initial phases) but 1) The IAF quickly adopted counter-measures to limit the threat 2)Even before these counter measures were employed, the IAF was extremely active in both theaters and had an enormous impact on ground ops and 3)The IAF shot down 334 Arab aircraft in air-to-air combat during the war and I certainly wouldn't call that "useless."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating that captured Arab weaponry were pressed into Israeli service aside the T55 tanks? I know no such thing. To say that SAMs rendered the IAF almost useless is true, at least with respect to the Sinai theatre. This claim is supported by several sources. The only time SAMs in the Sinai theatre ceased to be a threat was when IDF ground forces managed to destroy them, allowing the IAF to operate unimpeded by ground fire throughout the southern portions of the canal.

As to Jordan. It is a minor participant, just like Algeria, Lybia, Morocco, etc. It did not have a major impact on the war, sending 2 brigades, as opposed to Iraq's 2 divisions, incorporating several brigades within them. Without Iraq, Syria would have had a much harder time stopping Israeli advance. The same cannot be said of Jordan, in view of their smaller expeditionary force, and the fact that Jordan was unwilling to come into confrontation with Israel. As such, the infobox should not mention Jordan, which is discussed in the text. See Template:Infobox military conflict. --Sherif9282 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To say that the IAF was "useless" is a non-neutral term that violates WP:NPOV and is also flat out false. True the effectiveness of the IAF was cutailed somewhat in the initial days but even then, the IAF was clearing the skies of enemy aircraft and pounding Egyptian & Syrian positions. To make the point clearer, picture yourself as an Egyptian infantyman under attack by an F4-E dropping 1000lb and 500lb bombs on your position. I don't think you would call that bombong run "useless." Moreover, the phrase "useless" blankets the entire war without making distinction between the first few days and the rest of the war. The Israelis installed effective ECM to counter the SAMs and employed other methods, such as steep manouvering to counter the SAMs. Your admiration of the Egyptian army is understandable and appreciated. But remember, we are not pushing points of view or agendas, just stating the facts in a neutral objective manner. Please keep that in mind and also keep in mind that there are those with different points of view and you must work with them so that an accurate non-biased article can be presented to the Wiki reader.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As to weapons, go to Israeli-weapons.com for a full history as well as pics of capture Egyptian and Syrian weaponry pressed into IDF service.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. My admiration of the Egyptian Army, whether or not that is in fact true, is irrelevant to this discussion, as is your possible admiration of the IDF. For your information, I did not add that term. An editor of this article, Raul654, who is also an administrator, is the one who added this term. The article contained this term when it reached FA-class. This meant that the article is coherent with FA-class criteria, which states the article must be neutral. To give you a better picture, imagine you are an Egyptian infantryman, and an F-4E is approaching to make its bombing run, but before it can do so, it is destroyed by SAMs, or at least forced to abort its bombing run and withdraw. It is generally agreed that ground destruction of SAMs, and the consequent withdrawal of several of these SAMs by the Egyptians to prevent their destruction, is what allowed the IAF to support its forces in the later stages of the war, in the southern portions of the canal, which meant SAMs near the center and northern portions of the canal remained a threat throughout the war. Once again, support your claims in the article with reliable, neutral sources. --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PS., Israeli-weapons.com would not be considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sharif. As I see it we've got four issues (so far) that have to be addressed. 1. The question of Jordanian participation and whether the Jordanian flag should be presented. 2. Weapons: I added several to the chart. Some reverted by you and others left unmolested. 3. The term "string of victories" in the initial section. 4. The phrase "rendering the IAF almost useless"

1.Regarding Jordanian participation and their impact. I provided you with a source but I see your quite adamant on this issue so I won't make an issue of it and it can be more fully discussed in the body of the article.

2.Regarding weapons, I can say with an absolute certainty that my edits were correct on this point. The AK was used in masse by the IDF and was popular with elite units. I have photos of IDF soldiers carrying them during the war. The IDF took delivery of the M-16 after the war. The BM-24 MLR and M-46 130mm gun were captured by the IDF in previous wars and pressed into service as they were excellent weapons. I have photos of these being used during the war as well. I added the TCM-20 AA gun. It was a mobile AA gun credited with shooting down a number of aircraft (I can't give you an exact number) during the war. Soltam L-33 was a fully armored SP 155mm gun developed by Soltam Industries and utilized during the war. I also made some technical additions with respect to the armor used, specifically, what variants of the M48 and M60 were used. The M48 had three variants Models A1,A2,A3 and A5. The M60 had two, A1 and A3. I merely clarified for the reader which variant was used by the IDF. I also noted that the Shermans were modified with 105mm guns and better engines. The Frog-7 SSM was used by Syria in the first days of conflict but ceased using them after the IAF retaliated with strategic bombing of Syria. My edits were correct and precise. However, if you choose to leave it as is, i won't fight you on that but it will leave the article incomplete and to a lesser extent inaccurate.

3. "String of victories" I object to the use of this term and changed it to "minor achievements." However, I agree that my reversion was inaccurate as well as the crossing of the canal and breaching of defenses was a significant achievement and not "minor" at all. Hence, I propose changing "string of victories" to "significant achievements." As you know, war is a very fluid dynamic and during the course of war, there are setbacks and achievements. You secure a road. That's an achievement. You shoot down a plane. That's an achievement. But victory or defeat comes at the end. When you win the war you are victorious and when you lose, you are defeated. I prefer to think of military accomplishments during the course of war as achievements leaving the term "victory or "defeat" for when the war is over. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make here. But again, its a small point and if you want to leave it as is, fine, though I believe that my phrasing is better.

4. "Rendered the IAF almost useless" This point I won't concede as it violates WP:NPOV and is at best vague and at worst, false. No distinction is made between the first days of war and the latter part when ECM was employed and limited the effectiveness of the SAMs. Moreover, I provided you with sourced material demonstrating that 18 Egyptian planes and 20 transport helicopters were shot down on the first day of the war. How can you possibly call that accomplishment "useless." Now you might disagree with these sourced figures but at the very leaset, the matter is in dispute. I do agree that the SAMs were a big problem for the IAF but to say that they rendered the IAF "almost useless" is more than a stretch. I propose the following language "the presence of a dense anti-aircraft umbrella over the Egyptian positions limited the effectiveness of the IAF in the Egyptian theatre of operations until various counter measures, such as chaff, flares and ECM were deployed." It doesn't have to be those exact words but a change of present wording is necessary. Work with me here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I will deal with weaponry. I think the Soltam L-33 is in fact the Soltam M68. The L-33 possibly refers to the barrel diameter of the gun, 33 calibers, which coincides with the barrel diameter of the M68 gun. This is why I assumed the L-33 is another name to the M68. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I have identified which models of the Patton tanks were used. According to what I know, only Egypt had the SCUD missiles, and the only use I am aware of is when three such missiles were fired against Israeli forces on the west bank, just prior to the first ceasefire taking effect. In Egypt these SCUDs were manned by Soviet crews, and they were used with Soviet authorization, according to one Western source. The nuclear-armed Jericho missiles were not used in this war. The highly limited use of these missiles made me conclude it was insignificant to mention them in the weapons section. As for the AA gun, are you referring to the AA configuration of the Hispano-Suiza HS.404? It is apparently called a TCM-20. Just confirm and if so add it to the weaponry section with a wikilink. If you're going to add captured Arab weaponry, you should support with sources (not pictures) and mention they were captured in 1967, as is done with the T55s.

Setbacks and achievements... If victory and defeat were applied as you say, then we should change every article on WWII battles to either Axis victory/setback or Allied victory/setback. Think about it. The Battle of France was not an achievement for Germany, it was a victory. The Battle of Berlin was not a Soviet achievement, it was a victory. The Arabs, especially the Egyptians, were victorious during the early battles. So I am in favor of keeping the current version.

"SAMs rendered the IAF almost useless". Do note that this comment is made with regards to combat in the Sinai. SAMs in that front remained an issue throughout the war. With Syria, SAMs were much less of a threat, because Syria's air defense system was smaller, incomplete, and it is agreed the Syrians were less competent than the Egyptians. Some sources state that counter-measures developed by the IAF reduced the SAM threat somewhat, but it remained a serious threat. Since this comment was written by Raul654, I can with certainty tell you that he made this comment on the basis of the highly-respected book authored by Abraham Rabinovich, an Israeli historian and journalist. Either Raul wrote something contradicting Rabinovich, or the author is biased against Israel, and I consider both possibilities unlikely. It is generally agreed that the IAF was able to support ground forces when the latter was able to destroy or force the withdrawal of Egyptian SAMs in the southern sector of the canal. Nevertheless, I see no reason why the current wording can't be altered. In any case, provide a source indicating that countermeasures drastically reduced the threat of SAMs.

To deal with your final edit, where you added figures and information backed by sources. It is damaging to the article in its FA status to write "the Egyptians claim..." "the IAF disputes this..." I should note that the IAF cannot be considered a reliable source in this article, and it is certainly not neutral. It is best to use neutral secondary sources authored by scholarly figures. It is not just the Egyptians who claim. The "5 aircraft lost" figure is supported by a number of non-Egyptian sources. See Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat by David Nicolle and Tom Cooper, and Phoenix Over the Nile, also by David Nicolle and Lon Nordeen. See this link: [5]. What you need is on the right, in the caption describing a picture. Yes, these 5 aircraft are losses sustained during the air strike, but then there were no more aerial engagements along the canal on October 6, as the Egyptians preferred to preserve their aircraft and let the SAMs do the work.

As for the claims made by Zeev Schiff. First, the commandos were not sent to capture the passes. Why? To start with, it is a widely established fact that the Egyptians never planned to advance beyond 15 kms of the canal, which gives no reason for them to send commandos to seize the passes unless they planned to reach those passes with ground troops. The real goal was to perform operations in Israeli rear areas to delay the arrival of reinforcements. Several units accomplished this goal. Many helicopters landed their commandos, which means that Schiff is mistaken when he says the Egyptians used 20 helicopters, and is mistaken once more when he says that they were all shot down with total loss of life. Have a look at Operation Badr (1973), and read the paragraphs on these commando operations in the sections under October 6 and 7. What you will read is supported by two scholarly secondary sources, one Egyptian and one Western. According to my knowledge, ten helicopters were lost, and there were survivors. It is important to note that these helicopters, unarmed against fighters, were outside SAM range and unescorted, so it is no surprise the IAF were able to easily shoot them down.

I believe this replies to everything you've raised. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There, tell me what you think of the re-wording. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Respect to you Sherif. Thanks for compromising but I anticipate some more healthy debate with you down the road--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see how some may view IAF sources as unreliable just as I can see how someone may view General Shazli as an unreliable source. Both are positing their respective positions and therefore, it is important to note both and the reader makes up his own mind as to who's more reliable. As far as Schiff is concerned, he is a well known respected military historian whose reputaion is beyong reproach. I've never heard anyone, left or right, Israeli or Egyptian criticize his work.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Shazly can indeed be considered unreliable, although I have yet to see any information attributed to him in the article be the subject of major dispute, aside the currently debated "5 aircraft lost" figure. As much as I could I have supported his accounts with other secondary sources. I was intending to do this for some time, but was perhaps careless. I will replace or support as many as I can the references made to him. Give me some time to accomplish this. Do note however, that it is not possible to simply let the reader decide which sources are suitable and which are not. In the vast majority of cases, readers will not check article sources. What is the use of reading Wikipedia if you're going to check through the sources to determine which is right or wrong? Imagine Encyclopaedia Britannica implementing this approach. Its highly inadvisable. This does not mean we shouldn't mention both POVs of an event, but in my view, when a single source is contradicted by several others, that single source is given its due weight. To illustrate, check the At Sea section. Hassan El Badri is contradicted by numerous sources, which is why his claims are given little weight in the article. To be honest, I once relied on Badri, and drew from him heavily to detail naval battles, but now I realize he is unreliable and contradicted by numerous sources. This is not to say that Schiff is similar to Badri, but he is contradicted by a number of sources, which I will bring to the article soon. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. Schiff's book was authored in 1974, just after the war. It is unsurprising that a book made so soon after the war would contain numerous mistakes and errors. Little information and facts would have been available on the war, and much of it would be unverified. Schiff acknowledges this himself in his book October Earthquake: Yom Kippur 1973. That book was also published in 1974. Take a look at the introduction in this preview: [6]. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed aerial figures

Sourced material regarding disputed aerial figures should not be reverted. The figures controvert Egyptian claims and the Wiki reader should have access to claims issued by both sides.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The figure that you cite (loss of 5 aircraft) is a POV and is controverted by many sources. I do not however have any objection to you citing this figure so long as its made clear that this is an Egyptian claim and other sources citing other figures are noted as well. This would make for a more well-rounded, balanced approach. The Wiki reader could determine for him/herself which of the respective sources cited are more reliable. Please do not revert without discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)