Talk:Yom Kippur War

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


 * Do you have reliable sources to back this up? Also, it is not the job of Wikipedia articles to help you with implications you may be concluding incorrectly. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For Egypt’s claims
 * https://time.com/6322802/yom-kippur-war-israel-history/
 * “ In 1973, Egypt’s goal in crossing the Suez Canal was to force Israel to the negotiation table to make a peace deal and get back control of the Sinai peninsula. According to Avi Shilon, a historian who teaches at Tel-Hai College in Israel, “The Egyptian and the Syrians didn't plan to conquer Israel. They planned to hit Israel and to force Israel to go into negotiations. For them, it was enough to hit Israel to show that they can beat Israel in the first days, and they preferred to stop, so it was easier for Israel to launch a retaliation attack.””
 * This outlines Egypts goal of the war, which was to cross the suez and not conquer Sinai or Israel proper.
 * The war ended with an Israeli counterattack, however it did not restore control over the suez bank and was defeated in the closing battle of Sinai, failing to defeat the Egyptian army in the city
 * Archived citations:
 * As for the implications, it’s not that they’re incorrect but just heavily simplified as it doesn’t even specify what kind of victory Israel attained (It used to say “Israeli military victory”) as it was in no way shape or form a political victory for Israel, and neither could it be a military victory against Egypt, though it is was an undeniable victory in Syria The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I Agree, if we talk Land gains the northern front was an Egyptian victory and the southern was israeli victory so it was a military stalemate Kelcoz (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been trying for ages but the editors are adamant on labelling this an “Israeli victory” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So it's Unanimous, in the Suez front the north is Egyptian victory and the south is a partial israeli victory so logically it's a Stalemate, thats excluding the Egyptian political victory Kelcoz (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Despite all my explanations and several sources including admissions from Israeli military staff, the editors seem adamant to simplify the entire outcome of this war as “Israeli victory” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So it's Unanimous, in the Suez front the north is Egyptian victory and the south is a partial israeli victory so logically it's a Stalemate, thats excluding the Egyptian political victory Kelcoz (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Despite all my explanations and several sources including admissions from Israeli military staff, the editors seem adamant to simplify the entire outcome of this war as “Israeli victory” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


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


 * Yes, I’m talking about the Egyptian front specifically and their closing victories at suez and Ismailia, not the entire war which included a northeastern front. Im having a hard time specifying the page for the first citation as much of it seems to have been lost in the archive The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. Egypt's military resigned in disgrace after the war. It was a disaster for Egypt. More importantly, your bold change lacks consensus or reliable sources. Andre🚐 22:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you’re talking about the six day war. I’ve brought several sources to prove that Egypt managed to achieve its goal in the war, and the suggestion for an “inconclusive” result has also been brought up with sources by another user in the talk topic above The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources are WP:PRIMARY and outdated, not high quality reference sources, and don't say what you are claiming. And it would be WP:UNDUE to blow away the whole academic field of Arab-Israeli studies for some random cherry-picked military studies you happen to like because they say the ahistorical thing you want it to say. As any student knows, in 1973, Israel was taken by surprise and fought to the brink of trouble before the US bailed them out and defeated Egypt. Therefore, an Egyptian defeat; your argument that they achiveved their strategic aims is not supported by any historical or academic material. Andre🚐 02:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Defeated Egypt how exactly? Egypt still controlled most of the suez by the ceasefire and prevented the Israelis from capturing suez city in the closing stages of the war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Egypt and Syria did not win the war militarily, but they got what they needed out of it in terms of domestic and regional legitimation and cracking Israel’s veneer of invincibility. If fighting continued, the Arab states likely faced the prospect of another defeat. For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat, so again, a military defeat of Egypt on the battlefield for Egypt even though Israel had political problems as a result of the war. They still controlled more territory as a result of the war. Andre🚐 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also including Syria, which absolutely did not win in this war and had their capital Damascus threatened by the Israeli advance. I have given my citations to explain how this was not a full victory for Israel on this specific front, and I will also quote your citation
 * ”For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat, and the country was reeling from the loss of life on a scale it had not experienced since 1948.” The “controlled more territories” here more likely refers to the advance on the Syrian front as aside from a crossing and occupation southwest of Sinai Israel had lost control of most of the Suez Canal The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Suez was Egyptian territory occupied since 67. The Egyptian had made gains and then Israelis were surrounding Suez when the ceasefire was agreed to - but that doesn't mean Egypt got more territory. That was Egyptian territory. Again, as it says, it was a military defeat for Egypt, but even though it was a military win for Israel, it was a political defeat. But, the infobox refers to military defeat in the war. Israel’s victory came at the cost of heavy casualties, and Israelis criticized the government’s lack of preparedness. In April 1974, the nation’s prime minister, Golda Meir (1898-1978), stepped down. Although Egypt had again suffered military defeat at the hands of its Jewish neighbor, the initial Egyptian successes greatly enhanced Sadat’s prestige in the Middle East and gave him an opportunity to seek peace It's History.com which isn't RS but it's still better than the weird old CIA studies or whatever. Andre🚐 05:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1967-1973 Egypt only controlled the western bank of the suez, the eastern bank of the suez was occupied by Israel. by the end of the war Egypt controlled most of the eastern bank and after the ceasefire was signed Egypt retained control of both banks. In the war Israel failed to retake the eastern bank of the suez which negates an “Israeli victory” as this article simplifies it, while Egypt achieved its goal. The Israeli advance in the south however threatened Egypts encircled army however they inflicted two defeats on israel (battle of Ismailia and battle of suez)
 * The combined Egyptian paratrooper-commando force managed to achieve a tactical and strategic victory at a time when Egypt's general situation on the battlefield was deteriorating, and GHQ was in a state of confusion. Sharon's advance toward Ismailia had been halted, and Second Army's logistical lines remained secure.
 * not to mention the admission of David Elazar, 9th chief of staff during the war (Not sure if this specific one is RS but there are many sources mentioning the quote)
 * https://yom-kippur-1973.info/eng/west.htm#:~:text=As%20for%20the%20third%20army,or%20conquered%20them)%20David%20Elazar.
 * “As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them”
 * Your initial article admits that Israel suffered a major political failure, so Egypt managing to achieve its goals in the war reasserts my view that simplifying the entire conflict to a “isralei victory” is inaccurate, and far from Egypt being “severely defeated” in this war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, you've proven no such thing. Sounds like WP:IDHT Andre🚐 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan I thank you for sharing this very recent source.
 * well since it mentions "For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat" then I'll have to agree with the @The Great Mule of Eupatoria on this one, you actually gave support to his point , the result was edited back from "israeli military victory" to "israeli victory" by this guy's logic @Modrenebe :-
 * Done Liu1126 (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Thanks, but could you also remove the word "military" from "Israeli military victory"? It wasn't there before. Its use can give the impression that Israel only won militarily, while the political or other aspects were not or instead were won by the other parties. Modrenebe (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Done. Sorry, missed that in the last edit. Liu1126 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * His argument was that political or other aspects were not included in "military victory", the other aspects he hadn't mentioned . Osmarion (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you might have an argument that Israel had a political defeat, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the infobox, since the infobox is about a war. Andre🚐 20:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * war is only means to achieve political objectives and if there is a political defeat then the war has failed. Osmarion (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think there should be an RFC owing to the proven Egyptian inconclusive front as well as a major political victory for Egypt The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * @Hohum, @Skitash Waleed  (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Expeditionary forces, and Sattar Alvi, have multiple sources detailing Pakistani involvement @Skitash and @Hohum Waleed  (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The source would need to state that the country in question was a belligerent, not that there were just members of that nationality taking part. The source would also need to be WP:RELIABLE, ideally in a historical work on the war itself. Wikipedia can not be a source per WP:CIRCULAR. North Korea probably shouldn't be there either, I think it has been removed several times. (Hohum @ ) 18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the source states that they were
 * sent by Pakistan and they were active duty members of Pakistan armed for who joined this war and allegedly shot down an Israeli plane ces
 * were Waleed  (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some news articles which I cited but you've removed, moreover the ones I mentioned are cited, and used those citations including three already in this article about Pakistani involvement, books I mean and you've removed, so i gave others but again removed Waleed  (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hohum Waleed  (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe they were self published sources, and the uninterpreted recollections of a primary source and/or didn't name Pakistan as a belligerent. (Hohum @ ) 11:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I give news articles stating so, would that be fine Waleed  (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
the result should be changed to:

Both sides claim victory


 * Military stalemate
 * Egyptian political victory
 * Egypt ultimately regains full control of the Sinai peninsula
 * Military stalemate on Syrian front
 * 1978 Camp David accords 2603:6010:1C00:325:E9E2:1FBA:BE32:1F0 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i think a consensus has been reached in February 2024, as the argument has been settled since Kelcoz (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus reach. I have shown several sources and no rfc or no discussion has taken place. “Israeli victory” is incorrect and a distortion, that not even the Hebrew Wikipedia article of this war states The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been trying this and discussed this with several sources in a previous discussion. I’m not sure why but Wikipedia editors seem to have an allergy to admitting Israel lost anything. Even the Hebrew Wikipedia admits that Egypt’s front was inconclusive The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2024
To fix grammar in the Disengagement section of the article, I recommend adding a comma to change "After the failed conference Henry Kissinger started conducting shuttle diplomacy, meeting with Israel and the Arab states directly." to "After the failed conference, Henry Kissinger started conducting shuttle diplomacy, meeting with Israel and the Arab states directly." Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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


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


 * A potential first step: Any section that has an article dedicated to it should probably be reduced to a single overview paragraph. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 09:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2024
I believe some parts of this article should be rewritten so they are not just copied from "The Yom Kippur War" by Abraham Rabinovich. Most notably this part is word-for-word from the book and quite awkward, in my opinion: On the night of 25 September, Hussein secretly flew to Tel Aviv to warn Meir of an impending Syrian attack. "Are they going to war without the Egyptians, asked Mrs. Meir. The king said he didn't think so. 'I think they [Egypt] would cooperate.' Shlokie (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Given that it's a quote, you expect it to be copied word for word. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please address the concerns presented. Geardona (talk to me?) 01:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A declassified CIA document

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

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

Not only that, but mentioning Israel was “100 kn from Cairo” is another perpetuation of Wikipedia delusion. If I am 50 metres from a house, and I step outside and take two steps it is not worth mentioning I am 48 metres from it. Israel’s starting point was the Suez Canal, “100 km from Cairo” is another form of coping, to legitimise a victory that doesn’t exist The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The first conclusion is your own, not a specifically stated result in the source. The second, while it does at least say "the fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note." on page 24. However, this is a 49 year old primary source report made 2 years after the events - it lacks any information gathered since. It was released in 2012, so it has been available for historians to use in secondary works for over a decade.
 * You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians. The article already uses these to support a different conclusion though. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 15:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Several sources do describe it as a stalemate or inclusive, far from the “Israeli victory” oversimplification, which isn’t even correct neither militarily nor politically
 * Many sources regard the war as a stalemate, even on the Syrian front
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1974/03/who-lost-the-yom-kippur-war-a-military-inventory-of-the-middle-east/670833/
 * Here Henry Kissinger states “it would be a nightmare if either side won”, implying neither side got a conclusive victory
 * https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/henry-kissinger/2019-08-09/kissinger-told-soviet-envoy-during-1973-arab-israeli-war-my-nightmare-victory-either-side-soviet
 * This one is hidden by a paywall
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/en/history/article/2023/10/02/50th-anniversary-of-yom-kippur-war-the-enduring-ambiguity-of-pax-americana_6143516_157.html
 * The new Arab, I am not sure if it’s RS, also states that it is a stalemate
 * https://www.newarab.com/analysis/october-war-nothing-bloody-stalemate?amp
 * “Which had nearly resulted in Israel’s defeat, but ended in a stalemate”
 * https://www.historytoday.com/archive/no-victor-no-vanquished-yom-kippur-war
 * This is ignoring Israel’s defeat at two small towns during the final battles of the war, as well as an air battle, which saw an Egyptian victory. “Israeli victory” also COMPLETELY ignores the result of the war, seeing Israel actually come to negotiate Sinai which is had adamantly refused in the Rogers Plan and Jarrings Plan, both before the war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians. "
 * Shotgunning google search results isn't helpful. Kissinger "implying" is actually you inferring. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve given plenty of secondary sources no? What would “if either side had won” would otherwise imply? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The leading sentences, and the tense of the statement make it very clear that he is speaking before the war has ended.
 * You are also ignoring half of this sentence: "You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians."
 * Don't expect another reply unless you provide useable sources that explicitly support your point. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the war being “an Israeli victory” can be disproven with common sense instead of some strange criteria about the species of sources considering you have been dismissing everything I provided even though it is beyond sufficient to explain why the “result” is something from an alternate history timeline. But here we go, hopefully this is good enough.
 * https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/2021/11/23/what-was-the-yom-kippur-war-1973/
 * “Despite being surrounded, the Third Army managed to maintain its combat integrity east of the canal and keep up its defensive positions, to the surprise of many. According to Trevor N.
 * Dupuy, the Israelis, Soviets and Americans overestimated the vulnerability of the Third Army at the time. It was not on the verge of collapse, and he wrote that while a renewed Israeli offensive would probably overcome it, this was not a certainty.”
 * There are some military men who argued that the encirclement would have destroyed the third army, let’s look at what David Elazar, one of the generals during the war said according to this source
 * “According to David Elazar, Chief of Israeli headquarters staff, on 3
 * December 1973: "As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east.
 * Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them””
 * And further
 * “Shortly before the ceasefire came into effect, an Israeli tank battalion advanced into Adabiya, and took it with support from the Israeli Navy. Some 1,500 Egyptian prisoners were taken, and about a hundred Egyptian soldiers assembled just south of Adabiya, where they held out against the Israelis. The Israelis also conducted their third and final incursion into Suez. They made some gains, but failed to break into the city centre. As a result, the city was partitioned down the main street, with the Egyptians holding the city centre and the Israelis controlling the outskirts, port installations and oil refinery, effectively surrounding the Egyptian defenders”
 * Showing an Israeli failure at the defeat too. This is also not mentioning the fact that Wikipedia completely ignores the effect of the war and its result which led Israel to negotiate after adamantly refusing 2-times pre war
 * The CIA says it’s inconclusive
 * Several sources and military analysts say it’s inconclusive
 * Israeli generals say they couldn’t defeat the Egyptians
 * Yet Wikipedia is adamant to simply this war with the most incorrect, misleading, and simplified result that ignores reality itself The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet Wikipedia is adamant to simply this war with the most incorrect, misleading, and simplified result that ignores reality itself The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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


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