Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:35, 7 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yom Kippur War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

	Yom Kippur War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 30, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 8, 2006 Featured article review Kept November 6, 2011 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 31, 2004, May 31, 2005, May 31, 2007, October 6, 2007, May 31, 2008, October 6, 2008, October 6, 2009, October 6, 2010, and October 6, 2013. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: African / Middle East / Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Egypt High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This Talk:Yom Kippur War has been mentioned by a media organization: Hillel Frisch (10 October 2018). "THE 1973 WAR: COMPARING THE HEBREW AND ARABIC WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES". Jerusalem Post.

Section sizes Section size for Yom Kippur War (63 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 15,291 15,291 Background 111 24,846 Arab–Israeli conflict 11,255 11,255 Lead up to the war 9,807 9,807 Israeli preparation 3,673 3,673 Sinai front 3,890 62,104 Egyptian attack 11,818 11,818 Failed Israeli counter-attack 3,941 3,941 Temporary stabilization 1,780 1,780 Battle of the Sinai 3,585 3,585 Israeli breakthrough and crossing of the Suez Canal 5,231 5,231 Securing the bridgehead 1,639 1,639 Egyptian response to the Israeli crossing 4,136 4,136 Israeli forces across the Suez 9,382 9,382 The ceasefire and further battles 4,014 4,014 Battle of Suez 1,281 1,281 Egypt's trapped Third Army 5,735 5,735 Post-war battles 2,854 2,854 Final situation on the Egyptian front 2,818 2,818 Golan front 17 42,684 Initial Syrian attacks 8,226 8,226 Defense of the Quneitra Gap 3,631 3,631 Syrian breakthrough in the Southern Golan 5,820 5,820 Israeli strategic response 5,838 5,838 Collapse of the Israeli 188th Armored Brigade 6,459 6,459 Israel retakes the southern Golan 1,867 1,867 Israeli advance towards Damascus 3,234 3,234 Arab military intervention 4,640 4,640 Northern front de-escalation 1,480 1,480 Jordanian participation 1,472 1,472 Naval operations 7,950 9,492 U.S.–Soviet naval standoff 1,542 1,542 Participation by other states 35 36,964 U.S. intelligence efforts 1,570 1,570 U.S. aid to Israel 13,586 13,586 Aid to Egypt and Syria 30 20,615 Soviet supplies 2,804 2,804 Soviet active aid 3,217 3,217 Soviet intervention threat 5,647 5,647 Other countries 8,917 8,917 Palestinian attacks from Lebanese territory 1,158 1,158 UN-backed ceasefire 2,315 2,315 Disengagement 3,361 3,361 Reactions 14 7,685 Response in Israel 3,006 3,006 Response in Egypt 1,470 1,470 Response in Syria 1,744 1,744 Response in the Soviet Union 772 772 Arab oil embargo 679 679 Aftermath 7,462 14,706 Egyptian–Israeli disengagement agreement 901 901 Egyptian–Israeli Camp David Accords 2,727 2,727 U.S. military doctrine 3,616 3,616 Casualties 4,829 4,829 Atrocities 16 8,020 Syrian atrocities 4,936 4,936 Egyptian atrocities 3,068 3,068 See also 1,391 1,391 References 15 16,544 Notes 26 26 Citations 1,874 1,874 Bibliography 14,629 14,629 External links 2,009 2,009 Total 252,241 252,241

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This one is hidden by a paywall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And further

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

Showing an Israeli failure at the defeat too. This is also not mentioning the fact that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is adamant to simply this war with the most incorrect, misleading, and simplified result that ignores reality itself The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the point of reaching a consensus when someone can simply dismiss it years later? Pending a new consensus, the old version should stand. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there's really not an argument to have "inconclusive" since all military historians call it an Israeli victory. Politically, I can see that it was a major problem for Israel but that is very different. Andre🚐 21:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "The close distances during night engagements, negated the usual Israeli superiority in long-range duels." to "The close distances during night engagements negated the usual Israeli superiority in long-range duels." This removes an unnecessary comma. The sentence is located in the third paragraph of the section "Defense of the Quneitra Gap". TedWinstonIII (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done TheWikiToby (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

---

Dear Misplaced Pages Editors,

I would like to request a revision to the article on the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The current text oversimplifies the conflict by implying that Israel won, which does not accurately reflect the military and diplomatic outcomes of the war.

While Israel's military managed to regroup after early setbacks, it is important to highlight that Egypt achieved its primary objective: the successful crossing of the Suez Canal and the regaining of significant territory in Sinai. Egypt’s forces inflicted substantial losses on Israel’s military and held their positions during the initial stages of the war.

Moreover, after the war, Egypt initiated peace talks, leading to the Camp David Accords and the eventual return of Sinai to Egypt. This was a diplomatic victory for Egypt, as it achieved its territorial goals without further military conflict.

Israel, while not completely defeated, had to concede significant territorial losses by agreeing to withdraw from Sinai. Therefore, Egypt's military success, combined with the diplomatic resolution, demonstrates that Egypt achieved its key objectives and can be considered the winner of the war.

Please consider updating the article to reflect a more balanced and accurate account of the war, emphasizing both Egypt's military achievements and the diplomatic outcomes that led to the peace settlement.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

--- 197.165.235.115 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: way out of scope for a simple edit request, has been discussed thoroughly, repeatedly, and frequently in the past. recommend checking out the archives of this talk page before engaging in more discussion Cannolis (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Add America to the Israeli side

Amercia saved Israel from total destruction through operation nickel grass,this is the second time I request this,it was accepted then removed,reason for removal? “Weapons suppliers don't go with combatants in infobox, specially when the Soviet Union, which gave more weapons to Arab states than the US did with Israel, isn't included in the Arab side” Okay,can someone remove the USA from the Russian side in Eastern Front? Or does it only apply to certain nations? Because I really wanna know what exactly is the problem with adding America to the Israeli side. Stephen Ambrose: “He (Nixon) knew that his enemies… would never give him credit for saving Israel. He did it anyway.”

I ask again,add America to the Israeli side

evidence:https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/10/how-richard-nixon-saved-israel/https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-war-how-president-nixon-saved-jewish-state-ingenious-plan

I can give more. Grinch the great (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Already answered "Weapons suppliers don't go with combatants in infobox". If another article isn't conforming to this, the venue to talk about it is the other article's talk page, not here. (Hohum ) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are you undermining one of the most important operations in Israeli history?

And the other article is,with no disrespect intended,made by way more qualified people. It’s a more significant event in human history than the October war,so I am not sure why you think your way is the “right way”. You refuse to give amercia credit for saving Israel from total destruction,this isn’t the goal of Misplaced Pages.

“ Our goal with Misplaced Pages is to create a 💕; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Misplaced Pages to be a reliable resource”— Larry Sanger. Not enough?

“Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.”— Jimmy Wales. Last time I checked,that includes making sure to get every single detail accurate,with no exception.

“ Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race”- Denis Diderot, chief editor and contributor of Encyclopédie

Stop trying to deny history,amercia saved Israel. Just like how amercia is featured on a more important article for the same exact reason (eastern front),it should Grinch the great (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of that makes America a combatant. (Hohum ) 00:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay let’s say that’s the case,what exactly is amercia’s role in this war according to you?

you keep replying to me with absolutely no explanation and just repeating lines,you clearly aren’t reading what I say. Grinch the great (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I am replying directly to what you say. You said that you wanted America added to the belligerents in the infobox, America was not a belligerent. That is all the explanation that is necessary. I won't be replying again unless you get beyond WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (Hohum ) 22:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Grinch the great (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The US and USSR were not combatants - their involvement is nuanced. There is no place for them in the infobox because they were not combatants and the infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. They are mentioned in the lead and in the body of the article, which is appropriate for detail and nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t say they are combatants,what is present on the infobox are “Belligerents” Grinch the great (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  And the parameter by which parties are added is combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nope,here is an example using religion: every Wahhabi is a Salafi but that doesn’t mean every Salafi is a Wahhabi. Good example for this situation is Belarus in the current russian invasion of Ukraine,is Belarus a combatant? No.

  However is it a belligerent? Yes. Grinch the great (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Result

@Terrainman Sorry, what do you mean overwhelming?

The page itself has 13 sources for Israeli "military" victory (which I'm pretty sure shouldn't even be included in the first place due to infobox rules) and 9 sources for military stalemate. And let's be honest, the more you dig into sources, the more you'll get supporting one side or the other.

Therefore, no, this has nothing to do with for example WP:FRNG.

My result (Disputed, see aftermath/See aftermath) works perfectly fine, especially because it complies with WP:NPOV.

"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

This perfectly fits the result I've put. Putting this as an Israeli military victory definitely violates WP:NPOV and I'd personally argue it also violates WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX/the template rules of the military infobox itself. Setergh (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey. With regard to the 9 sources, most refer specifically to the element of the war which involved Egypt and Israel. (Leaving out the Syria-Israel element) They characterise the conflict between Egypt and Israel as a stalemate, but describe Egyptian leader claims of an Egyptian victory with a high degree of skepticism. One of the 9 sources puts it like this: "Israel’s troops were vastly outnumbered on both fronts, and woefully underprepared. But after three days of intense fighting, the Egyptian offensive ground to a stalemate, and in the Golan, the Israelis were able to drive Syria back and then counterattack, pushing deep enough into Syrian territory that the IDF could shell the outskirts of the capital, Damascus. Eventually, the Israeli army also came within 60 miles of the Egyptian capital, Cairo, ratcheting up tensions between the Soviet Union and the US. After two-and-a-half weeks, a second attempt at a UN-brokered ceasefire held, and disengagement talks followed in 1974. The Arab oil embargo also lasted until March the next year." The war concluded with no concessions of territory from Israel, in other words it was a white peace, if a war ends in a white peace for the defender, that is typically referred to as a victory for the defender. However perhaps the result could say 'White peace' instead, I'm not sure. However my point here is that while those sources do characterise it as a stalemate, I believe it is clear from the contexts that they are either specifically referring to the fighting on the ground between Egypt and Israel, and where they are referring to the war as a whole what they mean by stalemate is that the war ending inconclusively with no geopolitical changes; which I think can be referred to as a 'victory' by the defender. I do not think that 'disputed' is appropriate, as it implies some sources state an Egyptian victory and others state an Israeli victory (it also ignores the Golan heights element of the war). Then again, I do think that you are possibly right regarding raising the question of whether the infobox should state the result so matter-of-factly. Overall, the war was a successful Israeli defense with limited counter attacks; the overwhelming number of sources do in fact corroborate this and none agree with the Egyptian claim of victory. 'Disputed' can be misleading, perhaps "Israeli victory or Stalemate" is honestly the best option. However the linking to the aftermath desction does achieve this to some extent already. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I get what you mean and I did figure it was this way. Due to the complicated nature of this, I think the best solution would be to simply go with "See aftermath" and perhaps further elaborate in the aftermath section about where the stalemate occured and where perhaps an Israeli victory occured.

Thank you! Setergh (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources by military historians have more weight than those by journalists. (Hohum ) 15:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree.

However, I wouldn't say that fully minimises the journalists' opinions + I don't think including "military victories" is allowed in infoboxes whatsoever.

Hence why I'd stick with "See aftermath". The war's result is much more complicated, for example military victory on the Egyptian front is disputed from what I can see. And well, once again, considering military victories shouldn't be included in infoboxes (at least I think so), and there is most definitely no clear result, the result should stick to "See aftermath" and perhaps the Aftermath section will need expanding. Setergh (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The result entry is specifically intended for military outcome for that infobox - Template:Infobox military conflict. Also, this topic has been discussed several times already - see the talk page archives. (Hohum ) 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"The result entry is specifically intended for military outcome for that infobox - Template:Infobox military conflict."

This is an insanely poor interpretation of what a military conflict infobox is; just because it's about a military conflict, that does not mean the result is meant to be a military result.

The result description starts with "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive".", which clearly states that there's only two typical terms, no mention of military victories so far.

"In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")." Here we can see that my suggestion does indeed apply and follow terms.

"Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"." I'd personally argue this removes the possibility of a "military victory" being included.

"Also, this topic has been discussed several times already - see the talk page archives."

I suppose so, though it seems to always come to very mixed results, so I don't particularly see the point of mentioning this.

You are yet to give me a good argument for why it should supposedly be Israeli military victory. Not only does the result still not seem to fit guidelines (although perhaps I should ask for confirmation on the template's talk page), but also why See aftermath isn't a much better solution.

"See aftermath" will not cause any conflict over the infobox in the slightest, and gives better explanation than just some simple "Israeli military victory". Setergh (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman, a local consensus can't override guidelines for no real reason. The plain meaning of WP:RESULT is perfectly unambiguous. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am going to withdraw from this discussion and leave it to others. I want to avoid the drama relating to this topic, but I leave it up to this discussion to conclude naturally and the best choice be made for what goes in the result section. It may be best for 'see aftermath' as @Setergh suggested 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

(For the record, I think this is clearly a case where "see aftermath" alone could be preferable, while I'm interloping.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I will also drop a courtesy ping to @AndreJustAndre as the person who afaik introduced this language. Remsense ‥ 论 22:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I introduced it per se, I restored it after several back-and-forth discussions. That was kind of a compromise. Personally, I think the infobox should say "Israeli military victory." Andre🚐 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I've made clear by now, but given what the MOS guideline is written to address, I don't see what would be required by this conflict that doesn't apply for many others with complex long-term consequences. Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Or just "Israeli victory" as is the status quo. Andre🚐 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• If we have 13 sources claiming it was a victory and 9 sources claiming it was a stalemate, it is pretty clear that there is no consensus in the sources as to the result. This is a case for use of see Aftermath alone. The aftermath section should expand on the reasons why different sources conclude these different results. Unfortunately it doesn't. Furthermore (per WP:RESULT), we shouldn't be writing military victory, particularly if this is intended to be a distinction from writing just X victory. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Summonded from template talk page.

I think most of the stalemate sources are pretty poor, or don't cover the entire war - just aspects. Also, I think there is some confusion about the use of the term "military victory" in the context of this thread. My point is that the results entry is for the military result not of all political implications - I am not suggesting is should say "X military victory", which is rather redundant, as you noted. (Hohum ) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I will not disagree with an observation that we should be relying on good quality sources. Your comments would fit into mine regarding expanding the lead with regard to an analysis of the result per sources, which would weed out some of those that are not truly applicable. I see adding military victory a bit like trying to say it was a tactical success (but a strategic failure). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if this is coming up again, someone should do a more systematic source survey. AFAIK, any authoritative textbook or reliable academic source considers the Yom Kippur War to be an Israeli victory. It's true that the Israelis were caught unawares and it had a huge political impact, but that doesn't make it a stalemate or an Egyptian victory. Andre🚐 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention to everyone, I have changed the result back to "See aftermath".

The reason for this is well, there's many reasons:

- Some argue an "Israeli military victory" it doesn't fit template guidelines

- Others argue a more systematic source survey should be conducted

I think one thing everyone here agrees on is that the aftermath is far too short to explain the complications of this. Therefore, until perhaps some of this changes (which I would try, but sadly I really struggle with wanting to edit Misplaced Pages these days), I think it'd be best to leave it at See aftermath.

Also, when it says "as an Israeli victory by military historians", I don't think this is even fully true, I'm rather certain I saw a political scientist as one of the sources (Charles Liebman).

Furthermore, many that do claim an Israeli victory seem to quite literally be Jewish themselves. Of course I don't think this fully removes their credibility, but come on, even Chaim Herzog is included, and he was quite literally the president of Israel itself.

And as for sources which claim a military stalemate, I don't think any of them are exactly Arab.

Therefore, I think it's insanely lazy to straight up put "Israeli military victory" for many reasons, and completely absurd to put just "Israeli victory".

I hope my reasons are fair, but if I have done or said anything wrong please go ahead and argue against. Setergh (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reverting back as i do not see a consensus to change here. Andre🚐 19:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Setergh (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key facts from the body of the article. The body of the article (aftermath section) does not tell us there is a consensus in sources that this is an Israeli victory. Per WP:RESULT, we use either see aftermath alone or report no result. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

How about you don't continue an edit war over it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I said that I would leave this discussion to avoid the drama. However I just wanted to point out again, first of all, that the 'conflicting' sources, may not be talking about the war as a whole, but rather the fighting in Egypt as ending in stalemate. The aftermath section also says 'according to military historians' for Israeli victory, and other sources for stalemate. If you look at the sources listed, you will see that the sources listed for Israeli victory is literature on military history, where for stalemate are mostly focused on the geopolitical consequences of the war. I think that the original "Israeli military victory (see aftermath)" was perfect for capturing the consensus for an Israeli military victory, while pointing the reader to the more nuanced long term consequences which many scholars view as favouring Egypt. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I definitely don't agree with Cinderella157's rationale. In fact sources generally agree that it was an Israeli victory; which ones don't? Andre🚐 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thirteen to nine might be generally agree but it is not a consensus of sources. The aftermath says: Analyses differ on the militarily outcome of the war; as an Israeli victory by military historians, and by others, as a military stalemate. What is written doesn't even tell us that the sources generally agree. What it tells us is that there is a disagreement in the sources. Yes, we give more weight to scholarly sources but the distinction made in that statement is artificial when military historians includes the Insight Team of the London Sunday Times and the others includes a senior scholar at the Wilson Center who writes: The reason that no one else referred to the war as a "victory" was that most historians regarded it as a stalemate rather than a clear triumph for either side. There is an assertion that the infobox is for the military result of the war and that the political and military aspects of a war are separable. This is not supported by the infobox doc nor is it supported by military theory. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. It is not there to summarise what someone thinks the article should say but doesn't. The aftermath section does not tell us this was clearly an Israeli victory but that it is disputed. If the body of the article should read differently because the consensus of good quality sources tell us something different, then the body of the article should be written to reflect what the sources say with appropriate weight. Then and only then might we write a different result that is subsequently an accurate summary of the key facts from the article. Write the article as revised, then the lead and then the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"as an Israeli victory by military historians" Military historians are surely a more reliable source when it comes to this subject matter, no? There may be 9 sources against 13, but the difference is those 13 are written by military historians. I think this is a key point here. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

When your sources not only aren't even all military historians (for example I saw one which was a political scientist), then this military historian claim is strange. And when practically all of them are Israeli/Jewish, with some even being former politicians or quite literally the president of Israel for 10 years, then how exactly do you see that as a WP:RS? Setergh (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, while I see your point on the infobox summarizing the article, can you point to which of the 9 sources say that the war wasn't an Israeli victory? And what exactly does stalemate mean in regard to the result of a war, isn't a 'stalemate' a victory for the defennding country? As I have mentioned a couple times it seems to me from those sources that they are referring to the battles in Egypt rather than the war holistically. It may be that the short sentence in the Aftermath section needs to be elaborated on and is currently misleading because alot doesn't seem to add up here (but it may just be me not understanding) 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If a stalemate is mentioned and then no side winning, it's rather clear that no side has won. And yes, these are likely all on the Egyptian front, I mean let's be honest I think it's rather obvious Israel won on for example the Syrian front.

As @Cinderella157 said:

"Write the article as revised, then the lead and then the infobox." Setergh (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason that no one else referred to the war as a "victory" was that most historians regarded it as a stalemate rather than a clear triumph for either side - as quoted in ref 449. See also other quotes in refs. A stalemate is a situation in which neither participant in a contest, competition, or struggle comes out ahead of the other In the context of WP:RESULT, it is an inconclusive result and not a victory. If a source says the war was a stalemate, then they are saying that the war was a stalemate. It is not up to us to say it seems to me from those sources that they are referring to the battles in Egypt so we will just ignore that - they say what they say. Hell, the whole point of WP:RESULT and the template doc is to quash these arguments by editors as to what they think the result should be and defer to the consensus in sources and if there isn't a consensus in sources, read what the sources have to say and why they say it. Yes, the short sentence in the Aftermath section needs to be elaborated. It is woefully inadequate but anything else anybody brings up that isn't written in the article doesn't count. The infobox must reflect the article. We can't just bend the words to suit what we think it should be. That is just so wrong at so many levels. If the article is wrong, fix the article. What the article might say when it is elaborated and what the result might be is something for the future. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ref 449 you mean the 1982 NYT article? WP:AGEMATTERS and that's hardly an appropriate source to use for this. Andre🚐 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Er sorry I think you mean ref 438. Which is by a journalist and not a historian. And in context it's saying that Sadat was spinning the story as an Egyptian "victory," referring to the "October 6" victory which was a stalemate on October 6 but the war didn't end until October 25. This isn't a history text nor is it specifically about the Yom Kippur War. Andre🚐 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Tolchin, Martin; Tolchin, Susan J. (30 October 2007) - now 438. No matter how you slice and dice it, this is a good quality source written by someone recognised as a scholar, which goes directly to the point of whether or not there is a consensus among scholars that this was a victory or not. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

But that's not what the source says. Andre🚐 04:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

See here. We are not talking about a newspaper article here. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I know that. It's by a journalist. His wife is a political scientist. Neither are historians. But also, the source doesn't say what you claim it says. It refers to Sadat spinning an October 6 "victory." That date wasn't the end of the war, but the beginning of the war. So this source doesn't even refer to results of the war. That was Act I. Andre🚐 05:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I had been previously active on the forum surrounding this. “Military victory” was indeed meant to be an alternative as there was a major political defeat for Israel and concessions. I had initially argued that the result be “inconclusive”

the aftermath section can be elaborated on, and to why the dispute exists and those arguing for military victory (Israel reversing Syria’s gains and taking the fight to Syria itself, as well as crossing the suez) and to why it was inconclusive (Israel failing to win the most decisive battle of the war and accepting the ceasefire on 22 October, then secretly violating the ceasefire to encircle the third army but get defeated at suez, prompting them to accept another ceasefire, as well as unlike Syria, Egypt had still consolidated most of its gains on the eastern banks even as the fight was taking place beyond Sinai)

I had initially made a draft for an expanded aftermath months ago The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are suggesting there was a centralised discussion on "military victory" please indicate where, as you have not contributed at Template talk:Infobox military conflict nor is there any mention of "military victory" on that talk page prior to the section created on 29 December 2024. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think he's referring to past discussions on this talk page which ended in that compromise. I suppose given the reverts it is now an open discussion once again. I understand the WP:RESULT argument. I would argue that if you actually slice and dice the sources it's not just a military victory but an "Israeli victory," the infobox is talking about a military conflict. Most reputable historians agree that Israelis, despite early losses, turned it around and it became a victory. Andre🚐 14:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that if you actually slice and dice the sources it's not just a military victory but an "Israeli victory," It doesn't matter what you think or argue here. It doesn't matter what you think the sources say. What matters is what the article tells us the sources say. Per INFOBOXPURPOSE, that translates to what the infobox says per RESULT. We need to put the actual views of the sources (complete with nuance and context) down on "paper" for the reader. Until then, much of this discussion is pointless. The infobox is talking about a war. Political science tells us that the political and military aspects of the result cannot be separated. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll change the article first, before changing the infobox. But both should be changed. Andre🚐 04:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll change the article first, before changing the infobox. That is what I have been saying because (per INFOBOXPURPOSE) the infobox must reflect the body of the article, so it must change before the infobox does. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but let's discuss making both changes, because both were a compromise from the prior discussion. So both are at issue. Andre🚐 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No, one does not write an abstract for an article before the article is written. The same applies here. Writing to a predetermined outcome smacks of bias. When someone puts some words on paper, then we can critique and discuss those words and work toward a consensus on what the aftermath says about the result. Then we can summarise that in the infobox per WP:RESULT. Until then, we have what is written and that is how we summarise the result. We don't put the cart before the horse. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"Most reputable historians agree that Israelis, despite early losses, turned it around and it became a victory."

Those reputable historians being Israelis/Jews or even an Israeli president himself? How can we consider this to be fair in determining our result...? Setergh (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Uhhhhh no, historians period. And we don't discount the reliability of historians for being Jewish. That's quite beyond the pale. Even if they were Israelis, see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. You WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Anyway, take a look at any reliable textbook or history of this. Andre🚐 16:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not seem that the people here are arguing for these sources to be omitted, but rather instead not relied on exclusively or as a priority when it comes to the result of the war. There is an apparent dispute, and such a dispute can be acknowledged including the sources that claim it was a victory. The bias is inevitably, after all one of the authors was the contemporary president of Israel. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said this completely excludes the sources nor that they shouldn't be used. But you can't claim that these are by far the most reliable sources known to man, because they all are very likely biased. Of course, just cause they're made by Israelis/Jews doesn't mean they have to be, but it's very much likely and it obviously does more represent an Israeli viewpoint. When the only people who support an Israeli victory are Israelis/Jews rather than anyone that has no correlation to Israel, then there's likely bias.

And stop telling me to look at any reliable textbook or history of this, I do not come here to begin a deep dive into the timeline of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and the Arab League. I'm here to see what sources are used on the article, how reliable they are and what our final result of the discussion should be. If you're so keen on me seeing a reliable textbook or history of this, one which you do not think I can dispute, then go ahead, send it and I'll check it out if I'm able to. Setergh (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN applies to all sides. (Hohum ) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• p. 6, 45, Israeli victory, Siniver, Oxford press, not an Israeli writer.
• p.128 Israeli victory, Bickerton, not Israeli
• p.184 Kuraswamy, Routledge, not Israeli

Just to name a few. Andre🚐 16:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

For the first source, I do not have access to it.

For the second source, it does state a military victory, which I would've hoped we'd established that it should not be used in an infobox (however it would be good in the aftermath section).

For the third source, it once again does state a military victory, so only should be used in aftermath as well. Setergh (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The source is searchable on Google Books in my country, but there are other ways to get access to it, such as a regular library. I also found a pdf of it online. Try this; I don't think we agree about the usability of these sources when it comes to WP:RESULT. The fact that it states an Israeli military victory doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in the infobox. It just states that the infobox should just say victory or defeat without further detail. But the Yom Kippur War was an Israeli victory. A Pyrrhic one perhaps, but a victory nonetheless despite the early shock of the Egyptian attack. This is an article about a military conflict, so the fact that sources call it a military victory is enough. Andre🚐 22:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the source.

|

You don't get to decide whether the Yom Kippur War was an Israeli victory or not, that's up to the sources which seem to clearly be rather split to give an exact result (and yes I know there's more that goes into it, especially due to the Egyptian front).

|

And yes this is a military conflict, that does not mean a military victory is all it needs. A military victory doesn't always provide a full-on victory, for example during the Suez Crisis. Setergh (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources are not split. Please tell me which sources of similar prominence claim it was not an Israeli victory. Andre🚐 13:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, are some of the sources already used within the article along those lines?

For example, even the first source says "In Cairo, a bridge and statues are among the symbols that celebrate the "October 6 victory." What was that victory? It turned out to be what the rest of the world called the "Yom Kippur War," the war between Egypt and Israel in 1973. The reason that no one else referred to the war as a "victory" was that most historians regarded it as a stalemate rather than a clear triumph for either side."

Of course, this is only the Egyptian front. But that's where the problem lies. There is no way you can make an argument for an Israeli victory, due to:

1. It depends on the front. On the Syrian front, it was a clear Israeli victory, but on the Egyptian front, that's heavily debated.
2. A military victory once again not only has no place being in an infobox, but also isn't a proper result. I mean, in the Algerian War the French won militarily. Would you consider that war a French victory? Or in the Vietnam War before Vietnamization the US was winning militarily. Would you consider that to be a US success? No, which is why a military victory does not determine the actual outcome of the war.

Setergh (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

As I already explained that source is about the events on October 6. The war didn't end on October 6. October 6 was the start of the war. So that does not prove your point at all. Please provide a source that proves your point Andre🚐 21:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not about the events on October 6, it is about the war that started on October 6. Read the entire source, it clearly talks about how it's the entirety of the Yom Kippur War, not some random events on the beginning day. Setergh (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I did read it, and no, it says an "October 6 victory." Andre🚐 22:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Right after it, it says "What was that victory? It turned out to be what the rest of the world called the "Yom Kippur War," the war between Egypt and Israel in 1973."

Therefore yes, it talks about the whole Yom Kippur War. It talks about how the October 6 victory is in regard to the entirety of the Yom Kippur War. Setergh (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it's actually talking about how Sadat claimed propagandistically that the war was a victory because of the events of October 6, the surprise attack. This does not contradict the sources which claim it was an Israeli victory. Do you have any historical sources or sources that focus on Yom Kippur War by a historian or an expert on the topic which state it was a stalemate? Andre🚐 22:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you choose to randomly ignore sources and pick out whatever details you can to make me seem like a fool? It talks about how yes Sadat did claim a victory, but despite it being a stalemate rather than a clear triumph for either side.

It both mentions a stalemate and how neither side had a clear triumph, so yes this does go against the Israeli victory.

And I'm not sure if I'm willing to care enough to start digging into supposed historians/experts which focus on the Yom Kippur War, especially not this late at night. Perhaps tomorrow. Setergh (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• If we don't have a broad consensus here I'm thinking an RFC about whether the Yom Kippur War is an Israeli victory should be started. Andre🚐 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Quick question, what is an RFC...? Setergh (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:RFC Andre🚐 13:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! Setergh (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC: How should the war be characterized in the infobox?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the Yom Kippur War be characterized in any of the following ways in the infobox WP:RESULT:

1. Do not characterize the war in the infobox, but write "See aftermath."
2. Israeli victory
3. Stalemate
4. Egyptian victory

Andre🚐 23:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Either option 1. or “inconclusive”, with an elaboration on both viewpoints in the “aftermath section” in either case The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class African military history articles
• African military history task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• B-Class Egypt articles
• High-importance Egypt articles
• WikiProject Egypt articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• Mid-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• B-Class Iraq articles
• Mid-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment