Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 12 November 2010

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!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Yom Kippur War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Yom Kippur War at the Reference desk.

	Yom Kippur War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	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
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Egypt Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Military history: Middle East 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 Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Template:WP1.0

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

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 31, 2004, May 31, 2005, May 31, 2007, October 6, 2007, May 31, 2008, October 6, 2008, October 6, 2009, and October 6, 2010.

Archives

Archive 1 - Includes discussion of whether the article title is POV, and a poll concerning page move to Arab-Israeli conflict of October 6–October 24, 1973. Outcome of poll was 0/15/1. Archive 2 - Includes discussion of whether the article title is POV, and a poll concerning page move to 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Outcome of poll was 8/30/0. Archive 3 - Includes discussion of whether the article title (and the article itself) is POV, casus belli, number of troops, and various other things. Archive 4 - June - October 2009. Archive 5 - October 2009 - April 2010.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

Infobox

When did the infobox get reversed? I had changed it so that the attacking parties were on the left, initial side of the box, and the attacked party, Israel, was on the right. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Result

It is unreasonable to state "strategic victory" for Egypt in the infobox. While many sources do claim political victory for Egypt, there is only one who claims "strategic victory" for Egypt and it is Dupuy. There is more than one source that actually claims political victory for Israel. The main body does not support "Egyptian strategic victory" by quoting Dupuy's words. The main body supports nothing by quoting anyone's words. It supports arguments through what is written by the editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no discussion took place, I changed it to only "political victory". I don't own the source, so it would be good if someone could verify that "political victory" does not misrepresent it.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 23:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I quoted Dupuy a bit in the Lead section above. Many sources, probably the majority, would agree.John Z (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

this is a copy of a discussion about this article similar to the discussion already here which started at User_talk:Omarello2; copying so interested parties may be included. note: all unsigned edits are from Omarello2.

Thank you, I have an article by Pierre Tristam who is a famous columinst that describe in details the first and second disengagements in the Egyptian and Syrian borders which made israel lose some previously held territory in Sinai and Golan Heights.In addition I have an article by William Burr an editor in the National security archieve that describes the disengagement and the weight of the Israeli losses compared to the Arab losses.Where should I provide the links?

hi omarello, thanks for getting back to me. could you provide the links here while i go update myself on the article? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit the article (the part were refuse to remove Israeli tactical victory and refuse to add Egyptian strategic and political victory in the infobox). At the end of the war after the first and second engagement Egypt held more territory and controlled the Suez Canal while israel had lost territory so its supposed to be a strategic victory for Egypt(supported by many sources). As for the casualties comparison I have many sources that claim that the Israeli losses in percentage terms was more than the Arabs. According to William Burr it was equivalent to 200,000 losses in the US army.All of the info should be summarized in the infobox. Military stalemate replace tactical victory or at least Egyptian strategic and political victory because in 1975(still at state of war) held more territory.

Here are the sources

Six Part BBC documentary which is supposed to be a neutral source clearly states that it is hard to say whose the clear victor and thatEgyptian side was the side that gained the most.

first part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XztQ28ZUXs0

last part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHpzPCGp1Ek&feature=related

Here is a link that to the national security archieve which states that the israeli 2600 soldiers in percentage was equivalent ::::to 200,000 Americans. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm

an article by Pierre Tristam that describe in details The Egyptian/Syrian-Israeli Disengagement Treaties of 1974 and 1975. http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm--Omarello2 (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

reviewing now... WookieInHeat (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

i've reviewed all the information you provided, let me break down my analysis. the BBC video is informative but doesn't directly support you claims (also youtube is not generally considered a WP:RS, the quote from the national archives has little to do with the information you are trying to insert, and the final link you provided didn't work. any ways, let me ask you more directly about what you want to add. for the statement "territorial gains for egypt", do you believe egypt gained territory because it regained control of the sinai desert? and also, "Political and strategic victory for Egypt" seems to POV compared the statement directly above it that says "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel"; having both right beside each other seems to be somewhat of a contradiction. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking some time to look at my sources. As for my statement on the territorial gains, I did not mean all Sinai but part of the Sinai and this illustrated in my link about the first and second disengagements on the Syrian and Egyptian border. Egypt also took control of the Canal.Here is how you look at it in 1971(state of war) Egypt had no control over the canal and Egyptian troops are on the western side, In 1975(still state of war) Egypt on the eastern side with some territory and full control of the canal, Syrian troops in the previously held town of Qunitera.Peace talks started 4 years after the war during this time did not Egypt held more territory than before 1973 war and werent they and Syrians engaged in a minor war of attrition(wikipedia article even say this). As for the BBC source please research about Peter snow is a very important TV and Radio presenter and BBC is supposed to be neutral if Israel won they would say it but instead they said and I quote"There is no sign of a clear victor in the war". I am sorry for the link that did not open.As for the quote about the causulties Will I be allowed to insert in the yom kippur article I already provided you with its reliable source(national achieve) Here is another link that describe the disengagements (these are undisputed facts you will get the same info if you researched any source) http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ykwar_agreements.php--Omarello2 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)not a problem at all, i am glad you are taking the time to discuss the issue. again, i don't see the relevance of the national archives quote in relation to what you want to add to the article; also the most recent link you provided didn't work (404). saying that the yam kippur war was a "territorial victory for egypt" is somewhat of an overstatement. it would seem the current statement "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel" is mroe neutral and sufficiently conveys the status of egypt after the war. and finally, the additions you would like to make appear to violate WP:OR as you are drawing conclusions from what your sources say rather then using what they say to state facts. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

to be continued, i'm off to bed. night WookieInHeat (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

the links wer not working because they were followed by -- when sigining when signing please try to open the link again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarello2 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ykwar_agreements.php

What were the strategic and political gains for Israel? They lost some previously held territory and lost full control of the canal. I did not say "Egyptian tactical victory" I said "military stalemate" or "Both sides claim victory" would be more descriptive. I can download the series and provide it to you to make it a more reliable source but that is not the issue.BBC documentary said" There is no sign of clear victor in this war" so why should we say its an Israeli tactical victory? You should add "territorial gains" for Egypt and remove "strategic and political gains for Israel" because these were a result of a peace treaty not the war and therefore it should be added in the article about the CampDavid accords not the Yum kippur war.

Here is the other link provided with maps about the disengagement agreements

http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/a/me080421.htm

another city of Quneitra which came under Syrian rule in 1974 from Israel as a result of the disengagement.How is this not a strategic victory. If the lets say Iran went to war with US in Iraq and the end result was that Iran took control of 2 small Iraqi ciities but were pushed back from the rest of Iraq and failed to invade the rest of Iraq(but still hold the 2 cities), wouldn't this be a strategic victory for Iran?

the links worked now and i read both the articles. what were the strategic and political gains for israel you ask? they regained use of the suez and a new UN peacekeeping mandate to monitor it. any way, i think i may have a compromise to our disagreement. how about we remove egypt from the statement "Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel" making it "Political and strategic gains for Israel", and include "Territorial gains for Egypt". this avoids declaring victory for either side and addresses the land israel ceded under the final UN resolution as a territorial gain for egypt. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok that is more informative but we should add Syria too because they got back an important city called Quneitra. But still why did not the BBC documentary(unbiased) say its an Israeli victory but instead said that the victor was unclear. AS for strategic vicrory for Egypt in the Yom Kippur article itself there are many sources that support that.Here a quote from the article "Thus, if war is the employment of military force in support of political objectives, there can be no doubt that in strategic and political terms the Arab States—and particularly Egypt—won the war, even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory".|Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947–1974

your quotes sound more like reason not to use the word "victory" if you ask me. i would really just like to avoid the word "victory" in general as it seems to be drawing conclusions that aren't quite set in stone anywhere. its not like WWII where the germans were totally defeated and occupied, the current use of the word "gains" seems much less presumptuous. as for syria, the town you mention appears to be relatively unimportant, the already quite lengthy yom kippur article doesn't even mention it. adding every minor territorial development to the lead infobox is only going to further clutter the article. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

note: seeing as this has become somewhat of a debate, i'm going to copy the conversation over to the talk page for the article; also a similar debate already exists, see Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Result. lets continue there for the sake of transparency and inclusion of any interested editors. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the lengthy discussion that took a lot of your time. Anyway, as you said to make it more biased I suggest we remove the word victory and replace with "Tactical and strategic gains". We can add also territorial gains for Egypt like you suggested.--Omarello2 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

So nothing is allowed in if it doesn't meet ElUmmah's standards? What was wrong with the line from the Egyptian president? Why did you remove it? Cptnono (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in your talk page, removing that particular paragraph was accidental. Everything else however, was perfectly justified and I think you'll find that I'm not the only to think so.ElUmmah (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ElUmmah.

Unless you have Gawrych's book, "your" edits are actually reinsertions of Sherif's own edits, removed by me, while you even don't have this book. Sherif claims that his edits are based on Gawrych's book, but I think he did not write exactly what appears in the book. Until Sherif gives detailed explanations for these edits and quote Gawrych's words in the talk page, these edits shouldn't appear in the article. I'm still expecting Sherif to do it. You have no write to reinsert edits based on a book you don't have. Stop reinserting Sherif's edits. Megaidler (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, they are my edits, the only re-insertion was the part regarding the 400 destroyed Israeli tanks as well as the countries in the infobox. Sherif has already provided the explanation you required, and so you cannot continue to remove a sourced figure just because it differs from the sources you like.

So now you know what books I have and don't have is that right? For your information, the book is available on google books, if you had taken the time to verify this you wouldn't have made such a false accusation. You, Megaidler, are the one who has no right to remove referenced information and try to impose your own POV upon a featured article that is supposed to be NEUTRAL. You make baseless claims regarding the reliability of many top scholars and you try to undermine their work, when you are hardly a scholar on the subject yourself.ElUmmah (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Fascinating hypothesis there Megaidler but useful only if you're authoring a book. What you're doing is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please remember that you do not WP:OWN this article either; you cannot remove sourced material and order editors to comply with your requests simply because they do not match your POV, all the while throwing false accusations at me. Drop it for everyone's sake, and let's move on to other issues with the article. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Did Ezekiel's Prophecy of Gog and Magog Cause the Americans to Act Out of Fear?

NOTE If we can answer this question, maybe we can give motive to why Kissinger acted as he did, or perhaps acted without the President?Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am an American. I have a question. Are there any reliable sources online that demonstrate that Ezekiel's (chapter 38 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2038;&version=NASB;) prophecy of a King of the North (Gog and Magog) would attack Israel unleashing God's wrath possibly caused Kissinger and others to react (with the nuclear alert) to the Soviet communication to Nixon out of fear, fearing Armageddon? That is how I, as a reader of the pronogisticator Hal Lindsey, interpreted Doomsday: On The Brink when it discussed the Soviet paratroops on alert.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is fortunate that the Soviets were guided more by reason than possible religious panic that day.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

israeli victory

y is this disputed? israel clearly won, the arabs were pushed back a ceasefire went into effect and the us prevented israel from advancing on egypt. ( kissinger used this in order to get egypt to support the us and not the ussr). syria was pushed back and if im not mistaken israel was 45 kilometers away from damascus.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) how is it an isreaeli victory they lost half the country they own before all of sinna and some of al joulan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.129.179 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

dude you are jewish and a proud zionist ofcourse u will see it as an israeli victory how is that possible you lost land —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.129.179 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All historical books document the October war as a clear victory to Egypt. Israel lost the war and its documented everywhere (except in Israel ofcourse !). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.155.245 (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

it's one of the strangest wars ever. the arabs are sure of their victory (as you can see in the comments here). the jews are sure of their defeat (as you can see in the hebrew wikipedia). the only problem is that the truth is the other way around... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.7.80 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Victory is claimed by both sides, even if Israel has had tactical gains in this war, this war is considered as victory for Egypt (not the Arabs) as it made the start of the Peace Talks which resulted in reacquiring Sinai.

You have few mistakes:

1. Israel never claimed for victory. The Israelis keep mourning the 2700 casualties and asking how come that they were surprised in such manner. This is despite the fact that they won the war.

2. At the end of the war the Israeli army was 100 kilometres from Cairo. This is a military fact.

3. The peace agreement shouldn't be considers when discussing who won but if you insist, it should be considered as another Israeli victory. Israel agreed to return Sinai after the six day war in return for peace agreement. Egypt refused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.43 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple really. The proclaimed goal of the Arabs was to destroy Israel. The goal of Israel, as the defender, was not to be destroyed. As we all know how it ended (Israel not being destroyed, not even losing significant land) I think the conclusions are rather obvious. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR

This article has two tags, unformatted citations, an External link farm, and many issues-- it should be cleaned up or submitted to WP:FAR for reevaluation of featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is little chance of this remaining a FA. To address the comments made instead of taking it to FAR at this time:

I don't know why the neutrality tag is on. I assume it has to do with the infobox. However, in hindsight, I agreed it was needed a few months ago when the article was heavily slanted towards the Arab perspective.

Length: This has been brought up before. It is long but it is within WP:LENGTH. It could be tightened. One idea was to spin the Golan part out. I think that is a terrible idea and if anything certain sources need to be limited because they are overused. Rabinovich is one example and this is discussed in the archives. If any sections should be trimmed or summarized with a new article created it should be sections 3 and 4.

The link farm is easy enough and should be cut. Is there anything anyone sees as being essential as an external link instead of a source?

And a note about the infobox : If we could properly summarize the victory conditions at the top of section 3 or 4 as "aftermath" we would not need the disputed info in the infobox. There is no place discussing the info in a consolidated manner for that to be acceptable since the reader would have to go through a dozen paragraphs to find the info.

Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the Israeli-Palastinian conflict partisans have moved in and wrecked this article since I last edited it. I'll see what I can do. I agree that the length tag is specious, and that there are several other things that could be done to fix this article. Raul654 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! It looks and reads like crap.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By way of example, the casualty section is way too long and filled w/ mumbo jumbo psycho babble and other useless and biased crap that is irrelevant and designed simply for the purpose of skewing the article in a certain direction. I made an effort to make it more concise, drawing from a number of sources and setting forth dry numbers and stats. I'll try to re-work it again and trim the fat and BS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath

Apologies to start another subsection but the other ones are being ignored and edit waring is increasing. Would anyone be opposed to fixing the victory bit by using "Se aftermath" in the "Result" parameter of the infobox. We would have to formulate a paragraph at the top of the section discussing claims to military victory and the political outcome. Right now, the section is not suitable for such a link but if we stop bickering we might be able to figure out a concise summary. Although I have been against doing this, it has been based on that section not existing properly (the reader has to comb through too much as is) and what we have now just isn't working. We have precedent for doing this according to the infobox:

1. result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section"). -Template:Infobox military conflict

Cptnono (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this. The relevant section needs to reflect what the sources say, and then the infobox needs to point to it. (Hohum ) 00:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent removal

An editor just removed "Egyptian political and strategic victory" from the infobox with the edit comment "No consensus for this edit. Not from editors and not from sources. IDF tactical victory is supported by at least 7 reliable sources)"

The main body text contains "However, the war is described as a military stalemate and an Egyptian strategic and political victory by Major Steven J. Piccirilli, USMC" which is properly cited, and is a reliable western source.

This, as I have argued before, makes the recently removed outcome supported, or more properly for an infobox summary - disputed. Please stop fighting over the wording in the infobox instead of getting the relevant main body text right, and then reflecting it in the infobox. (Hohum ) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how one can make the argument for political victory. Piccirili is in the minority on this as evidenced by the numerous sources that I cited and added in the main body text. These additions are now consistent with the infobox. Moreover, in addition to being contrary to the body of sources, several editors have expressed reservations about this speculative conclusion. respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now cited several sources that argue persuasively that in addition to emerging militarily victorious from the Yom Kippur War, Israel gained politically as well. These are reliable sources from respected historians, defense analysts and academics that lay out in cogent, articulate fashion grounds for their claims. There will always be a minority that will argue otherwise. There are those who believe that the CIA was responsible for Kennedy’s death and that 911 was a Zionist conspiracy but that does not make it so. The majority of western sources agree that Israel emerged victorious from the war. Even Garwych begrudgingly acknowledges that the prevailing western viewpoint is that Israel won the war. A core group of Egyptian revisionists and a few of their supporters stubbornly cling to the view of stalemate but these are a minority and hardly represent the consensus of sources and I’ve proven that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to understand why a respectable source has a particular opinion. Misplaced Pages reflects what reliable sources say. It's disputed, Piccirili is not a fringe opinion. (Hohum ) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I’m curious. Is Piccirili an author, historian or academic? Has he published any notable books? Has his article on YKW been subjected to any form of peer review? And aside from “GlobalSecurity,” has it been published or recited in any RS? I did a Google search and found nothing of note. Can you enlighten me as to why we should consider such an obscure writer be an RS? Can you please explain to me why the opinions of a “no name” like Piccirili should be given equal weight to the dozen or so sources that I cited that stand for the opposite position? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So it appears JJG wasted no time in taking advantage of my absence to once again remove "Egyptian political and strategic victory" from the infobox. I am quickly tiring of this constant edit warring. JJG, it's obvious that the matter is disputed, as Piccirili's opinion is shared by other reliable sources, including Hammad, Dupuy and O'Ballance, to name a few. Be it a minority viewpoint or not, the matter IS disputed, and the infobox needs to reflect this. Thus, I am giving you the chance to self-revert, or at least to implement Hohum's suggestion, which I think is highly agreeable, as it allows the reader to examine both sides and come to their own conclusion. I think it is in the best interest of this article that we, as editors, collaborate rather than edit war. Also, regarding the casualty figures in the infobox, they are inaccurate. You say Rabinovich gives the figure as 15,000, which is true, yet another source gives the figure as 8,528. Thus, the range needs to be 8,528 - 18,500. Regarding Arab air losses, you state the range to be 450-514. Yet Gawrych states that Egypt lost 223 and Syria lost 118 (223+118 = 341). Thus, the infobox needs to say 341-514. I also noticed you removed Gawrych's sourced material from the casualties paragraph in the body. He states at least 2800 Israelis were killed and at least 8800 were wounded. He also mentions that some sources give Israeli aircraft losses as closer to 200. I believe O'Ballance provides additional figures, but I don't have the book yet and so won't be able to provide them at the moment. Regardless, Gawrych is a reliable source, and his figures need to be included, and it would be great if you could do so. Another concern of mine is that you reverted me to place Israel's estimate of Arab casualties first (in the Arab casualties paragraph). Other, more accurate secondary sources need to be placed first, otherwise the reader is given an immediate incorrect impression of Arab casualties. I do not oppose its inclusion, as it is relevant, but please put it after, rather than before other most reliable estimates. I hope we will be able to collaborate further on this project, and avoid pointless edit warring. Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Elummah, I too have no interest in edit warring and will make some modifications consistent w/ ur suggestions. Aside from his own quote of 15,000 Rabinovich cites another source as saying 8,528 but he doesn't say which and that's why I didn't include it in the infobox but I did include in in the casualty section. Herzog cites a figure of 18,500 and the London Sunday Times states 16,000. Johnson and Tierney state that the Arab forces sustained between 40,000 to 50,000 casualties (dead and wounded) Nonetheless, in the interest of collaboative editing, I'll make changes that will hopefully meet with ur approval. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good :). I just took a look at Rabinovich's book, and I saw that the 15,000 killed figure is attributed to Israel's estimate, rather than his own. Also, Gawrych states that Egypt and Syria lost 8,000 killed (5,000 for egypt and 3,000 for syria).ElUmmah (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that "disputed" would be better for the infobox than a disputable "Israeli tactical victory" which should only be ther if balanced by "Egyptian political/strategic victory" . The majority opinion of reliable sources assess it as an Egyptian (or Arab) political / strategic victory; it is much harder to see how it can be viewed as an Israeli political victory. As I mentioned above, some of the sources cited to support "Israeli victory" (e.g. Kumaraswamy, Liebman) support the Egyptian strategic/political victory view in other places, call the Israeli victory "pyrrhic" , and/or argue from the position that they are dissenting from the mainstream view that the war was a stalemate or Egyptian strategic victory. "Egyptian revisionism" does not enter into it. The "Egyptian strategic victory" sources, the majority, are not Egyptian, and many were published soon after the war. Whetten's book The Canal War, published in 1974, assesses it as an Egyptian and Syrian political victory: p.283, on their prewar military objectives "Militarily, Syria failed and Egypt partially failed. Politically, however, both Arab states were successful." Dupuy's says the same. General histories like Khouri's Arab-Israeli Dilemma, Morris's Righteous Victims and Shlaim's Iron Wall don't accord with a nonexistent consensus of Israeli victory. e.g. Morris, p.441: "Sadat's gamble, to achieve a breakthrough in Arab-Israeli relations through the application of shock treatment, had paid off. What Israel had been unwilling to contemplate in 1971 ... it acceded to after the Yom Kippur war." Homum is absolutely right. Call it disputed in the box, and work on getting a good text that is pointed to from the box.John Z (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would go with "See aftermath" over "Disputed" but see and agree that it might be a good solution. I lean that way since "too complex" might be more accurate than "disputed" and "disputed" might cause more edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You're right, "See Aftermath" is probably better. I would be happy with either.John Z (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, probably an effective solution. ElUmmah (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay as I see it from the body of sources, militarily, you've got to hand it to Israel. The issue gets murkier when adding the political component. Some sources led by Dupuy argue that politically, Egypt came out ahead while others, including Johnson & Tierney and Luttwak don't see it that way. Rabinovich argues that both sides, Egypt as well as Israel, gained politically. So perhaps as a solution we could write:

• Israel tactical victory
• Political gains for Egypt and Israel
• See "Aftermath" (with a link to that section)

On another issue, ElUmmah expressed concern over the fact that Garwych's stats were omitted from the infobox and he was correct. I have now included Garwych's stats in the infobox and will re-work the "casualty" section so that it remains consistent with the information provided in the infobox.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but I still think there should be some reference to Egyptian strategic successes. I'm not denying that Israel achieved tactical gains on both fronts, nor that they achieved political gains (I do tend to think Egypt gained more, but that in itself is disputed). However, Egypt did achieve strategic successes which is acknowledged by many historians (e.g. surprising Israel, capturing and holding the east bank of the canal, the bab el mandab blockade), which fulfilled Egypt's strategic objectives and affected the long-term outcome. ElUmmah (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay progress. I think there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. Egypt gained politically because a measure of Arab pride was restored and Sadat became immensely popular in Egypt as a result. She gained strategically because she was able to acquire the Sinai through the negotiation process, a process that was jump-started by the war. Israel gained politically because it achieved peace with its most formidable opponent and in so doing, opened doors to relations with other Arab countries including Jordan. Moreover, it was able to achieve peace without conceding on other disputed territories. It gained strategically because its security situation improved drastically with the advent of peace. In light of that, perhaps the following would be suitable:

• Israel tactical victory
• Political & strategic gains for Egypt and Israel
• See "Aftermath" (with a link to that section)

On another note, I have re-worked the casualty section to include Garwych's stats so that it now conforms to the infobox.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that :). Let's put it in the infobox and if anyone has any suggestions they can bring it up here. Now we have to work on the results section so that it reflects the infobox. Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud the recent outbreak of cooperation (and hope that mentioning it doesn't break the spell). Kudos to those participating. (Hohum ) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made the edit reflecting above-discussed compromise to the long-standing debate. Hopefully, the recent edits that I made to the infobox and casualty sections will placate some of the concerns expressed by various well-informed and well-intentioned editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian tank strength

Egyptian tank strength as noted in the infobox seems vastly understated and inconsistent with information in the body text. All sources including Garwych agree that Egypt lost 1,100 tanks during the war. The infobox states that she started the war with 1,700. Under the Arab re-supply section Hammad is quoted as stating that Egypt was not re-supplied with tanks. If that's the case, Egypt was left with 600 tanks by war's end (1,700-1,100 = 600). Yet there's a claim in the body text that Egyptian tank strength on the east bank at the time of ceasefire was 700. This amounts to a discrepancy of negative 100 tanks. it would also mean that Egypt had no tanks on the west bank. This makes absolutely no sense and demonstrates the absurdity and inconsistency of Egyptian sources--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked, but can't see a mention of 700 Egyptian tanks at the ceasefire in the current version of the page, or versions before recent edits. If you feel certain sources are "absurd" and don't want them to be used, you will either need to gain consensus here, or have them vetted at WP:RSN. (Hohum ) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says 720 tanks, though I don't see the point of this argument. Hammad states that the Egyptians received no tanks in the Soviet re-supply effort. However, looking at JJG's edit which consisted of putting practically the entire Arab world (as well as Cuba, Pakistan and North Korea) on Egypt's side, it's evident that Egypt received much more than just Soviet help, which is more than enough to account for the noted discrepancy.ElUmmah (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"However, looking at JJG's edit which consisted of putting practically the entire Arab world (as well as Cuba, Pakistan and North Korea) on Egypt's side, it's evident that Egypt received much more than just Soviet help, which is more than enough to account for the noted discrepancy."

ElUmmah, that's original research. You've got to find a way so that your numbers jive with your sources. Otherwise, you have to change your sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True, alright I'll get on that as soon as possible. What do you propose we do in the meantime? ElUmmah (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

eh leave it for now. I'll make some of the changes u proposed above but tomorrow, if its okay.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, talk to you tomorrow then :) ElUmmah (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This argument is useless because you have a variety of sources being used for the many figures: one for the pre-war strength, a few for the number of tanks lost (which are controversial, O'Ballance gives a figure smaller than that), and a completely different source for the post-war strength. We can't try to explain the discrepancy ourselves because that would be OR. Obviously it all arises from a dispute on the estimate of Egyptian losses during the war. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FA and EL

External links came up in the mention of a Featured Article Review. There are so many I am just removing them all. They are all shown below so that appropriate ones can be added in. Keep in mind that an inline citation will do if it can be used as a reference. For everything else, make sure that WP:EL is followed.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs—The Jarring initiative and the response
• Jerusalem Post's—Yom Kippur War: Shattered Heights
• Jewish Agency for Israel's Timeline of Israeli history
• Jewish Education Dept., JAFI, Israeli Intelligence and the Yom Kippur War of 1973
• Put an end to Israeli aggression, an article printed in the Pravda newspaper on October 12, 1973 (translation at CNN)
• A detailed account of 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War) – From Ariel Sharon's Biography
• The October War national park, Cairo
• The Bitter Blow - Israeli-Arab Relations after the wars
• The October War, Al Ahram supplement
• The October War and US Policy—Provided by the National Security Archive.
• Lessons of the October War, Ahmad Faruqui
• A Cry From The Bunkers Recordings by IDF soldier Avi Yaffe from inside the IDF position, under attack at the outbreak of the war
• The reasons for the war by Major Ebrahim Al-Jowder Bahrain Armed Forces
• The 1973 October War: The Egyptian Perspective—Provided By Major J.C. Moulton, United States Air Force.
• The 1973 Arab-Israeli War: Arab Policies, Strategies, and Campaigns— Provided by Major Michael C. Jordan, United States Marine Corps.
• Operation Valiant: Turning of the Tide in the Sinai 1973 Arab-Israeli War by Major Richard L. Owen, US Marine Corps Command and Staff College
• Kissinger's Yom Kippur oil shock – Reasons for outbreak of war according to F.William Engdahl.
• Yom Kippur War: Sacrificial Stand in the Golan Heights – by Gary Rashba, Military History Magainze, October 1998 issue.
• Fundamental surprise, by Dr. Zvi Lanir, Tel Aviv University
• Radio program – 6:36 min from radio program about the war. The program includes authentic recordings of the first moments of the war.
• "Another Round in the War of Words" Time Monday, Oct. 29, 1973. Separate interviews, same questions, with the Foreign ministers of Israel and Egypt

Piccirili

I have some serious reservations on citing Major Steven Piccirili in this article. He is neither an author, historian or academic. He has never published any notable books. His article or report on the Yom Kippur War has never been subjected to any form of peer review. And aside from “GlobalSecurity,” it has never been published or recited in any RS. I did a Google search on this chap and found nothing of note. Can anyone enlighten me as to why we should consider such an obscure writer be an RS? Can anyone please explain why the opinions of a “no name” like Piccirili should be given equal weight to the likes of Dupuy, Herzog, Pollack, Garwych, Rabinovich and the Insight Team of the London Sunday Times, just to name a few? Moreover, Piccirili's conclusions are derived directly from Dupuy's, quoting him word for word in his report and we already have Dupuy's opinion noted in the aftermath section. Having Piccrili quoted alongside Dupuy is redundant. Additionally, Piccirili borrows heavily from Badri, universally recognized as an unreliable source. The Journal of Military History criticized Badri's book as being "totally biased in its approach, and should be avoided by anyone seeking a general history of the war." (Review: The Arab-Israeli War of Words: Recent Books Reviewed, Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 200–202, at p. 201). And military historian Simon Dunstan called Badri's book a "mere rhetoric." Reliance on tainted sources necessarily corrupts the "report." But my latter two objections are secondary concerns. My main concern is that this fella, for the reasons noted, is essentially a nobody and should not be considered an RS. His inclusion is to the article's detriment. Incidentally, I feel the same way about Major Richard Owen (also cited as a source along side Piccirili) who feels that Israel emerged victorious. Both of these "majors" should be removed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the Piccirilli report was originaly published by the Marine Corps University Command and Staff College, which surely is an RS? Has Badri been accepted as being unreliable by consensus on wikipedia somewhere? (Hohum ) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the latter comment concerning Badri, he has not been vetted at RSN. I just made a point by stating that his work has been deemed by some who are in the field to be sub-par and unreliable. Just by way of illustration, his book refers to a fictitious naval engagement between Israeli and Egyptian Navies that resulted in the sinking of four INS naval vessels. Not one source subscribes to this fantasy. But the fact that Piccirili relies to a large extent on Badri was not my main point. All the sources cited in our wiki Yom Kippur War article cross reference each others works. For example, Dupuy cites Herzog and Herzog cites Hammad who cites Adan and so on and so forth. Of course, each cited author has his own POV and brings a unique perspective but all are recognized authorities and all reference each other in their respective publications. However, not one of these authors, not Liebman, not Herzog, not Shazly, not Hammad, not Garwych, not Rabinovich, etc…, reference Piccirili (or Owen for that matter). He is cited nowhere and unlike the others; his “work” has not undergone serious peer review. Accordingly, he should be precluded.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliability can stem from who deems it fit to publish a work. In this case the Marine Corps University Command and Staff College - who seem unlikely, as a body, to support a pro Egyptian bias, nor poor quality. A writer doesn't have to be prolific to be reliable.

Seperately: If Badri truly is unreliable, it may be worth taking it to RSN, or the military history wikiproject to gain consensus. (Hohum ) 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This problem of what is reliable and what not is a recurring and chronic problem in wp. The formal requirements are very low; any newspaper article or book piblished by an established publisher is a RS (unless there is an established consensus to the contrary regarding a specific source). However many communities find it to be too broad and establish their own rules that rank sources related to a group of topics. Maybe some ranking like this can be done for this long article. Would be nicer if it was for a group of articles or a project, but this may be impractical. - BorisG (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Back on the specific topic, Marine Corps University Command and Staff College is just a college. I don't consider a college or university publication to be that reliable, even if it has such a grand name. Pretty close to self-publishing. - BorisG (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly just "a" college. It's the Command and Staff College of the USMC University, which is a center of expertise in Military History, which seems somewhat specialised and relevant to an article on a war. Perhaps we should also exclude the Physics departments of universities in article about Physics? (Hohum ) 20:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

egyptian victory

wikipedia biasand to israel.

This article mainly focused on surrounding of 3rd egyptian army and claimed that Israel won the war and ignored the fact that the Egyptian army of the first and the second Egyptian army were able to destroy the israeli troops which surrounded the 3rd egyptian army. Why did not the article speak about the israeli about the losses of israeli army when it tried to enter the city of suez Why does the article talk briefly about destroying of the Bar Lev Line, despite the strength of this line? Why does the article talk briefly about crossing of suez canal by egyptian army despite of napalm existence Why did not speak about the destruction of 95% of Israeli targets in the egyptian air attack the article ignored the egyptian achievements und focused on the israeli ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraam 2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

if you'll define the war as a 3 day war, you are right, the arabs won. the only problem is that the war lasted 20 days. at the end of these 20 days, the israeli army was advancing towards ciro and damasks.

if the first and second egyptian armies were able to save the third , why didn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.7.80 (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bar-Lev Line

Hello everybody. I'm back after a long absence. With new sourced stuff. I'm strongly opposing the argument that the Suez Canal was heavily fortified. In fact I would prefer the term lightly fortified, or poorly guarded.

According to Haber & Schiff p 80, 81, 82, 83
The Israelis started to build the Bar-Lev line, at first, for protection from artillery, and not for countering Egyptian crossings. On 15/07/1967 the UN observers were to arrive and many places along the canal were unguarded. The Israelis decided to deploy forces across the canal. The Egyptian army made preparation so the Israelis decided to fortify their positions as quick as possible. The first fortifications were made of outposts located on the water line. Each outpost was surrounded by sand ramparts, and had positions in front of all directions. The posts were lightly protected. Between the outposts mine were laid.
Following an Egyptian bombardment, it was decided to reinforce the bunkers with the tracks of the railroad linking Kantara to El-Arish. During the works there were bombardments and it was later been decided to build a massive fortified line across the canal. The architect of the line was chosen to be Abraham Adan, then a brigadier. The decision was to build strong-points across the canal with intervals of 10 km between them. There were some intervals of up to 15 km. On each strong point there was to be no more than a platoon. On places were Egyptian crossing is more possible, many strong-points would be built next to each other. The strong points were to observe and in case of Egyptian crossing attempts, to stop it together with mobile reinforcements.
In Fort "Budapest" stationary Stalin tanks would be used in dug in positions. In each strong point there was a shelter for resting, kitchen, toilet and systems of electricity, water and sewage. Sand ramps were built along the canal for hiding Israeli patrols. The supporters of strong-points were Adan, Gavish, and Bar-Lev. The stationary positions could counter Egyptian crossings. If an Egyptian small force would cross, and dug in, it would be hard for the Israelis to recapture the land.
This scenario can repeat itself over and over. Unlike mobile forces they are immune to ambush. Generals Tal and Sharon opposed the stationary defense. Sharon claimed that the supply convoys to the strong points are vulnerable. Tal claimed that the strong points can't counter Egyptian crossing because of the large intervals between them. He also claimed that the strong point is an inefficient combat system and it is no more than a shelter. Both claimed that heavy Egyptian artillery fire can neutralize the strong points ability to use fire against Egyptian crossing. Following the war of attrition Sharon received approval to close to dilute part of the double strong points.
14 strong points were closed. Albert Mendler opposed this. Some of the strong points were closed by barbed wire and earth. Others became observation post during day time. Sharon suggested converting some of the strong points into tank position but this didn't take place. Meanwhile, the Egyptians built a sand ramp on the western bank, higher than the eastern one. This exposed many areas on the eastern bank to fire and observation from the west. Shmuel Gonen suggested removing the eastern sand ramp. He claimed that it actually disturb fighting against a possible Egyptian crossing. Later when he became head of the southern command, he had plans to build triangle like sand ramps behind the strong points. This would allow the tanks to hit the crossing Egyptians, to support the strong points, and to be protected from Egyptian fire from the higher western sand ramp. The war broke out before he had time to do this.
Neither of the defensive concepts was implemented on 06/10/1973 14:00. The strong points were manned by insufficient troops who lacked sufficient training and weaponry. There was lack of artillery, the tanks were not in position in time, and the second defense line was also insufficiently garrisoned. When the Egyptian crossing began, southern command was pondering whether to evacuate the strong points or to reinforce them with tanks. Only on 07/10 it was decided to abandon the Bar-Lev line. The forts from north to south were: Traklin, Budapest, Orkal, Lachtzanit, Drora, Ktuba, Milano, Mifreket, Hizayon, Purkan, Matzmed, Lakekan, Botzer, Lituf, Maftseach, Nisan, Masrek, Egrofit.

According to Haber & Schiff p. 274 - 275
30 strong points (each one of them called Maoz in Hebrew) were established on the shores of the Suez Canal following the 6 day war. Abraham Adan was the one who planned them. He was inspired by an Israeli built fort from 1948. Each strong point was made of a square like perimetric sand rampart. Its total length was 400 meters. Within the strong point there was a yard for logistic activity. The entrance was in the rear.
It was possible to place there a tank, with its gun directed toward the exit, or a halftrack. Additional 200 meters of connecting trenches were built. The fences were thickened with coiled barbed wire and mines. On the corners there were firing positions and shelters next to them. The firing positions and the shelters next to them were built from metal scraps captured in the Sinai desert. Their reinforcements were built from the disassembled railroad track.
On the two western positions, the directions toward the canal were sealed. As I understand, it means that only diagonal firing toward the canal was possible. Frontal firing toward the canal was possible from the connecting trenches built in the sand ramparts. Firing up to 1,200 meter was possible with medium machine guns. Later, an 81 mm mortar position was built within the yard, an AA gun position was built in one of the corners, in some bunkers the reinforcing railroad tracks were replaced by rocks and one or two observation positions were built toward the front. The frontal observation post was to be manned by a single soldier even in case of shelling, while the rest were to take cover inside the bunkers.
Within the yard there was a semi open bunker for a generator, a bunker for ammunition, a bunker for fuel, a dining room and a toilet. In some strong points, positions for tanks were built next to the sand rampart. The upgraded strong points were better protected. There were only few cases of penetration of 152 mm shells with delay fuses. The heavy weight of the reinforcements caused the collapsing of some bunkers, but usually, they sustained the Egyptian bombardments.
Each strong point was to cover about two kilometers along the water line by fire and observation. It was expected that the strong points would hold on until tank reinforcements would arrive. Generally, in each strong point there were to be 25-30 men, 2 machine guns in the front, 3 machine guns in the rear, 3 52 mm mortars and automatic rifles. Anti-tank weaponry was very little - one Bazooka and two rifle grenades adapter. Optional weapons were a 20 mm gun and an 81 mm mortar.
Between 01/03/1969 and 07/08/1970 there were 26 Egyptian raids in the Sinai desert. 9 of these were against the strong points. Inside the strong points, Israel suffered 3 dead and 5 wounded. The Egyptian suffered 33 dead and dozens of wounded. The supporter of the strong points was Bar-Lev. The opponents were Sharon and Tal. On 06/10/73 only 16 strong points were occupied. "Budapest" was the only fully manned strong point. 7 were evacuated, one survived and the rest were captured, by the Egyptians.

According to Haber & Schiff p 418-419
A second line of forts was established behind the strong points line. Each fort was called "Taoz". It was build during Sharon service as chief of the southern command and according to his suggestion. Sharon was aware of the possibility that Israel won't have air superiority, and the holding of the first line will be hard. The second line will replace it and will be out of the range of Egyptian small arms and mortars. This concept was fitting with the suggestion made in the same time by Moshe Dayan and Anuar Sadat: Israel will withdraw from the east bank and Egypt will open the canal for sailing. The line was built along the artillery road, some 8-12 km from the canal, and was made of 11 forts.
The strongholds were built on the eastern slopes of hills, for hiding them from Egyptian observations and giving them protection from artillery fire. In each strong hold there were two large bunkers, 4 AA positions, trenches for vehicles and connection trenches that reached dual riflemen positions. In these forts there were to park companies of tanks. The tanks were to move rapidly in case of Egyptian crossing or to reach the strong points in case of Egyptian raids. In case of alert, there were to be between 1 to 2 infantry platoons in each stronghold. Another mission was to establish on the peak of these forts long range observation posts toward the canal and use advanced binoculars.
On the out break of the war there was no Infantry in the strongholds and in part of them there were not even tanks. When the tanks left the strongholds and moved toward the water line, most of the strongholds were left unmanned.

This file describes some of what was on the Sinai Peninsula on 06/10/1973 14:00.
Manned strong points in black, unmanned strong points in red, rear strong holds in orange.
Forts on the Suez Canal (From the north-east to south) were:
Traklin, Budapest, Orkal, Lachtzanit, Drora, Ktuba, Milano, Mifreket, Hizayon, Purkan, Noah (mistakenly marked on the western bank), Matzmed, Lakekan, Botzer, Lituf, Maftseach, Nisan, Masrek, Egrofit, Chelbon.
Strong holds (from north to south):
Yoram, Martef, Maror, Havraga, Nachal, Televizia, Kishuf, Churba, Mitsva, Notsa, Tsidar.
Megaidler (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. The postion was manned by an understrength reserve brigade and when Sharon was OC southern command, he actually closed down three forts. Also, at the time of Badr, there were only three tanks at the Canal itself with an understrength division in the rear.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Even undermanned, the Bar-Lev line wasn't designed to completely repel an Egyptian invasion, it was meant to slow them down enough for the reserves to be called up and the air force to come into action and repel the assault. The canal itself was considered heavily fortified. ElUmmah (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

It is fascinating that a honey moon has emerged between the least expectable editors - JJG and ElUmmah. So cute. Miracles can happen, even in wiki.
However, I'm still persisting that my arguments should be accepted. Sorry to break the consensus you have reached. After a long period I have repeatedly requested the Egyptian nationalist editors to quote the sources they are relying on, I have found it is better to do it by myself. Twice I went to library of the Tel-Aviv University, which is not the place I study. I have scanned many pages from many books: Dupuy, O'balance, Herzog, Gawrych and Wagner & Cordesman. I have scanned pages from books in Hebrew as well: Oren, Gordon, and Bergman & Meltzer. I have extracted the text were it's possible. SimpleOCR is a great program.

• O'Ballance, Edgar (1996) . No Victor, No Vanquished: the Yom Kippur War. Presidio Press. p. 384. ISBN 978-089-141-615-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  

Elchanan Oren was a Lt. Colonel in the Israeli army and he wrote the official research of this war in 1987. On December 2004, an updated version was published. The head of the IDF history department by then was Dr. Shaul Shai, a retired Colonel. He was assisted by Dr. Shimon Golan. This book is a non-classified version of the research. It is an internal document of the IDF and it is not widely published.
Dr. Shmuel Gordon was an F-4 pilot during that war and later he became Colonel. Now he is an independent researcher of national security issues. On 2008 he published the book - Thirty Hours in October, discussing mainly about the Israeli AF during the first 30 hours of the war. There is no ISBN.

• Gordon, Shmuel (2008). Thirty Hours in October (in Hebrew). Ma'ariv Book Guild. p. 604.
  

The Journalists Ronen Bergman Gil Meltzer published their book on 2003. They have criticized the continued censorship of material and researches of this war by the Israeli authorities. They were highly critical against Ariel Sharon. Ronen Bergman is a controversial persona he is suspecting of coordinating testimonies with Eli Zeira regarding Ashraf Marwan. See this article. Throughout the war, Gonen used to record his conversations. Amir Porat was a radio operator and Itzhak Rubinshtein was a radio technician. They stole the recordings, kept them in their homes and gave them to Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv newspapers after almost 30 years. Rubinshtein gave his recordings to Bergman & Meltzer from Yedioth. This material is interesting. It reveals that the first cease fire of 22/20 was violated by Israel. The Israelis initiated provocations to make the cease fire collapse, so they would be able to continue their offensive.

• Bergman, Ronen; Meltzer, Gil (2003). Yom Kippur War – Moment of Truth (in Hebrew). P.O.B. 53494, Tel-Aviv, 61534 Israel: Miskal - Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books. ISBN 965-511-597-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  

Soon, I will quote these sources. Megaidler (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No "honeymoon." I simply tried to reach a compromise that none of us liked but that all can live with. I tried to bring some stability to an article plagued by edit warring and what Elummah, myself and other editors did here can be a model example for other I-P disputes. However, if u feel that changes are in order and mistakes were made, get consensus, provide the sources and go for it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that our arguments with the Egyptian nationalists here are mainly over the issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Although I'm very critical over the attitude of those editors in the YKW subject, I have to admit that most of the disputes in this article are not over the regular question of "who is right". Our disputes with them are mainly over "what was happening during a specific period". Usually they have succeeded to separate these 2 issues and this is something I appreciate. There is another Egyptian - American editor - nableezy, a pure propaganda machine. His only aim is to get sure that any article in wikipedia, that has some connection to Israel or to the Arabs, would be a place for demonizing of Israel. I think this article has to deal minimally with the regular I-P issues, and therefore, methods of solving I-P disputes are unnecessary here. Our job is to write facts not making peace. In the case of nableezy I don't think there is any method of reaching a compromise with him. Megaidler (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a reminder about WP:NPA is in order. Even were the above statements true (IMHO they are not) they would be quite inappropriate.John Z (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting Arabic and Hebrew speakers to visit the website of the Knesset. There is an article dealing with this war. This article appears both in Hebrew and Arabic versions.


Unfortunately some one has forgotten to upload the English version. I am not an Arab speaker, but by using Google translation, I have found the 2 versions are quite similar. I know that for many Arabs, the Knesset web site is considered as Satan's house, but if you ignore the fact that this article is from the Knesset website, it is not so terrible after all. Megaidler (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

O'ballance

According to O'balance p 182, On 13/10/1973 2 Blackbirds made a reconnaissance flight over the canal area.
"Based on the information gained, U.S. intelligence sources estimated Israeli losses to be 400 tanks, 3,000 killed, 1,000 taken prisoner, of whom 43 were pilots, and 15,000 wounded. The aerial photographs show amazingly minute detail. The estimated Israeli tank loss was about correct, but the other estimates were high."
This information also confirms the claims of Gamasy and Shazly about the Blackbirds. Megaidler (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses

Losses – General

According to Gawrych P 243-244:
Israeli losses were staggering for a small country that had come to expect decisive victory with few casualties in short wars. Over 2,800 Israelis had been killed, at least 8,800 had been wounded and some five hundred were prisoners of war or missing in action. Equivalent losses for the United States in the Vietnam War would have been two hundred thousand Americans killed-a figure four times the actual number but inflicted in the span of only three weeks. Arab losses were heavy as well. Egypt lost five thousand killed and twelve thousand wounded; Syria suffered over three thousand dead and six thousand wounded. Tank losses stood at 840 for Israelis (many repaired during the war), 1,100 for the, Egyptians, and 1,200 for the Syrians. Airplane destruction was also high: 102 (some sources claim figures closer to two hundred) for Israel, 223 for Egypt, and 118 for Syria .
Gawrych described his sources for this information on page 255:
10. Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-lsraeli wars, 1947-1974 (1978 reprint, Fairfax, VA: Hero Books, 1984): 609; and Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, No Vanquished: The Yom Kippur War San Rafael, CA: Presidio Press, 1978): 301. Such figures are always controversial, often varying greatly from one source to another. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses in Personnel

According to Dupuy p 609 Israeli casualties were 2838 dead and 8800 wounded. Dupuy noted that:
About 10% has been added to officially reported Israeli casualties to represent approximately the wounded who died of their injuries, and the fact that that officially Israeli figures apparently do not include those wounded not evacuated from aid stations and field hospitals. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Official Israeli Report page 336, many Israeli soldiers were killed after the cease fire.
Between the day of the cease fire and the separation of forces with Egypt on 18/01/1974, 17 Israeli soldiers were killed on the Egyptian front.
Between the day of the cease fire and the separation of forces with Syria, 60 Israeli soldiers were killed on the Syrian front.

On pages 378 and 379 it is mentioned that on 27/01/1977, details of the casualties were presented to the foreign and security committee of the Knesset. The army manpower directorate - casualties department is the source for this information. This report states the following details.

Between 06/10/1973 and 24/10/1973 there were 2,297 dead.
1,488 in the Egyptian front 783 in the Syrian front and 26 other places.
2,222 of these were of combat circumstances and 75 were of non-combat circumstances.
Between 25/10/1973 and 31/05/1974 there were 359 dead.
142 in the Egyptian front 89 in the Syrian front and 128 other places.
166 of these were of combat circumstances and 183 were of non-combat circumstances.
Among the non combat deaths 29 were as a result of illness.

7,251 Israeli soldiers were received treatment on rear hospitals after being wounded due to combat circumstances. This number includes only those who were evacuated to rear hospitals and not those who were hospitalized because of illness.
4,244 were on the Egyptian front and 3,007 on the Syrian front.
5596 were injured during the war and 1655 were injured after the war.
405 were wounded badly, 1337 were wounded moderately and 5509 were wounded lightly.

The following table presents the causes of injuries among Israeli soldiers in percentages.

The following table presents the number of Israeli prisoners of war by place and time.

In the Israeli army, a soldier is considered missing from the moment the general adjutancy declares that he is missing until it is found that he is a POW or until he is declared as a fallen soldier whose body is unfound.
1,085 Israeli soldiers were declared missing. The number of missing soldiers varied through time:
25/10/1973 – 417
13/11/1973 – 907
16/11/1973 – 741, after receiving information on the POWs in Egypt
15/01/1974 – 215
09/04/1974 – 110, after receiving information on the POWs in Syria
27/01/1977 – 34, they all have been declared as fallen soldiers whose bodies are unfound
08/03/1992 – 16, 9 tank operators, 5 aviators, and 2 naval commandos.

This is in contrast to Haber & Schiff pages, 294 and 295.
They claim that 30 after the war the number of missing in action since the end of this war is 17:
2 naval commandos in the Egyptian front, 4 aviators in the Egyptian front, 10 tank operators in the Egyptian front and 1 tank operators in the Syrian front. Their names are listed together with details. Any one of them became missing before the cease fire. Their names are also found in the list of 2,693 fallen Israeli troops on the last pages of the book published by Haber & Schiff.

I am still persisting that the number of Israelis killed is no more than 2,700 troops. Megaidler (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses in Tanks

According to Gawrych P 192:
The Israelis had suffered heavy losses during the first three days of fighting, over four hundred tanks in the Sinai alone. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that every tank was lost. It is more likely that 400 tanks were damaged.
According to Haber & Schiff p 144
On 14/10 some 150 Egyptian tanks were hit by IDF forces while other sources put this figure in 250. 12 Israeli tanks were hit. Megaidler (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Official Israeli Research pages 320 and 322, 1,064 Israeli tanks were hit until the end of the war.
407 tanks were lost permanently. On the Egyptian front 365 tanks were lost. 229 of these were abandoned behind the Arab lines. On the Syrian front 42 tanks were lost. 14 of these were abandoned behind Arab lines. Megaidler (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Losses in Aircraft

According to Gawrych P 243:
By 23 October, for example, the Israeli air force had lost at least 102 airplanes, approximately one-fourth of its entire arsenal. Megaidler (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All above losses that you mentioned are already reflected in the casualty and infobox sections. I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Official Israeli Research p 319, the Arabs lost some 370 fighter airplanes. Egypt lost about 235, Syria lost about 110 and Iraq lost about 25.
On page 314 it is mentioned that the Israeli air force shot down about 400 enemy aircraft. 370 fighter airplanes were shot down. 350 of these are confirmed kills. 50 of these were shot down by the AA forces. 50 helicopters were also shot down by the Israeli air force, 15 of these were shot down by the AA forces. The AA forces also shot down 8 Kelt missiles.
It is unclear weather this 400-420 is the total number of lost Arab aircraft, or only the number of Arab aircraft shot down by the Israeli air force which contain the AA units. There are other possible causes for an aircraft to be lost: mishaps while airborne, destructions on the ground, getting hit by Israeli units not part of the air force, being captured, etc.
On page 315 it is mentioned that the Israeli air force lost 102 fighter, 5 helicopters and 2 light airplanes. In dogfights the Arabs lost 163 airplanes in the Egyptian front, 17 helicopters in the Egyptian front, 95 airplanes in the Syrian front and 2 helicopters in the Syrian front.
According to Gordon page 493, Israel lost 110 aircraft while 103 of these were fighters. One airplane was badly damaged on 13/10 and after the war, it was decided not to repair it.
Megaidler (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Garwych and Bar-Lev

Okay I think I've identified two issues of contention between some editors. The first concerns the Bar-Lev line and whether it was "heavily defended" and the second concerns Garwych and his claim that IDF tank losses in the initial days amounted to 400. One editor claims that the Bar-Lev line was lightly defended and that Garwych's claims are exaggerated. Another claims that the Bar-Lev line was heavily defended and Garwych's claims are accurate. I have a possible solution to both issues. Concerning the Bar-Lev line we can say that it was undermanned but at the same time stress that the Canal and sand ramparts constructed by Israel presented formidable obstacles. As for Garwych, though I disagree with his figures, I oppose removing them. Instead, an alternate figure using another source should be placed alondside his and the reader will choose which is the more reliable. I'll work on something within the next few days.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hatem Abdelghani, 26 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Obviously the stated Result is biased. The phrase "tactical victory" is meaningless since Israelis lost their defense line (Bar-Lev line) and the Egyptians lost control of the South-West shore of the canal. The result is a stalemate where both sides claimed victory, or simply the war ended indecisively. Hatem Abdelghani (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but later Israel recovered this position, destroyed two thirds of Egyptian military and threatened to annihilate the Sadat's Third Army, so Egypt asked for Soviet intervention and the UN agreed a ceasefire. In other words, at the end Israel had the military victory and, despite some mutual territorial changes, keep its control over the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights.-AndresHerutJaim (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Please provide the exact text you want changed and what you want it changed to, and provide reliable sources. SpigotMap 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What position did Israel recover?! The maps in the article itself doesn't support this!!

I am under the impression that this page has turned into a place for the Israelis to express national emotions!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatem Abdelghani (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Garwych and initial Egyptian airstrike

This edit is very problematic as it does not accurately reflect what Garwych said and in fact, actually distorts it. In connection with the airstrike, Garwych says the following: “At precisely 1405, the Egyptians and Syrians began their simultaneous air and artillery attacks. On the southern front, 250 Egyptian planes – Mig- 21s, Mig-19s and Mig-17s – attacked their assigned targets in Sinai: three Israeli airbases, ten Hawk missile sites, three major command posts, and electronic jamming centers.” Nothing else is mentioned in connection with the strike. Therefore, the edit inaccurately reflects what was actually written by Garwych. He also doesn't say anything about the planes flying at "very low altitudes." Accordingly, I have changed the edit to more accurately reflect the source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, apologies for the mistake. I made an additional edit to yours, mentioning Shazly's stated aircraft losses. ElUmmah (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit, “From October 6–8 over 400 Israeli tanks had been destroyed. Egyptian losses numbered 240 tanks throughout October 6–13,” is also very problematic. I scoured through Garwych’s book twice looking for verification. While Garwych documents Egyptian tank losses until the 13th at 240, He makes no representation that 400 IDF tanks were lost during the battles of Oct 6 through Oct 8. I read it twice so unless my eyes were playing tricks on me, I don't think that I'm mistaken. Accordingly, I will partly revert the edit so that it accurately represents the source.

On another matter, I made this correction to reflect Shazly’s account of early Egyptian aircraft losses, (Per Garwych @ footnote 66).--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Misplaced Pages:Pending Changes system on the English language Misplaced Pages. All the articles listed at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Region of conflict

What the entire worldview sees as southwestern Syria can not be separated from southern Syria. As was removed here: This claim is a violation of npov, due weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say: "Israeli controlled Golan Heights and regions in southwestern Syria" because GH is already a region in southwestern Syria so "and" doesn't make any sense. And also there is no reason to have "Israeli controlled Golan Heights" when Sinai was also occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is a de facto part of Israel, stating anything else is unreasonable. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is part of Syria occupied by Israel according to worldview sources: , stating anything else is unreasonable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

POV is saying "Golan Heights and other parts of Israel" because it ignores one claim. POV is saying "Golan Heights and other parts of Syria" because it ignores the other claim. So obvious solution is to only say Golan Heights as its own territory, and delete all "other parts" references. LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it pov or not neutral to say "Golan Heights and other parts of Syria" ? and how is it neutral to say "Golan Heights and regions in southern-western Syria" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

how is POV or not neutral to say "Golan Heights and regions in southern-western Syria"? - BorisG (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it implies that the Golan is not a region in Syria. nableezy - 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh this did not occur to me. How about "Golan Heights and other regions in south-western Syria"? - BorisG (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. nableezy - 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like agreement by the majority to follow the worldview, and neither LibiBamizrach or Mikrobølgeovn responded to my last posts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit is a tactful way of putting an end to this debate and will hopefully satisfy all. It is accurate and sidesteps the touchy issue of sovereignty.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the length of the article.

Ideally, an article should be between 30 to 50 kb long (in terms of "readable prose"). By using Prosesize, I find the length of this article to be 83 kb (excluding html, refs, infoboxes etc). There is a definite need to reduce the size of the article.

Prima facie, the section on "Long term effects" seems to be a culprit, there is too much text referring other people's opinions in direct quotes, rather than giving referenced gist of arguments. I propose to reduce this section first so as to achieve readability rather than the sections detailing facts and events.

Any other suggestions or ideas are welcome. AshLin (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is over the technical accepted limit has been discussed. instead of cutting sections, I would limit certain lines sourced to authors like Rabinovich that require additional lines to counter them since they do not present the subject as clearly as they should. I don't know all of the specifics of this subject but do know this is discussed in the archives and one source from one author was used to craft this article. That author has been questioned and there are a couple other authors that may be over used. Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I had trimming rather than excision in mind. The views should be summarised rather than presented as voluminous quotes.AshLin (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

tactical victory?

How is it an Israeli tactical victory on the Egyptian side? By the end of the war at march 5 1974 Egypt held more territory than before( I have a picture that illustrates tht in details). By the end of the war, 2,200 Israelis soldiers had been killed, which in percentage terms is equivalent to 200,000 Americans( according to william Burr who is an editor in the national security archieve.) which is obviously more than the Arab losses in percentage terms. Israel did surround the Egyptian third army at a certain time but that is a bargaining chip not a tactical victory.Even the article states Israel lost territory by the end of the war on the Egyptian side and that there was a minor war of attrition were about 200 israelis were killed. Also when trying to advance toward the Syrian Capital they were pushed back . I think it would be fairer to say its a military stalemate and to point out to the territorial gains made by Egypt in the infobox. --Omarello2 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read #Recent removal, which is on this page, where consensus was reached on that wording. (Hohum ) 14:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

what #Recent removal says is that consensus on Egyptian victory isn't reached, but this does not necessarily mean that the opposite is reached or true, the case is still unproven.. besides all references to the "tactical victory" result are from jewish authors / origins which does not reflect general consensus by itself.. Either get references for this term from Egyptian / Arab / or from widely known and accepted international referrers or mark the statement as not representing NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koraiem (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) forgot to sign Koraiem (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of that thread is at odds with what the people in it said. (Hohum ) 14:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm speaking for myself here Koraiem (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the war was a defensive war on the Israeli side, the fact that pretty much nothing was changed by the war means an Israeli victory. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

edit request

I have added some info on the Israeli psychiatric cases and cited my source--Omarello2 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is a mirror of wikipedia, so it is unusable per WP:CIRCULAR. Also, I don't see the relevance of comparing casualty rates to US loss rates in Vietnam. As such, I have reverted it. (Hohum ) 14:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

the main point of the paragraph i added is the number psychiatric disorders which is a new info properly cited. The source is not a mirror source and contains new info.--Omarello2 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the source was a composite mirror of older versions of wikipedia articles. (Hohum ) 20:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

I added some info in the casualties section with a small comparison to the 67 war.It helps show the weight of the losses in order to not make people draw wrong conclusions.--Omarello2 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with 1967 is pertinent but proportional comparison with Americans is bizzarre. Why Americans? Why not Belgians, Nigerians or Iraqis? BorisG (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you want to add stuff please read the section you are editing and try to incorporate your additions in logical order. And please check your punctuation before saving page. This is a Featured Article and we are trying hard to avoid chaos. Thank you for your contribution. BorisG (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

References typically go at the end of the text you are adding, not before it. I have corrected this. (Hohum ) 20:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Because losing 2500 soldiers from the US is different than losing it from Israel or Taiwan or any other small country. Also I compared the losses to US because at that time the US and the Soviets were the 2 major superpowers and thats why setting them as a standard makes more sense than setting the Belgians as a standard.I ask for my edition not be removed you had no right removing a properly cited source because you didn't like it. This info is new and not repetitive like most of the info provided in the article.--Omarello2 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source was removed? (Hohum ) 22:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparing casualty rates between a conventional war that lasted 20 days, and the Vietnam war, which was largely unconventional, and lasted years, is completely inappropriate. (Hohum ) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove Ariel Sharon quote? I provided a comparison with Us army not the vietnam conflict. This article is becoming more biased every minute, repetition of 500 quotes on the Third Army situation and when I provide a reliable source like Ariel Sharon you immediately remove it. If the section were I provided Ariel Sharon quotes was please provided it in another section but not just delete it ok?--Omarello2 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Ariel Sharon quote, along with everything else that you added which used a composite mirror of old wikipedia articles as a reference, per WP:CIRCULAR, which I have stated twice already. You are welcome to include it using a WP:RELIABLE source. (Hohum ) 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Omarello2 is the percentage comparison in the source? Also, why include it for Israeli casualties and not others? - BorisG (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to the number of US soldiers is necessary to show the weight and effect of the amount of Israeli casualties because unlike the Egyptian and Syrians, the Israelis did not have the numbers and that is why they are included and the other participants are not. So please include either in the casualties section or the long term effects section. The Source is the national Security archives which I believe is a reliable source so please include it or I can if you did not want but don't delete it.--Omarello2 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the percentage comparison because it is ridiculous. It is un-encyclopedic. It may be suitable for a blog or a newspaper editorial, not encyclopedia. You will never find something like this in a serious encyclopedia. You single out the Israelis, then single out the Americans, for no reason. You say unlike the Egyptian and Syrians, the Israelis did not have the numbers. What do you mean? Try to stick to the facts. When you include facts, I have no problem. To make it clear, I do not WP:Own the aricle, but I think it is good to reach a consensus here before we include something in the article. - BorisG (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion ok! It is not ridiculous because it helps the reader not to draw wrong conclusions. If China went to war with Taiwan and China lost 2 million while Taiwan lost 1 million the effect and weight of loses suffered by Taiwan is more. In my opinion, the are important editions to compare the loses in percentage to the Americans or the soviets because both were the two major superpowers at that time. Anyway if you have a comparison between the Egyptian losses and the Americans or Soviets then include it but don't just remove other editions just because you don't like them. Also we have reached consensus to replace the word "victory" with "gains" Why wasnt it removed?--Omarello2 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are on a dangerous path here. Israel is often accused of using disproportinate force. Now following your logic, it can claim that this is justified because in proportion to its population, killing 10 Arabs is the same as one Israeli. Is this what you are saying? Be careful that you don't shoot your own goal. Anyway, let us agree to disagree, and wait for others to express their opinions. As for gains vs victory, I did not see any consensus. If there is one, please show me, I may have missed it. I quickly searched this page for the word 'gains' and did not find the relevant consensus. Please note that the infobox was the subject of intense battles in the past, and some consensus was reached. Please handle it with care. Look at archives. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The troop strength comparison makes no sense, as already explained. There has been no consensus to change victory with gains. More editors need to be involved in contentious changes which have previously been argued at length. (Hohum ) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

no offence but you are either uninformed or biased. You are mixing different topics into our main topic to divert attention and try to show yourself as an expert so I will not bother responding to the first part of the comment. As for the second part, fine I will get you many editors to discuss the "victory" vs "gains", I will also get you many reliable sources that see the result as a stalemate so you will add it next to the Tactical victory, I will also open a new section on the Egyptians plans to rescue the trapped army and cite Shazly and other parties which were involved in the war.--Omarello2 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Omarello2 you have not pointed out to the consensus as requested. If there was indeed a consensus, it should be very easy for you to show. - BorisG (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

occupied since

The text "which had been captured and occupied by Israel since 1967" does not suggest that the territory is still occupied, only that it was occupied by Israel from 1967 until the point the text is discussing (when Egypt and Syria entered Sinai and the Golan). Removing that word on those grounds is spurious. nableezy - 16:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Poliocretes (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

all good. nableezy - 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Request quotation

I want to see the quotation here from the source: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a quote too. This claim strikes me as very dubious, because if it really happened, one would expect to find it in much more recent sources, not just in one that appeared a few months after the war. Gatoclass (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source used in the article, but there is certainly nothing dubious about the claim, as a simple Google search will show you. Check out - p. 363 "Israeli soldiers were subject to interrogation and torture" - an academic publisher (Springer) , book published in 2010. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I intend to significantly expand on this subject shortly drawing from multiple sources in addition to the RS (London Sunday Times} already cited. Unfortunately, real life obligations take precedence so please be patient. As for the precise quote, "Syria ignored the Geneva Conventions, and many Israeli prisoners of war were reported tortured or killed."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the statement. There is a world of difference between something being "reported" and it being an established fact. In any case as I said, there should be a lot more about this in more up-to-date sources if there was any truth in it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the caption per the precise wording of the RS--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Allegations of torture and murder of POWs are serious charges and unattributed and unconfirmed "reports" from a near-40 year old source are not sufficient, per WP:REDFLAG. Please find a better source. Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time understanding why the news article and the book listed above do not easily satisfy WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Gato, I suggest you have a look at the story of Avraham Lanir and while you're at it have a look at this and this. As far as your "doubts" concerning the source utilized for the caption, The Insight Team of the London Sunday Times is an impeccable source, beyond reproach. It is published by a well-known and respected publishing house, has been subjected to peer review and is often cited as a reference in other books about the war.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the additional sources. I consider the torture allegations to be confirmed; since you still don't have a source which confirms that "many Israeli POWs were killed" by the Syrians, I have tweaked the caption accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in edit warring but the cited reference (The Insight Team of the London Sunday Times) is an RS for the reasons stated above and as Brewcrewer points out, complies with WP:V. It is neither an Arab nor an Israeli source which adds an additional level of impartiality. Your argument that the book is 35 years old has no merit because for one thing, most of the sources utilized in this article are older than 30 years including the works of Shazly, El Gammasy and Heikel. The most recent books have been written by Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars (1982), Pollack, Arabs at War: military effectiveness, (1991) and Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War, (2004). I can write a finely crafted article based on these three sources to the exclusion of all others. Would you like for me to start deleting sources that are – say – older than 30 years? It appears that you simply don’t like the content or substance of the caption.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If many of the sources are more than 30 years old, this article probably needs some better sources. However, my point here is simply that this statement is from a book written mere months after the event, when many details would still have been in doubt, and the source states that many Israeli POWs were reported killed - which means they are neither confirming nor denying it, just mentioning that it was "reported". But almost forty years has passed since then, and by now it should be known whether or not those "reports" were accurate, so you should be able to confirm it from a more recent source. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Soviet advisors?

Who claims that Soviet military advisors participated in the war on the Arab side? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of possible FAR

Hello everyone - This article needs some significant attention to bring it back to FA caliber. Hopefully this can be accomplished without needing to go through a full FAR process. Here are a few of the biggest issues:

• The length. I see that this has been brought up on the talk page before, but little has been done about it. WP:SIZE recommends 30-60 kb or 6,000-10,000 words of "readable prose". This article is at 87 kb and 14465 words - far in advance of the recommended maximum. Please note that this count does not include bullet pointed items or block quotes, and so, for example, most of the "Long term effects" section is not included in this count. I would suggest looking through the article for quotes that could be moved to Wikisource or removed altogether, redundancy that could be ommitted, and tangential information that could be moved to other articles.
• Bullet point lists are discouraged in FAs, and there is no reason the "Long term effects" section couldn't be easily presented as prose.
• There are three dead linked references, see this link.
• Web references need to have publishers and access dates at the very least and authors when possible. Many are currently missing information. Also, sources should not have either the author or the title in all caps, even if the source gives this capitalization.
• References in languages other than English need to have the language specified.
• There are quite a few googlebooks references that don't include proper book information - publisher, date, isbn, etc.
• The citation needed tag and the "too many quotes" banner need to be addressed.
• There are quite a few places in the article where statistics or opinions (especially opinions of military commanders or government leaders) are presented with no source.
• Please note that I have not conducted a thorough review of prose, images or reference reliability at this point, so there could be further issues beyond those listed above.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I am hopeful that the issues with this article can be rectified without the need for a featured article review. Dana boomer (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've praphrased or removed some of the quotes where possible. There are a few more that need to be addressed. I'll work on the other issues shortly, (time permitting of course)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this article is getting worse, not better. It is now up to almost 15,000 words of prose (again, not including bullet points or block quotes, which are used extensively in this article), more poorly formatted references are being added, and the constant changes could be read to be a violation of featured article criteria 1.e. (stability), which states "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." (emphasis mine). Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is one particular editor who I believe means well, but has been relentlessly adding superfluous information, making stylistic changes for the worse, and adding unreferenced dramatizations. I don't wish to report him because I believe his edits are in good-faith but he has already been reverted by me, Hohum and Poliocretes. I think a mild warning on his talk page might suffice and then we could get to work chopping things down, getting rid of dead links and other problems. I’d like to hear from Hohum and Poliocretes and get their views on this.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My main comment would be that I think the article does need to go through a full FAR once significantly improved. (Hohum ) 18:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My initial comment was posted two weeks ago, and since then nothing has been done to improve the article (and in fact, it has gotten worse, per my comment above). Is there any reason I shouldn't take this to FAR right now? Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have previously said it should go through a FAR once given the opportunity to be improved, rather than wait an extended period for improvement. As far as I'm concerned, take it to FAR now. (Hohum ) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a first pass at the infobox (which had lots of unnecessary detail). The long term effects section is embarrassingly bad (a huge portion of it focuses on he-said-she-said about who won rather than discussing the actual effects). I've also listed this articel at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 9 because I suspect that that the historical images in this article are not in the public domain. Raul654 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As always Raul, your analysis is on the mark. I agree with you and I take some responsibility for the mess. I added some of that stuff in that section to balance material inserted by some well-intentioned partisan folks. The result was a long-winded mess. I’ll have some time over the weekend so I’ll give it a good trim. I also agree with you regarding some of the images and suspect as you do that some of the historical images ar not public domain.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Raul, are you asking to hold off on the FAR for a while, to give yourself and other editors time to work on the article? Or are you agreeing with the need for a FAR? Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be salvaged without the need for FAR. I can't do it all myself - I'm going to be away from the 13th through the 27th. But I'll see what I can do. (It would certainly be helpful if the other editors here provided less heat and more useful edits.) Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Non neutral wording

There are several texts in the article that were not following a neutral point of view. They were instead following the minority Israeli pov instead of the entire world pov. For example: the ceasefire line between Syrian and Israeli forces were described as a "border", Golan which is internationally recognized as part of Syria was described as a separate entity from Syria, also "seized" is not a right word for Syrian soldiers in Golan, "regained" better describes the situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For example: the ceasefire line between Syrian and Israeli forces were described as a "border", Golan which is internationally recognized as part of Syria was described as a separate entity from Syria - If this is the best example you can cite, then your complaint is utterly without merit. Everyone describes the post-Six Day War area under Israel control as a border - including militant Palestinians. Raul654 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No they do not, all lands Israel occupied during the six day war is by all countries on earth and all international organs regarded as occupied Syrian and Palestinian lands, so of course a "border" is not what its is. Your link is also talking about something different, it is talking about the 1948-1967 borders, I'm talking about 1967-forward. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

all lands Israel occupied during the six day war is by all countries on earth and all international organs regarded as occupied Syrian and Palestinian lands - be that as it may, border is still the correct and commonly used terminology. bor·der (bôrdr) n. - 4. The line or frontier area separating political divisions or geographic regions; a boundary. The line seperating the defacto area of Israeli control from the area of Syrian control is the border. Border is, as I have already pointed out, the terminology used by palastinians themselves. And if you don't like that particular article, fine, here's another from the exact same site: ". Consider what would happen should Iran or Syria or Jordan or Egypt move to strengthen their respective borders by applying the same tactics as Israel." Do you have a source to show that it's a biased term, or is this simply your own personal bailiwick? Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are cherry picking sources, as I said before, the first link you brought is talking about something else. Here the UN: "The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) continued to monitor the 1974 ceasefire between Israel and Syria and the disengagement of the two countries’ respective forces in the Golan Heights, with the cooperation of the parties. The ceasefire in the Israel-Syria sector was maintained with two exceptions: a shooting incident in January, west of the ceasefire line in the southern section of UNDOF’s area of operation, and an Israeli air strike northwest of Damascus in October. " --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had time to give input into this article. Raul654 is on point here. The term "1967 border" is widely used even in Arab-Israeli negotiations of any kind, and are used in Arab historiography as well. As for the wording. The Syrians did not "regain" anything in the sense that they did not gain the Golan from anyone in the first place. It was Syrian territory since the country's independence. It is however fine when being used for the Israeli counterattack. Perhaps "liberated" can be used for the Syrian side. It would be NPOV, but better wording may be in order. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside my "Wikipedian opinion", as an Arab myself I find nothing wrong with the term: 1967 border. The inclusion of the date nullifies any possible POVness. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the situation, when people are talking about "1967 borders" they are speaking about those borders 1948-1967, what Raul654 wants to do is to say that the land that Israel occupied from 1967-2010, is a border. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! My bad. I don't know how I mixed that up. In that case I have a different stance. If not because I do think it is not neutral, then because this is a cause for confusion. The 1967 border is frequently used to designate the pre-June 1967 lines. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the post Six Day War border between Syria and Israel. The line in question is: A decision now had to be made—whether to stop at the 1967 border or to advance into Syrian territory. This was changed by SD A decision now had to be made—whether to stop at the 1967 ceasefire line or to advance further into Syrian territory. I don't object to that particular change, but I do object (a) to some of his other changes, and (b) to his claims of bias, which are demonstrably false. Raul654 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is the text in the article that is wrong, if you read the text before you can see that it is really talking about the ceasefire line 1967-1973, not the 1967 border which is 1948-1967. Could you please explain your A and B positions.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that misunderstanding has been cleared up. As for the claims of bias, they are valid IMO. What's far more important though, is that the term "1967 border" is far more frequently used to designate the pre-June 1967 lines, not the ceasefire lines after the Six Day War. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "1967 border" is ambigious and that this article should be changed to avoid using it. Raul654 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as avoid using the term completely. I'm sure if we run through most of the Google search results, we'll find that "1967 border" usually means the pre-June borders, and accordingly its usage should be restricted to that definition only, with "1967 ceasefire-line" being used to designate the post-1967 lines. I'm sure editors won't have an issue with this. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a source for that sentence, the first ref after it comes a long bit after and I cant access it, but the text before the sentence: "By October 10, the last Syrian unit in the Central sector had been pushed back across the Purple Line (the pre-war border).", this shows that the sentence in question is about the 1967-1973 ceasefire line. The quote I brought here should also be changed to "(the pre-war ceasefire line)"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, the Purple Line or the 1967 ceasefire line. The alternatives are abound. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're nitpicking, then no, you can't describe the pre-67 lines as a "border" and the post-67 lines as "ceasefire-lines" since the Arab states never recognized Israel's pre-67 borders as such. That would be anachronistic, and one could argue, an Arab-POV. You would therefore have to change all "borders" to "ceasefire lines", with all the ensueing confusion for anyone unfamiliar with the exact details of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But here's an idea: why don't we forget about this entirely trivial and unnecessary discussion and quit trying to find POV behind every nook and cranny? Poliocretes (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The international community recognized Israel within the pre-1967 borders, not the post 1967 ceasefire line, npov tells us we must follow the view if the vast majority. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And what international community would that be in 1967? what "vast majority"? Would that include China, India and the entirety of the non-aligned movement? Even if it were true, an attempt to rewrite the history of the conflict and hide Arab rejectionism behind supposed international recognition is blatant POV-pushing. Quit wasting everyone's time, enough words have been wasted on this utterly trivial matter. Poliocretes (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not POV-pushing. SD is referring to the int'l community as of today, and to current common usage of the term. No one recognizes the occupied West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan as Israeli territory. As for the Arab states, they've always demanded a "return to the 1967 borders" in negotiations. Regardless of whether they recognize Israel and its borders wherever they may be de jure, they ultimately still refer to pre-June 1967 lines as borders between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

On a side note, don't throw another argument into the topic, then instantly demand that editors stop wasting time on it. I agree nevertheless this topic is largely insignificant... --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the separate 1948 border we can talk about that, but the 1967 ceasefire line is not a border. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

JG, a discussion is ongoing here. Seeing that no objections have been raised to the change in wording (with one editor voicing concern over the cause of the change), you should not revert the edit like that. Care to join in with your opinion? --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not cooperative behaviour from Jiujitsuguy, here we are, I am explaining in detail the pov problems, then he reinserts the Israeli pov which is against the pov of the entire world and calls my edits "POV laced", without even discussing anything or explaining his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This actually is not about being neutral or not neutral. It is more about common sense, and about how most people call it. I just googled for "ceasefire line" and got around 40,000 hits. Of course most hits for "ceasefire line" refer to a ceasefire line and not the one of 1967. On the other hand I googled for "1967 borders" and got about 133,000 hits, with most of them talking about Middle East. So according to the common sense and to the international convenience of naming 1967 borders "1967 borders", I will change the article accordingly.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Following from the above, I think it would be wise to use "pre-1967" and "post-1967" to avoid confusion. I've modified the sentence in question to use this terminology. And I've changed back to using "border" rather than "ceasefire line" because on second glance I realized "ceasefire line" is very confusing terminology to use in the middle of a description about a shooting war (especially one that ended with a different cease fire line). Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you, Raul654.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Egypt articles
• Top-importance Egypt articles
• WikiProject Egypt articles
• FA-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• FA-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• FA-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• FA-Class Iraq articles
• Unknown-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• FA-Class Arab world articles
• Mid-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2010)
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions