| Revision as of 01:39, 31 October 2004 editDavejenk1ns (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,050 edits reverting vandalism← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:07, 9 February 2005 edit undoNvinen (talk | contribs)1,570 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| I am not familiar with this war but I think that the nuclear aspect should be mentioned since the word 'nuclear' isnt found in the article at all. --] 06:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) | I am not familiar with this war but I think that the nuclear aspect should be mentioned since the word 'nuclear' isnt found in the article at all. --] 06:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) | ||
| If you want to add blow-by-blow accounts of battles or heaps of statistics, I suggest that you break it out into a seperate article and link to it. I also suggest that you represent both sides equally. Putting in a figure for Israeli casualties for a single battle but not mentioning anything else (including possibly casualties on the other side?) is neither NPOV nor good practice. ] 13:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:07, 9 February 2005
An event mentioned in this article is a May 31 selected anniversary
I'm planning to write a major article on the Yom Kippur War (like I did with the Six-Day War), but it may yet take a while to write it (lots of material, viewpoints). --Uriyan
Suprisingly, this article does not even state why it
is called "Yom Kippur War", although it contains a lot
of other interesting information. --user:FlorianMarquardt
This may be an English-to-Hebrew mistake (on my part) but I believe the name is Avraham "Bren" Adan (as opposed to Avraham "Bern" Eden). (from the book "On the Banks of the Suez ..." by the same). Additionally, I think it's important to note that this was considered one of the biggest Arab victories over Israel ever (despite the outcome) to the point that Eqypt currently still celebrates the date the war began. Likewise this war precipitated the resignation of Golda Meir as Prime Minister of Israel (among other notable Israeli politicians and military) and wwas considered one of the worst wars for Israel (by Israelis). Also in your copy, you stated that Egypt didn't plan on developing on their initial successes which is not entirely true. The Egyptian military headed by Abu-Iziz (if I remember the name correctly) plan (Badr) stated that all eastern bank crossings were to be consolidated *before* advancing further east. The actual objective was to capture the whole of the Sinai and Gaza. The actual reason why the Egyptian advance stalled was that they could not overrun the Bar-Lev line as completely as they had planned to. This was due in part to Israeli soldiers who fought extremely bravely, but more due to the fact that there was confusion, hesitation and ultimately failure at evacuating the strongpoints along the canal from the Southern Command (under Gonen at the time). - Baraq Baron Ben-Gideon Bacharach (baraq@dmech.org)
What about the Bomb? BL 22:23, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What about it? This war didn't go nuclear at all. Berrik
There was the possibility of nuclear war during this war but no mention is made about it. From the DEFCON article:
- DEFCON 3 refers to an increase in force readiness above normal. United States military commands (minus the Strategic Air Command, at heightened alert on DEFCON 2) went to this level in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All United States forces went on DEFCON 3 during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Soviet nuclear warheads were discovered moving toward Egypt. James Schlesinger sent U.S. forces to the Middle East without notifying NATO. The third time the United States reached DEFCON 3 was during the September 11, 2001 attacks.
I am not familiar with this war but I think that the nuclear aspect should be mentioned since the word 'nuclear' isnt found in the article at all. --ShaunMacPherson 06:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you want to add blow-by-blow accounts of battles or heaps of statistics, I suggest that you break it out into a seperate article and link to it. I also suggest that you represent both sides equally. Putting in a figure for Israeli casualties for a single battle but not mentioning anything else (including possibly casualties on the other side?) is neither NPOV nor good practice. Nvinen 13:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)