Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 15 February 2011

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. Archive 6 - 2010.

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

losses-Tanks and artillery pieces Arab side

Arab countries lost

• 370 aircaft
• 47 SAM batteries
• 2300 tanks
• 700 artillery pieces

Please fix it! --85.65.214.155 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Also in the section on the IDF counterattack you should change the word obfuscate to suppress or any similar word so that it will be more easily understood by a greater number of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.166.13 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 way I see it, they were far from advancing to Cairo. They were not even "advancing" as they got repelled in three consecutive attempts to take over Suez city in Battle of Suez. They finally abandoned their tanks. I personally have a photo playing on one of them. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.232.234 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Egypt gained acres of land on cease fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.232.234 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2011 (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)

I changed the sentence in Israeli advance to "Purple Line (the pre-war ceasefire line)", this avoids confusion.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I changed the Yom Kippur War map and its text below as the previous map and text was pov, they claimed that territories Israel occupied were "Israels territories", I also explained the "seized" above and someone must have reverted it without explanation, this word "seized" can not be used for Syrian soldiers in GH, "regain" is a more appropriate word describing the situation. Also Israels attack was not a "counterattack", the war was Egypt and Syrias counterattack on Israels invasion and occupation of land in these two countries, so Israels attacks in the Yom Kippur war should just be described as "attacks". Also, Israel can not be described as "defenders" in GH, you are a defender in your own land, not occupying land in other countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Seized is the appropriate word, regained is not. Regained inaccurately implies Syrian control of the areas in question at the outbreak of the war, which is not true.

Your "defenders"->"occupiers" change is substantially biased on its face.

The map you changed (which is identical to the svg except for changing "Israeli territory" to "Israel" which implies a judgement) is worse both technically and is less accurate.

I have reverted your edits for the above reasons. Raul654 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how an image and text below it claiming the territories Israel occupied in the Six day war as "Israels territories" is more factually correct or neutral then my map and text? Regained does not imply that Syria controlled it at the outbreak of the war. Explain how Syrian operations in their own country can be called "seized"? Explain how any Israeli attack in the YKW was a "counter" attack? Explain how what the entire world see as Israeli occupation soldiers in Syria, can be called "defenders", and please explain why you changed it to "the pre-war border"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how an image and text below it claiming the territories Israel occupied in the Six day war as "Israels territories" is more factually correct or neutral then my map and text? - "Israeli territories" (used in the svg you replaced) implies a fluid situation - e.g, that the territories given there are not the final, formal borders of what is considered Israel, which is true and accurate. "Israel" (your png version) implies a finality or officiality of the borders which is not true. And, for technical reasons, under absolutely no circumstances should svgs be replaced with pngs. Raul654 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regained does not imply that Syria controlled it at the outbreak of the war. - in the context of a discussion about the see-saw change of territories that occurred during the war, yes, it most certainly does.

Explain how Syrian operations in their own country can be called "seized"? - seized (sz) v. To take quick and forcible possession of; The Israelis started the war in possession of the Golan, and the Syrians attempted to take them by force. Seize is the appropriate word choice.

Explain how any Israeli attack in the YKW was a "counter" attack? - My position on this is pretty much the same as Sherif9282's below.

Explain how what the entire world see as Israeli occupation soldiers in Syria, can be called "defenders" - occupiers is clearly pejorative in this case. Sherif's suggestion of "Israelis" is fine with me.

and please explain why you changed it to "the pre-war border"? - I don't object to this change. If you want to re-add it, that's fine with me. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about the map and text, the international community recognizes all the land that Israel occupied in the WB and Gaza as occupied and not part of Israel, same thing with the land Israel occupied in Syria, its internationally recognized as occupied Syria and not Israel. Israel is recognized as a state, but not outside the pre-1967 borders. Your map and text implies something not in accordance with the international view, they imply that the occupied territories are "Israels territories" which is factually incorrect and extreme minority pov. I tried to edit the SVG file but it didn't show as I had edited it, so I was forced to create a PNG file, anyway its better to have a factually correct lower quality map then a factually incorrect higher quality map. "Seize" is a word used when someone takes something from someone else, this is not the case here, "regain" is a much better word to describe the situation, how about "The Syrians managed to regain some of the high ground during the night that Israel had occupied since the six day war", this will take care of your interpretation that Syria controlled it at the outbreak of the war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would've suggested the use of "liberate" (which is neutral and used in certain WWII articles), but it would seem awkward in light of the fact that the Syrians lost the Golan just a few days later. Besides, "seize" really isn't problematic at all, because the Syrians really were taking something from someone else! The Golan was under Israeli occupation wasn't it? Seems to me it was under someone else after all. How it got there, is irrelevant in that part of the article body. It should be explained in relevant background sections, and that will suffice. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"the international community recognizes all the land that Israel occupied in the WB and Gaza as occupied and not part of Israel" - Your logic is really flawed. You are using the legal status of those terroritories today to argue about how a historical map should be labeled, which is foolish. Most countries *today* might recognize the pre-1967 border as being Israel, but in 1967, they certianly did not, and it is misleading to label as map as if they did. But with that said, the difference between "Israel" and "Israeli territories" is a minor distinction. I can live with either.

how about "The Syrians managed to regain some of the high ground during the night that Israel had occupied since the six day war" - Retake is probably a better word than regain, but either one is fine with me. Also, avoid the passive voice. I suggest: The Syrians retook some of the high ground during the night that Israel had occupied since the Six Day War" Raul654 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The after 1967 lands were never recognized as Israels territories when Israel occupied them. I don't know if in 1967 the pre-1967 borders were internationally recognized as Israel, but Israels recognized borders did not pass the 1967 borders at that point of time, and never has. Do you have a source for that the pre-1967 borders were not internationally recognized as Israel? If so then "Israeli territory" as the map is now is not correct either. So at least we would fix one part of the problem with my map. What do you say about changing it to "Israeli controlled territory before the six day war"? "Retake" means basically "take" "again", but Syrians didn't "take" it in the first place, it was always in Syria, so "regain" is better. I also support "liberate" as Sherif9282 suggest above as it is the most accurate name to call it, does anyone object to "liberate" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, liberate doesn't sound right when the Syrians lost the Golan very soon afterwards; imagine saying "The Syrians liberated the Golan from the Israelis, but lost it again by the end of the week." Doesn't really fit. I won't object to its use, but regain/retake sounds better after all. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

SD, the wording counter attack is unconcerned with the territory being fought over. An offensive action by a belligerent that follows an attack by an opposing belligerent is called a counter attack. The Israeli offensive actions in the Sinai after the Egyptian crossing are called counter attacks, for example. As for whether they are "occupiers" or "defenders", we could head for middle ground here by going for the entirely uncontroversial "Israeli", abandoning descriptions. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli" can be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Israelis (ala this edit) is fine with me. Raul654 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I carried out the change as Raul didn't object anymore, there is still the issue of the image caption: "control of" should be added to: "Israel had lost control of territory" and "but gained control of territory", does anyone object to this?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I still object to replacing an svg with a png. At the moment, I'm traveling with an extremely slow computer with a poor internet connection. But unless someone gets to it first, I'll be changing the svg and reverting back to it later this week. Raul654 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

I have two points here.

Only manpower losses remain in the infobox. What about armored and air losses; Will they be mentioned only in the article text?

The second point concerns the size of expeditionary forces. Rabinovich states that the Arabs contributed some 100,000 men to the war. I don't oppose the figure, but there are sources that point out several Arab units had arrived to the front once the war had ended, especially on the Egyptian front (taking the very sizable Algerian armored brigade and the Sudanese infantry brigade as examples). Besides Rabinovich only states that they were available/could be provided as reinforcements from Arab nations, but does not explicitly state that this figure had partaken in the conflict. I think this figure should be mentioned in the aid section instead. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No reply for nearly a day. I've altered the infobox to show what I had in mind. All the other numbers seem match those concerning Iraq (except APC's, which I've increased from 500 to 700). Manpower was reduced to 30,000. If available, the number of aircraft Iraq contributed to the war on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts can also be added to the infobox. Being the main contributer among allied Arab states to the war, the reader is informed of their figures in the infobox, and can know about the rest in the text. I thought about adding an "Others" with a link to the aid section, but this will also direct the reader to the Soviet aid provided to the Arabs, while no such link in the infobox will lead the readers to the American supply and intelligence aid, which was generally of more consequence to the outcome of the war. I felt this was unfair, so I did not include it. If the numbers of forces Jordan can be added as well, that country being in the infobox, then very well. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherif I couldn't care less about those numbers, but the statement No reply for nearly a day. is bizarre. It would have made sense if it were a month perhaps. Some people have a life in the real world, you know. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. My bad. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S., in the meantime, it might be necessary to explain edits, but not a requirement to announce them beforehand, so the recent revert, is entirely unjustified. No one reverts edits because they were sudden or because they hadn't had an opportunity to respond to the issues raised. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, the figure of 100,000 comes from an RS and the burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Second, by 23 Oct, Jordan had committed a force equal to a division at the underbelly of the Bashan salient. Third, Moroccan forces were fighting alongside the Syrians even before the Iraqis came on the scene. Fourth, Sudanese troops were fighting alongside the Egyptians in the south and Fifth, Algeria deployed a sizable armored force in Egypt.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, this article says otherwise in the aid section, specifically concerning the Sudanese and Algerian forces, as I had already said. The relevant information in that section is also already referenced. Currently I have Shazly as a source that some forces arrived too late for battle, and I believe you regard him to be reliable. Additionally, the Tunisian unit in Egypt was stationed in the Delta, where it seems they provided non-combat assistance. Finally, the figure provided by Rabinovich is with regards the forces pledged by Arab states to be sent to battle. As we know, some of these forces were posted before the war, such as some air squadrons, some were sent during, and in the case of the Sudanese brigade and the sizeable Algerian unit, they arrived after.

P.S., what's the source claiming the Jordanians sent a division/division-sized force? --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've found the part concerning the Jordanians in Rabinovich. But that was October 23, when the Syrians considered launching a new offensive and called it off. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but Kuwaiti, Saudi and Palestinian forces had also just arrived along with a brigade of Iraqi mountain troops. Since that offensive was canceled, and Syria accepted the ceasefire, these forces can also be counted amongst those that arrived too late to join the war. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above Too late to join the war, You are engaging in WP:OR. You have no idea what impact this Arab deployment had on IDF planners or IDF deployments.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you're performing that deed quite well. Assuming that they had effect on IDF planners/deployments without concrete references is OR. What is stated by Rabinovich clearly points out that these Arab forces had arrived in time for a planned Syrian offensive, which never happened. My argument still stands. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabinovich states that there were 100,000 Arab expeditionary forces who participated in or deployed for combat. You can't revert an RS simply because you don't like what is said. I don't intend on wasting anymore time on this. I am not a perpetual student and don't have an infinite amount of time to engage in circular debates--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't twist words please, whether they're mine or Rabinobich's. Other Arab countries would add another 100,000 soldiers to Arab frontline ranks. I didn't say I want to revert him, I don't even deny that figure, I simply state that part of that number did not arrive in time for combat. This statement doesn't conflict with Rabinovich's figure, it is verified by another source (Shazly) concerning Algerian and Sudanese forces, and is confirmed by Rabinovich concerning Kuwaiti, Saudi, and reinforcing Jordanian and Iraqi troops.

I'm not here to ask your permission for an edit, so I'll be simply going ahead and doing it, because I've provided my references already, while you don't have anything that refutes what I said. The Rabinovich figure should be in the aid section, not the infobox. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The more time I spend here, the more I feel you're simply objecting to object. You not only undid my changes, but removed sourced information that I had added. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have no consensus for your tendentious edits and your last revert placed you in violation of ARBPIA regulations. I strongly urge you to self-revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We've already ascertained though that some had not participated in the war, yet you're adamant to retain the 100,000 figure in the infobox. In that case, a note under the infobox that not all participated will suffice, no?

BTW you're probably right about the Elazar statement. I don't remember adding it there though, but removing altogether isn't a solution either. I thought about where to move it but couldn't find a proper spot. What do you think? --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Elazar, I self-reverted. I'll find a place and stick it somewhere.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, just because someone did not take part in direct combat operations does not mean that they did not have a vital support role for the war effort. For example, the Algerians deployed 200 tanks near Cairo as strategic reserve freeing up Egyptian forces. Moreover, according to Bar-On, the Jordanians had 170 tanks engaged on the southern flank of the Israeli salient. Not an insignificant number. Moroccans fought alongside the Syrians almost from day one as did a Sudanese contingent for the Egyptians. These forces took a direct role in combat ops. However, let me think about your suggestion about the note. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See, that's what you can't do. Whether or not the Algerians allowed the Egyptians to free up more forces we can't establish because that is OR, unless there is a source that explicitly says so. Conversely, by that logic, we should be mentioning the American airlift to Israel, because the American one in particular, allowed the Israelis to free up their resources and expend what it did have more freely (Rabinovich, p.491) The same applies to the Sudanese, who arrived too late (what's the source claiming their participation in combat?). As far as I know, even Dupuy and Hammad, who speak of Palestinian and Kuwaiti forces opposing Israeli forces on the west bank, make no similar mention of the Algerians or Sudanese. After all, the key word here is participated, and as long as they didn't arrive in time for combat, then they didn't do that. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And the Soviets didn't engage in massive resupply efforts? As far as early Sudanese involvement, I got it from rabinovich but I don't have the page ref off hand but can easily supply it for you. But please focus on the positive. I said that your suggestion doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. I assume that the note would be denoted by an asterisk next to the figure of 100,000, is that correct? and if so, what would the note say?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

...mentioning the American airlift to Israel, because the American one in particular... I know the Soviets engaged in resupply efforts, I was just drawing a comparison between you're assumptions that Arab reinforcements freed up Egyptian reserves and the Rabinovich statement that American resupply efforts freed up Israeli reserves. As for the note, it would go along the lines of "Not all participated". --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay Sherif, make the notation as per discussion. Real life obligations prevented me from responding sooner. Aplologies.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I've made the notation, but next to expeditionary forces instead, leaving the details to the article text. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"At the sight of the fleeing Syrians, Israeli troops on the ridge cheered and fired their guns in the air in celebration"

Isn't the article long already? Why do we need this sentence? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than Raul (with honorable mentions to Hohum, Poliocretes, Cptnono, BorisG, BrewCrewer and Mikrobølgeovn) I’ve probably done more than anyone to cut the fluff from this article and trim it to a decent size. So don’t lecture me about the length of this article and your sudden concerns when before I started editing, this article was a mess with fluff and garbage about psychiatric disorders and comparisons to Vietnam among other idiocies too numerous to mention.

As for the subject sentence, there is no doubt that it comes from a reliable source that I’m certain you have not read. Moreover, after four days of incessant non-stop warfare, in which the defenders were taken by complete surprise and outnumbered by 10 to 1, I think it is important to note their reaction when they re-took the heights, especially when it is summed up by one single, concise sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's "lecturing" you? That comment seems a little stand-offish. I'd agree with Frederico. The line in question seems more like something you'd find in a narrative rather than an encyclopedia. NickCT (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NickCT both in substance and in his reaction to the comment style. Who did what to the article (and who read which sources) is completely irrelevant. The sentence is relevant, concise and well sourced but is not encyclopedic. - BorisG (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you recommending that I self-revert?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Or rephrase. I do not have a strong opinion about this. Let's hear what others say. - BorisG (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to rephrasing. Can you propose something?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I also don't have a strong opinion; however, at first glance, I'd weak support simple deletion. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make an attempt to rephrase or substitute. If I can't come up with anything I'll just self-revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if this is more acceptable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed more acceptable. However, it appears to say the same thing as the sentence immediately preceding it. ("By October 10, the last Syrian unit in the Central sector had been pushed back across the Purple Line (the pre-war border)." vs. "After four days of intense and incessant combat, the outnumbered defenders succeeded in ejecting the Syrians from the entire Golan.") --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The preceeding sentence speaks to the central sector. The sentence that I added makes clear that all Srian forces were ejected from the entire Golan. It also sums up the point that the battle was indeed intense, incessant with an unequal balance of forces.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the correction. However, the sentences do say something quite similar as they both speak about the the events of October 10. Assuming this can be verified by a RS, I suggest we skip the second one and modify the first sentence like this: "By October 10, the last Syrian unit in the Central sector had been pushed back across the Purple Line (the pre-war border)"--Frederico1234 (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong picture description

Hi, the caption of the picture on the right is wrong. That tank isn't an Egyptian T-55, it is an Israeli Magach 3 (AKA M48A4 by the US Army; M48 Patton upgrade with 105 mm gun and diesel engine). --94.39.236.41 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Confirmed, the destroyed tank in the photo is actually an Israeli M60 Patton and for those with a knack of details, please take note that the Soviet made T-54/55 series of tanks (including communist China-made Type 59 & Type 69/79 series) does not use any track return rollers, at all, but the American made M46/M47/M48/M60 series of Patton tanks does have this feature. To cut a story short, this image file is a duplicate of File:Destroyed Israeli M60.jpg and Sysops on commons has been informed of this. Best. --Dave 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming Back

Hi, I am back after another long time out. Since my latest request of being unblock was declined on 18/10/2010, I ceased to check my account. I have not noticed, I was unblocked on 22/10/2010 until recent week. Now I am ready to continue contributing this article, mainly in statistics as I used to do previously, as well as on the Bar-Lev line issue. I will expect sherif and others to respond in the talk page. I hope internet will be back in Egypt soon. It's ironic that for years the Egyptians were told by the Mubarak regime that their army won in 10/1973, but now the Egyptian editors can't defend this line in wikipedia because that same regime has cut access to the internet in Egypt. Sooner or later, the Egyptian army documents of the 1973 war will be revealed, whether it will be under the presidency of El-Baradei or under the rule of the friendly neighborhood Muslim brotherhood. Megaidler (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Israeli defenses in Sinai

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. The total length of the rampart 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 adapters for rifle grenades. 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. 306-307 216-217
On the 06/10 afternoon 532 troops were in the strong-points, 9 tanks were in the water line and 7 gun batteries were in range. Since only 16 out of the 30 strong points were manned, there were gaps between them and there was no continuous view over the canal. The first wave of 8,000 troops crossed through these gaps and encircled the strong-points. Many tanks were ambushed before reaching the water line and those who did were hit by direct fire from the western sand ramps that were higher than the eastern ramps.

My conclusion is that there were 30 strong points, each strong point could cover 2,500 meter by machine gun fire. That means that only 75 KM could have been covered by fortified machinegun posts, while the total length of the Suez Canal is almost 200 KM. That leaves almost 125 KM of totally unguarded water line. That is in case all machinegun posts, in all strong points are manned by soldiers with machine guns. However, on 14:00 06/10/1973 only one fully strong point were garrisoned, another 15 were partially garrisoned, and additional 14 were unoccupied at all, or manned by observation troops, who probably had no machineguns. That leaves us only 40 KM actually covered by machine on 14:00 06/10/1973 while 160,000 unguarded at all. The tank position on the eastern sand rampart gave no protection for the Israeli tanks, because the Egyptian built a much higher sand rampart on the western side and could. From that western rampart, the Egyptian could easily hit the Israeli tanks. Megaidler (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in this text make any suggestion on how to improve the article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Selecting Sources

Government sources should not to be automatically considered as primary source just for being government sources. A military historian employed by his government, may be considered as secondary source as long as he/she meets the criteria. However, El-Badri, which is a secondary source, is considered to be unreliable not for being a government employee, but for reasons already explained by others. Megaidler (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Defenses

The statement that the Israelis had no effective counter measures against SAMs has no reference. However, there are articles in Hebrew by former IAF historian Yossi Abudi, where it is mentioned that the Israelis had an operational plan, called "Tagar", to knock out the Egyptian SAMs but they had no time for doing so. Later, the Israelis executed, plan "Maftseaach" (cracker), which was a series of air strikes against Egyptian SAMs. That plan went right. Watch the following websites. They are in Hebrew so try google translation.

http://www.iaf.org.il/1213-21478-he/IAF.aspx

http://www.merchav-aviri.org/t1/tiki-index.php?page=%D7%9E%D7%94+%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F+%27%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%A8%27+%D7%9C%27%D7%93%D7%95%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%9F%27%3F

Megaidler (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to cite the sources in the article. - BorisG (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Frederico

There are content rules in Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability) and if you violate the rules, they will block you. Editors are not allowed to write statements with no reference to reliable sources, especially when there are reliable sources that contradict these statements. I have already given references for sources supporting my statements but you did not do so.
I know there is a wide consensus in among Egyptians that the 1973 war was a victory for the Egyptian army and a defeat for the Israeli army. However, this is due to a propaganda campaign made by the Egyptian regime for one purpose:
Ensuring the good reputation of the Egyptian army which is sworn to protect Egypt's secular constitution, and thus, reducing the public support for the Ichwan. Megaidler (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a message for an individual editor, why didn't you leave it on that individual's user talk page? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Megaidler (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Megaidler is reliably sourced and is backed by numerous other sources. Truth is, I concur with his edit and to assert that the Bar-Lev line was "heavily fortified" is somewhat disingenuous. When the attack began there were just over 450 soldiers (mostly of a reserve brigade) manning some 16 forts strung out along the Canal. There was one understrength armored brigade (commanded by Lt. Col. Amnon Reshef) deployed in the vicinity of the Canal and only 3 tanks deployed at the Canal bank itself. According to Pollack, the line, even when fully manned with a full complement was never intended to thwart a full scale crossing. Rather it was meant as a "trip wire and a delaing force," (Pollack @ 106 & Herzog @ 221). A system designed by Israel to flood the Canal with oil and set it alight to thawrt a possible crossing was neglected, went into a state of disrepair and was unusable, (Herzog @ 233). In fairness to Sherif9282, the Canal itself proved to be a natural formidable barrier and Dayan once referred to it a "the best anti-tank ditch in the world." But the fact remains that the Bar-Lev line was neglected and sorely undermanned and even in its hay day, was never designed to stop a full-scale crossing by massed infantry and armor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your compromise is a sensible one. Well done. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2011 (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