Talk:Yom Kippur War

Wth is that?!

Its all basically israelis narrating their side of the story and the estimates of losses. You a basically trying so hard to make it look as if israelis were bunch of spartan warriors that won every battle outnumbered and took few losses. I would like to see a full egyptian side of the story. Also where were those other country’s soldiers? Like saudi and morocco? Just adding flags to enforce the idea that it was a coalition fighting against israel which is not true. There were very few units. The number of egyptians who crossed were around 80000 while israel had over 180000 in sinai. The egyptians were outnumber and outgunned. Israel doesn’t give away lands for free or peace, if thats the case they would have given back the golan heights and west bank to palestinians who are asking for exactly that or they would have given back sinai before the war because thats exactly what sadat offered. I will get proper sources from unbiased sources and post them. And don’t come bringing me some american sources, although they wont be as biased as the israeli which looks like an unfunny joke they would still try to make israel look like it won the war and the conceded the land because israelis are bunch of peaceful white doves😂 94.21.98.52 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any specific edit suggestions, supported by reliable sources? Also, can you demonstrate that you even read the article? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, Israel won. The Egyptian and Syrian goal was not reached. AstroSaturn (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that why Egypt retained control of most of the suez at the end of the war? The Egyptian goal was 100% reached The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The goal was to regain the land by force and to humiliate Israel which obviously failed. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt’s goal was to gain a foothold in the eastern bank of the suez, which it did, and to humiliate Israel, which it did The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM. We go by what WP:RS provide, not editor opinion. (Hohum ^@) 20:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I still get confused by the forum policy, which to be fair to myself m is a blurry line. I’ve already made my case in another discussion on this talk page with the necessary citations The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypts goal was to regain the territory that was lost in the 6 day war by force. Instead, they lost more land and faced another humiliating defeat. Look, I know that certain people can't accept facts about the yom kippur war but at some point you have to. AstroSaturn (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Egyptian army's objective, known as Operation Badr, was to cross the canal and advance 30km into the Sinai to establish a defensive line, and on this basis begin negotiations with Israel. (30km because that was the range of the SAM missiles, and beyond that it would have been suicidal to advance the tanks, knowing that the Israeli air force had the upper hand thanks to US weapons)... The objective was achieved in a matter of days, and in the 2 weeks that followed no Israeli offensive was able to break through Egypt's lines.

The frightened Israel then assembled a Gerico missile and more or less threatened the US to provoke World War 3 if it didn't provide air support, which the USA did, and thanks to these weapons counter-attacked Egypt. The Egyptian army held the 80km front except at one point

Egypt's aim was to be in a position of strength, or at least in an equitable position with Israel, which was arrogant and wouldn't give up after the '67 war. Sadat even spoke of taking "even 10 cm of Sinai".

Then I'd really like to know if this is a joke or not, why are Jewish authors quoted for the figures (soldiers present, dead...), really, is it a joke? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a serious, neutral site? OlafLePacha (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Egypt was not militarily or strategically on par with Israel, even without direct American involvement in the war (emphasis on in the war), regardless of how cheap the Israeli victory is, it is still an Israeli victory in the military and strategic sense, but politically Israel was (still is and will continue to be) the overall loser.

I do believe the page (like it's Arabic translations) has a lot of bias, especially considering the fact there are no segments for Israeli atrocities (surely those didn't happen, us Arabs are always the baddies!), but I think the reason why Western sources are often cited over Arab ones is because (and I'm speaking as an Egyptian here); we lie a lot! and when we don't lie, we omit and mislead, and when we're not doing that, we're speaking in exaggerated prose about heroism and martyrdom and blah blah blah.

Of course, the US does too, but it has higher standards over who can be called a professional, and those professionals adhere to legal and moral codes: like citing other sources (these numbers aren't magic), while Arab authors aren't held to the same standards and usually receive praise for going along with the Arab perspective.

If Egypt was aiming to be equal with Israel, it failed and will continue to fail, if Egypt was aiming to win back the Suez by force, then they failed at that too by the time the ceasefire was drafted (don't just cut out the conclusions), and if Egypt was aiming to regain Sinai: they sorta did it...but not in the way military command had hoped.

I remember the Results section in the Infobox showing "Israeli Military Victory, Egyptian Political Victory", I'm in support of bringing that back, as it's the most inclusive and representative of the overall timeline of events. MagiTagi (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself, I've made myself quite clear. Find out more about this war, this war on the Egyptian side was the continuation of a political action to take back Sinai through negotiation.

There was NEVER any question of taking it back by force. Egypt knew it couldn't do it because of the material air superiority conferred by US equipment.

As I said, it was a question of restoring a certain balance in the face of an arrogant Israel that refused to negotiate following the success of the 6-Day War.

Sadat's words and the course of the war on the Egyptian side confirm this. And we can consider that it went according to plan.

Then there's no question of Western or Arab sources, but of Jewish ones. I'm certainly not talking about putting in Arab sources, but putting in Jewish sources is just as silly. OlafLePacha (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've notified you of the special rules in editing about this topic area on your user talk page, you are not permitted to edit about this topic until your account is extended-confirmed(30 days and 500 edits). 331dot (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Egypt victory in the war

I do not know how Israel won the war. How could Israel win the war, if it lost land? That's like saying Germany won WW2. (Israel first gained land then lost, Germany gained land then lost). Also if you need a source, . The Reliable Israeli Website Itself says It was a Egyptian victory against Israel. Here's Another one. WikiHence (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel REGAINED lost territory from both Egypt and Syria.

Uou clearly haven't read a single word in the article. 2.54.49.153 (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

References

You clearly haven't read either source. (Hohum ^@) 12:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

But bro how can still Israel win the war... 2407:D000:F:ABF5:59D3:37D7:718F:585C (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In brief, multiple Arab armies joined together in 1973 with the goal of destroying Israel, admittedly inflicting devastating damage on Israel. But Israel survived and flourished. Fifty years later, Israel still exists and has treaties with Egypt and Jordan. The Arab armies completely failed to achieve their clearly stated objectives, lost far more casualties than the Israelis did, and it wasn't until five years later that the Israelis withdrew from almost all of the Sinai peninsula, a very lightly populated area. They made that decision willingly, not at all under the barrel of a gin. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt's objective was to recapture Sinai, but they didnt do that in the war, that came as a result of the Camp David Accords. nableezy - 07:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt’s goal was to capture the suez, which they mostly controlled by the end of the war, not Sinai The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Just saying it does not make it so. The goal wasn’t just the Suez, but territory lost in 1967, as stated and cited throughout this article. Additionally, “controlled” is a rather relative term, given that their forces at the Suez were… rather surrounded. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus or source for "Egyptian victory" and why are there 3 topics about this? Read a damn history textbook. Egypt lost massively. Andre🚐 22:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

How did they lose massively exactly? Egypt invaded Israel to occupy the eastern bank of the suez and negotiate the rest of Sinai, and the war ended with Egypt occupying most of the eastern bank of the suez and negotiating the rest of Sinai. How is that a “massive loss?” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

[4] How’s this for reframing: The Egyptians celebrate this military conflict – where they lost thousands of soldiers (Cairo never released official casualty figures, but the numbers are believed to be between 8,000 to 20,000 dead) and where their capital was left undefended – as a great victory. Meanwhile, Israelis, who miraculously turned the initial tide of the war from disaster into a head-turning success, view it as a catastrophe. Andre🚐 02:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In the result section it will be more accurate to says "

Result Israeli military victory

Egyptian political victory

(see aftermath) Noosh155 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We can't, per Template:Infobox military conflict. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok understood Noosh155 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Inconclusive/Stalemate on Egyptian front suggestion/consideration

PRIMARY SOURCES (Tightly coupled with the conflict)

this one can be considered secondary as its an analysis of data but since its CIA , it can be considered closer to a primary source .

I had found a secret CIA intelligence report that got declassified on 2012 , it was created on 1975 , 2 years after the war , on the last paragraph of page 24 to 25 it states that the fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note .So it states it as a fact . It also states and I paraphrase that the arab armies had remained undefeated until the end of the war , so a full military defeat seems to be a bit offshore and more of a stalemate or inconclusive as the report had indicated . I think this source is more credible than alot of the books or articles published on the war's conclusion as the CIA was monitoring the war via satellites and more closely via multiple SR-71 black bird passes , this report had been made even though the US has been Israel's ally during the war so that also should give it immense consideration .

Here is the report :-

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

citation: CIA, (1975). The 1973 Arab-Israeli War.Overview and Analysis of the Conflict.

---

This source from the US National security archives in a military briefing between the israeli general Elazar and Henry Kissinger on October 22nd . On page 2 general Elazar states :-

"Unfortunately, we didn't manage to finish the Third Army "

And

" the idea was to encircle the third army and destroy and capture its forces

Here :-

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf

citation: NSA , (1973) ,Military Briefing The Guest House

Golda Meir as well as Dayan had also been in this meeting , so its basically team blue .

---

Elaborating on the above report I found from israeli commanders themselves on a video from the AP archive on the Egyptian front at the time of their counter-attack on 19/10/73. From 1:05 to 1:33 again by Chief of Staff David Elazar who said that they are creating the necessary conditions to open their major offensive and not an end in itself ,also at 1:54 by Shmuel Gonen .

Here is the AP Archive video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSr6ndq6gnw

So the objective was clear to the military generals until October 22nd to not just surround third army but destroy it . Surrounding occurred but the destruction part they didn't achieve . So a good tactical position they got without using it to decisively beat the Egyptians as planned .

---

This other source again from Henry Kissinger himself the US secretary of state in a MEMORANDUM in 1975 where he states to the Jewish community in NY the US policy before and after the war .In it he finally admits it  :-

Some have claimed that it was American strategy to produce a stalemate in the 1973 war. This is absolutely wrong. What we wanted was the most massive Arab defeat possible so that it would be clear to the Arabs that they would get nowhere with dependence on the Soviets. What caused the stalemate was the fact that the Israelis were not ready for the war. Also, if anything, the Israelis did not give us sufficient information during the war. Near the end, we did not even know that they were headed south. I even asked them.

He also states :-

We went to Moscow because we wanted to delay Security Council consideration. We wanted to delay the Security Council in order to give Israel 72 more hours to fight. Going to Moscow was our way to give Israel more time. If the Israelis had trapped the Third Army during the war it would not have been an American problem and we could have left it alone. But trapping the Third Army after a US-arranged ceasefire was in effect made it our problem, and even then the United States went on nuclear alert to scare the Soviets out of unilateral action. So this group should understand that stalemate was not our goal.

Here is the Memorandum

https://merip.org/1981/05/kissinger-memorandum-to-isolate-the-palestinians/

citation: Kissinger Memorandum: “To Isolate the Palestinians”," Middle East Report 96 (May/June 1981).

---

SECONDARY RESOURCES

Edgar O'Ballance, No Victor, No Vanquished: The Arab-Israeli War, 1973, Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1997,

https://archive.org/details/novictornovanqui0000obal/page/374/mode/2up?view=theater

• From the website you can borrow for 1 hour

PG 268

The situation was as much a stalemate as a siege, although the Israelis did not like to see it that way.

&

PG 330

The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north. Politically speaking, the war drastically changed the situation in the Middle East from the almost crystallised one of No Peace, No War, to one of No Victor, No Vanquished. In short, both sides gained advantages and suffered disadvantages, the Arabs perhaps gaining far more than the Israelis. The Palestinians, in whose cause the Arabs fought, also gained politically, and by mid-November 1973 the Soviet Union was calling for implementation of Palestinian “national rights,’ as opposed to the customary but less definite “legitimate rights.” The U.S.S.R. was followed by Japan which recognised the “legitimate rights” of the Palestinian people, while in March 1974 Italy recognised their “national rights.’

---

Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin, Summary of "Tactical Stalemates"

the parties declared a cease-fire which left both sides stalemated.

---

Association for diplomatic studies and training , Negotiating the End of the Yom Kippur War, September 18, 2015

https://adst.org/2015/09/negotiating-the-end-of-the-yom-kippur-war/

So there was a kind of stalemate on the military front, or at least the signals coming from both the Israelis and the Egyptians were: Let’s get serious about the cease-fire.

---

Aljazera the-october-arab-israeli-war-of-1973-what-happened

The counterattack majorly turned the tide of the war in favor of the Israelis, and the fighting came to a stalemate.

---

Tzabag, Shmuel. , Termination of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Syria: Positions, decisions and constraints at Israel's ministerial level,  Middle Eastern Studies; London Vol. 37, Iss. 4, (Oct 2001)

https://www.proquest.com/docview/203258534?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

The first page in this source states that :-

Israel's primary objectives included the frustration of Egyptian and Syrian goals, the protection of its territories and the prevention of any military achievement by its rivals. Israel's ensuing goals included the staging of a counter-offensive to repel the Syrian and Egyptian forces from the Golan Heights and from the Sinai, and to terminate the war in a better military and political position than it had when the war started.

Zooming in on :-

1. prevention of any military achievement
2. repel Egyptian forces from the Sinai
3. terminate the war in a better military and political position

according to the current wiki article there was a military achievement by the Egyptians , Egyptian forces were not repelled from the Sinai as their armies stayed intact and at war's end yes they may have been in a better military position but not in a better political one since there was the first disengagement and resignation of Golda Meir a year later .

---

I think it would be safe to change "israeli victory" to "israeli military victory on the Syrian front and Stalemate on the Egyptian front"."Egyptian Third army surrounded" can also be added.

These sources are very closely coupled with the conflict and well documented and thus require consideration .

--Osmarion (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmarion (talk • contribs)

From that source. "The October war was complex and the information available to analyze it is flawed and incomplete"

Far more information has come to light in the intervening 48 years. (Hohum ^@) 20:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Hohum, I had rectified my argument and added more resources to support it , I also want to state that the CIA report mentioned the inconclusive result as a fact ,& I quote "the fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note" Osmarion (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources are WP:PRIMARY, rather than WP:SECONDARY, which is far from ideal, especially for supporting drawing a definitive fact spoken in wikipedias voice. (Hohum ^@) 11:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hohum Thanks ! . I'll try to find them secondary sources then, but for now I mainly want to maintain these sources as provisions to help build support for the argument ; I think they are good preliminary sources as I haven't modified any of the quotations , they were directly copied from source and I honestly think they are , just that , straightforward descriptive statements of facts as the WP-PRIMARY link you had shared stated in its 3rd point , if you think they are subject to double meanings then please let me know :). However , thanks again Hohum :) Osmarion (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

These sources aren't usable anyway, they are cherry-picked WP:PRIMARY WP:OR and WP:RGW POV pushing against consensus in reliable recent scholarly historical material, which this is not. Andre🚐 02:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes your right :) , I told Hohm that I'll try finding them secondary sources which Iam currently doing , and there are :) . The problem is that there are alot of interesting recent declassified material from both CIA ,NSA and Israeli archives that I believe would cause alot of scholarly revisions of this relatively recent conflict . So consensus isn't so absolute as we might think it is :).

The NSA sources specially were recorded conversations that actually took place , they aren't speculations or analysis thats why I stated that they are good preliminary provisions to build an argument Osmarion (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Those sources aren't usable since they are primary. You'll need to wait for them to be interpreted by reputable secondary sources. Andre🚐 20:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I made an update with some secondary resources ,let me know its necessary to add more .2A02:8071:5280:9000:9DC4:858:CD12:91D1 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

“Israeli victory”

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

Do you have reliable sources to back this up? Also, it is not the job of Wikipedia articles to help you with implications you may be concluding incorrectly. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

For Egypt’s claims

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

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

This outlines Egypts goal of the war, which was to cross the suez and not conquer Sinai or Israel proper.

The war ended with an Israeli counterattack, however it did not restore control over the suez bank and was defeated in the closing battle of Sinai, failing to defeat the Egyptian army in the city

Archived citations:

As for the implications, it’s not that they’re incorrect but just heavily simplified as it doesn’t even specify what kind of victory Israel attained (It used to say “Israeli military victory”) as it was in no way shape or form a political victory for Israel, and neither could it be a military victory against Egypt, though it is was an undeniable victory in Syria The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I Agree, if we talk Land gains the northern front was an Egyptian victory and the southern was israeli victory so it was a military stalemate Kelcoz (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have been trying for ages but the editors are adamant on labelling this an “Israeli victory” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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

Yes, I’m talking about the Egyptian front specifically and their closing victories at suez and Ismailia, not the entire war which included a northeastern front. Im having a hard time specifying the page for the first citation as much of it seems to have been lost in the archive The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Egypt's military resigned in disgrace after the war. It was a disaster for Egypt. More importantly, your bold change lacks consensus or reliable sources. Andre🚐 22:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you’re talking about the six day war. I’ve brought several sources to prove that Egypt managed to achieve its goal in the war, and the suggestion for an “inconclusive” result has also been brought up with sources by another user in the talk topic above The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are WP:PRIMARY and outdated, not high quality reference sources, and don't say what you are claiming. And it would be WP:UNDUE to blow away the whole academic field of Arab-Israeli studies for some random cherry-picked military studies you happen to like because they say the ahistorical thing you want it to say. As any student knows, in 1973, Israel was taken by surprise and fought to the brink of trouble before the US bailed them out and defeated Egypt. Therefore, an Egyptian defeat; your argument that they achiveved their strategic aims is not supported by any historical or academic material. Andre🚐 02:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Defeated Egypt how exactly? Egypt still controlled most of the suez by the ceasefire and prevented the Israelis from capturing suez city in the closing stages of the war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Egypt and Syria did not win the war militarily, but they got what they needed out of it in terms of domestic and regional legitimation and cracking Israel’s veneer of invincibility. If fighting continued, the Arab states likely faced the prospect of another defeat. For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat,[5] so again, a military defeat of Egypt on the battlefield for Egypt even though Israel had political problems as a result of the war. They still controlled more territory as a result of the war. Andre🚐 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This is also including Syria, which absolutely did not win in this war and had their capital Damascus threatened by the Israeli advance. I have given my citations to explain how this was not a full victory for Israel on this specific front, and I will also quote your citation

”For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat, and the country was reeling from the loss of life on a scale it had not experienced since 1948.” The “controlled more territories” here more likely refers to the advance on the Syrian front as aside from a crossing and occupation southwest of Sinai Israel had lost control of most of the Suez Canal The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The Suez was Egyptian territory occupied since 67. The Egyptian had made gains and then Israelis were surrounding Suez when the ceasefire was agreed to - but that doesn't mean Egypt got more territory. That was Egyptian territory. Again, as it says, it was a military defeat for Egypt, but even though it was a military win for Israel, it was a political defeat. But, the infobox refers to military defeat in the war. Israel’s victory came at the cost of heavy casualties, and Israelis criticized the government’s lack of preparedness. In April 1974, the nation’s prime minister, Golda Meir (1898-1978), stepped down. Although Egypt had again suffered military defeat at the hands of its Jewish neighbor, the initial Egyptian successes greatly enhanced Sadat’s prestige in the Middle East and gave him an opportunity to seek peace[6] It's History.com which isn't RS but it's still better than the weird old CIA studies or whatever. Andre🚐 05:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

1967-1973 Egypt only controlled the western bank of the suez, the eastern bank of the suez was occupied by Israel. by the end of the war Egypt controlled most of the eastern bank and after the ceasefire was signed Egypt retained control of both banks. In the war Israel failed to retake the eastern bank of the suez which negates an “Israeli victory” as this article simplifies it, while Egypt achieved its goal. The Israeli advance in the south however threatened Egypts encircled army however they inflicted two defeats on israel (battle of Ismailia and battle of suez)

The combined Egyptian paratrooper-commando force managed to achieve a tactical and strategic victory at a time when Egypt's general situation on the battlefield was deteriorating, and GHQ was in a state of confusion. Sharon's advance toward Ismailia had been halted, and Second Army's logistical lines remained secure.

not to mention the admission of David Elazar, 9th chief of staff during the war (Not sure if this specific one is RS but there are many sources mentioning the quote)

https://yom-kippur-1973.info/eng/west.htm#:~:text=As%20for%20the%20third%20army,or%20conquered%20them)%20David%20Elazar.

“As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them”

Your initial article admits that Israel suffered a major political failure, so Egypt managing to achieve its goals in the war reasserts my view that simplifying the entire conflict to a “isralei victory” is inaccurate, and far from Egypt being “severely defeated” in this war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not, you've proven no such thing. Sounds like WP:IDHT Andre🚐 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan I thank you for sharing this very recent source.

well since it mentions "For Israel, even though they controlled more territories than at the start of the war, it was nevertheless a major political defeat" then I'll have to agree with the @The Great Mule of Eupatoria on this one , you actually gave support to his point , the result was edited back from "israeli military victory" to "israeli victory" by this guy's logic @Modrenebe :-

Done Liu1126 (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but could you also remove the word "military" from "Israeli military victory"? It wasn't there before. Its use can give the impression that Israel only won militarily, while the political or other aspects were not or instead were won by the other parties. Modrenebe (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, missed that in the last edit. Liu1126 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

His argument was that political or other aspects were not included in "military victory" , the other aspects he hadn't mentioned . Osmarion (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, you might have an argument that Israel had a political defeat, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the infobox, since the infobox is about a war. Andre🚐 20:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

war is only means to achieve political objectives and if there is a political defeat then the war has failed. Osmarion (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think there should be an RFC owing to the proven Egyptian inconclusive front as well as a major political victory for Egypt The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

on the egyptian front, it was an egyptian victory, it was only an israeli victory on the syrian front, i have sources to back up this claim: 24.172.129.3 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

References

So, you've pasted all the sources already in the article being used to support a general Israeli victory, to say it wasn't a victory against Egypt? I try to assume good faith, but I don't believe you've reviewed these sources, since they directly contradict your assertion. (Hohum ^@) 14:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There are literally tons of sources to support the claim that the war ended in a stalemate, do you want me to list them?? 2603:6010:1C00:325:9835:7F52:753:C950 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and if you do, do it in a new edit request. This one has been answered. I suggest you read this talk page and the archives of it, and fully understand what a reliable source is, first though. (Hohum ^@) 00:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

ok, i just made a new edit request below 2603:6010:1C00:325:9835:7F52:753:C950 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2603:6010:1c00:325::/64 blocked three months - block evasion. Adakiko (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

Egypt won in the war and Israel lost. In the end, Egypt regained full control over Sinai until this day. 154.180.118.56 (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. As you can see above, there have been numerous discussions about this issue that failed to reach consensus. If you wan't to start a new one (if there's any point in doing so), you should create it under a new section, not as an edit request. Liu1126 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

Pakistan may have participated in Yom Kippur War? Can you double check and add to the list if so? 119.148.103.99 (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Time Styles

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