Talk:Yom Kippur War

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

Additional information:
/
	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Archive 1 - Includes poll concerning page move to Arab-Israeli conflict of October 6–October 24, 1973. Outcome of poll was 0/15/1.
Archive 2 - Includes poll concerning page move to 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Outcome of poll was 8/30/0.

Reference needed

Could someone please provide a reference for this strange statement from the article?

"The Arab world, which had been humiliated by the lopsided defeat of the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian alliance during the Six-Day War, felt psychologically vindicated by its string of victories early in the conflict. This vindication paved the way for the peace process that followed, as well as liberalizations such as Egypt's infitah policy..."

I have no idea where this statement could possibly come from. This war was a humliation for the Arab nations involved. Not only did they attack on their opponent's most sacred holiday, which in itself was widely perceived at the time as cowardly, most importantly they were soundly beaten. In fact, they were utterly trounced on the battlefield. If I recall correctly, both the Syrian and Egyptian armies were widely mocked for their incompetence. I think it would be far more correct to say their embarrassment lead to the Camp David Accords or simply to leave their motivation out entirely. Certainly, vindication played no part in it. Non-Riemann Hypercube 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabinovich says this several times. Page 512: The Yom Kippur War marked a major turning in the Israeli-Arab confrontation. By restoring pride to Egypt and a sense of proportion to Israel, it opened the way to the Camp David peace agreement in 1979" Raul654 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures at top

Now i dont know too much about wikipedia but since this is about to go onto the main page shouldnt the pictures allocation be more balanced in this article. like i mean there are none at the top and a lot of pictures at the bottom

The warbox goes at the top (that's the standard for articles), and the pictures align with the revalant part of the article. The picture of Golda Meir goes with the section describing her decision not to launch a first strike, the picture of the US airlift goes with the text that describes it; the Isreali soldiers running across the desert goes with the descriptiong of fighting in the sinia; the picture of Sadat and Begin shaking hands at the Camp David Accords goes with the text describing the peace process; 'etc. Raul654 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to condense article

It seems to me that thecurrent article is too long (59KB). As a first step, I suggest condensing the Background section, which is 18KB. I created Background to Yom Kippur War (content moved as-is from this article). I now suggest leaving just a summary (+link to the detailed article) in the main article here. I made similar changes in Six-Day War which seem to have improved the article's legibility. Before I do a similar thing here, I want to get consensus on this action. altmany 15:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work, but I don't think it's really necessary. I consider this article as one of the best of Wikipedia, and shortening it would cause a little loss of quality. 59Kb is still fine and fast to download (there's a lot of articles much longer). So I don't recommend your move unless there's a lot more info you want to add concerning the background. CG 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ceder-Guardian. Raul654 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is a good read, and the level of detail seems reasonable to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no new information have been added to Background to Yom Kippur War, is it OK if I delete it? CG 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Raul654 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CG 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Go and Search

Entering Arab-Israeli War or Arab Israeli War in Wikipedia Go or Search brings the reader nowhere near this article - it fetches up in the cul de sac of 1948. What does this mean?--shtove 22:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there were many Arab-Israeli wars, and many articles relating to them. The 1948 war was the first such war, Yom Kippur was the fourth. In such cases, in order to get more relevant search results, you need to fine-tune your search query with more specific terms like "1973" or "Yom Kippur". altmany 22:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My point is about the search-availability of this article, and even entering Arab-Israeli War 1973 gets the reader no further. There are reams of debate about the title of this article, but none of the participants seems to have arranged a re-direct/disambiguation while popping out for a ciggie. Why not? It's not good enough that the reader has to enter Yom Kippur War to find his way to this article without relying upon links in other articles. I'm not getting mixed up in this, but after the debate is done with (soon), it's the text of the article that matters.--shtove 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The search function needs some impovement. MEanwhile, I have created redirects for the links above. BTW, we already have Arab-Israeli war, Arab Israeli war, 1973 Arab-Israeli War , Arab-Israeli War of 1973 and many other permutations. The capitalization matters, please check WP:NC. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But opening Arab-Israeli conflict (the result of some of your existing links) still leaves the problem over direct connection. Shouldn't entering Arab Israeli War (or any other of the "general permutations" you refer to) simply bring the reader to a disambiguation page that provides a link to this article? Good housekeeping for Wikipedia's visitors.--shtove 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those looking for wars would get the best info at the conflict article as the central and most comprehensive one. An alternative is Wars of Israel and if the consensus is to redir there, it's a 1 sec. change. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11/3/2006

Suggested corrections: The Camp David accords did not lead to normalized relations between Egypt and ISrael. They led to a peace treaty, but relations are still cool, not normal. Also, the Arabs chose Yom Kippur for their surprise attack not because the Jews were fasting but because Israeli radio is shut down on Yom Kippur and emergency mobilization, they knew, was carried out by issuing coded calls on radio. (See, Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War, page 46) Also, the Rabinovich citations make up most of the references in the article but in your Reference list you cite an article by him in the JerusalemPost about a specific battle. It is his book that should be listed there because that is what the references are relating to.)

moshe dayan was the defence minister of israel and so it is incorrrect to refer to him as a commander which would give the impression that he was an army officer. itzhak hoffi the commander of the northern front should certainly have been included in the top section of the page under commanders.as should benny peled the commander of the israel air force.

Israelie Army medic insignia?

Does any one know what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They probably used Magen David Adom; it protected them to the extent it was visible red symbol on white, I'm not sure how pertinent that official recognition is in terms of actual battle conditions. Comprare, for example the lion and red sun that Iranian military used during brutal reign of the last Shah (pre-1979). What's key is that troops in battle are able to recognize who is a medic and try to avoid shooting them, which of course dosen't always happen (whether recognizable as usch or otherwise). And, of course, it's the sort of unwritten rule/sanction any side can employ in retribution for the other intentionally disregarding it (official recognition aside). El_C 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted - the person who made this edit

Could the person who made this edit please step forward and be recognized? There are three cited sources in there that I had to remove because there's no actual reference. (e.g, it says 'Shlaim, probably a reference to Avi Shlaim, but it doesn't say what work/page it is citing). I thought it might have been Humus sapiens based on this edit, which uses the same Herzog citation, but he doesn't think it's him. Anyway, I really want to restore these sources, but I can't until someone tells me what they actually refer to. Raul654 04:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the Hebrew Wikipedia's series of Yom Kipur articles & pertinent bibliograpies, as well as briefly google.co.il'd some items, but nothing striking came up for these specific sources vis.a.vis the material they currently cite. El_C 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious comments

this article is well written..I would like to point out a few obvious things..I maybe wrong here but the US nuclear alert has not been mentioned here..nor has the serious consideration the US had of invading Saudi oilfields if the embargo continues. Also there has been no breakdown of the weapons airlift..to my knowledge that airlift was the largest at the time by the US. The same could be said of the Russian one..I think the picture of the camp david accord is a bit wasted here. A picture of the barlev crossing should be added..it is considered by many a major military achievement. --Zak 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nuclear alert is descibed in detail in the section titled (cryptically enough) "Nuclear alert" Raul654 00:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my bad missed that bit Raul--Zak 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I find the claim that it was the largest US airlift questionable. I suspect the Berlin Airlift was bigger. Raul654 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== The Importance of the American ReSupply == I am not prepared at this time to give all the supporting data, but I will have to come back and flesh out this comment. I have always understood that the initial Israeli losses on the Egyptian front were quite staggering. This was due to the shoulder held anti-tank and anti-air craft missles employed by the Egyptians. I have read that the Israelis would have had to resort to their nukes had Nixon not resupplied them with replacement aircraft and tanks. This is truly momentuous. America resupplied Israel in a war of occupuation on Egyptian land held contrary to UN resolutions. And as a result of the resupply America was subject to an Arab Oil Embargo that caused a significant oil shock to the economy. Prior to the war, America and Israel had sat silent and ignored Peace entreaties. Uri Avnery, the Israeli Peace Activist, in one of his columns, writes that Golda Meir, used to ignore Sadat's peace pre-war overtures, saying "that's just Sadat trying to get the Sinai back." The importance, extent, and context of the resupply is put into context in a column by Charles Krauthammer, a US Jewish right right wing Likud supporter columnist. "And what were Nixon's outer acts vis-a-vis Jews? Well, in 1973, he saved Israel from possible destruction with his massive weapons airlift during the Yom Kippur War." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer101899.asp will314159--Will314159 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your point being? The Soviets were supplying the Egyptians, the Americans supplied the IDF, it's a classic example of the Cold War policy of war through proxy. Beyond that all I see is the other classic the anti-US/Israeli rant. PPGMD 04:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== The Peace Plans before the War == I alluded to Uri Avnery's comment about Meir and Sadat above. Here is a quote from one of his columns "One proven method is to concentrate on one word and argue that it shows the dishonesty of the whole offer. For example, before the October 1973 war, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt made a far-reaching peace offer. Golda Meir rejected it out of hand. Her Arabists (there are always intellectual whores around to do the dirty job) discovered that Sadat spoke of “salaam” but not of “sulh, which “proves” that he does not mean real peace. More than 2000 Israel soldiers and tens of thousand Egyptians paid with their lives for this word. After that, a salaam treaty was signed." http://www.nahost-politik.de/friedensbewegung/saudi.htm In other columns he writes about the efforts of Kissigner's predecessor at Sec'y of State William Rogers and his Peace Plans which Kissinger promptly torpedoed. The Wikipedia article is clearly deficient in this area by being one sided and it gives the topic short shrift.will314159--Will314159 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And here we go, he gets to the point Israelis are a bunch of blood thirsty savages, with the United States also helping the savage attacking on the peace loving Arabs. </Sarcasm> Please link to academic references, if this is a true event, there must be some academic references, not some links to a german mid-east news site. PPGMD 04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?

The article says October 6 through 26, but the info box says October 6 through 24.

A valid point. The 26th is the correct date to use; that's the day when the last of the fighting ended. Raul654 05:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Rabin1996p215-1] Yitzhak Rabin (1996). The Rabin Memoirs. University of California Press. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-520-20766-0. security versus sovereignty"...Israel would have to accept Egyptian sovereignty over all the Sinai, while Egypt ,in turn, would have to accept Israeli military presence in certain [Sinai] strategic positions.

[Kumaraswamy2013p105-2] P.R. Kumaraswamy (11 January 2013). Revisiting the Yom Kippur War. Routledge. pp. 105–. ISBN 978-1-136-32895-4.

[1]

[2]