Talk:Yom Kippur War

Typo in "Failure of the US Intelligence community"

In the "Failure of the US Intelligence community," the last sentence seems to be missing a word: "the report he written to that effect was only rediscovered..." Perhaps "he had written" was the intended phrasing.

no victory

Israel hasn't won the war and especially not against Egypt because they suffered heavy casualties and requested support from the USA after most of their army was destroyed, they failed to take Ismaillia city and Suez buy the end of the war and their tanks were stuck in the Egyptian dessert with nothing except stronger Egyptian forces in front of them and they were cut off their base in the center of Sinai with no air support unlike the Egyptians, plus they were also surrounded and they surrounded the egyptian 3 army with fewer forces than what Egyptians had during a cease fire, don t forget how the us gave away the location of weak spots in egyptian lines to the Israelis.And egyptian president Sadat never asked for peace, it was the us and Israel who asked for it. plus the objective was only to get back lost territories not invade Israel as it is written. now we can either put Arab victory even tough you don't like the sound of that because you are pro Israel and racist or we can put both Factions claim Victory plus erase the invasion of Israel repelled because it never happened and the Arab forces were still there, especially the Egyptians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.223.223.235 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I also agree Israel no won so the war over in a Negotiation when Israel lost part of the Golan and Entire Sinai — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Causalities are not important anyway focus on the objectives objective were regain territories losses in 1967 and both states Egypt and Syria did it total or partiality - Israel ceded small territories to Syria and huge territories to Egypt - You cant call that a "military Victory" when the side who claim win no get a single meter after the Negotiations

Both Side claim victory is the better description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Both Side claim victory , but actually, there is no victory for any side, Israel actually failed to destroy Third Army or occupied Suez City, where is the victory ? Ibrahim.ID »» 07:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, they failed to occupy Egypt again or destroy the Egyptian army yet i can't figure out how they keep posting here about a victory! Egypt took every inch of Sinai back which was occupied, before the Egyptian military 1973 attack. --ScienceAuthority (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was reached about an Israeli victory long time before: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]--Wlglunight93 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Egypt changed it's status from an occupied land to forcing Israel to sign papers of never attacking Egypt because of this. From then the two states became friends. It's totally false in Political Science to claim a victory in the side that lost the lands that the war was made to free it in the first place. --ScienceAuthority (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss something that was addressed several times before. Read the links that I provided you from the archives of this talk page. The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was not part of this war. You are removing information supported by many reliable sources. Next time you break 1RR and force me to engage in edit-warring, I'll report you. It's you who need to gain new consensus to make such an important change.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the discussion. Israeli-biased and Israeli links can't be reliable sources, as they are one sided and disagree with all political science logic. Our main discussion here is that Egypt was occupied before this war, and because of the war and Egyptian military attacks in which their main purpose was freeing Egypt's lands till the fact that they kept leading and they reached Ber Lev line and fully destroyed it. So, because of this war and mainly the Egyptian military attacks, Israel signed papers to never attack Egypt again or ever assault the Egyptian lands. Victory sides can't lose the claimed lands, Egypt won all it's lands. There is no Israeli victory here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceAuthority (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your lies and misconceptions (supported only by your own original research) until you revert yourself back to the long-standing version of the article.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong flag?

In the Belligerents section in the right column Egypt's flag is shown next to Syria. Should it be this way, as they were allies fighting under a common flag, or is it a mistake?

1RR violations?

Unless I'm miscounting, on 8 October three successive editors just broke the WP:1RR. This article is most likely on the watchlist of several admins, so please be careful. Notice the talk thread #No victory Consensus that is open just below. It would be reasonable for all parties who have edited in the last two days to wait for its outcome. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which editors? I did a single revert (yesterday?) and when my revert was reverted and accused of being vandalism (despite my edit summary being clear on reasons and citing Wikipedia policies, so even if my edit is disagreed with, it's not vandalism), I chose not to re-revert and instead contacted the editor who accused me of vandalism. I have edited a few times since then, but not as reverts, rather as specific point edits. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No victory Consensus

the sources: [7][8][9] [10]

Your claim is already mentioned in the result list. Moreover, your sources don't contradict or rule out the "Israeli victory" claim and the other 7 sources that support it. Infantom (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox currently has a number of cited sources that state it was an "Israeli victory." If you want to remove or modify this you need to provide sources that contradict this. You list a bunch of sources but I could not find in any of them where it is stated that it was not an "Israeli victory." The fact that Israel suffered losses does not make it a non victory as every victor suffers at least some losses. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Now User:Dexterous B reverted[11] and added a source from http://egyptholidaysdirectory.com [12] that is not an Israeli victory. I'm sorry but that "source" does not comply with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and must be removed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

At the war end, Egypt wished to end the war when they realized that the I.D.F canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe. (Morris, 2011, Righteous Victims, p. 436 ). So, who is the victorious side? Ykantor (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Henery Copt, Please explain why you removed "Israeli military victory", it is supported by 8 sources and a consensus in this article. Plus, you didn't explain what your sources are supposed to support. Infantom (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

Ykantor, is this really a "result" of the war? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Fitzcarmalan. The information in Ykantor may belong in the article (is it not already present?), but it doesn't belong in the sidebar, especially not in the "results" section. Egypt's reasons for wanting to end the war are not the results of the war, but one of the many things leading to said results. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I removed it and added:

-The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[14]

-The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo, which worried Egypt.[14]

-The Israeli Army advanced to a 40 km distance from Damascus, which worried Syria. Ykantor (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014

it is sad how Wikipedia is so biased and side with Israel as usual. Good luck finding readers

166.137.209.144 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are not meant for baseless whinging Cannolis (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Result list in infobox

The result list in the infobox is too busy, it should be a brief list. Some of the listed claims are unnecessary or not a direct outcome of the war. I think it should basically include the Israeli victory, UN ceasefire, Israel–Syria Disengagement Agreement and maybe the political gains for Israel and Egypt. What do you think? Infantom (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality of Benny Morris and the cluttered Infobox

First things first, let me express my great disapproval with the inconsistency that this article brings to Wikipedia with its cluttered Infobox where people are attempting to fit the entire article (and more) in a pocket edition. Clearly there seems to be a massive misunderstanding of what the "result"-section represents on Wikipedia so I will take the liberty of explaining it once and for all in an attempt to ease the inherent bias of this article.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict

I believe the logical conclusion is that long-term effects are what constitutes a "result". As such only five out of the existing TEN points are to remain, those are as follows:

• Political gains for Egypt and Israel
• Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty
• Israel–Syria Disengagement Agreement
• See long-term effects

This point should be redundant by now but I will bring it up regardless for future reference. Benny Morris is by no stretch a neutral source, the following is an extract taken directly from his Wikipedia article:

Morris's work on the Arab-Israeli conflict and especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has won praise and criticism from both sides of the political divide. He is accused by some academics in Israel of only using Israeli and never Arab sources, creating an "unbalanced picture".

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

The current use of his work is in direct violation of the guidelines provided in WP:NPV. For sake of neutrality it is necessary to avoid referencing his work in factual contexts without offering other viewpoints for balance, especially when it is not backed by academic consensus. I will pursue sanctions for any continued misuse of biased sources such as these in the article.

For more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Thank you, Turnopoems (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

First, the Israeli military victory is backed by many reliable sources. Second, Morris is widely used in several Wikipedia articles, just like other "new historians" (who are critical of Israel), precisely because he's very reliable and precise to report events of Israel's wars.--Dreddis Rules (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Benny Morris is about as WP:RS as it gets. He's a prominent and prolific writer whose works are widely quoted, in both mainstream media and academic discourse. You should head over to WikiProject Palestine and notice how many of their articles make use of Morris' writing. You would cut that project's content in half by removing him. The fact that he has critics does not in any way prevent him from being a WP:RS, not to mention the fact that a wikipedia article alone is not remotely sufficient to disqualify him as one. Besides, in an article that widely quotes Saad El Shazly, a prominent actor in the events described within, Morris is a non-issue. Poliocretes (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have said nothing about the "Israeli military victory" even though I will be tackling it in the future in an attempt to level out bias. I did not question the reliability of Benny Morris, do not put words in my mouth. What I did say is that using his biased sources in a factual context is a direct violation of the guidelines provided in WP:NPV if not balanced by opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia does not forbid the use of biased sources but it demands that they be balanced to reach a fair representation, this has not been achieved. As I'm fully aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not a one-man-project I'm trying to reach consensus before removing the following points from the result box:

• The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 40 km distance from Damascus.[16]
• Failure of the Arab reconquest of Sinai and Golan
• UN ceasefire

As mentioned earlier they simply do not belong there, these are not long-term effects of the war and the result box is not for summarizing the conflict. They provide a narrow point of view and they are also inconsistent with the content of the article. Claiming that "Failure of the Arab reconquest of Sinai and Golan" was an outcome of the war disregards the claims made in the article about Sadat pursuing a limited victory to gain a bargaining chip during negotiations; which were rejected by Israel before the war. Turnopoems (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

- according to your quote ofTemplate:Infobox military conflict , there should be ""X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"" only.

1. If we decide to stick to this rule, than it should say "Israeli victory", which is well supported. Otherwise, if phrase like "Bar Lev Line destroyed" stays, than the text that you deleted should be stated as well.
2. there is no support for your usage of "long term". It is a plain result.

- Concerning your claim that "Benny Morris is by no stretch a neutral source", it seems that you are unfamiliar with wp:secondary. I suggest you read it again.

- Yours "which were rejected by Israel before the war.", is not accurate.

1. Sadat proposals before the war were an extreme example of unrealistic demands, that no Israeli government would have accepted it, even in an hindsight. For Instance, he demanded full Israeli withdrawal from all of Sinai (and more) before he would start an indirect negotiations with Israel. Taking into account that the main (and may be the only) Egyptian reason for the peace was the return of Sinai to Egypt, would an responsible Israeli leader accept this ultimatum?
2. Israel agreed before the 1973 war, as a part of the peace agreement, to declare all of Sinai as an Egyptian soil, and to return nearly all of Sinai to Egypt while leaving some Israeli civilians at few strategic points. Sadat have not replied to this idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs)

You're missing the point, once again, I'm not arguing against the reliability of the author. Citing him as a source is perfectly fine. The author, however, is controversial and is known for only using Israeli sources thus rendering his work one-sided. According to Wikipedia guidelines outlined in WP:NPV this presents us with a situation where both sides need to be represented to create balance and paint a neutral picture. This has not been achieved.

I suggest you read my response more thoroughly, the "Israeli military victory" was excluded deliberately as I only mentioned the ten, following points and not eleven, including the aforementioned. By simply adhering to the common definition of the word "result" logic dictates we exclude the above-mentioned points. Merriam Webster defines "result" as "to proceed or arise as a consequence, effect, or conclusion". If you can explain HOW the following points are an outcome or direct consequence of this military event as a whole I will drop my attempts to remove them from the Infobox:

• The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo.[16]
• The Israeli Army advanced to a 40 km distance from Damascus.[16]
• Failure of the Arab reconquest of Sinai and Golan
• UN ceasefire

If consensus has yet to be reached after my request I will seek help at the noticeboard. Clearly there is an unbalanced representation among the authors of this article and sentimentality runs high.

1. What you speak of is completely irrelevant to the point I'm conveying and whether it's realistic or unrealistic is subject to both debate and subjective opinion which I'm not interested in. Nothing that I said is incorrect and is substantiated by the content of the article itself.

2. I'm not going to comment on the absurdity of the implication that Israel occupies some kind of moral high-ground; colonial settlements, relinquishment of sovereignty... Equally unrealistic. Let's keep this discussion about the topic at hand please. Turnopoems (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"As I'm fully aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not a one-man-project I'm trying to reach consensus" ... "If consensus has yet to be reached after my request I will seek help at the noticeboard."

This reads to me very much as: "If my lone voice doesn't gain consensus after *two days* I'm going to try forum shopping". I don't think that is helpful, and isn't likely to build consensus. (Hohum ^@) 21:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we to disregard my legitimate request which attempts to reconcile the content of the article with Wikipedia guidelines simply because others choose disregard them? Your conclusion is absurd and insulting, my intention was not to get my way but merely to receive input from a knowledgeable third-party that is not influenced by sentimental attachment to either side. If I recall correctly that is the appropriate method to solve a dispute upon reaching an impasse as outlined in the WP:DR. Perhaps you should refresh your memory in regard to those guidelines instead of attacking people who are trying to make serious contributions. Thank you, Turnopoems (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that you'll get more consensus with honey than with vinegar, but it's entirely up to you. (Hohum ^@) 16:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Territorial changes

I'd like to thank the involved editors for heeding my request and I appreciate the compromise and the addition of "territorial changes", I must however comment on the pervasive Israeli bias which seriously puts to question the intention of some of the editors. In what sense is "The third army was besieged there" a territorial change? Does every addition have to contain a clause that glorifies Israel and undermines the achievements of Egypt and Syria? Furthermore, I would like to add that it is misleading to claim that Israel advanced to a distance of 100km from Cairo, as far as the content of the article goes there were no attempts to advance towards Cairo. During Operation Abiray-Lev the Israelis merely crossed the canal and attempted to surround the Third Army, as a part of this operation Magan, Adan and Sharon attempted to occupy Ismailia and Suez, which they failed to complete. Their advancement on the west bank targeted Suez with the intention of cutting off the Third Army. The fact that these cities are located roughly 100km away from Cairo is not enough to make a case of it. This is equally absurd as claiming that the Jordanian army advanced to a distance of 50km from Jerusalem or that the Egyptian army advanced to a distance of 350km from Jerusalem, neither of these cities were ever a target for either side during the war. A more accurate way to describe the Israeli positions on the Egyptian front by the end of the war is that they crossed the Suez Canal and advanced on the west bank towards Suez, which, unlike Cairo, was an actual target.

"According to the plan set for the Israeli crossing, Operation Abiray-Lev (Hebrew for "Stouthearted Men"), the designated crossing point lay near to Deversoir, at the northern end of the GBL on the Suez Canal. The Israelis had to open the principal route to Deversoir and secure a corridor stretching 5 kilometers (3.1 mi) north of the crossing site (known as "The Yard"). Paratroopers and armor would then cross the canal to establish a 5-kilometer-deep bridgehead (3.1 mi) after which the bridges would be laid, with at least one to be operational by the morning of October 16. The Israelis would then cross to the west bank and attack south and west, with the end goal of reaching Suez, thus encircling and cutting off two Egyptian divisions on the east bank. Southern Command allotted 24 hours for the setting up of the bridgehead and 24 hours for Israeli forces to reach Suez, with the latter expected to be under Israeli control by October 18 at the latest. It would soon be shown that the execution of Operation Stouthearted Men would deviate from planning and schedules, and that the realization of the time-frame had been highly optimistic and extremely unrealistic.[11][12][13]". Turnopoems (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing here glorifies Israel. This is a description of the territorial positions at the war end. If you do not like the words "advanced to a 100 km from Cairo" . them Morris exact wording may be used. At the war end the Israeli army occupied all positions around the The Egyptian 3rd army (together with the city Suez), so it was besieged. I fix it accordingly. Ykantor (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the absurd claims that are being inserted left and right have little relevance and present twisted facts intended to belittle the achievements of Israel's opponents. I like this format better but I would like to review the source of these numbers, they are not found in the cited source; page 437 in Righteous Victims by Morris. I'd appreciate it if you could double check the source and revert, I will leave things as they are until further notice. Turnopoems (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The returning of the Sinai is not a direct outcome of the war. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed 6 years after the war and is a "long term effect". Territorial changes in infobox should be only relevant to the situation at end of the war. Infantom (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't specify that it has to be a direct outcome of the war though, the template says as a result of the conflict. I see no harm in including it especially when its status was mentioned as the casus belli of the war. Including subsequent treaties that put an end to the formal state of war between combatants seems to be standard procedure on Wikipedia and I see no reason why this article should be an exception, in the absolute majority of cases these negotiations take place years after ceasefire has been declared and the war effectively ends. Turnopoems (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The peace treaty is not a result of the war, but a result of a negotiation that had taken place years later, and is, at most, a long term effect. The template is unclear, "Territorial changes" should reflect the positions at the end of the war. I'll wait for other opinions before further actions. Infantom (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think personal interpretation should dictate our course of action when the nature of the issue is controversial. My personal stance on the issue is that it should stay, as mentioned earlier, it is standard procedure to include subsequent treaties. The following is an examples of that:

• Turkish War of Independence, ended in 1922.

• Treaty of Lausanne, ratified in 1924.

Furthermore, we have a clear-cut example of how the "territorial changes"-section is used in, for example, the article pertaining to the War of the Pacific.

Territorial changes

• "Litoral Department (Antofagasta) ceded by Bolivia to Chile in 1904."
• "Tarapacá Department ceded by Peru to Chile in 1884."
• "Puna de Atacama ceded by Bolivia/Chile to Argentina in 1889/1899"
• "Tarata occupied by Chile in 1885, return to Peru in 1925."
• "Arica province occupied by Chile in 1884, ceded by Peru in 1929."
• "Tacna (Sama River) occupied by Chile in 1884, return to Peru in 1929."

If you're still adamant on changing it then the best course of action is asking for a clarification of what this title implies at the relevant noticeboard. Turnopoems (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You ignored the first part of my reply, the peace treaty and the returning of the Sinai are not a result of the war. It occurred years later and isn't related specifically to this armed conflict, but the entire Egyptian-Israeli conflict. Therefore it has no place in the infobox, it could be labeled, at most, as "a long term effect". Infantom (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Turnopoems, yours: " these numbers, they are not found in the cited source; page 437 in Righteous Victims by Morris". I rechecked, and the numbers are in the quoted source. Ykantor (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I must have missed it. I wholly disagree with mentioning anything about the Third Army in a section pertaining to territorial changes. I would also like to open a discussion regarding the 100KM from Cairo and 20 miles from Damascus claims, while they are indeed substantiated by the source I question their relevance in the present context (it is already mentioned in the article itself). It is not a territorial change, i.e. no territory changed hand, and if we look at the example cited earlier this is definitely not the format we should be looking at. Turnopoems (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Infantom, I just noticed now that you had replied again, Ykantor's reply caught my attention. I assumed you were referring to your old reply. I did respond to the first part of your reply, the template doesn't specify that it has to be a direct outcome of the war and if we follow the example that I have shown here clearly this isn't a condition, the War of the Pacific ended in 1883 yet they've listed a number of events after that date. You're interpreting this from a personal standpoint and there is no academic consensus to substantiate your claim that the peace treaty wasn't a result of the war. Had this peace treaty been the result of a larger Egyptian-Israeli conflict then the prospects for peace should have remained static with or without factoring in this particular conflict, would this war and the subsequent peace treaty have happened had Sinai not been under Israeli control? What is the cause of the "Egyptian-Israeli conflict"? Has the status of Sinai remained the same throughout and have the objectives of the armed conflicts defined by this term been the same throughout? We know for a fact that this particular war, unlike the previous wars, was fought specifically with the intention of regaining control of Sinai. Furthermore, the term "Egyptian-Israeli conflict" is ambiguous and is not referenced or defined in academic literature. Again, I must insist we present this case at the relevant noticeboard if you're hellbent on changing this per your definition of "territorial changes" and "long-term effects" as the template alone fails to substantiate your request. Turnopoems (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you've violated the WP:1RR, you got to stop reverting all the time as you still have no consensus and you're the one who added the content in the first place. Second, you didn't respond to the first part, the template explanation is unrelated to the question whether it's a result or not. Now, your hypothetical questions are completely irrelevant; what would have been or could have been if something had or hadn't been or happened is not an argument. There's a fact, the returning of the Sinai is a result of the peace treaty which is a result of peace talks and negotiations that had taken place years later. These are not associated specifically with this war but more with an ending to the all violence since 1948, that's why i mentioned the "Egyptian-Israeli conflict" example. "there is no academic consensus to substantiate your claim that the peace treaty wasn't a result of the war"- that's the other way around, you made the claim- you need to provide sources. Infantom (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Turnopoems, yours: "the 100KM from Cairo and 20 miles from Damascus claims, while they are indeed substantiated ... It is not a territorial change, i.e. no territory changed hand," What do you mean by "not a territorial change" ? . It is a clear territorial change. e.g. The Israeli starting point was the canal ( about 130 to 140 km) from Cairo, and the end point was about 100 km from Cairo. Ykantor (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Infantom, I have violated nothing, it's called the One Revert Rule, not the One Edit Rule. I also explained that my edit was the result of a misunderstanding. How am I making a claim when I'm merely rebuking yours and asking for proof, saying that the peace treaty isn't a result of the war is just as much a claim. Why are you still spinning on this overused rhetoric? Unless I'm reading someone else's reply: "The returning of the Sinai is not a direct outcome of the war". It's inclusion is not predicated on it being a direct outcome of the war, it was an 'OUTCOME' of the war nevertheless. I don't think I need to argue that a peace treaty that returned Sinai to Egypt directly pertains to a war fought to return Sinai to Egypt when common sense dictates that it is, subjectiveness aside. The Arab-Israeli conflict was fought over the status of Palestine, the October War was fought over the status of Sinai, the peace deal was between Egypt and Israel and specifically dealt with that situation and not more. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but here goes another attempt; since you're the one requesting to remove content that doesn't contradict the template and complies with the prevalent disposition you should inquire about this at the relevant noticeboard because I can't find anything that supports your request.

@Ykantor, it is merely a vague and irrelevant description 'OF' the territorial changes. The territorial change is not that they were 100KM from Cairo, had it been a territorial change it would have said "they occupied an area of 100KM2 in and around Cairo". We might as well add that Egypt was 350KM away from Jerusalem and that Syria was 100KM away from Jerusalem. What is Cairo's relevance in this matter? They were also 450KM from Alexandria, 2600KM from Istanbul and 9000KM from New York City. You say the starting point for their advance was the canal; Cairo was not the target of this advance, the city of Suez was. Do you have any source that ascertains that Cairo was a legitimate target during this operation or at least strengthens it relevance in this context? I also want an explanation for why you reverted my edit, please present a motivation for including "encircled the Third Army". As far as common sense goes it is not a territorial change, the Third Army is not territory. Turnopoems (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your first revert was removing the third army issue from the previous version, the second was your last one, never mind. I could argue your reply again but it would be an endless circle- i'll make it more clear so you understand what i mean. You made a claim that the peace treaty is a result of the war and added it to the territorial changes list, i removed it since it's dubious. it should be settled by sources given by the one who made the claim to begin with. Now, what do you by "prevalent disposition"? the only criteria is reliable sources, "rebuking" is not enough.Infantom (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The first was an edit, the second was a revert. If by any chance my edit falls under the definition of "revert" then I apologize. Let's not twist the issue because this could go on forever, this has become a debate over semantics and I'm certain both of us have more important things to do. You said the treaty doesn't qualify as a territorial change because it happened years later despite this not being a criteria outlined in the template, I showed you a concrete example of the application of "territorial changes" in a different article which supports the inclusion of the peace treaty and other long-term results but you ignored it. If you didn't see it the first time then here it is again: War of the Pacific. Turnopoems (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, i made 2 arguments during the discussion. 1.The treaty isn't a result of the war (and i explained why). 2. if it was, would it be correct to put it in infobox as it happened years later? Your answer regards only the second argument (and i still have a disagreement, but i'm skipping it for now). You decided to evade answering the first one and dismissed it by the argument of "common sense". I ask for reliable sources that support the claim that the war resulted the peace treaty- this is the only criteria. Infantom (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Your explanation is that the treaty dates a few years after the actual war, that alone does not disqualify it. You said the treaty pertains to the "Egyptian-Israeli conflict". There is no academic definition of this term, you coined it yourself. 2. According to who or what? This is the only criteria according to you, once again, the template makes no mention of this and other articles make extensive use of this format. Turnopoems (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

1. My explanation is that the peace treaty is a result of peace talking and negotiation that are unrelated specifically to this war but to the all violence regarding Israel and Egypt since 1948, especially the six day war. No need for academic definition as it was just an example, i'm not adding it to the article. The template states "as a result of the conflict" you still haven't provided any proof for it to be a result, you keep evading responding to this while this is the most important thing you should have. 2. according to guidelines here on Wikipedia: WP:RS, WP:CON. I think you had enough time to do so, please don't revert it until you reach consensus and provide reliable sources. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

-Turnopoems: " The territorial change is not that they were 100KM from Cairo". This is a direct quote of a wp:rs and if you oppose it, will you please quote a source who negates it?.

- Concerning the 3rd army encirclement, will it you accept "encircled the Egyptian Third Army area", which is a pure description of a territorial change . Ykantor (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Infantom, first of all, there is no consensus for you to revert my edit in the first place. You're arguing over semantics and I asked you to submit a formal request to a knowledgeable third party who would help us in defining the implications of the guidelines. Since you're hellbent on a source I will heed your call and I will add a source. Meanwhile, for your own peace of mind you can review it yourself:

To most Egyptians Sadat had gained a famous victory in the October War. The Egyptian Armed Forces could now hold their heads high in the knowledge that the crossing of Canal had been an operation of great skill and courage. The war also led to substantial political gains. Although a military defeat, the war did break the political log jam and thus succeeded in this wider strategic aim by securing Egypt first an interim agreement on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and finally a peace treaty that returned the entire area of the peninsula in April 1982. - Page 92 in The Yom Kippur War 1973 (2): The Sinai, by author Simon Dunstan Turnopoems (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor, my issue is not with factual validity but rather the context. I have no qualms with it being mentioned in the article itself (which it is), even though the claim fails to take into account the strategic objectives of the Israeli crossing in an obvious attempt at glorification. It is not explicitly a territorial change, which the template is asking for, nor does it explain the relevance of Cairo.

Regarding the 3rd Army, I don't agree. There is no definition of what the "3rd Army area" is which makes it ambiguous and the issue is properly covered by content of the article itself, I think most people would agree with me that this simply doesn't describe a territorial change, less so than the former. Under this pretext we could also mention the destruction and crossing of the Bar Lev Line for example, which we haven't (because it's not a territorial change). I also don't think "encirclement", no matter how we phrase it, qualifies as a territorial change. The actual territorial change is covered already, the encirclement itself did not yield additional territorial gains that differ from the already occupied territories. Turnopoems (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

-Turnopoems: "the claim fails to take into account the strategic objectives of the Israeli crossing in an obvious attempt at glorification". What do you mean by strategic objectives? I guess that Israel wanted to defeat the Egyptian army (e.g by besieging the third army) and ending the war. The territorial change was a by product.

- The glorification issue, is meaningless in my opinion. This war is still seen in Israel as a failure because the contrast between the pre-war military self assessment and the amount of killed soldiers during the Israeli initial defeats and later. So although eventually Israeli won the war, there is hardly any glory associated with this war.

- territorial change: It is not easy to convey the territorial changes , unless there is an attached map, which can show an encircled Egyptian army. How would you describe an enclave with a sizable amount of Egyptian soldiers within the Israeli occupied territory? Ykantor (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

- Israel's objective after crossing the canal was to occupy Suez, not Cairo. Cairo is not relevant in this context.

- Irrelevant, it is undoubtedly intentionally misleading and attempts to glorify the Israeli army, there were no advances towards Cairo and its relevance in this context is only what you make of it. It is no different than claiming that the Egyptian army advanced to distance of 350KM from Jerusalem.

- You have a section that specifically ask for territorial change, it's as simple as that, no 3rd Armies, no 2nd Armies, just a brief description of the territory that changed hand. In this case Israel occupied 1600KM along the southwestern bank of the canal, whatever tactical maneuvers Israel chooses to perform on this occupied land is irrelevant in the given context.Turnopoems (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

-I have asked you for your proposal but you avoid it. So how can we advance ?. I'll repeat:

1. territorial change: How would you describe an enclave with a sizable amount of Egyptian soldiers within the Israeli occupied territory?
2. -Yours: " The territorial change is not that they were 100KM from Cairo". This is a direct quote of a wp:rs and if you oppose it, will you please quote a source who negates it?. Ykantor (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is that it follows the same approach seen in other articles.

- I wouldn't describe it at all. The text mentions that Israel occupied land on the southwestern side of the canal and that Egypt occupied the eastern bank of the canal with the exception of the Israeli crossing point. Knowing that the remainder of Sinai is under Israeli occupation, in what regard is this insufficient to describe the territorial changes at the time of the (final) ceasefire?

- You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not opposing the quote; which I have explained countless times. I oppose its inclusion under territorial changes because it's not a territorial change, the territorial change is that Israel occupied 1600KM2 southwest of the canal in an area stretching from Deversoir to Suez. Aside from that the quote is also misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target during Operation Abiray Lev, it being sourced does not diminish that fact in any way. Turnopoems (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Turnopoems: You need the consensuses since you made the addition in the first place, what don't you understand? When Ykantor made the "territorial changes" edit, he didn't include this, you added it based on your own will and although other objection. I didn't add anything, what consensus do i need? Discuss and reach it first! Now, as for the source, where exactly do you see a result in that? "the war led to political gains", "the war did break the political log jam", "...and finally a peace treaty...". It qualifies pretty well as a "long term effect" and matches perfectly the description of "paved the way to the peace treaty", so a future peace agreement is irrelevant here. (BTW i think "The Agreement on disengagement in 1974" should be included). Infantom (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

-@Turnopoems: You are not interested in mentioning the "encircled the Egyptian Third Army" (or similar) but you have no problems with " including the Bar Lev Line ". How come?

- Yours: "misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target". Is this claim a wp:or ? Ykantor (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Infantom, I need your approval to add sourced information which fully complies with Wikipedia guidelines? Ykantor's additions are not set in stone, you're acting irrationally. Your definition of what qualifies as a result is not the standard on Wikipedia nor does it constitute a good enough reason to remove sourced information that complies with established guidelines, we have no reason to assume that your definition is correct when the content of the template simply doesn't support your case. I have my source which explicitly substantiates my addition and the guidelines are crystal clear. I will leave you with the option to either undo your revert or submit an inquiry to a third party at the relevant noticeboard, either way I will personally seek assistance to evaluate the situation since you have been unwilling (for whatever reason) to do so.

@Ykantor. The Bar Lev Line is a fixed territorial landmark, the 3rd Army is an army unit. This is elementary.

I'm simply trying to make you understand the absurdity of the claim itself, notwithstanding that it is irrelevant in the context that it's currently presented in. Turnopoems (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

-@Turnopoems: You have not replied to the questions. It does not matter whether it is a fixed landmark. I ask you again:

-You are not interested in mentioning the "encircled the Egyptian Third Army" (or similar) but you have no problems with " including the Bar Lev Line ". How come?

- Yours: "misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target". Is this claim a wp:or ?

- User:Infantom is right. Ykantor (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Is it just me, or does the introduction seem exceedingly long to anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.183.18 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

It seems there have been eight or more reverts of the lead since 29 November. Since this is an WP:ARBPIA article, it is unlikely that a dispute like this can escape the notice of admins. Please consider opening a formal WP:Request for comment or use some other technique of WP:Dispute resolution. Full protection or sanctions against individuals are possible if people keep reverting prior to getting talk page consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)