Talk:Yom Kippur War

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Omer9183 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC) You wrote that the results as the aftermath, but it was an Israeli victory, Israel took control of Sinai they crossed the Suez and took the Golan heights even more than that they pushed the Syrians deeper into Syria, you claim that Egypt won by politics and strategics while they didnt, Israel wanted peace, Israel did not want wars. they took Sinai because Egypt planned to attack them in 1967, even in the Israeli Declaration of Independence source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence

I think you should check my post here: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yom_Kippur_War&oldid=1223084708#Inconclusive/Stalemate_on_Egyptian_front_suggestion/consideration

iam one of the earliest people here to state that the war was inconclusive, am glad that my efforts didn't go to waste, and now the result had changed from Israeli victory to 'See aftermath' since indeed there are sources that state that the war was a stalemate. Osmarion (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You’re mixing things up. In October 1973, Egypt didn’t lose the way you claim. At the start, Egypt launched Operation Badr, crossing the Suez Canal with tens of thousands of soldiers, smashing the Bar Lev Line, and holding bridgeheads while destroying hundreds of Israeli tanks and aircraft — that was a clear Egyptian victory. When Israel counterattacked after October 14, they managed to cross west of the Canal at Deversoir, but they were never in full control; their forces were thin, stretched, and undersupplied on Egyptian land. They tried to push north to Ismailia and south to Suez City to widen their position, and both times they were stopped — Egypt’s paratroopers held Ismailia, and in Suez City even soldiers and civilians forced the IDF to retreat in street battles. By the ceasefire, Israel was stuck in Egypt with supply problems, while Egypt’s 2nd and 3rd Armies were still firmly across the Sinai holding ground they had taken. The war ended not because Israel “won,” but because both sides accepted a U.N. ceasefire. What followed was political — Egypt turned its battlefield achievements into diplomatic gains that forced Israel to return Sinai in later agreements. So no, Israel didn’t just walk away victorious; Egypt proved it could break Israeli defenses, hold territory, and force negotiations on its own terms. SalafiEgyptian (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This argument doesn't make sense at all. The article itself gives a range from 102 (US press briefing) to 387 (arab news source) for aircraft lost (for the entire war), yet you claim that 'hundreds of Israeli tanks and aircraft were lost' during Op. Badr. The article states near section "Failed Israeli counter-attack" that Israelis lost approximately 100 tanks during their initial response. Additionally, by the final stages of the war, Israel had managed to reach 101 km (62mi) from Cairo, and was actively threatening it. In addition, the Egyptian 3rd Army was surrounded. "Egypt wished to end the war when it realized that the IDF canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe. The Egyptians' besieged Third Army could not hold on without supply." Israel, in the interest of peace, proceeded to trade the Sinai back for a peace accord, which led to peace between Israel and Egypt to this day. Militarily, I would strongly argue that Israel won, especially in most tactical situations, where Egyptian, and Syrian forces both consistently lost much more personnel, equipment, and materiel to Israeli forces. However, strategically, I would say both forces won with the advent of a ceasefire and permanent peace. Independentgeoscience (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

it is written that Israel wanted peace and Arabs invaded them but they failed, also Egypt's plan was to liberate Palestine which became a failure, the Camp David Accords included that Egypt had to recognize Israel which is also a defeat for Egypt, meaning in the end Israel completely won, and if you dont agree to write Israeli victory, you can at least write "Israeli Military Victory" since the army surely won.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Wars are judged by what they change. The whole notion of parsing a "victory" into sub-categories is, frankly... unusual, which is why many editors have put down significant effort to reach a compromise on how it should be presented here. In most cases, you either win a war or you don't. Yet on Wikipedia, there has been this tiered system of victories that appears almost exclusively in articles involving Israel. Even if this does actually reflect American and Israeli academic discourse, to me, that as well reads as an attempt to engineer a specific narrative likely meant to undermine the idea that a Soviet-aligned state could one-up a US-backed one, and Israel specifically. What does a momentary tactical advantage actually mean if the eventual outcome forces you into strategic concessions you had long rejected though? Russian forces reached the outskirts of Kyiv early in the 2022 invasion, which did not stop the strategic picture from eventually shifting. Tactical snapshots don't determine who emerges with the settlement they sought and needed.

Another annoying part of this is the regularly occurring sleight of hand in how Egyptian goals are deliberately muddied in these conversations. Even here, someone introduced Palestine even though the article clearly describes Sadat's goals: establish a foothold on the eastern bank of the canal to force negotiations on Sinai, which Israel had repeatedly refused before the war. Recasting this into something nebulous is part of preserving that propagandized narrative. It always boils down to a crude binary, Arabs have a single objective, destroy Israel, and Israel has a single objective, survive. From that framing, even when Israel makes sweeping post-war concessions, it always does so from a position of military superiority, because it "thwarted yet another existential Arab attempt". The implication is that those concessions stem from magnanimity, not from the pragmatic need to adjust to a changed strategic reality, even though the former defies all realpolitik logic and Israel’s general conduct in every other context, while the latter is implied by the broader historical context of this conflict.

Contrast this with how other wars are presented on Wikipedia. The US war in Afghanistan is labeled a Taliban victory, despite two decades of US occupation and clear American tactical superiority throughout the conflict. Why isn't it framed as a "US military victory"? Same for France in Algeria: immense military force, millions of Algerians dead, and yet no "military victory" because France lost Algeria. There are countless examples, but the end states speaks for themselves. Specific tactical snapshots amounted to nothing. Is there a credible basis for calling it an Israeli victory in a broader sense? Israel ceded Sinai which it had insisted was non-negotiable. Dayan himself had famously declared, two years before the war, that "Sinai without peace was preferable to peace without Sinai". So what did Israel gain? A peace it had consistently refused for three years. Pragmatically speaking, it's a victory (it's peace after all), but it is not what Israel wanted. Thus, it's fair to say peace cannot be considered a victory for them.

So, what does this taxonomic habit of slicing up a victory into military, tactical, operational, political, strategic, metaphysical and whatever, actually achieve? What is "military victory" supposed to communicate? An admission that Israel made all the concessions but that its military prowess remains unquestioned? And in what meaningful way does that constitute a victory in the actual sense of the word? Is encircling the 3rd Army a victory on its own? To what end? It just ends up looking like a way to square the circle when the political results don't match the military bravado. For starters, David Elazar and Moshe Dayan both stated that the encirclement did very little to stop the 3rd Army from fighting and even expanding their foothold on the eastern bank, and Dupuy (1978) echoes that conclusion. After the second ceasefire, Israeli forces that had crossed the canal were themselves encircled from every direction with the exception of a six-kilometer corridor. Meanwhile, the Egyptian military was reorganizing, and the command was preparing the execution of Operation Shamel, a pincer maneuver intended to envelope that salient entirely, which is what began the diplomatic process at the behest of the US. The encirclement was a tactical snapshot, and we can certainly acknowledge that it was an advantage for Israel in that specific window of time, even though they were racking up defeats trying to occupy population centers on the western bank, but what kind of victory did that specific advantage amount to for Israel if they ended up doing what Sadat wanted anyway? The fighting ended with ceasefires, not the capitulation or incapacitation of one side. I would love for someone arguing in favor of the inclusion of "military victory" to actually define what that victory entails in practical terms. What exactly was won? Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 19:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Citation [123] refers to page 11 of Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 by Kenneth Pollack. This is incorrect, the evidence can be found on page 111 (https://archive.org/details/arabsatwarmilita0000poll/page/110/mode/2up)

Diff:

~2025-37534-83 (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the current collage is Israeli biased because there are 4 Israeli-based images and have only 2 Egyptian-based image. Also, there are no Syrian-based images in the collage. So, after trying my hardest to understand Commons:Commons:Collages, I've created a new collage.

My collage contains 3 Israeli-based images, 2 Egyptian-based images, and 1 Syrian-based image, and I've changed most of the photos which were originally there.

What does everyone think about this new collage? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

One more thing, I thought this way: "The Israeli side should have 3 images and the Arabian side should also have 3 images". So that's why it's 3 Israeli, 2 Egyptian, and 1 Syrian. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:COLLAGE: Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. A collage here does not meet the requirement of necessary. Multiple images crammed into the space provided in an infobox means that individual images within a collage are not particularly clear and captions for multiple images bloat the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. Per WP:LEADIMAGE: It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
  We should be looking for a representative image that English speakers at arms length from the conflict will associate with the conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: So you're saying to only display 1 image which best represents this war. So maybe like a map of the Middle East showing the final results of territory gain/loss on all sides? Is that what you're getting at? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  The P&G is telling us that this is not an appropriate use/place for a collages. For a relatively recent event, there are likely images that have appeared in the press at the time and have been reused in association with this event such that they are iconic of the event. We could choose to use one of these - aiming for the most iconic. A map that shows territorial changes and possibly other battle detail would also be and appropriate lead image IMO as maps are much more effective in describing battle detail than any verbal description. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  With your reasonings, I think a map showing the aftermath of this war would be the best bet here. I can't really differ which image is more iconic than others. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I've replaced the collage with the final fronline map. Agree? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Map is good TY but the caption could be shortened. It is largely redundant given that the territorial changes are given in the infobox and the map has an integral legend. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Took care of it. See how it works. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  

  Perhaps this (currently unused) battle map would be better in the lead, with the one you've moved from the ceasefire section moved back there. (Hohum ^@) 13:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. I mean that's not the aftermath of the ceasefire, that's during the war, even before Israel pushed back and went past the Suez Canal to the west. I think a map showing the final frontlines before the ceasefire will probably be better. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  The article is primarily about the war(fare) rather than the end result. Also the result map doesn't convey much on an immediate view, without the context of the section it was in (which now doesn't have an explanatory map). (Hohum ^@) 15:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Why would one wanna see a map of when the war basically just started? Also, this war wasn't merely about Egypt and Israel, Syria was included, too, and your map doesn't include Syria. The map that I've included includes all 3 parties. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we should use this new collage and put the map down in the aftermath section, where it's a much better fit. Infoboxes for military conflicts tend to be better suited to collages over maps. RM (Be my friend) 11:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Reenem: What do you have to say about what @Cinderella157 said here? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Collages seem to be standard for Infoboxes of major wars. Ivebeenhacked's collage isn't that big and it would provide more value there than a simple map which is better suited for the aftermath section. RM (Be my friend) 19:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Just because it is often done on other war articles is an argument of WP:OTHERCONTENT, which has no substantive weight unless it also represents best practice, as defined by P&G. The pertinent P&G would tell us that this is not an appropriate use of a collage where it is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Multiple images crammed into the small space permitted for an infobox become visual noise leading to cognitive overload that reduces assimilation of information. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't just this or that other article, it's standard. That counts for something. And whether or not it's visual noise is purely a matter of opinion. I find it more aesthetically satisfying for example. Saying that a relatively minor thing like this will cause "cognitive overload" is just not being serious. If a minor change like this causes someone cognitive overload they have much bigger problems. RM (Be my friend) 08:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't just this or that other article, it's standard. That counts for something. As stated, this is an OTHERCONTENT argument. I do not dispute that such collages are often seen but it counts for nothing unless it also represents best practice, as defined by P&G. I find it more aesthetically satisfying for example. My observations are that the perceived asthetics of a collage are the reason they are often seen. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Reading this in the context of other P&G cited, the asthetics of a collage is not a substantive reason to justify the use of a collage. If a minor change like this causes someone cognitive overload they have much bigger problems. You may wish to read WP:ACCESSIBILITY and reconcider the prudence of making such a statement. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

My point is that there's no reason to consider it not best practice here. It literally all boils down to totally arbitrary opinion of why it's improper in this case and not in others. Who defines which images are significant and relevant to the context rather than just decorative? Why aren't the images in various other collages in the Infoboxes of articles decorative as opposed to significant and relevant? If it's standard, there's simply no reason to not do it here based on some people's totally subjective judgement over whether or not it's relevant or not. Remember, this originally started as a conversation over whether the current collage was too biased in favor of one side and a suggestion for another was presented. Then, for no good reason, it became a discussion about whether we should even have a collage here in the first place.

Also, my point about cognitive overload is that if it isn't a big enough issue to not have collages in other articles, why here all of a sudden? Clearly it isn't enough of an issue in most cases. RM (Be my friend) 11:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

My observation is that collages have been added in good faith (unaware of the prevailing P&G) because of the view that they look good. You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Somebody will come along and fix things up. There is no deadline to do this. P&G represents best practice. Per WP:CONLEVEL, what is done on individual articles does not override the broader community consensus represented by P&G. That is what OTHERCONTENT is telling us and why OTHERCONTENT is not of itself a substantive argument.

It literally all boils down to totally arbitrary opinion of why it's improper ... No, it is improper because it is contrary to P&G and I never said it was proper in other cases - except if overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way.

Then, for no good reason, it became a discussion about whether we should even have a collage here in the first place. The good reason for having this discussion, is that a collage of this type is contrary to the prevailing P&G on multiple points. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Then why isn't the World War II article presented with a map in the Infobox instead of a collage? Surely if it were "best practice" it would have been done by now given that this is one of, if not the most prominent military history articles we have. Given all the editors including admins there if maps instead of collages were truly "best practice" it would have been rectified.

Tell you what, if you go to the World War II article's talk page and manage to convince editors to replace the current collage with a map instead, you'll have made your point here. Otherwise, we can assume that you're simply reading your own interpretation into the policy for what is "best practice." RM (Be my friend) 10:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

This is precisely the sort of horse trading WP:OTHERCONTENT mentions. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a deflection. You seem to have made up a standard out of whole cloth. RM (Be my friend) 11:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Citing pertinent P&G is not a deflection. However, WP:HORSETRADING could be seen as a deflection. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Your own interpretation of a policy and how it applies here is quite different. I suggest we get a consensus from all users involved in this discussion for the decision. RM (Be my friend) 11:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, everyone who partook in this convo, @Ivebeenhacked, Cinderella157, and Hohum: can we have a final consensus on whether to use the current infobox image or Ivebeenhacked's collage:

--RM (Be my friend) 08:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Reenem: I was initially aiming for the new collage that I've created. But with what @Cinderella157 has said, I'm skeptical now so I'm not sure. We definitely need more opinions from others. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• 2,656 killed,
• 7,251 wounded,
• 294 prisoners,
• 102 aircraft,
• 25 artillery, anti-aircraft battery,
• 800 tanks damaged, including 407 lost

~2026-33351-2 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple sources reporting about what the actual number was. I think it'll be best if we leave the current format and avoid using a direct number of stuff lost. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Why did you remove the hatnote? There were/are no other hatnotes, so it's not like it was causing clutter. It was added following the discussion at Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 7 § War name. If you removed it only because this year's Ramadan ended, then I think it should be restored until there's evidence that the use of the name has been discontinued. It being discontinued now that Ramadan is over isn't a given, since the name "Ramadan War" could continue to be used in reference to when the war began, regardless of how long it ultimately will continue for. – Scyrme (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ramadan War no longer redirects to this article. It's a disambiguation page now. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough then. – Scyrme (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Including the cultural impact of the war and giving examples such as “Yom HaDin” by Gabi Shoshan and Moti Giladi (not necessary, just an example) would be helpful to understanding public opinion and reaction to both the initial invasion and subsequent Israeli victory on both the Arab and Israelis sides. Thecoolreformer (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)