Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures at top 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I concur with Ceder-Guardian. Raul654 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think so. Raul654 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. CG 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to condense article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Israelie Army medic insignia?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Sorry it took me such a long time: Chaim Herzog, Heroes of Israel  p. 253. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wanted - the person who made this edit

message: 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)
replies: text: The nuclear alert is descibed in detail in the section titled (cryptically enough) "Nuclear alert" Raul654 00:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my bad missed that bit Raul--Zak 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Sadat used the Soviets to get the equipment and training his forces needed, then launched a surprise attack on a Jewish holiday, the Israelis, an American ally now and then, needed help and the US provided that help, it is no different from the Soviets supplying the NVA. We paid the price in the 1973 oil crisis. Occupation of territory is a normal thing after a war, many other countries do it, the modern US is one of the few that doesn't believe in such action but even we have taken territories in war as recently as WWII. PPGMD 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Two points I'd like to make:
#The American resupply was not important as regards the direct tactical situation. It had an important strategic effect in showing the Arabs a new "hot" War of Attrition was useless.
(Not important????   GIMME A FRICKIN BREAK!!!)   
#The "Lone Ranger" interpretation doesn't take into account that the USA at the time had a very direct say about most NATO assets. We the Dutch e.g. were stripped of part of our Centurion fleet in October 1973 to bolster the Israeli one: after all, these Centurions were simply US property, leased to us for free. We fully cooperated of course. The situation for Germany was no different. Obedience to the American Liege Lord was an automatism. That only changed when Reagan came to power.--MWAK 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not certain I agree. Based upon my reading of the material presented by the comannder of the airlift in his book The Yom Kippur War : And the Airlift Strike That Saved Israel it would appear that critical supplies would have been exhausted without the airlift.
== 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)

text: The site you linked to is a Mid-east news site, in what appears to be german, the description is accurate. Also unless we are talking about current event internet and news columns are not proper sources. Wikipedia relies on confirmed academic sources. What you write might be true it might not, but IMO it reads more like a Urban legend and without a confirmed source it has no place in this article. PPGMD 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: It is known by many, that the Isrealy General Staff descided to use a nuclear bomb in order to destroy the Aswan Damb, (causing a great flooding in all the Nile banks and delta area) in case of an Egyptian invasion to Israel's natural borders, (not including Sinai). If i recall correctly the descision was made to do this, in case of egyptian forces reaching "Ad Halom" which is a crossroads 2 miles southern of Ashdod.
There is ofcourse no legitimate sources that would comment on this, nor would the Israely goverment, as the existance of Israely mass destruction weapons is still a secret, known to all. I think that this fact should be noted inside this article, however said it is just a widespread belief without any official confirmation
: There are so many urban legends about intended Israeli usage of nuclear weapons that you could likely fill an article with them.  My favorite is the story about the Israeli Army telegraphing an "aleph bet," (the letters A B in English) in an effort to convince the Egyptians they were about to use an atom bomb.  These stories are always unsubstantiated and generally border on the absurd.  Without a highly reputable source, they certainly have no place here. Non-Riemann Hypercube 09:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This link points to a letter from Secretary of State Rusk to President Johnson and discusses this strategy in point 2.  This is a full eight years before Yom Kippur, and there is no mention of a trigger or of Egypt knowing, though their strategists had probably worked it out.  Not really relevant to the YKW, though it might bear mentioning somewhere as a source of Egyptian fear, though you'll want to be careful not to speculate.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/arms14.html Shermozle 10:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Alert 

message: Wow, what an incredibly well-written article.  Well done everyone who's worked on this.  Shermozle 10:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O, dear. In reality the core of the article simply perpetuates the usual mythology as if no more research had been done since 1973. The tactical and strategic analysis is fundamentally flawed. Especially the events on the Golan are distorted beyond recognition. Of course the writers can't be blamed for this; it's just that this is a war of which the carefully fostered public perception is so at odds with the real events, it might have well been of an entirely different battle.--MWAK 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding the politics, it is very poorly written. I assume it has become a featured article because of its size rather than its quality. Ideally it should be revised by one or more qualified writers and then locked from future editing, with periodic and moderated updates as new information becomes declassified. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond to one unspecific comment with another - this article is accurate, well referenced, and comprehensive, your comment not withstanding. Raul654 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantastic article! 

message: Come-ooon !!! Regardless of whether it's true or false, with that all-times, all-situations, and all-events Rabinovich reference! Why is it important to tell Lieutenant Zvika Greengold's story of valour at war in here:
During the night, Lieutenant Zvika Greengold, who had just arrived to the battle unattached to any unit, fought them off with his single tank until help arrived.
 
I don't believe it. 
Please reconsider the neutrality of this article in many other examples as well. Thank you, Maysara 11:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very interesting case. Some points:
#The story is authentic.
#Greengold's action came at a very critical moment, when the entire defence of the Golan was on the point of collapse.
#As his action gave the Syrians the false perception they were advancing into a trap, they withdrew into a defensive position for the night. This basically saved the Golan front and, arguably, Israel itself.
#Had they not done so, the Israeli cabinet most probly would have resorted to nuclear weapons. So the courage of one man (and his crew :o) saved the world from nuclear war.
#Should the very situation seem incredible, the special tactical setting should be remembered. There are only a limited number of access points to the eastern Golan. An equally limited number of tank battalions can beat off enemy attacks almost indefinitely with an excellent loss ratio (also meaning that  the "1400 - 185" ratio was irrelevant, as the Syrians could and would only deploy 300 tanks at a time for lack of space). So the Israelis allocated only that limited number plus a single mobilisable reserve brigade, saving the bulk of their forces for the Sinai. The two active battalions in border service were however spread out along the Purple Line. The six reinforcing battalions therefore each had to be split, as there was likely no time for withdrawal and regrouping. To ensure that no mistakes were made a strict plan had been prepared for the distribution of the companies. When however the first active reserves arrived, only hours after the attack, some companies were sent to help the line battalions and not according to the preconceived scheme. When further units arrived they were distributed according to plan, not taking into account some of them had already been committed. As a result of this confusion one access point in the middle near Rafid was left without reinforcements; the border company there had beaten off the first attacks but was down to three tanks. When this was realised around 20:00, hurriedly one company from the south and two from the north were sent to close the gap. However the former company was ambushed by a Syrian airborne commando ATGW-unit and wiped out; in the case of the latter companies due to a communication error two infantry companies with M 113s were sent instead of tank companies. Around 22:00 an entire Syrian armoured brigade couldn't believe its luck as it simply drove on, practically unopposed. There were no directly available reserves to contain it as these had been deemed unnecessary. The Syrians drove on past Hushniyah, turned right at the crossroads and were not a mile from Nafekh, the main northern maintenance and mobilisation centre holding probably no less than 200 Centurions in storage, when suddenly the first three tanks of their extended column were destroyed by Greengold's lone tank. He then left the road and advanced parallel to it, hitting Syrian tanks along the way and giving the impression of a "box" ambush.
#Yes, at the time some other crews had been put together to man a handful of other Centurions. You shouldn't spoil a good story by emphasising details too much ;o).
#Duel for the Golan has much of this story, even though the writers apparently don't quite understand this themselves :o).--MWAK 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there, MWAK, and thank you for the elaborate reply. Well, when I said "I don't believe it", I didn't mean the truth about the occurrence of what Greengold's might had actually done. He must be a real glorious HERO if he did that, worthy of all respect and admiration, etc. But what I did not believe was that someone actually brought it here, into the ENCYCLOPEDIA! It's by all means one hill of an interesting and dazzling story about the guy and what he did. But why here?! And what would we do, if an Egyptian or Syrian comes up with a similar mythological achievement from the other side (well documented as well, by some mythologist!), and by the way, I have absolutely no doubt that such glorious and almost supernatural war mythologies, real or unreal, DO exist on the other, Arab side. What will we do then. Why is it that this article, apart from the brief description of the ingenious doings of the Egyptian engineers, entirely neglects the other war achievements of the Egyptian army. For example, from one hand, an editor writes: 
"In 1971 Israel spent $500 million fortifying its positions on the Suez Canal, a chain of fortifications and gigantic earthworks known as the Bar Lev Line, ..." 
But then we learn that that magnificent Bar Lev line was almost entirely destroyed by the Egyptians. We're never told HOW goddamn it. How did those Egyptians do it. And then, this sort of detail about war stuff, is so devotedly done with in the thrilling Sharon detail. And even earlier with the failure of the Egyptians in one first attack of them. 
Come-ooon! This encyclopedia is not about doing that, being politicized and biased. For what?! If I was an Israeli I would have been a lot more alarmed at the intentional directionality and orientation of this article, at its one-sidedness and one-dimensionality, even ambivalence. Why is it so important to prove something to the world on that matter? What threat there is, if we're talking about knowledge, information, and NPOV? 
Tell you what, it's up to you guys, do whatever you want with that article. But hay, so far, the only thing this article proves, somehow, is your still need to VICTORY! 
Go on, rejoice if you will lead! And again, thank you for the reply. Maysara 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, when small causes have very large effects, they should simply be mentioned :o). And obviously Arab heroic feats should not be negelected. There are indeed numerous Arab accounts of the war, only nobody cares to translate them. In one respect your misgivings about the article could easily be assuaged: if only it were made clear that Israel had planned for a possible "surprise" attack and that merely because of grave mistakes that attack became dangerous, all the heroism could be seen in the proper light: a narrow escape from your own incompetence. BTW, the Egyptians overcame the Bar Lev-line by using waterhoses to demolish the earthworks, wrecking the Israeli time table. It allowed them to cross at five sectors simultaneously, while there were only three Israeli brigades ready to contain them. Foolishly nevertheless an attempt was made to block all sectors, with the result that the Israeli front disintegrated within half a day, forcing them to fall back for a last stand at the Sinai mobilisation complex. Small causes, large effects. They were saved by the Egyptian decision to consolidate.--MWAK 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputing the NPOV status of this article 

message: I strongly believe that this article includes so many problems as to be a feature article. Please discuss. And also, Natalinasmpf, please discuss before removing the FARC so promptly! Thank you, Maysara 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss before removing FARC 

message: From a military science perspective Israel was the clear victor in this war. At the endstate Israel had half the Egyptian army encircled and cut off in the open desert with the Golan hights secured. In addition, the casualty count was in Israel's favor. 
Although there is plenty of POV as to the merits of starting the war or to foreign reaction thereof, there should be no POV problem with calling Israel the military victor. 
This very detailed article contains lots of useful information. Two aspects seem to me to be troubling/puzzling:
1) It seems very odd to present the Yom Kippur War as a triumph for the Arabs and a Israeli military failure.
2) Although the article endeavours toward even-handedness, battlefield events are presented almost exclusively from the Israeli point of view. (While there is adequate discussion of the situation in Egypt and Syria leading up to the war, we learn little about what was going on in Damascus and Cairo during battle). While the Israeli point of view is valuable, the article would certainly have benefitted from greater treatment of the how the war was being managed from the Arab side.
--Philopedia 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree..there seems a dearth of arab references or pictures. --Zak 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia doesn't care who "actually" won the war. We're encyclopedians, not political analysts. Well, sort of encyclopedians... Anyway, it's POV unless we quote somebody saying the same thing. --Chodorkovskiy 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's strange.. (Victors and POV) 

message: Given that this is a featured article (and will almost certainly remain one), the situation with its references is extremely unsatisfactory. Firstly, there is a mixture of Harvard and Chicago citation styles: several quotes are referenced using Harvard inline (e.g. "Rabinovich, 355") while much of the rest of the article uses footnotes. WP:CITE requires consistency in citation styles. Secondly, several statements in the article that require references are unreferenced (especially direct quotations). Moreover, some sections of the article (e.g. "At sea") seem POV/OR without attribution and referencing. Could someone who edits this page please fix these problems? (Note: please don't tell me sofixit, I read the article because of its FARC listing and don't intend becoming an editor... I have other fish to fry.). Mikker (...) 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment on references... 

message: I thought that the original second and third paragraph were too scattered and confusing.  The second paragraph jumped from the creation of the Bar Lev Line to a convoluted sentence about Israeli complacency.  The second sentence of the third paragraph was just a restatement of material from the first paragraph.
I changed the material around to something that I think will be less confusing to the reader.  I, of course, welcome any criticism.
*The line..."The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The US was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, who thus apparently never received the offer." also shows up in the Six Day War article. Can we get a source that shows that the US was informed?? Thats one part I question. Tom 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus Belli Edit 

message: i think it`s very important to mention that Syrians consider Saddat as a betrayer for his acceptance of the cease-fire,and that he is the main reason for not scoring a big victory over Israel..i know that cuz i am Syrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Am Searching (talk • contribs) 
: had he not done that, and had war continued, you'd be negotiating today not for the return of the Golan, but for the return of Dar'a. The main reason syria did not socre a big victory is mentioned in the article- their forces failed to capitalize on thier initial success, and stopped thier forward movement in the Gamla area for some unexplained reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 
::And this is relevant to what I Am Searching just considered about the unmentioned thing? No?! -- Maysara 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, again, I Am Searching just said that this belief is being considered by Syrians and not that it is true. What he/she believes worthy of mentioning is this Syrian consideration itself and not whether it is true or false! Don't worry, okay okay, KHALAS, you won the goddamn war! Maysara 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: While noone can know with certainty, the facts on the ground do tend to point in one direction: when the cease fire was put into place, Israeli shells were raining down on Damascus suburbs, and not the other way around, and the Egyptian 3rd army was encircled and at the mercy of the IDF, and not the other way around. That said, I have no problem with you adding a line in the "aftermath"  section saying something like "Syrians consider Saddat as a betrayer for his acceptance of the cease-fire", if you can source it. I don't think this reflects well on Syrians, if true, but go ahead, knock yourself out. Isarig 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Isarig - it (Syrian belief that Sadat betrayed them) is worth mentioning, if (and only if) it can be attributed to a reputable source. Raul654 17:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, only if attributed to a reputable sources like all other statements in this article! Yeah, that's right! (said mockingly) Maysara 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have a problem with any of the sources currently cited, let's hear it, and we can discuss and possibly modify the article. Isarig 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NO NO, no no no no! I have absolutely no problem with the cited refs. I just don't know whether USE has been seriously made-of from them! Currently, I can only see the godhood of "Rabinovich"; the great ultimate reference of Wikipedia's article on October's War. The article is not well referenced, even if the listed refs. are ultimately outstanding. I have a problem with the article itself, not the list of its refs. It simply cannot be a well referenced article when it is in such quality. (see here). Best, -- Maysara 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This *is* a good article, despite the people who are constantly trying to turn it into the crap-fest that most islam-related articles are. We can see from that FARC page just how much credence other people give Maysara's criticisms - e.g, none. Raul654 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A cite from a Syrian text book would do just fine. WRT to Saddat - he was assassinated for making peace with Israel. Isarig 22:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a little important thing isn`t mentioned 

message: The claim that "Egypt and Syria both desired a return of the land lost in the Six-Day War. However, victory in that war as well as the three-year-long War of Attrition had left the Israeli leadership confident in its grip on these territories and therefore reluctant to negotiate their return" was deleted by 129.241.11.200, and reinserted by Raul654. Are there any sources for that claim? The first part is pretty obvious by itself (though it does seem to imply that return of that land was their sole intention). But the claim that Israeli leadership was reluctant to negotiate their return is a serious claim and needs to be sourced. -- Heptor  talk 10:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now removing the claim while waiting to see if there are objections. -- Heptor  talk 10:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already supported in the article, although I don't like the phrasing and placement - in 1.1 concerning Israel's negative response to the Jarring initiative and Sadat's offer of a peace treaty (very much like the one signed later) in return for the Sinai and Gaza.  There's no question that Israel wanted to hold on to territory, and preferred it to peace.  Cf. Dayan's famous statement that we would prefer Sharm-al-Sheikh without peace to peace without Sharm-al-Sheikh.4.231.209.200 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reluctancy to return territories 

message: I just noticed that in the Warbox/Strength, in addition to the numbers of troops, deployed numbers appeared. I don't see it in the reference cited, therefore either an additional ref is needed or the "deployed" numbers have to go. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number of deployed troops 

message: For npov, should not the title be the october war 
and should not the introduction state : 
The october war (1973) also called yom kippur war or ramadan war ? Alithien 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at length here, and the answer is , no, it shouldn't. Read the archives and the previous disucssions. Isarig 19:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Raul654 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and NPOV 

message: I added some external links I found on the subject and I intend to increase the number of Arab sources and references in the article, but this will take some time, as I will need to translate the books I have on the subject...--N0v3r 20:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just by curiosity, could you give me the titles of the books. And by the way, great picture in the intro. CG 13:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Great, this article desperatly needs for arabic sources. My main concern is in the infobox which contains only Israeli and Western statistics. CG 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I was wondering if someone could go into greater detail of the aftermath of the war in Syria? Right now the political ramifications only really discuss the Egyptian side. I'm curious as to what happened in Syria. --Spectheintro 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word - not much. Some of the Syrian officers were punished for their failure ("On the Syrian Front, the Druze commander of an infantry brigade taht had collapsed during the Israeli breakthrough - Col.  Rafik Halawi - was executed even before the war ended. The seventh division commander, general Omar Abash, who had failed to break through Ben-Gal's brigade, was alternately reported to have been killed in teh fighting or to have died of a heart attack" - Rabinovich, 507). Beyond that, there was no investigation, no attempt to learn from mistakes, and no change in the Syrian political leadership. Raul654 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath in Syria? 

message: Israeli military victory as a POV violation 
In the sense that they are contests wars have winners and losers. The objectives of taking land and destroying components of an enemy's army can be quantified. In both these respects Israel was the winner of the war. As for the armies Israel was the decisive victor. Half the Egyptian army was encircled in the open desert cut from supply and in the north the Syrians suffered a severe attrition of armor. For land Israel gained land in the Golan and only allowed a beach head on the Suez canal, deep in Egyptian territory. 
It would be one thing to dispute this with other figures that show a military victory for the other side, but it is not a proper argument to simply dismiss Israeli victory as a POV violation, in fact, it is probably a greater POV violation to present the side of totalitarian propoganda masking as history. The only people who knew the facts on the ground and told people Egypt won were involved in the doublethink operation of Nassers dictatorship. 
Egypt and Syria did not invade Israel as they had crossed territory that belonged to them Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively. Neither Egypt nor Syria penetrated Israeli territory. It is impossible for a country to invade its own territory. Israel illegally seized territory in 1967 following its unprovoked aggression. Despite immense condemnation from the international community, Israel refused to return lands that were illegally robbed from Egypt and Syria which left these two countries with no choice other than to take back what is rightfully their's by the use of force.
:Looks like another person is questioning the NPOV nature of this article.--64.122.49.30 04:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Violation 

message: Are the items listed on the to do list still wanted by consensus here? Neutralaccounting 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: I think only deployed troops (not all available troops) should count as "strength". I don't understand why Jayjg, Humus, and Amoruso reverted my change without addressing this.  Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would less information be better than more information? Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the reserve capacity of the combatants was a consideration of all participants, and had influence on the decisions made both in deciding when to go to war, and when to stop.  For example, do you really think there is no value in knowing that Egypt committed 3/8 of their forces?  Wouldn't the decision be viewed in a different light had they committed 90% or even 100% of their forces?  Removing information about non-combat troops deprives the reader of the ability to accurately assess this conflict.  Unfocused 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Unfocused, it is a vitally important & encyclopedic detail. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But have a look at another war article. None of them list all of their army in infobox.  Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not follow a good example and improve incomplete articles? ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of troops 

message: Saw this statement in the Golan Heights section of the Article:
"On 22 October, the Golani Brigade and Sayeret Matkal commandos recaptured the outpost on Mount Hermon, after sustaining very heavy casualties from entrenched Syrian snipers strategically positioned on the mountain."
Could someone please provide verifiable evidence that this sentence and the paragraph it belonged to is accurate? As far as I know Sayeret Golani was the unit that spearheaded the recapture of Mount Hermon, not Sayeret Matkal. Sayeret Matkal found itself unemployed and were chasing mission assignments in both the Sinai and Golan fronts. No mention in Sayeret Matkal's known history ties them with Mount Hermon's recapture. On the other hand Sayeret Golani's history mentions Mount Hermon and it is perfectly logical seeing that it is part of the Golani Infantry Brigade. It is the brigade's reconnaisance-commando unit. Cat Balou 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay. Yes, jointly. See Muki Betser's Secret Soldier (). El_C 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...that is if you're counting "Yoni" and a insignificant number of reservists, some of whom were former members of Sayeret Matkal, as being SAYERET MATKAL, if you know what I mean. THE UNIT was operating in the Sinai at the time, as Muki had stated in that book. Wikiphyte 06:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golan Action 

message: The Line in the first section that states: "led to normalized relations between Egypt and Israel—the first time any Arab country had recognized the Israeli state." While this is technically true, it should be noted somehow that Iran, a Persian Muslim state, recognized Israel long before. Most readers will have a difficult time separating Muslim from Arab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.7.118 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Line 

message: The article is biased...
The article is not referenced well...
The article hides a lot of real events...
The article uses unfamiliar Heberow words...
When I see comments like that, could I believe the contents of the article? How could I? How could I trust Wikipedia afterwards?
especially when the facts are clear everywhere else.
One of the facts that is very clear to all that Sinai land is Egyptian before 1967 war and returned back to Egypt after 1973 war. 
So, the interval in time since the creation of Adam up to now, in which Sinai was occupied by Israelis, is between 1967 and 1973. 
So, the article is really well-written to hide the facts :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmed.ashry (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well written Vs. NOT well written 

message: As I look at the outcome and consider what each side gained and lost, it looks to me like Israel and Egypt won, Syria lost. 
:Israel got more territory in the Golan Heights, and normalized relations with Egypt. Egypt got the Sinai peninsula  and it's Third Army back. Syria took a beating and lost territory (I bet if they had been more like Egypt they would have gotten most of it back.) Anynobody 09:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory proposal 

message: I corrected the image description of the image below some days ago but someone reverted it to the old wrong version. The (wrong) description reads:
This description is wrong as: There is only one bridge across the ditch. A Mobile Tank Bridge as seen in the picture consists of two ramps that are laid parallel across an obstacle- in the image the left ramp of the bridge is still in place while the right ramp has collapsed and lies behind the only tank in the ditch. Where someone spotted  "another knocked out tank" that "lies in the ditch" is a mystery to me and it is also incomprehensible to me how someone could believe that this are two distinct bridges, when the tanks that are supposed to cross over them are twice as wide as the ramps themselves. I corrected this error once more and hope that with the above explanation no more reverts will occur.--noclador 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tank ditch image

message: I am busy, otherwise I would add the importance of the early warning from a Mossad double agent. He  died in suspicious circumstances today. See http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21986885-2703,00.html 222.153.228.12 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early warning of imminent war from Mossad needs to  be explained in this article