Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 2

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
PLEASE! lets try to work together and keep the discussion in the discussion section and off the voting section.  Let's work together.
*Strong Support I support this move for the following reasons:
**I think  NPOV should be the ultimate goal, and when it comes to titles is should prevail over common names where it makes the most sense, such as in Yom_Kippur_War → 1973_Arab-Israeli_War and not where it is not convenient or possible (ie. Yom_Kippur_War → Yom Kippur War or Ramadan War and Alfred the Great → Alfred the Great according to most people, but not according to some.  An example of this can already be seen on the Encarta Encyclopedia .
**IMHO, the US/UK currently and historically have had generally closer ties to Israel than most Arab countries, and therefore the English language and google are more biased in its favor.  Therefore I suggest a break from common names and accept the more NPOV term 1973_Arab-Israeli_War.
**The English wikipedia is what I consider the international wiki, having a significant audience outside the US/UK/Aus/etc.  I believe that with the international audience and in light of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian_conflict, I would expect a higher level of NPOV regarding this subject (including titles) than the Arabic or Hebrew wiki's. It's only fair to our audience. Spaceriqui 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people in the American south continue to refer to it as the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "War Between the States," because they consider it a strugge over states's rights. If it was a civil war, then the southerners were illegal rebels against the federal government; and this they dispute. --Leifern 16:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Calling it "Yom Kippur War" doesn't intrinsically state that anyone deliberately chose a Jewish holiday. Few if any use "Boxing Day Tsunami" to imply that someone engineered the earthquake to occur on an Australian public holiday. 
Grace Note is proposing the move to prove a point. But "Yom Kippur War" is nowhere near as POV as "Occupied Territories" is. Actually, YKW is more western-centric than POV. OT contains a legal opinion, YKW doesn't.
*For those for whom word frequency is everything, it's consistent to endorse "Occupied Territories" and "Yom Kippur War".
*For those for whom NPOV is everything, it's consistent to endorse "Territorial disputes involving Israel" and "1973 Arab-Israeli conflict".
*For those able to tolerate very slight non-neutrality in return for word frequency, it's consistent to endorse "Territorial disputes involving Israel" and "Yom Kippur War".
*But promoting "Occupied Territories" and "1973 Arab-Israeli conflict" is trying to make a point. 
Andjam 01:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you have no problem with using the commonly used term "Occupied Territories" for the territories Israel is occupying? And you're happy now to use "BC" for dates, because that is overwhelmingly more commonly used? Rhetorical, Steven. If you can't understand that it's a POV that a day is called "Yom Kippur", you're going to struggle to see why your ease with "Yom Kippur War" should extend to other equally commonly used terms. Grace Note 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "BC" vs. "BCE" and the "occupied" vs. whatever arguments are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the "Yom Kippur War". Please explain what is the view expressed by the name "Yom Kippur War".--Doron 07:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grace, don't be obstinate. I could argue that "October War" is POV since according to the Jewish Calendar the war started on "Tishrei", not on "October". And if I am really in a combatant mood (which let me assure you I'm not) I could potentially take that argument to every page that includes Israel or Jewish people. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfocused, I put in the appropriate numbers.  Lexus-Nexus requires I specify certain fields.  For all four searches I specified "World news" and "European News Sources."  I am afraid I do not have the time to go through all the permutations (different continents' news sources, different categories of news like business, sports -- I assume these are a good basic sample). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Since both both google and lexis-nexis seem to favor it, it seems rather clear that your assertion is false. →Raul654 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tremendous stretch to equate Google & Lexis-Nexis hits with general knowledge of Yom Kippur.  It is clear that your claim (that Marsden's assertion is false) is itself of dubious value.  You've neither proven nor disproven Marsden's point.  Further, you should remember that neither Google nor Lexis-Nexis make any attempt whatsoever to be NPOV.  On the other hand, here at Wikipedia, NPOV is a founding principle that is completely non-negotiable.  Unfocused 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find the google or lexis-nexis approaches inadaquate, then by all means suggest some quantitative way of judging the popularity of a particular name. Also, the claim that google/lexis-nexis make no effort at NPOV is a red herring -- as was discussed-to-death above, the vast majority here seem to believe that there are no POV issues with any of the suggested names. →Raul654 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with both your characterization of the debate above regarding a founding principle as a red herring and your assessment of it as if a quantitative judgement of popularity is the final word.  As I mentioned to Sebastian Kessel, I am stepping back (not entirely successfully) from this issue for now with the intention of summarizing the main points of both sides so we have a clearer understanding of our disagreements.  Unfocused 23:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfocused, I would recommend starting a new "summary" section with the relevant points and then either submitting a vote or an RfC... this has gone on too long. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six of one, half a dozen of the other 

message: Minor question about one sentence:  Despite the overwhelming odds and the fact that most of the Syrian tanks were equipped with night-fighting equipment, every Israeli tank deployed on the Golan Heights was engaged during the initial attacks.  I don't understand why this gets a "despite" unless the word "engaged" is being used to mean something other than what I think it means, which is "fighting".  Tempshill 20:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point that, as it stands, that sentence is an odd one. It looks like it's one of mine, but I cannot for the life of me remember what I was trying to say. Raul654 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about 1 sentence 

message: The original sentence was "In retrospect, this descision was the sound one". I think this was POV. Who knows? I changed this to "may have been a sound one". Raul654 changed it to "was probably a sound one", commenting that "given the statement by Kissinger, this is rather self-evident". I am not sure this is correct. There has been long debate in Israel over this, and no consensus. First, Kissinger's words are important, but why they need to be taken at face value? Secondly, Kissinger wasn't the sole US decision maker. Thirdly, he was talking after the event. Fourth, US policiy would have depended on the unfolding of the events on the ground, e.g., involevement of USSR, etc., and fifth, even if all this were true and supplies were stopped, maybe, just maybe, the first strike would have given Israel such a crucial advantage, that it would not have needed the supplies. That's not to say that the decision was NOT a sound one. Just to say that it is very difficult to judge now what would have occurred. However, I am actually reasonably happy with 'probably'. As long as doubts are allowed, it does not really matter.  I like the consensus.--BorisG 11:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the decision not to strike preemtively a sound one? 

message: I would like to make one more appeal to move this article from "Yom Kippur War" to "1973 Arab-Israeli War".  The Jewish POV is "Yom Kippur War", and the Arab POV is "Ramadan War" or "October War" (or perhaps one of a dozen other minor titles) but "1973 Arab-Israeli War" is by far the most NPOV title available.  
In my arguments in the discussions above I've repeatedly argued that "Yom Kippur War" is not NPOV, and that it is in fact at least mildly offensive to a majority of the combatants and casualties of the war, as well as introducing a subtle bias in favor of one side of the conflict.  Since beginning my participation in this discussion, I've had dozens of conversations with various Muslims and Arabs, and repeatedly confirmed this to be accurate.  I've visited local university campuses, and the local Islamic center.  
"Yom Kippur War" is in fact, the most frequently used name for the conflict, but this is not a popularity contest.  "Most common", in the context of NPOV, does not mean "most popular" but instead, that which is most common between two disagreeing sides.  Which is most acceptable to BOTH groups, not which is most favored by the majority, should be the guiding principle.  
Take the following mathematical example of two number sets:  
:A: {1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4} 
:and 
:B: {3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6}
Two is the most frequently used number in these sets.  However, it shows NO commonness, as it doesn't appear at all in the second set!  Two is not common between A & B.  The "most common" number is 3.  
Popularity is not a measure of NPOV.  Popularity is a measure of Populism.  Commonality is a better measure of NPOV that popularity.  
In this article's title, we'll never find pure agreement, but there is a significant intersection, and that is at "1973 Arab-Israeli War".  
Finally, to those who defend "Yom Kippur War" based on their own traditions and custom rather than on a purely objective viewing of the events reflected by "Date, Combatants, War" format, please consider the following fact:  the Arab world currently has very little internet access, and therefore very little participation in this site or any other.  In fact, Arab participation in English language media of all types has been miniscule throughout history, but it is growing very rapidly.  
Usage in the Arab world will continue to grow, and some day in the not too distant future, Arab internet users will outnumber Jewish internet users, probably by a very large multiple.  When that happens, if the most popular name for this conflict becomes "Ramadan War", will you object to them changing this article's title to "Ramadan War"?  When populism no longer favors you, will you still consider "most popular" a good measure of neutrality?  
Purely objective view attains neutrality, and remains completely defensible against populism, no matter which side the populist attack comes from.
Finally, so everyone knows where I'm coming from, my own personal POV is that the Israelis were clearly in the right in this war, but that doesn't mean we need to slant the title in their favor.  For the purposed of this article, NPOV is far more important than "right" or "wrong" or "justified" or "unjustifiable".  Unfocused 19:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "Yom Kippur War name isn't neutral" claim has already been thoroughly  and repeatedly debunked. Raul654 19:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654, I agree with your point only if you've never actually spoken to Egyptian and Syrian Arabs about this topic.  Unfocused 19:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populism, popularity & most common versus commonality 

message: I never saw User:Unfocused explain why Yom Kippur War would be POV. As far as I can tell he only explained that Egyptians and Syrians never use it. Even that is imprecise. They use it at times in English as there is no POV involved. See for example an history page of Egypt in the 20th century at the website of Egypt's State Information Service (sis.gov.eg): http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:WUu3y4ASY6kJ:www.sis.gov.eg/eyes/egypt2/html/6.htm (currently unavailable). The source may of course be foreign. This article contains a complete chapter about "The Yom Kippur War" gidonb 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there, -- Well, I disagree. Egyptians and Syrians do NOT edit this article (only in all probability!) at least not as much as, umm, the other party does so far! If you look up the same article in the Arabic Wikipeida, where Egyptians and Syrians DO edit, you'll find not only a different title for the article, but also, a different SPIRIT, a contrary one, in fact. And yes, so much here is certainly far from NPOV as it is THERE too. Rejoice, if you will! Maysara 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yom Kippur War is NPOV

message: I propose to immediately archive all of this déjà vu title discussion as soon as the debate is concluded, again. We really want to keep this article open to items pertinent to the material (informatively, etc.) beyond the issue of the title. So, if I'm not around, do it before me and myself (and Kitty) shall greatly reward you with many wonderful riches. So, let's invoke the scholarship, again, and then... many wonderful riches. El_C 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I strongly... RICHES! Kitty Ə1:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to immediately archive

message: I added this template because the title's NPOV is currently in dispute.  I welcome it's removal after the poll concludes, but I won't edit war to keep it in place until then, either.  Please respect my posting of this template for this short period of time.  Unfocused 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV template to main article 

message: I must protest User:Spaceriqui inserting lengthy (and inaccurate) arguments both at the top of the Discussion section, and then inserting them underneath his vote as well.  The voting section should be for voting, not lengthy discussion, and inserting your own opinion at the very top of sections is a blatant attempt to unfairly sway readers. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, your criticism and protest are well taken.  Thanks for setting me straight... Spaceriqui 07:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest 

message: I disagree that "Yom Kippur War" is the most common used name for the war. That is only the most common name used by Israeli's. I am Egyptian and have heard and participated in discussions on the war (In English) and NEVER have I heard it being referred to by that name. I have heard "October 6th war", "War of '73", and "The 1973 Arab-Israeli War". I would guess in a survey of non-Israeli's, non-Jews and non-Arabs, the most common name would be "The 1973 Arab-Israeli War". I would also venture to guess that the only circumstance in which "Yom Kippur War" would be the most used would be in a survey of Israeli's or Jews. Unfortunately this issue seems to be closed but I think the title should be "1973 Arab-Israeli War" as it is the most common name used outside of the immediate combatants, and even if you were to take into account the combatants the current "Yom Kippur War" would still not be the most common title as Egyptians and other arabs do not use this term. (P.S. Just because a website uses a particular title by no means implies this to be the most commonly used term.)Nasdaqbull 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most common among whom?