Talk:Yom Kippur War

The result is inconclusive, not “Egypt victory”

It is getting tiring with how useless bringing up this topic is and how it falls on deaf ears, but the second the result of this war gets changed from “Israeli victory” it gets reverted immediately. This is a bias that is not even present on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and makes Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality falter

Here are why the result of this war are “inconclusive”

https://time.com/6322802/yom-kippur-war-israel-history/

“ In 1973, Egypt’s goal in crossing the Suez Canal was to force Israel to the negotiation table to make a peace deal and get back control of the Sinai peninsula. According to Avi Shilon, a historian who teaches at Tel-Hai College in Israel, “The Egyptian and the Syrians didn't plan to conquer Israel. They planned to hit Israel and to force Israel to go into negotiations. For them, it was enough to hit Israel to show that they can beat Israel in the first days, and they preferred to stop, so it was easier for Israel to launch a retaliation attack.”

This outlines Egypts goal of the war, which was to cross the suez and not conquer Sinai or Israel proper. Israel counterattacked, but they failed to repulse the Egyptian army occupying most of the suez

The Israeli military failure to capture two small towns in their supposed legendary encirclement that Wikipedia uses to construct the basis of the delusion of “Israeli victory”

A declassified CIA document

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1975-09-01A.pdf

The CIA asserts is as a fact that the war was inconclusive.

Not only that, but mentioning Israel was “100 kn from Cairo” is another perpetuation of Wikipedia delusion. If I am 50 metres from a house, and I step outside and take two steps it is not worth mentioning I am 48 metres from it. Israel’s starting point was the Suez Canal, “100 km from Cairo” is another form of coping, to legitimise a victory that doesn’t exist The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The first conclusion is your own, not a specifically stated result in the source. The second, while it does at least say "the fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note." on page 24. However, this is a 49 year old primary source report made 2 years after the events - it lacks any information gathered since. It was released in 2012, so it has been available for historians to use in secondary works for over a decade.

You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians. The article already uses these to support a different conclusion though. (Hohum ^@) 15:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Several sources do describe it as a stalemate or inclusive, far from the “Israeli victory” oversimplification, which isn’t even correct neither militarily nor politically

Many sources regard the war as a stalemate, even on the Syrian front

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1974/03/who-lost-the-yom-kippur-war-a-military-inventory-of-the-middle-east/670833/

Here Henry Kissinger states “it would be a nightmare if either side won”, implying neither side got a conclusive victory

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/henry-kissinger/2019-08-09/kissinger-told-soviet-envoy-during-1973-arab-israeli-war-my-nightmare-victory-either-side-soviet

This one is hidden by a paywall

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/history/article/2023/10/02/50th-anniversary-of-yom-kippur-war-the-enduring-ambiguity-of-pax-americana_6143516_157.html

The new Arab, I am not sure if it’s RS, also states that it is a stalemate

https://www.newarab.com/analysis/october-war-nothing-bloody-stalemate?amp

“Which had nearly resulted in Israel’s defeat, but ended in a stalemate”

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/no-victor-no-vanquished-yom-kippur-war

This is ignoring Israel’s defeat at two small towns during the final battles of the war, as well as an air battle, which saw an Egyptian victory. “Israeli victory” also COMPLETELY ignores the result of the war, seeing Israel actually come to negotiate Sinai which is had adamantly refused in the [[Rogers Plan]] and [[Jarrings Plan]], both before the war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians. "

Shotgunning google search results isn't helpful. Kissinger "implying" is actually you inferring. (Hohum ^@) 17:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve given plenty of secondary sources no? What would “if either side had won” would otherwise imply? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger memoranda of telephone conversations – or telcons – from October 1973, uncovered by the National Security Archive, provide blunt and fascinating vignettes from a significant moment during the Nixon presidency. In one record about the Yom Kippur War, the secretary of state candidly tells Soviet envoy Anatoly Dobrynin it would be a “nightmare” if either side won.

The leading sentences, and the tense of the statement make it very clear that he is speaking before the war has ended.

You are also ignoring half of this sentence: "You will get a lot more traction using WP:secondary sources from reliable military historians."

Don't expect another reply unless you provide useable sources that explicitly support your point. (Hohum ^@) 17:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, the war being “an Israeli victory” can be disproven with common sense instead of some strange criteria about the species of sources considering you have been dismissing everything I provided even though it is beyond sufficient to explain why the “result” is something from an alternate history timeline. But here we go, hopefully this is good enough.

https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/2021/11/23/what-was-the-yom-kippur-war-1973/

“Despite being surrounded, the Third Army managed to maintain its combat integrity east of the canal and keep up its defensive positions, to the surprise of many. According to Trevor N.

Dupuy, the Israelis, Soviets and Americans overestimated the vulnerability of the Third Army at the time. It was not on the verge of collapse, and he wrote that while a renewed Israeli offensive would probably overcome it, this was not a certainty.”

There are some military men who argued that the encirclement would have destroyed the third army, let’s look at what David Elazar, one of the generals during the war said according to this source

“According to David Elazar, Chief of Israeli headquarters staff, on 3

December 1973: "As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east.

Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them””

And further

“Shortly before the ceasefire came into effect, an Israeli tank battalion advanced into Adabiya, and took it with support from the Israeli Navy. Some 1,500 Egyptian prisoners were taken, and about a hundred Egyptian soldiers assembled just south of Adabiya, where they held out against the Israelis. The Israelis also conducted their third and final incursion into Suez. They made some gains, but failed to break into the city centre. As a result, the city was partitioned down the main street, with the Egyptians holding the city centre and the Israelis controlling the outskirts, port installations and oil refinery, effectively surrounding the Egyptian defenders”

Showing an Israeli failure at the defeat too. This is also not mentioning the fact that Wikipedia completely ignores the effect of the war and its result which led Israel to negotiate after adamantly refusing 2-times pre war

The CIA says it’s inconclusive

Several sources and military analysts say it’s inconclusive

Israeli generals say they couldn’t defeat the Egyptians

Yet Wikipedia is adamant to simply this war with the most incorrect, misleading, and simplified result that ignores reality itself The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So, after failing to gain consensus, you just go ahead and make changes which have led to many reliable sources which frame the war as an Isaeli victory being discarded, and add few pretty poor ones that say it's inconclusive. diff. (Hohum ^@) 00:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the result should say "Israeli victory" there's no consensus to change that, please put that back Andre🚐 00:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The result being “see aftermath” does not seem to be disputed either way. The aftermath section is more comprehensive, and explains why the result is not an Israeli victory. It has several sources, including Israeli officer David elazar who resigned after the war, stating that they had been unable to defeat Egypt in the war. I have included several sources and citations, including books that demonstrate the result of the war was a stalemate on both fronts

Do also note, that I initially said “inconclusive”, which has been changed to “see aftermath” which is usually the case with wars that have controversial results, and this is a notable example of such. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. 1) No consensus for your changes. 2) See aftermath clearly shows that military historians agree it was an Israeli victory in the war, which is why that is what the infobox should read. Andre🚐 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The aftermath section very clearly states how it is a stalemate, and not an Israeli victory. If I am not mistaken, you initially assumed that this was the six day war (and it’s fine, the wars were close and had the same belligerents so confusion is possible)

The “Israeli victory” does not seem to be established, looking through the old page archive it is a simplification of the old result (Israeli tactical victory, Egyptian pyrrhic victory, and the un ceasefire) about a decade and a half ago. The assertion of “Israeli victory” is also disproven by the page’s very lede, which shows that Egypt was able to successfully achieve its goals in the war (capture eastern suez, and negotiate the rest of the Sinai peninsula), both of which did happen The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That's OR and SYNTH. Every history text clearly establishes. We have about 20 references. More importantly, you've not established a consensus for your changes here. And I have no idea what you're referring to about confusion with the 1967 war. That seems to be a groundless assertion. I'm bringing this to WP:NPOVN. Andre🚐 18:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s a good place to discuss it there. I’ve seen the message there and will participate too The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of reaching a consensus when someone can simply dismiss it years later? Pending a new consensus, the old version should stand. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there's really not an argument to have "inconclusive" since all military historians call it an Israeli victory. Politically, I can see that it was a major problem for Israel but that is very different. Andre🚐 21:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Atrocities

"Syrian atrocities", "Egyptian atrocities" but no Israeli atrocities? That would make it an almost unique war, or suggest a bias in Wikipedia. (Athough Wikipedia is almost uniquely manipulable by determined actors as a result of its anyone-can-edit method of updating).. 86.160.95.7 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have WP:reliable sources which document Israeli atrocities? (Hohum ^@) 16:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2024

I request to edit some information regarding the results of the war 2A02:CE0:2002:6A8E:6480:4DF0:DB14:326E (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

Change "The close distances during night engagements, negated the usual Israeli superiority in long-range duels." to "The close distances during night engagements negated the usual Israeli superiority in long-range duels." This removes an unnecessary comma. The sentence is located in the third paragraph of the section "Defense of the Quneitra Gap". TedWinstonIII (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done TheWikiToby (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2024

---

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I would like to request a revision to the article on the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The current text oversimplifies the conflict by implying that Israel won, which does not accurately reflect the military and diplomatic outcomes of the war.

While Israel's military managed to regroup after early setbacks, it is important to highlight that Egypt achieved its primary objective: the successful crossing of the Suez Canal and the regaining of significant territory in Sinai. Egypt’s forces inflicted substantial losses on Israel’s military and held their positions during the initial stages of the war.

Moreover, after the war, Egypt initiated peace talks, leading to the Camp David Accords and the eventual return of Sinai to Egypt. This was a diplomatic victory for Egypt, as it achieved its territorial goals without further military conflict.

Israel, while not completely defeated, had to concede significant territorial losses by agreeing to withdraw from Sinai. Therefore, Egypt's military success, combined with the diplomatic resolution, demonstrates that Egypt achieved its key objectives and can be considered the winner of the war.

Please consider updating the article to reflect a more balanced and accurate account of the war, emphasizing both Egypt's military achievements and the diplomatic outcomes that led to the peace settlement.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

--- 197.165.235.115 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: way out of scope for a simple edit request, has been discussed thoroughly, repeatedly, and frequently in the past. recommend checking out the archives of this talk page before engaging in more discussion Cannolis (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Add America to the Israeli side

Amercia saved Israel from total destruction through operation nickel grass,this is the second time I request this,it was accepted then removed,reason for removal? “Weapons suppliers don't go with combatants in infobox, specially when the Soviet Union, which gave more weapons to Arab states than the US did with Israel, isn't included in the Arab side” Okay,can someone remove the USA from the Russian side in Eastern Front? Or does it only apply to certain nations? Because I really wanna know what exactly is the problem with adding America to the Israeli side. Stephen Ambrose: “He (Nixon) knew that his enemies… would never give him credit for saving Israel. He did it anyway.”

I ask again,add America to the Israeli side

evidence:https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/10/how-richard-nixon-saved-israel/https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-war-how-president-nixon-saved-jewish-state-ingenious-plan

I can give more. Grinch the great (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Already answered "Weapons suppliers don't go with combatants in infobox". If another article isn't conforming to this, the venue to talk about it is the other article's talk page, not here. (Hohum ^@) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are you undermining one of the most important operations in Israeli history?

And the other article is,with no disrespect intended,made by way more qualified people. It’s a more significant event in human history than the October war,so I am not sure why you think your way is the “right way”. You refuse to give amercia credit for saving Israel from total destruction,this isn’t the goal of Wikipedia.

“ Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to be a reliable resource”— Larry Sanger. Not enough?

“Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.”— Jimmy Wales. Last time I checked,that includes making sure to get every single detail accurate,with no exception.

“ Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race”- Denis Diderot, chief editor and contributor of Encyclopédie

Stop trying to deny history,amercia saved Israel. Just like how amercia is featured on a more important article for the same exact reason (eastern front),it should Grinch the great (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of that makes America a combatant. (Hohum ^@) 00:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay let’s say that’s the case,what exactly is amercia’s role in this war according to you?

you keep replying to me with absolutely no explanation and just repeating lines,you clearly aren’t reading what I say. Grinch the great (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I am replying directly to what you say. You said that you wanted America added to the belligerents in the infobox, America was not a belligerent. That is all the explanation that is necessary. I won't be replying again unless you get beyond WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (Hohum ^@) 22:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Grinch the great (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• The US and USSR were not combatants - their involvement is nuanced. There is no place for them in the infobox because they were not combatants and the infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. They are mentioned in the lead and in the body of the article, which is appropriate for detail and nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t say they are combatants,what is present on the infobox are “Belligerents” Grinch the great (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  And the parameter by which parties are added is combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nope,here is an example using religion: every Wahhabi is a Salafi but that doesn’t mean every Salafi is a Wahhabi. Good example for this situation is Belarus in the current russian invasion of Ukraine,is Belarus a combatant? No.

  However is it a belligerent? Yes. Grinch the great (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Result

@Terrainman Sorry, what do you mean overwhelming?

The page itself has 13 sources for Israeli "military" victory (which I'm pretty sure shouldn't even be included in the first place due to infobox rules) and 9 sources for military stalemate. And let's be honest, the more you dig into sources, the more you'll get supporting one side or the other.

Therefore, no, this has nothing to do with for example WP:FRNG.

My result (Disputed, see aftermath/See aftermath) works perfectly fine, especially because it complies with WP:NPOV.

"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

This perfectly fits the result I've put. Putting this as an Israeli military victory definitely violates WP:NPOV and I'd personally argue it also violates WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX/the template rules of the military infobox itself. Setergh (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey. With regard to the 9 sources, most refer specifically to the element of the war which involved Egypt and Israel. (Leaving out the Syria-Israel element) They characterise the conflict between Egypt and Israel as a stalemate, but describe Egyptian leader claims of an Egyptian victory with a high degree of skepticism. One of the 9 sources puts it like this: "Israel’s troops were vastly outnumbered on both fronts, and woefully underprepared. But after three days of intense fighting, the Egyptian offensive ground to a stalemate, and in the Golan, the Israelis were able to drive Syria back and then counterattack, pushing deep enough into Syrian territory that the IDF could shell the outskirts of the capital, Damascus. Eventually, the Israeli army also came within 60 miles of the Egyptian capital, Cairo, ratcheting up tensions between the Soviet Union and the US. After two-and-a-half weeks, a second attempt at a UN-brokered ceasefire held, and disengagement talks followed in 1974. The Arab oil embargo also lasted until March the next year."[461] The war concluded with no concessions of territory from Israel, in other words it was a white peace, if a war ends in a white peace for the defender, that is typically referred to as a victory for the defender. However perhaps the result could say 'White peace' instead, I'm not sure. However my point here is that while those sources do characterise it as a stalemate, I believe it is clear from the contexts that they are either specifically referring to the fighting on the ground between Egypt and Israel, and where they are referring to the war as a whole what they mean by stalemate is that the war ending inconclusively with no geopolitical changes; which I think can be referred to as a 'victory' by the defender. I do not think that 'disputed' is appropriate, as it implies some sources state an Egyptian victory and others state an Israeli victory (it also ignores the Golan heights element of the war). Then again, I do think that you are possibly right regarding raising the question of whether the infobox should state the result so matter-of-factly. Overall, the war was a successful Israeli defense with limited counter attacks; the overwhelming number of sources do in fact corroborate this and none agree with the Egyptian claim of victory. 'Disputed' can be misleading, perhaps "Israeli victory or Stalemate" is honestly the best option. However the linking to the aftermath desction does achieve this to some extent already. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I get what you mean and I did figure it was this way. Due to the complicated nature of this, I think the best solution would be to simply go with "See aftermath" and perhaps further elaborate in the aftermath section about where the stalemate occured and where perhaps an Israeli victory occured.

Thank you! Setergh (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources by military historians have more weight than those by journalists. (Hohum ^@) 15:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree.

However, I wouldn't say that fully minimises the journalists' opinions + I don't think including "military victories" is allowed in infoboxes whatsoever.

Hence why I'd stick with "See aftermath". The war's result is much more complicated, for example military victory on the Egyptian front is disputed from what I can see. And well, once again, considering military victories shouldn't be included in infoboxes (at least I think so), and there is most definitely no clear result, the result should stick to "See aftermath" and perhaps the Aftermath section will need expanding. Setergh (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The result entry is specifically intended for military outcome for that infobox - Template:Infobox military conflict. Also, this topic has been discussed several times already - see the talk page archives. (Hohum ^@) 21:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"The result entry is specifically intended for military outcome for that infobox - Template:Infobox military conflict."

This is an insanely poor interpretation of what a military conflict infobox is; just because it's about a military conflict, that does not mean the result is meant to be a military result.

The result description starts with "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive".", which clearly states that there's only two typical terms, no mention of military victories so far.

"In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")." Here we can see that my suggestion does indeed apply and follow terms.

"Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"." I'd personally argue this removes the possibility of a "military victory" being included.

"Also, this topic has been discussed several times already - see the talk page archives."

I suppose so, though it seems to always come to very mixed results, so I don't particularly see the point of mentioning this.

You are yet to give me a good argument for why it should supposedly be Israeli military victory. Not only does the result still not seem to fit guidelines (although perhaps I should ask for confirmation on the template's talk page), but also why See aftermath isn't a much better solution.

"See aftermath" will not cause any conflict over the infobox in the slightest, and gives better explanation than just some simple "Israeli military victory". Setergh (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman, a local consensus can't override guidelines for no real reason. The plain meaning of WP:RESULT is perfectly unambiguous. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am going to withdraw from this discussion and leave it to others. I want to avoid the drama relating to this topic, but I leave it up to this discussion to conclude naturally and the best choice be made for what goes in the result section. It may be best for 'see aftermath' as @Setergh suggested 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

(For the record, I think this is clearly a case where "see aftermath" alone could be preferable, while I'm interloping.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I will also drop a courtesy ping to @AndreJustAndre as the person who afaik introduced this language. Remsense ‥ 论 22:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I introduced it per se, I restored it after several back-and-forth discussions. That was kind of a compromise. Personally, I think the infobox should say "Israeli military victory." Andre🚐 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I've made clear by now, but given what the MOS guideline is written to address, I don't see what would be required by this conflict that doesn't apply for many others with complex long-term consequences. Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Or just "Israeli victory" as is the status quo. Andre🚐 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• If we have 13 sources claiming it was a victory and 9 sources claiming it was a stalemate, it is pretty clear that there is no consensus in the sources as to the result. This is a case for use of see Aftermath alone. The aftermath section should expand on the reasons why different sources conclude these different results. Unfortunately it doesn't. Furthermore (per WP:RESULT), we shouldn't be writing military victory, particularly if this is intended to be a distinction from writing just X victory. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Summonded from template talk page.

I think most of the stalemate sources are pretty poor, or don't cover the entire war - just aspects. Also, I think there is some confusion about the use of the term "military victory" in the context of this thread. My point is that the results entry is for the military result not of all political implications - I am not suggesting is should say "X military victory", which is rather redundant, as you noted. (Hohum ^@) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I will not disagree with an observation that we should be relying on good quality sources. Your comments would fit into mine regarding expanding the lead with regard to an analysis of the result per sources, which would weed out some of those that are not truly applicable. I see adding military victory a bit like trying to say it was a tactical success (but a strategic failure). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if this is coming up again, someone should do a more systematic source survey. AFAIK, any authoritative textbook or reliable academic source considers the Yom Kippur War to be an Israeli victory. It's true that the Israelis were caught unawares and it had a huge political impact, but that doesn't make it a stalemate or an Egyptian victory. Andre🚐 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention to everyone, I have changed the result back to "See aftermath".

The reason for this is well, there's many reasons:

- Some argue an "Israeli military victory" it doesn't fit template guidelines

- Others argue a more systematic source survey should be conducted

I think one thing everyone here agrees on is that the aftermath is far too short to explain the complications of this. Therefore, until perhaps some of this changes (which I would try, but sadly I really struggle with wanting to edit Wikipedia these days), I think it'd be best to leave it at See aftermath.

Also, when it says "as an Israeli victory by military historians", I don't think this is even fully true, I'm rather certain I saw a political scientist as one of the sources (Charles Liebman).

Furthermore, many that do claim an Israeli victory seem to quite literally be Jewish themselves. Of course I don't think this fully removes their credibility, but come on, even Chaim Herzog is included, and he was quite literally the president of Israel itself.

And as for sources which claim a military stalemate, I don't think any of them are exactly Arab.

Therefore, I think it's insanely lazy to straight up put "Israeli military victory" for many reasons, and completely absurd to put just "Israeli victory".

I hope my reasons are fair, but if I have done or said anything wrong please go ahead and argue against. Setergh (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reverting back as i do not see a consensus to change here. Andre🚐 19:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Setergh (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)