Talk:Operation Badr (1973)

Untitled

Israel was not exactly "marching on Cairo." I removed that aggrandizing statement and placed important references to the US support, the Soviet reaction and the OPEC crisis. --Karlosian 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Decisive victory

So, there's been a very small bit of recent editing regarding the term 'decisive victory' in the infobox. I removed the word 'decisive' yesterday, because I see it as an unneeded adjective. I mean, is there such a thing as an 'indecisive victory'? A victory is a victory. The scale of that victory--or what it meant to the various sides--that seems like information best suited to the text of the article. Anyway, the word 'decisive' is back, and I'm not personally going to change it, but I'm leaving this note here for future interested editors who may have the same reasoning that I do. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The figures are wrong, for etc. Israel had 1 tank brigade (brigade 14) close to the canal and 436 soldiers in the nearest 16 fortifications. The entire article is based on Shazly's imagination, major changes need to be done here. Nirvi (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try to answer to some issues brought up here. First of all the victory is decisive. Removing that word on the basis that it is an unneeded adjective is wrong. There are tens of articles here on Wikipedia using that word (see the Battle of Gazala for example). As for the matter of neutrality, The figures about the number of Israeli troops are based on Abraham Rabinovich, an Israeli historian. The fact that the Bar Lev line was manned by an infantry brigade (and a brigade is usually around 4,000 men), and that this brigade was overwhelmed and annihilated is asserted in the Yom Kippur War. I don't understand on what basis someone concluded that these figures came from Shazly's imagination. At any rate, I still have not finished my work on the article. I will be making significant additions soon and I will bring along more sources as well. I will be doing this very soon, within two days at most. Until I add this information and bring to the article these sources, I think we should remove the neutrality tag. If, after I've done my work,. the article still appears to be non neutral, feel free to add the tag once more. Thanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if 4,000 men were "annihilated" in the first battle how come the number of israeli casualties during the entire war (including battles against the syrian army and others) stands on 2,656? As I wrote before inside the fortifications that the egyptians took in this battle were exactly 436 soldiers and a handful of tanks. Some were killed, some fell in captive and some managed to retreat to the israeli line. the 14th brigade was stationed behind the Bar-Lev line and only a single tank managed to join and help the soldiers that were fighting inside the fortifications. The article you wrote has no connection with reality, please fix it and try to stick to the facts. Nirvi (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is you're mixing the egyptian crossing wich lasted several hours with some of the israeli counter attacks in the following days, and still the numbers are exaggerated. Nirvi (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

2,656 is the number of Israeli soldiers KIA, although this source puts the number of Israeli dead at over 2,800. There were another 7,250 WIA, and I know another source which puts them at 9,000 men wounded. Anyways, Syrian performance throughout the war was extremely poor, which means that the greater majority of Israeli losses were in the Sinai against the Egyptians. The number of Israeli forts in the Bar Lev Line were actually 22, giving a total of 35 strong points. I don't know on what basis you say provide your figures for Israeli troop numbers; I provided sources while you have not. Hence the article is based on facts. Like I said before and again now, please have patience. I have some responsibilities to see to at the present time, but within a day or two at the most, I will be making significant contributions to the article with the sources I have at hand which will, hopefully, clear out any problems with it. Thanks Sherif9282 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source. Rabinovich, who was cited before, does not really say there were 4,000 men. Most of the Jerusalem Brigade was in the eastern Sinai, and an infantry brigade never consists of so many men. I'll look for more sources and try to expand it when I have more time. Say, haven't we agreed that Shazly is a primary source? -- Nudve (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 told me that Rabinovich said the Bar Lev Line was manned by the Jerusalem Infantry Brigade. According to Wikipedia, and infantry brigade is 4,000-5,000 men. Yes, Shazly is a primary source, but no one else provides such details about the crossing operation. As I said, I will be adding sources soon. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added some stuff, but I'm not done yet. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Made another large addition, but I'm still not yet finished. I have added inline citations extensively. I relied on Shazly so heavily due to the fact that there is no other source at hand which gives such details. I also included Gawrych, a secondary source, whenever I could. Once again I am still not finished yet. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you all could wait until I have finished what I need to do (I hope to finish within a day), and then we can solve any remaining issues, just to avoid confusion and to take things one at a time. Thanks alot. Sherif9282 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Say, what is that article in Hebrew that keeps getting added here? Sherif9282 (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the israeli crossing into Egypt, in Israel "the crossing" refers to the israeli one. Sherif you've got good intentions but I'm afraid your work is in vain cause it's very inaccurate. I've found the official website of the 14th brigade, http://www.hativa14.org.il (the armor brigade that was in charge of the Bar Lev line) it includes a lot of information including the names of the fallen soldiers, your numbers are incredibly wrong. Also and most important I don't understand the time line here, how many battles, attacks and counter attcks do you include in this article? you need to make it clear in the intro. Nirvi (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nirvi, I really don't understand you anymore. All the work I wrote was based on two reliable secondary sources; the first and most important is Gawrych, and the second one is the analytical article, which I used mainly for the numbers. Both of these sources extensively use Israeli, Egyptian and Western sources. I also used a primary source, Shazly, mainly because he is the only one I know of (and probably the only one around) to give a considerable number of details. If what he says doesn't conflict significantly with other reliable sources, why shouldn't we use him as a source? Gawrych and Hamid Hussein (the writer of the analytical article) give Israeli tank numbers as 300. Shazly adds another 60 to that number. Both authors also give Israeli troop numbers at 8,000. Now you come over and declare that everything I've written is nonsense and straight out of the imagination of the Egyptian Chief of Staff. I don't know how you're so sure that the so-called 14th brigade was the only armored unit defending the Bar Lev Line. Then you provide me with their website which is probably biased and unreliable.

As for the time line. The whole thing is one prolonged battle. The Egyptians gradually advanced and pushed the Israeli reinforcements back, who tried to reach the canal line but then they became engaged with the advancing Egyptians. I think the fighting during the battle was more or less continuous. Is the time format alright or should I change it? (ie: instead of saying 1400 hours just say 2:00 pm) I haven't worked on the intro yet, it's still the same way it was long before I started working on this article.

By the way, if the crossing in Israel refers to the Israeli crossing, how do you refer to the Egyptian crossing? Sherif9282 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost done with the article. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am Sorry, but your figures are worng. You can't assume a "brigade" is 4,000 men, since this is original research, specifically when we do have sources that state an exact number. In fact, the Bar-Lave line was assigend to a few companies PART OF the reservist Jerusalem Brigade. All together Israel had sbout 450 men on the Bar-Lev line, 44 artillery pieces, and 290 tanks THROUGHOUT Sinai. (Rabinovich, 2003, p. 3). As for the Shazly book, it has been regarded by the Journal of Military History as "a personally writen hagiography in which General Shazly is at pain to demonstrate he did nothing wrong..." So I am not sure his figures are the best to use.--Omrim (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) And as per your question, in Israel the Egyptian crossing is simply being referred to as "The Egyptian Crossing", there is no special name for it, while the Israeli crossing is regarded as "Operation Abirei-Lev" (Stouthearted Men).--Omrim (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. As for the figures, did you miss the two other sources I cited? Both of them mention 300 tanks, 6-800 men in the Bar Lev Line, and another 8,000 which could arrive as reinforcements with the armor. As for the Journal of Military History's assessment of Shazly's book: what has that got to do with anything? Shazly declared in the introduction to his book that one of his aims for writing the book was to clear his name out. His book is the only one written by an Egyptian commander not to be censored by the Egyptian armed forces or the Ministry of Defence. I don't see any problem with using his figures as long as they're supported by other sources, and frankly, I wouldn't take the Journal of Military History's opinion seriously. Sherif9282 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't miss the other sources. I currently have access only to the two availabe on-line, and none of them cite the number 8,000 on the Bar-Lav line. Only one cites that number, but for ALL OF SINAI. The same source also specifically mentions that had Dovecot been deployed, 800 Israeli soldiers would occupy the Bar-Lev line, which means that since Dovecot was never deployed, there were LESS than 800 infantry there. I don't question your good faith here, but I will appreciate it if you prove me wrong by specifically citing the phrases used to show your numbers, since I am unable to verify them. I will take a look at the other two sources later today. But I have yet to see the figures you have mentioned. I don't want to get into editing battles with you, so please prove me wrong.--Omrim (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on which units we count. The ~8,000 number refers to all of the Sinai, while the ~400 number refers to the forces actually "on the water" or very near it. Other troops arrived afterward, but I'm not sure exactly when, it may have been only on October 7. So again, it depends on the scope of this article. -- Nudve (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How about putting both numbers in the infobox, something like: infantry: 8,000 (All of Sinai), 450 (The Bar-lev line).?--Omrim (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I did. Not really sure why it was removed. -- Nudve (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something we should be able to reach consensus about fairly easily. Nothing is taken off, and the stuff added is well sourced. Let's wait and see what Sherif9282 has to say about this suggested solution.--Omrim (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked both sources over. Gawrych states that there were 18,000 men in Sinai, of which 800 were planned to man the Bar Lev Line. As for the other source: On October 6, 1973, the Bar Lev line was manned by about 600 men from a reserve Brigade from Jerusalem. Total of about 8,000 men, 300 tanks and 70 self propelled guns were in Sinai peninsula which could be rushed forward in 30 minutes to two hours.

The Israelis countered the Egyptian attack in accordance with Dovecoat; that defensive plan was deployed by Gonen. There was one major problem though. The Israelis expected war to begin by 1800, or 6:00 pm. Since the war began four hours earlier than what the Israelis expected, not all the Bar Lev garrison was present (only 600 men according to the source I cited), and non of the armor was deployed before the Egyptian assault. By the time the main Israeli brigades were ordered forward, it was too late. Only a single tank platoon deployed in accordance to Dovecoat in the northernmost fortification (per Gawrych). The remaining Israeli units failed to deploy along the canal line.

I believe the infobox should say: 8,000 (600 in Bar Lev Line), 300 tanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can go with that. I'd only change the parenthesis to say(450-600 in the Bar Lev Line) and after the "300 tanks" would add (one platoon in the Bae Lev Line). What do you say?--Omrim (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think the one tank platoon should be mentioned in the article rather than the infobox. Sherif9282 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Omrim (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Badr (1973)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the 6th paragraph of the Planning and preparations subsection, you say twice that the Syrians arrived under false passports. This duplication is probably unnecessary.

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the Deception and final days to war section it says "The Directorate of Military Intelligence (abbreviated Aman), which formulated Israel's intelligence estimate and was known for its competency, was tasked with detecting troop movements and activity along Egyptian and Syrian forces, that would be particularly intensive in the last days preceding the assault." I'm really not sure what this sentence is trying to say, especially the last two clauses. Please reword to make clearer.

How does it sound now? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the Israeli planning for a counterattack section, it says "Elazar clearly emphasized that no canal crossing and no attempt to reach the strongpoints with his approval.", which doesn't make sense. Please reword.

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the October 8th section, both the main section header and the subsection header have the same title. Please vary this or remove one of them.

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I've added several fact tags. Where the tag is at the end of a paragraph, in general the entire paragraph needs referencing. Other places I've added them to quotes that need references. There is also one place where a fact tag was already in place.
   • What makes ref #19 (Fighter Aircraft Generations: A Reference) a reliable source? It appears to be a discussion board post.
   • What makes ref #20 (Phantom with Israel) a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published website.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a nice article. There are a few issues with prose and referencing that need to be taken care of before it is of GA status, but these should be easily rectified. Please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think prose issues have been cleared. I've added some citations where they're needed, and the rest will come soon. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking good so far. I was looking at the edits and realized that somewhere along the line quite a bit of information had been deleted, I'm assuming accidently. I readded this information, so if it was meant to be removed, please feel free to revert me and leave me a nasty note for undoing your work :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How is work progressing on this? It has been several days since anything has been done on the article, and GA reviews do operate under a time constraint, although it is fairly flexible. Please let me know if you're still working on this! Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. I just started university, and I'm still getting myself organised. I've added some citations, and the rest will soon follow. As for Ref #20, it includes several sources. Take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations have been added were needed. Are there any remaining issues with prose or citations? You haven't replied yet to my above question on Ref #20.

P.S., forgive me for being so painfully slow with this review. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply to your question. The new refs look good. Ref 20 should be good, since it gives its sources, but if you plan to take this article to FAC it will probably be challenged again. Ref 19 still needs to be replaced though. 20 and 93 need publishers, and 93 needs an access date as well. Once these are done, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, you weren't late at all. I've added the needed info. As for Ref 19, give me some time to find a replacement. --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this article? It is credited to one Dr. Joseph Yoon. Does this qualify as legitimate source in place of Ref 19? --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a good source to replace ref 19. Thanks for taking the time to find it! Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this final comment. Everything looks good with the article, and so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

As per your request on my talk page, here are a few thoughts before going to FAC...

• I would suggest going through MILHIST's peer review and A-class review processes, as they can provide very helpful feedback. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review for the details on the processes.
• The regular Wikipedia:Peer review process can also be helpful, as it brings in comments by non-military people, which can help with jargon.
• All of the images will need alt text, see WP:ALT.
• Reference #20 will probably have to be replaced before going through FAC. At the very least, I would suggest asking User:Ealdgyth about it, as she's one of the official FAC source gurus.
• There are quite a few short paragraphs scattered throughout the article. Although these can be useful to make a point, lots of them make the article look choppy and are generally discouraged at FAC (in my experience).
• Finally, I would suggest getting at least a couple of other people to copyedit the entire article. The more eyes on the article before the FAC goes live, the smoother the process will be. The peer review/A-class processes can help with getting extra eyes.

I hope these comments help. If you have questions about any of the above, please let me know! I don't have this page watchlisted, so you'll have to ping me on my talk page... Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Really my best suggestion for finding copyeditors is to go through the review processes - sometimes they don't help much, but other times you get great copyeditors from each one. I know this probably isn't much help, but I think it's the best I can give you. Dana boomer (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should be dealing with Operation Badr only

Sherif is passionate to present the Egyptian versions of Yom Kippur War for the preservation of Egyptian honor. Unfortunately, many details that he brings were not found acceptable by most of the article's editors. They are simply unreliable. Even the conclusions he made are based on information that he sorts as he wants. Consequently, other editors don't let him edit the Yom Kippur War article as he wish.

When Serif saw this, he decided to create an alterative article on the same Yom Kippur War. In the new article ha can present anything the way he wants. He took the article on Operation Badr, originally intended to deal with the initial Egyptian assault in the beginning of the war and then, decided to include more issues, but from his point of view. Right now the Operation Badr article is also dealing with the political background of the war, the equipping of the Egyptian Army prior to the war, the training of the Egyptian troops, the Arab deception effort, the 08/10 failed counter offensive that occurred after Operation Badr was already complete, the American assistance and the long term political effects.

Sherif probably decided to find an intimate place like the Operation Badr article for presenting an entire alternative article, dealing with exactly the same issues as the Yom Kippur War article and its impact from his point of view, but there, he don't have to confront with a lot of editors. Who would start an argument over a less significant article like Operation Badr while most of the editors are dealing with the Yom Kippur War article? Actually, those two articles are dealing with the same issues but Operation Badr is Sherif's private one.

If Serif had little courage and self respect, he would remove from Operation Badr all the information that do not refer only to the initial crossing and tries to insert it on Yom Kippur War article. That’s a risk for him. Good luck. Megaidler (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Great conspiracy theory. Try not to violate WP:CIVIL while you're at it.--Sherif9282 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not conspiracy talk Sherif. It is obvious that you're trying to push some personal fantasy, not just here but on other articles which you've edited as well. It is apparent that you have no regard for the high encycolpedic standards set by Wikipedia. Instead, you've turned this and related articles into nothing more than a personal world of imaginary make-believe and fanatasy. You should rename this article "Alice in Wonderland." Just as an aside, I had the pleasure of meeting an Egyptian diplomat about a year and a half ago and he told me that he was 25 or 26 years old before he learned that Egypt and Syria lost the 73 war. He was spoon-fed government propaganda from birth. I suggest you wake up and read some books other than Hammad and Badri. But I'm sure that in your case, it won't make a difference because it's not the truth you're after. By the way, why is Shazly's book still bannned in Egypt? As for your claim of WP:CIVIL, you've demonstrated a distinct lack of stellar performance in this regard. So let's not be hypocritical--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To Migo and Jiutsugo; 1- Considering being constructive, not perguing Wikipedia with undo wieght of worthless discussions, that are not intended to improve it 2- Try citation for what you can of your POVs, and leave the rest for your selves, or an internet forum 3- Find another way to spend your time in here than dedicating it to your little Zoinist brotherhood. Thanks for reading. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pharoah, you're not being constructive either. This issue had ended long ago and this comment was entirely unwarranted. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How constructive. Do keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Talking about other editors this way is not a collaborative and productive approach. While I of course might not agree with every one of Sherif's edits, I see no evidence of Sherif pushing any personal fantasy or unusual fringe views. Even if he were the above comments are quite inappropriate, verging on personal attacks.John Z (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have some serious problems with the factual content and neutrality of this article with extensive use of one-sided sources that drift into fantasy. Mainstream sources are ignored or when used, are cherry-picked to suit a particular POV. Accordingly, I have tagged the article until these issues are resolved.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is GA classed. If you have particular issues with the article, point them out specifically. Until and unless these alleged issues are raised and resolved if needed, these tags will be removed. --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherif, if you'd like, I can give this article a good overhaul from start to finish. Would you like that?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you what I'd like to see: why don't you start off by pointing to the problems you see with the article? Once again this is a GA article and these tags are entirely and completely unwarranted. Unless you're intention is merely an attempt at deriding the article and smearing it on the face, drop the tags unless they're necessary; this is not constructive. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is one sided.Firstly, The operation was not such a big success as it is described here, and can even be considered in some parts as a pro egyptian propaganda. Secondly, there are no accounts of what happened after the october the eight, showing only the advance of the egyptian millitary in the first few days of the war with no regard to what happebed afterwards-although there is a paragraphe that suppused to have discussed it. Why is the israeli successful counterattacks not mentioned? whay is the battle of the chinese farm, the israeli crossing to the egyptian side of the canal, the advance to the 101 km from cairo? why does to successful Ofira air battle not mentioned? And another thing, there was no "successful naval blockade" against Israel in the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea, a quick look at the naval batteles of the war show that perfectly clear.--93.172.96.86 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This article deals only with Operation Badr, which took place from October 6 to October 8. The naval blockades took place far away from the area of naval battles, this is well explained in the article, which is also well sourced. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is one sided

This article is clearly one sided.

Firstly, the outcome of the operation was not a decisive victory. The operation's main objective was to capture a strip of land from the canal to the Gidi and Mitla Passes. As the attack was halted by the IDF after the egyptians captured a five km strip, the operation didn't reach it's objective. Furthermore, the egyptians lost 15,600 soldiers and 8,273 were captured. so the operation was only successful in the first few days, but later on became a clear egyptian defeat.

Secondly, there is no information about what happened from the eighth to the twenty-four of october -there is no information about the successful israeli attacks such as the Ofira Air Battle, the Battles of Fort Budapest, Battle of Marsa Talamat, Battle of Baltim, Battle of the Sinai and the Battle of the Chinese Farm. Therfore the article is clearly one sided. it can even be said that the article is an Egyptian propaganda. This is not wikipedia's purpose.

In addition, there was no "successful naval blockade" against Israel in the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea. Proving these claim is pretty east, due to the fact that israeli won all the naval batteles of the war.

--46.116.112.116 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Split This Article

This article is dealing with multiple issues of the 1973 war but all has a single common characteristic. All can be written in a way describing the 1973 war as an Egyptian victory and this is exactly what is happening here. This article should be split into multiple articles as follows:

• Egyptian policy and strategy between the War of Attrition and the 1973 war
  

• Egyptian military preparations between the War of Attrition and the 1973 war (including the deception effort)
  

• Israeli built defensive structures in the Sinai Peninsula
  

• Israeli defensive plans in the Sinai Peninsula
  

• Plan Badr
  

• Fighting on the Egyptian front during the 1973 war (between 06/10 to 26/10)
  

• Nickel Grass (article already exist)
  

• Long-term effects of the 1973 war (already a section within the main article)
  

Most of what is written here should be diverted into the articles and sections mentioned above. Right now this article is an alternative version of the YKW, but with clear agenda. Megaidler (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK. He doesn't like the YKW article so he creates a "new" fantasy article disguised as "Operation Badr." The funny thing is that this article is longer than YKW.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about what User:Megaidler claims it is. It is an article about a military operation. As such, it is entirely encyclopedic. Also please read WP:NPA. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Oil Ignition System

Or Yekarot was the name of the system installed on the Suez Canal in order to put it on fire incase the Egyptians cross.

On 21/12/2007, an article about that system was published in [Bamahane], an official Israeli army magazine.
It is mentioned that only two stations were built on the eastern bank. One was near fort Matzmed (Deversoir) and the other one near fort Hizayon (Firdan). Each station could cover an area no longer than 100 meter, so only 200 meters were covered. Later, it was decided not to build additional stations because it was too costly. Instead, a lot of dummy stations were built along the eastern bank. On 06/10/1973, a technical team was sent to check the two stations. In one station, the oil injection system couldn't be operated electrically so the team operated it manually. Things went right and oil was flowing into the water, but ignition had to be done separately. The team went to fort Matzmed and eventually was captured by Egyptian troops. Later it was found that dozens of dummy pipes were sealed by Egyptian frogmen, but the Egyptians have sealed only the dummies. Amnon Reshef said the soldiers who were manning the strong points did not know how to operate that system, and using the system was not part of plan "dovecote".

Another article was published on 08/2000 in Maarachot, which is another official Israeli army magazine.
It was noted that a technical team was sent to check the two stations on 06/10/1973. They went to fort "Hizayon", where they found the system to be partially operational. The electric operation mechanism was in a near by strong point, but that strong point was already closed and sealed by the Israelis. Later the team went to fort "Matzmed".

According to Haber & Schiff p. 43, the Israelis discovered an Egyptian document in one of the captured camps on the western bank. In this document it was noted that the Egyptian knew the Israelis had no plans of using that system and the Egyptian knew that many stations were dummies. It is also mentioned that no one tried to operate the ignition systems.

Search in google for a file named 21.12.07-laskov-s-v5.pdf
Also look on http://www.hativa14.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/372.pdf
It's all in Hebrew, so I hope you will find a way of translating these documents. Megaidler (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Again WP:Puffery

What “Decisive Egyptian victory”? After more than 4 days the Egyptians did not advance more than 20 km. In 67 the Israelis captured the entire Sinai peninsula in 4 days (with the exception of Port Fouad). And not all the Israeli counterattacks were repulsed. The offensive started on 15/10 was not repulsed after all. Megaidler (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a decisive Egyptian victory. There's no WP:Puffery about that. The Egyptians planned to advance roughly 15 kilometers into the Sinai and they did just that. The result of the battle is based on how well they achieved their objectives, not on comparing it to Israeli performance in another war. Also, all counterattacks were repulsed. Of course, a counterattack is launched in response to one launched by the enemy. The counterattacks launched between October 6-9 were all in response to the crossing, and all were defeated. The counterattack on October 15 was in response to the Egyptian October 14 offensive, and that succeeded. Your mixing things up in interpretation. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian POV article

Hi all, This article having been translated in french wikipedia, I come over here, and as others in above comments I find pretty amazing to feature Operation Badr as an Egyptian Victory and separate it completely from the rest of the Yom Kippour war.

I think it would be better to:

• give more informations about the following of the war in both introduction and aftermath parts (no information anywhere about the egyptian military disaster that followed, with the Egyptian third army completely surrounded and Israelis troop 100km from Cairo),
• rename "Egyptian Victory" in "Egyptian initial success",
• define "Operation Badr" as the entire name of the Yom kippur war, use later as only the initial ppart of the operation
• use non Egyptian sources to neutralize a little,
• show the use of Operation badr initial success has a propaganda tool by Egypt.

I have been to Egypt and I know how Yom Kippour war was officially presented, but present it as an Egyptian victory in a wikipedia good article is not neutral, sticking to official propaganda, an attempt to keep national pride.

And last point:

• you have to explain that Sadat was assassinated on October 6, the anniversary date of Operation Badr.
• That anniversary date of Operation Badr is a national holiday in Egypt to commemorate "the victory"

Apollofox (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone should do something to prevent unexplained edits by unknown IP addresses

Someone should do something to prevent unexplained edits by unknown IP addresses.--Ashashyou (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

regarding 'Prelude'

The article states Israel ignored UN resolution 242, and than proceeds to say this resolution "called for withdrawal from occupied territories in return for Arab recognition".

Since Egypt and all Arab countries refused to negotiate with, let alone recognize, Israel, I think it would be fair to either drop this statement, or add that also Egypt ignored the resolution.

Tinelva (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

regarding 'Aftermath'

An article about a battle of the Yom Kippur war should at least mention the final result of the war - things such as who won, what major events led to the final outcome, when the war ended, etc

Here there is a brief discussion of Israel's failed counterattack and the reasons Sadat decided to go on the offensive again, and that's it.

Tinelva (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Causalties number

The estimation of casualty number that is raised in the article refers to different periods in both of the sides. The casualty number in the israeli side refers to the initial stage of the war, in both of the fronts. Whereas the egyptian causualty number refers to the offensive itself. The highest number of israeli casualties within a single day was roughly 210 according to reliable estimations. Which makes the claim wrong beforhand. טוראי פייל (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing word in text?

“Egypt, following the "three nos" policy, refused to recognize Israel or even negotiate with IT directly, preferring talks via third parties.” 84.70.131.43 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)