Talk:Operation Badr (1973)

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decisive victory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pre-FAC comments 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article should be dealing with Operation Badr only 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The article is one sided 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Split This Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Oil Ignition System 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Again  [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Puffery|WP:Puffery]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Egyptian POV article 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  regarding 'Prelude' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  regarding 'Aftermath' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causalties number