A tag has been placed on Category:Beer in Egypt indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 00:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we can work this out here. I do think the present edit is an improvement over where it was prior to my edit. Thank you.

1. We need to remove the implication that failure to capture Ishmael halted the Israeli advance. As you must know, it did not.

2. The words "suffering defeat" are gratuitous, and add no further understanding to this paragraph.

3. Discussion of the Kissinger instructions are utterly unnecessary in the lead and should be removed. The basic facts are that both sides accused the other of violations. And, as you must know, there are many different takes about what occurred under cover of darkness.

Please let me know your thoughts. Johnadams11 (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 Of course, my bad for reverting your edit out of hand like that. I do not believe we are necessarily at odds, as I share your view that no section of the article should employ artful phrasing to subtly impose a predetermined conclusion regarding the war’s outcome. My position is simply that the full sequence of events should be presented, rather than selectively chosing certain developments while omitting others in a way that overemphasizes the actions of one party. It's by no means a long war so this is not a difficult feat for us to accomplish.

1. Could you define what constitutes the "Israeli advance" in this context?

2. I agree that the wording requires refinement. However, if we excise both "halted the advance" (which I interpreted as referring to the push toward Ismailia) and "suffered a defeat," we risk stripping the passage of critical contextual clarity regarding the events surrounding Israel’s attempt to seize the city. Would you find "repelled" to be a more precise and appropriate alternative?

3. This particular part may indeed be redundant if the same points are adequately explored within the main body of the article. In that case, I would not oppose its removal, as concision is preferable in the lead.

Let me know what you think and I can make another attempt to improve the text. Turnopoems (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnopoems Thanks for the reply. I promise you I share the objective of being true to the sequence. And I hope I can prove that as we speak.

For the purposes of the lede, my own approach (and I assume yours) is to try reduce the war to only its most critical movements. Here's the way I see those (in Sinai):

1. Egypt successfully crosses the Canal.

2. Egyptian attack in Sinai stalls or is repulsed.

3. Israel counter-attacks by crossing the canal to the west, threatening to cut off Egyptian forces on the other side.

4. Ceasefire.

My guess is that we don't see number three in exactly the same way. To my view, we get an IDF crossing just north of the Bitter Lake on the 16th. They attempt movement both north and south, and destroy SAM infrastructure to the west. The move north gets to Ismailia but fails to capture the city. However, right up until the ceasefire, the Israelis do hold the ground just south of the city -- which became the ceasefire line. Simultaneously, the Israelis get all the way south to Suez City, and again, this is the ceasefire line. Regardless of the outcomes of the two urban engagements, the Israelis had "advanced," to each of these geographic points, certainly at least threatening to cut off the Egyptians on the other side. So I don't see the battles at Ismailia and Suez as central to the larger story. Your thoughts? Johnadams11 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 I appreciate that and hopefully it's mutual and we'll be able to improve the text. I don't disagree with the premise of reducing it to critical events, but in this process I think it will be more productive if we focus on improving the parts that we can agree on without exploring further consensus building efforts.

My concern with the proposed reduction lies in the arbitrariness of determining which events are deemed significant enough to be included and which are omitted. The criteria appear subjective, leading to an imbalanced narrative that prioritizes certain developments while downplaying others of comparable, if not greater, strategic consequence.

The Israeli advance north was not a positional maneuver, it was an effort to sever the Second Army’s lines, with the occupation of Ismailia being a crucial objective to achieve that. The failure to complete this goal was undeniably a significant strategic setback, perhaps one of the most major for Israel in the entire conflict after Operation Badr, as even the sources cited in the paragraph acknowledge. Similarly, a minor Israeli advance westward was stalled at Nefalia, and while forces moved south and did indeed threaten the Third Army, they failed multiple times to occupy Suez. The latter, though of lesser importance to Israel’s overarching strategy than Ismailia, still carries substantial weight given the heavy Israeli losses and the precarious defensive posture of Israeli forces on the western bank. As Buckwalter suggested, their position left them dangerously exposed to any counterattack from alternative directions. Moreover, the assertion that Egypt only agreed to a ceasefire out of concern for the fate of the Third Army misrepresents the situation, given that Egypt had already accepted a ceasefire prior to that point. The condition of the Third Army itself remains a matter of contention, with Gawrych noting that it retained its combat integrity even after Israel finalized its encirclement two days before the second ceasefire.

Critical events did not stop after 16 October, that's just the mid-point of the conflict. I personally would like to avoid inadvertently distorting the broader strategic picture by omitting or downplaying the critical failures that prevented Israel from achieving many of its objectives across the canal, failures that, despite other achievements, in turn, contributed to the urgency of a ceasefire. The suggested layout appears to sculpt the narrative toward the ceasefire by omitting important developments for Egypt and overemphasizing those of Israel, rather than including both for a more balanced account.

It is perfectly fine if we agree to disagree on this, but we can certainly work on improving the text per your initial suggestions, which includes these events but refines the text by dealing with the points you raised earlier. Turnopoems (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnopoems My concern with the proposed reduction lies in the arbitrariness of determining which events are deemed significant enough to be included and which are omitted. The criteria appear subjective, leading to an imbalanced narrative that prioritizes certain developments while downplaying others of comparable, if not greater, strategic consequence.

Let's address this point straight away as you've mentioned it here, and in your edit comment.

I completely agree with your idea. This in part, is why my edit contains no mention of any specific battle. It is your edit that does this very thing by describing Ismailia and Suez. Can you please explain this as I find it challenging to work on the merits of all this when I'm not really comprehending your basic position. To me, your argument really is that Ismailia and Suez (the ONLY two specific battles mentioned in the entire Lede) are the two most important battles of the Egyptian front and even, the entire war. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding? Johnadams11 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now see your perspective, and I believe we may be able to find common ground by adjusting the text to incorporate both angles while avoiding excessive detail on individual battles. I could see that looking something like this:

Israeli forces exploited the failed Egyptian advance to breach the Suez Canal, advancing north toward Ismailia and south toward Suez to sever the Egyptian Second and Third Armies, with some units pushing west. However, their advance met fierce resistance on all fronts. Both sides accepted a UN-brokered ceasefire on 22 October, though it collapsed the day after amid mutual accusations of violations. With the renewed fighting, Israel succeeded in advancing south, threatening the Third Army’s supply lines, but failed to capture Suez. A second ceasefire on 25 October officially ended the conflict.

Please let me know what you think. Turnopoems (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnopoems This is a terrific draft! Nice job. The single thing I would ask about is the suggestion that Third Army was not threatened until after 10/22. I'm sure you know that most RS have Sadat asking for a ceasefire as early as the 21st, exactly because of the peril to the Armies east of the canal. Thoughts? Johnadams11 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 Thank you, I'm glad we're making progress. While discussions within Egypt’s general staff included proposals for a ceasefire to contain Israeli advances on the western bank, there is no clear indication, to my knowledge, that Sadat himself was inclined toward such a course. I don't think the existing text implies that the Israeli threat to the Third Army began on 22 October, but rather that this was the point at which Israel achieved a breakthrough. The inherent danger would have been acknowledged even before it was realized. Perhaps this revision better reflects that:

With the renewed fighting, Israel succeeded in advancing south, materializing the threat to the Third Army’s supply lines, but failed to capture Suez. A second ceasefire on 25 October officially ended the conflict. Turnopoems (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnopoems Your edit is perfect. Well done. What's our next project?

BTW -- if interested, here's Gawrych (already widely used in the Article), on Sadat and the first CS. See the bottom of P69. Johnadams11 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 I'll go ahead and introduce this draft to the article then. Pleasure working with you! My involvement in that article is not very extensive but I'd be happy to work on new drafts with you if our paths cross there again.

Thanks for sharing! It appears that Gawrych referenced an Egyptian source for this claim, Heikal, Oktobir 1973, 511; Ismail, Amn Misr al-Qawmi, 344–345. Out of curiosity, I will try to see if I can get ahold of the primary source and read it. Turnopoems (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnopoems Hello again. I just made an edit to the infobox, which I thought was natural and uncontroversial. But I then noticed that one of your interim edits had actually worked on some content I have now removed. Can we discuss? My explanation is in the edit comment. I just don't see why we wouldn't economize where possible. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 Hello! I'm actually in full agreement with the proposed edit, and I was prepared to forgo my own revisions entirely, provided there was a consensus to restore balance to the broader text. I was reluctant to do so unilaterally as it has been highly contentious in the past, with certain individuals seeking to exploit it as a battleground for shaping a particular narrative regarding the war’s outcome. With two of us now advocating for this, I believe it will be met with less contention. Worst case, we can discuss it in the talk page.

I strongly favor a factual approach that restricts itself to territorial changes, omitting any embellishment. In particular, I found the reference to the proximity of the capital to be misleading. As I briefly noted in the talk page discussion, the distance from Cairo’s easternmost reaches to the westernmost point of the canal is approximately 110 kilometers, so the distance is merely a coincidental outcome of simply crossing the canal rather than an indication of any substantive threat to the city itself. Before this war they were just marginally further away as the canal itself is just ~200 meters wide at most. I have seen no sources suggesting that Cairo was ever a viable strategic objective for Israeli forces, making its inclusion very questionable in my opinion, much like the equally irrelevant fact that Egyptian forces were 250 kilometers from Jerusalem. Similarly, while Damascus was subjected to Israeli shelling, I have seen no evidence to suggest that it was ever considered a territorial objective.

My only question regarding this edit is about the stated area of Egyptian military presence on the eastern bank. Is this figure referenced on page 437 of the cited source or is it your own research?

Also, for the sake of contextual clarity, I propose writing it as the "Suez Canal" rather than "canal." Given that some readers may solely check the infobox this would eliminate any potential ambiguity. Turnopoems (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnopoems Thanks so much for continued good dialog. To your sourcing question -- I added absolutely no value on this front. I merely used the existing sources. In substance, all my edit did was remove (what I though was) extraneous detail. And rest assured, we could not be in greater agreement on your distance to Cairo point.

Incidentally, I searched multiple versions of Talk for "territorial" to see if indeed there had been prior discussion. Did I miss it? Johnadams11 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 Thank you as well! Upon reviewing the source, I found no mention of the size of the Egyptian-held area on page 437, whereas it explicitly states that Israel occupied 1,600 km². I'm not sure where the figure comes from, but it may be more accurate to remove the Egyptian figure and simply state that Egypt "occupied the eastern bank", like it did before, unless a reliable source can be found for such a figure.

There was no specific discussion about this, I mentioned it as a sidenote in my response to the RfC. Basically just an invitation for anyone willing to start a discussion about it.

Edit: There is a mention of it in the main text, referencing Rabinovich (2004), p. 467, so that would suffice as a source if we just swap it out. I have not checked that source, but I'm assuming good faith. Turnopoems (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnopoems Ah. I see what happened now on the infobox edit. Coincidentally, I had started thinking about this issue a few days ago, which is when I did my search for prior discussions. I think you added your comment just after I finished checking! In any event I've now replied in the RfC. Related, I think you might have made a typo in what you said. Seems to me that the editor who was pushing all the "distance to Cairo" content etc., was pushing for Option 2 (not 4). Johnadams11 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 All good, with the sources in order I think we can finalize this edit.

That was indeed a typo, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Apparently the user in question was a text book WP:PGAMEer (link). They have now been blocked for a while and stripped of their EC status. With any luck, this should put an end to their disruptive edit warring on the article. Turnopoems (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GCC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look at the Subdivisions of Egypt talk page to see the questions I've left? I appreciate that you're rearranged the page, a bit, but I'm still left with the same questions, namely that kisms doesn't seem to easily fit into the administrative division system and we still aren't given a clear explanation of what the concept of a "city" is in Egypt as it relates to the administrative divisions, particularly below the city-governorate level (Cairo, etc). Criticalthinker (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't notice your questions but I'll take a look at them and reply in the talk page. Turnopoems (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on resurrecting this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]