Talk:Battle of Suez

Article is biased

The article reads like one big excerpt from Rabinovich, Herzog and Dupoy. The article could be written in a much better fashion and scaled down in size to provide only the necessary information that serves the prupose of this article, and this include removing excessive and unnessecary details. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rabinovich, Herzog and Dupoy are all reliable sources. Most of the article comes from Rabinovich, which gives the best account of the battle I Know. If you know of any others, please share. The detail is what gave the article its B-Class rating. -- Nudve (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Better map?

The map provided doesn't seem to line up with the textual description very well; many dates precede those discussed. Is there a better map available? A regional map combined with a detail map would be better yet. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but I haven't seen such a map, certainly not a free one. -- Nudve (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

victory

egyptian victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.4.240 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When the ceasefire came into effect on October 24, Ariel Sharon's division was on the outskirts of Ismailia, threatening to cut it off from Cairo. Two other divisions, under the command of Adan and Magen were sealing off the Third Army after that, egypt won? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.4.240 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Egypt may not have won the war, but it won the battle. I thought about calling it a "Pyrrhic victory", but since the sources don't actually say that, I preferred not to. -- Nudve (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If there was no cease-fire, the third army of egypt was Destroyed by the israeli army This could be a decisive victory for Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.4.240 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about the results of the war. They are not relevant for this particular battle. -- Nudve (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry, you right. This battle is battle of Suez-the city? am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.4.240 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- Nudve (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it was the Israelis who did not respect the ceasefire after accepting it. They took advantage of the Egyptians who, having accepted the ceasefire, did not take further measures to prevent an encirclement of the third army.Sherif9282 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry but the third army destroyed? wow even the IDF didn't claim that beside Sharon couldn't even attack ismallia and who on earth called it a Pyrrhic victory that was an obvious Egyptian victory return to the basics the attacker mission was to capture the city and failed so the victory goes to the defender beside if the Israeli had taken the city they would never return Sinai and in the end both sides achieved their goals since total Egyptian victory was impossible the best solution would be a limited success not victory for if the idf forces were destroyed Israel wouldn't return sinia to keep some prestige i am not saying that egypt let them cross on purpose but with an isreali propaganda victory they could simply leave sinia as a sign of good will and to avoid further casualties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.123.125 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sharon's division

Saying that Sharon's division was at the outskirts of Ismailia and threatening to cut it off from Cairo is wrong and misleading. The edit was not made as a newcomer in good faith. Both the Egyptian Chief of Staff and the Chief of Operations state that Sharon's thrust towards Ismailia was halted, and that he was unable to cross the Ismailia Canal. As for the references, I thought it was better to standardize Saad El Shazly's citation with that of the main article so as so that readers would not be confused. Sherif9282 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment isn't on content because I have neither new information nor sources, but from a strict WP:RS standpoint, if your version is kept, it should say 'according to El Shazli' or 'according to Gammasi', because they are not independent historians. Now I'll leave the content argument to Nudve. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Aftermath section is meant for things that happened after the event, not before it. Sharon's attempt to capture Ismailia was made on October 22, two days before the attack on Suez. Theoretically, it could be added to the Prelude section, but a genuine connection must be established between the attempt on Ismailia and the attack on Suez. I did not suggest that you are a newcomer, and all users are assumed to be working in good faith. WP:CITE#How to present citations as well as WP:MOS say the format should be internally consistent, not consistent with another article. The current article has a biography section, properly cited with ISBN figures, and there's no risk of confusion. Finally, WP:BRD suggests that discussion should precede the edit war. Let's reach consesnsus before reintroducing. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I agree with the part about the citations. We'll leave the format as it is. Concerning what Ynhockey said, Shazly and Gamasy are indeed not independant historians, they were top-ranking participants of the war itself, and this makes them extremely reliable. With regards to Sharon's attack on Ismailia, Shazly and Gamasy are supported a third source, The Ramadan War, 1973, also written my high ranking Egyptian officers who participated in the war.

Of these three sources, Shazly explains Sharon's thrust in the most detail. Sharon had in his possesion on October 18, two armored brigades and one infantry brigade, and was preparing for an attack in the direction of Ismailia, in conjucntion with an attack by Adan's division, comprised of three armored brigades, southwards towards Suez and westwards in an attempt to expand the Israeli bridgehead. Facing Sharon's attack were two paratroop brigades, which would be reinforced by an armored brigade from the Second Army. They would take up defenses south of the Fresh Water Canal. Should they fail to contain Sharon's attack, they would retreat behind the canal into Ismailia, blowing up the bridges behind them. During October 18 and 19 the Israelis had tried to put across the Suez Canal a second bridge, but artillery fire directed by paratroopers overlooking the Israeli crossing area had prevented the second bridge. On October 19, the paratroopers were forced to pull back north despite incurring losses on Sharon's troops, losing sight of the Israeli crossing area. This reduced the effectiveness of Egyptian artillery, and the a second bridge was put across the Suez canal on October 20. The paratroopers continued to resist the Israeli attack towards Ismailia, and by October 22, with the help of the armored brigade pulled back across the canal, Sharon's thrust was halted south of the sweetwater canal. Note this is not an abstract, but an accurate summary from Shazly's book concerning these events.

There seems to be another mistake in the article, also cited from Pollack. After the Battle of the Chinese Farm and Operation Stouthearted Men, many of the Egyptian troops, including entire units of the Third Army, had retreated into the city. All three books that I have mentioned say nothing of any such large scale retreat by Egyptian troops. It contradicts the numbers in the article's infobox. According to Saad El Shazly and El Gamasy, there were on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal after the battle at Chinese Farm, the following forces: one understrength infantry brigade, two paratrooper brigades supported by one armored brigade, 19th infantry brigade under command of Brigaider Yusuf Afifi in Suez city, and from October 20, 4th armored division preventing further expansion westward by Adan, Magan and Sharon two division. So the only troops that were withdrawn from the eastern bank of the canal were: 2 armored brigades from 2nd army; one to defend Ismailia, one to reinforce 4th division's two brigades, and only one infantry brigade from Third Army to defend Suez.

As to the connection between Ismailia and Suez, I think it was the objective. Capturing Suez would cut off supplies from the third army, and according to Shazly and Gamasy, would in fact be psychologically important. The same goes for Ismailia. Capturing it (as Shazly states) would severly endanger supply lines to the Second army, forcing it to retreat north along the Suez Canal, and would also be psychologically important.

Sorry for having to give you such a long reading. Thanks alot. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are familiar with the various verifiability policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, but secondary sources are always automatically preferred to primary sources (i.e. people close to the event itself). The reason is that primary sources give a personal, and not a scholarly, account of events, and each such source may have seen the events differently. Therefore, if either Shazli or Gammasi contradict Pollack, the best that can be done for them is to state 'X happenned, but according to the accounts of Shazli/Gammasi, it did not', or something like that. As an analogy, Ben-Gurion's memoirs are some of the most informative sources about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and early Israeli politics, and Ben-Gurion would know all about these events, but they are not cited when secondary sources exist. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know about Gamasy's, but Shazly's book is written like a diary. Should it be considered a primary source? WP:PRIMARY is not entirely clear. -- Nudve (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's most definitely a primary source, although as I said, primary sources aren't banned on Wikipedia, they're just discouraged when secondary sources on the same subject exist, and even if they are used, they should be used with care. There is certainly no problem with using a primary source with the 'according to' prefix. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, again. haven't read Ynhockey's post yeyt) It is a long read :) I'll try to be shorter. Basically, a battle that took place before this battle should not be mentioned in the aftermath of this battle. It's irrelevant and confusing. The reason I added the status following the battle, asides from the fact that Herzog makes it a part of his narrative, is that it was the final battle on that front, and explain the ceasefire that was introduced in the Background section.

About Sharon's position: All sources agree that he was stopped outside of Ismailia. Herzog uses the word "outskirts". Dupuy is more specific, saying that he was 10 kilometers south of it. However, he also writes that on October 20, Israeli artillery had made the main Ismailia-Cairo road unusable, so he seems to agree with Herzog that the road was indeed threatened.

About Pollack: Actually, I may be wrong here. Pollack simply writes that many troops from the Third Army had retreated there. I assumed it had to do with the Chinese Farm and Stouthearted Men, even if those troops did not actually take part in that battle, but if you can contradict this, I'm prepared to remove the mentioning of the Chinese Farm.

About Suez: Sources agree that Suez was already cut off, so capturing the city itself has been considered an unnecessary mistake.

About reliability: I'm not sure if Shazly and Gamasy ought to be attributed because of their alleged conflict of interest, but I also disagree that they are "extremely reliable". It's not up to us to assess their sincerity. -- Nudve (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gamasy and Shazli don't have a conflict of interest as far as I am aware of (could you be more specific on what you mean?). Generally the information and details provided by both books (which I have) largely coincide with each other, and rarely contradict one another. Shazli and Gamasy do not write their book as a diary. When describing the war, they give a day-to-day account of the events of the war. It is not a diary. According to WP:PRIMARY, The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history... and I this is exactly what Gamasy and Shazli are. Both men were in direct contact with commanders on the front at brigade level, and Shazli had gone to the front at least three times on seperate occasions, and had spent considerable time there. This affirms with WP:PRIMARY in that Primary sources are sources very close to an event.

With regard to secondarry sources, They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. So primary sources are used to provide details and descriptions, and secondary sources are preferred to give an analysis of these facts. If Shazli and Gamasy provide facts contradictory to those stated in a secondary source, then they should be used in favor of the secondary source. Anyways, both Gamasy and Shazli state that Sadat had issued a no withdrawal decree, an order prohibiting the withdrawal of any troops from the Second or Third Army, with the exception of the two armored brigades and the one infantry brigades. I think this is sufficient to contradict what Pollack said about the withdrawal of Third Army troops.

According to Shazli, it was this "no withdrawal" order that gave the IDF the oppurtunity to expand its positions on the western bank of the Suez Canal, and ultimately cut off the supply line of the Third Army. This is where secondary sources like Pollack come in, to give an analysis of the events, and this is where he could be used in place of Shazli, though Pollack is not a military expert. Sherif9282 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sherif, I am aware what primary and secondary sources are. What I said was that secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources when the same subject is discussed. If a secondary source directly contradicts a primary source, the secondary will be preferred automatically. However, per WP:NPOV, the primary source's analysis of the event if the source is notable enough. That would of course be using the 'according to' prefix. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above, when events are involved, even primary sources offer an analysis of the event. What you can and cannot do with analyses is covered in-depth by WP:PRIMARY. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, I just cannot comprehend how you could prefer a secondary source to a primary source written by a commander directly involved with the war. Nevertheless, historian Dr. George W. Gawrych, also mentions in his monograph, The 1973 Arab-Israeli War: The Albatross of Decisive Victory that Sharon's attempt to capture Ismailia was halted by the 23rd Armored brigade, the 150th Paratrooper Brigade, and the 139th Commando Group. Looking back at Shazli's book, I realise I had done a mistake; Ismailia was not defended by 2 Paratrooper Brigades but by only one paratrooper brigade and two commando battalions (the 139 Commando group). He writes this citing several sources, including Shazli and Gamasy. He also includes a map which shows Israeli troops being 10 km from Ismailia. So now I have two primary sources supported by a secondary source. Sherif9282 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with Ynhockey. Shazly has no conflict of interest? In the introduction (and in the introduction to the 2003 revised edition) he declares that his motivation for writing the book was to clear his name and show that Sadat was wrong. His book is pretty much written like a diary, full of personal analysis of the events. It opens with the words "This is a military memoir".

At first, I tended to consider it a secondary source because it is cited by many other authors. But then again, other authors also cite many other memoirs, some from lower ranking soldiers' accounts. It's OK for them, because they are professionals, but problematic for us. For example, Ariel Sharon also writes about these events and others in his autobiography, which is cited by several sources, but I'm pretty sure nobody would accept him as a source on Wikipedia. -- Nudve (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Gawrych then? He represents a secondary source. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gawrych is probably a legitimate secondary source. However, if have read my previous posts, then you know that I never contested the fact that they were 10km from Ismailia. -- Nudve (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Then that issue's settled. Will we move information about Sharon's attack towards Ismailia to the Background section, or remove it completely? I still contest that many troops from Third Army retreated into Suez. There is no such mention of any retreat from any source aside Pollack (including Gawrych). Sherif9282 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's relevant at all here. It should be mentioned in the main article, and it may deserve its own article, but I don't see how it is related to this battle. So I suggest removing it. -- Nudve (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it's done. What about Pollack's claims on the retreat of Third Army troops? Does Pollack cite any sources to support this? Sherif9282 (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not for this particular sentence, no. There's a long ref for the entire previous section. -- Nudve (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean we can remove that sentence about Third Army troops? I don't fully understand you when you say "There's a long ref for the entire previous section." Sherif9282 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On the previous page, he talks about the fighting after the Israeli crossing. This is followed by a footnote, where he cites his sources. He has a tendency to use a footnote only once every few pages, usually after providing figures. The sentence that actually says they retreated to Suez City is not cited. However, I don't think that's a reason to remove it. Do you have any source that contradicts it? -- Nudve (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not cited then that's the only reason we need to remove that line; it's uncited information. Shazli had repeatedly stated that he tried several times to pull some few brigades, particularly from Second Army, to counter the Israeli crossing, but to no avail. He gives details as to the number of troops west of the Suez Canal, and these show that there had been no large scale withdrawal from Sinai apart from 2 armored brigades and 1 infantry brigade. Asides that there is no mention of any withdrawal in Gamasy, Hasan El Badri, Gawrych or any other source that I know of. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it uncited? there's no requirement that the source use a citation for every sentence. I assume they had withdrawn from Adan's troops when he encircled the city, but that would be my own synthesis. Why do you think they had withdrawn from Sinai? -- Nudve (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, when you said "The sentence that actually says they retreated to Suez City is not cited." I thought that meant there was no citation at all for any Egyptian withdrawal from Sinai. I'd give you my synthesis, but what do you mean by "I assume they had withdrawn from Adan's troops when he encircled the city". Thanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want, I can remove the Stouthearted Men mentioning and move this sentence to the end of the paragraph, to avoid implication that they had retreated from Sinai. -- Nudve (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you to give an abstract or a summary here of what Pollack says about Egyptian troop withdrawals. The only reason the Egyptians would have withdrawn some forces from Sinai was so that they could counter Israeli forces that had crossed the canal, but as far as I know the didn't. Sherif9282 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited it. It now says almost exactly what Pollack says on this page. -- Nudve (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Army had completely crossed into Sinai in the first days of the war. What you wrote just implies that several units from Third Army had retreated from Sinai into Suez City. This cannot be because there was only one infantry brigade in Suez, and it also contradicts the information given by Shazly, and Sadat's "no withdrawal" order. Shazli notes that there was one infantry facing Adan, and later it retreated into Suez. This is the unit that battled with the Israeli Paratroopers. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pollack writes "even whole units of the Egyptian Third Army had retreated there". Maybe he meant just one unit, I don't know. This is what the source says, and that's it. -- Nudve (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, what course of action shall we pursue? We seem to have a contradiction in front of us, and Pollack isn't really helping by being so unclear. It appears to me that he was misinformed when he wrote that particular sentence. Sherif9282 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure whether Gamasy represents a secondary or a primary source. He uses many other sources, Egyptian and Israeli in his book. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't change anything. If you insist, we can try to seek a third opinion. I'm not sure about Gamasy, but since the title of his book is "The October war : Memoirs of Field Marshall El-Gamasy of Egypt, I tend to think of it as a primary source. -- Nudve (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that the title of his book makes it sound like a primary source, but he uses other sources in his book, such as Shazli, Hasan El Badri, Sadat, Hassanein Heikal, Yitzhak Rabin, Henry Kissinger, David Elazar, Ariel Sharon. So I think it's a secondary source. Sherif9282 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter Boyne writes that "Suez turned out to be a wasps' nest of Egyptian defenders who had been transferred over from the east bank" (The Two O'Clock War, p. 241). I'm not sure if he's talking about the same unit(s) Pollack talks about. I'll ask at WP:WPMILHIST if anyone can comment on this discussion. -- Nudve (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure Nudve. Bring over someone for a third party opinion. But Walter Boyne's statement really doesn't give any clear indication. But what was your opinion about Gamasy being a secondary source? I certainly think he is. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, consensus at MILHIST seems to be that it is a primary source. I have a suggestion: we could change "entire units" to "at least one entire unit". That way, it wouldn't be be at odds with Shazly. Also, can you give me the page number in Shazly's book? -- Nudve (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Shazli uses a map, p.351. Gamasy however states that Suez was defended not by the 19th infantry brigade, but by elements of the 19th infantry division. I misread that part. He writes that the division mainly assisted by distributing weapons and organizing the militia and the defences in coordination with the civil wuthorities. Later he writes that members of the division took part in the defence of the town. His choice of words probably indicates that the division did not contribute significant numbers to the battle. Gamasy states this in p.297 and 299. I'm going to change the Egyptian commander from Shazly to 19th Division's commander.

I agree with your suggestion, we could use the term "at least one entire unit", but what size? We should indicate that this unit was at least brigade-size. Sherif9282 (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it. As for the size, it seems to me like that would be an extrapolation, so I'm reluctant. -- Nudve (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S., I'm sorry I'm taking a long time in responding sometimes. I'm a bit busy at the moment, and decided to cut down on my editing. I did not expect this discussion :) -- Nudve (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Why is there no mention of UNSC 338? I think its relevant to this article, and needs to mentioned even briefly in the background section. I intend to add to this article from a secondary Egyptian source sometime soon, and plan to write (briefly) about the events surrounding the first ceasefire resolution.--Sherif9282 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note for Nudve: The map currently used in the article highlights the location of the Chinese Farm and the Egyptian forces initially defending it. I think we should use a crop of the original map as is (without the box pinpointing the Chinese Farm). Alternatively, I could try to create a map.--Sherif9282 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it, but then I figured that just because it was the last battle, does not mean that all the post-war diplomacy belong here. This is probably best left to the main article. The map is certainly not ideal, but it is the only public domain one I've found. If you can produce a better one, go ahead. -- Nudve (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan to include any post-war diplomacy. Rather I want to write about the military events surrounding the initial ceasefire, which was implemented on October 22. No post-war diplomacy.--Sherif9282 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: according to Hammad, Zaken's battalion advanced into the city with 24 tanks and 24 APCs. You should note that the article says two contradictory statements. The first is that the battalion's twenty-one tank commanders were standing in the turret, and the second is that within minutes, twenty of the twenty-four tank commanders were hit. Hammad's account goes with the second statement, which is cited to Herzog, ie: that Zaken's battalion included 24 tanks. I will change the article accordingly

So I've made some additions. I still have more to come.--Sherif9282 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't explain the discrepancy in Rabinovich. Maybe three other tanks followed a bit later, I don't know. BTW, in one place you write "this was the last time they were seen alive". Does that mean they were killed? seen alive by whom? if they were killed, we should probably say so and avoid the drama. -- Nudve (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammad devotes a section in his book specifically to summarise Israeli accounts of the battle. He writes the group was never seen alive after entering the building, and makes no further mention of them. So I presume they were killed. How is it now? --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess. BTW, who is Hammad and is the book available in English? -- Nudve (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might ask. The book is not available in English (as far as I know). As for your first question, I'm pretty busy now, but I'll answer as soon as I can. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gamal Hammad is Egyptian, born 1921. He graduated from the Egyptian Military Academy in 1939, and served among the staff of an Egyptian brigade in the 1948 war. Joined the Free Officers Movement and became an important figure in the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. Served as Egypt's military attache in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq for several years. Studied military science in the Soviet Union. In 1962 was tasked with building up Yemen's Republican Army and setting up military academies in that country. After he returned to Egypt he was removed from the army. He became governor of Kafr el-Sheikh and later became governor of Monufia. As a military historian he authored a number of works on Muslim history and on the 1952 revolution. Wrote two book on the Yom Kippur War because he considered one would be too large. The first book describes the war on both fronts. The second book, used here, is larger and concentrates on battles in the canal zone. It also includes a large amount of analysis. He obviously conducted a lot of research on the subject and I think his book is exceptional among Arabic sources, but that's just my opinion, as well as that of the author of the final post on this forum. The current publisher of his book is a popular and mainstream publishing press, the largest, I believe, in the Arab World. Gawrych uses Hammad's book as a reference (but a different edition, see: notes under Arabic Sources).

That's about it. I hope this answers your question. Sorry if this was a long read. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, do I need to point out that the book is only available in Arabic? --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think he's reliable, I suppose I'll trust your judgment. I think that would be a good idea. -- Nudve (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Anyways, I don't think I'll be making any major edits to the article anytime soon. My priority right now is Badr. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nudve, if you could spare some time, drop by Talk:Yom Kippur War. Raul654 is obviously very busy, so your input would be appreciated. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"The armored force noticed another paratroop group, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Yaakov Hisdai, with eighty men, most of them wounded, which followed Yoffe's battalion. All but sixty men were rescued.[22]"

Maybe I'm not understanding that correctly, but "eighty men, all but sixty rescued" is an odd way of constructing a quantitative statement.