User talk:Nirvi

Welcome
Hello, Nirvi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to Saad El Shazly and Yom Kippur War
I must inform you that what your recent additions to both articles are wrong. Aside the fact that no such significant event is mentioned in Shazly's memoirs, and the fact that Shazly continued to act as Chief of Staff throughout the war, Abdel Ghany El Gamasy also rejects what Sadat claimed in his book (such as that Shazly was a nervous wreck), and never said he was appointed as Chief of Staff. I have Gamasy's memoirs, and throughout his description of the war, he continues to refer to Shazly as: Chief of Staff.

Bottom line, Shazly was never replaced as Chief of Staff, and Gamasy remained Chief of Operations throughout the war. Sherif9282 (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you calling the former president of Eygept a liar? why would he? There's a large consensus in the western world that this report is accurate. Either way Sadat's claim should be mentioned. Nirvi (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits you can add reservations that are backed by reliable sources. Nirvi (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what was the point behind your question: "Are you calling the former president of Eygept a liar? why would he?". Look Nirvi, I don't know Sadat's intentions behind spreading false claims in his autobiography (its worth noting by the way, that his autobiography is very controversial for many reasons, one of which being that Sadat is the first and remains the only head of state to publish an autobiography while still in office). Sadat's autobiography is likely to be biased and unreliable. At any rate, one of the prime reasons Shazly wrote his book about the war was to counter the claims about himself that Sadat had made in his book: "In Search of an Identity". By the way, there is no "large consensus in the western world" that Sadat's claim is accurate. It's even rebuffed by Abdel Ghani El Gamasy in his memoirs, whom you claim replaced Shazly as Chief of Staff.

Now, this source which you cited mentions no references for its claims that Shazly was removed from the line of command.

This source which you cite in support for your claim, does not make any mention of Shazly being removed from command during the war. It only states in the beginning that Shazly was removed as Chief of Staff in 1973 at the pinnacle of his career, but does not specify when. If you had read later on, you would have found that the article goes on to specify that he was relieved on December 12, 1973, which is the correct date. It was then and only then, that Gamasy replaced Shazly as Chief of Staff, as Gamasy himself writes in his memoirs. If you consider it in fact, this source supports my side of the argument.

Furthermore, Shazly states that he never recommended a complete withdrawal of Egyptian forces from the Sinai as Sadat claimed. He only recommended the withdrawal of four armored brigades. Shazly's statement is supported by Gamasy, and by this source (pages 68-69). You will note that contrary to what you wrote, Sadat did not come to Center Ten with Ismail, but Ahmed Ismail Ali was already in Center Ten. You will also note that Shazly did not speak in Sadat's presence. So tell me: if Shazly hadn't spoken a single word to Sadat, how could Sadat possibly claim the man was in a nervous wreck? You will also note that this source I gave you is written by an American. So much for your "there is large consensus in the western world..."

Lastly, Shazly never said that disaster had struck Egypt. This is also supported by Gamasy and by the source I provided you. Sherif9282 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. "Now, this source which you cited mentions no references for its claims that Shazly was removed from the line of command." - "On 19 October Egyptian Chief of Staff Shazly recommended withdrawing Egyptian forces from the east bank to counter the Israeli west bank threat. Sadat and Ismail relieved him and issued orders that no troops would withdraw."


 * 2. "By the way, there is no 'large consensus in the western world' that Sadat's claim is accurate. It's even rebuffed by Abdel Ghani El Gamasy in his memoirs, whom you claim replaced Shazly as Chief of Staff." - "During the operational planning phase for the October 1973 War, Shazly had put together all the elements for a successful crossing of the Suez Canal and breach of the Israeli Bar-Lev defensive line. When ordered by President Sadat to go beyond the range of the SAM air defense umbrella, Shazly became defiant knowing this was tactical suicide. Egyptian generals--like the late Chief of Operations General Al-Gamassy--and Israeli authors narrate that Shazly has gone into complete collapse over the decision. The final straw that led Sadat to relieve Shazly was his insistence on pulling back one or two divisions to counterattack Ariel Sharon's units that had crossed into Egypt proper along the Ismailiah road and were clearly a threat to Cairo." Egyptian general Saad-Eddine El-Shazly: controversial operational thinker and architect of the 1973 Yom-Kippur War Youssef H. Aboul-Enein.


 * 3. "This source which you cite in support for your claim, does not make any mention of Shazly being removed from command during the war." - "Though Sadat relieved Al Shazly after the latter insisted that Cairo pull back either one or two divisions to counter-attack General Ariel Sharon’s units".


 * 4. even from a POV website "Shazly's role in the war is controversial, since Sadat (and the most recent Egyptian war histories) claim he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown after the Israeli counter-crossing of the canal, and was relieved of his duties. Shazly denies this, and indeed it was not reported until some time after Shazly's political break with Sadat was becoming apparent." el-shazly.com


 * 5. "Shazly states that he never recommended a complete withdrawal of Egyptian forces from the Sinai as Sadat claimed" "Shazly never said that disaster had struck Egypt" "Sadat did not come to Center Ten with Ismail, but Ahmed Ismail Ali was already in Center Ten. You will also note that Shazly did not speak in Sadat's presence." - The Fourth Round - A Critical Review of 1973 Arab-Israeli War by Hamid Hussain. He quote Sadat's autobiography.


 * 6. your source just verify the paragraph. "After spending 44 hours with the second army, Shazly returned to center ten during the evening of the 20 october and filed a pessimistic report, evaluating the military situation as critical", "There was also the fear that withdrawing armored forces from the east bank might spark panic among the troops"


 * 7. "So tell me: if Shazly hadn't spoken a single word to Sadat, how could Sadat possibly claim the man was in a nervous wreck?" - How a nervous wreck acts? screaming like a mad man? he probably sat in the corner mumbling to himself. Sadat had the impression that Shazly wasn't feeling well and wrote this in his book


 * 8. "Sadat's autobiography is likely to be biased and unreliable." - Are you kidding me??? this is wikipedia not conspiripedia!Nirvi (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your replies -

As for: 1. you didn't understand me. Your source still offers no references for its claim.

As for: 2. that article is not clear; ie: it does not specify that Shazly was relieved during the war. The author instead could be referring to the date of December 12, 1973. Rather, take a look at page 8, where the author goes on to say Shazly found Second Army Commander in a state of collapse.

As for: 3. that source did not specify the date on which Shazly was relieved except later in the article, where the author gives the date December 12, 1973.

As for: 4. you misunderstood what the author was trying to say. The author said that Sadat (or for that matter anyone else) only reported that Shazly had collapsed after Shazly politically opposed Sadat; ie: Sadat was probably just trying to discredit Shazly, now his political opponent. More than anything, this book review lays support to my argument.

As for: 5. Hamid Hussein only quotes Sadat (unsurprisingly!). Yet I have presented you with Shazly, Gamasy and this source (pages 68-69), to show you that Ahmed Ismail was already in Center Ten, that Shazly was not in collapse, and that Shazly did not suggest the withdrawal of all Egyptian forces from the Sinai.

As for: 6. This line that you quoted: "There was also the fear that withdrawing armored forces from the east bank might spark panic among the troops" represents the opinions of Sadat and Ismail and has nothing to do with our discussion. My source proves that Ismail was already in Center Ten, and does not support your claim that Shazly believed disaster had struck Egypt.

As for: 7. Now you're just speculating. According to Shazly and Gamasy's memoirs, Shazly was standing present at the meeting, along with all the other commanders present. Besides, the word collapsed means much more than just sitting in the corner mumbling to your self. You never get the impression that someone has collapsed, you know straight away when someone has collapsed. Collapse means to break down under great fatigue, illness or a sudden attack (such as a heart attack). In that case you will be lying helpless in bed, unable to function. Screaming like a madman is something else...

As for: 8. See this, where a user here in Wikipedia refers to Sadat's book as possibly valuable but certainly biased. Whatever anyone says, Sadat is, by definition, a dictator, and in my country (Egypt) this is how things go. Tell me that if someone like Stalin or Fidel Castro had published an autobiography, you would regard it as unbiased and as truthful as crystal clear. I'm not trying to throw up a conspiracy, but this is the truth.

I don't understand why you insist Shazly was relieved during the war, when the very man you claimed relieved him, Abdel Ghani El Gamasy, makes no mention in his memoirs (which I have) that Shazly was relieved during the war and that he (Gamasy) had taken command in his place. Gamasy also states that Shazly was in fine shape (no signs of collapse, nervous breakdown, fatigue, illness, etc...), and that Shazly only recommended the withdrawal of four brigades, not the entire army. Sherif9282 (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. "for its claims that Shazly was removed from the line of command." - "Sadat and Ismail relieved him".


 * 2. "it does not specify that Shazly was relieved during the war" - it implies here "The final straw that led Sadat to relieve Shazly was his insistence on pulling back one or two divisions to counterattack" but I've inserted this ref because of this part "Egyptian generals--like the late Chief of Operations General Al-Gamassy--and Israeli authors narrate that Shazly has gone into complete collapse".


 * 3. "where the author gives the date December 12, 1973." - I searched several times I can't find this date.


 * 4. The author writes the truth - "Sadat (and the most recent Egyptian war histories) {there's my consensus} claim he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown after the Israeli counter-crossing of the canal", his and theirs motives are a topic for a different discussion (I guess Shazly is pure of any hidden agendas, and his book is 100% accurate...). anyway the fact is that Sadat and several historians (and not conspiracy theorists) say he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.


 * 5. "that Shazly was not in collapse" - it says that he kept silence, this doesn't mean that he was in good (mental?) health, before this part it mentions that he wrote a rather pessimistic report. I expect the chief of staff to speak at the most crucial time of the war (but this got nothing to do with this discussion). "Shazly did not suggest the withdrawal of all Egyptian forces from the Sinai" - Sadat wrote "recommended withdrawing Egyptian forces", others wrote 1-2 divisions, Shazly wrote 4 brigades. "I have presented you with Shazly, Gamasy" - "Egyptian generals--like the late Chief of Operations General Al-Gamassy--and Israeli authors narrate that Shazly has gone into complete collapse".


 * 6. "and does not support your claim that Shazly believed disaster had struck Egypt" - It's not my claim it's Sadat's and your source verify his 2nd claim that there was a fear of spreading panic.


 * 7. "So tell me: if Shazly hadn't spoken a single word to Sadat, how could Sadat possibly claim the man was in a nervous wreck?" - who speculated first? "Besides, the word collapsed means much more than just sitting in the corner mumbling to your self. You never get the impression that someone has collapsed, you know straight away when someone has collapsed. Collapse means to break down under great fatigue, illness or a sudden attack (such as a heart attack). In that case you will be lying helpless in bed, unable to function. Screaming like a madman is something else..." - Are you a psychiatrist? either way Sadat writes his impression and he's not the only one to think so "Egyptian generals--like the late Chief of Operations General Al-Gamassy'''--and Israeli authors narrate that Shazly has gone into complete collapse".


 * 8. This user means that every autobiography is biased (including Shazly's) because a person can't write about himself with a neutral point of view. and since when we hold users as experts?


 * 9. I suggest this:


 * On October 19, 1973, After the IDF crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, Sadat sent Shazly to the front to assess the situation. When Sadat visited the Command Headquarters with General Ismail, he found Shazly collapsed. Sadat used the words, "nervous wreck". Shazly said that the disaster had struck and that Egypt have to withdraw from Sinai. Sadat immediately relieved Shazli and appointed El Gamasy for fear of panic among the high command (Dismissal was not made public).   In his memoirs Shazly wrote that he only recommended the withdrawal of four brigades to counter the Israeli army on the west bank of the canal and that he was replaced on December 12, after the war ended. Nirvi (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness!! Did I ever claim I was a psychiatrist??? Why don't just type in the google search bar define: collapse! Or type define: nervous breakdown! You don't have to be a psychiatrist to explain collapse or nervous breakdown. You still don't get it, even though I told you several times, Gamasy states in his book that Ismail was already in Center Ten, contrary to Sadat's claim, Shazly was in good condition (no collapse, no fatigue, nervous breakdown...), and he makes no mention that: 1)Shazly was relieved by either Ismail or Sadat 2)that he (Gamasy) was appointed Chief of Staff

So please, I implore you, stop repeating the sentence "Egyptian generals--like the late Chief of Operations General Al-Gamassy... narrate that Shazly has gone into complete collapse", because aside the fact that this sentence is mistaken (as proven by Gamasy's very own memoirs), it's also insulting; I'm not mentally retarded so that you have to repeat the sentence over and over again.

Besides, I'm in possession of another book, written by three Egyptian generals, and it also makes no mention of Shazly suffering collapse or being replaced by Gamasy.

In addition, Sadat asked individually each commander at the meeting to provide his opinion, the only one not asked to present his opinion was Shazly; this does not mean that Shazly was in poor health, collapse, etc... also, for a Chief of Staff to file a pessimistic report does not mean that he stated disaster had struck Egypt. You should know that 1-2 divisions means around 4 brigades. At any rate, Sadat claimed that Shazly suggested withdrawing all Egyptian forces from the Sinai.

My source which writes that there was fear of spreading panic among troops refers to Ismail's opinion that withdrawing the four brigades Shazly had suggested might spread panic among frontline troops (not commanders) as had happened in the Six Day War. So it doesn't verify any of Sadat's claims

The other source clearly says "Al Shazly was appointed Army Chief of Staff, a position he held until December 12, 1973." Your search might have been incorrect. Search again. Lastly, I wasn't speculating; I stated a fact and made a question based on that fact.

I'm sorry but I must turn down your suggestion. Sherif9282 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What you're doing is original research "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." please refrain form making claims without refs, stop telling me what Shazly, Gamasy, Sadat or any other person for that matter doesn't say or write and start bringing quotes form respectable, published sources. I'm adding another ref, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974 p. 518-519 by Trevor N. Dupuy that shows, again, that Shazly was relieved.


 * I'm also adding this scan of Sadat's book (Shazly's boss by the way) that makes this too long discussion irrelevant, and all other refs and quotes unnecessary.

300px

Nirvi (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadat was Shazly's boss? Really!

Sadat's book certainly contain some illuminating information: For the previous ten days I had been fighting—entirely alone—the Americans with their modern weapons, most of which had not ever been used before.

Well I guess that the Syrians too were fighting NATO entirely on its own, and Israel was fighting the Soviet Union all by its self from the very start of the war! Give me a break.

Then again:establishing a command there for himself (Shazly) so as to compete with Marshal Ali.

To compete? Were they playing tug of war or something?

Anyways, I've gone ahead and made an addition to the article, using my sources. What I've written includes no original research. Sherif9282 (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)