Talk:Battles of the Kinarot Valley

Article name

Before someone renames this article, because this is not a well-known or accepted name for the battle, here's the rationale: The battle is generally divided into the Battle of Tzemah and the Battle of Degania (commanded by Dayan). However, they are part of the same inseparable campaign. The article thus could be named Battle of Degania-Tzemah, which is a name I've seen used here and there, although that would still not incorporate some of the side-battles, especially the battle for Sha'ar HaGolan and Masada. Also the water institute and the shelling of Ein Gev and bombing of Israeli villages. Therefore I think the name is fitting as the only proper name to encompass this campaign. Moreover, I have a text from a book (it's photocopied so I have no idea about the book's name) which does mention the name Battle of the Kinarot Valley (הקרב בבקעת הכינרות). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

I've added some info and sources. Two issues:

1. I rearranged the reflist with a bibliography section. I need ISBNs and number of pages for the Hebrew sources. It might be possible to find them online, buy input directly from Ynhockey is preferable.
2. More important: The aftermath section is short. Most sources refer to this battle together with the Syrian attack north of the Bnot Yaakov Bridge on 22 May and the subsequent attacks on Mishmar HaYarden. We need to decide if and how those are related to this battle.

Regards, Nudve (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nudve! Thanks for working on the article. Answers to the question:

1. Both Hebrew books I used are from a period when ISBNs were not used in Israel, as far as I know. In any case, I could not find an ISBN on either book. I don't think the number of pages is important as both sources are specialized encyclopedias, but if it's important, volume 2 of Carta has 159 pages, and I'm not sure about the IDF encyclopedia because at the moment I only have the MP section of the book.
2. I agree that the Battle of Degania is often tied with the attack on the Syrian customs house (18/19 May) Mishmar HaYarden and Ein Gev (10 June). However, I believe that we can write a whole other decent article on those battles north of the Kineret and there's no need to merge them. The aftermath section can be expanded if sources are found directly linking the attack on Mishmar HaYarden with Degania (I'm sure this exists).

A couple more points:

• Like in the article Valley of Tears, I can't for the life of me find out what locations you are talking about :P for example, I don't think there's a word 'Harel' in Arabic and in any case I couldn't for the life of me find a geographical location resembling that name. Did you mean Kafr Harib?
• The article doesn't look too good on widescreen monitors right now, because the paragraphs have fewer lines and the images interfere with them. I think the images should be re-stacked with the infobox.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the ISBN: Right, then just the pages would be enough.

Regarding the other battles: If you think so. I'm not too sure.

Regarding the names: Heh, quite possible. Dupuy's transliterations are truly awful. When I was working on Valley on Tears, it took me a while to understand that "Yossi Ben Chanen" is actually Yossi Ben Hanan.

Regarding the images: Not too sure what your thing with widescreens is. I've never seen an article with all the images stacked up. Seems more logical to have each battle map in its corresponding appropriate section. No?

Cheers, Nudve (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

About the images: I'll attach a screenshot of what it looks like on my monitor some time. Images are actually stacked very often, especially large ones, to avoid huge gaping blank spaces.

About the citations: I added number of pages for BeIkvot Lohamim and made a few general fixes. FYI, the 'pages' parameter in Cite book is meant for the page number, not the number of pages, but I guess it can be used both ways. See also this no-consensus discussion. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Israeli attack on Kafr Harib

I just re-read that part, and was wondering if anyone could shed more light on this attack. I think it should get more weight in the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some info from a book I picked up. Surprisingly, it doesn't mention that attack, which is a little strange. Anyway, I also rearranged the layout a bit, per WP:MILMOS, moving some stuff to the aftermath section (which, by the way), has one unsourced paragraph, which might be irrelevant, giving history all the way up to the Six-Day War). I also think the controversy section might be moved to a subsection of that. Finally, the book I've added is by Netanel lorch. One of the other sources cite "Netanel Lorekh". I'm pretty sure it's the same person. Does Atlas Carta spell his name that way in English? If not, perhaps it should be changed to avoid confusion. -- Nudve (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: The lead mentions, in bold letters, a Battle of Masada-Sha'ar HaGolan, yet these villages were evacuated without a fight. The evacuation is mentioned in a couple of sentences in the Tzemch section. I can expand about this, but would like to know your plans. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The historian's named is Netanel Lorekh (נתנאל לורך). Thanks for adding the info! About Masada and Sha'ar HaGolan, any relevant info would be appreciated! After all is said and done, we can focus on formatting and organizing the article properly. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The English name is Lorch. This is the citation. I'll add some info on the evacuation. -- Nudve (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on a second read, I doubt if there's much I can add about this. The notable details are already there. There's just some quotes from a member of the delegation from Degania to Tel Aviv about Ben Gurion and Yigael Yadin's replies. I'm not sure if that's not undue. -- Nudve (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you post the quotes here? I think it could be a good addition to the article, but it depends on the quote's content. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added some. I tried not to add too much. I've found this link in the Shaar Hagolan article. Maybe it could be used. -- Nudve (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I added a link to the Sha'ar HaGolan article earlier today and noticed it too. Some things can probably be used, but what I'm really trying to find is more work by this Asaf Agin, which is almost certainly relevant to the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's a research dedicated to this battle, it would surely help. I wonder if it was published. -- Nudve (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tzemah

I just found a problem in the article Samakh, Tiberias relevant to this article as well—apparently the site PalestineRemembered comes out with more dubious information. It claims that:

1. Tzemah was defended by the Syrian Army in March 1948, not explaining how the residents were 'expelled by the Haganah' if they were defended by the Syrian Army.
2. The remainder of Tzemah's residents were driven out in a Haganah assault on May 18 April 18, 1948.

While the first claim sounds ridiculous, I don't remember reading anywhere directly that it wasn't true. Therefore, I think we should address the 2nd claim first. I distinctly remember reading when researching for this article that Tzemah was entirely abandoned before the attack on May 18, which was a Syrian attack on the Israeli position, not vice versa (the latter point is actually present in all the books cited in the article). I'll look more into this when there is time, but was hoping that someone else could do it before me, or at least point to the specific source which clearly rebutted PR's second claim. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit: It appears that I misread, and it says April 18, 1948, which sounds a lot more plausible. My request for more information still stands however. Meanwhile, I'll make a small change to the article so it doesn't say anything that its own source (PR.com) doesn't say. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ready for a GA run?

Do you think this article is ready for a GA run? I think it's in pretty good shape now, with as much information as it's going to get in the coming weeks. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are a few citations missing, most notably the first paragraph of the Background section is uncited. It shouldn't be too hard to fix that (let me know if you need me to look for sources). I am also a bit disappointed that we only have 23 footnotes. I don't know why, but it feels like a bit too little. But yeah, I think it has a shot. Maybe the reviewers will have constructive suggestions. If worst comes to worst and it fails, just ask for your money back :) -- Nudve (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the background section is sort of general well-known information, which shouldn't be hard to source by doing a Google search, so I'll do that now. If you have more serious sources, they are welcome of course. About the amount of refs: I have seen FAs will less than this, so it really depends on the scope of the article and how you use the refs. For example, the article in Carta is cited 15 times in different locations, which is sort of like 15 different refs. For some of the very well-known facts, I can probably add varying refs to 'add more color', but I completely oppose the idea of sourcing for the sake of sourcing, and what we have now looks pretty good. There may be small issues, but this is why we're not putting it up for FA just yet :) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Well, if and when you do nominate it, let me know so I'll watch the review. -- Nudve (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the missing refs and nominated the article. This may take a long time, but let's see what the others say :) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Water Institute

Nudve, can you please check your sources regarding the fight at the Water Institute? Especially important is what this water institute was (I have no idea), how many people were defending it, and in what manner it was captured. None of the articles/books I read on this subject many any mention of the Water Institute other than in passing, but it seems pretty interesting/relevant to this article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is what Lorch refers to as the "Palestine Electric Works" in Naharayim. He discusses this in the context of the Iraqi front. -- Nudve (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hebrew Wikipedia article discusses it, but does not specify its sources. -- Nudve (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonono, the Water Institute (מכון המים) is in a completely different location. I doubt they are related, although it's possible. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly is this institute? -- Nudve (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's kind of hard to explain aside from the maps in the article, but it was on the Yarmouk around here, while the power station in Naharayim was next to Gesher, according to Google here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

The article seems good to me. And the maps are wonderfull. Congratulations.
There are pov-issues with the background. I made some corrections but it is not enough and I cannot address these right now. I come back later.
Ceedjee (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm comments Ceedjee! I have re-instated part of what you removed in background as 'official Israeli version', because GlobalSecurity.org is not related to Israel in any way and is a reliable source for military history. It is known that Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Egypt participated more actively than Lebanon, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, but those 3 countries also had troops in Israel, and this is not contradicted by Gelber. If you wish, we can add that Lebanon, Yemen and Saudi Arabia had limited participation, but IMO this is going into unnecessary detail which already exists in the linked articles. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please try to format refs like the rest, as this article is standing for GA and there could be problems with ref formatting. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey,

That is really a good article ! :-)

You are wrong concerning what you want to write in the background. I'd like you read Gelber before we go on this discussion. You have access to the pages I gave as references...

Particularly concerning the "invasion of Israel"...

Could you please check what he writes exactly ? Same concerning the expeditionnary forces that participated...

I add that Benny Morris, 1948, p.401 writes (I underline) : "In May 1948 all, except Jordan, found it prudent, when dispatching expeditionary forces to Palestine, to leave behind large units to protect the regime (...). [T]he four armies that invaded on 15 May were far stronger than the Haganah formations they initially encountered, if not in manpower -where they were roughly evenly matched) then in equipment and firepower."

nb: Of course, "Global security" is not a wp:rs source. And I would add that in more of Yemen, Sudan and Morocco also sent contingents. So, in fact, they were at least 9 and not 7... Ceedjee (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I will investigate this more in-depth tomorrow, but since when is GlobalSecurity.org not a reliable source? Says who? Certainly if we can accept books by controversial 'new' historians as fact, a website with a solid reputation should be even more reliable for us. Some users have the completely false idea that books are automatically more reliable than websites. This is completely false and often websites are both more informative and more reliable. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey,

Sorry but... I have to disagree ;-)

"website of solid reputation" ->  ? And what are their own sources ?

One the other side, Yoav Gelber is not a new historian but is a scholar whose topic of study is this period ! He published in the Sussex Academic Press, a peer reviewed universitary publisher !

And about Benny Morris, again, his last book is a peer reviewed one published at an universitary publisher... He is controversial about his alleged pro-Israeli and racist opinion concering Arab (see the unfamous "survival of the fittest" interview). In anyway, the excerpt I gave are not controversial. All this is good sense and, personnaly at least, I don't see any good reasons given the number of troops and their real involvment to criticize this.

You know, if due to the 800-1200 Saudi volunteers, we have to claim that Saudi Arabia army invaded Israel, what must we write about the ~4000 ones of the Mahal, most of them coming from the USA... Let's fit to facts and the most wp:rs sources as possible. In the current case, this website is not correct. It just reports the former Israeli version of the events with the famous "invasion of Israel by the seven". Ceedjee (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, the burden of proof lies with you about GlobalSecurity.org. It is widely cited on Wikipedia on military history matters, and it is only your personal opinion that it is not reliable. At least you should give some indication on why it is unreliable. Also, I didn't say anything about Gelber. You must have misread my comment. Anyway, I have just read a large part of Gelber's book and it does not contradict the earlier version in the article. I don't mind adding that expeditionary forces from Yemen and Saudi Arabia were present (and not their 'armies' because this is ambiguous), but your version that Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt and Syria also sent expeditionary forces is completely misleading. Bringing up your own analogy with US and other soldiers, the 2003 invasion of Iraq saw the participation of expeditionary forces from the US, UK and a bunch of other countries, but the lead setence of the article just says 'US and UK forces', because it is obvious that not the entire armies of these countries would participate. It is therefore highly misleading to term major contingents from Syria, Iraq, Transjordan and Egypt as simply 'expeditionary' forces. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gelber talks about "expeditionnary forces". did you see it ?

And it is not to me to prove a website is not good, particularly when it contredicts what is written by scholar specialist on the issue.

On 1 side, there are 2 scholars, specialized on the topic. On the other side a website written by an anonymous guy.

We don't have time to pilpul. Please, just read what Gelber writes...

"invasion of Palestine", "no participation of Lebanon", "expeditionnary forces"...

Ceedjee (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, Gelber does not contradict GlobalSecurity, and the possible reason that you misunderstand is a language issue. Basically, in English, when you say "The Egyptian army invaded Israel", it does not mean that the entire Egyptian army invaded Israel. As long as there was even a small Egyptian unit, with the army's backing, it is completely valid to say this. In other words, 'the Egyptian army invaded Israel' is not contradictory to 'an expeditionary force of the Egyptian army invaded Israel'.

On the other hand, 'expeditionary force' is misleading because it implies a very small force. So, while Gelber is correct, in the context of his book it is very clear what the 'expeditionary force' was, while in the context of this article, it reads as 'very small forces from Egypt, Transjordan, etc. ...'. This article is not about the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and there is no place here to go into excessive detail about the Arab forces. Therefore, we should make a very short statement, without going into excessive detail, but it should also be clear on what actually happenned. 'The armies of [list countries here]' is as clear and short as it can get. If someone wants to know the exact numbers and dispositions of all invading forces, they are welcome to click on the numerous 1948 Arab–Israeli War links spread throughout the article.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

<go to left for clarity>
Ynhockey,
There is *no* langage issue... All this is very easy to solve very factually if you have access to Gelber's book :

• what is the title of chap 8 of Gelber's book ?
• what is written on 3rd line (not counting the quotes) p.137 of Gelber's book ?
• about "army", "contingent" and "Lebanon", what is written p.128, 1st paragraph of Gelber's book ?

(If don't have access to these, I will provide the quotes but I'd prefer you watch yourself)
For what concern "expeditionnary forces", we can write "contingent" (which more evasive concerning the qtt issue) but when you write that "expeditionnary forces" give the false feeling that that was very little, what is the feeling of reading : "The armies of seven Arab states invaded Israel" ?
I have already quoted Morris. And Gelber writes the same. Ceedjee (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is a language issue which you don't seem to understand. "Expeditionary force" is not contradictory to "army" except in very specific contexts. Obviously not the entire army invaded, and no one said or implied that they did. Again, I don't mind adding that only small forces from Yemen and Saudi Arabia participated, but there should be no implication in the article that the Jordanian or Egyptian forces were very small, as indeed they were not. I read the pages you mention when writing this article, and again earlier today (before writing the previous comment). Please read my comments before repeating your own. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I just looked again at the pages you are referring to, and none of them support your claims. Page 128 is clearly noted as Kirkbride's opinion, page 137 does not contradict the fact that several Arab armies invaded Israel (again, might be a language issue if you don't understand this), and the title of chapter 8 is, of course, "The Arab Regular Armies' Invasion of Palestine", which could not be more clear. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

not Israel, Palestine. You gave yourself Chap 8's title. It is up to you, I don't care.

anyway, if you like history, see : [1]

I think Yoav Gelber found a good compromise :-) :

"Their invasion of Palestine opened a new stage in the war: a full-scale military confrontation between the newborn State of Israel and an alliance of seven Arab countries, which between them mustered four armies—the Egyptian, Transjordanian, Iraqi, and Syrian."

oh... I have just discovered he wrote : "(...) as well as those recruited for part-time service in order to hold the ceasefire lines during the truces. This is somewhat misleading as a figure for comparison, because the Arab armies were expeditionary forces" :-)

(...)"From a military perspective, however, the Arab expeditionary forces were simply incapable of accomplishing such an ambitious task."

(second page of the article).

Ceedjee (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battles of the Kinarot Valley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I would be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Still some controversy, it is stable but as with any article related to this subject there will be disputes and this one is no different.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done the article is certainly good and with some more work could move up from here. H1nkles (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial comment

I see that there has been a significant back and forth already on the GA quality of this article. I have yet to read the article or the discussion on the article's talk page. So as not to bias my review I will not read the discussion on the talk page until after I have reviewed the article and made comments here. As with anything related to this subject there are strong opinions on both sides, I will endeavor to be impartial and fair. H1nkles (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Lead

• Battle of Degania-Tzemah, and battles near Masada-Sha'ar HaGolan. These two places should be wikilinked.
  • I think it's good from a stylistic point of view to have them linked in the second paragraph (as they are now), to avoid overlinking or a feeling of overlinking. What do you think? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I stringently resist overlinking, my rationale was that the mention of these places in the lead is the first the readers see of them, makes sense to link them but they are linked later so that is fine. H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you bold the Battle of Degania-Tzemah?
  • Done. There was actually a reason, but on second thought it isn't important. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quote, "The campaign was perceived as a decisive Israeli victory, causing reorganizations in the Syrian high command and tales of the heroics in Degania becoming popularized in Israel." This is a run on sentence, please split and make the second sentence less passive - "Tales of Israeli heroics especially at Degania became popular." For example.
  • Reworded. Is it better now? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Better - thanks. H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the table - Strength on the Israeli side you say 70, is that 70 soldiers?!? And what about at the battles of Masada-Sha'ar HaGolan? Also under casualties and losses you say "Tens (Tzemah)" What do you mean by "Tens"? H1nkles (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Part about strength done. Casualty figure—this is what the source says, and I have unfortunately not been able to find anything better. Tens (עשרות, asrot) is often translated as "dozens", which is widely-accepted in English, but some numbers (esp. between 20 and 30) would not fill well with the "dozens" definition. I'm not sure how to fix this without finding out the actual casualty number, which is difficult because Nudve, I, and the internet, have almost all the notable literature on this subject. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah this is a tricky one. "Tens" really isn't a correct word in English. "Dozens" is linguistically better but isn't very precise. Can it be changed to "approx. 20-30"? H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Overall it's a good summary of the article and covers the major points addressed in the body. H1nkles (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

• Well written.
• Is there anything on the motivation of the Arab forces that could be put in without violating POV standards? Why did Lebanon not wish to participate?
  • There is a lot of literature on this, but the situation was rather complicated. As you can see from the above discussion, Ceedjee and I disagreed on some very simple points, so I shudder to think of the dispute that more content on Arab planning would bring (doesn't necessarily have to do with POV). Moreover, I strongly oppose adding anything too detailed to the background section as it stands now. I'll see if there's anything simple to add from Gelber's book, which is available on Google Books in English. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your points are well taken. I have not read the comments between you and Ceedjee so that I can maintain a fresh set of eyes on the article. If there is something simple to delve a little deeper on that subject that would be fine. I'm all for summary style and digging into motives can get controversial. I'll trust you to know best how to handle that. H1nkles (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You appear to have good maps of the battles, what about a map outlining the movement of the Syrian forces? I think this would be a nice addition for people unfamiliar with the geography of the area.
  • It would definitely improve the article, but I'm not sure there's time to make it within the timeframe of this review. I'll make something later, although if you believe it's imperative, I'll try to make something simple tomorrow or on the weekend. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't mandatory, it would be a nice addition since the maps are very clear and topical. If it can be done after the review that will be fine. H1nkles (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You refer to the Mandate of Palestine, is this synonymous with Israel? If so then perhaps putting (Israel) after it would help clarify that. H1nkles (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • They are not synonymous, although I agree that it might not be immediately clear to the casual reader. I just added a wikilink for convenience, but will be glad to hear suggestions on how to make it easier to understand. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes the link helps I didn't realize the Mandate encompassed so much of what is now Jordan, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. H1nkles (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding prelude

• Quote, "He had only two of his battalions, and they were exhausted" Why were they exhausted? The article doesn't clarify, is it because they were forced to reposition? The context makes me think they were exhausted prior to their move out of Lebanon but I could be reading it wrong. Please let me know.
  • I will wait for Nudve's comment on this because he owns Dupuy's book and I do not, but I'd say that both scenarios are highly possible. These troops had to reposition several times in several days, which is not a simple logistical task, and it's likely that at least some of the repositioning was done on foot. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ynhockey is correct. They were exhausted because they had to move all the way back across the Golan. -- Nudve (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the actual quote from the book, I clarified the issue, although it might need better wording. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise the section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Battles

Well written up to the first subheading. I'll review that next. H1nkles (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tzemah

• The first paragraph has two in-line citations at the end but there are a lot of facts in the paragraph. Until now you've been very good about listing citations within the paragraph. Please add citations in the body of this first paragraph. Especially after the sentence about enormous Israeli casualties due to their inability to dig in.
• Photo is good and very topical. H1nkles (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Degania Alef

• Quote, "...and made a clear separation between the Kinarot Valley and the Battle of Gesher to the south against Transjordan." Are you saying that the Battle of Gesher was fought against Transjordan? It isn't very clear.
  • Done. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quote, "The Israeli defenders numbered about 70 persons" This statement needs a citation.
  • Same citation as the rest of the text leading up to #1. Do you think it needs a reword? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise the section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Degania Bet

• Quote, "Despite the Syrian superiority in numbers and equipment, the destruction of a multitude of armored vehicles and the infantry's failure to infiltrate Degania Alef was the likely cause for the retreat of the main Syrian force to Tzemah." This is speculation, is there a source for this statement?
  • That's actually almost exactly what the source says (Wallach, Jeuda: Carta vol. 2, p. 15). What do you suggest? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Put the in-line cite there. That will support the assertion. H1nkles (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The final paragraph in this subsection about why the Syrians withdrew needs in-line ciations within the paragraph for the two reasons for the retreat. H1nkles (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that of all sources used, only Dupuy gives the reasons for the Syrian withdrawal. His book is in English so maybe Nudve can provide a full quote. However, it appears that the entire paragraph is paraphrased from Dupuy, so I don't see a need to add more of the same citation. Is this what you had in mind? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Aftermath and effects

This section is fine, the first tank kill section is a bit superfluous but it doesn't detract from the article so it's ok. H1nkles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• The references are good, I usually like to see accessdates within 3-4 months of my review. You have a couple in late August, which is right on the edge of that time frame. If you could update those that would be great.
  • Done. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The references appear credible though I can't check the books. You do incorporate some English language sources, which are important. Formatting looks good. H1nkles (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall review

• Consider my comments above, this is just a summary of my impressions of the article.
• Check your in-line citations and add a few to main facts in the article. For the most part you're good on this, just a few paragraphs need to be addressed.
• Prose is good. I fixed a couple type-o's.
• Pictures and maps are excellent.
• Check that "Tens" reference in the table, that should be addressed.
• Clarify a couple of questions above and it should be done. Good job! I'll hold it for a week, if you finish up your fixes early just let me know, I'll read it one more time and do my final determination. I think now I'll read your little back and forth and see what that was all about. H1nkles (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

H1nkles, thank you very much for the review! I was beginning to give up hope, it's been up for almost 2 months. In any case, I fixed almost all of the issues you mentioned. One issue appearing in several sections is citations (especially in the Tzemah section)—you say that there should be more in-line citations, although I'm not quite sure how to address that. Basically all text in the article is cited, and if there are several sentences without in-line citation, it means that they all come from the citation at the end. For example, the entire 3rd paragraph in the Tzemah section comes from citation #20, the text in 'Battles' between 'The opening shots ...' and '... the two kibbutzim' come from citation #1, etc. There are some combinations, where a paragraph is paraphrased from longer text passages from 2 or more sources, which are both given at the end (in Tzemah section). It is possible to re-arrange certain facts to have slightly more in-line citations, but I believe this is counter-productive and will harm the flow of the prose. It is also not practical to have the same citation given several times consecutively (IMO). What do you suggest? Are there any other issues I missed? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ynhockey, I've read your comments and appreciate where you're coming from. The MOS is not explicit about putting in-line citations after every fact and I don't advocate citations after every fact. My suggestion was given with the idea that readers may want to research certain assertions in the article. If it is generally understood that the citation(s) at the end of the paragraph cover all the facts then that's fine. I have not done FA reviews and so I'm not sure how this issue is handled in that realm. Since this is a GA review I will go with your reasoning. It appears as though you have finished your fixes so I will review the article one last time and then determine GA status today. BTW I noted in your profile that you spent some time in Burnaby B.C., I had the honor of living in Coquitlam for nearly a year. I would say it's God's country up there but you live in Israel and that literally is God's country. Shalom. H1nkles (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Pass

It is my pleasure to pass this article as GA. It is well written and very fair to both sides. Keep up the good work. Congratulations. H1nkles (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciatd. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Avraham Yoffe

Avraham Yoffe was not the commander of barak battalion (No 12). He was the commander of gideon battalion (No 13).

Avi1111 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will check this later today. It is not directly sourced and you may be right. If you have relevant sources yourself, please post them here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The book of golani brigade in the independence war (אילן ושלח). ma'arachot publishing and other sources. the battalion 12 commander was izhak broshi. golani brigade commander was at that time moshe mann. Look also at the hebrew wikipedia about golani brigade in the independence war.

Avi1111 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't checked my own sources (for that I apologize), but keep in mind that commanders changed a lot during the war, especially in Golani. What page are you referring to in Ilan VaShelah? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

After a general review of the sources, I have not found any evidence that Yoffe was the commander of the 12th, so I have removed mention of him from the article. Thank you for the correction. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battles of the Kinarot Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915071704/http://dover.idf.il:80/IDF/About/history/40s/1948/052001.htm to http://dover.idf.il/IDF/About/history/40s/1948/052001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)