Talk:Operation Matateh

POV
For anyone who didn't read my original edit summary for the tag:
 * tagged for POV--article uses selective quoting, also makes it sound as though the operation's objectives were to depopulate a number of peaceful arab villages

—Ynhockey (Talk) 12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Yan, Thank you for this - my first POV tag. Tasharanfna (you honour us). But here is the question: Yes it is selective quoting. Selected by Benny Morris, mainly, with some extras from the 'All that remains' editors. All Morris' references go back to 'History of the Haganah' or the various Brigade histories. So I am relying on his selection: Do the sources help to fill in any of details that Morris hasn't passed on? Are there more references to casualties? What were the brigade casualties during these operations? This would give us an idea of the amount/quality of resistance. And so on. But I can't read Hebrew. I cannot access these sources. I have to rely on Morris. But if you can point at the inaccuracy/error - yalla - lets go there. Show me.Padres Hana (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Pardes Hana! There are numerous serious problems with the article, and the selective quoting was, unfortunately, yours and not Morris's. Here are the three main problems:
 * Wild interpretations—there is a very long way from: "The destruction of bases of the enemy, who sabotages and harrasses our traffic in the Galilee", "To destroy points of asssembly for invading forces from east" and "To join the lower and upper Galilee with a relatively wide and safe strip." to "clear the area of Bedouin encampments". The latter was actually possibly a recommendation from Yigal Allon, and the source is not clear. Again, it is likely that this happenned, but there's a long way from someone happenning on the ground, to being part of the operation objective.
 * Selective quoting—why is "their inhabitants [be] expelled and houses blown up." in the article, but 'Friendly Arabs "should on no account be harmed..."' is part of a footnote? I don't have access to the book, but this is a clear case of where the book did provide a counter-statement, and you chose not to give it equal weight in the article. One has to wonder what other things Morris wrote and were left out to make the article more anti-Israel. Of course, it's already fairly bad that the entire article is based on one source, but it doesn't have to be made even worse by selectively quoting that one source.
 * Lackluster structure and redundancy—the article has an entire unnecessary quote from the "Palestine Guide", and down at the bottom the article has a table copy&pasted from other articles (this structure was probably originally copied from palestineremembered.com), with the names of the villages changed, saying for example that "Palmach" is a brigade. This indicates that there was minimal effort to research the subject, and the main "point" was to turn it into another memorial for depopulated Arab villages. The names should be given as part of the prose with should describe the events as reliable sources describe them.


 * I hope this clarified my earlier concerns. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mea Culpa. I did puzzle about footnoting the 'on no account harm friendly arabs.' Actually I thought about leaving it out completely. The way it reads in the Morris original doesn't sit right and like yourself I would like to see the full original text/context. And yes I like the quote from Steimatzky's. It gives a contemporary picture of the land, and from a Zionist source. But if it is too colourful .... But hey! that table is copied from Operation Yoav. And I resent the 'minimal effort to research the subject'. Those villages/brigades/population are taken from 'All that remains' it is no problem to page id each one. And since ATR doesn't have this data in list form the table represents many hours at the kitchen table. And a good percentage are mentioned in the Morris text. Would it help if I page id them? mumkin. And also I have found the table format very useful when looking at the chronology. But if you think prose would improve it I'll try and come back here. Right now I'm sketching in the rest of the Operations and then I'd like to tighten up the Palmach stuff. Where do you people find the time? Thanks for the helpPadres Hana (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)