Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Pleshet


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Pleshet

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Ynhockey (Talk)

I took great time in making sure the article is comprehensive and balanced, and believe it to qualify for A-Class. The GA review raised some comprehensiveness concerns which have been addressed, so now I'm awaiting review from Milhist. The more reviews, the better, and the last time Milhist reviewed one of my articles, it was a positive and building experience. Ynhockey (Talk) 23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * No problems reported with external links. Alt text tool reports no images in the article are currently using alt text, please add check your images and add alt text to them. Due to a technical glitch I have been unable to check disambig links, but the tool seems to have gotten its second wind with this article because its reporting two such links present; if this is in fact correct then these need to be located and if at all possible fixed.
 * ✅ Fixed alt text problems. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More to follow later. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - while on the surface your sources appear to be good, I have a few concerns. Many of the boooks were published in Israel; while this in itself is not a bad thing&mdash;for obvious reasons, a majority of the books about this operation would be published in either Eygpt or Isreal&mdash;I do not see any books from or about the Eygptian forces. For one, this could be an indication of a non-neutral point of view, though I'd be the first to say that I do not have the knowledge to make a determination like this. It can also mean that an entire side of the battle is missing: for a battle to begin, it requires, at minimum, two sides. Similarily, the corresponding Wikipedia article should use sources from both sides; for example, the Battle off Samar article would ideally cull information from primary sources associated with Kurita and Sprauge, the two commanders, and secondary sources that research information (correcting errors in the originals) and analyze the action and the decisions made by each commander.
 * One particular example I found is this: "Muhammad Naguib decided to use the armored vehicles in his operational reserve against the retreating forces." Okay, but why did he choose to do this? Would an Eygptian source hold the answer?
 * I apologize for the TL;DR, and I also apologize if these comments are in error. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed17! Your comments are welcome, and somewhat echo the comments made in the GA review, which you can read here. Actually this article has a disproportionate amount of Arab historiography compared to almost all Israeli–Arab conflict articles I have seen on Wikipedia. The reason is simply that Israeli historiography is predominant, and both the most pro-Israel and most anti-Israel historians are actually Israeli (regardless of where they publish). It is very hard to find Arab primary or secondary sources, especially Egyptian ones. I have really scoured every possible source I could find on this operation, and came across just five Arab sources in existence which have nearly the level of detail needed:
 * Mustafa Kabha (who is actually an Israeli), who is extensively cited in the article.
 * The memoirs of presidents Nasser and Naguib, which I could not get hold of but are mentioned in many Israeli sources and in the article. I am fairly certain that the relevant parts of it are already given weight in the article.
 * The book "In the Eyes of the Enemy", which is an Israeli book that has three verbatim Arab accounts, and is cited by some of the authors I cited in the article (I could not get hold of the actual book). This includes captured Egyptian war logs which are mentioned in the article. I am fairly certain that the relevant parts of this source are already given weight in the article.
 * An Egyptian book by Ibrahim Shakib about the war, Harb Filastin, which I could not get, but it is cited in Kabha, and therefore some relevant parts are in the article. I do not know if there is anything in that book relevant to the operation which has not already been mentioned.
 * A Lebanese tertiary source about the Arab–Israeli wars, relevant parts of which are fully quoted by Kabha and does not provide any new information.
 * There are also other non-Egyptian Arab sources directly or indirectly used in the article, like Gerges and Abdullah At-Tal, that are not Egyptian and are no different from secondary Israeli sources.
 * Granted, the actual Operation section is told almost entirely from the Israeli point of view, however, there is no evidence of any Arab sources in existence (primary or secondary) that describe the operation from the Egyptian point of view. The Arab sources outlined above mainly deal with the background and aftermath, and none of them have more than one short sentence on the entire operation (which in the article is quite long). I am trying to get a hold of Harb Filastin, but on the whole I don't think it's fair to assess the article on the basis that Israeli historiography is predominant, as Israeli historiography is predominant on the subject of the entire Arab–Israeli conflict. The account provided by the Operation section is based almost entirely on the book by Avraham Ayalon, which is cited by every major historian of this war (Gelber, Morris, Karsh, etc.) when describing the operation itself. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. About the specific part of why he chose to use his operational reserve, it's actually discussed in a couple Israeli sources. I didn't think it was important to go into detail about this point. Should I? —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that in good faith; I have no reason to think you'd be lying. ;-) I hope that you can obtain Harb, just for appearance's sake if nothing else. Re specific part: if you could. I know that'd be a little in-depth, but I was wondering why he used the reserve there. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have added a short explanation as you requested. IIRC another one of the sources I used discussed this more in-depth, but I can't remember which, and it's probably not necessary to go into more detail anyway. Just for the record by the way, the chance that Harb Filastin has any valuable info for the Operation section is close to zero (per TL:DR post above). Its value lies in creating more balance for the Historiography section. It might be a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless, that in regards to the 1948 war, Arab military history sources are almost entirely absent (especially Syrian, which AFAIK don't exist at all). If anyone does have any sources in Arabic about the war (not just Pleshet), I would be delighted to have them, and would be willing to significantly improve my Arabic in order to read them. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, but it raises another question. ;-) Why would retreating soldiers pose a threat to cut off the Egyptian army? Were they retreating to the flank(s)&mdash;rather than backwards?
 * Thanks for your replies and great effort in striving to maintain total neutrality; it's appreciated. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how to put it into the article; was sure it was clear before, but I guess not :( would appreciate suggestions. Basically, the southern retreat (until the AFVs showed up) was organized and was not done under pressure. The Israeli forces were in a good position, and the bulk of the Egyptian forces were engage to the north. The decision to retreat was only made because of a perceived disadvantage of fighting during the day (because of Egypt's superiority in weaponry); simple math (although this would be WP:SYNTH for the article) suggests that Negev suffered zero KIAs before the retreat. Naguib therefore had no reason to believe that the force would retreat all the way to Nitzanim, especially because they came from the other direction, and he did not know how far they would retreat. He also likely believed that the 53rd's forces were in place (aftermath, paragraph 3).
 * As the article implies, it was the appearance of the AFVs during this retreat which turned it from an ordered withdrawal into a desperate escape. However, even in light of this, the Negev forces were in a much better position than the Givati forces in the north.
 * The above is meant as a general explanation, I don't think I can add anything more to the article on this issue; it's important to stick to what the sources explicitly say, without my own interpretations (which I can probably write a book about, after all that research!). If you have specific suggestions, please make them! Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back here, life is what happens when your busy making other plans.
 * Your block quotes need to be uniformly cited, you have some that cite from the last line before the quote and some after the end of the quote. They need to be all one thing or all the other, not split.
 * ✅ —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also share the concern over effective sourcing in the article, but I second read through is in order before I add any citation needed tags. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. While at first read it seems like an interesting good article, I share the concerns expressed above over sourcing and wish to see those resolved before I can fully support it. – Joe   N  01:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the concerns. What has not been addressed? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom's comment that he still expects to find places that need a citation needed tag, primarily. – Joe   N  21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for Tom to re-read the article and point out things that do not appear to be sourced. As the primary author of this article, I can assure any reviewer that 100% of the article is sourced (except the lead/infobox of course). If you find something that does not appear to be sourced, please let me know and I will try to make it as clear as possible what source the fact is taken from. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing issues appear to have been resolved, support. – Joe   N  21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I added three citation needed tags to a part I thought was weakly cited, otherwise I think everything appears in place. I would strongly suggest adding more citations to the already cited material if you can; for an article at 50 kilobytes having a bare 42 citations implies a lack of coverage and citation in the article even when you have everything cited to reliable sources. As a practical matter, this is partially compensated for by the presence of a healthy bibliography section, but I reiterate that adding more citations from these sources and any other you can find would help improve the perception of adequate citations in the article. In addition, while rereading the article I realized that in this case part of the problem here for me is that I am not used to reading about conflicts between the Israeli's and their neighbors, and as such had a hard time understanding what was being said in the article. This comment is not so much a sourcing issue as it is a flow of words issue, and even if the article was copy edited I am not sure all of this would be adequately addressed. From where I sit then the citations are thin but adequate and the prose issue is in my opinion beyond our ability to fix, so I offer my support for A-class with the understanding that this article be improved as all articles are over time. At any rate, you've done well with this article, and I wish you luck with FAC if you choose to head there. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi TomStar81! Thank you for your support. The citations for the tags you added are in the main text: carta-pleshet and aharoni229. I welcome any suggestion on how to make this more clear. In fact, every source in the Bibliography discusses this issue in one way or another, so that fact is not a problem. As regards to the overall sourcing, that's not really how I see it—Carta (Wallach) alone is cited 16 times, 8 times for Kabha, and certain pages of Ayalon are also cited many times in the article. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to say that there are only 42 sources, but rather there are 111 sourced statements (quick count), which is more than any article I have seen on such an obscure topic. Again though, if anyone has other sources which neither Nudve or I used (there aren't many in the world!), I very strongly encourage the user to either insert the information/sources, or send me the materials so I could add them. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 11:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.