![]() | Battles of the Kinarot Valley has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 3, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that about 70 Jewish fighters held off an assault by an entire
Syrian infantry
brigade and several armored battalions as part of the
Battles of the Kinarot Valley (see map) on
May 20,
1948? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
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)
I've added some info and sources. Two issues:
Regards, Nudve ( talk) 11:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
<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 :
(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)
I would be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles ( talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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 review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
Well written up to the first subheading. I'll review that next. H1nkles ( talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Battles of the Kinarot Valley has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 3, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that about 70 Jewish fighters held off an assault by an entire
Syrian infantry
brigade and several armored battalions as part of the
Battles of the Kinarot Valley (see map) on
May 20,
1948? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
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)
I've added some info and sources. Two issues:
Regards, Nudve ( talk) 11:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
<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 :
(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)
I would be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles ( talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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 review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
Well written up to the first subheading. I'll review that next. H1nkles ( talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)