Talk:Operation Pleshet

Two Questions

1. What does Pleshet mean?
2. What was the Givati command?

Hawkeye7 (talk)

I will clarify in the article what Pleshet refers to tomorrow (just stayed up all night...), although I'm not sure I understand your second question. If you are asking who the Givati commander was, the answer is Shimon Avidan. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"In the eyes of the Givati command, this part of the operation had marginal importance." Was the "Givati command" the commander of the Givati Brigade (Avidan), or another command responsible for the southern area in general? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's referring to the Givati staff (no way to know who exactly, other than Avidan). That's what the source says. I think it's better to leave 'command' because staff is a military term that not everyone is familiar with, especially in the context of Israel specifically, where the word 'staff' (mateh) refers to the commander and staff officers only (not actual staff units/enlisted personnel). If you disagree, please suggest something, because I'm out of ideas. I will explain what Pleshet is referring to now, in the lead section, please feel free to move this to another section if appropriate (I can't think of anything better). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: On second thought, there doesn't appear to be much to explain. I linked to the article on Pleshet in the lead sentence. If you don't believe this is enough, I have no problem with expanding, but then it will just look like a copy of the Pleshet article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Pleshet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It would be helpful to briefly explain in the background section the opening events of the war up to Operation Phleshet, and do the same to Plan Dalet.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Overall the article is neutral. My concern lies with the result of the battle. See comments.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

A well-written, well-referenced article. It is lacking however on details of the battle from the Egyptian point of view. Additionally extra information on the initial Egyptian offensives in the war and on Plan Dalet would be useful to readers.

As for my concerns to criteria 4: while consensus amongst sources is that the battle was an Egyptian tactical victory, the Historiography section describes the dispute revolving around whether or not the battle was an Israeli strategic victory. The infobox and the aftermath section state the battle was an Israeli strategic victory, which ignores other arguments that it wasn't. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sherif! Actually, this article has more information from the Egyptian side than any other 1948 war-related article I have seen. It has excerpts from the memoirs of Nasser, Naguib, Kamal ash-Sharif, the Egyptian radio, etc. This is actually more Egyptian quotes than Israeli ones, which are mostly made up of Avneri and one anonymous soldier. Which Egyptian views do you feel are missing?

About the historiography: The question of whether this battle was an Israeli strategic victory is the only historiographic debate about it that I am aware of. There is nothing more to add about how it was an Egyptian tactical victory, because this is not disputed by any historian. Can you be more specific about what is missing?

Finally, thank you for the review! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Forgot to reply to the comment about Egyptian offensives and Plan Dalet: About Egyptian offensives, you may be right, and there is probably a case for briefly recounting what the Egyptians went through before reaching the bridge. About Plan Dalet however, I don't think it's relevant at all, and have not seen a single source that made a connection between Plan Dalet and Operation Pleshet. In fact, the significance of Plan Dalet is highly overrated in some circles, and I ever have a source saying that Plan Dalet was practically limited to only one operation (Yiftach). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Operation section tells the battle exclusively from the Israeli side. But you're right, this article does have more information on the Egyptian side than similar ones.

As for the historiographic debate. When I was reading the article I learned, from the infobox and the aftermath section, that the battle was a strategic victory for the Israelis. I then discovered, at the Historiography section, that this result (Israeli strategic victory) is disputed. So to me, when the infobox and aftermath section state that the battle is a strategic victory, it sounds as if the article took to one side of the argument like it was the correct side, and disregarded the other side of the argument (which claims there was no Israeli strategic victory) as the wrong side. My point is, if you're going to mention the historiographic debate in the last section, then you might as well just point out in the "Aftermath and significance" section that whether the battle was a strategic Israeli success or not is a matter of debate, and do the same in the infobox, ie: Debated/Disputed Israeli Strategic Victory. --Sherif9282 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Points taken. About the Egyptian views of the operation itself, I only wish I had Arab sources to read about it, and had a good enough understanding of Arabic to use that information on Wikipedia. Therefore, if you can acquire such sources and send me anything of value, it would be much appreciated.

On the other point, I changed it accordingly (infobox). There is no dispute that after June 3, the Egyptians dug in and cleared their flanks, while the Israelis began to attack more. The dispute is whether the operation was the direct cause of this. I therefore believe the new sentence is more representative of that.

About the Egyptian advance up until the bridge, I will add the information later today (hopefully). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. I'm satisfied by the change, but do the same in the aftermath section as well alright? About Arab sources... Well the 1948 war is not my area of interest, and I'm currently pre-occupied with my own GA-nomination, but I'll consider researching into this topic in the future. All else said, congratulations on a new GA under your belt. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GA article

Operation Pleshet is now listed in Wikipedia:Good articles under History. My first GA review. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

M22 Locust

This seems to be one of the few well-written articles on this particular conflict, and as such was wondering if there was any information on the use of M22 Locust light tanks either by the Egyptians or Israeli forces during the battle, or even the wider conflict? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skinny87 and thank you for the warm words! I will have to disappoint you however, and note that this tank was probably not used in the battle described in this article. Some early sources claimed that the Egyptians used tanks in the battle (not corroborated by later sources, and not likely), and there is at least one source explicitly saying that they did not use tanks. When I write about other battles in the war, I will note you if I come across a battle where this tank was used. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Materials

Relevant sources for this page:

• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4385103,00.html

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)