Talk:Battle of Nitzanim

Hill 69

First of all, kudos on the article! I can add some info on the battle for hill 69, which is briefly mentioned here. Do you think this is the place for it? -- Nudve (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, although it would require a general rewrite because the entire articles assumes that it's not about the Battle of Hill 69, which I also have info about. But if you are willing to do this, it should be excellent! I honestly can't think of how the Battle of Hill 69 alone can make a good article. On a side note, I know you have a lot of materials that I don't, so more info or even varying sources would help. Thanks! Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll get around to it some time. What sources do you have about it? Another thing I noticed is the prelude section. Perhaps more info can be added about Operation Tinok. As it stands, the article doesn't really say what it was, and the long quote from the mother seems to provide mostly (undue) melodrama. -- Nudve (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the books I used for the article also talk about Hill 69, I just didn't include the information.

About Operation Tinok: I think it could get its own article some time (it encompassed much more than just Nitzanim), so it's hard to say what info should be included here. The letter is an interesting helping item which enriches the article (IMO), but I agree that it takes too prominent of a location. Originally I made it a quote box (like the leaflet at the bottom), but it just didn't sit well in terms of formatting. Maybe I should scan the letter from the book and add it as an image (although it's low-quality).

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have moved the letter to a box on the right, it seems to look okay as it is now. Do you still think it's undue? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Tinok. It was basically evacuation. I'll see what I can add to the article, and we'll see about the quote. -- Nudve (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't think it is undue. On the contrary. It is a primary source related to this event. It is not significant but illustrates well the article. My mind is the this letter deserves to be there. Ceedjee (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added info on Hill 69. Does anyone have a casualties figure for it? -- Nudve (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: The article currently says that the children of Nitzanim were evacuated on May 16-17, sourced to Wallach and Yitzhaki. Lorch says Operation Tinok was undertaken on the night of 17-18. Were they evacuated before it? -- Nudve (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Tinok lasted about two weeks, AFAIK. Maybe Lorekh was talking about a specific village? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. He says it "was undertaken on the night of May 17-18. Children were evacuated from the above-named settlements [including Nitzanim] by means of..." Maybe that's when it was considered accomplished, but some children were evacuated before that. It's not that important. -- Nudve (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright well, I got off my lazy butt to look at what Carta says on Operation Tinok; it's not much. However, there are the basic details: On May 15/16, Hartuv was evacuated on foot to Kfar Urya, and from there by vehicle. On May 16/17, Nitzanim was evacuated on foot. On May 17, Gezer was evacuated by vehicle. On May 17/18, Negba was evacuated by armored vehicle. On May 18/19, Gal On and Gat were evacuated by armored vehicle. Finally, on May 19, Kfar Menahem was evacuated by armored vehicle. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your effort is appreciated :) Also, I see you've added a map. Perhaps you may wish to take a look at this map showing the Egyptian attack. -- Nudve (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
I have a few very similar maps, courtesy of Carta, but short of directly ripping them, I have no way of creating anything similar, let alone geographically accurate (the topography on the Givati image is half-wrong anyway). Aryeh Itzhaki worked around this in an interesting way, by hand-drawing the sketch, which wouldn't be too difficult. But it's just for orientation, not for geographical accuracy. Maybe I'll do this later. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MilHist Rating Review Comments

Some comments from the review.

• The number of prisoners at the bottom doesn't match the info box
• Any ideas as to Egyptian casualties, if any?
• What is the reason why the force surrendered? You offer some possibilities: that they were exhausted, that they were dispirited, that they were running low on ammunition. Any ideas?
• "The commander, Avraham Elkana Schwarzstein, and Ben-Ari, tried to negotiate with the Egyptians, but were shot by them." Under what circumstances?
• Let me know if you want help with the English.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye7! I will address your concerns, although I'm not sure what you mean by help with English. Do you have any specific issues with the grammar or style of the article? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed all the concerns, except #3. All of those reasons were part of the decision to surrender, although there is no source directly linking them, so it's not possible to put it into the article. The General Staff probe (aftermath section) determined that the decision to surrender was correct, citing lack of ammunition and food, although there is no proof that this was the actual reason for surrender at the time (at 16:00 on June 7). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't suppose you could incorporate a map into the article? I really have no idea where Nitzanim is, even after clicking on a lot of links. I travelled to the link to the town, and then to its coordinates to get a view from Google maps.
• Also, could the introduction summarise the last section too?
• The rest is all about style and making the article sound right:
  • "It was the first major Egyptian victory in the war" Replace "in" with "of"
  • "The main attack broke through the Israeli defenses around 11:00, who retreated to a second position, and finally to a third position at 14:00." Of course it is the Israelis who are retreating, not the defenses. Suggest: "The main attack broke through the Israeli defenses around 11:00. The Israelis retreated to a second position, and finally to a third position at 14:00."
  • "Kibbutz Nitzanim, founded in 1943, was an isolated Israeli village on the coastal plain, enclosed by the Arab localities of Isdud in the north, Majdal in the south, and Julis and Beit Daras in the east." Suggest "surrounded" instead of "enclosed".
  • "On March 26 and April 20, organized Arab attacks took place" Do you mean that earlier Arab attacks were not organized?
  • "The Egyptian Army set up a position in Isdud earlier, on a presumed (at the time) thrust to capture Tel Aviv." Earlier than what? Suggest "The Egyptian Army had earlier set up a position in Isdud". Presumed by whom? The Israelis? Or by the historians trying to make sense of the operation?
  • "However, its advance was stopped at the Ad Halom Bridge on May 29 and in Operation Pleshet (June 2–3)." Was the advance stopped once or twice?
  • "While by that time, Beit Daras was under Israeli control, there was no continuity with Nitzanim, as Hill 69, which separated the two villages, was not manned." "Continuity" is clearly wrong; you mean communications? What is the significance of an empty hill? Or do you mean to say that Hill 69 was in Egyptian hands?
  • "The Givati Brigade planned to capture the hill on June 7–8, but did not anticipate the Egyptian attack, althogh the plan was carried out on time." Suggest "the Egyptian attack on Nitzanim" ? (Also: "althogh" should be "although".) By June 7-8 do you mean "on the night of June 7-8"? The Givati Brigade is the local Israeli formation in the area?
  • "35 children from Nitzanim were evacuated on foot on May 16–17 to Be'er Tuvia." How was this accomplished is the town was surrounded? Also: style dictates that you cannot start a sentence with a number. Suggest "on May 16–17, 35 children from Nitzanim were evacuated on foot to Be'er Tuvia." Again, do you mean during the night or over the two days? And what is the Israeli Command? Do we have a link to it?
  • "The Egyptian Army set up its main position in the abandoned British military base just east of Nitzanim, as well as smaller positions in the Cemetery Hill to the northeast and the citrus grove in the south, thus surrounding the village." "as well as" is wrong as there can be only one main position. Suggest "with" instead of "as well as". They are on the hill, not in it; and Cemetery Hill is the name of the hill? (Otherwise it should not be capitalised.) So suggest "with lesser positions on Cemetery to the northeast and the citrus grove to the south, thus surrounding the village." Suggest "investing" rather than "surrounding".
  • "The Israelis set up their positions in the Water Tank Hill on the northeast," Again "in" should be "on".
  • "The Egyptian force consisted of the 9th Battalion, as well as the 3rd Company of the 7th Battalion and a medium machine gun platoon." Delete "as well as"
  • "They were also joined by a tank platoon, an AFV company, 18 pieces of field artillery, 12 anti-tank guns, an anti-aircraft battery, and a number of combat aircraft." The combat aircraft were not physically present; "supported" instead of "joined". Also: were the field artillery the 25-pounders referred to later?
  • "The Israeli defense of Nitzanim consisted of two platoons" Suggest "defenders" instead of "defense"
  • "At midnight July 6–7, Egyptian forces began a bombardnment of Nitzanim from the Cemetery Hill using Bofors cannons and 25-pounders," Suggest "At midnight on July 6–7, Egyptian forces began a bombardment of Nitzanim from Cemetery Hill using Bofors guns and 25-pounders," (Note spelling error.)
  • Same for "the Water Tank Hill" either lose the "the" or remove the capitals.
  • "At 08:00, the Egyptians began an aerial bombardment of the kibbutz, which came in three major waves" Meaning three or maybe more waves, or three waves of many aircraft? Any ideas how many aircraft were involved?
  • "at which time bombing continued in the form of 25-pounder fire from Majdal" Aircraft bomb; replacing "bombing" with "shelling"
  • "12 Israelis were killed by the tank shells" Cannot start a sentence with a number. Suggest "Twelve". And are you sure that they were killed by the tanks' shells and not the machineguns?
  • "A counterattack at noon by the Israeli patrol failed" What Israeli patrol?
  • "and also forced them to retreat to the dining hall" Suggest "and forced them to retreat to the dining hall also". (Grammar: also now refers to the Israelis, rather than the tanks.)
  • "The Egyptians commenced heavy shelling of the dining hall, and by 14:00, the defenders decided to retreat to the "Palace" in the south for a final stand." "final" should be "last".
  • "At 15:00, a full retreat southwards from the village was attempted," What is a "full retreat"?
  • "but the force was caught by the 2nd Company of the 9th Battalion situated in the citrus groves, and forced the Israelis back to the "Palace"" Another verb/object confusion: The Egyptians are doing the forcing. Suggest "but the force was caught by the 2nd Company of the 9th Battalion situated in the citrus groves, and the Israelis were forced back to the "Palace""
  • 2–4 Israelis managed to hide in the groves and escape to Be'er Tuvia at night. Numbers again. Honestly, what is the confusion here, were there two or four of them?
  • "All along the battle," should be "Throughout the battle,"
  • "including three telegrams near the end of the battle, sent by the signal operator Miriam Ben-Ari," Suggest "including three telegrams sent towards the end of the battle by the signal operator Miriam Ben-Ari,"
  • "Miriam "Mira" Ben-Ari, a member of the kibbutz and the only mother combatant," What is a mother combatant?
  • "At 16:00 on June 7, 105 exhausted Israeli defenders, 26 of them injured," Were they injured (hurt themselves in accidents) or wounded (hurt by enemy action)? can you check this?
  • "At 16:00 on June 7, 105 exhausted Israeli defenders,[5] 26 of them injured, destroyed their remaining ammunition and equipment,[7] and surrendered to the Egyptian forces and were "displayed" in a victory parade in Majdal, after which they were transferred to Cairo." The sentence is too long. Suggest "At 16:00 on June 7, 105 exhausted Israeli defenders, 26 of them injured, destroyed their remaining ammunition and equipment, and surrendered to the Egyptian forces. They were "displayed" in a victory parade in Majdal, after which they were transferred to Cairo." And why is displayed in quotes? And below you say that the civilians were taken away too?
  • "Abba Kovner, then the culture officer" Er, just what is a culture officer?
  • "claimed that the letter was a result of egoism." Do you mean egoism (selfishness) or egotism (exaggerated opinion of one's own importance)?
  • "Yitzhak Pundak, the battalion commander who was directly responsible for the village's defense, claims that actions could've been taken to save it" Don't use contractions: Substitute "could have" for "could've". And he did not do this because?
  • "Immediately after the war, Nitzanim's members" Meaning who? The townspeople? Or the defenders?
  • "claiming that Kovner significantly and unrightfully harmed their reputation." "unrightfully" isn't a word; substitute "unjustly" unless you mean "unfairly".
  • "The Givati Brigade manned Hill 69 the day after, between Nitzanim and Beit Daras, as a result." For "manned", substitute "captured" (if there was a fight) or "occupied" (if there was no fight) What are between Nitzanim and Beit Daras? Israeli holidays? And as a result of what? The diversion of Egyptian resources as a result of the battle?
  • "The Israelis killed in action were buried in a mass grave in the village." By the Egyptians? Or after the village was recaptured by the Israelis?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for the comments! While I was hoping you'd make some small changes talked about here yourself, it's not a problem for me to make many of them, although I disagree with some (e.g. 'enclosed' is a well-known geographical term, 'surrounded' would be a completely irrelevant military term here). I didn't realize how much was unclear to a reader unfamiliar with the subject, so I'll try to clarify as much as possible. Some points can't be clarified though, because of the sources themselves, which only imply this and that, not state it directly. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Enclosed" is wrong. It means inside a structure. You need another word. Fortunately, 1,000 years of near constant warfare has given English a rich military vocabulary ;)

Fix all this stuff up and I'll give the article (which is a pretty good one) a B.

Cheers

Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree about 'enclosed'. Surround might imply that it was surrounded by military units, which, until the actual battle, it was not. From dictionary.com, enclose means:

1. to shut or hem in; close in on all sides: a valley enclosed by tall mountains.

2. to surround, as with a fence or wall: to enclose land.

I think both definitions apply very well here.

Anyway, another issue: You raised the question of how the children could be evacuated if the village was surrounded. As I said, it was not actually surrounded until the battle, but because there were Palestinian Arab forces in the area before May 15, it was difficult to reach anyway, including the ambush talked about in 'background'. This also applies to the 'continuity' concern—Hill 69 was not manned, so the territory was up for grabs, and Arab patrols from the villages made life difficult for the Israelis trying to go back and forth. So there was no Israeli territorial continuity as much. And this doesn't scratch the surface of the situation, about which books have been written. Suggestions on how to make the whole situation somewhat clear without writing several new large paragraphs are welcome. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly very impressed by this article. You have a B now :) Well done! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes by Ceedjee

I realize that this might escalate into an edit war, and am therefore leaving a message here. Basically, I reverted 2 edits, an the reasoning is:

1. For the edit changing 'Israel Defense Forces and Egyptian Army' to 'Israeli and Egyptian armies' (with links)—basically, this is more of a stylistic issue which I disagree with. Links should be made clear, if possible, from the text. A casual reader won't think that 'Israeli' links to 'Israel Defense Forces', and 'Egyptian armies' links to 'Egyptian Army'. It looks messier too. The name of the Egyptian armed forces seems to be 'Egyptian Army' (just like Israel's armed forces are named IDF), so I don't see a NPOV issue here, as implied in the edit summary.
2. For the edit removing the '1948' from the date—The 1948 Arab–Israeli War was between 1948 and 1949. While it ended before June 7, 1949, it doesn't damage the text or its readability (IMO) to clarify the date. I don't feel very strongly about this however, and am willing to concede.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It doens't matter much. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian commanders

A question to Nudve! What exactly was Naguib responsible for? AFAIK, he was not a maj.-gen. yet, and therefore had a lower rank than Mwawi. I think an online article said that he was responsible for the entire Palestine front, maybe it's wrong. Do you have more information? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Pollack, he was Brigadier-General, and was left in charge of Ashdod. -- Nudve (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Another question: You inserted the following: "At noon on May 29, an observation post near Nitzanim reported that an Egyptian column of about 150 vehicles had passed along the coastal road to the north. The post later reported that 500 vehicles, an entire brigade, had been counted."
It was actually the Nitzanim observation post, but my concern is whether it is relevant to the article. The force you talk about was engaged at Ad Halom and it's not clear what part of it (if any) participated in the Battle of Nitzanim. I'll try to find more info, but meanwhile, try to think about how to reword it or place it elsewhere in the article, to assert relevance :) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Troops in Nitzanim.jpg

About that pictures, are you sure these are Guivati soldiers ? As far as I know, there were women only in Palmach. More, these people are not armed and looked more like kibbutzim. Given they prepare defences, I would guess the picture was taken beginning of 1948 at the latest and so, I would guess these are some defenders of the kibbutz (so militians, eventually Palmachniks...) Ceedjee (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture and caption are taken from Givati's website. I suppose they refer only to the guy in the trench. -- Nudve (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The one on the right... I agree...

Ceedjee (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

The two quotes in question can be seen here. -- Suntag ☼ 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of quotations from the article, per wp:quote, which states in part "quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it." We need to be careful to present a neutral POV on sensitive topics like this, particularly when the article is nominated for appearance on the front page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits. Clearly one of us is completely misinterpreting WP:QUOTE, and selectively quoting it ;) to remind you, it also says: quoteboxes may be acceptable in certain circumstances, especially when the quote is itself notable, and a major part of the article's topic. The Givati letter is famous and fundamental to understanding the topic (aftermath section), and is included (in part)in every major post-war account of this battle in existense. As for the first letter, we had a discussion about it above, and no consensus to delete the letter war reached, although what I said about the Givati letter mostly applies to Mira's letter as well. If you think otherwise, please join the discussion instead of making unilateral steps. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To clarify for anyone who doesn't know: The part of the Givati letter presented in this article doesn't even constitute half of the letter, so it's not unnecessarily long or has unnecessary details. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you can leave the quotes in if you like, but if you do I will move to have it disqualified at DYK. Wikipedia's front page is not a vehicle for the promotion of nationalist or partisan views, and those quotes in my opinion give a very Israel-centric spin to the content. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass, please don't threaten to 'move to have it disqualified' or whatever. Argue about the content, and perhaps a compromise can be reached. I have stated my argument for keeping the quotes above, feel free to refute it. Also feel free to do whatever you want at the DYK page. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please also don't forget to look at the discussion above, where the letter by Mira Ben-Ari was discussed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that probably came across as overly aggressive, but I put it that way because I assumed from your response that you had just reverted my edit a second time, which you hadn't.

However, since you apparently insist on leaving these quotes in the article, I have stated my opposition to featuring it on the front page at DYK. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To 3rd parties viewing this discussion: Evidence to the notability of the Givati letter itself: It is included, in part, in the sources: Carta (2003), Haaretz1, Haaretz3, and in full here. All are parts of accounts of the battle. Especially telling is how much space Haaretz dedicated to quotes from the letter, in both articles which only describe the battle itself in a few lines. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be inserted as a normal quote? The way it's currently presented seems a bit attention-grabbing for a rather rah-rah jeremiad. -- Nudve (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually how I originally did it for Mira's letter, but a normal quote seemed to take too much space. If you can make it look nice, more power to you! Although Gatoclass's opposition is based on what he believes to be a POV issue, not a formatting issue. By the way, I forgot to mention that Hebrew Wikipedia has an article practically dedicated to Mira's single letter, implying that in his book about the battle, Ram Oren talks about this letter in-depth, which would certainly indicate notability. I don't have Oren's book though, so it's hard to say for sure. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey. You added back in the quotes to the article stating "rev per talk".[1] Consensus has not been reached in this discussion and the only people who have commented essentially are you and Gatoclass. It would be a kind approach to remove the two quotes from the article until this discussion receives a few more comments. I posted a note at WikiProject Military history, so there should be some more input shortly. -- Suntag ☼ 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Suntag! More input is always appreciated, especially from WP:MILHIST, which is one of the more serious WikiProjects. The reason I cited talk as a reason to revert was because Gatoclass stated that he didn't oppose the quotes being there, just that he opposed the article being on the main page with the quotes there (Okay, you can leave the quotes in if you like, but if you do I will move to have it disqualified at DYK.). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Literally, yes he agreeded. But let's see if we can talk things out first before taking action. The DYK hook isn't going anywhere until this is resolved, so there's time to get this resolve through some more discussion. As noted above, a kind approach would be to remove the two quotes from the article until this discussion receives a few more comments. -- Suntag ☼ 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I made that comment because I'm only interested in this article in regards to my capacity as a reviewer at DYK. I personally think the quote from the mother should go, but I don't care enough about this article to make a fuss about it. What I do care about is that articles promoted to the front page via DYK conform appropriately to our policies and guidelines. Appeals to sympathy for one party in the conflict and references to one of the protagonists as "cruel invaders" are completely inappropriate in my view, and only more so when they are highlighted in quoteboxes. Wiki's mainpage is not a vehicle for nationalist rhetoric disguised as colour quotes, and unless these quotes are removed I will feel obliged to maintain my opposition to featuring it on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any corresponding leaflets/whatevers from the other side, that could be balanced against this one? I guess what's important is that, if this stuff is included, we find a way to make it clear that this is a propagandist's view and not ours. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the appropriate method of handling a quotebox like this would be to have one giving the opposite POV. However, given the difficulty in finding such a quote, and then agreeing on the degree of equivalence, it's really not a practical solution. Gatoclass (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, I have to say, after taking a cursory look at this issue, I preferred having the quote in a box. From what I can tell, the Givati leaflet here is being presented as a "cultural artifact" or something like that, not a source of information for the article. And if that is the case, setting it off in a quote box makes it come off more like an image or a decoration, which is what I am interpreting it to be anyway—the quote is not (as far as I can tell) there to provide the reader with information or sway his opinion, but rather to give an example of an important "cultural artifact" from the period. If I am wrong about what the Givati leaflet is supposed to be, my apologies, and please correct me...but if I'm not, I think having it in the box is better, whereas integrating it into the text (as it is now) makes it seem more like "information" and an integral part of the article, which maybe it isn't. It would help a lot, though, if you could add some reliable sources establishing the notability of this leaflet; if we can all agree that it's a notable artifact, it might be easier to agree on what to do with it.

Also, I'd just like to add, Ynhockey, I don't think Gatoclass was intending to "threaten" you, but just to say that what's appropriate in article space may not be appropriate on the main page, and that if you added the quote then the article may not be suitable for the main page anymore. (Like I mentioned above, I'm not sure if I agree with that, but anyway.) I think everyone here is concerned only with improving the article, so we should be able to find a solution that works for everyone. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I think the appropriate course of action is to either

• include the quotes in a box while being careful to establish that a) the text is a notable one, and b) it's a propagandist's opinion, not ours;
• or to just talk about the leaflet without quoting it. We might be able to get all the information across by saying "Kovner published a leaflet that was bla bla bla, and Reznik said it was a result of egoism" etc., and not actually quoting it at all. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will accept the Kovner quote as long as it is in the body of the article as it is now and not in a quote box. However, I don't believe the quote from the woman has any compelling reason for inclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have to log off now, so I won't be able to contribute any more to this discussion until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the first quote box is not needed - it doesn't say much that will help improve the readers' understanding of this battle. However, the second one is alright, even perfect - it is on topic, helps the reader understand what this battle did to Israel...and Politizer says the rest in the first para of his 17:37 edit. Cheers, Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote doesn't need to be in a quotebox, and putting it in one effectively showcases the Israeli POV. That is why I am opposed to it being there. Putting it in a quotebox also tends to endorse one particular position on the Israeli side, which is not NPOV either. Gatoclass (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As Politizer said, these letters and especially the 2nd one, are cultural icons from this battle, not meant to sway personal opinion. If anything, the Givati letter is decidedly anti-Israel, blaming the Israeli defenders for cowardice and treason. The reason this battle is so famous is precisely because of the Givati letter, and this is conveyed in the refs Haaretz1 and Haaretz3. I don't think there is need for any more proof of the leaflet's notability, but as I said before, it is quoted also in all major accounts of the battle, which per WP:UNDUE is clearly due weight for this article.

As for the mother's letter—maybe it should be removed as undue weight in this article (we haven't written Operation Tinok yet!), but the letter is also a cultural icon from the battle. While it is not quoted everywhere like the Givati letter, it is at least mentioned whenever Ben-Ari is mentioned, including the memorial site, and Ben-Ari is an icon of this battle, and definitely its most well-known combatant. If there is strong opposition to the letter being fully in the article, I suggest that it is removed but mentioned in some way, as a cultural icon. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I support retaining remaining quote box. The quote is relevant and informative, improves the reader's understanding of the battle, and the source of the quote is clearly noted. I strongly support its inclusion and its being set off in a quote box rather than incorporated into the body of the article. Apart from the positive presentation aspect, the POV of the letter author is neatly quarantined. The person in question is certainly notable - an entire monument has been erected, and its location is apparently principally because of her actions - as is the source of the quote. The NPOV of the article itself is apparent, and I think it very even-handedly approaches the issues of courage and cowardice raised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the Givati letter? For me that's the most important one (Permanent link, aftermath section). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I do still believe what I said earlier about how the quotebox would set the quote off as an "artifact" rather than a fact...but I also sort of agree with Gato's comment about endorsing a particular position. Without having read the article closely, I am at least a little bit concerned that including the quote so prominently (no matter how it's included) could make the article seem like it's about Israel's battle, rather than a battle that two sides participated in. That, though, might be less of a problem with the quotebox and more of a problem with the article in general. One possible way to improve things a bit (with my usual caveat of "I haven't read the whole article closely so I don't totally know what I'm saying") would be to change the title of the "Aftermath" section into something like "Reaction in Israel" or whatever, just something to make it clear that this section is specifically about Israel's side of the conflict...that might help avoid having it look as if the whole article were told from the Israeli point of view. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• How about making an 'Israeli reaction' sub-section of aftermath? There are things there worth keeping as 'aftermath', for example POW information and the factoid and the Egyptian media, but mostly it indeed deals with the Israeli reaction. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with that off the top of my head.... and it might also help draw people's attention to the fact that an "Egyptian reaction" section still needs to be written, and thus make it clearer to people that things might not be totally balanced yet (and hopefully it will inspire some of those readers to come and add stuff!). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): I don't think it's really necessary to create a subsection, the existing header isn't particularly objectionable. Politizer makes a good point however about the trend of the article to emphasize the Israeli POV. This would be hard to avoid of course given the preponderance of Israeli historiography, but it only underlines my point about the quoteboxes unbalancing the article even further. Gatoclass (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have created a sub-section, and I think it alleviates any possible POV concerns and makes it even more clear what the quote box is for. (Note: I made the edits before reading Gatoclass's comment, and will wait for further input). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Note 2: I have removed the 'cruel invader' part, because it seems to be the main point of objection here by Gatoclass. Is this an acceptable compromise? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, because the quote still constitutes a sentimental appeal from the Israeli POV, and it still gives undue emphasis to one particular POV on the Israeli side. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I take it you are not willing to compromise in any way, shape or form. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's far from the case. I already conceded on the inclusion of the latter quote in the article, I just object to it being in the quotebox. I have also stated that I probably won't pursue the issue of the other quotebox after the article has been featured in DYK, my primary objection is to the article featuring on the mainpage in that state. So from my POV, I have already conceded 75% - indeed, more than I think I should have.

The bottom line is that I have stated exactly why I think these quoteboxes should not be there, you on the other hand have given no compelling reason why they are necessary. The article is fine without them, so why the big deal about keeping them? Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I also note that putting the quote into a quotebox actually reduces the clarity of the account, as the reader has to make the mental connection between the mention of Kovner in the main body text and the quote in the quotebox. It's an easy connection to miss, when the quote is in the main body text the problem doesn't arise. So even from a practical POV, it doesn't make sense to have this quote in a separate quotebox. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As others have stated in this discussion, the fact that it's a box makes this letter's significance as an icon of the battle much more obvious. Putting it in the main body text would actually worsen any POV concerns raised, because it would appear that the leaflet represents the official Israeli position, which it does not; it was the position of the Givati Brigade's command at the time. As I said multiple times, and backed by sources (which you seemed to ignore), the leaflet is iconic and the battle is mostly famous because of this leaflet. It is therefore imperative that it appears in this article. As I said, I'm willing to concede (with some reservations) about Mira's letter. In any case, I could create an article solely about the Givati leaflet, which would easily pass WP:N with the sources already provided here, but that would be a WP:POINT action. I ask that you take a look at the arguments I (and others) have raised above instead of ignoring them and claiming that I provided 'no compelling reason' why it is necessary. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I am not objecting to the inclusion of the quote in the article, I am only objecting to it being put in the quotebox.

Your argument that the battle "is mostly famous" because of this letter is not very persuasive. Any battle is generally a notable event, a battle where the Egyptians captured more prisoners than in any other seems pretty notable to me. And somehow, I doubt that Egyptians think the most interesting thing about this battle is a letter one Israeli wrote to another. So I think it not unreasonable to conclude that your assumption in this instance is Israel-centric. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant that it was mostly famous today for the surrender, which necessarily includes the letter. Otherwise it is no different from dozens of other major battles fought in this war, most of which are not well-known in Israel or elsewhere. Of course I'm talking about the Israeli side only, but until you (or someone else) provides any mention of this battle from Egyptian sources (I somehow doubt this will happen—I've never even seen Egyptian authors cited on Wikipedia on the subject of this war), there can be no other representation in the article. This is not the result of POV, but simply a result of, as you said, 'preponderance of Israeli historiography'. I don't want to talk to you about sources you can't read, so we'll take the only English online source (Haaretz1): Even the title says The surrender of Israeli forces at Nitzanim in the War of Independence continues to seethe and resonate as though it had happened yesterday, which already implies that the battle is famous for the surrender. Further down in the article, when Pundak talks about the battle, he mentions the letter in the very first paragraph! The kibbutz was attacked with tanks, artillery and planes ... yet despite the stubborn resistance of the defenders - soldiers and kibbutz members - the brigade commander allowed his politruk [political officer], Abba Kovner, to issue a battle report that taints the kibbutz for all time. I don't see how the letter can be separated from the essense of the surrender or the battle itself. And again, this is from the only English online source; there are stronger indications about the letter's notability in other sources, including the online Hebrew Haaretz source, and Carta (2003). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact as you yourself concede that the historiography of this period is mostly Israeli is not a reason for us to emphasize the Israeli POV even further. As I've said, my objection is not to the inclusion of the quote per se, it's to putting it in a quotebox. The article still gets its point across without the quotebox, indeed, better in my opinion. So there is no compelling reason to include the quotebox, but plenty of reasons, which I've outlined in previous posts, not to. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have converted to second quote box to the CQuote format, which I understand is what you wanted. It looks terrible though, both in terms of formatting and presentation. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the cquote format either. I think it looked fine before when you just had the quotes as part of the main body text. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
I think the key words here are 'I don't like'. Your objection was to the quote box, per WP:QUOTE, which makes a clear difference between the quote box and the CQuote format. The quotes-as-part-of-the-prose was a version by Nudve, which I object to on the grounds of style. The text looks extremely messy and hard to read with the quote being part of the main prose, and it also detracts from the quote itself, because you can include much less, and this definitely constitutes a 'long quote' (per WP:QUOTE). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for agreeing with you about the unattractiveness of cquotes? This discussion is becoming increasingly bizarre.

However, I'm glad you brought up WP:MOS. MOS states that quotations longer than four lines or more than one paragraph should be put into blockquotes. Both quotes you cite are less than four lines long. Therefore according to MOS they do not need to be in blockquotes. Can we end this discussion now please? Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to end this discussion a long time ago, but it seems that each time I offer a compromise, you disagree with it just for the sake of disagreeing. I don't even understand what exactly you want. About the lines, the CQuotes are between 4 and 6 lines on a 1024x768 resolution. On widescreen (1360x768 and above) it may be 3–4. This is hardly a reason to mess up the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

MOS refers to the length of a quote as it appears in main body text, not as it is after being put into a blockquote. However, I don't think we need waste any more time on this. Since quoteboxes are unacceptable to me, main body text is resisted by you, and neither of us like the cquotes, then the alternatives are either the usual blockquotes (ie the <blockquote></blockquote> parameters), or pseudo-blockquotes (use of the ":" to offset the quote). I'm not crazy about either option, but I could probably put up with them for the sake of compromise. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a difference between CQuote and Blockquote as it is currently used in the article, so I will take your suggestion and use blockquotes. Do you think it's better now? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ecstatic about the result, but I don't want to seem unreasonable.

Just to reiterate the agreement, to be sure we're both on the same page now:

• The quote from the female, and the "cruel invaders" phrase, are removed for the duration of the article's appearance on the mainpage;
• You accept the use of blockquotes for the other two quotes rather than cquotes or quoteboxes.

If that's what we are agreeing upon, then I think we can conclude this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See you at T:TDYK. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see that while we've been having this discussion, Ceedjee has added a new section that has problems of its own. I think that will also need a cleanup before this goes to DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add despite any agreements, if you are going to put that much effort into displaying quotes in a small battle such as this, having quotes from both sides would be far more appropriate than loading it up for just one side. To me, the significance of the voices from both sides should outweigh any other consideration after the sourcing has been verified as proper. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 20:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Historiography section

I have deleted this section for the moment. I think it needs considerable work, and given that this article has been proposed for DYK, I think it doubtful it can be fixed in time for its promotion. Can I please ask editors not to add any new material that might be considered contentious while the article is going through the DYK process, it makes it very difficult to approve the article when users keep changing the contents. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't see either letter adding anything much. Mention of Ben-Ari as the only woman, yes; beyond that, no. The second is of no value, IMO, & only acts as a vehicle to discredit the troops, which we already are told was done. Take 'em out. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing a key theme of this battle. An Israeli settlement with Arab villages on every side is attacked by a larger, better equipped Egyptian force. It is like the whole war in miniature. Except that the Egyptians win. Which begs the same uncomfortable question for both sides: why did the Egyptians win this battle and not the war? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy

I have noticed a discrepancy in the article, in one part it says that 33 Israeli (prisoners?) were killed, "including three women", in another it says one of those three women "died in captivity".

Dying in captivity is not the same as being killed. This raises the question as to how many other prisoners may have died in captivitiy as opposed to being killed. Is there anything in the sources that clarify this issue? Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says that one woman died in captivity. The Hebrew source says that she died of her wounds in the Majdal hospital, so it's safe to assume that, even if some others (of the 33) died in captivity, they died of their wounds and weren't killed unarmed by the Egyptian soldiers. Another account by the POWs (ref #21 - "In Captivity") says that the Egyptian soldiers treated them very badly in the beginning, but this later improved because the war was about to end. I hope this makes it more clear. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then I suggest you change the text to read "33 were later either killed or died of their wounds", for accuracy. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH though. All sources provided which mention the death toll unequivocally say that 33 died in the battle, of them 3 women. Through another source, we found out that at least one of the 3 women (Epstein) died of her wounds in captivity. This does not indicate that this is true for any of the other 32. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean, 33 were killed in the battle? That's something else you need to fix then, because the way the text is constructed, it currently reads as if to mean 33 of the 105 prisoners captured were killed after the battle. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I clarified the text. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot clearer now, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems clarified now. Good !

I just confirm that it seems that the POW were relatively well treated during the 48 War. I added some comments made by Benny Morris about that in the conclusions of the last book on the topic.

I also confirm that the 33 died during the battle (and the surrender); they are not part of the 105. No massacre, so. Ceedjee (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What have I done ? :-)

Gatoclass : "Oh dear, I see that while we've been having this discussion, Ceedjee has added a new section that has problems of its own. I think that will also need a cleanup before this goes to DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"

I am listening to you :-)

nb: that stuff about the 1948 historiography is not important for the article the main article, to which it should lead, hasn't been written yet...

Anyway, I am intersted to understand what are the issues you see. Ceedjee (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, readers who have no idea what these "parallels" are will have no idea what this section is referring to. So then we just end up with a rather prejudicial quote about Arabs "razing Jewish villages". I think it's better this section is left out while the article goes on the mainpage, there is limited time to approve these articles and plenty of time to figure out what is an appropriate balance later. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Main article could be 1948 Palestinian exodus... Ceedjee (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind that section staying out while the article is on the main page, but overall it's relevant so I'll restore it after the main page stint, if there is no objection. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have put the material back (after 2 months). Ceedjee (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew date

Is it appropriate? I've never seen a Wikipedia article using those. -- Nudve (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no policy against it. I believe that all battles involving Israel, especially the minor ones, should have Hebrew dates somewhere in the article (not necessarily the lead), because the date could be significant in the Hebrew calendar. Again, I don't really care if it's in the lead or not, but I couldn't find a more appropriate place for it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead is probably as good a place as any. But why just battles, and minor ones in particular? And why not Muslim calendar? -- Nudve (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a point about minor battles because they're usually less well-known and it's not likely that someone would be able to guess what date on the Hebrew calendar they took place. The above (and previous comment) doesn't mean that larger/more famous battles shouldn't get Hebrew dates. About the Muslim calendar, I am not very familiar with it, but feel free to add the date.

On a side note, now that I think about it, maybe the infobox is a better place for the dates. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was twofold: One, why battles and not birth dates, or election dates, or anything else; two, it makes the article looks a bit ethnocentric, as if it's Israel's battle. -- Nudve (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the specific thing. For example, there's nothing special about a birth date (unless you're an astrologist), and elections in Israel are not made on holidays or fasts or anything like that, so the Gregorian month is usually enough to understand when approximately it took place on the Hebrew calendar. For battles however it could be an interesting and informative thing. Everyone knows the significance of the Yom Kippur War, that it was fought on Yom Kippur, but this is not so for any other war or battle I know. Also, not just specific dates are significant, but also time periods like the Omer. I don't really see any reason not to include the date and, again, would not mind one bit if the Muslim date was also included. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Nitzanim. 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/20090521091857/http://www.knitzanim.com:80/s10.html to http://www.knitzanim.com/s10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524001110/http://www.knitzanim.com:80/s11.html to http://www.knitzanim.com/s11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007145428/http://www.yadlabanim.co.il:80/moreshet_pic/page3.html to http://www.yadlabanim.co.il/moreshet_pic/page3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214094119/http://www.knitzanim.com:80/story.html to http://www.knitzanim.com/story.html

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) 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)