Talk:Battle of Yad Mordechai

Wording

What's with the play on words here? Egyptian capture was not permanent, but at six months it doesn't pass off as temporary. Like the Battle of France, where German occupation of France and the Low Countries was not permanent, but certainly can't be described as temporary.

Also, what's the source for the 20 to 1 claim, and for the artillery regiment? As far as I remember Pollack only mentioned artillery support. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pollack refers to it as an artillery battalion. Herzog and Sper refer to it as an artillery regiment. As for the ratio of forces, the Egyptians mustered 2,000(Herzog) to 2,500(Sper) soldiers for the assault whereas there were just over 100 Israeli defenders.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... cherry-picking now? Altered article to include Pollack. Also, unless the 20 to 1 claim is directly mentioned in sources, what you are doing is WP:OR. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A Six-month period qualifies for temporary. I wasn't that long before the commune was back in Israeli hands, and it was before the war ended. The German occupation of France was long enough to establish a special regime. It is not as if the Egyptians settled down in Yad Mordechai - they came and then left, when the Israeli army regained power. Another issue - if we use the word "settlement" for a post-1967 established Israeli community in the WB Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, then it is not a good idea to use it here. The place is a communal village, and this is how it should be referred to. DrorK (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I used "settlement" where Morris does. I see your point, though. Feel free to change it. "Village" should do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind a bit - if we know the Egyptians controlled the place for about six months, why not write it explicitly? I thank Sherif for making me think of my previous poor phrasing. I wrote "evacuated" because I wouldn't like people to think the Egyptians actually administered the commune following its capture. The people weren't there during these six months - they either evacuated themselves and went northward or taken POWs. As for settlement - it is a legitimate word, but it has been loaded with a specific special meaning in recent time, and en-wp adopted this special meaning, so we'd better avoid it. I have the same problem with the word mustawţana in Arabic. It cannot be used anymore in its original meaning, because it is associated with the controversial post-1967 established communities beyond the Green Line. Arab speakers now resort to terms like tajammuʕ sukkanīy. Luckily in Hebrew there is the word hitnaħalut which can be easily distinguished from yišuv. DrorK (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing left of the place after the battle, according to Morris. So nobody lived there, it wasn't administered by anyone, etc. The Egyptians did control the area though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have another go with "desolated" in lieu of "evacuated". DrorK (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what's usually done with articles like this one, but for the sake of accuracy I think the results section in the infobox should reflect the following:

• Egypt won the battle (after all, this is an article about the battle).
• Village was depopulated and razed.
• Delay was significant to how the war commenced on this front.

I don't think how long the Egyptians held on to this area is so important it needs to be in the infobox.

Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I commend Drork for taking a shot at improving the infobox. However I believe this latest proposal is much better; I support it. Writing the result in the form of bullet points would be very adequate.

To raise a point here, I object the use of Sper in any form. We already have Pollack and Morris, who constitute real historians and are relatively far more neutral, without needing an account making statements on 26 martyrs who made the ultimate sacrifice. Besides, two battalions of infantry and a third of armor (which includes far less manpower) wouldn't make up to 2,500 men. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about Sper, but it's quite logical that three Egyptian battalions in 1948 would have 2,500 men. The 2nd and 9th Battalions combined, for example, had over 1,700 men, not including the brigade headquarters and staff, which would raise that number to about 2,000–2,500 (as in Operation Pleshet). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Brigade headquarters and staff do not exactly pass of as combat personnel; it's unreasonable to include them in the infobox. I'm fine with using Herzog, who mentions 2,000 men, but Sper is unacceptable. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the infobox - my reasoning for stating the time (six month) is to let people understand that this battle was not the "final word" as far as the battles on the control of this location are concerned. The Egyptians took control over Al-Faluja in the Negev, and handed it over to the Israelis only after the war. They took control over Gaza and stayed there until 1956, and then again until 1967. Yad Mordechai switched hands during the same war and much more often than other places. DrorK (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly should be mentioned in the article, but I don't think it's correct to say that the Egyptians only held it for six months as a result of the battle (well, at least not directly), so I don't think it should be in the infobox. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented the suggestion in the infobox (edit by IP address; wasn't logged in). I've tried to ensure it only includes what everyone agrees upon.

Right now, there is a citation to Morris, but there is no page number. Also, any thoughts here on Devin Sper? I mean has anyone read his book? It's ridiculous that he be used as a source here. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the current phrasing. The word "victory" is way too strong to describe a successful attack which is part of a war so complicated. I would accept it, though, if it is the standard term used in other similar articles' infoboxes (because if so, there is a certain context within which the term is correctly interpreted). DrorK (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at a few WWII battles, and this sort of thing seems to be common. Sometimes different types of "victory" are assigned to different sides, for example Siege_of_Lille_(1940). I don't think "victory" is too strong in this context. Remember, this is an article about a specific battle and I think there's no dispute that the Egyptians won it. If it were a wider context like the whole war or the whole front then I'd agree that "victory" would not be appropriate.

I have not read Sper's book. What is the issue here? If the Egyptians had 2000 or 2500 troops? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the word victory is appropriate within this article. As for Sper, he is obviously writing a religious history, which is completely inadequate for this article. He frequently includes poetic verses, describing Israeli struggle and sacrifice, talking about 26 martyrs... who not merely sacrificed themselves but their enemies for Kiddush Hashem, that Israeli victories magnify and sanctify God in the eyes of the world and that God seeks the blood of His martyrs. How could this possibly be used as a source here? It's plainly ridiculous! See for yourself, the Google Books link is in the article. (p. 196) --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being biased and using emotive language is not by itself reason to exclude someone from wikipedia (see: Norman Finkelstein). You could ask on the RS noticeboard about Sper. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment—I would find it hard to describe this battle as an Egyptian victory. It is widely considered one of Israel's most successful battles in the war, possibly the most successful against Egypt before the first truce. A similar example would be to call the Battles of the Kinarot Valley a Syrian victory because they technically captured some territory from Israel. Moreover, the Egyptians did not defeat the Israeli forces as, for example, was the case in the Battle of Nitzanim; instead, the Israelis withdrew after believing that they could no longer hold the village, as was the case in Kfar Darom. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but if there's consensus that the Egyptians didn't win then go ahead and edit accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the word "victory" is problematic (not only in this article) being too decisive, emotionally-charged and rather fuzzy in meaning. Is it still a "victory" if the rival side tactically withdrawn? Is it still a "victory" if the battle served the "loosing" side in any way? (e.g. provided necessary delay in the "winning" forces' progress, alarmed the "loosing" army and triggered a change in tactics and eventually successes in other battles, causing overconfidence among the "winning" forces thus weaken their alertness and so forth). Then again, if you think this term is in an appropriate clear context here, I won't argue with that. DrorK (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the battle is not an "Egyptian victory." In military terms it would be called a certain Israeli strategic victory, and perhaps an Egyptian Strategic Victory. See the Battle of Antietam, the Confederates held on the line but the Union made many gains. As a result despite tactically losing the battle they were the strategic victors. StormJ (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)