Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 2

Syria's flag

Syria's flag is actually that of Iraq...

It was Syria's flag at the time. --Ian Pitchford 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Syria had the same flag as Egypt as they were both part of the UAR at the time. --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No they weren't having the same flag at the moment because The UAR split in 1961

Pre and Post 1967 maps

There is a lot of discussion about Israel retreating to it's pre-1967 terriitory. I came to this page hoping to see a map of this. I coudn't find it. I hope that it is added.

Why Casus beli can not (by definition) be disputed.

1. Israel has explained why it went to war in 67. This is the casus beli. No one dispute that that why Israel said it went to war. Any other disagreement with claims and counter claims about accuracy of historical reasons should be conducted in talk.
2. The "casus beli" is also by defintion one sided. It is the cause of the party that decided to start the war. (even if both sides were ready to go to war, the casus is the reason for a single event: why one party started in military action). As such one can not list reasons for both sides unless there is a proof (not in this case) that both sides started the war at exact same time .

summary for Ian: Your POV is valid but not in the casus beli section. Zeq 07:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On more note on this subject for later readers: Casus belli is the official justification for a war. Your real reasons may be entirely different. The "case of war" is typically stated in a formal government document (usually as one section of the legislation authorizing the war) and as such it is trivial to determine. What historians fuss over later is the real reasons, not the official excuses. 70.137.129.116 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting (section headers)

It looks to me as if the section headers are wrong: sections 2-12 should really be subsections of 1. Background. I am about to go fix it--just wanted to explain what I'm doing. Jason 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms under WP:WIAGA criteria 2b (lack of inline citations). It also fails WP:LEAD. --Tarret 01:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, what...? "Lack of citations"? This criticism is way too general to be helpful. The article is full of citations even if some sections aren't. If anything, the article should work towards reducing the amount of sources if anything, but it does not look poorly referenced.

Could someone remove the rather awkward and gratuitious footnotes in the lead, btw? Seven consecutive footnotes makes absolutely no sense and the lead shouldn't even need any notes considering that it's supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

wrong flags used, archiving time ?

the flags for syria and egypt seem to be incorrect and i think it would be time to archive some of the inactive discussions here, its getting a tad large Tyriel 08:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Syria and Egypt had the same flag in 1967 and it had 2 green stars. drork 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

the syrian flag is wrong but i dont know about egypt according to wikipedia (prpbably wrong then) the syrians and egyptians created a republic but stopped it in 61 before this war

Movies

Were any movies produced about this war?(just being curious) 210.9.15.116 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. One Israeli film which pops into my mind is Avnti Popolo [1], produced in Israel in 1986, but there are many others. drork 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Many ? That'll be interesting to hear. Amoruso 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

an‑Naksah (The Setback)

Isn't that only a term used by Palestinians ? I wish to know why exactly it's called that way... Amoruso 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no. It is used by Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians and others in the Arab world. The Six-Day War's aftermath is probably the reason why Arabs call it "the setback"/"the downfall". drork 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly, some places say it's the term of the Palestinians only. Thanks for making it clear. Is Downfall the same as setback ? Downfall makes sense as in defeat. For me, setback seems as they had a goal and now they were set BACK... this implies the goal was the destruction of Israel but the war was a major setback in achieving that goal ? Am I correct or wrong on this ? I see how setback can be defeat too but in Hebrew a setback will be MICHSOL as impediment while downfall will be defeat. In english setback can be both defeat (?) and reverse. Which is it? Amoruso 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The translation: "setback" is suitable as long as you use this English word in the sense of "defeat". I am not totally sure about this, but I think "naksa" (نكسة) is one step before "hazima" (هزيمة). "hazima" is the Arabic word for a total defeat, while "naksa" is more "a downfall". drork 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that "naksa" is a bit more damning in Arabic than "setback" is in English. Personally, I like "debacle." If you look to see how (نكسة), (هزيمة), and (نكبة) are used in Arabic, you'll see that they're nearly the same level of tragedy, even if "setback," "total failure," and "catastrophe" aren't comparable in English.

General Image

Can we get an image up at the top, specifically similar to the one on each individual country as "Syria" or "Israel" etc. except showing all parties, and color coded as individual or allied to show the full place of the world? Jmw0000 01:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The main photo has got to go. It looks like an inspirational photo. It emphasizes how glorious it was for the Israelis to conquer such an important religious site, the Western Wall. That's all well and good for them, but it glorifies their goals. That doesn't work. Maybe a map should be the main photo? Or a soldier with a more neutral expression, not one of glory. Agh.niyya 09:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New talk sections should go to the bottom. As to the photo, it is a documentary and not staged photo of a victory. The rest is in your head. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The photo is clearly pro-Israeli. The angle, from the bottom makes the soldiers appear heroic. This is a decidedly biased photo and should be removed from the top post haste. Doktor Waterhouse 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. It's a photo of a major event in the war; there's no real reason not to use it. Rogue 9 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the photo is neutral. At most, the photo documents that the Israeli's believed that their victory was a heroic one, which is a historical fact. 71.55.21.250 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If it were neutral it would reflect the sentiments of both sides, or niether side. To show a picture of one side in a defining moment of the war is to support that sides exploits in what is still a controversial issue. The image is not only biased it is grossly offensive. Doktor Waterhouse 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. In war there are winners and losers, and this is a picture of the winners- no different from Image:Marshals.jpg in the WWII article Isarig 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If it pleases Jmw0000 and others who protest the photo, we could also show the Syrian side of the war, but I have a feeling that photos of Syrian tanks fleeing the Golan would look rather pathetic. --GHcool 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A single photo shouldn't be stuck with the task of showing all sides to this complicated story. The solution is to add photos which in combination show all the sides. It is not necessary for every single individual piece to have an ambiguous POV. 70.137.129.116 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why two photos depicting Isreal's vistory should be replaced or removed. Ignorance about the six day war only makes for a predictable future of continued war. In dipicting historical accounts pictures represent " a thousand words". These words would tell of a resounding Jewwish victory, just like the picture.

Arab Propaganda

This article is Arab propaganda. Just one example -- the mention of "disputed" territories along the Jordan River. The "demilitarized zones" were not "disputed". They were, and are, Israeli territory that Syria occupied in May and June of 1948, the last one, Mishmar Hayarden, only hours before a cease fire went into effect. The UN does not dispute Israeli sovereignty, which is why there is no pressure on Israel to return the Golan Heights. Syria merely claimes that it took the land fair and square. The territies were "demilitarized" by the of 1949, but Syria never withdrew from them nor permitted Israel to maintain civil control, as provided in the agreement.

There is also no question about ownership of the Banias water. This was settled in 1923 when Winston Churchill handed the Golan Heights over to France in exchange for some land along the Yarmuk for Emir Feisal. The water belonged to the Palestine Mandate, aka the "Jewish National Home".

This matter is not subject to legintimate dispute. The Syrians may claim it, but no one else (other than the Arab League) supports them.

I could go on, but this article, as it stands, is simply Wikiganda, to coin a phrase -- propaganda disguised as neutral scholarship.Scott Adler 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on fixing it, according to WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Propoganda disguised as neutral scholarship - an article that repeatedly accuses Israel of intentionally selecting war in 1967 over peace, and avoiding the possibility of a peaceful resolution, while admitting that Nasser had 2/3 of his army massed on Israel's border (but he was "conflicted"), cannot be considered neutral.

When an armed intruder threatens you, your claim of self-defense does not fall apart just because you don't wait for him to take the first shot. - Harry M. Pierson

RE2: this is no citation, who's that Harry M. Pierson ? I'd like to add this : on that citation's basis, the entire world would have died "just because" of the atomic war between USA and USSR...

RE3: There was no atomic war between the Soviet Union and the USA. The point was if one nation tried to cripple the other, that second nation would still have enough time and firepower to obliterate the first: mutually assured destruction. The key to the Six Day war is that Egypt was clearly planning an attack on Israel with the support of forces far more vast than those of Israel's, and through Israel's preemptive air strikes they were able to successfully cripple Egypt and decisively turn the war in their favor without the threat of a an equally devastating Egyptian response. By taking the war to Egypt, the prevented what would have been countless Israeli casualties and a drawn-out war.

Secret Decision?

Shlaim claims that the decision by the Israeli Government to return the captured territory in exchange for peace was apparently kept secret. I just found a source mentioning foreign minster Abba Eban saying that Israel is willing to exchange the new territory (or, more precisely, that Israel is not willing to exchange the territory for anything less than peace). Any comments? Here is the article: http://www.pressfellowships.org/IsraelSimplyWants.pdf -- Heptor _talk 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what you see in that article. Eban only speaks about "negotiating new borders" not of returning the captured territory. There was a cabinet decision to offer Syria and Egypt peace deals on the basis of the mandate borders, not the armistice lines (eg. Israel would keep Gaza) but it did not mention the West Bank or Jerusalem at all. (My source of the moment: Gorenberg, p52.) There is an argument over whether this decision was actually conveyed to the Syrians and Egyptians. If I remember correctly (does Shlaim have this?) Israel passed it to the Americans but there is no record of the Americans passing it to Syria or Egypt. --Zero^talk 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Linguistics & Coherency

Section: Israel and Syria

In addition to sponsoring attacks against Israel (often through Jordanian territory, much to King Hussein's chagrin), Syria also began shelling Israeli civilian communities in north-eastern Galilee (to the much greater chagrin of the Israeli civilians killed while farming), from positions on the Golan Heights, as part of the dispute over control of the Demilitarized Zones (DMZs), small parcels of land claimed by both Israel and Syria.[15]

I propose the bold part to be deleted. Killed civilians can not experience chagrin. please also review the commas.

Section: Egypt and Jordan

Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. Although the size of Jordan's army meant that Jordan was probably incapable of executing such a maneuver, the country was perceived as having a history of being used by other Arab states as staging grounds for operations against Israel; thus, attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence.

repetitive. i propose the first bold sentence "such a coordinated ... existence" to be deleted.

— Sensodyne (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Result

In the war result, it is unnecessary to use the word "decisive." - just use Israeli victory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borgmore (talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

My position is always that state which start war is evil ! In that logic state which has not started attack is good ! Pre-emptive attack is for me modern shit which explain how is possible for democracy to start war. There is not better example for that of this war and US attack on Iraq. About this war I agree with Sm8900 that it has been hostile atmosphere but this is not reason for war because many time simular situation has gone away without war. If this my thinking is POV then something is wrong with wikipedia. Rjecina 2:35, 28 March 2007 (CET)

1.) The war was going to start anyway. I suppose you'd like it better were the Arab states allowed to have their first strike so that they could perform genocide against the Jewish people? That was, after all, their stated war aim. 2.) Even if a state which starts a war is always evil (a position that is not consistently tenable in any internally consistent moral system) that does not make the state that was attacked good. If nothing else, the state that was attacked may have started wars of its own at other times. To use the 1991 Gulf War as an example, I suppose you would call the United States evil for starting the war, but if that makes Iraq good, what about the war that Iraq had just started against Kuwait? Or the Iran-Iraq war? Nothing is so binary as what you propose. Rogue 9 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose: 1. Those who wish to contribute their knowledge of subject matter to Wikipedia should first have a command of the written English Language, and 2. Contributors should refrain from using slang or foul language. Klegal 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Klegal

3. Members should use talk pages constructively about improving the article, not as a soapbox for their own opinions. --GHcool 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strike

The section concerning the warfare starts out by stating "Israel's first and most important move was a pre-emptive attack on the Egyptian Air Force". Since "pre-emptiveness" is a legal term in Public International Law that implies legitimacy, I would like to see this claim supported. PJ 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Missed the notes regarding "pre-emptivness" in the introduction of the entry. PJ 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet involvement

Any ideas on Soviet contributions to the war?

There is an article in the Jerusalem Post today [2] discussing a new book that claims that the USSR engineered the six-day war in order to set up a situation where they could destroy Israel's developing nuclear weapons program by bombing Dimona, but that the plan failed because of the unexpected Israeli success on the battlefield. I don't personally know any more than what I just read in that article. Vegasprof 14:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A CIA report declassified this week, gives an idea. Seems it was unlikely they wanted that war, and they probably was very aware of Israels superiority. But they did warn the arabs that Israel was planning to go to war, and that made the arabs prepare for it, which in turn led Israel to start it. Read it here CiaPolitica 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Strength

The numbers mentioned under strength (150,000 egyptian troops, 75,000 syrian troops) are very very unreasonable. I don't have the exact figures, but the egyptian army had at least 300,000 soldiers in command. Please correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.229.184.79 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps it is just referring to forces deployed in the theater and not the whole country?

palestinian and other refugees

There are some statements attributed to Moshe Dayan's memoires, specifically the demolition of houses and Israeli policy on this matter. The notes simply read "Dayan, 495-497". I have a copy of Moshe Dayan's autobiography 'Story of my Life', hardcover, published 1976. And those pages do not discuss this issue at all. If these statements are comming from a different publication or issue, then could someone please clear it up? I will look for his references to these events when I have the time, however, Dayan's memoires are hardly comprehensive. He glosses over a fair number of shaddy events he was involved in, such as archeological theft, settlement construction, and house demolition post-1967 in the Sinai and West Bank. A student of history 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of whether Dayan's memoirs are comprehensive -- that's beside the point, isn't it? -- A Student is correct. Pages 495-97 deal with a different war altogether. The page numbers, interestingly, do not come from the Wiki editor who put that txt in, but from Morris's book. The editor was very unclear with his quotes, putting Morris's words outside the blockquotes and not within quotes.

Even more problematic, though, is the editors selective cutting from this particular passage in Morris's book. Here is the actual passage. The Wiki editor--in a blatant act of partisan, POV manipulation--left out the key sentence about "allowed to stay" and "given ... tools":

In three villages southwst of Jerusalem and at Qalqilya, houses were destroyed "not in battle, but as punishment ... and in order to chase away the inhabitants ... ---contrary to government...policy," Dayan wrote in his memoirs. In Qalqilya, about a third of the homes were razed and about twelve thousand inhabitants were evicted, though many then camped out in the environs.111 The evictees in both areas were allowed to stay and later were given cement and tools by the Israeli authorities to rebuild at least some of their dwellings.112

But many thousands of other Palestinians now took to the roads....

I will change this section to be more representative of the source, and to make clear what is and what isn't a quote. Gni 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

the central picture

I think this classic picture is under copyright. did someone check? Shmila 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I am putting up a neutrality-disputed tag because of what I perceive as a pro-Arab slant to the article.

It has been three months that the NPOV tag is up. Mwalcoff, can you please identify the precise items that still need changing? OpTioNiGhT 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The article gives a great deal of weight to revisionist claims that challenge the traditional Western interpretation of the war. Among those claims are that the Israelis were much to blame for pre-war Syrian attacks from the Golan Heights; that the closing of the Straits of Tiran did not give Israel cause to destroy its enemies' air forces; that Israeli massacred Egypian POWs and Palestinian civilians, etc.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with including these revisionist claims. But they must be given appropriate weight. They should not be given more weight than the traditional interpretations.

For example, the section about refugees quotes Benny Morris or Moshe Dayan (the sentence isn't clear whose words they are) as saying houses were destroyed as punishment "contrary to government... policy." But it doesn't say what that government policy was, the background of the violation of that policy and what the consequences were for those who violated it.

It appears that editors have cherry-picked quotes from people to present a case. For example, there's a Moshe Dayan quote from the New York Times that blames Galilee farmers' greed for land for provoking the Syrians. Clearly an editor is trying to make his or her own case rather than repeat the analysis already made in a secondary source. My understanding is that this is against Wikipedia style and policy. We're not supposed to create our own syntheses from primary sources to advance a position (WP:SYN). If Benny Morris says the Golan conflict stemmed from farmers' greed, and he uses Moshe Dayan as proof of that, we can use it. If Michael Oren puts the onus on the Syrians, we should report that too. But we shouldn't be searching out direct quotes on our own to make one case or the other like a high school debate team.

Finally, the article does not make clear what the Es Samu incident has to do with the war. -- Mwalcoff 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am guilty for Moshe Dayan word which are now in the text so ..... My answer will be in part my thinking in part strategy analyse. My thinking is that state which attack another is always guilty of aggresion. I have not find any use of pre-emptive wars but for politicans which want blood to say to people : "We do not want war but we must attack because they want to attack us". With home media always make great story how we are good in time when our soldiers are taking other states territory.

Strategy analyze of Israel pre-emptive air attack is very simple. Can anybody serious think that Egypt and Syria has been ready to start war but their air force has not been in alert mod ?? If they have been in alert Israel attack will be failure so .... In and of analyze I can only say that Syria and Egypt has not been thinking of war in minimal next week. If somebody want to read documents he will find that Egypt army of that time has not been ready for war so pre-emptive attack has not been nothing more but aggresion.

You have been speaking about Western interpretation of the war but this is shit like Arab interpretation of the war. There is only 1 interpretation of the war which say: Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan after what he has annexed territory. Rjecina 16:19, 27 March 2007 (CET)

The Egypt Army was not ready for war? If so, it must be one of the only armies in the world which is not. Most armies are trained and prepared to fight wars. that is their job, basically.

Whatever the case, the readiness of Egypt's Army is not the only factor here. The other factor is statements and actions by Egypt's leaders. Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israel, ordered UN peacekeepers out of the Sinai Peninsula, and Nasser repeatedly called for attacking Israel. this clearly points to a hostile atmosphere. Notice that I am not mentioning any opinion on Egypt's actions; I am simply stating some historical facts. --Sm8900 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't really understand what Rjecina is saying, but it's clear that he or she is POV-pushing. -- Mwalcoff 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My position is always that state which start war is evil ! In that logic state which has not started attack is good ! Pre-emptive attack is for me modern shit which explain how is possible for democracy to start war. There is not better example for that of this war and US attack on Iraq. About this war I agree with Sm8900 that it has been hostile atmosphere but this is not reason for war because many time simular situation has gone away without war. If this my thinking is POV then something is wrong with wikipedia. Rjecina 2:35, 28 March 2007 (CET)

Please read WP:NPOV, the Wikipedia policy on bias. It doesn't matter what you think; articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. You can think what you want to think, but you can't use an article to push your opinion. -- Mwalcoff 02:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading article Preemptive war on wikipedia and there is writen:

"legal ground for pre-emption remain highly a contentious issue" Other thing which is there writen is: "Article 2 Section 4 of the UN Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state. At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense.The tension between these two principals is evident in the doctrine of preemptive war, which claims to be defensive, yet does not come in response to an attack"

I want to say that even in Wikipedia Preemptive war is against international law or better to say against UN Charter. You can read this in different way but in legal way "Preempiteve war" is against international law or Article 2. Article 51 is giving green light for self-defence but like words is saying this is defence after attack not before.

All in all I have not writen in this article nothing else but Moshe Dayan words so I am not guilty of in which way have article come. In my other text on Wikipedia my personal thinking has rarely important because I always try to write honest and suported by sources. I have entered in this disccusion only because Preemptive war shit because from historical perspective every war is Preemptive war because population of every state want to become greater in money, territory and people. This things must be always be taken from other states. You will maybe say that this is not truth but everybody is happy when his country make success. Rjecina 5:28, 28 March 2007 (CET)

You are welcome to include information on how international law views Israel's pre-emptive strike on the Arab air forces. But you have to do it according to Wikipedia style, which means looking at other people's syntheses of primary-source information and accurately summarizing the state of the debate. What you're not supposed to do is go out and get primary-source information yourself to push one side of the debate. -- Mwalcoff 05:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina - you said, in your description of the preemptive war laws, that "the threat or use of force" is illegal. Let me mention that force had been threatened against Israel numerous times prior to the attacks, if not in published diplomatic statements then in constant talk by government leaders about pushing the Jews into the sea, etc. I really don't know how much more blatant they need to get before you'll acknowledge a threat. The state of Israel is too small to tolerate any attacks, a single lost war could end their existence - the goal of many surrounding Arab nations if no longer the goal of Egypt. Pre-emptive strike, in the case of such dire threats as were being pushed by the Arab nations in question, is defensive.

Not to mention the constant attacks being suffered by those too close to the Golan heights, which provided excellent positions from which Syrians could shell Israelis. Whether these attacks were sanctioned by the Syrian government is irrelevant - the Israelis were being attacked and the Israeli government had more than a right, it had the responsibility to defend them. Musicjunki 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)musicjunki

Egyptian division composition

In "The combatant armies" section, it says the Egyptians had 4 infantry and 2 armor divisions, but in "Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula", it says 2 infantry and 4 armor. Which is it? Clarityfiend 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Please do not add the material below to this artice as it does not support the claims made:

This is however, contentious, as international law bodies such as the International Criminal Court as well as the International Law Commission have held the contrary as a matter of general principle. The ICC has sought to include blockading as an act of war in its statutes, as traditionally understood, while the ILC has stated that a blockade may be construed as an "armed attack" as defined in Art. 51 of the UN Charter.LIST OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES PROPOSED BY MR. PELLA IN HIS MEMORANDUM (A/CN.4/39)Crimes Within the International Criminal Court's Juristiction.

(a) The International Criminal Court was not established until 2002 and so matters within its jurisdiction have no relevance to the situation in 1967. (b) A draft code from the 1950 yearbook of the International Law Commission also has no relevance. --Ian Pitchford 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, let's get this straight: A draft code from the 1950 yearbook of the International Law Commission has no relevance, but a letter to the editor published in the NYT is relevant, and shoul dbe quoted at lengths exceeding any other source? What a joke. Isarig 04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right a draft code having nothing to do with the actual status of the law is irrelevant and the opinion of a legal expert speaking directly about the event in question at the time is relevant. Not difficult to understand really? --Ian Pitchford 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The material presentend by Isarig is of course pertinent to the issue. I don't understand what's your objection here ian ? You should also show why this lawyer has any relevance, importance or if he's a WP:RS, which you didn't. Amoruso 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how a copy of a draft is relevant. --Ian Pitchford 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how travaux preparatoires is irrelevant. At a _minimum_ it is a statement on soft international law and additionally is a clarification of how to interprete our customary understanding of the phrase 'armed attack'. More than can be said for POV from a letter writer to the NYT who HIMSELF admits that his opinion is hardly dispositive. In fact, _not at all dispositive_. He writes:

"There are, of course, good arguments on the Israeli side too, and an impartial international court might well conclude that a right of innocent passage through the Strait of Tiran does exist."

. . . words that you exclude in your pithy quotation of the letter in question. Selective quotation from POV piece given undue weightage ought to be excluded on grounds of irrelevance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.114.207 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Roger Fisher is a senior authority in a relevant field. Clearly his statement that he would rather defend the UAR's case than Israel's is highly significant. I have no objection to a longer quotation. --Ian Pitchford 16:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. His statement is legally insignificant. "Letters to the editor" and opinion pieces are NOT sources of international law. And it most certainly isn't scholarly output. To insist that travaux preparatoires and drafting histories are irrelevant, while newspaper articles are relevant is to invert the hierarchy of their importance (to wit: newspaper articles have none). This is international law 101. The common law analogue to travaux preparatoires is of course legislative history (something the courts consult from time to time). But here we have Mr Pitchford suggesting that newspaper articles have 'significant' legal weight over legislative and drafting history? Quite amusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.83.247 (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

April 19 edit war

Anon, your own sources do not support your claims: [3]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Isarig (talk · contribs)

Isarig is adding the following to this article:

In May 1967, Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready...to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland....The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

To the best of my knowledge this quotation appears nowhere other than the 1976 edition of AIPAC's "Myths & Facts* and there the quotation is:

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

At the very least there should be a full quotation in context attributed to a reliable source.

The actual context was as follows:

Bowen, 2003, pp. 32-33: "The toughest threat was reported by the news agency United Press International (UPI) on 12 May: 'A high Israeli source said today that Israel would take limited military action designed to topple the Damascus army regime if Syrian terrorists continue sabotage raids inside Israel. Military observers said such an offensive would fall short of all-out war but would be mounted to deliver a telling blow against the Syrian government.' In the West as well as the Arab world the immediate assumption was that the unanamed source was Rabin and that he was serious. In fact, it was Brigadier-General Aharon Yariv, the head of military intelligence, and the story was overwritten. Yariv mentioned 'an all-out invasion of Syria and conquest of Damascus' but only as the most extreme of a range of possibilities. But the damage had been done. Tenstion was so high that most people, and not just the Arabs, assumed that something much bigger than usual was being planned against Syria."(Nicholas Herbert, Egyptian Forces On Full Alert: Ready to fight for Syria. The Times, Wednesday, May 17, 1967; pg. 1; Issue 56943; col E.)

But this was deleted by.... yes, you've guess it! Isarig.[4]

Isarig is also deleting the following opinion given by the noted Harvard legal authority on negotiation, Roger Fisher:

"The United Arab Republic had a good legal case for restricting traffic through the Strait of Tiran. First it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway.... {Secondly]... a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: 'Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state... taking the facts as they were I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the U.A.R's action in closing the Strait of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case..."(Fisher, Roger letter to the New York Times, 9 June, 1967 quoted in Finkelstein, 2003, p. 138).

I can tolerate Isarig's persistent wikistalking, but this abuse of Wikipedia is not acceptable. --Ian Pitchford 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Which WP is being abused by me? You have removed well sourced material, sourced to an academic paper, with the false edit summary "-fake quote". That alone should earn you a block. You claim that the context of the Syrian quote (which suddenly is not "fake" anymore) is a response to some other Israeli comment - but that is original research performed by you. You have absolutely no regard for NPOV and other WP policies, and I will shortly put an end to this by initiating an arbitration case against you. Isarig 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Pitchford is persistently being disingenuous imo. He feigns to ignore travaux preparatoires while pretending that a letter/op-ed is "relevant" (which is nonsense: a letter has no legal significance and is not a source of international law and is NOT part of the scholarly output of international law publicists); and further accuses others of truncating quotes when he *himself* selectively quotes Fisher (as he concedes to doing in the 'Sources' discussion above)!

Pretty rich taking others to task for "abuse" when he himself is guilty of the same. I wonder if he will censure himself? Yet he goes further with a false edit summary - 'fake quote' - when said quote has been variously sourced to Isi Leibler's 'The Case for Israel' (p. 60)(itself used as a source for another quote in this wiki article). Of course, according to Pitchford it is AIPAC's Near East Report which he *claims* to have read that is the alleged source of the quote. Really? He has to do better than making half-competent searches on Google Books before deleting sourced comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.83.247 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

The quote by Assad has been verified already in Golan Heights article. Removed dubious claim. Also additions should be made regarding even more extreme genocide threats made by Egyptian president. Amoruso 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Samu Incident

In Mwalcoff's above dispute to the POV, he asks what the Samu incident has to do with the Six-Day War. I think it does deserve mention here, as it reflects the rising regional tension leading up to the war, but not more than a few sentences stating the facts of the event. Subsequent debate over whether Israel overreacted in this incident is irrelevant to the Six-Day War, especially since Israel has been criticized for every military operation it has ever done, ever. (I don't deny anyone's right to criticize Israel, but excessive one-sided criticism is a blatant NPOV violation.)

Samu, a minor incident seven months removed from the war, certainly does not deserve more coverage here than the blockade on the Straits of Tiran, the immediate casus belli. The fact that some editor thought it does appears to me as maximizing Israel's blame for the conflict to an undue extent. In an effort to fix this article's neutrality, I propose splitting this section to a separate article, where it can deal with its own POV, and leaving a paragraph here to avoid a POV fork.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 04:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the Samu incident is covered in too much detail here, and that it would be better broken out into a separate article. In fact I've been thinking the same for a while. I disagree though that it is a "minor incident" or that it had little to do with the war. It did, after all, begin the chorus of jeers in the Arab world against Nasser that eventually led to his fateful decision to make a show of force. It also certainly exacerbated tensions, and caused Jordan to mobilize (I don't know whether the Jordanian forces stayed mobilized until the June war or not).

Still, much less coverage here, I agree. But this is only one of the very many problems this page has. There's no effective narrative here at all, just a whole mess of stuff thrown in that's presented in no particular order and without regard to relative importance. In fact, the page is by and large a scarcely readable shambles in my opinion, and needs extensive reworking to restore it to NPOV and encyclopedic standards. Gatoclass 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your judgment of the article. In some sections there is no narrative at all, just cherry-picked quotes. I brought up Samu as a first step for action, and because it wasn't discussed much above when the NPOV was disputed. That discussion was also quickly sidetracked by a POV-pusher's rant.

I meant "minor incident" relatively, by the way. I agree that it's relevant, as I said (and of course people losing their lives can't be called "minor"!). But the article doesn't even clearly explain Samu's relevance to the war, it just quotes criticism of Israel at the time. Pathetic.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight for "Accusations of IDF killings ..."

It hardly seems fair that this section is so large as to make up a significant part of the article. It is made mostly of shady accusations based on 2 1995 interviews. According to Michael Oren (who is oddly not referenced at all in this section), the evidence to the contrary, that prisoners of war on both sides of the conflict were treated fairly overall, is much more convincing. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middles East makes no reference at all to these accusations in its section on the Six-Day War. I think this section should be kept because it is interesting and informative, but I think that is can and should be severely trimmed. I propose the following trims:

1. The picture of the Israeli solier at the POW should be cut. It proves nothing about war crimes and its simple NPOV.
2. Two sentences of the first paragraph:

   "Yitzhaki said 'It annoys me that everyone is making an issue about that one case, when everyone knows there were so many events like it".[109] The allegations received widespread attention in Israel and throughout the world and later resurfaced in a book called Body of Secrets (pp. 201-202) by James Bamford."

3. Everything past the first two sentences in the second paragraph:

   "In the Associated Press article in which Yitzhaki’s claims spread around the world[115] it was noted that 'Rabin, who was chief of staff when some of the 1967 killings allegedly were committed, walked away today when a reporter shouted a related question. His office later issued a statement denouncing the killings and calling them isolated incidents'. However, leading Israeli military historian Uri Milstein was reported in the same article as saying that there were many incidents in the 1967 war in which Egyptian soldiers were killed by Israeli troops after they had raised their hands in surrender. 'It was not an official policy, but there was an atmosphere that it was okay to do it,' Milstein said. 'Some commanders decided to do it; others refused. But everyone knew about it.'[116]

   All of the relevent information is in the first paragraph and the source contradicts itself here. Plus, it is rather confusingly written.
4. The entire third paragraph unless it could be verified by another source. It is a very, very bold claim and it needs more than one 12 year old New York Times article for verification. If the same information can be found in an authoritative book or encyclopedia, I'd accept it.

If nobody responds on this talk page, I will probably trim the above four things within the next week. --GHcool 07:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree to the changes you propose. The sources here are particularly good and include good quotations from those involved. --Ian Pitchford 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope Ian Pitchford doesn't mind, but I moved his response to the appropriate section.

Rather than flatly rejecting all of the changes wholesale, I am hoping that Ian Pitchford will discuss his reasoning for rejecting each proposed change. For example, I find it difficult to believe that Ian Pitchford disagrees with my first proposed change because in his opinion, the picture of an Israeli solier at the Egyptian POW camp is well cited and is positive NPOV proof that the IDF committed war crimes. I also find it difficult to believe that Ian Pitchford agrees that the level of attention given in this article to these largely disputed and unfounded claims are in compliance with WP:NPOV. --GHcool 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford, I've satisfied my burden of proof to change to status quo above. The onus is now upon you to explain why the picture of an Israeli soldier standing in the middle of a POW camp would necessarily be indicative of IDF killings of Egyptian POWs. The burden of proof is also upon you to explain why an entire paragraph with a dubious claim cited to one 12-year-old newspaper article that I doubt you have ever even read is necessary for this article as well. I respected your request to keep the Laub source, but I deleted 2-3 sentences from the end that were simply redundant to to the first portion of the paragraph on Yitzhaki's research. --GHcool 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a classical cause of man bite dog: No word about killing of Israeli solders by Egyptians (I am really sorry that Israel won the war so the numbers are small – only tens), A big section about the opposite case. Killings Israelis by Arabs isn't news, killing Arabs by Israelis is news so you heard much more about these accusations, but Wikipedia have POV policy – so this section must be deleted. Troll Refaim 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight does not constitute removing the entire section. Can you indicate exactly what doesn't belong here? OpTioNiGhT 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring this section back. The Haaretz reported Egyptian allegations of this. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/838750.html. If you prefer, we can change the word Accusations for Allegations. OpTioNiGhT 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial changes"

How many times is this same material going to come and go? I count three full cycles and several partial ones, just in the last 24 hours. It's dizzying. How about some discussion and an attempt to reach a consensus? Based objectively on well-documented sources, of course. Hertz1888 15:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this effort to finaly discuss these new changes. I found them to be very one-sided, breaking a delicate balance that has been in the article for months. If the editors who wnat to introduce these changes into the article can discuss them here first, that would be great. Isarig 22:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this, Hertz. I only ran into this revert war today, and reverted just once, requesting politely that major changes be discussed first. It was re-reverted 13 minutes later. I then decided that the issue cannot be settled that way, and asked for help. Hopefully, it will be resolved in a manner acceptable to WP:NPOV. Vegasprof 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:130.236.60.32 has been blocked. That is a multi-user IP address used by many people in Qatar. The talk page was deleted right after I read the block. The talk page contained a large number of warnings. Vegasprof 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:82.148.97.69, another multi-user Qatar-associated IP address with multiple warnings, looks as if it could be next. Time will tell who shows up here to discuss the changes. Meanwhile, Vegasprof: when you said you asked for help, was that in the form of a request for mediation? Hertz1888 23:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided to hunt around and I discovered that user:JoshuaZ, an administrator, had been involved in a prior revert war between users Isarig and Amon, so I posted a message on JoshuaZ's talk page asking him what could be done to stop the revert war on Six-Day war. JoshuaZ has not yet responded. Vegasprof 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page until some form of consensus can be reached. Please work on the talk page and don't edit war. That said, looking over the matter, I have a few comments: First, Egypt by defintion could not withdraw the UN forces, they weren't Egypt's to withdraw. I also don't see where [5] says that moving the UN forces out of the Sinai was to "to deter the Israelis from attacking Syria" Continuing, the claim that Israel "repeatedly threatened to invade Syria and overthrow the Syrian government if guerrilla raids by Palestinian refugees across the Syrian border did not stop" is not backed up by the source as given (a single comment does not make repeatedly and it refers to occupying, not overthrowing) , and the description may have POV issues besides. Isarig's version has other issues. Among other problems at one point it has "weren't" for "were not" and "wouldn't" for "would not" which goes against WP:MOS (this is a reason why largescale reverts aren't good. Universally acceptable edits often get lost in the wash). The youtube links also do not seem to necessarily comply with WP:EL. The section in Isarig's version that says "Border incidents multiplied and numerous Arab leaders, both political and military, called for an end to Israeli reprisals. Egypt, then already trying to seize a central position in the Arab world under Nasser, accompanied these declarations with plans to re-militarize the Sinai. Syria shared these views, although it didn't prepare for an immediate invasion." also needs citations. JoshuaZ 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply by my revert that I support the previous version, as-is, I just object to large-scale controversial edits made without discussion. Surely MOS-related changes should be made (and as the protecting admin, feel free to make those changes), and I have no idea what's in the youtube links - feel free to remove those as well. Isarig 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Joshua. I suspect that the problem individuals have temporarily gone away. I hope that the process of completing the article can continue soon. I found it very informative when I read it (before I got involved in the revert war) but it does not square with my personal memory of the war, which I got from CBS news, TIME magazine, etc., the media that most of us relied on at that time. One important discrepancy is that, as I recall from 1967, Israel pre-emptively attacked Jordan, destroying their air force in a very short time. A few days later, as Israeli forces were advancing across the West Bank, Jordan appealed to the United States to stop Israel. I don't know what President Johnson did, but Israel did not stop until the West Bank was occupied. The article, on the other hand, states that Israel tried to persuade Jordan not to attack, but they did anyway, because Hussein didn't want to miss out on the action. I am not saying that the article is wrong ... just that it contradicts news stories of that time. A similar incident was related to me by a trusted Jewish friend (who seemed quite sure of his information) that at one point, before the Six-Day War, Jordan's neighbors decided to partition Jordan among themselves, but Israel stopped them by informing them that if they did, Israel would grab a piece, too. Is that rumor true? It's believable. Another rumor (of very recent publication) which explains the otherwise inexplicable fact that Nasser deliberately provoked Israel into the 1967 war, knowing (unless he was stupider than anyone believed) that his forces would be smashed, is that the USSR deliberately instigated the war in order to create the excuse for a combined Egyptian/Soviet (commando?) force to obliterate Israel's embryonic nuclear weapons program. This was published somewhere only a few days ago (see my comment above on this talk page.) Vegasprof 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this article by Michael B. Oren, "Did Israel Want the Six Day War?" responding to claims by revisionist historians. He writes in the introduction, "Few of these historiographical struggles are as bitter as the one now being waged over the Arab-Israeli wars," which is certainly being felt at Wikipedia. Notably: "The record shows that Israel was desperate to avoid war and, up to the eve of battle, pursued every avenue in an effort to avert it—even at great strategic and economic cost to the nation." By the way, the comment at the end "[Oren] is currently working on a history of the Six Day War" refers to the since-published Six Days of War, which is a must-read (I've read chapters from it and hope to read the whole thing this summer).  —Rafi Neal |T/C 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that Israel's first wave of airstrikes on the morning of June 5 were directed against only Egypt and Syria. Jordan began shelling West Jerusalem later that morning, and only after the shelling began did Israel launch airstrikes against Jordan. Vegasprof, I think your friend might be talking about the events of 1958, when Soviet-friendly plotters overthrew the monarchy of Iraq and threatened Jordan, which had just established a "union" with Iraq to compete with the Egypt-Syria UAR. The US and Britain, with Israeli support, sent emergency assistance to Jordan, preserving the last remaining Hashemite monarchy in the Middle East. -- Mwalcoff 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to concerns of JoshuaZ, the Country Study on Egypt by the Library of Congress under Chapter 1: June 1967 War writes the following

In April 1967, there were serious Israeli-Syrian air clashes over Syrian air space. Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol warned that Damascus could be occupied if necessary.

The claim has been made that Nasser believed that the presence of Egyptian troops would deter the Israelis from attacking Syria. Israel responded by deploying its own forces. It was clear that it would be difficult for Egypt to come to Syria's aid according to the terms of their agreement because of an obstacle--the presence of UNEF troops, stationed on the Egyptian side of the Egyptian-Israeli border since the 1956 War.

Egypt's request for the UN force to exit its territory was caused by Israeli provocations towards Syria. Previous versions of this article refer to Egypt announcing its closure of Tiran to Israeli ships and the withdrawal of the UN force without providing even a hint of what caused these developments.

Nemda 2:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean that Israeli *warnings* were caused by Syrian provocations towards Israel? Surely allowing guerillas to ACTUALLY mount cross-border raids from Syria is more of a provocation than Israeli *warnings* of retaliation? Nice surreptitious insertion of POV from you though.

220.255.193.151 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Nemda: That quotation from the Library of Congress is misleading. Israel did threaten military action against Syria—following repeated Syrian provocation—but did not mobilize. When Nasser began actually mobilizing in May 1967 to deter the so-called Israeli aggression, Israel tried through every means—including the UN, USA, and USSR—to resolve the conflict diplomatically. In contrast, the Arab media was beating the war drums. Meanwhile, Nasser ignored all insistence that Israel was not interested in war, even from his own advisors. Oren explains:

By replacing the UNEF forces in the Sinai with Egyptian troops in May 1967, Nasser would achieve two significant and long-sought goals: A dramatic improvement in Egypt’s own strategic position vis-à-vis Israel, and a compelling rejoinder to his enemies within the Arab world—the Jordanians, the Saudis—who had accused him of hiding behind the skirts of the UN. [6]

When Nasser saw Israel's weak response to the removal of UNEF, and the praise being showered on him by the Arab world for his military buildup, he went on to close the Straits of Tiran to further boost his prestige. This is all well documented by Oren.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this dispute over? I'd like to request unprotection. --GHcool 18:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is this article ready to be unprotected? There has been a request to post this article on "On this day" on the main page for June 10 to mark the 40th anniversary of the ceasefire. I am only willing to allow it if all the editing disputes are resolved and it is ready for unprotection. Item 7 of WP:OTD#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages says an article featured on OTD should "a good example of Wikipedia content." "A good example" is not exemplified by a {{POV}}-tagged article that if fully protected from editing. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

keep the POW sections. The execution of over !0% of Israels' Egyptian prisioners in a 5 day desert campaign is very revelant. Opuscalgary 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Shredder

I recently made an article on "Operation Shredder" and I believe that its mention in this article should become an internal link. Also the town of Samu should be redirected so that it is not confused with a depopulated town in the West Bank during the Six-Day War.

On another note there has been a discussion whether to include the villages depopulated (See Talk:List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war) and (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine) - Al Ameer son

Featured article

{{Editprotected}} The article is not a featured article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. It is a featured article in the Urdu Wikipedia. Please correct.--Doron 09:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what to change. --Zero^talk 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon

According to page Operation Focus, one Lebanese aircraft was destroyed. But I dont see Lebanon in the Battle Box. How come? Fvdham 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia did not fire a single shot during this war. Yet it is listed as a combatant in the battle box. Fvdham 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They sent a brigade to Jordan to support the Jordanian army.. This is similar to the many nations listed under the "coalition forces" for the Iraq war, the vast majority of them not having taken an active part in the fighting. Isarig 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait i thought that the saudis never made it to the war, that there was a problem withpassing through jordan Namrasit 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

File:Jpost june6 1967.jpg When unprotected, please be sure to add this. Thanks. --Shamir1 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And this[7][8] to the external links. Why is this page protected anyway? Can anyone tell me in a nutshell? --Shamir1 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting to make the changes I've outlined above in the section of the talk page titled "Undue weight for "Accusations of IDF killings ...". It seems as though everyone here agrees with these changes, or at least does not disagree. --GHcool 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Names for photo caption available

Hi there. I was just checking out the CTV news (Canada) webpage on the anniversary of the Six Day war and I noticed that the photo of the soldiers at the West Wall has the troopers names listed on the CTV site. I'd plug them into the caption myself, but the page is protected right now... anyway, their names from left to right are Zion Karasanti, Yitzhak Yifat and Haim Oshri. Apparently they are paratroopers. [9] Mike McGregor (Can) 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The names are already listed at Image:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg#Summary. I don't think the names are particularly needed for the caption in the article itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the subsection titled "War in the Air", Israel certainly did demonstrate air superiority. I note that you pointed out a lot of defections, but a number of Arab (actually seconded from other air forces) did shoot down a number of Israelis. Please find reference

Saiful Azam (from Pabna, now Bangladesh), then a Flight Lieutenant in the Pakistan Air Force was deputed to the Royal Jordanian Air Force, flying Hunters. The RJAF Hunters were flown out to the Iraqi Airbase of H-3 in an attempt to put them out of range of Israeli Air Force. It was here he accomplished a unique feat, flying in a Hawker Hunter as a No.2, his formation intercepted an Israeli formation of Four Vautours and Two Mirage IIIs. One of the Mirage IIIs was flown by Capt. Gideon Dror. Dror shot down Azam's Wingman, but himself fell to Azam's Guns. Dror ejected to be taken POW. Moments later, Azam intercepted the formation of four Vantour Bombers and bought down one of them flown by Capt. Golan, who ejected. Azam had earlier bought down a Super Mystere the previous day over Jordan.

West Bank article

There is a dispute between me and Jayjg in Talk:West Bank, which editors of this article may be interested in commenting on. Specifically the dispute is about what events (if any) of the Six Day War should be mentioned in the West Bank article. Sanguinalis 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

remove begin quote

I removed the Begin quote (at 3k of text it doesn't seem useful to post here so check the page history) from the "Drift to War" section. As I was reading the article the other day I noticed something odd about the quote and the way it was used. When I read the speech from which it was excerpted, it became clear that the quote was taken out of context and used to imply something different that what Begin was originally saying. Instead of deleting the thing, I chose to expand it, to add in more of Begin's speech in order to accurately present what Begin actually said. Now I've changed my mind. The whole quote is irrelevant. It adds nothing to the article and it interrupts the flow substantially. This is a political speech, not about the Six-Day War but about Begin's own interventions in Lebanon. I think it would be useful in an article about Begin or preemptive strikes, but it has no value in this context.

My idea is to expand the section by adding some historical accounts about what was happening at the time. Israeli fears of annihilation, Jewish volunteers flying in from abroad to fight for Israel, wealthy Israelis fleeing, etc. Michael Oren explains these events in a compelling way in Six Days of War. GabrielF 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This quote is very interesting, but it is less says less about the objective reality of the Six-Day War than it does about Begin's opinions on the Six-Day War and Arab-Israeli conflict in general. Perhaps the quote might have made for an interesting read as an aside in a comprehensive history such as Oren's book, but GabrielF did the right thing by removing it from this article because of the reasons he/she gave above. --GHcool 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Symbolic Image:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg may be deleted

This iconic photograph will be removed from the encyclopedia if it is not used in a way that complies with WP:NONFREE. I'm sorry to be be asking others to do this (I'm on vacation but still check in because of severe wikipedaholism), but can someone carry out what Abu Badali says at the ifd? Thanks everybody. nadav (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a clarification of our fair-use policy at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#clarification_re:_use_of_historical_photos_in_articles_about_events for those interested. GabrielF 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Section that was in locked version.

For the record, per WP:PROTECT, a locked version in an edit war is not an endorsed version. The locking did not endorse any aspect of the article nor the section in question. JoshuaZ 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I am not requesting that the section remain unchanged because it was included in a locked version. I am simply asking the person that removed it to discuss the proposed changes and try to get approval or agreement before editing the article. Please see my comment under Undue weight for "Accusations of IDF killings ...". OpTioNiGhT 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Title and Neutral POV

OK, I'd like to suggest the radical proposition that we rename the main article with an neutral POV heading, such as "1967 Arab-Israeli War." The current title "Six-Day War" is not, as we know, neutral. If it were, the Arabs would call the encounter by that name. To the Arabs, the conflict is the "June War" or "al-Naksa;" It's the Israeli's who called it the Six-Day War. I admit that most in the US know it as the Six-Day War, but this doesn't make it any more neutral. Plus, anyone who searches for "Six-Day War" will be redirected to "1967 Arab-Israeli War." I know I'll get pushback on this, but consider how ridiculous it would be if someone insisted on naming the page "Al-Naksa." And even though "June War" may seem neutral, since the term is pretty much exclusively Arab, it won't do either. So, I open it to discussion. - Menaus 19 July 2007

The problem with this suggestion is that the term "Six-Day War" is standard not only for the Israelis, but for the general public in the West, the media and scholars as well. For example, googling "Six-Day War" results in almost a million hits whereas "1967 Arab-Israeli War" results in about 72,000. [10][11] If we adopted this suggestion we would be rejecting the most widely used term in favor of one with a slant that is more amenable to some. That would be in conflict with our purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to accurately reflect the current knowledge about a topic rather than shape or influence public perceptions. GabrielF 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, we're not trying to influence or shape public perceptions, which is why we should use a NPOV heading. There are good arguments for using either heading. I maintain that "1967 Arab-Israeli War" is superior because it is NPOV. You contend that "Six-Day War" is superior because more English speakers use it. The beauty of Wikipedia is that searching for either title will lead you to the main article. If you look at the policies, it says that "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize." It also says just above that: "Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia." I think promoting NPOV should take priority given the sensitivity of the topic. Menaus 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Menaus 19 July 2007

GabrielF has it exactly right. Few could argue that Six-Day War is the name by which it's known, overwhelmingly, in the English-speaking world - and this is the English Wikipedia. Without checking any wiki policies, I assert that the fact of common usage has to count most strongly. It isn't as if we're talking about a scientific theory that was commonly accepted, but now has to be scrapped in the light of new evidence. I say stick with the current title. Hertz1888 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The six day war is the zionist name, reflecting the nationalist euphoria of post-67 Israeli society. The subtext being, "We beat those damn Arabs in only 6 days, it was a peace of cake". The question is: is this Wikipedia or Zionipedia. If the former then a prefer the NPOV title suggested above.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean they didn't? Sorry, here in Singapore we know it as the Six Day War too. Apparently Arabist propaganda disputing that name failed to displace its popular use in the Anglophone world. Good grief. Get over it.220.255.26.148 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. There is a very specific and long-standing Wikipedia policy that addresses situations exactly like this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). We use the most-common name in the English-speaking world for a subject, unless it is ambiguous, factually inaccurate or in contrast to an official name. It doesn't matter what you think the most-common name should be. The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire, but that doesn't mean we should come up with a new name for it on Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff 01:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)