Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 14

At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

"At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria."

Would this line be better later in the lead for chronological purposes. The seizing of land is already mentioned later in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think straight chronological order is a good idea at all. I'm not happy about moving things from the first to the last paragraph... the organization is this: Summary of consequences paragraph #1, which is the most important consequences. Then a couple chronologically ordered summary paras, then another consequences para, which is the lesser one of the two. It is presented in a structure that is tailored for reader comprehension, not some secondary idea of consistent ordering. • Ling.Nut 23:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
My preferred placement would not be the final paragraph for this. I was thinking 2nd or 3rd depending on how it is done. Yes that would reduce prominence. So if we are not going to do chronological how else are we going to handle the lead? We define it (a war in this location at this time in the first paragraph) Do we need the results in the first defining paragraph? And if so, do the results merit multiple lines in that paragraph? Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As I've said endlessly, the best possible thing we could do is stop editing the lede altogether. Just... Stop. If the lede could be locked down and the rest of the article left open to editing, that would be most excellently wonderful. As it is, we are agonizing over (mostly) nothing, and the article is very, very definitely suffering great harm as a consequence. • Ling.Nut 06:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I appreciate (and almost agree with) that mentality but the lead is currently not good enough for several editors. Since everyone reads an article differently and the lead is the top summary it needs to be better. Many editors agree on one change but it is being held back partially due to the other concerns. It just is not acceptable to ignore a lead when so many concerns have been raised. And the article was locked down after some of the concerns made there way back in. That makes it even worse. It is locked so lets get it handled instead of ignoring it.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If I reply honestly to that post, folks will start screaming WP:NPA (not legitimately; I wouldn't say anything that was a real NPA violation, but folks on this page scream NPA whenever any calls WP:SPADE on WP:NPOV). My hands are bound. Meanwhile, the article is also bound, for the same reason. • Ling.Nut 06:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So in summary: you are done with the lead?Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In summary, every request to alter the lead is POV-motivated and should be disregarded, if we want to even try to generate a high-quality, NPOV article. You keep saying there are concerns and disagreement; no. The concerns are always and everywhere motivated by a desire to nudge the article into a form that is more hospitable to one or the other of the two relevant POVs. • Ling.Nut 08:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have just re-read the lead, with some difficulty, as it is extremely long and boring. I must say that it looks ridiculous to me. Par 1 is a summary(!) of the lead, but it tells of the consequencies without giving a single sentence about the actual fighting. Then there is a lot about the buildup (going, ridiculously, as far back as 1956), and only par 3 is indeed about the fighting. The rest is again some unnecessary interpretations. Now, I challenge Ling.Nut to tell me what's partisan about my observation. I am not saying we need necessarily to change it now. Maybe any attempt to establish consensus will be futile. I don't disagree with Ling.Nut that we need to work on the main body. But I do not think anyone can honestly say it is good. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming "involved" I could take a shot at it. Just as some people obsess over conflicts involving Israel, other people couldn't care less. I'm in the latter category. I don't follow news about conflicts between Palestine, Israel, Arab countries etc., because, frankly, I never cared about the topic. So I haven't formed any opinions, as far as I know. Until I showed up here to answer one of JRHammond's editprotected requests, I don't recall venturing into this topic on Wikipedia ever before.

I would say, after reading over the lead of this article, and reading WP:LEAD, that maybe it would be a good idea to examine two versions of the lead, both different than the current one: a completely chronological summary, and a logically-organized summary that starts out with the most important "take away" points followed by key details. I don't know that it's necessary for me to write them; it appears to me that most of the participants here are fully capable of neutrality when composing either version. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I personally think you are (innocently) feeding the unhealthy and dysfunctional dynamic of obsessing over the lead. We need to drop it. Drop. It. And work on the body text. Select one section and go for it. Then the body text will drive the contents of the lead (as it should be). • Ling.Nut 22:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Stop commenting on the lead and do it then if that is what you want to work on.Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. Everyone should do the same. • Ling.Nut 01:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree with BorisG's assesment[1]. If you don't want to talk about the lead then please do not participate since it is just bogging this down. The lead currently gives much weight to the results but little on the actual war. It is a broken and needs to be redone. If going back to some previous version would fix that then it should be considered but as it is right now, any version that has the opening paragraph overly focused on one aspect and not the others is not good enough. Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you know how long this war lasted? What information about the war do you think is lacking from the lead? You are complaining that the first paragraph does not include enough information on one aspect but havent said what information is lacking. You then use that supposed lack of information to argue for the removal of other information from the first paragraph. What exactly should the first paragraph cover in your informed opinion? nableezy - 07:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a note on your talk page.
It isn't necessary the lack of information but the weight of other information. The results receive exceptionally more weight. The actual fighting is not mentioned until the third paragraph. In the body, there is already lengthy sections, pretty maps, and even a link to a subpage yet the fighting receives hardly anything in the lead while it is overshadowed by the results and background. It does not take an expert in any given subject to see the problem. So if you are suggesting we add more to the lead on the fighting then it sounds like fun. However, I think a better first step would be to get directly to the problem and address the prominence issues that have been discussed recently. Editors have already complained about the length. Sometimes fixing undue weight means removing things even if it seems unfair.Cptnono (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to address a point: I don;t think the fighting needs to b in the first paragraph since I am in favor of a chronological lead.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no problem (unless you dislike the way that certain consequences are emphasized); doesn't take any expert to see that. I am waiting to compare the final version after this current round of edits to the version I uploaded. It will be instructive. • Ling.Nut 08:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course I dislike that certain parts are emphasized. That is what undue weight means. And there is no current round of edits since the page is locked. Which version are you talking about? I asked above about it but I don't know the time stamp of the edit you are talking about. You have raised this before but it doesn;t help when you join a conversation then say you don;t want to be in it. If you have a previous version you like I would be happy to say if I like it better or not.Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • My dear friend, the reason Nableezy loves the current version is because he is from one POV camp. The reason you are trying to pass off the situation as WP:UNDUE is because you are from the opposing camp. I personally am from neither camp, but I have been watching the news since I was a toddler, and I know that the consequences in the first paragraph are a) the main consequences, and b) the main relevance to our current political situation. Nableezy is, in this particular case, sort of mostly right. Don't think I would always side with him; I wouldn't. But the refugee problem and the territorial issues are the relevance to today. The relevance to today is what makes it relevant to the current reader from any spot in the world. • Ling.Nut 09:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Answer the question.in an above section Edit: sorry for not seeing the link earlier. The issues raised are directly related to that edit. The version you presented is why there is a problem. Maybe it is time to go back to the version before and go from there. I do agree that some expansion was appropriate since GA and FAs need good summaries in the lead but I don't think that is a good summary and it is obvious that it kicked something off. Accept a revert of it and go from there. I didn't realize it was your version of the lead actually. Good attempt and that should be applauded but it has too many issues.Cptnono (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You keep saying it has issues, as if the repetition gives you credibility. It does not. It is fine (except for the areas that were crapped up by others). • Ling.Nut 11:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I no longer have any objections left. Do as you wish. • Ling.Nut 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree it is a relevant and important issue as I have said. Over and over and over again.It doesn't mean that there isn't a weight and layout concern as I and others have also said.
  • And I'll respond to the rest off of this page.Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not see any serious undue weight or emphasis problems, only problems with the structure and logic. Try to read the lead as a person who has never previously heard of this war and try to make sense of it. Done? See what I mean. However, also recognise that it is one thing to point out the problems with the lead and the other to propose constructive solutions. I apologise that my statement above wasn't constructive. I do not disagree with Ling.Nut's proposal to focus on the body. I am ready to constructively engage in discussion of any possible changes. But at the moment I do not have time to initiate any changes. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Page protection has expired but be aware this article is still under 1RR probation and all reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Violations will get you blocked as there have been ample and highly visible warnings. --WGFinley (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit by Dailycare

I do not want to revert and get in this mess of argument that I see on this talk page. But the thing that Dailycare just put into article is completely POV and actually, he even added it with a not reliable reference. An opinion blog. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with that edit. It is controversial and I think editors need to be bounced out of the topic area if they are going to do that immediately after page protection. But these things happen so if we wants to make a response here then hopefully it can get all straightened out. "Ethnic cleansing". Does the source provided deserve the line. If not, are there enough other sources to include that terminology?Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The article in haaretz is a serious article and the issue is important. I think the way it is preseted (according etc) is ok. It is a peice of revisionist research by Haaretz. However, I don't understand why we need the blog entry, as Haaretz article is available online. - BorisG (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree the blog entry is superfluous, I originally added it since the link to the Haaretz article didn't work (apparently the site was reorganized). I found a working link and corrected it to the ref. But I agree, the blog in the reference isn't needed to source the text. --Dailycare (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I edited the ref to contain just the Haaretz article. --Dailycare (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare, I have read the Haaretz article, and I don't quite agree that the words 'much of the population' adequately reflect the Haaretz text. The word 'much' can be interpreted as 'many people', which would be adequate, or as 'the majority of', which will be misleading. I think something like 'a portion of' may be more appropriate. As Haaretz says, There is no question that many civilians joined the fleeing Syrian army forces both before and after the offensive. Many, but not all. Not all does not equate to much of. What do you think? - BorisG (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at the same part of the text earlier. However I feel there is more information there, since we're discussing a population of 130.000 all in all, and the estimates of the number of people who left before the Israelis arrived range in the article from 45.000 to 56.000 so the remainder can be called "much of" 130.000, which is a fairly broad term. But I don't have a strong opinion on whether the text says "much of", "tens of thousands" or something similar. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think math works this way: there were 130,000, 45.000 to 56.000 fled, so the remainder must have beem forcibly expelled. More accurate would be to say that we do not have good info about the remainder. Some of them may have fled without anyone noticing, and some may have been expelled. To attribute the remainder to the number expelled would be pure speculation, and this is not said in the source anyway. I would strongly object to tens of thousands because that's not what the source says. - BorisG (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
What kind of wording would you suggest? If we say something like " (...) the Israeli army implemented a policy of expulsion to remove Syrian civilians from the Golan" we side-step the number issue and that would be in-line with what the source says. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
No that makes reader assume it means they expelled all Syrians. LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why would it make the reader assume that? If we said "the Syrian civilians" that would imply all, but without the article it means just more than one. It also follows the source which doesn't detail how many, but does detail that there was a policy of expelling them. --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely a source can be found that gives more information? If not, anything written should make it clear that we do not have good numbers. It is wrong to make assumptions, as they are always made based on a POV. JuJubird (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have another source you're of course welcome to add material, such as numbers. I'm OK with the line " (...) the Israeli army implemented a policy of expulsion to remove Syrian civilians from the Golan" which makes no assumptions concerning numbers and is firmly rooted in the source. --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Dailycare's last edit for it does ' make assumptions (of ethnic cleansing) and is not firmly rooted in the source -nor did his first edit either- and he didn't even receive any prior agreement here -as he pretends in the edit summary-! Some inhabitants left before the beginning of the fights, some after they started and during the war, afterwards were transfered unto the Red Cross in Quneitra the people from the hostile villages or some threatening individuals (as well as their family presumably). Stick to the source, no arbitrary wholesale expulsion 'of Syrian civilians' here just the regular army style riddance of a troublesome population, policy was to let the quiet 'Syrian civilians' remain, pls don't color it with your pov, yes wars are very unpleasant and should be avoided, have a good day, Hope&Act3! (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd just like to present a few point concerning this: firstly, the edit didn't mention "ethnic cleansing". Secondly, there don't appear to be much in the way of outstanding objections to the edit (in fact the discussion appears to have petered out). Thirdly, I would indeed say the edit is firmly rooted in the source since the source says, inter alia, 1) "evacuation of a population that remained" 2) "In the summary of a meeting of the committee responsible for civilian affairs in the "held areas," on October 3, in the defense minister's office, there was a rare slip of the pen: "The expulsion will be carried out on the basis of the directive to prevent infiltration (and not as written on the basis of the 'law' which applies in Israel alone )," the minutes read.". If Israeli minutes of meeting refer to an expulsion, it's prima facie evidence that there was one. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Jordan filed a written statement with the International Court of Justice in 2004 which addressed expulsion of the Palestinian population.[2] It had an entire Annex entitled "ORIGINS AND EARLY PHASES OF ISRAEL'S POLICY OF EXPULSION AND DISPLACEMENT OF PALESTINIANS. It covers material, like the Allon Plan, and documents in Israeli archives which are a matter of public record. The written statement said "Those events themselves have a background which is relevant not only to the 1967 conflict but also to much else that preceded that conflict and followed it. It is evident from the public record that from the earliest days of its existence Israel has been driven by an overriding policy to secure for the State of Israel the whole of the former mandated territory of Palestine, and to drive out of that territory the vast bulk of the indigenous Arab population in order to make room for an incoming Jewish population. The consistency of this purpose is apparent from the extracts from the public record set out at Annex 1 to this statement." It cites documents in the Israeli State archives that have been described by researchers, including Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, and Ilan Pappe. harlan (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolution 242

John McHugo wrote that the government of Israel maintains websites where material is deliberately posted with the intention of convincing the reader that Resolution 242 was never intended to lead to a return of ‘all’ the territories. See footnote 4 on page 851 of John McHugo, Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, vol 51, pp. 858–9.[3] He cites the MFA page “Statements Clarifying the Meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 242” as an example. See footnote 1 on pages 89-90 of John McHugo, Resolution 242 – Why The Israeli View Of The Withdrawal Phrase” is Unsustainable In International Law, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Winter 2000–2001. [4]

This article is currently using a quote from the MFA "Statements" page in which George Brown reportedly refused to clarify the meaning of resolution 242 during a 1970 interview with the Jerusalem Post. However, Brown did subsequently agree to clarify its meaning during a May 1978 interview with the London Monthly magazine The Middle East. Brown described the behind the scenes negotiations:

It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn't they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later. ...

We arranged that the Indian delegate, who was leading the non-aligned block with their own version, should make a statement declaring that the reference to territories should mean all territories. We arranged with them beforehand that we would not respond to the statement and therefore this interpretation would remain on the record. And the Indian delegate did, obligingly and in cohorts with the United Kingdom delegate, make that statement as we have seen.

(cited in Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, page 209 [5])

Although Brown's remarks in the 1978 interview do clarify the meaning of the resolution, the quote has been repeatedly deleted from the Resolution 242 article and Wikipedia continues to provide readers with the evasive response he reportedly gave in 1970 in this and other articles. harlan (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive

I removed preemptive from the surprise attack area, the preemptive is simply an opinion and has no place. It was an attack whoever wishes to try to frame it in any other way. Silver163 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

It's clear to me this article is unlikely to exist without some form of protection. We have had another rash of anon editors making baltant POV edits and disturbing it, I have semi-protected the article indefinitely. It's also possible there may be the use of anons to avoid bans in this topic area as well. Unfortunately, I think semi-protection is the only way to go for this article for the foreseeable future. If you think otherwise I'm open to other suggestions. --WGFinley (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that semi protection wasn't the default state of this article, like it is for other controversial articles (Muhammad and Virgin Killer come to mind immediately). Semi plus 1RR should be a good combination. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the massive victory ?

The six day war was an event in which all the Arabs in the middle east attacked a small country. The war ended in a massive land slide victory to that country. Why isnt that mentioned in the first paragraph of article. The whole point of the war was a victory of good over evil. Why does the first paragraph sound like a pro-Palestine propaganda ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.200.82 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple discussions were opened up on the lead but they didn't go anywhere. It is a mess and should go back to a previous version and tried again. Also "The whole point of the war was a victory of good over evil." is not appropriate for here. Please don't make such comments. Propaganda might not be the best word t describe it but the undue weight on some aspects is not good which raises neutrality issues.Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Back to the previous version? Are you really a Wikipedia editor? The lede was fine until POV warriors began their assaults.
  • I will work on the article again for a while, for as long as I can endure the idiotic crap that both sides spew. Then I'll take another break. I'm only human, after all. • Ling.Nut 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Enough of this noise. Ling.Nut's version has been nothing but trouble. He jumped through hoops he says but I see it as someone who made a version then was upset when it didn't work. This discussion dies long ago with nothing being resolved but the neutrality template is still up. Going back unless a reasonable objection (not accusations) are provided.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The objection, of course, is tha the version we all wrote in collaboration had a very strong WP:CONSENSUS of support. I suggest that you go to the talk pages of everyone who supported it, ping them, and inform them that you are reverting to the old version. I'll put a diff of the old one up... Here it is, 8 August 2010this was before the version I added, which had ironclad WP:CONSENSUS • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Where is the consensus? I saw you plow through with an edit then raise concerns when people started amending it. Maybe I missed the conversation (although I recall several conversations not liking it from multiple editors). So please show a diff or section header in an archive proving consensus for the version you added because I can ad plenty of diffs from concerned editors if you cannot.Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's here:Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 6, though it's spread across a couple threads (not surprisingly, given the verbosity of many participants) • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I am already seeing that it wasn't "ironclad" by any stretch of the imagination. Since there is a lot to go through (you could not provide individual diffs or even sections but instead the top of the archive page) it will take me sometime to point to individual lines that clearly don't have consensus and have proved to be problematic afterward. This might be fun but of course I will be happy to admit to being wrong (which appears unlikely after first glance) if I am.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
looks like the last thread was "Let's move our working version of the lead into the article now", six Approves, No Opposes. • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
You did clearly assert that your version was superior. Then you said "move the version in user space into the article now, and debate its merits from that standpoint. As I said, we are depriving the wider readership of a clearly superior version. • Ling.Nut 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)" Unfortunately, editors (including yourself) put up roadblocks. Easy enough to fix. Like I said, I will take individual lines and show why (according to talk page discussions afterward) they were problematic. Hell, maybe not full on reverting is good but it is time we start actually discussing the merits of your version as you said you wanted to do. Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ping everyone involved (those who aren't topic banned) and restart the discussion.• Ling.Nut (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Strong objection to revert of lead as per Ling.Nut. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This version is the worst summary of the Six Day War I have ever read. The first paragraph over-emphasizes the role of minor players (for whatever reason); the second gives the impression that Israel's role was confined to responding to the provocative actions of Arab governments and the third implies that clear matters of fact and international law are really just a matter of opinion. Ian Pitchford (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

..and for the record, that's the version just before the version we moved from my sandbox (the latter reflecting input from many participants, and garnering unanimous Support). Is that correct? Tks. [Note I'm not saying the version from my sandbox is perfect; it's just oodles better than the previous version]. • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon a belligerent?

Wow, deja vu. I've started discussions on this topic what... two? three times now? Anyways, editors have again added Lebanon to the list of belligerents during the Six-Day War. I'll again ask for a source for this. In his revert edit summary, AndresHerutJaim wrote that "At least two Lebanese airplanes were destroyed by Israel in the aerial battle." The problem is that (a) according to the article at least, only one aircraft was shot down by Israel, and (b) I haven't seen a source that says the aircraft that was shot down was in any way involved in fighting or any action that would make Lebanon a belligerent. To borrow Wiktionary's definition, a belligerent is "a state or other armed participant in warfare; Engaged in warfare, warring; Eager to go to war, warlike; Of or pertaining to war; Aggressively hostile, eager to fight; Acting violently towards others." Having your aircraft shot down does not make one a belligerent unless that aircraft was "engaged in warfare.... aggressively hostile," etc. We have several sources saying the opposite, that Lebanon was explicitly not involved in combat, so editors will need to provide sources for this. ← George talk 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Non neutral wording

Israels territory before the six day war is the same as after, to claim anything else is to claim that occupied regions are part of Israel, which is rejected by the entire international community and is therefor clearly non neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, you can not claim eastern Egypt, southwestern Syria and the West Bank are "Israels territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph of: "Israel and Syria" Says: Israeli tractors with police protection used to go into the DMZ It does not describe any reasoning behind this act, even a claim and makes Israel apear as if dont this just to provoke war. In reality it was done to increase security to it's citizens and ensure no enemy (Army or guerilla) would hide in that area, which was the case before Israel "cleaned" the DMZ from these threatening "guests". Besides, throughout the article there is very little or none reasoning to Israle actions, Like the paragraph above - Israel attacked Jordan AFTER asking Jordan king to put a stop to the attacks on Israel coming from his teritory. After he ignored Israel requests it attacked. This entire article is leaning towards the arab country reasoning and does not provide any other reasoning for actions by Israel (like including the claim that Israel wanted war and tried to drag all arab countries to war, which is an examble of arab reasoning *pretty bad one, considering the numbers and sizes of counties involved). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.80.61 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

False text

There was false text in the article, it claimed "In addition to long-standing Israeli claims on the Mt Hermon area", but Israel doesn't have any claims on Mount Hermon. The source was a link to an article in the Jewish Virtual Library, that JVL article was about: "Zionist Organization Statement on Palestine" [6], This does not give any claims for Israel on lands in Syria. The inaccurate text has been removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from an uninvolved editor unfamiliar with this subject: I note that the source you removed does define a boundary for Palestine that appears to split Mount Hermon in half. Would that not imply an Israeli claim to one half of it? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
What gives a statement from the "Zionist Organization" any authority or right to define what Palestine is? The Zionist movement also wanted the Litani river, does this mean Israel has claims on southern Lebanon? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote "Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators. Syria claimed that in every instance where there was a Syrian firing, it was in return of provocative Israel fire directed against peaceful Arab farmers or Syrian posts" and following quotes of Moshe Dayan are false, not true, and the source is VERY questionable. A reporter source, of a non-official interview, that was never published until long after Moshe Dayan died. These quotes are, if not completly false and wrong, at least questionable. Please remove them or provide a better reliable source for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.80.61 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

World's Deepest mine built by Syrians for fortification???

In the Golan Heights section next to citation number 67 the claim is made here that fortifications built by the Syrians went down 15 kilometers. Compare this to the TauTona Mine at 3.9 km deep and one really has to question the veracity of this claim. I don't have access to this reference but perhaps this should read meters rather than kilometers?Knag (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly be very interested in going to see a 15 kilometers deep section through the Golan Heights or anywhere else for that matter but alas, I think by depth they mean horizontally from the front of the fortifications to the rear. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd shortest war

It's possible to mention that it's the 2nd shortest war in history, only after Anglo-Zanzibar War of 45 minutes. 89.138.252.92 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not without a reliable sourceCptnono (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there isn't any, other than blogs and fourm's discussion. Which leads to the conclusion that it's just perceived that way. Never mind then 89.138.148.4 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Artical Length

I'm an outside, first time visitor to this page and I must say it is way, way too long. I completely understand this is a sensitive topic for many but there should be less statements from each side as it currently reads like an argument between israelis and palestinians. Suggest also moving all but the first para of the lead in to the main body. Its not too much for poepl to scroll down just a bit to get all that background (which is way too much again for a lead). thats my 2cents 206.108.31.34 (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV template, preventive war

Temperatures have seemingly cooled significantly in here, maybe it's time to remove the NPOV template? I think the article looks better than ever, much thanks to Ling.Nut.

Regarding the descriptions of the war listed in the lead, I think it would be fair to add that of a preventive war, which is mentioned and cited in the preemptive war article. Shoplifter (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice, as this has been an disputed article for years now. --Datapolitical (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone encounter anything which they find to be glaringly unfair in the text? Otherwise, maybe its time to remove the template. I think it looks good, and I won't push for the inclusion of potentially contentious stuff unless there is support for it. I would like to see the battery of Notes (1 and below) re-inserted, they're very informative. I believe it was User:Harlan wilkerson who originally added the template. Shoplifter (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing a line by line. There are still issues that need to resolved before the template's removal. For one thing equal weight is given to those who espouse the view that the war was preventive when the vast majority of scholarly work sees the war as preemptive. The limited sources cited for the preventive viewpoint are generally partisan advocates like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky where as the multitude of sources cited for the preemptive viewpoint are generally neutral and dispassionate scholarly works.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I also find it interesting that PLO terrorism that results in death and injury is sugar-coated and shrouded in ambiguous terminology like as "actions" and "incidents."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that anybody would have difficulty with the phrases, such as geurilla activity or geurilla attacks, that you've now adopted, but words used before, such as provocations, were pretty non-neutral. The writing was taking a one-sided perspective. Nor do I think that anybody would object to you listing what that geurilla activity consisted of and including a brief statement describing their outcome in terms of death and injury. Such things are facts, which are supposed to be what Wikipedia is about. By calling Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky partisan, you presumably mean that, in many, but not all, respects, they're critical of Israel? Would you use the same word to describe authors who are apologists, that is, no matter what Israel did or does they would try to defend it, for Israel?     ←   ZScarpia   21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is just a partial listing of scholars, academics, professors, writers, military historians and strategists who have published works that unequivically describe the Six Day War as a preemptive war and I can double this list with relative ease. Please tell me who among these is partisan and why.
Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
And please don't counter with anything from counterpunch because it will further discredit your untenable position. Also, please don't mention that nonsense about "Rabin not worrying over 2 Egyptians divisions in Sinai." This rancid garbage has been regurgitated over and over by every anti-Israeli conspiracy nut and has been discredited by Rabin himself in his autobiography. The statement was made before Egypt expelled UN forces from Sinai and before the Egyptian deployment in Sinai swelled to seven divisions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
What is this untenable position of mine that you are attacking?     ←   ZScarpia   03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of scholarly work on the subject of the Six Day War view Israel's attack as preemptive. A minority, composed of almost exclusively anti-Israeli partisans, view the IDF's actions as preventive. Giving equal weight to both positions is disingenuous and misleading. I have no objection to mentioning the preventive viewpoint provided that it is made clear that it is a minority position that is not generally accepted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, in the introduction of "Henry's wars and Shakespeare's laws", Judge Theodor Meron wrote that responsibility for the outbreak of the Six Day War has never been authoritatively established. Meron served as the Legal Counsel for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the war. I've provided other published sources which address the issue, including the ASIL President's Taskforce paper; and 'Assessing Claims of a New Doctrine of Preemptive War Under the Doctrine of Sources', by James Thuo Gathii, & etc. They specifically commented on the majority viewpoint. They said that the majority of legal scholars and sources did not view the Six day War as a good example of a preemptive war. Gathii explained that few regarded it as a good example of a permissible anticipatory attack under the Caroline test, & etc. Other experts, like Yoram Dinstein, who has served as President, Rector, and Dean of Law of Tel Aviv University has written that Israel was actually countering or intercepting an Egyptian attack and that Israel's actions therefore should not be considered a preemptive attack.
You promised a long time ago that you would provide a published rebuttal of those views. But you are still citing your own unpublished analysis about what you claim the majority of sources say, and are supplying a WP:Synth list that you have put together on your own. In any event, unless this article has a subsection on the outbreak of the war which reflects all of the significant published views and analysis on the topic, the NPOV tag should not be removed and the lead should not be used to support any particular POV. harlan (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Jiujutsuguy, I have to say I'm surprised that you're going down this road once again. The heated language, the personal attacks, the dogmatism. What do you think you're going to achieve? I tried to reach out the hand in compromise. Ling.Nut did a terrific job in making this a fairer and more just article. I can't see that the community of editors would allow for us to go back to the unilateral reflection that stood before.
Bottom line is, you need to understand that no amount of Israeli/American sources are sufficient to make this war categorically preemptive in the eyes of history. There are unanswered questions, doubts and opposing views to take into account. There's a wealth of scholarly works to the contrary. By grabbing the "Chomsky/Finkelstein"-slugger, you're only hitting your own case over the head with it; trying to turn the discussion into two camps. Please, try to accept the civil framework we've all worked hard to maintain, and be constructive instead of obstructive in making this an even better article. Shoplifter (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not our business to adjudicate whether it was or wasn't a pre-emptive war. If some notable people say it was and others say it wasn't, let's say that some notable people say is was and some say it wasn't. Let's deal with the question of why the war started, though. My understanding is that the Israeli government was caught between the Israeli generals, who knew that the side who started the war would win it, and the Americans, who were insisting that Israel didn't fire the first shot (also Ben Gurion was opposed to going to war). There was a political reason: the government was looking indecisive and becoming more unpopular. And there was an economic reason: the call-up of reservists was hitting the Israeli economy badly and couldn't be maintained indefinitely. Eventually the Israeli government made the decision to go to war, lying (transparently) that the Egyptians struck first in order to keep everything square with the Americans.     ←   ZScarpia   01:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In this Information Clearing House article, Alan Hart makes a case for the Six-Day War not having been a pre-emptive war (that is, the Israelis didn't start the war because they believed that the Egyptians were about to attack them). Although personally I don't credit everything Hart claims as being factual (I don't believe that the Americans, or at least President Johnson, gave a green light for the war and I am not convinced that the reason the Israelis claim it was pre-emptive was to justify holding on to territory gained), I do think that, in making the case why the war was not pre-emptive, the quotations he presents are persuasive.

On the reasons why Israel went to war, Hart writes:

Israel went to war because its military and political hawks wanted war and insisted that the Arabs were about to attack. They, Israel’s hawks, knew that was nonsense, but they promoted it to undermine Eshkol by portraying him to the country as weak. The climax to the campaign to rubbish Eshkol was a demand by the hawks that he surrender the defense portfolio and give it to Moshe Dayan, Zionism’s one-eyed warlord and master of deception. Four days after Dayan got the portfolio he wanted, and the hawks had secured the green light from the Johnson administration to smash Eygpt’s air and ground forces, Israel went to war.

Hart writes:

On the second day of the war, General Chaim Herzog, one of the founding fathers of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, said to me in private: “If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext for war, we would have created one in a year to 18 months.”

Hart presents the following quotations to make his case:

''In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar containined the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
In an unguarded public moment in 1982, Prime Minister Begin said this: “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

    ←   ZScarpia   02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Lede 2nd para

I've come to this article (for the first time) as a neutral with no axe to grind. The second para in the lede looks like it's the product of a long-standing conflict of POVs (which I don't doubt it is) and is an embarrassment. The lede should not go into this level of detail. The first para needs to be three or four lines long and should say that Israel attacked first and there are differing views about whether it was preventative, preemptive, justified, unjustified or whatever. The rationale for the attack doesn't need to go into the lede like this. The blow-by-blow lead up to the decision to attack should be saved for the main body. The current first para should then be the second para. The editors involved in this article need to get a grip - it brings no credit to you. DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be sure: lede = lead (intro) and para = paragraph? Niels? en | nl 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. see Wp:lede. DeCausa (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You're spot on. There was a long battle over the lead last summer. A compromise (sort of) was reached only to be broken by people adding stuff they thought was relevant. The end result is the (sad) current state. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've shortened it per WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions to improve this article

This article, arguably one of the top ten most important 20th century history articles in Wikipedia, should be of FA standard. At the moment it's B class and frankly, pretty unreadable. The length is out of control. As a "neutral" reading this, it looks as though the length and approach taken is more to do with opposing POV's than a desire to write a good article (but happy to be corrected if I am wrong). Some suggestions to shorten and improve it:

1. The Background/lead-up to the war is way too long. I suspect (but again happy to be corrected) that the POVs at work here believe that to get their POV across they need to get in ALL "their" facts to back it up. To be honest, there's such a morass of detail that nothing gets across much. I suggest that the Background section and the Drift to War (but not the Israreli and Arab preparations sections) are hived off into a new article specifically on the Causus Belli. In it's place should be a summary rather like the section of the Lead I removed here (but perhaps very slightly expanded).
2. But actually, the reason I looked at the article in the first place is I wanted to know what were the arguments for and against it beeing a preemptive war. But strangely they're not explicitly in here. Isn't it a major part of the history of this war? I would suggest that after the above mentioned shortened Background section, there are two short sections pithily summarising the opposing viewpoints. (I would also suggest that would take away some of the impetus for the competing editors to get "their" facts in.)
3. There's some extraneous stuff in here which should be hived off into their own articles, because they're undue in this one. "Allegations of Egyptian atrocities against fellow Egyptians" and "Allegations that the IDF killed Egyptian prisoners" are frankly minor (whatever the truth and however heinous the events described may be) compared to the global geo-political significance of this war. At the moment all they say to the neutral reader is: we want to tell you how barbarous X really is. They deserve a couple of sentences each (with a fork) but no more. Again, "Combat support" and "Non-combat support", IMHO, is more to do with people getting in their 2 cents about controversies, than covering issues as important as the rest of the article. Again, a couple of lines and a fork should do it. Both maybe could be grouped into a four sentence section headed "Controversies". Maybe even my paragraph 2 above could go in there as well.

As I say, because of its importance, this should be an FA. It's a long way from it now, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of your criticism. The suggestion to add a "Controversies" section is a particularly good one. Your input is very much appreciated. This article is in bad need for new people who can look att the article with fresh eyes. Please don't stopt being bold! --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, de-linked sandbox text, now in Article contains two new sections: "Background and events leading to war" which would replace the "Background" section and the "Drift to War" (but not the Israeli and Arab preparations sections) and "Controversies" which would replace "Allegations of Egyptian atrocities against fellow Egyptians", "Allegations that the IDF killed Egyptian prisoners", "Combat support" and "Non-combat support". It also includes a new "Act of agression v. preemptive strike" section. These new section texts refer out to two new articles which I've now created: Origins of the Six-Day War and Controversies relating to the Six-Day War. They're more or less cut and pasted from the deleted sections in the main article. I've left the "Act of agression v. preemptive strike" sections blank in all of these since someone who knows the subject (not me) needs to put the necessary text in. This is the basic structure I propose - it would obviously need a lot of tweaking to get it right (notes, bibliography etc). One thing I noticed is that of the Notes 1-10, only Notes 1, 7b and c, and 9 actually link up with text in the article. The de-link hasn't happened because of my deletion of text from the lead (I checked that) so it's happened in the past and someone familiar with the article's history would need to take a look at it. I've left them in (apart from Note 1, which is obvious) in the new articles.
Comments please. If there is no adverse comment, I'll go ahead and implement DeCausa (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the "aggression v. preemptive" section should most likely be changed to "preventive war v. preemptive strike" as that seems to be the main point on debate. The question seems to be what kind of war this was, and "aggression" is not really a type of war and so can't properly be compared to a preemptive strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.209.248 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed the Arab position was that it was an unprovoked attack (which would be neither of these) but I may be way off base on that. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

allegations of US/UK military involvement

I'm fine with moving the text of Allegations of US/UK military involvement to a subsidiary article, but I think the summary should make it more clear that these allegations are not taken seriously outside the Arab world. We currently summarize the topic by saying: "Many of these allegations have been disputed and it has been claimed that some were given currency in the Arab world to explain the Arab defeat." - this to me gives undue weight to the allegations. I would prefer something along the lines of: "Although these allegations were widely accepted in the Middle East, where they have been found in school textbooks in recent years, they have been widely rejected in the West. Historians, such as Michael Oren, argue that Arab leaders initially claimed that American and British forces were involved in the war in order to influence the Soviet Union to intervene, and that these claims continued to receive widespread support in the region after the war as a means of explaining the Arab defeat." GabrielF (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of building back up the section: I'm not saying your proposal necessarily does that - but that's how things snowball (someone else adds another tweak etc). How about: "Although these allegations were widely accepted in the Middle East they have been widely rejected in the West." provided you can provide a source for that statement of course. The rest, to my mind, is too much detail. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that's fine. I added the extra detail because I think the context of Arab and Israeli leaders trying to influence the superpowers is important to the topic, but I don't think its essential. The text that was moved to the controversies article is pretty well-sourced (although I think there's a sentence about the US and the UK not going out of their way to confirm or deny these claims that I think is dubious). Podeh's article in Middle East Quarterly is a good online source [7].GabrielF (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Transferring text to new articles Origins of the Six-Day War and Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

I've implemented the changes referred to in the previous section, and transferred the text to the two new articles I created. This article is now halved in size (now just over 100kb) and I hope is more readable. Obviously, this is WP:BRD so anyone is free to revert if they don't like it. A couple of clarifications:

The 'Preemptive war v unjustified attack' section in Controversies relating to the Six-Day War is still very stub-like and needs to be worked on. I don't know the subject enought to do it. I've used the phrase "unjustified attack" in the sub-section title in this article and the controversies article as a place-holder because preemptive war v preventative war doesn't seem to be broad enough to cover the views expressed in the Notes. But I'm no expert on that so that could change as well.
All but four of the 'Notes' were orphaned sometime last year in this article. They're in the two new articles attached to text now. I've left the non-orphaned ones here.

DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this was a great idea and apparently has eased a great many disputes on this article. Nice bold move! --WGFinley (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this why there are now two unresolved internal links? Search for the words "below" and "False accusations" to see what I mean. Essentially, at some point there was a discussion on Egyptian accusations of outside support for the Israeli air force. Those have now disappeared, but the internal links remain. --Sdoradus (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've fixed them. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Too Long" Tag

I split the article 6 weeks ago and no one has reverted. I'm therefore removing the "too long" tag as the article, as a result, is now half the length, just over 100kb. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This Talk Page: Headers, Archiving, Warnings

I've been trying to clean up the header of this talk page so it's something that is actually serviceable, please note the following:

  1. The old discretionary sanctions warning was put there by me and I've removed it now. That warning was deprecated by the one that is at the top now, this article used to be under sanctions specifically for this article, those sanctions now extend to all WP:ARBPIA articles so there's no need to have the redundant sanction message. Please don't put it back.
  2. Please don't mess with archiving. Yes, 30 days is short, the discussion on this article requires it or this talk page quickly gets out of hand. I have made it 30 days instead of 14 but if we start easily going over 100k again I'll switch it back. Pages that get over 100k get unwieldy to be used.
  3. I've tried to scale down the headers and go with the banner format across the board. This talk page probably says "don't mess with this article" more than any other in WP. However, we WANT the discussion so I'm trying to streamline it, make it something that warns those who need it and won't intimidate those who don't.

Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 11 Aug 2011

Remove the picture with the incorrect caption claiming "Syrians fleeing the Golan Heights" - that is NOT what the picture depicts (people are NOT in Syrian/Arab-style dress!), they are happy/cheery so clearly are not fleeing anything and there is nothing that identifies the image as actually being photographed in the Golan as opposed to any other place in the world with a beach in the background. -Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.218.195 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cadam007, 19 May 2011

I suspect that the phrase "The war began with a large-scale surprise air strike by Israel on Egypt" is bias towards the Israeli situation at the time, and creates a sense that Israel was the main aggressor during the war, as the text does not explain that Egypt massed troops on it's border with Israel and blockaded it's ports before Israel took preemptive action. This text may mislead any reader who does not read the full article. Something reading "After the Egyptian state began massing troops on the Egyptian/Israeli border and imposed a naval blockade on Israel's largest southern port, Israel took the initiative to engage in a preemptive strike by utilizing it's air-force to destroy Egyptian air and ground targets" would seem more appropriate to me.

Sorry if I am wrong, it just didn't seem quite right to me. Cadam007 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that should be done. If you add that then there will be a push to add back in all the other antecedent activities that led to war. Why stop at the Egyptian massing of troops? That's what was in this article before, and it was a mess. The war began with the Israeli strike - whether it was justified, provoked etc etc is a different matter and is covered in Origins of the Six-Day War and Controversies relating to the Six-Day War. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Except it didn't. I agree that the lead as currently constructed violates WP:NPOV.
"The war began with the closing of the Tiran Strait by Egypt." [As the text below explains, Egypt already knew this was an act of war and pursued it regardless.] or
"Active hostilities began with a large-scale surprise air strike by Israel on Egypt."
are two remedies. The current construction is misleading/completely fallacious. "Cleaning up a mess" doesn't justify POV errors, particularly with a subject as messy as this one actually is. — LlywelynII 14:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think how you describe it matters: war began, active hostilities began, the first shot fired...whatever, it doesn't matter (if you don't have a POV that is). But one thing's for sure, if it goes back before the Israeli strike it won't stop there. If you start with the Egyptian massing, the "other side" will want to go to the step before that. That's how the lead ended up to being the ludicrous nonsense it was before. Go ahead...make this article a laughing stock again. DeCausa (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2011
"Nnnah, Nannh." Whatever. Come back with a point that directly relates to the topic, not a mudslinging slippery slope argument. KenThomas (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit because it's clearly under dsicussion here and not yet settled. Also, as I said in the edit summary, if the closing of the straights was the begining of war then it wouldn't be called the 6 day war. Further, it doesn't say the closing of the straights was the begining of the war in the article. It's therefore an unsourced claim not supported by text in the article. DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
[Expletive deleted]. "It doesn't say... it's therefore unsourced." I'm sorry, in this case, this is nitpicking BS. You can clearly find many news sources that claim this, for one. The counter-claim is equally unsubstantiated; that the 'date of the war' begins with open hostilities, does not mean that the opening shot of those hostilities should be charactertized as the 'cause' of the war. (Finally, learn proper indent formatting for replies). KenThomas (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we're done here, and have reverted the request to unanswered states. Consequentialist "the article will look worse" "we'll have to go back to the birth of Adam" (C'mon) smoke-and-mirrors arguments aside, the goal here is to represent the state of things according to NPOV. Bald-facedly calling Israel the aggressor via a "surprise attack" is not neutral and violates NPOV, and no amount of nitpicking and evasion of the issue, is going to change that. The article needs to be neutral to both parties. While the position that Israel was the aggressor (etc) *exists*, the article needs to be neutral towards both sides. KenThomas (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
????? A. "that the 'date of the war' begins with open hostilities, does not mean that the opening shot of those hostilities should be characterized as the 'cause' of the war." It's not charcterized as that. It simply says the war "began with..." Cause is not dealt with in that sentence. B. "Bald-facedly calling Israel the aggressor". No, it doesn't say that either, it simply says the war "began with...".
It's very very simple. The Six day war lasted 6 days. It began on June 5 1967 and ended on June 10 1967. The only thing being descibed is what happened on June 5 which is the first day of the war. On that day the war began. It's got nothing to do with who's at fault and who's the agressor etc. there are articles where that can be examined at length (e.g Origins of the Six-Day War). This is not the place for it and this article previously got into a mess because that argument was fought out through the blow by blow account of the lead-up to the war. Don't fight it out by proxy, expressly put your points in Origins of the Six-Day War DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It evidently is very simple. You don't have "good intent" and are unwilling to address the substantive point that the article violates NPOV. Everything else doesn't matter. It either is NPOV or it isn't. It isn't. 68.52.77.38 (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And it also is very simple in terms of phrasing. I have altered the line to "After Arab League nations moved large numbers of troops to Israeli borders, Israel launched air strikes against Arab forces on June 5th." Please see the arbitration notice at the top of this page before thinking about reverting this change. Please do not mark this question as "answered" again until a clear consensus has emerged. KenThomas (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no, that makes it sound like the cause of the airstrikes. It is also one-sided: Israel also had its forces ready at the borders. It is better the way it was. Zerotalk 02:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Zero, your latest edit is POV. It potrays Israel as the agreesor and ignores the fact that Israel launched its strike in response to Egypt's actions. While it is hard to determine where to start, the previous version was more accurate. You say that makes it sound like the cause of the airstrikes. Although technically the word after does not imply causation, even if it did, it would be accurate. As clear from many sources, Israel's strike was in response to Egypt's actions. I wouldn't mention Arab League though. - BorisG (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Zero's edit seems in good faith. I think it goes too far, but appreciate the point about "response" & POV WRT Israel. There does exist serious scholarly & other dispute about Israel's motivations. I think we should all observe a 24-hour waiting period before further edits. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The statement "Israel's strike was in response to Egypt's actions" is the Israeli POV. Mentioning that Arab forces were on the border without mentioning that Israeli forces were on the border too is also the Israeli POV. The only thing that is generally agreed is when the actual fighting began. My addition that this followed a period of high tension is also objectively true and does not present only one side. Zerotalk 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The statement "Israel's strike was in response to Egypt's actions" is the Israeli POV. No, it is the worldview. There does exist serious scholarly & other dispute about Israel's motivations. Absolutely. It was a response, but motivations for this response are in dispute. If we go back to after, we avoid motivations. - BorisG (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't care. I have no real world POV in this article. I only got involved in it because it was such a mess as a result of people like you desparately trying to insert their POV through a recounting of the lead-up events. I wash my hands of it - fuck it up again. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the "worldview", my impression of the worldview is that the six-day war began by Israel's surprise attack on Egypt. Here for example is a source which calls it a "pre-emptive strike". It was a "reponse" to Egypt's actions in the sense that some Egyptian actions offered something of a pretext for Israel's invasion. We also have senior Israelis on the record saying the war was aggressive on Israel's part. --Dailycare (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Rather than have the sentence "Israel's strike was in response to Egypt's actions", I think it would be better to outline reasons given in reliable sources why Israel struck when it did, which include that maintaining the call-up of its largely citizen-based forces was hitting the Israeli economy hard and that Israeli generals believed that whoever struck first would win.     ←   ZScarpia   11:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, No!!! Many different views conserning the motivations are given in reliable sources and attempts to express them in the preamble will open a pandora box. I think the current state is anti-Israel POV, but it is a much lesser evil compared to a long discussion of all POVs expressed by reliable sources. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have figured out that we were talking about the Lead before opening my mouth, shouldn't I?     ←   ZScarpia   13:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes! Actually, this (attempts to express different views in the lead) was tried before and it was a total mess (with about 50 sources cited in the lead). I did not think there was a way out of this mess, but I underestimated wikipedians. Need to look at history to learn how it was acheieved. The downside is that anyone can come back and start it all over sgain. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the preamble must be kept free of excessive detail, but that is not a reason to restrict it to the view of one side. The reason "Israel's strike was in response to Egypt's actions" is the Israeli view for two reasons. One is as Dailycare just wrote, the other is because it starts the clock at a particular moment so that the first action was Egypt's. Egypt's pov would be that its actions were in response to Israeli behaviour. I have a concrete suggestion: inside of saying that the war started at some point, say that the fighting started at some point. There is much more agreement about that. Zerotalk 12:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand. Please suggest a specific wording. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Just change the existing wording from "the war began" to "the fighting began". Leave the question of immediate causes to the later paragraphs. Zerotalk 13:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, not a bad idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I support Zero's idea as well. --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs are biased against Israel & distort truth

Please change to more accurately reflect reality.

Reading as of 7-31-2011, it's stated ~high tensions & Israel struck. That kind of rhetoric is uncalled for. Posing it that way, another history could state that the US struck Japan, due to agitation in WWII.

Israel & Jews are just trying to survive, mind their own business, be left alone, and don't have disdain towards others' belief. BTW, Muslims have more freedom & rights in Israel than any Muslim nation. Hello! That indicates a lot.

More background is definitely needed. Regardless of any other description, including the referral to the other article. MISSING: ISRAEL became aggressive PREEMPTIVELY for SELF-DEFENSE, due to ____ in a self-preservation mode. The British Mandate & Ottoman Empire needs to be explained too.

Does it even make sense for Muslims or Arabs to want the desert land of the E. Med.? No! The Koran teaches them to hate Jews. BTW, their scripture teaches hate to all non-Muslims, even worse [worse than death?] towards those without an Abrahamic faith. In other words, no dhimmitude for them. (Fortunately, many Muslims do not wholeheartedly follow the Koran. Although, many act as bystanders, laying low, waiting for more numbers, as in parts of the EU & even Dearborn, MI.)

Imagine yourself & ancestors in some group -- suppose those whose last name started with "K" -- being chastised & killed for millenia & w/no country, because of invasions. Would you like a "place?" Jews have been in the Eastern Mediterranean for millenia, & it was never & Palestinian (which is a Roman name) nor a Muslim country. Before WWI, there were basically neither Arab nor Muslim nations in that area.

Why is there this compelling push to denigrate & malign Judaism? Jealous of money & success? Is there agreement w/the holocaust principles? BTW, I'm neither Jewish nor even a believer in any sky magician. Accurate history & liberty are very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.100.72 (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-NPOV in Golan section

This part

First, the Israeli government had no intention of capturing the West Bank. On the contrary, it was opposed to it. Second, there was not any provocation on the part of the IDF. Third, the rein was only loosened when a real threat to Jerusalem's security emerged. This is truly how things happened on June 5, although it is difficult to believe. The end result was something that no one had planned.[65]

is arguably purely an opinion, and highly non-NPOV. How does how express 'intent' as a fact? What is a 'real' threat? What is 'no one'? How does one prove 'no one'? Why the word 'truly'? This is essentially pure editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.140.124 (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Syria & the UAR

Syria seceded from the UAR in 1961. 79.177.222.146 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Golan evacuation.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Mergefrom Mauritania-Israel war of 1967

I propose that Mauritania-Israel war of 1967 be merged into this article, Six-Day War. It is a coincident declaration that had no substantive effect, and can be addressed in the section "Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation". 76.65.128.132 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

recent revert

Hi guys,

Poliocretes reverted this edit of mine:

After the war senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel wasn't, in fact, expecting to be invaded when it initiated hostilities against Egypt. [1]

The reason behind the edit is to convey that the controversy behind the "pre-emptive" theory seems rather settled when the Israeli side is admitting they weren't acting pre-emptively. Not mentioning this in this article leaves the reader with the impression that the controversy is ongoing, so a mention in the main article seems appropriate. This is IMO also the gist of WP:SS: "The parent article should have general summary information".

I re-entered the edit with more detailed reasons, so I'm not sure if there in fact is a disagreement concerning this content. Interested parties may enter their thoughts here ;) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a ongoing controversy, some quote by Israelis doesn't mean its position of Israel that attack wasn't preemptive.Anyhow there is controversy article for this quotes so it should go there. Moreover the article is already large its more then 100K so per WP:SIZE it should be split and not added more information.--Shrike (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Moreover even for other articles its not suitable you conclusion from quotes is WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 06:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I notice the controversy article doesn't even mention these quotes in the main text, they are only included as footnotes. Perhaps you should first argue for inclusion in the more specific article, before attempting to include in the parent article. Dlv999 (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The controversy around the Six Day War is not anywhere near "settled". The Begin quote comes from a speech he made in August 1982 and which is available on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs [8]. It's funny that we should choose one line, when we could just as easily have taken another: "This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.". The fact of the matter is that both quotes mean little. Begin was merely justifying his 1982 adventures in Lebanon, and was attempting to cast both wars in the same light. Then we have the Rabin quote. Rabin is supposedly certain about Egyptian capabilities, yet this is the same man who suffered a nervous breakdown and was incapacitated one the first day of the war. We have multiple sources for that as well.
Of course, you can claim that the above are merely my reasoning, and you would be absolutely right. This just brings us to the crux of the matter - Wikipedia policy is quite clear regarding the use of primary sources: " primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Selective quoting, out of context and without backing by secondary sources, is a violation of multiple Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Nothing has been settled, and that is precisely why the "controversies" article exists. That article is the place where such quotes, as well as conflicting ones, belong, and that was why you were reverted. Poliocretes (talk) 08:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact in the matter is that we've summarized the "controversies" article in the main article, which is entirely proper. However, in doing so we shouldn't be overly selective. For example, we've included the mention that Israel struck first. This gives an answer to the first controversy, which was who struck first. Having done that, I'm not sure I'm convinced we shouldn't give the answer to the second one as well, namely the "was it pre-emptive" controversy. Yitzhak Rabin, as Chief of Staff, advised the Israeli government that Egypt wasn't planning to invade. This means that the "pre-emptive" story is false, just like the "Egypt struck first" story. The more extensive Begin quotes also support this, when taken in context. He may have believed the war was noble and defensive, even if not pre-emptive. That's what he says, after all. Dlv999's point about the controversy article is correct and I intend to see to the controversy article, too. Thanks for bringing that up. (BTW, Le Monde and Haaretz are secondary sources) --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
No one claim now that "Egypt struck first" and the there no controversy on this matter contrary to the question if it is was preemptive or not and there are many sources that support that it was indeed preemptive.--Shrike (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
As Shrike pointed out, you're the only one calling the first strike a controversy. We haven't resolved that point as there is nothing to resolve, the sources are unanimous. There is no such agreement on the second point, and your claim that Rabin "advised the Israeli government that Egypt wasn't planning to invade" is not supported by the references you provide. We editors are not tasked with taking things in context, assuming what Rabin or Begin may have believed, or drawing conclusion from quotes. That's blatant WP:OR. The quotes themselves are not in dispute (and therefore your point about Haaretz and Le Monde is mistaken), but secondary sources are required for the conclusions you are drawing from the sources. Poliocretes (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In any case its beyond the scope of the article.The article was split for those claims.--Shrike (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, thanks for the comments. The initial claims of who struck first are covered in both the "Controversies" section of this article, and the "Controversies" article itself so apparently someone besides myself has been of the opinion that there is a (now settled) controversy in the initial claims that relates to this conflict. I wasn't proposing to add "Rabin advised the Israeli government that Egypt wasn't planning to invade" to the article which is why I didn't provide a source for it. That text would be a bit redundant in light of the text I did add, but could be used instead of it as far as I can see. The source is Donald Neff: "Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East" (1984), note 6, p. 93. Concerning the OR I'm a bit confused. Are you saying Rabin or Begin aren't "senior Israelis", or that I've misrepresented the points they make in the respective quotes? In other words, what's the conclusion that you've bold-faced? However to expedite things I invite you to read this source, which discusses the same thing and even mentions these same quotes. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You couldn't make you own conclusion based on cherry picked quotes its WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
How would you instead characterize or paraphrase those quotes? (and what is the "own conclusion" here?) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is moot as it beyond scope the scope of this article.--Shrike (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Well not quite, as WP:SS says: "The parent article should have general summary information". Of course, there are many ways to skin a cat and an alternative wording is always possible. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
But the controversy wasn't solved at all as was explained to your earlier.--Shrike (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'm listening. What do you feel remains open in this discussion thread? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:IDHT.--Shrike (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The info belongs in the article, its sourced, and to not have it here would not present history accurately. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It appears to be an oversimplification to simply refer to the original Israeli government claim of preemptive action in the light of later comments by senior Israelis. Dlv999 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Shrike, WP:IDHT concerns a situation where comments are ignored. In this discussion, raised concerns have been discussed, in fact to the extent I don't see concerns that would be un-addressed. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I fully with Poliocretes et al., this is a cherry-picked qoute taken out out of context inconsistent with the mainstream scholarly version of the relevant events leading up to the war.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The article was split exactly for that to include controversies on different page per WP:SIZE--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC).
Shrike, I think you need to read WP:IDHT yourself, since you're making this argument over and over. For a response, see e.g. my comment timestamped 21:33, 6 March 2012. One other summary point that could be made in this section is that the six-day war is sometimes cited as an example of a pre-emptive strike. That could work better than the old "sources support" (in the controversy article) wording which sounds a bit more like talkpage material anyway. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Because you repeat the same over and over again I need to repeat too you anyhow there are no consensus for your last additions.--Shrike (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that you have utterly failed to address the issue of the improper use of primary sources. Your response of March 6 is in fact no response at all, as what we think of the quotes or how we would characterize them is immaterial. The debate about this issue is still ongoing and very much far from settled, something which your cherry-picked quotes simply do not reflect. Poliocretes (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Begin quote is imho irrelevant for this article. Begin talks to a military academy about types of war and Lebanon and mentions the Six-Day War very briefly. Reading the full speech it is clear that the part of "having a choice" needs to be taken in the context of the types of war Begin talks about and not a simple "we had a choice and chose war for the heck of it" type of argument. --Kalsermar (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalsermar, no-one is suggesting that Israel started the war "for the heck of it". The question is whether the war was pre-emptive or not and to that end, Begin's admission that it wasn't is highly relevant. Shrike, if you have an objection to an edit, you need to explain the objection in terms of current policy. Poliocretes, concerning the primary-sources issue see my comment timestamped "21:33, 1 March 2012". Also, see the Foreign Policy Journal source, which refers to the quotes as "admissions from top Israeli officials". The source also says that Israel in fact admitted the fact even before the war: "Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war". Concerning senior Israelis admitting to the fact, there are also general Mattityahu Peled, Ezer Weizman and others who agree the Egyptians weren't about to destroy Israel. Cheers,--Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It was already explained to you.--Shrike (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Begin was talking about Lebanon and types of wars. I see no "admission" nor is it relevant if it was one. --Kalsermar (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Those alleging that the quotes are "cherry picked" or are "use of primary sources" are simply wrong. The quotes have been published in numerous secondary sources to cast doubt on the claims of a preemptive attack by Israel. Poliocretes and Kalsermar- you particularly seem to be putting your own interpretation on a primary source, that I have not seen in secondary sources I have consulted. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. The Issue here, in my view, is that the current article is misleading (per the previous cited secondary sources), by presenting simply the Israeli government position in 1967, without referring to comments since then by senior Israelis that contradict the official 1967 position. Dlv999 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The controversies article created exactly for that need there are plenty of sources that say different things.And most of the WP:RS included there supporting each position in NPOV manner.--Shrike (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
But that does not justify a misleading main article. Specifically in this case presenting the Israeli position simply as the 1967 position without reference to senior Israelis who have contradicted the position since. Dlv999 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
No its controversy the official Israeli position has not changed [16].There are plenty of sources that say the attack was preemptive to include in the in the article would go against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Israeli official position doesn't mean we cant have other notable opinions in this article, this is not in any way a npov violation or undue. It is censorship to not have it here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, Dlv999. I'll stress it again - no one is disputing the quotes. But while you went ahead an actually found secondary sources discussing the issue in scholarly publications, user Dailycare did no such thing. His edit is a conclusion drawn not from any secondary source (or if it is, he didn't quote any) but directly from primary sources. This is pure WP:OR. Before we even begin discussing the subject matter, there are the fundamentals of wikiediting. No one has to do Dailycare's work for him. Statements require scholarly references, not quotations. To claim that other users are using the quotes improperly is unfair, for the mere reason that we are not the ones using them to make a point. At any point we could have brought in conflicting quotations, such as the statements made by Nasser prior to the war, but that would have been just as inappropriate.
On to the subject of the 1967 war. While you may not have found statements providing alternative explanations for the Rabin and Begin quotes, there are multiple other quotations (and secondary sources) reflecting a genuine belief in Israel of an impending attack or of the unavoidable necessary of going to war. I mean, take a look in one of your own sources:"did it have any reasonable alternative? Opinion on this matter is likely to remain divided"; the subsequent paragraph is actually quite excellent, a really nuanced and thoughful look at Israeli thinking on the eve of the 1967 war. More important still, it reflects a genuine ongoing debate about the Israeli decision to go to war. None of this, however, was in Dailycare's edit, nor in what you're suggesting we insert - a very partial and simplistic picture that does not even begin to reflect the realities of the war or decision making at the time. That is POV pushing, equally misleading and also the reason why the controversies article exists to begin with. Suggesting that Israel merely went to war although there was no real danger is not a genuine NPOV, as even you sources do not say this.
Oh, and Dailycare, thank you for drawing my attention to the use of "Foreign Policy Journal". This is not a WP:RS but a WP:SPS by a 9/11 "Troofer". I shall promptly remove it. Poliocretes (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Poliocretes, you say in your comment above that I wouldn't have provided any secondary sources drawing the same conclusion from the quotes as I did. This isn't correct, since I referred you to the FPJ source already in my comment timestamped "21:33, 1 March". You are now saying for the first time that you don't consider that a RS. Your claims that Noam Chomsky's book or Le Monde are primary sources seem to reflect a misunderstanding of the term. Further, I've challenged you to identify what is the conclusion drawn that's not in the sources (WP:OR) and you should admit that you haven't been able to identify it. We could discuss the FPJ source as it seems OK to me, but here is another one: source and Dlv posted a few more. Shrike, your claims that the correct place for the material is the "Controversies" article would be more credible if you weren't engaged in an effort to keep the material off the "Controversies" article as well. --Dailycare (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
First of all the information already exists there.Second I don't object that information could be taken out of the notes.I merely asked from you what kind of text you want to insert in to the article.--Shrike (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le general Rabin ne pense pas que Nasser voulait la guerre, Le Monde, February 29, 1968, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967.
    Menachem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Quoted in Chomsky, Noam (1999) The Fateful Triangle, South End Press, p. 100. ISBN 0896086011. Quote from Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972; for a more extensive quote, see Cooley, Green March, Black September, p. 162.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War/Archive_9&oldid=1079496464"