Talk:Six-Day War

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

Mauritania-Israel war of 1967 +-> Six-Day War

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.

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 [1]. 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. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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 [9].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)

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)