Talk:Six-Day War

Egyptian OOB

> The Egyptian forces consisted of seven divisions: four armoured, two infantry, and one mechanized infantry.

This does not agree with ["Order of battle for the Six-Day War" article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_the_Six-Day_War#Egyptian_Army) and [map used by the section](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/1967_Six_Day_War_-_conquest_of_Sinai_5-6_June.jpg).

OOB article suggests that it's backwards (four infantry, two armored, one mechanized):

• 2nd Infantry Division – Maj. Gen. Sadi Naguib
• 3rd Infantry Division – Maj. Gen. Osman Nasser
• 7th Infantry Division – Maj. Gen. Abd el Aziz Soliman
• 20th PLA Division Gaza – Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abd el Moneim Hasni
• Infantry Brigade (Ind) – Brig. Mohammed Abd el Moneim Khalil
• 6th Mechanized Division – Maj. Gen. Abd el Kader Hassan (on map as infantry division, but that's probably fine)
• Task Force Shazli – Maj. Gen. Saad el-Shazly (on map as armored division)
• 4th Armoured Division – Maj. Gen. Sidki el Ghoul
• 1st Armoured Brigade – Brig. Hussein Abd el Nataf
• 125th Armoured Brigade – Brig. Ahmed El-Naby

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

I would like to add a piece of important information.

Israel was able to secure a victory thanks to the secret help provided by former Moroccan King Hassan II. According to an Israeli former military intelligence chief, King Hassan ll sharpened Israel’s edge by providing secret recordings of Arab leadership discussions on war plans. Alama-laura (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: The sources and the request are mismatched. Stating that the Israeli military "was able to secure a victory" because of Hassan's cooperation is overstating the sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

These sources confirm that the Israelis had very good intelligence that they were in an extremely strong military position. Worth adding in to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

After reading the United Nations own account of the events (https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/unef1backgr1.html) and realizing I had been led into a false understanding by the introduction in this Wiki article, I'd recommend that:

"A peacekeeping contingent known as the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed along the Egypt–Israel border, but there was no demilitarization agreement between the two sides."

Should be changed into:

"A peacekeeping contingent known as the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed along the Egyptian side of the armistice demarcation line, as Israel had refused to receive UN forces; but there was no demilitarization agreement between the two sides."

And this:

"In May, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli vessels, and subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military along the border with Israel, ejecting the UNEF."

should be changed into:

"In May, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli vessels, and requested that UNEF left the Egyptian territory."

I think it's important, as the current introduction makes it seem like only Egypt is at fault for UNEF leaving, when the introduction fails to mention that Israel never even allowed UNEF to be deployed into its part of the border; and also, the UN states that "UNEF I was withdrawn in May-June 1967 at the request of the Egyptian Government", which has a very different tone comparing to Wikipedia's "[Egypt] mobilized the Egyptian military along the border with Israel, ejecting the UNEF". Dan Palraz (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Dan:

• I agree that it should be mentioned that the UNEF was deployed along the Egyptian side of the demarcation line, the Israelis having refused to have UN troops on territory controlled by it.[1]
• I think that 'request', although it is the word used by the Egyptian Chief of Staff in a message to the UNEF commander asking him to withdraw forces on the Israel-Egypt to their bases in Gaza (though not those in Sharm al-Shaikh), is probably too soft, though the word 'eject' is too hard, somewhat implying the issuing of a threat or ultimatum. In regard to the latter, it should be noted that at least some sources state that Nasser's 'order' to UNEF was for symbolic effect and he really wanted those forces to stay in place. The UNEF commander stated that the withdrawal was all or nothing, probably forcing Nasser's hand. The UNEF article uses the word 'ordered', which I think detailed sources would back up. As the UNEF article says, the UN Secretary General tried to have the UNEF forces re-deployed on the Israeli side of the demarcation line, but the Israelis refused.
• Both of the sentences quoted above from the Introduction have citations following them, which is often a sign that the Introduction isn't faithfully summarising the body of the article. In any case, unless anyone can show why the second of the cited sources, an article on the sixdaywar.co.uk website, should be regarded as fulfilling the source reliability requirements, that is, that it has a reputation for having been fact checked or that the publisher has a reputation for the quality of its output, I think that the citation should be removed.
• In the body of the article, in the Background section, there is a statement about the UNEF being 'expelled' which, to me at least, by not mentioning that UNEF positions were on the Egyptian side of the border, manages to imply that Egypt was carrying out a land grab.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk)

Vergth (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statement

"On 5 June, Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Egyptian airfields, initially claiming that it had been attacked by Egypt, but later stating that the airstrikes were pre-emptive;[27][28]"

I read both sources given, and one source says the Egyptian government said Israel claimed it was attacked by Egypt, and the other didn't at all. So I don't know why thats in there.

Therefore, this should be changed to "On 5 June, Israel launched a series of pre-emptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields[27][28]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:713a:6a01:ead3:f608 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. (courtesy ping ImTheIP and Gfcan777) — LauritzT (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

2A04:4A43:48FE:EC9D:0:0:F94F:4A9A (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Algeria participed in this War

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

In the Aftermath section of the article, the resistance of the Palestinians is stated as "Palestinian terrorism". This is unjust to the Palestinians when looking at the context of the war. It is better to change the header of that part of the section from "Palestinian terrorism" to "Palestinian resistance". SerenityAndPatience (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That was an atrociously written and supported section, now removed - thanks. As a general rule, yes, we try to avoid the aspersion of 'terrorism' wherever possible, as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but certainly in section titles. In any case, the material was not only sweeping in its generalization, but entirely unsupported by any perennially reliable or academic sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

change "directed his followers to put tefillin on Jewish men around world." to "directed his followers to put tefillin on Jewish men around the world." KreegKreeg (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

done, thank you, nableezy - 03:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Third sentence references something without introducing it, thus the article (the) references the wrong (1956) israeli invasion of Egypt

The third sentence (second sentence second paragraph) reads "In 1956, Israel invaded Egypt, triggering the Suez Crisis; among Israel's rationale for the invasion was its goal of forcing a reopening of the Straits of Tiran, which had been closed by Egypt for all Israeli shipping since 1948." references "the invasion", so far in the article the only invasion mentioned is the 1956 israeli invasion of Egypt... So because the 1967 second israeli invasion of Egypt is not introduced by the structure of the sentence, the word "the", in "the invasion" would incorrectly refer to the 1956 first israeli invasion of Egypt, and not the 1967 second israeli invasion of Egypt. The way it's written, presumably at some point this article mentioned the subject of this article, the 1967 israeli invasion of Egypt. To the casual observer, all references to this, the 1967 israeli invasion of Egypt, in this article about the 1967 israeli invasion of Egypt have been carefully scrubbed. This would seem, on the face of it, to be weasel wording, or bias, or both, and probably violate other policies.71.178.3.227 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

" The small Royal Jordanian Air Force consisted of only 24 British-made Hawker Hunter fighters, six transport aircraft and two helicopters. According to the Israelis, the Hawker Hunter was essentially on par with the French-built Dassault Mirage III – the IAF's best plane. "

         I would like this changed to better represent my Uncle, who was leading said ' small Air Force ', just something as small as this.

" The small Royal Jordanian Air Force, LED BY SARI RABADI, consisted of only 24 British-made Hawker Hunter fighters, six transport aircraft and two helicopters. According to the Israelis, the Hawker Hunter was essentially on par with the French-built Dassault Mirage III – the IAF's best plane. " 71.183.83.210 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Your uncle's involvement with the RJAF will need to be documented in reliable sources to demonstrate their notability. Loafiewa (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Grammar error in the second paragraph

My biggest pet peeve as an avid wiki reader is grammar issues. There is a big one in the second paragraph. "closed by Egypt for all Israeli shipping since 1948" should be "closed by Egypt to all Israeli shipping since 1948"

I am not extended confirmed. Somebody please make that correction.

Pomodecon (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jack Frost (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

In a few (I think four; easy to control-F) places, reference is made to Israel's "conquest" of Sinai or the West Bank. I suggest that this be changed to "occupy" or "occupation" (depending on context, of course), in line with standard practice, to reduce bias and reflect the fact that these territories have not been annexed by Israel. Peaux (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

changed to capture and attack for sharm. nableezy - 02:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest omitting the claim that the Egyptian minesweeper was sunk by commandos prior to its capture, because this is an unrealistic claim in an article about Six Days of War in all sources, including Israeli sources. Vergth (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Shayetet_13.htm Like the Israeli encyclopedia

Vergth (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Benny Morris in his book Righteous Victims noted that 6 Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage a single ship, page 784 in the book. Major General El-Shazly pointed out that the Egyptian Navy did not suffer any losses in the 1967 war. Field Marshal Mohamed Fawzy indicated in his book "The War of Attrition that lasted for 3 years" that the Egyptian Navy did not incur any losses in terms of personnel or equipment in the 1967 war. To that the commandos were captured, and they were captured without ships. The encyclopedia said that the task of neutralizing the enemy fleets, as the Israeli navy did not have enough regular forces. Let's do it. The idea was that the use of commandos would allow a small number of high-quality troops to compensate for the perceived lack of ships and firepower. In this event, Shayetet 13 saw quite a bit of movement, but on the other hand, enemy fleets were relatively inactive as well. She infiltrated Port Said, but there were no ships to target. It crept into the port of Alexandria, but the six divers who were sent there were stranded and captured by the Egyptians. As a result of this intervention, the Egyptians increased the security of their ports. Other missions also failed, including one in Syria that the commander did not carry out Vergth (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage Israeli divers were sent to the ports of Port Said and Alexandria, but they failed to damage a single ship. Six Israeli divers captured in Alexandria are captured on page 784 of Benny Morris' book The Righteous Victims. Vergth (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

please respond Vergth (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request

I suggest deleting the claim that Israeli commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before it was captured. This is an empty claim and is not based on any source Vergth (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Benny Morris noted in his book Righteous Victims that 6 Israeli naval commandos were captured without being able to damage a single ship, page 784 in the book. Major General El-Shazly indicated that the Egyptian Navy did not suffer any losses in the 1967 war. Field Marshal Mohamed Fawzy indicated in his book "The 3-Year War of Attrition" that the Egyptian Navy did not incur any losses in personnel or equipment in the 1967 war. Therefore, the arrest of commando. They were captured without being able to damage a single ship. The encyclopedia said that the task of neutralizing the enemy fleets, as the Israeli navy did not have enough regular forces. Let's do it. The idea was that the use of commandos would allow a small number of high-quality troops to compensate for the perceived lack of ships and firepower. In this event, Shayetet 13 saw quite a bit of movement, but on the other hand, enemy fleets were relatively inactive as well. It infiltrated Port Said, but there were no ships to target. It crept into the port of Alexandria, but the six divers who were sent there were stranded and captured by the Egyptians. As a result of this intervention, the Egyptians increased the security of their ports. Other missions also failed, including one in Syria that the commander did not carry out Vergth (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Shayetet_13.htm Vergth (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage Israeli divers were sent to the ports of Port Said and Alexandria, but they failed to damage a single ship. Six Israeli divers captured in Alexandria on page 784 of Benny Morris' book The Righteous Victims Vergth (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

Lead sections should consist of three or four well-composed paragraphs. This article has a seven-paragraph wall of text instead. It should be rewritten to a higher standard. 109.144.208.240 (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of the more granular and unnecessary detail and editorializing and reduced the material to four paragraphs. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

The existing link in footnote 233 leads to a 404 page unknown error in the Jewish Chronicle. The correct web address to use is: https://www.thejc.com/life-and-culture/all/david-rubinger-in-the-picture-1.1825 Christoooj (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 23:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A probable mistake

In the casualties table it is written that 400 Israeli tanks were DESTROYED. This number seems to be too high, and seems to refer to DAMAGED tanks. Most of the damaged tanks were repaired sooner or later. In addition, some 200 Arab tanks were taken by IDF and perhaps it is needed a different entry in this table.

The Egyptian Army

Section The Egyptian Army includes a request for citation about statement that implies Amer's panicking being the (main? sole?) reason for his issuing of the order for withdraw.

Next sentence (supported by citation from Egyptian source that I like) says that Naser together with Amer made that decision. I think source makes assumptions of panic valid, but it was not Amer's panic only, and didn't so much influence whether to withdraw or not, as it influenced the order to require the forces to withdraw in 24 hours without instructions how to achieve that.

I have no good idea (yet) how to rephrase that part well, and the identical problem applies to article Battle of Abu-Ageila here. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

undue

how is it undue to note the peacekeepers killed in the initial attack in the lead? every source that discusses the war in any depth notes that attack and the resulting casualties. nableezy - 17:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Peacekeeper casualty info is patchy on United Nations Truce Supervision Organization too. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That sources discuss it is justification for it being in the article overall, but not a reason why it needs to be in the lead. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the fact that one of the two countries started the war before the UN peacekeepers had even left the area and killed 15 UN Peacekeepers, which as far as I know had never and has never since been done by any other country in the world, is more relevant than many other sections included in the introduction. The fact that some users are so adamant into preventing this one half-sentence that is duly sourced to figure in the introduction does nothing but confirm that it is a consequential piece of information. Dan Palraz (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It provides obvious detail to the situation on the ground at the time and helps paint the picture started by the sentence before, which notes that UN peacekeepers were still in the process of pulling out from the area. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz, @Dovidroth: Ahem, both of you have breached the WP:1RR limit on this page today. Dan, you have dodged a bullet, since you've already been reverted in turn, but Dovid, I suggest you self-revert ASAP. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

totally UNDUE, a very fringe element in the war's commonly reported outbreak. Tombah (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Honestly, the USS Liberty incident gets more coverage in sources that I've seen, and we don't put that in the lede either (not even as a mention the way we do that UN peacekeepers were still withdrawing). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We should mention that also. Both UN and US casualties should be bare minimum in the casualties section of the lead. Both are very high casualty numbers for entirely uninvolved forces. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

So, what is the procedure now? Dan Palraz (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Give it a little time for people to express a view about it. No rush. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia?

I think it's false to put Saudi Arabia in direct opposite of Israel in belligerents and so is Iraq because even though they indirectly participated by sending some troops and money or weapons; the major powers involved or attacked were Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Saudi Arabia should be moved in supporters not direct belligerent. Nlivataye (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You aren’t “indirectly involved” if you are sending troops. That is direct involvement. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That's still indirect not direct. Most civil wars among nations have had foreign interferences and indirectly troops have been sent like the Russian civil war but does it say Russia was fighting US, The rest of Europe and Japan? No still Russian civil war. My point still stands Nlivataye (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

Remove Vandalism, the cited source never said that the israeli attacks or invasion was “pre-emptive” or any thing like that

In the lead, Replace: Israel launched a series of pre-emptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort

With: Israel launched a series of airstrike assaults against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort Chafique (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Against consensus. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Nasser mobilized the Egyptian army into defensive lines as already mentioned in the article except in the lead and in source [55]. That’s of great significance and importance especially in the lead which mentions “mobilizing the army along israel’s borders” without mentioning that, it should be mentioned in this part of the lead.

In the lead,Replace:

In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military along the border with Israel, and also ordered the immediate withdrawal of all UNEF personnel.[32][25]

With:

In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently ordered the immediate withdrawal of all UNEF personnel and mobilized the Egyptian military along the border with Israel into defensive lines.[32][25][55] 156.200.217.240 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Seems reasonable and is in the source. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Lies about the tanks of Egypt and Syria

Egypt and Syria had enough British, French, American and German tanks, the same centurions and cartridges, for example 37.54.230.242 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)