Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Nasser steps made war inevitable

Nisidani undid my editing with the note:" summary contains Ykantor's personal view of the war, as does the added content. POV pushing".

- Those words are Shlaim's text: "Nasser responded by taking three successive steps that made war virtually inevitable: he deployed his troops in Sinai near Israel's border on 14 May; expelled the UNEF from the Gaza Strip and Sinai on 19 May; and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping on 22 May".. Shlaim is not known as a pro Israeli.

- If this is a POV, it is a POV of Nasser's side. In the end of May 1967, Nasser claimed in a public speech to have been aware of the Straits of Tiran closure implications: "Taking over Sharm El Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. It also means that we ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation"

- It is suggested to continue with the edit: "Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually ineviteable: On 14 May he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel, On 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel, and on 23 May closed The Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.".

notes:

Ykantor (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, since we're planning to revert the whole Background section to way back, why bother to edit it now? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

After the planned revert, shouldn't the appropriate and well supported text added again to the article? Ykantor (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, well supported and neutral text may be added later on, in a conservative and restrained way, to the background section but the main point in the revert is to remove excessive verbiage, not pave the way for its re-addition. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "Neutral" is not accepted by me, and vice versa. Why shouldn't we stick to Wikipedia rule that if there is a dispute, both (well supported) views should be shown? Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is this note trying to say?

I am referring to

4. ^{^} Lenczowski 1990, p. 105–115, Citing Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life, and Nadav Safran, From War to War: The Arab–Israeli Confrontation, 1948–1967, p. 375

Israel clearly did not want the US government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for June 8, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on the Liberty occurred on June 8, whereas on June 9 at 3 am, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7 am, that is, four hours later, Israel's minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, "gave the order to go into action against Syria."

What text is being supported by the bit which says Israel didn't want the US to know its plans? What is the relevance to Liberty? Did the Liberty incident influence Syria in accepting the ceasefire? Does this note exist to push a POV? It even has the phrase "It should be pointed out". Really. If our writing is not adequate to make the point obvious to readers then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Moriori (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You are definitely right. Moreover, the text omit to mention that this Israeli action against Syria was taken after the Syrian attack against Israel. Ykantor (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nasser's stationing of troops in Yemen Needs to Explained

He had been too preoccupied with the North Yemen Civil War and that has been largely regarded as the reason why the Egyptian military was too ill-prepared to maintain the Sinai Peninsula. He still had ambitions of creating a nation among the Arab states and saw North Yemen as a way to enhance this goal. He planned to rebuild the United Arab Republic union which he had previously had with Syria between 1958 and 1961 and focused greatly on including North Yemen-which had been part of the United Arab States union with Egypt and Syria during that time- as one of the first members of the proposed Arab union.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Liberty casualties in infobox?

Should the USS Liberty casualties (34 dead) be listed in the infobox beneath "20 Israeli civilians killed"? Something on the lines of "34 US Navy sailors killed". best, 188.220.81.192 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

bias?

The commanders of these batteries were instructed to lay a two-hour barrage against military and civilian settlements in central Israel. Some shells hit the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[77]

like the above statement. made by Michael_Oren, israeli embassador to the US. in fact, the whole section is littered with statement from what was at the time, an enemy state? this seems puzzling at the very least. 64.229.137.141 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article overuses Oren as a source, which by definition is a bias. Do you have in mind an edit that would improve the situation? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a factual sentence and not an interpretation or an analysis. It rather rare for a professional historian (e.g. Oren) to fake a factual sentence. I guess you won't find a good RS who contradict it. Ykantor (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oren is a very good source. The book was published by Oxford University Press and was described as definitive by many reviewers. Oren became an Israeli ambassador (leaving academia) five years after the book was published.GabrielF (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that Oren shouldn't be used at all, I said Oren is overused. For comparison, you can imagine that the article would look different if we'd have chosen to rely heavily on a Syrian diplomat instead of Oren. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Background section

Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it was agreed here to revert the Background section to the March 2011 version in order to take out the "bloat". On 29 July, User:Dailycare put this into effect. However, over the last week, User:Ykantor has doubled the length, and I feel it’s on the road to "bloat" again. I’ve therefore reverted to Dailycare’s version and included this hidden/nowiki message: "Please do not add text to the Background section without first obtaining consensus agreement on the talk page. The section has a tendency to become “bloated” over time. Per WP:SUMMARY STYLE, this should provide only a very brief overview as there is an article dedicated to this: "Origins of the Six-Day War"" DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, in the same edit, I also took out some unused references in the notes that had been showing as error messages. I think they had been left over from previous edits. DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

- Among other sentences you deleted these 26 words: " Israel and Syria disputes were the War over Water,[29][30] Israeli cultivation of the Demilitarized zones,[27][31] and Syria sponsoring of Fatah killing of Israeli soldiers ans civilians". Is it possible to justify this deletion of very important disputes? . remember that some historians look at these disputes as the main reason for the escalation.

- Comparatively, Is it justified to keep in the section the much longer (63 words) text concerning Samu: "Soon thereafter, in response to PLO guerilla activity,[34][35] including a mine attack that left three dead[36] the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[37] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[38] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts"

-It is a pity that a summarized important text is deleted because of a supposed policy to force going to the talk page before writing, which was never approved. There is no such a policy even for much more controversial articles ( e.g. "Hitler") . Are you sure that you are authorized to reject a well established WP:bold Wikipedia policy ? I will appreciate it if you return to your civilized manners and cancel those deletions of yours. Ykantor (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You supported returning to the March 2011 version. Now you want to add your tidbits. Trouble with that is that someone with the opposite POV to yours will come along and add their tidbits and off we go. This article is not about how the war started. There's another article to have that POV contest over. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I support DeCausa in this matter and was going to do the edit myself as well, but I've been busy with non-wiki things. The point in removing the bloat is to get rid of superfluous text in the summary of the background, so obviously then I feel that adding trivia to the summary goes agains the gist. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dailycare: you are not being here to build an encyclopedia( WP:NOTHERE). Behind your polite style there is no wp:goodfaith. You avoid discussion of points which are against your view, and you recycle sentences which were proven wrong already, in order to frustrate an editor who argue with you, as seen in this talkpage. You repeat this behavior here, ignoring the claim that the Israel - Syria disputes are notable for the article. You tag this sentence " Israel and Syria disputes were the War over Water,[29][30] Israeli cultivation of the Demilitarized zones,[27][31] and Syria sponsoring of Fatah killing of Israeli soldiers ans civilians" as a bloat or trivia without explanation although historians look at these disputes as the main reason for the escalation. Ykantor (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa: Looking at other Wikipedia:Featured articles concerning wars, it seems that the size of both the lead and background sections might be larger. Please have a look at these featured articles: Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, Boshin War, Anglo-Zanzibar War, Nagorno-Karabakh War.

-You are right when you want to avoid a war of POV, so why won't we have a look at each of those deleted sentences and discuss wether it is justified to keep it or to delete it. Ykantor (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"it's in other articles" is not a good argument. There are two differences with those articles (1) THey don't have specific daughter articles on "origins" as this one has; WP:SUMMARYSTYLE won't apply to those articles in the same way. (2) They are not plagued by POV-pushers specifically concerned to prove that "the other side" caused the war and doing that by adding choice facts that support their thesis, which over time results in the background section bloating to the extent that it dominates the article. This one is. DeCausa (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

-"it's in other articles" is indeed not a good argument, but Wikipedia:Featured articles "are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. ".

- You are right that they do not have daughter articles, but their leader and background sections are still the yardstick to use. In my opinion the existing leader and background sections are crippled and should be increased. Would you accept to ask at the wp:Help desk for an advice concerning the size of those sections?

- Concerning POV, there is indeed a risk of POV war. I repeat my proposal: why won't we have a look at each of those deleted sentences and discuss whether it is justified to keep it or to delete it? There should be a compromise that both sides may accept. Ykantor (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, I believe most historians would agree that what we now have in the background summary (Samu raid, UNEF expulsion, Soviet warning etc.) are the key elements behind the escalation. The cultivation of the DMZ probably didn't help reduce tension, but I don't recall reading very many academic texts that consider that to be a "main reason for the escalation" as you allege above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong flags.

Resolved

In the Belligerents section Syria's flag is shown next Egypt, and Iraq's flag is shown next to Syria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.3.196 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment. The flag listed next to Egypt is the flag of the United Arab Republic, and was Egypt's official flag in 1967. See Flag_of_Egypt#United_Arab_Republic_.281958.E2.80.931972.29 The flag shown next to Syria was Syria's flag from 1963 to 1972. See Flag_of_Syria#Ba.27athist_flags. GabrielF (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unwanted war?

This article statement:"Most scholarly accounts of the crisis attribute the drift to war to an escalation that was unwanted" is problematic.

• Egypt planned to attack Israel at 27 May 1967. This plan was canceled between the 25 May to the last minute 27 May. Hence, at least until the 25 May, the war was wanted.
• The view of current historians is important, but each side perceptions of the other side are important too. The Israeli discovered the 27 May Egyptian attack plan and asked the Americans to deal with. The U.S told the soviets, and the Soviet ambassador waked up Nasser in the middle of the night and asked him not to attack. During the days after the 27 May, with Nasser repeating severe threats, could Israel be sure that the Egyptian will not attack eventually ?

I propose to add this text:

"Egypt planned to attack Israel at 27 May 1967. This plan was canceled at the last minute. Later, Nasser threatened that the Arab people want to fight, and the objective is the destruction of Israel. Israel decided to strike preemptively."

You are engaged in WP:OR, synthesizing choice statements from a vast record in order to rewrite your version of the war on wikipedia, for which reason, unless you learn to edit correctly, the only alternative is to revert you, as I just did on the absurd snippet abouty Palestinian frenzy. That is in the source, but the whole section deals with complex details about Jordanian dissent, disagreement with Nasser by Tal, total lack of Jordanian capabilities, certainty of losing in any war, also the West Bank. All you saw was the word 'Palestinian frenzy'. Nothing of the tactical need for noise-making, nothing of the belief in the Jordanian elite that as in 1956 if war broke out international powers would step in and stop it before damage took place. That edit is one more proof of why you should not be editing wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Background leads directly to end of war

The introduction notes some of the background events, and then says that "Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war". The start of the war is entirely omitted. I presume that is to avoid mentioning that Israel started the war. That omission ought to be rectified.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the first paragraph of the lead does mention that Israel started the war. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unwanted war?

This article statement:"Most scholarly accounts of the crisis attribute the drift to war to an escalation that was unwanted" is problematic.

• Egypt planned to attack Israel at 27 May 1967. This plan was canceled between the 25 May to the last minute 27 May. Hence, at least until the 25 May, the war was wanted.
• The view of current historians is important, but each side perceptions of the other side are important too. The Israeli discovered the 27 May Egyptian attack plan and asked the Americans to deal with. The U.S told the soviets, and the Soviet ambassador waked up Nasser in the middle of the night and asked him not to attack. During the days after the 27 May, with Nasser repeating severe threats, could Israel be sure that the Egyptian will not attack eventually ?

I propose to add this text:

"Egypt planned to attack Israel at 27 May 1967. This plan was canceled at the last minute. Later, Nasser threatened that the Arab people want to fight, and the objective is the destruction of Israel. Israel decided to strike preemptively."

You are engaged in WP:OR, synthesizing choice statements from a vast record in order to rewrite your version of the war on wikipedia, for which reason, unless you learn to edit correctly, the only alternative is to revert you, as I just did on the absurd snippet abouty Palestinian frenzy. That is in the source, but the whole section deals with complex details about Jordanian dissent, disagreement with Nasser by Tal, total lack of Jordanian capabilities, certainty of losing in any war, also the West Bank. All you saw was the word 'Palestinian frenzy'. Nothing of the tactical need for noise-making, nothing of the belief in the Jordanian elite that as in 1956 if war broke out international powers would step in and stop it before damage took place. That edit is one more proof of why you should not be editing wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Transcripts regarding USS Liberty

@CONFIQ: Not sure which source you are reading. From the source: "Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications." Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that is partially transcript catched by NSA. They can't conclude the attack was deliberated by partly transcript that they've read. If you keep reading you'll see Indeed, the declassified documents state that no recordings of the "actual attack" exist, raising questions about the source of the transcripts recalled by Forslund, Gotcher, Block, Porter, Lang and Kirby.. Is this now more clear? I'm really in doubt that you've read whole article... --CONFIQ (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@CONFIQ: I have indeed read the whole article. The sub-heading for the section is: "Key NSA tapes said missing": It says "Asked whether the NSA had in fact intercepted the communications of the Israeli pilots who were attacking the Liberty, Kirby, the retired senior NSA official, replied, "We sure did. On its Web site, the NSA has posted three recordings of Israeli communications made on June 8, 1967 But none of the recordings is of the attack itself." ... " But Prostinak said he was certain that more than three recordings were made that day." Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

'They can't conclude the attack was deliberated by partly transcript that they've read.' That is garbled English, and WP:OR on your part, even contradicting what the source states. There is no mention of 'partial transcripts', and a questionable assertion in one report, contradicted by witnesses to the fact, cannot be cited as proof the latter were wrong, as you try to do.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

His certainty is not a fact that we can conclude so bold in the article. There is no conclusion by NSA nor any US intelligence analyst that attack was done deliberately. There are opinions but yet not facts. Did you read article at all? Instead of calling your friends (ex: @Nishidani:, by looking at your history I see that you know each other from before) you could read article. It even says that Prostinak, your main "analyst" commits that he don't know Hebrew (from article: Prostinak acknowledged that his Hebrew was not good enough to understand). If you are still insisting to revert, please consider if you are doing that for personal agenda or something that is worth for wikipedia community. That text is misleading, you know it and you are still persisting your own. I really don't want to report you. --CONFIQ (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no conclusion of 'certainty'. Neither you nor I nor most others know the 'truth'. We have a series of political decisions, official commissions and deep dissenting opinions. We don't determine who is right. We describe the points of view duly.

I've been reading newspapers and books on the subject from the 8th of June 1967, and edited the page way before Kingsindian ever showed up round this area. It's rather comical your insinuating an editorial conspiracy (tagteaming) in this context. No article and no book gets everything right: every solid volume I read has an annotated 'errata' index from my annotations, hence the error re Prostinak does not ipso facto invalidate the article. In any case, 'others' requires specifications more than the generic phrase your edit reduced it to. Reliance on one source for controversial areas is, further, bad practice. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. Because we don't know the 'truth' we can't support conspiracy theories. I'm very sad that during our conversation you're pushing your agenda and keep reverting my changes although we haven't come to any solution.

At begging I wanted to delete that misleading theory where your friend revert my changes. I wanted to compromise therefore I wrote better text where again, your friend was pushing his opinion. And you, during our conversation on talk page decided to ignore me and write your agenda again. This only proves that you guys are not ready to compromise to nothing and keep vandalizing the page. According to your history it seems that all edits you have is against Israel and Jews. This is wikipedia where you should put your opinion aside and think rationally but you and your friend do not do that. You keep vandalizing this page during our conversation on talk. I can't understand your way of thinking :( --CONFIQ (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@CONFIQ: You are mistaken about vandalizing. Good faith content disputes are not vandalism. If you still wish to dispute this content, I suggest using WP:RfC. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You are consistently challenging the bona fides of any one disagreeeing with you (the latest:' you're pushing your agenda'), and you are consistently misreading what your interlocutors write in terms of that assumption of bad faith.

• Saying 'my friend' imputees WP:TAGTEAMING, which is a reportable offence, is a personal attack.
• 'According to your history it seems that all edits you have is against Israel and Jews', is a personal attack, apart from being a thorough misrepresentation of my editing record.
• imputing to editors who have challenged your removal of material successive acts of 'vandalization' is again, a personal attack, and to caricature as 'vandalistic' edits you disagree with is looked on dourly at A/I and AE
• saying neither I nor Kingsindian 'think rationally' is again, an egregiously attack personalizing a mere difference in judgement.
• The basic text you do not wish any tweaking on has been more or less stable for over a year at least (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&oldid=535743681 Jan 30, 2014).

On Sept 19, you removed this version, on the basis it failed verification, and didn't in any case belong here

You were reverted by User:Kingsindian, who cited testimont that senior figures thought the attack deliberate, here,

You tweaked this to elide any mention that intelligence experts saw transcripts

The difference is, you wish to elide reference to intelligence officials, and Kingsindian thinks that relevant.

I made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=627448799&oldid=627388306 this edit, which simply provides three new sources, specifies the kinds of people 'others' were into four kinds, intelligence official, survivors, Dean Rusk and Moorer, substituting vagueness for clarity, and making us less dependent on the one source whose interpretation was been squabbled over.

By reverting my edit here, you removed quality RS, and insisted, against two other editors, that unless we agree with a version of the edit you want, or some form of it, neither of us should touch your 19 Sept. modification of the page. This is completely upside-down. If 2 editors disagree with you, you should make a proposal on the talk page, not vice versa. You have no right to restrict, as you have done, sourcing to one of thousands of possible articles or books. Since this is abusive editing, it must be reverted, particularly in the light of your animosity and WP:AGF towards others editing the page.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I won't report this consistent abuse of our protocols, but if you want to argue a position, please stick to the substance of the edits, and drop insinuations that your colleagues are engaged in a 'conspiracy' to expose another putative 'conspiracy'. If you check the records, I have edited this page for over a year, and the main sister page on the USS Liberty incident as far back as 2007 (and the talk page 2008). In each instance I have contributed to the talk page more extensively than to the article, as is proper. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually "the attack on the ship was deliberate" is not good wording. Of course the attack was deliberate; the question is whether it was done in the knowledge that the ship was American. Please reword the disputed sentence to say what is intended. Zero^talk 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

'maintain that the attack deliberately targeted a naval vessel known to be American,' (or precluded an accident) ?Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I could be super-picky and note that attacks don't have volition whereas attackers do. But that's ok. Also think about just "the attackers knew that the ship was American". Zero^talk 14:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We've plenty of time to fix the sentence. Unlss memory fails me, which it often does, Dean Rusk's perplexity hinged round who, in the echelon's chain of command, knew what. One should theoretically distinguish the pilots making their respective runs, the commanders of the torpedo ships raking it with fire and shooting torpedoes (incidents separated by at last 40 minutes), the operational commanders respectively in contact with the air, and the naval, groups; intelligence coordination centres, and the political echelon, etc. To say the 'attackers' is to single out the executors, at each stage, who may or may not have known what was being targeted (differences between flight commanders and naval commanders in separate vessels), etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Background section

Let's avoid all the multiple fights over two articles over the background section. It states very clearly there, that there should not be additions to the background section without consensus. Since there is already a separate article discussing the origin of the six-day war, I have simply WP:transcluded the lead for that article here. Any disputes can be addressed in one place, instead of multiple places as is currently the case. The lead for that article is currently only two paragraphs, it can be extended to four, per MOS:LEAD. All points of view can be given sufficient airing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

- Both the Lead and the background miss some facts, that are more important then the existing text.

- According to wp:lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." which means, that it is not a good practice to delete important facts from the Lead/Background because it is mentioned in another extended article.

- According to wp:lead:"The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. " Hence, the full summarized scene should be included in the lead.

- some missing important Facts (and not interpretation):

-- The 3 (about) weeks just before the war, starting at 14 may when Nasser surprisingly massed his division in Sinai.

-- Nasser verified that the Soviet alarm was false but still continued to position his army in Sinai and escalated with expelling the U.N and blocking the straits. (that indicated to his generals , e.g Fawzi, that there is another reason for the crisis and not the situation in the Syrian border)

-- Nasser knew that blocking the straits is a Casus Beli, and still decided to block it.

- yours "All points of view can be given sufficient airing". I wish it would be true here in the article. But unfortunately, the last sentence of the background, presents dubious interpretation of Maoz's sloppy text, while other wp:rs sourced text (mine) was deleted. According to Jimbo Wales

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Let us hope to advance in this direction. Ykantor (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the lead of the article Origins of the Six Day War, not the lead of this article. I have used the lead of the other article as the body of this section, because this section has the "main" article as the Origins of the Six Day War. We can discuss what stuff should be included in the lead there, and that will automatically be included here, via transclusion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be helpful. The origins aspect of the war is a POV magnet. The origins article is inherently unstable because of that, and was carved out of this article in order to let this article focus on the war itself. A few months ago, the origins section of this article was agredd to revert to a shortened version from 2011 - it was agreed that that was a reasonable NPOV description. I am strongly against linking by transclusion a chunk of an article which is a POV magnet, and by doing so opening this article to more POV instability. Im therefore reverting per WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You might be right, but the same thing is going on now. This fight over whether to include stuff about Nasser is going on now over two articles. First, it was added there, then reverted, then it was added here, again reverted. Is the consensus here now to revert anything added to the background section here? Consider this: even if the origins article itself is a POV magnet, people may add stuff to the body, but the lead should be relatively stable. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is that nothing further need be added to the Background section here. The stuff about Nasser is a good example why it's best to keep the articles separate. There is no argument whatsoever for adding that level of detail to this article. Yes, it was attempted to be added to the lead, but it was clearly disproportionate - it turned the lead into being about 80% on the origins - and is easy to bat away. At least that little POV push can then be coraled into the Origins article. Once you link the two, there would be a prolonged argument on both, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

- The Lead size. According to wp:fa "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles". The Anglo-Zanzibar War is a wp:fa and his lead size is relatively big ( 400 words), Vs this article with relatively small lead (about 240 words only), although the [Anglo-Zanzibar War]] full article size is smaller then this article size. Hence, the present lead could be increased.

- As I elaborated, the current lead is falsifying history, and I am talking about facts only and not interpretations. The solution according to Wikipedia is simple- Let us have 2 alternative views in the lead. it will solve the problem of POV magnet, since the sided editors will have their section of the lead. I can propose here a draft for both sides. Ykantor (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, about 75% of the lead is about the origins/lead-up to the war. What you added would have made about 95%. The lead should reflect the article - only a tiny fraction is about the origins because, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE as there is another article about that. To conform to WP:LEAD I would suggest we remove the second paragraph and replace it with 2 extra paragraphs that summarise what happened in the 6 days. The last sentence of the first paragraph is plenty on the origins. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I support DeCausa's idea, with the proviso that the last sentence of the second paragraph could be retained. This article is about the war. --Dailycare (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that a brute force (i.e. so called "consensus") is applied in order to keep falsifying history, while contradicting wp:lead as shown. Ykantor (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edits to the Background section since there was no consensus to add them. The article should be based on the balance of opinion among reliable sources on the subject, not the balance of opinion among sources one editor has chosen. --Dailycare (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Lead is biased

• this is the disputed portion of the biased lead: "... and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border.[neutrality is disputed][24]

  After Israeli threats to invade Syria,[neutrality is disputed][25][26] Egypt moved its forces into the Sinai peninsula.[further explanation needed][27][28] Subsequently tensions were raised further[who?] by expulsion of UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula and by closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.[neutrality is disputed] Israel launched a surprise attack on Egyptian forces on June 5.[further explanation needed]"

• My proposal to balance the lead and to add a summarized missing information:
  • Israel sent tractors to plow the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border, although it was known that Syria would respond with shooting and artillery. Israel threatened to attack Syria if the Syrian sponsored PLO sabotage raids inside Israel would continue.
  • The situation entered a new phase on 13 May 1967 when the Soviets warned Nasser that Israel was allegedly massing troops on Syria's border. Although Nasser verified that the report was false, he took three successive steps that raised the military tension: On 14 May he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel, on 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel, and on 23 May closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, although he knew that it is a declared Casus Belli.. On 27 May Egypt canceled a planned attack on Israel at the last minute and on May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.
  • Israel launched a surprise attack on Egyptian forces on June 5. Syria and Jordan joined the war and attacked Israel.
• see detailed discussion in the Background section[1]. Ykantor (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 October 2014‎ (UTC)

This article isn't about the Origins of the Six-Day War. The text in the lead about the lead up to the war needs to come out (save a sentence or two) and be replaced with a summary of what happened in the 6 days of the war. Unless that's done, this article won't comply with WP:LEAD. Ykantor, can you please keep your POV fixation with "it was Nasser's fault" to the other article at least. DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Instead of drive-by tagging we could add the main points of the actual war to the lead and reduce the weight given to the leadup. For example the "encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency" isn't lead material. --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The current lead is a joke, and Ykantor's proposal represents a clear improvement. I would also make a couple of points:

• There was "no Israeli threat to overthrow the Damascus government". "No published text exists for any such Israeli statement...and Rabin vehemently denied ever making it. Its dissemination has been attributed to a misquote by United Press International from an Israeli Defense Force press briefing on May 11." By contrast, Syria announced in January 1967 that "Syria has changed its strategy, moving from defense to attack...We will carry on operations until Israel has been eliminated" and constantly shouted its desire for "the liquidation of Zionist existence".
• Fatah and the PLO were separate organizations at this time; Rubin is referring to Fatah. Fatah was created and controlled by Syria, the PLO was created and controlled by Egypt. The PLO was not involved in terrorism until late 1966, after it had been shamed by numerous Fatah attacks starting with the damage to Israel's National Water Carrier in 1965 (the third time was the charm). What happened in 1967 is that Syria hoped to instigate another war between Egypt and Israel, and began "heavy and prolonged shelling" of Israeli border villages after realizing that Fatah attacks were unlikely to provoke sufficient Israeli retaliation to achieve this end.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current lead is a problem but the proposal of Ykantor is not an improvement. NPoV is not a confrontation of the pov's of the protagonists but a summary of (all) the analysis from scholars.

I suggest we just fit to the global facts, ie that the armistice line between Syria and Israel was the theater of recurrent provocations and skirmishes from both sides that generated insecurity in the area, without trying to state who would be to blame. Both sides expected a war and they got it.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I propose deleting the entire current lead apart from the first (opening) sentence. Then adding "After a period of high tension, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise strikes against Egyptian air-fields." Then continue with a three to four paragraph summary of the events of the war. That would be a true summary of this article as required by WP:LEAD. By all means pipelink the words "period of high tension" to Origins of the Six-Day War. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with your proposal. I woudl add "1 month" : "After a one month period of high tension, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise strikes against Egyptian air-fields"

- According to wp:fa "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles". Hence this article should follow the Anglo-Zanzibar War which is a wp:fa and should summarize the war's reasons. Moreover, it seems that every war article describes the war's reasons too. e.g. World War I, World War II,Korean War,Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 etc.

- The term wp:pov is used here, although according to the wp:yespov it is clear that the term should be used for views / opinions/ analysis and not for undisputed facts, as in my proposal. However, it is possible to add more important facts if I have missed some.

- The article should describe the long term reasons like the tension in the Syrian border and the Samu raid, and the short term reasons during the weeks following the Soviet false warning that triggered Nasser decision to mass the Egyptian army into Sinai. However, if there is a need to concise it, then naturally the long term could be summarized in one sentence, but the short term important events (e.g. the false warning, mobilizing the Egyptian army, etc.) should stay, as it is already summarized. Ykantor (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

- The lead text:"Subsequently tensions were raised further[vague] by expulsion of UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula and by closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping." is Israel to blamed for? or maybe Egypt? Dailycare removed the "who" tag. Does it means that he is interested in a vague description?

-The lead text:"Israeli forces had taken control of..., the West Bank and East Jerusalem, from Jordan[clarification needed] , and the Golan Heights from Syria". Israel attacked Egypt, so how come that Jordan and Syria were involved in the war? perhaps Israel attacked them for no reason? or may be that they attacked Israel first? Ykantor (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New edits to the lead...

Concerning the alleged Egyptian plan to attack that was aborted, e.g. Quigley (The Six-Day war and Israeli Self-Defense") writes (pg 34) that "Michael Oren has suggested that Egypt did plan (...) an attack for May 27 but canceled at the last moment". He then says that Nasser's approval would have been needed for any plan prepared by Field Marshal Amer, and that evidence "remains thin for an approved plan that would actually have been carried out". He also mentions that the US didn't believe Israel's reports that Egypt was about to attack. Israel in fact didn't believe Egypt was about to attack either.

The Americans concluded on May 26 the Egyptians were in a defensive posture. Israeli generals reported to the Israeli government on June 2 that the Egyptians were in a defensive posture, and attacking Israeli forces encountered the Egyptians in the defensive posture at the start of the war. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

it was already discussed. See above. This is the opinion of the wp:rs Oren, Gluska, Bowen and Shlaim, and following the claims of senior Egyptian officials (primary sources). e.g:

- Egyptian Chief of Staff General Mahmoud Fawzi ,

-Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei,

-The Egyptian ambassador to the U.S.S.R Bassiouny,

- The Minister for Presidential Affairs under President Nasser Abdel Magid Farid. (unsigned statement by Ykantor)

And as Dailycare points out, it is not the opinion of Quigley. And given we care about NPoV, we will not be apologetic for any side.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources linked to above say "According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation", which is fully consistent with what Quigley writes. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead

It is a fundamental requirement of WP:LEAD that the lead provide a sumary of the entire article. The lead of this article hss been about 75% about the pre-war build up with actually nothing substantive about what happened during the war and its aftermath. However, this 150kb article is circa ove 95% about what happened during the 6 days and its aftermath with two paragraphs on the events leading to war. WP:SOFIXIT I've re-written the lead to correct this. Undoubtedly it can be improved further but I hope this is the basis of a proper lead for this article. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag from the Lead, since your new version is less biased. Although according to wp:lead "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview", this lead still says that Israel attacked Egypt without stating the reasons. Ykantor (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Tags

@Ykantor: I removed the POV and other tags from the article, as I did not see any active discussions. Please clarify what are the issues that require such tags. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

-Please see below some earlier and relevant talkpage discussions.

-The lead and the background are biased in order to minimize the Arab states responsibility for the war eruption, so the unfamiliar reader would wonder why Israel eventually attacked the Egyptians. But before explaining this point I would like to highlight a couple of points:

• Some editors claims that the missing important facts are included in the Origins of the Six-Day War article, which is a better location.

1. However in my opinion the article should follow featured articles concerning wars, as well as other wars ( the 2 world wars etc.), and summarize in the lead/ background the war reasons too.
2. The editors who deleted those important facts are not following wp:lead , "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview...The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. "

• Some editors claim that an Israeli historian might be biased for Israel, so I made a particular effort to find Arab sources or sources who could not be suspected as being pro Israeli. Most of those those sources are discussed in this page, here, here,and here, but apparently it did not convince them.
• My edits (which were removed) includes undisputed facts and the analysis is well supported. Some of the other views, are not supported so well. Which of those views should be presented here? . According to Jimbo Wales
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

- Here is a removal of my contribution to the lead

- Here is a removal of my contribution to the background section both of those deletion are not justified in my opinion.

The warning tags are needed in order to warn the unfamiliar reader about missing important information and neutrality problems. to be continued. Ykantor (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you please merge the sections that you created into one? They looked too distracting and are not easy to edit/reply with. --George Ho (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• In a lot of wars eruptions, both sides share the blame. The six day war is one of those wars, and Israel had some responsibility for the war eruptions, with reckless warnings toward Syria and sending tractors to plow in the DMZ while it was well known that the Syrian would react with shooting and bombardment of civilian settlements. But that happened during the years before the war, while the Arab states openly declared that they are preparing to destroy Israel and Arab guerrilla fighters infiltrated into Israel and bombed/ killed Israeli civilians.

• However, a new phase started at 13 May 1967, about 3 weeks before the war, when Nasser, the Egyptian president started massing his troops in Sinai, close to the Israeli border. As Mutawi, the Jordanian historian said, the Israeli response was a model of moderation. During these 3 weeks, the cautious Eshkol, the Israeli prime minister, tried to cool off the atmosphere, by:

- moderating the Israeli declarations,

- allowing only a limited Israeli army concentrations, during the first 10 days.

- sending secret messages to Nasser and to Jordan in order to assure them that Israel had no intention to attack as Nasser claimed openly.

- delaying the war start while U.S.A openly warned Israel against attacking the Arabs, and hoping that the USA would cancel its opposition to a war.

• During those 3 weeks, Nasser and other Arab leaders consistently raised the tension:

- on 13 May 1967 Nasser received a Soviet intelligence report which claimed that Israel was massing troops on Syria's border. Although Nasser verified that the report was false, he continued the massing of his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel

- On 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel

- On 23 May closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war. The Jordanian army went on High alert and began to reinforce its presence on the West Bank.

- On 27 May Egypt canceled a planned attack on Israel at the last minute.

- On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan. An Egyptian general assumed command of the Jordanian armed forces, following orders from Cairo.

• The Arab leaders rhetoric was clear:

--Iraq:President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

-- Syria: on May 20 1967, Hafez al-Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.

--Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27. The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.

• On 5 May the Israeli government decided to start the war a day later. The situation was:

- Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel, and everyday more arab forces moved closer to Israel. Those forces were much bigger than the Israeli army.

- Despite the incredible success of the Israeli air campaign, the Israeli Air Force lost 46 of its 200 fighters. Had Israel waited for the Arabs to strike first, and not taken preemptive action, the cost would certainly have been much higher and victory could not have been assured.

- Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely since most of the soldiers were reservists, and in their absence the economy came to a standstill,

- Israel could not allowed its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted.

- Despite aggressive moves by Egypt, France, the major source of weapons, imposed a temporary arms embargo on the region — which mostly hurt Israel. The Israeli air force faced a shortage of spare parts.

- The USA shifted its' red light for starting a war to an amber light, mainly because they could not fulfill their promise to re-open the straits. Still, when the war erupted, the USA imposed a temporary arms embargo on Israel. Ykantor (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I find your fixation with having this article explain in detail why the war was not Israel's fault is becoming increasingly tedious and disruptive. For the umpteenth time this article is not about the causes of the war. Origins of the Six-Day War is the place for that. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE all this article needs to convey is that there was a period of tension. Despite your assertions, there is no scholarly consensus whether one side was at fault more than the other in increasing those tensions. This article reflects that. As mentioned before, the lead needs to be re-written to take out the verbiage on the origins of the war and replace with a summary of the course of the conflict. That is blatantly lacking at the moment: there is virtually nothing in the lead on what happened in the 6 days. If that is added only then will it comply with WP:LEAD, and I find it telling that you have no interest in correcting that. If you are so concerned with comparisons with FA why is that not an issue for you? The truth is you only have one narrow interest in this article. In fact, you have over many months displayed a severe case of WP:IDHT. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

- Apparently your view is that "The best defense is a good offense". You consistently ignore Wikipedia rules that an article should follow featured articles, which always include a summarized but proper background for the war eruption. You eliminated the important facts and moved some of them to another article, which is much less popular.

- Some of the important facts that appears in any Six day war book I know, are filtered out for an unknown reasons. e.g. The Jordanian joined the Egyptians military build up. Some historians see this fact as the one who made the war really inevitable. But you, for unknown reasons, decided to filter it out.

-The lead and the background are biased in order to minimize the Arab states contribution for the war eruption, so the unfamiliar reader would wonder why Israel eventually attacked the Egyptians. Ykantor (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Answer this: why do you have no interest in ensuring the lead gives a summary of the article I.e. gives a summary of what happened in the 6 days? It is a glaring failure and breach if WP:LEAD, let alone FA. DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

-Please answer why do not you follow Wikipedia policy concerning wp:fa (featured articles), and without resorting to to unrelated issues like "a pov magnet". If you promise to honestly reply , I'll answer to all your questions.

- Yours:"there is no scholarly consensus whether one side was at fault more than the other in increasing those tensions". This is not true. Most of the historians, including Arab historians, agree that Nasser and his colleges steps (during those 3 weeks before the war, as opposed to the previous period) pushed Israel to the war. e.g. According to the Egyptian historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan, Nasser's mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to a state of war with Israel, despite Egypt's lack of military preparedness. During the same 3 weeks, the Israeli response was a model of moderation, as the Jordanian historian Mutawi says (about the straits closure).

-A constructive solution to the problem could be a background section, divided into 2 sub sections with opposing views: A)“Israel preemptive strike B) “Israel’s military strike in 1967 was unprovoked.” or other similar headlines. Similar splits were rather successful in the Origins of the Six-Day War. Provided you accept this idea, I will agree to yours: "the lead needs to be re-written to take out the verbiage on the origins of the war and replace with a summary of the course of the conflict", although I am not sure how this kind of lead could follow the wp:fa, as required. Will you agree? Ykantor (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, we have the Origins article specifically to deal with the lead-up to the war, those views should be, and are, described there. For the record, though, it isn't true that most historians would consider the war to be Nasser's fault, most scholarly accounts say the cause was a multilateral escalation. Incidentally, I've recently found a new source with some useful material for the background, I'll try to work on the Origins article once I find the time. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Elie Podeh; Onn Winckler (1 December 2004). Rethinking Nasserism: Revolution and Historical Memory in Modern Egypt. University Press of Florida. pp. 110, 111. ISBN 978-0-8130-3137-8. "The most outstanding exponent of the Nasserist narrative was Muhammad Hasanayn Haykal, who also embodied the revolutionary heritage personally as Nasser’s closest aid and the editor in chief of the state-sponsored dailies Al-Akhbar and Al-Ahram.... Haykal acknowledged that Nasser had erred in various fields, noting that he had admitted, for example, his responsibility for the military defeat in the June 1967 War" Ykantor (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Your blinkered approach to this, in my view, is disrupting this talk page. Firstly, your quote above attributes blame to Nasser for the defeat not the cause of war, so it is irrelevant to your monotonous point. Secondly, even if it had atributed to blame (as others undoubtedly have) to Nasser, other sources blaming others, including the Israeli cabinet, could equally be found. So what? Thirdly, it's not relevant to this article. Fourthly, when I re-wrote the lead I read through the whole article for the first time in a while. It's not very good in many respectd. Lots of statements are unsourced, some of the wording is poorly written, there's some poor organisation and some issues not covered (particularly in relation to the post-war consequences). None of the foregoing has anything to do with the background section and "showing" who was to blame for the war. This article is a c-class for a reason (and, by the way, it was given c-class when it had a huge Background section before the Origins article was created). It was a significant event in 20th century history and deserves better. Let's concentrate on improving the narrative of what happened between 5 and 10 June and the aftermath, and drop this unproductive strand of discussion. Leave the causes to the Origins article. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

- You mention a lot of issues, but does not refer to my repeated claim: The article should have a proper background section, which explains why the war started. According to wp:lead (quoted previously) the lead should mentions the reasons as well.

- Yours: " even if it had atributed to blame (as others undoubtedly have) to Nasser, other sources blaming others, including the Israeli cabinet, could equally be found.". According to WP:BALANCE :"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." and later:"Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." If you have support for contradicting views, it can be added to the article together with with the my well supported text, including prominent Arab sources. Note that in the "Origins..." article, there is a space for those who supports XXXX , and those who are against it. What is wrong with this solution? Ykantor (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, as we've repeatedly discussed, we know that most scholarly studies on the matter attribute the lead-up to the war on a multilateral escalation process. That means, that you cannot edit this or any other article to lay the blame simply on Nasser's doorstep. You may want to have a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this topic of the same name primary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are other Six-Day Wars: Ugandan-Rwandan conflict and British-Chinese conflict. Although there is no definite criterion for a primary topic, is this topic the most popular and/or historically significant of all Six-Day Wars? --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME, the most common name of this conflict is Six-Day War. While a disambiguation page could be created, the most common usage of the name is the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would class the British-Chinese war as "obscure", and while Rwandan conflict is less so (mainly because it's fairly recent) the use of the name for that war is not common. I doubt that the phrase "Six-Day War" means anything other than this article for the vast majority of English-speakers who know the phrase. So I would say this is beyond doubt the primary topic. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with DeCausa above. The British-Chinese war and Rwandan conflict may have lasted 6 days but they are not known by the name "Six-Day War" among 99.9% (I would guess) of English speakers. (Editor randomly selected to be invited to participate in the request for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is certainly the primary topic of that name. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes this is the primary topic. 49 of the first 50 hits on Google books are about this one. Number 57 15:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Per COMMONNAME, the title is appropriate. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - there may have been other six-day wars, but this is the only conflict known in English as "the Six-Day War". --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - This is what people think of when you say "Six Day War"--TMD Talk Page. 16:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - This is what the overwhelming majority of English speakers consider when they hear the "Six Day War". Add in the results of a Google search, mentioned above and that belief is borne out.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

inevitable- quotes

Ykantor's quote collection

Please keep this section for quotes only. -The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences, Avi Shlaim, ‎William Roger Louis - 2012 , page 7, 106 Nasser responded by taking three successive steps which made war virtually inevitable: he deployed his troops in Sinai near Israel's border, he expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from Sinai, and, on 22 May, he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. -Gordon2012,Nasser: Hero of the Arab Nation, p68 Nasser responded on 18 May, demanding full withdrawal of UNEF forces. After that, the rush to war was unavoidable'....(4 June) Iraq joined the Egyptian= Jordanian defense alliance and other front line states- Algeria, Libia, the Sudan and Kuwait- reportedly began mobilizing troops to join the coalition -Gluska2007page-xv, The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War: Government, Armed Forces and Defence Policy 1963–67 The dynamics of the situation- the mass psychosis, concentration of forces and Egyptian blockade of the Tiran straits- renderd war inevitable- -John W. Young, ‎John Kent - 2013 , International Relations Since 1945 - Page 265, - When Nasser insisted on the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces from Sinai on I 6 May fears of a major attack appeared to be confirmed. Nasser ... His determination to crush the Israelis was further demonstrated by his blockade of the Straits of Tiran on 23 May after the UN forces had left, which made an Israeli response unavoidable'; hence the surprise Israeli attack on Egyptian and Syrian airfields -Mark A. Tessler - 1994, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Page 392. - Yet in taking this step, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders understood that it would be considered a casus belli by Israel. ... Indeed, a number of senior Egyptian officials rightly concluded at the time that closing the strait to Israel made war inevitable. -Zaki Shalom - 2012, The Role of US Diplomacy in the Lead-up to the Six Day ... - Page 123, - ‎ . ... Nasser's decision to blockade the Straits of Tiran seemed to have been the straw that broke the camel's back. -Malcolm H. Kerr - 1975, Elusive Peace in the Middle East - Page 283, - ‎ By demanding recall of the UN Emergency Force, declaring a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and moving his army into Sinai, Nasser had made "the war nobody wanted" almost inevitable -Yaacov Ro'i, ‎Boris Morozov - 2008, The Soviet Union and the June 1967 Six Day War - Page 126, - Later on at the ... In the course of the discussion it became known that the closure of the straits applied specifically to tankers transporting oil to Israel. The General Staff rapidly came to the conclusion that this Egyptian step required Israel to declare war at once, without waiting for further developments. Assuming that war was inevitable, the DMI was immediately requested to -Eric Hammel - 2001, Six Days in June: How Israel Won the 1967 Arab-Israeli War - Page 29, - ‎ It just so happened that the bluff President Gamal Abdel Nasser commenced on May 13, 1967, ensured that the inevitable war would commence sooner rather than later. By the time Nasser decided, and from then on, all the rest was byplay -Burton Ira Kaufman - 1996 , The Arab Middle East and the United States: inter-Arab ... - Page 54, - In closing the strait to Israeli shipping, Nasser turned an increasingly dangerous situation in the Middle East into a full-blown diplomatic crisis and probably made a third Arab-Israeli war inevitable. -Anita Shapira - 2007 , Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography - Page 309, - ‎ On 23 May Nasser seized Sharm al-Sheikh and closed the Straits of Tiran. War looked inevitable. -Kenneth Dombroski - 2007, Peacekeeping in the Middle East as an International Regime - Page 67, - ‎ UNEF was not an international security garantee, but a trip-wire. Removal of that trip-wire signaled Israel that it was on its own. War was inevitable; the only question remaining was who would strike first. Ykantor (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Brooks 2008 p99 ; these considerations suggest that despite the seemingly inevitability of war after June 1, had Nasser indeed pursued an alternative strategy in the final days of the crisis, war might have been averted chance of war- Nasser ,Heykal, Hussein -The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences books.google.com/books?isbn=1107002362 Avi Shlaim, ‎William Roger Louis - 2012 - ‎H According to two of those present at the 22 May meeting, Nasser said then that the blockade would make war 100 percent certain – although in his speech of 23 July, Nasser claimed his actual estimate at that time was 50 percent to 80 percent. -http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/nassers_challenge-martin-gilbert.htm Following Nasser's speech of May 26, one of his close allies, Mohammed Heykal, wrote in the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram that an armed clash between Israel and Egypt was `inevitable. It would come because of the inexorable logic of the situation: Ykantor (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC) - Jeremy Bowen,Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East, 2012,pages=66,67; (p.66 )"He tried to convince Amer and Nasser that Israel was too strong and that they were risking a disaster. Don't worry, they told him. We know what we're doing. Nasser and Hussein were fatalistic. Both of them said, apparently sincerely,that whether, the battle was lost or won, they could not shy away from the fight. Arab dignity demanded nothing less. (The CIA commented that 'dignity has unquestionably become an overriding priority in the scale of Arab considerations'.)...(p.67)... Hussein, though, was not deluded by his new fans ... 'I knew that war was inevitable. I knew that we were going to lose." - Hazem Kandil,Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen: Egypt's Road to Revolt, 2012, "Amer raised the stakes once more. On May 21, he demanded the closing of the Strait of Tiran to Israeli navigation. When Nasser alerted him that Israel might consider this blockade a casus belli, Amer retorted that his troops in Sinai could not sit on their hands as Israeli flags flashed before them, and that if his wish was not granted, they might act recklessly, i.e., shoot Israeli vessels". Hopwood, Egypt 1945-1990: Politics and Society, 2003,p. 73 in fact Sadat reports that he said: 'If we close the Straits war will be a one hundred per cent certainty'. References

Armies and weapons

Under the heading 'Armies and weapons', first sub heading 'Armies', the last para, last line says "PAF pilots shot down several Israeli planes." The line is incorrect, as the Israeli Airforce took very little losses of planes, most of which were friendly fires and crashes. Source: 'The Six Day War' by Randolph S./Winston S. Churchill; a factual account of the war. Ghost2896 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim has a source. "Very little losses" doesn't mean none - the article says 46 Israeli aircraft were lost. If the PAF pilots shot down 2 that's not a lot and wouldn't be inconsistent with "very little losses", and doesn't contradict Israel's overwheming air victory. Absent a source denying it, I don't think that's enough to remove the claim. DeCausa (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In Operation Focus, the Israeli Sud Aviation Vautours attacked 3 times the distant Iraqi H-3 Air Base, which was hardly within their range. The Vautour was a bomber, so it was inferior to the Jordanian Hunters and the Iraqi Mig 21 in a dogfight, although a Vatour shot down an Hunter, which is a sort of a miracle. The Vatours were successful during their first attacks. The 3rd attacks was hardly a success story, although this time they were accompanied by Mirages. "A third attack was staged on June 7th after Iraqi activity against Israel was stepped up. 4 Vautours and 4 Mirages once more headed for the distant air base and in the IAF's most disastrous operation of the war, 2 Vautours and a Mirage were shot down. An Iraqi MiG-21 and 2 Hawker Hunters were downed as well." A Pakistani pilot was reportedly flying a Jordanian Hunter there." Ykantor (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)