Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

Recent editions.

The recent editions are problematic because they advance the POV that the attack was not preemptive there are different views on this matter from WP:RS.Thee were summarized in the appropriate notes.There are no need to add additional material of one of the POVs as it will be necessarily to add opposite POV. The current way of the article that the both POVs are summarized in the notes is most appropriate. --Shrike (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it's true that there are different views on this in WP:RS. According to WP:NPOV, we should see that an article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints". Two such views are that 1) neither the American nor the Israeli intellingence services felt Egypt planned to attack, and 2) senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel wasn't expecting an Egyptian attack.You seem to be under the impression that there would need to be equal amounts of text for "both sides". This is incorrect as no policy says that. To the contrary, WP:NPOV says that each significant viewpoint should be covered. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This already covered in the notes.Do you want to take all what written in the notes out?--Shrike (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you made the point in the main article that this material belongs in the controversies article, and on this talkpage you're now making the argument that it actually belongs in endnotes of the controversies article ;). Anyway, WP:NPOV simply says that all significant viewpoints should be fairly represented, and an argument that presenting some significant viewpints in the article body and relegating some significant viewpoints to the notes would be fair representation is clearly wrong, IMO. To the extent that presenting the same material in both article body and endnotes is repetition, I'm OK with removing it from the endnotes. A point that could be made more clearly here (as in the main article too) is that instead of saying that "sources support" the Israeli claim, we might say that the six-day war is at times used in the United States as an example of a pre-emptive attack. Presenting that viewpoint, and the ones that I added, would IMO produce a text that describes the situation better than the old version. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind that all POVs will be presented in the article.Please post in talk you preferred version that covers all the povs in NPOV way without WP:OR(interpretation of quotes by wikipedia editor is OR)so we can reach a consensus of this matter.--Shrike (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear that you're not opposed to presenting all viewpoints in the article, as WP:NPOV in fact requires anyway. In detail, I take it that applies also to the viewpoints that we're discussing so we seem to be ready. However, you seem to have the same WP:OR concern that we already discussed in the talkpage of the main article. One of the sources refers to the quotes as "admissions from top Israeli officials". The source also says that Israel in fact admitted the fact even before the war: "Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war". So I repeat once more my question: what's the new conclusion that I'm drawing? Alternatively, you can suggest a wording of your own. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So what do you want to insert to the article?--Shrike (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Copying secondary sources that cite the quotes from the main article talk page: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Dlv999 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please include the text that you want to insert in to the article including the view that the attack was preemptive per WP:NPOV.--Shrike (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing the text you've edited out of the article. The other point would involve e.g. saying that "The Israeli view was that its initiation of the Six-Day War was a pre-emptive strike in the face of a planned invasion of Israel by the Arab countries.[6] Israel's attack is often cited as an example of a pre-emptive attack.". A source for this point is e.g. the first sentence of the FPJ article: "It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one". This would make sense since despite the admission from senior Israelis, the attack is often cited as an example of pre-emptive attacks. --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The quotes that Dlv wants included in the article are quiet problematic. The Rabin quote, in particular, is an oft-cited out-of-context snippet, that relies on readers' lack of familiarity with the timeline to convey a false impression of what Israeli intelligence thought prior to the outbreak of war. Note that Rabin is discussion the situation on May 14th, some 3 weeks before the Israeli airstrike, before the evacuation of the UN buffer troops, and before the closing of the straits of Tiran - an act of war. It could very well be that on the 14th, when all he had in the Sinai were some units from 2 divisions, Nasser did not want war or was even capable of war. But on by the time war broke out, those 2 divisions had grown to 6, the UN buffer force had been removed, and Egypt had in fact already started the war, by initiating a naval blockade. So no, we're not going to use that out of context quote to support the argument that Egypt was only in a defensive position. Jeff Song (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Jef, that we have provided secondary sources which use the quote to contradict the Israeli claim of preemption. You have not provided any to support your interpretation. So until you do we shall just have to leave it to one side as your own OR. Dlv999 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation - it is YOUR interpretation. The quote clearly says "The two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been ..." : You interpret this to mean that 3 weeks later, with the situation drastically changed, this was still his position. The most we can do is say that some (e.g. Quigley) have used this partial quote, out of context, to support the view, and I will then provide the references which explain how this is used of of context . Jeff Song (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If and when you provide a source to support your OR we can continue the discussion. Until that point we have un-contradicted secondary sources that use the quote to cast doubt on the Israeli claim of preemption. I have not interpreted anything, I have simply stated what is in the secondary sources that I have linked. Dlv999 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read the complete Le Monde interview. Have you? Jeff Song (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source on the matter. The "May 14" point is beside the point for at least two reasons, namely sources referring to the quote use it as an example of an admission by a senior Israeli that the attack wasn't pre-emptive, and Rabin said he "didn't believe Nasser wanted war", which is crystal clear. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the full interview? Jeff Song (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found the full interview, if you have it I'd be interested to see it as a curiosity. However, we do have about ten sources (and here is one more) where the Rabin quote is discussed in a way that directly sources the material we're discussing. Most of those sources also discuss the M. Begin quote in similar light. There are also similar quotations from e.g. Peled and Weizmann, which are discussed in the sources we've been looking at. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Go to your local library and have a read. Esp. the answer to the question "Q. Why did he do this [close the gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping] if he did not want war and if he knew, in addition, that your army was superior to his?", esp. the part that says "judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli." . The fact that numerous sources cherry pick the first part while ignoring the second part does change the fact that it is a cherry-picked quote, out of context. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not helping agenda-driven authors promote their pet theory . Jeff Song (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia based on what has been published in reliable sources, not through unsupported speculation and theorizing of editors. We have numerous reliable secondary sources that have interpreted the quote to undermine Israel's claim of preemption. You are yet to produce a single secondary source that supports your own interpretations.Dlv999 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read the full interview, have you? Jeff Song (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, the article was published in French so that text can't be a citation from it. Even it it was, it doesn't contradict the point we're discussing here, which is simply whether Israeli leaders believed Egypt was about to attack them. Even if we didn't use the Rabin source at all, we could still use sources based on similar comments from Begin, Weizmann and others. There is also the point that a lot of sources use the Rabin interview as a source for the notion that the Israelis didn't genuinely expect an Egyptian attack. Your personal opinion otherwise doesn't count for much (on Wikipedia, in person of course your opinion is valuable). It looks like there are no remaining meaningful objections to the edit, so unless some crop up in a few days we can proceed to do the edit. --Dailycare (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

of course it contradicts the point made by taking Rabin's quote out of context. It shows the Israeli position was one thing on the 14th, but different on the eve of war three weeks later, after the UN forces had been evacuated, after 5 additional divisions had been moved to the Sinai, and after an act of war - the blockading of the straits - had already been committed by Egypt. Rabin is clear on that point: This was an act of war, and Nasser knew that this action would be considered a casus belli by Israel, and still went ahead with it, expecting war. Don't think you can force your opinion to into this article over the valid objections raised by User:shrike and myself. If you want to discuss how the Begin and Weizmann quotes are similarly taken out of context, I will be happy to do so.Jeff Song (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Firstly, Dailycare hasn't stated his opinion, he is discussing what reliable sources have to say about this issue which is the only thing editors are supposed to do here. Saying "Don't think you can force your opinion to into this article", aside from not being helpful, is simply wrong. Secondly, you haven't raised a valid objection. You are simply providing your personal analysis. Whether you are correct is immaterial. Editors are not allowed factor in the personal analysis of other editors in content decisions. Aside from the requirements of WP:V, the discretionary sanctions mandate "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions". Dailycare must ignore what you say until you provide a reliable source to support it. It really doesn't matter whether you are happy about this or not. You have no choice in the matter and neither does Dailycare. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

All the sources and opinion already brought in the notes if we want take them out we should take them all.The Dailycare additions only put one POV and that goes against WP:NPOV.I have proposed that he will put his proposed version in to talk so we can reach a consensus.--Shrike (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, see my comment timestamped "21:12, 20 March 2012". Considering "all" of the material in the notes, they should receive equal treatment to the text we're now discussing only if they're of equal import, and that's a separate discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Let see your version and then we will continue from here.--Shrike (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant with my previous comment is that I described "my version" in my comment timestamped "21:12, 20 March 2012". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have wound down and I don't see objections remaining so I'll do the edit discussed with Shrike, above. In general (i.e. not just relating to this edit), it isn't IMO a useful point to say that a relevant viewpoint can't be added to an article unless all relevant viewpoints are added at the same time. If that were the case, editing the project would be almost impossible. Anyway, I'm now adding both the point on senior Israelis and the point that the 6-day war is often cited as an example of a pre-emptive attack. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

On a general note, I think Daily care's edit is moving the article in the right direction. This is the detailed article on the "controversies" surrounding the war. All the significant aspects and opinions on this issue should be discussed in the main body of the text. Relegating these issues to the footnotes is not an ideal solution and we should all be working to include them in the main body. Obviously this will take a bit of work, discussion and collaboration and will not be perfect overnight, but this is not a good reason not to start moving towards that goal. I hope editors will take this into account before removing the new content. On a more specific note, the recent reversion claiming original research is clearly wide of the mark. We have brought numerous secondary sources to this discussion which use the quotes to make the exact same point that DC's edit made, so whatever else can be said, there is certainly no OR here. Dlv999 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are clearly no consensus for such addition also Dailycare version is presenting only one POV witch is against the NPOV as was pervouisly explained to him--Shrike (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Moreover it seems the source "foreign policy journal" is WP:SPS like was noted by other editors too [8]].The second source is not good either its a snippet from Google books and the full context and the commentary by the author is not clear of the phrase is not clear--Shrike (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left message Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for univloved editors input.--Shrike (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, you seem to now be making two points, a) NPOV and b) sources. Concerning the NPOV point, I've already responded to this in my comment above, timestamped "18:44, 29 March 2012". Concerning sources, this isn't a reason to revert the edit for two reasons, 1) you only discuss two of six sources cited in the edit, and 2) there are a number of sources mentioned in this thread that you could simply have replaced into the sourcing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your response as NPOV issue is one one of WP:5P of Wikipedia by only present one POV is clear breach of WP:NPOV.What kind of sources do you consider WP:RS?--Shrike (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only point you once more to my comment timestamped "18:44, 29 March 2012": you can't oppose adding material to an article by arguing that the edit doesn't include every possible relevant POV. Rather, you should be happy that one more relevant POV has been added to the article. Concerning sources, many sources have been mentioned in this thread that you haven't commented on so there is no need to provide even more. However, here is one more: "It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel". The author is Tom Ruys, who according to Google Scholar has published in e.g. Journal of conflict and security law and Stanford Journal on International Law. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, I recently noticed an edit summary by Shrike on another page I have watchlisted, which makes the exact same point: "we don't remove the information if there are conflicting WP:RS we report them all"[9]. Of course, Shrike is quite right on that point. All significant opinions/aspects should be reported per the weight they receive in RS, the way to move forward is not to delete significant opinions, but to add all significant opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@DLV999 Yes and that exactly what I propose to report them all see also WP:OSE--Shrike (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@Daily The article was NPOV more or less when you introduce only one POV its no longer NPOV.--Shrike (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, we've already been through this. See my comments above, timestamped "20:58, 18 March 2012", "07:19, 19 March 2012" and "21:05, 19 March 2012". Since NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints are presented, then descrbing one more significant viewpoint makes the article more NPOV, not less so. You have so far not presented any answer whatsoever to my point in my comment timestamped "18:44, 29 March 2012": it isn't a useful point to say that a significant viewpoint can't be added to an article unless all such viewpoints are added at the same time. If that were the case, editing the project would be almost impossible. There is zero support for your theory in WP:NPOV. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

But Israeli viewpoint is not presented beyond a notes.You want to take only one POV from the notes and take it out.Like I said before you should take them all according to WP:NPOV.--Shrike (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, firstly, like I've said repeatedly, adding one more significant viewpoint improves the article in terms of WP:NPOV. Secondly, like I've also said repeatedly, you have no basis for objecting to an edit adding a significant viewpoint on the basis that it doesn't add all significant viewpoints in one go. There is zero basis for this in WP:NPOV and such a policy would make editing the encyclopedia almost impossible. Thirdly, the edit in fact adds two viewpoints. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The article currently NPOV adding other viewpoint will make it non-NPOV and this not allowed.And what two viewpoints you talking about.--Shrike (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what the WP:NPOV policy actually says

• "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems."

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• The information is already in the article(in form of notes) so it not being removed.What is objected in giving one POV more prominent view.I don't think it shouldn't taken from the notes at all but if it is it should be done in equal manner.What Dailycare is promoting is only put one POV which is not acceptable and clear breach of WP:NPOV.--Shrike (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Having the material in the footnotes is a poor substitute for explicating all the significant aspects/viewpoints to this topic in the main text as an encyclopedia article should aim to do. Dlv999 (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said I don't object it entirely but it should be done in equal manner--Shrike (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, you can also edit the article: if you feel some viewpoint is under-represented you can enhance it, and if you feel a significant viewpoint isn't represented at all you can add it. This is normal, and as a long-term editor you already know it. What I wrote applies also to your edits: you don't need to "complete" the article in one go for your edits to be acceptable. It's sufficient that your edit complies with wikipedia's policies. But substantially, do you have any policy-based response to this point: "you have no basis for objecting to an edit adding a significant viewpoint on the basis that it doesn't add all significant viewpoints in one go." If not, we can end this discussion and do the edit. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know that I can edit but you edit goes against the policy because all significant viewpoint are already in the article.So no edit is needed.--Shrike (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already responded to this point in my remark timestamped "07:19, 19 March 2012". You don't get to decide what's in the article body and what's in the endnotes. (WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"). Representing some viewpoints in the body and others in notes is not fair, proportionate and without bias. Therefore moving one significant viewpoint from the notes to the body is an improvement, and moving two (as in the edit we're discussing) is an even better improvement. I see that you haven't provided the policy-based reason for saying that all POVs should be presented in a single edit, so this issue seems to have cleared up. Cheers,--Dailycare (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As the agreement couldn't be reached and there are no input from uninvolved editors I have started an RFC about this issue.--Shrike (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. My appologies, I haven't the time to read the entire discussion, but I did skim through most of it. I want to remark that after reading the section "Preemptive strike or unjustified attack" I was left baffled. It begins by stating that The Israeli view was that its initiation of the Six-Day War was a pre-emptive strike. However, in the Note 4, that supports the view that Arab states were not a threat justifying a preemptive strike, there is a large number of quotes from Israeli officals such as Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and the Israeli ambassador to the US (quoted several times). In effect, it seems that in present day the controversy has been settled. And that way the text stands now, it doesn't make any sense. Perhaps whats missing is the seperation between present day views on the subject and the views in the days following the attacks? --bitbit ^(talk) 05:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to familiarize yourself with this discussion. You make a good point that's quite close to one aspect of the edit we're discussing, namely that senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel didn't in fact anticipate an imminent Egyptian invasion. Another important point is that sources (especially in the United States) do still mention the Six-Day war as an example of a pre-emptive attack. The edit we're discussing would add both these points to the article body. --Dailycare (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A comment from the creator of the article

I skimmed the above discussion, but can't say I have the urge to get into the detail. The only thing I wanted to say was that the structure of the article is fundamentally flawed, and the issues raised above seem to be the by-product of that and will only be resolved (IMHO) when the structure is revisited. The long footnote of the israeli v arab views was only intended (in my mind) as a quick fix. I created the article because the main article was bogged down in predictably tedious squabbling about "who started it". The article was a nonsense and unreadable, and my only aim was to rectify that. I did it by simply carving out the essence of the squabbling and dumping it into this article (and the other article I created, Origins of the Six-Day War )in the quickest and easyist way (for me). I didn't have the time/inclination to do what was needed with this new article: to create a full and detailed discusion on the differing views on whether the war was pre-emptive. To my mind the above discussion is on a false premise: that the structure I left it in is worth saving. The notes need to be got rid off and embodied as a full and detailed discussion in the text of the article. It doesn't work as it is, and the well-made comment above by User:bitbit illustrates that. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Personally I think that we now have enough consensus here to start moving ahead with the changes. We have been discussing this for quite some time so it would be nice to start moving the article forward a little bit. Dlv999 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see consensus for the changes but not for edits of Dailycare that WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV in my opinion--Shrike (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, with Jeff Song blocked as a sock you seem to be in a minority of one, and further you haven't exactly provided compelling reasoning for your allegation that WP:NPOV would require completing the article in a single edit, so I agree with Dlv that we can start editing the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any support for your addition I only see support for adding the material to the article from the notes, as always I propose that any changes will be presented in talk.As I explained before your edit present only POV while others are not presented currently in the article.Thus makins is WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV.--Shrike (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That Israel's attack is often cited as an example of a pre-emptive attack, is a viewpoint. That Israelis have since conceded they didn't expect to be invaded is also a viewpoint. Together, they are two viewpoints. Two is greater than one, therefore the edit does not involve only one viewpoint. I'm now in the process of adding these two viewpoints to the article, changing some wording and moving some more material from the notes to the body. I'm moving the notes to Talk, so if there are additional viewpoints in them, they too can be added to the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike. I didn't mean I supported adding the notes to the text. The notes are a random bunch of quotes of varying significance and weight. As i said. I dumped them there as a quick fix. A discussion of the views and proper weighting needs to go into the text. If the notes go into text the article will become a bucket of unreadable rubbish. It will give the impression that the editors involved are unable to overcome their POVs to present a piece that is informative and encyclopedic. Dailycare seems to be on the right track with the latest edit, but it is too summarised at the moment. I suspect it will be reverted. A more detailed analysis as a first move will, I suspect, fare better. Given the size of the article and this controversy's central importance, one could expect 2 or 3 paragraphs would need to be added (as a crude rule of thumb). There seems to be a lot of effort put into whether this first step/edit should be taken. Wouldn't that effort be better put into crafting quickly a couple of paragraphs that reflect the complexities? DeCausa (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You guys have been busy I see. (: Thanks for the re-write, now the section is clear, like a crystal. --109.64.5.224 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC:Information about Preemptive strike or unjustified attack

Currently all the information and supporting view of each POV contained in the notes.I propose following two questions for RFC.

1. Should be information taken out of the notes?
2. If it would be decided that the answer on question one is "yes" what kind of information should be included?

Note:Even if you answer to the question one is "no" its still desirable that question two would be answered.

• Comment. Firstly, I don't accept the premise of the questions. Only two POVs are represented in the main text (the official Israeli party line and the official Arab party line), in the notes references are only presented to the extent that they support either of these two POVs. What about much more nuanced descriptions of the events that can be found in the literature? Secondly, in my view listing all the sources in note form is inherently a NPOV issue. For instance, a throwaway comment by an NPR journalist and a contemporary BBC report from 1967 are presented equally and given equal weight to the scholarly opinions of respected academics. It is not NPOV to give equal weight to a number of sources that are not all deserving of equal representation. Dlv999 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• RFC Comment I don't think these questions are to the point in light of the discussion above. The question we're discussing is whether the edit is in-line with policy or no in light of all the sources discussed. Overall, why divide the POVs into separate categories (those in the article body and those in notes), why not build this article like all other articles in the project, namely describing all significant viewpoints in the article body and inserting sources in notes? I recall (I've been busy for a few days) there was even a tentative agreement that this can be done, and the remaining issue was whether one has to add all significant viewpoints to an article in a single edit, or if it's OK to add one or two significant viewpoints in one edit. I suggest we close this RFC and open another one that touches the actual content dispute we're involved in. Alternatively, since the remaining question isn't very involved, we could post the question to the NPOV noticeboard to get our answer. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard seems like a good idea at this stage, as we haven't had any input from outside editors here. Dlv999 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I opened a thread on the NPOV noticeboard here. --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notes for editing

Here are the Notes bits from the article, if there are viewpoints here that are worth including, that can be done. E.g. the Jordanian aspect may be something worth considering.

Preemptive strike:

• "...Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egyptian planes as they stood on the airfields. These events triggered the so-called June war of 1967, but the pre-emptive action of Israel was not condemned by the S.C. – or indeed by the G.A. There appeared to be a general feeling, certainly shared by the Western states, that taken in the context this was a lawful use of anticipatory self-defence, and that for Israel to have waited any longer could well have been fatal to her survival." Antonio Cassese. The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force: Current Legal Regulation Vol10, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986, p. 443. ISBN 90-247-3247-6
• "War was inevitable under these conditions. Israel, seeing war as inevitable, decided on a pre-emptive strike, launching its attack on 5 June 1967." Goldstein 1992, p. 127.
• "In 1967 Israel was aware of an impending attack by Egypt, to be assisted by Jordan, Iraq and Syria, and won a brilliant and total victory in only six days (consequently the fighting is known as the 'Six-Day War'), largely because they launched a pre-emptive attack on the Arab air forces..." David Robertson. The Routledge Dictionary of Politics, Routledge, 2003, p. 22. ISBN 0-415-32377-0
• "On 30 May 1967 Jordan joined the Syrian-Egyptian military pact. Despite US attempts to mediate, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike just days later which destroyed the unprepared Egyptian air force..." Martin S. Alexander. Knowing Your Friends: Intelligence Inside Alliances and Coalitions from 1914 to the Cold War, Routledge, 1998, p. 246. ISBN 0-7146-4879-5
• "On 5 June 1967 Israel attacked Egyptian positions in a pre-emptive strike." Sören Zibrandt von Dosenrode-Lynge, Anders Stubkjær. The European Union and the Middle East, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002, p. 56. ISBN 0-8264-6088-7
• "In the end Israel launched a preemptive aerial attack, in which most of the Egyptian air force was destroyed on the ground within the first three hours of the war, and in six days the war was over." Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Columbia University Press, 1999, p. 276. ISBN 0-231-10483-9
• "a massive pre-emptive strike on Egypt." "BBC on this day", BBC website. URL accessed May 14, 2006.
• "Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on June 5" "Mideast 101: The Six Day War", CNN website. URL accessed May 14, 2006.
• "Most historians now agree that although Israel struck first, this pre-emptive strike was defensive in nature." "The Mideast: A Century of Conflict Part 4: The 1967 Six Day War", NPR morning edition, October 3, 2002. URL accessed May 14, 2006.
• "a massive preemptive strike by Israel that crippled the Arabs’ air capacity." Six-Day War, Retrieved 17 July 2010; Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. © 2006 World Almanac Education Group via The History Channel website, 2006, URL accessed February 17, 2007.
• "In a pre-emptive strike, Israel smashed its enemies’ forces in just six days..." Country Briefings: Israel, The Economist website, July 28, 2005. URL accessed March 15, 2007.
• "Yet pre-emptive strikes can often be justified even if they don't meet the letter of the law. At the start of the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel, fearing that Egypt was aiming to destroy the Jewish state, devastated Egypt's air force before its pilots had scrambled their jets." "Strike First, Explain Yourself Later," Michael Elliott, Time, July 1, 2002. URL accessed March 15, 2007.
• "the situation was similar to the crisis that preceded the 1967 Six Day war, when Israel took preemptive military action." "Delay with Diplomacy", Marguerite Johnson, Time, May 18, 1981. URL accessed March 15, 2007.
• "Following the Israeli conventional pre-emptive operations in June 1967,..." Aronson, Shlomo. "Israel's Nuclear Programme, the Six Day War and Its Ramifications", in Karsh, Efraim. Israel: The First Hundred Years, Routledge, 1999, p. 83. ISBN 0-7146-4962-7
• "Israel, seeing war as inevitable, decided on a pre-emptive strike, launching its attack on 5 June 1967." Goldstein 1992, p. 127.
• "Thus provoked, the Israelis attacked preemptively and, in what came to be known as the Six-Day War, routed Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian troops..." Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume IV, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 193. ISBN 0-521-48381-6
• "As Egypt, Syria and Jordan mobilized their forces in spring 1967 for an evident impending attack, Israel launched a preemptive strike." CNN In-Depth Specials: Mid-East, Land of Conflict, Six-Day War, CNN, Website. Accessed January 7, 2007.
• "Are there good examples of preemptive or preventive war – that is, ones that were proper to fight? Taking the most promising of the two categories – preemption – only one actual case seems clearly right: the Israeli attack on Egypt and Syria in June 1967." Betts, Richard K. "Striking First: A History of Thankfully Lost Opportunities", Ethics and International Affairs, Volume 17, No. 1 (Spring 2003).
• "While he and I agree that World War I and the Six Day War are preemptive, we code six cases differently." Reiter, Dan. "Exploding the Powder Keg Myth: Preemptive Wars Almost Never Happen", International Security, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 5–34.
• "Ironically, when the timing, character and success of Israel's pre-emptive strike surprised the Soviets and obviated their planned intervention, it also put a damper on the festive occasion..." Ginor, Isabella. "The Cold War's Longest Cover-up: How and Why the USSR Instigated the 1967 War", Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, Volume 7, No. 3 (September 2003).
• "It was also the primacy of Security interests over moral rectitude that prompted Israel, in the opening blow of the 1967 Six-Day War, to preemptively attack Egypt's warplanes on their bases." Brown, Seyom. International Relations in a Changing Global System, Westview Press, 1996, p. 138, footnote 6. ISBN 0-8133-2353-3
• "Israel attacked preemptively, destroying the Egyptian and Syrian air forces on the ground, and went to win a decisive victory in six days." Dershowitz, Alan M. Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. p. 81.
• "Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault and destroyed Egypt’s air force on the ground" Encyclopaedia Britannica Six Day War, accessed 30 May 2010.
• “Cognizant since its inception of Egypt’s leading role in the Arab world, its growing military power and untiring defense of the Palestinian case in world forums, Israel launched a treacherous assault on June 5, 1967...” Egypt State Information Service.
• "The Israeli first strike is...a clear case of legitimate anticipation." Walzer, Michael. (2006 ). Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books. ISBN 0465037070.
• "The United States has often walked a fine line between preemption and prevention. In fact there have only been a handful of clear-cut cases of military preemption by any states in the last 200 years. (Israeli preemption in the Six Day War of 1967 is perhaps the most cited example)” U.S. National Security Strategy: a New Era U.S. Department of State (2002).
• The Six Day War is, "A classic example of preemptive war." Henry Shue, David Rodin Preemption: military action and moral justification
• "Classic examples of preemptive wars include the July Crisis of 1914 and the Six Day War of 1967 in which Israel preemptively attacked Egypt…" Mueller Karl P. (2007). Striking first: preemptive and preventive attack in U.S. national security. (PDF). Rand Corporation. ISBN 978-0-8330-3881-4.
• “The Six Day War between Israel and alliance of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq was an example of preemption.” And, “It exemplifies preemption.” Kegley, Charles W.; Raymond, Gregory A. (2009). The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. Wadsworth Publishing. 3 edition. ISBN 0495569275.
• "Preemptive attack is morally justified when three conditions are fulfilled: The existence of an intention to injure, the undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger, and the need to act immediately because of a higher degree of risk. Since these conditions were met in Israel’s Six Day War, Israel’s preemptive attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967 was a legitimate act of self-defense.” Amstutz, Mark R. (2008). International ethics: concepts, theories, and cases in global politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0742556042.

Sources supporting the view that the war on the Jordanian front was not initiated by Israel:

• "In May–June 1967 Eshkol's government did everything in its power to confine the confrontation to the Egyptian front. Eshkol and his colleagues took into account the possibility of some fighting on the Syrian front. But they wanted to avoid having a clash with Jordan and the inevitable complications of having to deal with the predominantly Palestinian population of the West Bank.
• "The fighting on the eastern front was initiated by Jordan, not by Israel. King Hussein got carried along by a powerful current of Arab nationalism. On 30 May he flew to Cairo and signed a defense pact with Nasser. On 5 June, Jordan started shelling the Israeli side in Jerusalem. This could have been interpreted either as a salvo to uphold Jordanian honor or as a declaration of war. Eshkol decided to give King Hussein the benefit of the doubt. Through General Odd Bull, the Norwegian commander of UNTSO, he sent the following message the morning of 5 June: 'We shall not initiate any action whatsoever against Jordan. However, should Jordan open hostilities, we shall react with all our might, and the king will have to bear the full responsibility of the consequences.' King Hussein told General Bull that it was too late; the die was cast." Shlaim, 2000, pp. 243–244.

The Arab view:

• “Cognizant since its inception of Egypt’s leading role in the Arab world, its growing military power and untiring defense of the Palestinian case in world forums, Israel launched a treacherous assault on June 5, 1967...” Egypt State Information Service.
• "Israel has committed a treacherous premeditated aggression against the United Arab Republic...While we in the United Arab Republic...have declared our intention not to initiate any offensive action and have fully co-operated in the attempts that were made to relieve the tension in the area", M. A. El Kony, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Republic (Egypt), UN Security Council meeting 1347 (5 June 1967)

Unjustified attack:

• “Various Israeli officials said later... that 'Israel had not in fact anticipated an imminent attack by Egypt when it struck June 5'”. The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, p. 164; John B Quigley
• “... declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration – including Johnson's most pro-Israeli Cabinet members – did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke...” Tolan, Sandy. (5 June 2007). Rethinking Israel’s ‘David and Goliath’ Past, Salon.com.
• “... all US intelligence... had characterized Nasser's troops in the Sinai as "defensive in nature". (ibid)
• “(Nasser) seemed to think that he could 'ride out the storm' and that, ultimately, ‘discretion would prevail in Tel Aviv'. ("Nasser", Sir Anthony Nutting, Constable, London, 1972. p. 408)
• “President Johnson told Eban that even after instructing his ‘experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to be true’, it was still their ‘unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack’ – a conclusion according to Eban, also reached by Israeli intelligence”. (“Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict”; Norman Finkelstein, p. 134)
• “Mossad chief Meir Amit (stated) ‘Egypt was not ready for a war’ and Nasser did not want a war’” (ibid p. 134)
• “The Israeli-compiled Middle East Record stated that ‘most observers agree’ that Nasser did not intend to launch an attack ‘and that his pledges to U Thant and to the Great Powers not to start shooting should, therefore, be accepted at their face value’.” (ibid p. 134)
• “... it is generally agreed [that] Nasser was sincere when he later said that he had no intention of launching an attack against Israel; on the contrary as he said in his 23 July speech, he believed that ‘any attack on Israel would expose us to great dangers.” (Cockburn and Cockburn, “Dangerous Liaison”, 1991, p. 137)
• “The claim that Israel was in danger of imminent destruction was propaganda aimed at the Israeli public no less than Israel’s Western sympathisers, part of what Seale has described as “one of the most extensive and remarkable exercises in psychological warfare ever attempted. Foreign intelligence agencies were in agreement that Israel would make short work of Arab armies...” ”June 5, 1967: A Retrospective View”; Centre of Policy “Analysis on Palestine; Jeremy Salt
• “Far from trying to avert conflict, the conclusion is inescapable that Israel’s military command did everything it could to bring it on.” (ibid.)
• “... all the evidence (is that) Israel was trying to bring the Arab states to war by May 1967... when Nasser closed the Strait of Tiran, the Israelis knew he had walked into their trap – had taken the bait – and could ‘barely restrain themselves’. They wanted to attack at once. Their concern was not to defuse the crisis but to destroy Arab military capacity and bring down Nasser before the moment passed.” (ibid.)
• U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban that the U.S. intelligence assessment was that "the Egyptian deployments were defensive in character and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack". Memorandum of Conversation, Washington, May 26, 1967, 10:30 a.m.; The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael B. Oren has acknowledged that "By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed..." Israel's assessment was that "Nasser would have to be deranged to take on an Israel backed by France and the U.S. Sixth Fleet. War, according to the Israelis, could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally—a most unlikely confluence." Oren 2002, pp. 59–60).
• “The myth of Israel as victim is also reflected in the conventional wisdom about the 1967 war, which claims that Egypt and Syria are principally responsible for starting it... It is clear from the release of new documents about the war, however, that the Arabs did not intend to initiate a war against Israel in the late spring of 1967, much less try to destroy the Jewish state.” (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt; The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin Books, pp. 84–85).
• “Avi Shlaim, a distinguished Israeli ‘new historian’ writes, ‘There is general agreement among commentators that [Egyptian President] Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel’. (ibid p. 85)
• “Serious diplomatic efforts were also under way to solve the crisis peacefully. Yet Israel chose to attack anyway, because its leaders ultimately preferred war to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. In particular, Israel’s military commanders wanted to inflict significant military defeats on their two main adversaries – Egypt and Syria – in order to strengthen Israeli deterrence over the long term... In short, Israel was not preempting an impending attack when it struck the first blow on June 5, 1967. Instead, it was launching a preventive war – a war aimed at affecting the balance of power over time.” (ibid p. 85)
• Israel's former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menachem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, also said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Quoted in Chomsky, Noam (1999) The Fateful Triangle, South End Press, p. 100. ISBN 0896086011. Quote from Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972; for a more extensive quote, see Cooley, Green March, Black September, p. 162.
• "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le general Rabin ne pense pas que Nasser voulait la guerre, Le Monde, February 29, 1968, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967. Quigley, John. The Oslo Accords: More Than Israel Deserves, American University International Law Review 12, no. 2 (1997): 285-298)
• "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.
• 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.”

Preemptive strike v unjustified attack

This section requires a massive overhaul. It violates WP:NPOV and to a lesser extent WP:UNDUE because it is top heavy with authors (such as Chomsky and Quigley) who are partisan activists and exceptionally hostile to virtually every Israeli position. Other sources are cherry-picked in an attempt to bolster anti-Israel positions. Yet the Israeli view is barely presented and is virtually sandwiched between positions that are hostile to it. Moreover, opinions allegedly expressed by "senior Israelis" are either false or taken badly out of context. The most malicious of these is a quote attributed to Rabin where Quigley notes that Rabin wasn't concerned about Egypt's two divisions in Sinai. What is omitted is the dire concerns he expressed when Egypt increased its military presence in Sinai from 2 to 7 divisions and when it expelled UN peacekeepers. This can easily be found the several Rabin biographies. In sum, this section needs a re-write to comply with NPOV.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A further egregious distortion is demonstrated by the perverse use of the following statement attributed to Michael Oren.

The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael B. Oren has acknowledged that "By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed..." Israel's assessment was that "Nasser would have to be deranged to take on an Israel backed by France and the U.S. Sixth Fleet. War, according to the Israelis, could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally—a most unlikely confluence." Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, Oren 2002, pp. 59–60)

However, what is omitted is that Oren notes that this initial assessment was made in early May 1967, Just as the buildup commenced, before Egyptian troop levels climaxed to 7 divisions, before Nasser expelled the Peacekeepers from Sinai, before Nasser closed the Straits to Israeli shipping, before Egypt signed a mutual defense pact with Jordan, before Jordan placed its forces under the command of an Egyptian general, and before Egyptian and Iraqi deployments in Jordan.

The editor who inserted the source used it in mendacious and misleading fashion. In fact, Oren whose account of the Six-Day war is considered authoritative by mainstream scholarship has unequivocally expressed the view that the war was indeed preemptive and thwarted an Arab attempt to attack Israel.

While referencing Operation Tariq and Arab military intentions, Oren states the following:

• It is important to demonstrate that not only the Jordanians but also the Egyptians and the Syrians had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of it Jewish inhabitants in 1967. Many of the so-called "revisionist historians" today are claiming that the Arabs never had aggressive intentions toward the Jewish state and that Israel precipitated the Six-Day War in order to expand territorially. The documentary evidence refutes this claim unequivocally.[10]

Concerning Operation Dawn and Egyptian intentions, he notes the following:

• We know from Egyptian documents that the Egyptian army prepared a detailed plan for bombing strategic sites throughout Israel and for cutting Israel in half with a combined armored and infantry thrust. The plan, codenamed "The Dawn"(or al-Fajr), was set to be implemented on May 27 but was blocked when the United States and the Soviet Union together pressured the Egyptians not to attack. The danger of an Egyptian offensive against Israel remained. However, with hundreds of thousands of Arab soldiers gathered on its borders, Israel could not respond to even a minor Palestinian guerilla attack without precipitating a general Arab assault. Pre-emption was the only option.[11]

In sum, Oren’s views on the subject are clear and unequivocal and the editor, who misused the source, took it completely out of the context described by Oren and did so to further an NPOV agenda. We thus have a clear cut case of egregious source distortion as well as tendentious editing in the extreme.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi JJG, Reading Oren's book further we have on page 63: "Rabin was baffled. The Egyptian deployment, while still defensive, ...". On page 62: "Rabin was sure that Egypt's maneuvering was merely for show - Washington confirmed the assessment". The interview you link to does present different information which is a bit surprising, but it still doesn't directly contradict Oren's book. I've read the original 1968 Rabin interview and it's not misrepresented. There Rabin says that he didn't think Nasser wanted the war, and that he expelled UNEF to increase the effectiveness of his "bluff". I can also add one of the other sources to supplement Quigley, not that there would be anything wrong with Quigley as a source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing to distort, deliberately or otherwise, Oren’s views by carefully selecting out of context snippets (no doubt through Google Books). And you know precisely what I am talking about, don’t you. You fail to note that Rabin took that position before the night of the 15th and 16th when Oren notes that the seemed to skyrocket (page 63) and Egyptian concentrations jumped threefold (page 63) and that it also began stockpiling large quantities of munitions including canisters of poison gas (page 63).

According to Oren, though the Egyptian deployment on the 15th was still defensive it surpassed the dimensions of a mere power display (page 63). Rabin told the General Staff on 17 May that "Israel faces a new situation" (page 63). This assessment was made even before Nasser expelled the Peacekeepers and closed the Straits. By May 20th according to Oren, Egypt had deployed six divisions in Sinai (page 78) and Egypt’s Ministry of Religious Affairs was declaring a "holy war to liberate Palestine" (page 78). This was coupled with other blood curdling Arab rhetoric as noted by Oren (See for example pages 78-79). From Syria's Assad: "It is high time... to take the initiative in destroying the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland" (page 78). From PLO chief Ahmad al-Shuqayri: "We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants. As for the survivors -- if there are any -- the boats are ready to deport them."[12] From Iraqi president Abdul Rahman Arif: The goal was to wipe Israel off the map; "We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa."[13]

On 23 May, Nasser closed the Straits and according to Oren, Egyptian and Arab provocations only increased with words as well as actions including the deployment of Egyptian and Iraqi troops on Israel's Eastern front. Chief of military intelligence Aharon Yariv expressed the view that Nasser was "ready to gamble on short focused assaults to conquer parts of the Negev." (page 76). Rabin told Eshkol "We will suffer many losses, but we have no other choice." (page 90).

Moreover, Operation Dawn and Operation Tariq are discussed at length in Oren’s book yet you conveniently fail to mention these most important facts. Facts that are critical to the objective understanding of the events that led up to the war. This leads me to conclude that you either didn’t read the book but were relying on snippets from Google Books or you did read the book but deliberately omitted facts that were harmful to a particular POV. Even assuming the former, there is enough text found within Google books to determine that Rabin's initial lack of concern turned to dread once Egypt's buildup increased three-fold and it took action to expel the Peacekeepers and close the Straits to Israeli shipping.

In sum, You have grossly distorted Oren's book. You have distorted Oren's views on the subject making it appear as though Oren is supportive of the view that the attack was unjustified. More specifically, by citing out of context statements attributed to Rabin from a period three weeks prior to the war, you have distorted the manner in which Oren describes Rabin's views and thought process. You are attempting to make it appear as though Rabin's unconcerned attitude, which had admittedly existed before May 15, extended to the period between May 16 and June 5. This is simply not the case and those significant portions of the book that contravene your POV are conveniently omitted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

JJG I would ask you to maintain AGF in this discussion. Dailycare has given page numbers for every single quote that he has made, so anyone can check and make their own decisions on interpretation. You have chosen to quote two or three words from here and there without giving page numbers, so it is very difficult for anyone to verify your own assertions. You have also chosen to quote an interview with Oren in your previous response rather than rely on the detailed publication that he has published on the topic. We have a number of sources for the Rabin interview so we are not relying on Oren for that. Oren is clearly a significant opinion and should be included among the others that have been published on the topic. I hope we can move the page forward in the spirit of compromise and consensus rather than acrimony and accusations. Dlv999 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rest assured Dlv, I absolutely intend to include Oren, whose views on the subject are regarded by mainstream scholarship as authoritative.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I second the important concerns raised by JGG. Applying a quote from one point of the war to another point of the war when the facts have changed is egregiously misleading let alone violative of WP:SYNTH. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let JJG cite his page numbers and we can all come to our own conclusions the matter. Dlv999 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I second Dlv's request for JJG to maintain AGF (and for page numbers). That sort of polemical response inclines the neutral to discount the points made. Dailycare appears to have made reasonable points and taken a reasonable position. The style of JJG's response tends to undermine the creditability of the content, which may in fact also be reasonable. But he's unnecessarily undermined his position...to neutrals. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: the quote is not in the article. It is just in the citation. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

JJG, we're currently using Oren's book for the statement that Israelis received information from the Americans that the Egyptian formations in the Sinai were defensive in nature. If you're of the opinion that Oren somewhere in his book describes information from the Americans that the Egyptian formations were in fact offensive, then kindly share the page number. Oren has been Israel's ambassador so obviously he isn't a neutral observer and he isn't going to go on the record saying his country has committed aggression, but his statement on Egyptian formations is interesting since it's an admission against interest of sorts. Note also that we have another source, in addition to Oren's book, for the notion that Israelis received information from the Americans that the Egyptian formations in the Sinai were defensive in nature. --Dailycare (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(1) And again, the American assessment was made before the 15th per the noted page reference. (2) Oren was not Israel's ambassador at the time he wrote his book. (3) As for the so-called "statement against interest" this isn't a court of law and further, Oren is a historian first and an Israeli second. To imply that he is incapable of writing a scholarly, objective work because he is an Israeli is beyond the pale. If I understand your reasoning correctly, Oren can be used only if he asserts an anti-Israeli position because that is a "statement against interest" but can not be used if his research substantiates the Israeli position because he is an Israeli and is incapable of conducting objective research or formulating objective opinions. Is that your position?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Oren is a historian first and an Israeli second". How do you know that? Can you back that up please? It is quite obviously untrue to say that being a "historian" is a guarantee of impartiality. It never is - historians very commonly have their ideologies to push; marxist, naionalist, right wing etc. In Oren's case, looking at his wikipedia article he has had a clearly politically oriented career supportive of Israel outside of his history publications. It would neither be surprising nor even disparaging to say that his particular slant was pro-Israeli. Many of the worls's current historians can be sid to have a pro-X bias. So what if they do? DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Oren addresses this very issue quite candidly:

• Question from Matthew Reid, Boston: As an Israeli Historian writing on Israeli history in an academically rigorous and honest fashion, what methods do you use to identify and hopefully filter out your own biases and preconceptions? Also, how does your own military service color your understanding or interpretation of your sources?

• Answer from Michael Oren: You have touched on the greatest challenge I face as an historian. Though it has become very fashionable in the history field to indulge one’s prejudices and preconceptions, I view my biases-and I have them-as obstacles to be overcome. This means that in every paragraph, if not every sentence, I must pause and ask myself whether I am, in fact, being as balanced and objective as possible. Later, I submit my writing to readers whom I trust to render candid judgments. My military experience, on the other hand, assists me in understanding the dynamics of the battlefield and of war-time decision-making. I know what it’s like to be in command positions as well as to be a simple soldier under fire, and I have tremendous sympathy for anybody-Israeli or Arab-in similar positions. As a result, I am less likely to judge soldiers in battle and prefer, when possible, to understand them.[14]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Er...I don't think his own opinion on himself is really relevant here! The concept of the unbiased historian is bogus. Per E. H. Carr: "The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate." To say that claiming Oren is biased is "beyond the pale" is plain silly. All historians are inevitably biased. It just so happens that Oren's career makes his particular bias clear in his case. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Er... and Chomsky and Quigley (both of whom are not historians) are not biased? That's a rhetorical question.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

JJG has raised some very serious issues with the preemptive section and after having read the arguments and the sources, I have to agree with him. Oren has been distorted & it does certainly appear from Oren that Arab actions and deployments were indeed menacing. The alleged lack of concern was limited to the time period before may 15th. Thereafter, according to Oren, Egypt's actions left Israel with no choice.Ridingdog (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But the Oren quote which is supposedly used in a distorted way is not actually in the article body. It is in the reference section where it is used to support the uncontroversial fact that Israel received some intelligence info. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Meta comment: Article talk pages are supposed to be about how to improve the article, not to attack other editors. This talk page section should therefore be terminated. Concerns about editor conduct could be raised att WP:AE. New talk page sections could be created for concerns about the article (such as the use of non-historians as sources). --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Frederico. I'm going to make an attempt to improve the section which is the subject of this discussion in the near future based on concerns noted by myself and others. Unfortunately, time constraints prevent me from doing so now. As for the editor, I'm going to take Dlv999's advice and assume AGF in an attempt to reduce some of the acrimony. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion thus far. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ridingdog, welcome to Wikipedia! I see that was your second edit ever. It looks like this page is recently attracting new editors (see this). --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Two years later and the source misrepresentation complained of above remains in the article — after what appears to have been an exhausting bout of not-hearing-that by resident editors at this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Arab view

Some issues I have with this subsection of the general section. First, statements are made without attribution. Statements and positions made by Quigley and Chomsky (both of whom are not historians and both of whom are partisan) should be made with attribution. Second, in the very speech attributed to Begin, he referred to the war as a war of "self-defense in the noblest sense,"[15] which undermines what the speech is intended to prove - namely that the war was not defensive. Third, the article cites a May 26 CIA assessment. That assessment states that the Egyptian deployment "was defensive in nature." However, the article notes that the CIA assessment states that Nasser "was not going to attack." That's an inaccuracy and a leap that represents SYNTH. Moreover, A June 3 CIA assessment states that the Arabs "are sniffing blood," and that even moderate Arab regimes were joining Nasser's "bandwagon."[16] This position indicates aggressive intent and being that its a later assessment, one can argue that it supersedes or at least undermines the earlier assessment. In any event, there is no reason why this assessment should not be included nor is there any reason why Begin's reference to the defensive nature of the war should not be included.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Quigley is a professor of international law, which is to say he is an expert in the topic of this section. Oren is actually a current ambassador of Israel so he is clearly an advocate for Israel so if you want to use that argument you should apply it consistently. Using the speech from the MFA website to make your own interpretations is OR based on a primary source. There are numerous secondary sources (not just Quigley and Chomsky) that use the comments made in the speech to make the point that is made in the article. If you want to put an opposing interpretation of the speech in the article you must find a reliable secondary source that makes the same point- your own opinions are not enough (or even relevant to this discussion). I haven't looked at the CIA documents, but it is my understanding that they are primary sources, and we should be very careful about interpreting them. It would be better to find out what reliable secondary sources say on the issue and report that. Dlv999 (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I attributed Oren. The fact that Quigley is a professor of international law does not mean that he is not an advocate or partisan. He very much is, as is Chomsky. I'm glad that we are in agreement that the CIA document is a primary source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the wording to more closely follow the source. Concerning Chomsky, are you JJG implying that he's not reliable to quote Haaretz? That's the source of the citation. --Dailycare (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Then use Haaretz directly its WP:RS why using some quastanable intermediatries?Of course you have to sure that the quote is really there and what the contest.--Shrike (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Daily, you have added a source from an agenda driven Blog, which cites a 1973 article written by an obscure figure. I Googled both the blog and and the author and found nothing of note.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Daily, there are now four sources for the Arab view and four for the Israeli. If you want to start adding more sources for the Arab viewpoint, then you'll be creating a situation where other balancing viewpoints will be added and this will lead to an unwieldy, chaotic section. I'm calling it quits and I hope you do the same.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my question: do you think Chomsky isn't reliable to quote a Haaretz article? Concerning the article written by Joseph L. Ryan, I have two points: first, according to Google Scholar Joseph L. Ryan has published several articles in the "Journal of Palestine Studies" (and elsewhere), and second, other authors have cited his publications. I'm also not entirely on the same page about the notion that Worldview Magazine would be an "agenda driven Blog". Although since the author is reliable in his own right, this seems like a moot point. Concerning the idea that the number of sources cited for "Arab" and "Israeli" views should be the same, where did you get that idea? WP:NPOV says that all significant viewpoints should be presented. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky should not be used as WP:RS in this article.Its not only my opinion but pf two other editors.--Shrike (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"available documentary evidence unequivocally supports this view"

The article states: "According to Michael Oren, the Arabs had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of it Jewish inhabitants in 1967 and that available documentary evidence unequivocally supports this view". The second part of the sentence, "available documentary evidence unequivocally supports this view" is not found in the source, the Oren interview [17]. Note that here is a similar wording used in the source: "Many of the so-called "revisionist historians" today are claiming that the Arabs never had aggressive intentions toward the Jewish state and that Israel precipitated the Six-Day War in order to expand territorially. The documentary evidence refutes this claim unequivocally." But that is a different claim. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like misrepresentation of the source... --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree, also I think we should be very careful about using interviews with Oren as he is clearly an advocate (now ambassador) of Israel. We would be better to rely on the detailed book that he has published on the topic which he wrote wearing his historian hat, rather than popular press interviews where he is advocating for Israel. Dlv999 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv999, He was appointed ambassador in 2009. The statements he made precede his appointment by 2 years so your argument is based on faulty assumptions. @Frederico, I was trying to paraphrase Oren and by your own admission, similar wording is used in the source but if you want me to quote him directly, It's not a problem.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My argument was not made on any faulty assumptions, I was fully aware of when the interview was conducted and when he became ambassador when I made the comment. that is why I said that he was an "advocate" for Israel which was true when he made the interview and only put that he is "now ambassador" in brackets. Dlv999 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy: The problem is that the phrasing in the article as of now is not fatefull to what Oren said, even if the words used are similar. I understand that that is not intentional, but a fix is in order. A direct quote would probably be the easiest way to fix it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Oren is clearly not a reliable source, he is the Israeli ambassador to the US, so he is clearly biased in whatever he says about the conflict and it can not be regarded as facts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure he's biased (I've read his six-day-war book so I know). But he is a historian and thus qualifies as a RS. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but we should be aiming to use his published material on the topic, not fishing around for off the cuff comments he has made in interviews. Dlv999 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv999, And Quigley and Chomsky are not? Their views on the subject are well known. They are not historians but partisan advocates. If you exclude Oren, you exclude Chomsky and Quigley. It seems that you are trying to preclude a reputable historian, with an established record on the basis of his national origin or ethnicity. @Frederico, I'll utilize the direct quote rather than paraphrase per your suggestion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not once said we should exclude Oren. I have said we should use material from his detailed publication on the topic, not throwaway comments from an interview. Quigley is a professor of international law which is highly pertinent to the topic of this article. Your comments on ethnicity and national origin seem bizarre and have no relation to anything that I have posted. Just for the record, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris are all Israeli Jews. Oren I believe was born a Jewish American, just like Chomsky so I don't see what "national origin or ethnicity" has to do with any of this. I certainly have not brought it up and I would ask you to concentrate on the content topic at hand and the comments I have made rather than throwing in red herrings. Dlv999 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The comments made by Oren in a relevant interview concerning his book on the Six-Day War have been republished in a reliable, verifiable secondary source. And again, I assert that Quigley and Chomsky are not historians (the latter is a linguist) and have voiced extremist, non-mainstream positions. But I guess that since they represent the Arab viewpoint, I'll demur. However, attribution is still warranted as Oren and the U.S. State Department are attributed when referenced.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about Quigley but Chomsky can't be used as a reliable source on those issues.--Shrike (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv999, Your Google search query indicates that you were fishing for the Ben Tov statement and what a surprise, you found Quigley. Now whose fishing? Really, this is not collaborative. Moreover, per my concerns noted above,[18] prior to the addition of the Ben Tov/Quigley comment, there were four views for the Arab position and four for the Israeli. The addition of more sources for one side runs the risk of additional sources for the other which will then cause the section to spiral out of control with each side bring their respective proofs. I am therefore asking you to kindly self-revert and we will leave the matter as is, shake hands and part ways.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A quote was added to the encyclopedia, then removed because of poor sourcing. Out of interest I wanted to see if the quote was legitimate and whether it had been cited by RS in respect to the topic of this article. There is nothing untoward about that. Finding a reliable source for a quote that was removed because the source was not up to scratch certainly is collaborative, this is how improvements to the encyclopedia are made. My personal view is that Quigley, a professor of international law, writing in a section on the 1967 conflict, in a book on international law in relation to the Israel Palestinian conflict, quoting an Israeli Cabinet minister who was present during the decision making process, is a significant view on this topic and should be represented. If there is a consensus against addition I will happily revert the material. Dlv999 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay I think we just got off on the wrong foot. I understand your point and have two of my own. First, Quigley has already been cited to support the position that some Israelis expressed the view that Israel didn't expect Nasser to start a general war. Another Quigley source which amounts to the same proposition is, IMHO, redundant. Second, do you believe that my assessment here is correct? That continued additions of sources will create an unwieldly section with proofs and counter-proofs of which there is sufficient supply on both sides. Really Dlv, how much time do you want to spend on this? I don't have that much time to spare so you'll probably outlast me. I'm asking that you kindly self-revert and the goodwill will be reciprocated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Initial claims of aggression

In the section Controversies relating to the Six-Day War#Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack there are two paragraphs regarding the question of who attacked first, a question which is not a part of the actual controversy. I'm concerned that that is too much for the reader to digest before getting to the real meat, i.e. what the controversy is about. I suggest these paragraphs to be shortened down. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--Shrike (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think shortened down is a better option than complete removal. Initially there was controversy over who attacked first. This has since been resolved. I agree the section should concentrate on the details that are still under dispute, but I think a brief summation of how the controversy has developed over time is useful and pertinent to the reader. Dlv999 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem on shortening, happy with that. But I reverted Frederico's complete removal. The two paragraphs aren't about "who attacked first". As Frederico pointed out, that is not controversial. It must however be relevant background on subsequent statements on the rationale for the attack. If the Israeli claim is that it was preemptive, and that is the basis for the "controversy" in this section, then it must surely be relevant there were statements made about the rationale which were different to the claim that it was preemptive, even if subsequently withdrawn. DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"the prevailing view among historians is that the Israeli strike was defensive in nature"

The reference for this claim is the transcript of a comment made by Mike Shuster in a NPR radio broadcast in 2002.[19].

Is such a comment made by a radio presenter in 2002 an appropriate source for a factual claim about what the prevailing view is among academic historians in 2013?

I have several issues. Firstly, Shuster is not a historian so I'm not convinced the transcript of his comment is an appropriate source for a factual claim about the prevailing view among historians. Secondly his comment was made over 10 years ago so how is it an appropriate citation for what the prevailing view is among historians in 2013? Dlv999 (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems very weak. I'm not even sure it is worth "according to Mike Shuster ..", even though would at least invoke the correct response, namely "Who?". Zero^talk 12:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also another issue I just noticed. The claim about the "prevailing view" seems to be contradicted by the Oren quote from 2007 where he states that many historians argue that "the Arabs never had aggressive intentions toward the Jewish state and that Israel precipitated the Six-Day War in order to expand territorially." Dlv999 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Oren "is wrong" when he states that some "revisionnist historains" claim that the Arab had no agressive intention against Israel in 1967.

I doubt that a reliable source could claim they had no such intention except maybe if (s)he claims Nasser was making a lot of noise hoping to gain a political victory without passing by the arms but it should be explained how the Israeli could have guessed this with 7 Egyptian divisions at their border and the general mobilisation of the Egyptian Army...

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This claim is not supported by any evidence. Notably even Israel effectively acknowledged that its attack was illegal - that is why it claimed to be acting in response to an Egyptian invasion. Secondly only political commentators are quoted. Presumably for the obvious reason that if jurists and diplomats were cited they would not support the Israeli position. Consequently the section as written is selective and biased in favour of the Israeli line.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Rabin interview in Le Monde also acknowledged Israel was not expecting an attack from Egypt. Maybe this material should be furnished with a citation-needed template. --Dailycare (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

James Thuo Gathii's claim regarding "the Caroline test"

Leaving aside the question of whether it's appropriate to cherry pick a single sentence making a technical legal claim, from an article not dealing directly with the subject, in a middling-to-obscure legal journal, and then present it without any explanation or context, we also have absolutely no indication that the author's opinion is notable or that he is an authority on what other scholars think about the Caroline test or its application to analysis of the 1967 war. Or whether the test itself is relevant to anything. Or even whether it's accurate to call a legal journal a secondary source under these circumstances. For legal issues, it's a secondary source. For questions regarding the prevalence of political or historical views, not so much. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Describing it as primary is puzzling. Of course it is a secondary source for the point made in the article. I see no grounds for anything else. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on whether it should be in the article. I just want to say that it is obviously a secondary source, and also that it is on precisely the right subject.Zero^talk 23:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on anything else except to note that I cannot protest if this was removed until there is a consensus that the author is enough authority on the subject matter and the publication is notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article on this subject. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually, WP:CONSENSUS works the other way. There needs to be consensus to remove it as it's been part of the article for some time, I believe, and is deemed to have consensus support therefore. DeCausa (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's there means nothing. People sneak stuff in all the time. The wp:burden always remains with the proponent. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not true: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Also, WP:BURDEN doesn't apply to this - that's specifically about verifiability. This clearly meets RS standard, it's a broader editing question (to be determined by consensus) whether it should be here. DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be relatively obvious that the edit was reverted and is disputed by other editors. It should also be obvious that all material on Wikipedia must have some basis justifying its inclusion in an article. If there is no basis for putting material in an article, it doesn't go in. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It was removed/disputed by you only, not "editors plural. Also, it refers to it being reverted/disputed at the time it was added - not many months later. By that time it is deemed to have consaensus support until an express consensus emerges to remove it. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

... and please state a basis for including this material in the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As Zero said above, it is obviously a secondary source on precisely the right subject. I would also add it is a WP:RS. In my view, therefore, there is at least a prima facie case for it being in the article. I'm open to hearing relevant arguments for it not being in the article, but yet to see any put forward. There are none in your opening post, but that's not to say there aren't any. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What does Gathii say about how this question is relevant to controversies over the 1967 war? What does he say about the actions of other participants in the war, and whether their conduct in the war even came close to satisfying the "Caroline test", as Israel's apparently did? Any hint of why the consensus changed? Note he doesn't actually say there was anything notable about Israel's actions meeting or not meeting the test. Note also that the author appears to say that no case has ever met the Caroline test. Where does that leave our article? Gosh, I don't know. These are the sort of critically important contextual details which would not be absent if the source were actually talking about the 1967 war in any substantive way — which he was not. Are you beginning to get a sense of my concerns, dude? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, the Caroline test is the central point of whether pre-emptive action is permissable in international law. I dunno, at a wild guess I'd say an academic article that reviews the Caroline test (and, in so doing, comments on Israel's action) might just be relevant to the first controversy in this article, don't you think. As far as your other questions are concerned, why would the Caroline test be relevant to the other participants? Israel struck first - Caroline test by definition doesn't apply to thè others. Your other questions seem to be equally based on a lack of familiarity with the Caroline test. There's an article on it . It might be worth reading it. DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Without for the moment stopping to respond to your comments about the Caroline test and its significance, it seems you want to cherry pick this unexplained context-free sentence and then supply a particular context and relevance to the reader via your own self-professed expertise on the subject.

Or perhaps you will piece it together from multiple sources that, like this one, also do not deal with the subject of this article directly. Either way, by doing so, you want to impart an implied significance to the claim that it is not given in the original cited work. So... how is this not SYNTH? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of SYNTH matches that of the Caroline test. By definition, SYNTH requires more than one source. This is one statement derived from one source. Oh dear. All of the various reasons you have given to remove this are spurious, which is why I have resisted them. As I said earlier, on the face of it it is legitimately in the article, but I'm not especially attached to keeping it. There may be a problem with it, and that is WP:UNDUE. I'm neutral on that. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article is Controversies relating to the Six-Day War. The cited text says, "The closest case that might have, but is now regarded as not having met the Caroline test, was Israel’s first strike against Egypt in the 1967."

Be a gentleman and connect the dots for me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

From the heading of the section in question in this article: "Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack". From the lead of the Caroline test article: "The Caroline test is a 19th-century formulation of customary international law, reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, which said that the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'" DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For starters, can we stick to reliable sources? i.e. not a Wikipedia article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

{editor coughs politely} Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Controversies relating to the Six-Day War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.umassd.edu/specialprograms/mideastaffairs/witness2.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mideastfacts.com/pow_ap.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201184820/http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol6/9902_hajjar.asp to http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol6/9902_hajjar.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402101751/http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue2/jv9no2a2.html to http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue2/jv9no2a2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201184819/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-008.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130902104738/https://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/53936ddf3dd093a1852575530073f2e6/533b4714451b48bf0525651b00488d02?opendocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/53936ddf3dd093a1852575530073f2e6/533b4714451b48bf0525651b00488d02?opendocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201184820/https://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?id=374 to http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?id=374

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

USS Liberty not friendly fire

The attack on the USS Liberty was not friendly fire, for two reasons. Firstly the USA was not an ally or a co-combatant. It was a neutral party. Secondly Israel knew that it was attacking a US vessel, it was not an accidental sinking.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Controversies relating to the Six-Day War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol6/9902_hajjar.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511013145/http://www.jewishagency.org/NR/exeres/4B21CC9B-BCD1-43FA-82F5-4355BE6EED30 to http://www.jewishagency.org/NR/exeres/4B21CC9B-BCD1-43FA-82F5-4355BE6EED30

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

USS Liberty: LOLWUT?!

I have a slight problem with the text quoted:

however, some reject this conclusion saying the attack was to silence the ship's intelligence-gathering communications that may have warned Egypt indirectly.

Conspiracy nuts will be conspiracy nuts, but surely nobody is dumb enough to believe that the ship was sunk on purpose... In order to prevent warning the Egyptians about a war THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR THREE DAYS?!

Is this just phrased clumsily here, or is it an accurate representation of the loopy conspiracy theories out there?

192.38.143.252 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s about warning the Egyptians about the Israeli attack on the Golan Heights on 9 June (the following day). Follow the link to the main article USS Liberty incident. Edit this article if you don’t think it’s clear enough. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Issue with the "Allegations of Egyptian atrocities against fellow Egyptians" Section

While reading this article I noted that the section on "Allegations of Egyptian atrocities against fellow Egyptians" is both small compared to the sections it is bracketed by, and comparatively poorly sourced and one sided. The section simply states that the Egyptians machine gunned their retreating soldiers and threw other survivors in prison camps so as that word of the catastrophic Egyptian defeat would not reach the population, and cites only one source for this, written in either 1967 or 1970 (the section's citations list both dates) by Winston Churchill's son and grandson. In comparison, the preceding section on whether the Israeli attack counts as a justified preemptive strike cites almost two dozen distinct sources and includes arguments both for and against this assertion, and the following section on Israeli war crimes is nearly twice as long, highlights claims for and against Israeli war crimes being conducted, and includes eyewitness accounts. This is a significant difference in quality and it casts doubt on the veracity of the claims made about Egyptian atrocities.

Therefore I suggest that it would be preferable to add additional citations to this section both in support and in opposition to the claims made by Churchill, or to remove the section altogether if no additional citations even mentioning the topic can be found.

Lazer Raptor (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Censored Voices

Immediately after the 1967 war, Amos Oz and a few friends went around with a tape recorder interviewing returned soldiers about their experiences. Some of it was published as a book Siach Lochamim (The Seventh Day) but most of it was forbidden by the censors. This year a film "Censored Voices" was shown in Israel with the original recordings. An article about it is here but more is needed. The film itself is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlkEyA1pAx8 (copyright status unknown and also accuracy of subtitles unknown!). Quite a lot of the testimonies mention killing of unarmed Arabs, both in Sinai and the West Bank, and also the expulsion of Arabs from their villages. This should be mentioned somehow but work is needed. Zero^talk 03:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Another article about it is here. Zero^talk 05:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

Why are the words "Six-Day War" in bold face in the opening sentence? They should not be. 109.144.208.240 (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)