Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 2

message: Syria's flag is actually that of Iraq...
:It was Syria's flag at the time. --Ian Pitchford 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Syria had the same flag as Egypt as they were both part of the UAR at the time. --PiMaster3 talk 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syria's flag 

message: #Israel has explained why it went to war in 67. This  is  the casus beli. No one dispute that that why Israel said it went to war. Any other disagreement with claims and counter claims about accuracy of historical reasons should be conducted in talk.
#The "casus beli" is also by defintion one sided. It is the cause of the party that decided to start the war. (even if both sides were ready to go to war, the casus is the reason for a single event: why one party started in military action). As such one can not list reasons for both sides unless there is a proof (not in this case) that both sides started the war  at exact same time .
summary for Ian: Your POV is valid but  not  in the casus beli section. Zeq 07:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On more note on this subject for later readers:  Casus belli is the official justification for a war.  Your real reasons may be entirely different.  The "case of war" is typically stated in a formal government document (usually as one section of the legislation authorizing the war) and as such it is trivial to determine.  What historians fuss over later is the real reasons, not the official excuses. 70.137.129.116 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Casus beli can <b> not </b> (by definition) be disputed. 

message: It looks to me as if the section headers are wrong: sections 2-12 should really be subsections of 1. Background.  I am about to go fix it--just wanted to explain what I'm doing.  Jason 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting (section headers) 

message: Were any movies produced about this war?(just being curious)
210.9.15.116 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. One Israeli film which pops into my mind is Avnti Popolo , produced in Israel in 1986, but there are many others. drork 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many ? That'll be interesting to hear. Amoruso 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies 

message: Can we get an image up at the top, specifically similar to the one on each individual country as "Syria" or "Israel" etc. except showing all parties, and color coded as individual or allied to show the full place of the world? Jmw0000 01:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New talk sections should go to the bottom. As to the photo, it is a documentary and not staged photo of a victory. The rest is in your head. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. The photo is clearly pro-Israeli. The angle, from the bottom makes the soldiers appear heroic. This is a decidedly biased photo and should be removed from the top post haste. Doktor Waterhouse 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come off it.  It's a photo of a major event in the war; there's no real reason not to use it.  Rogue 9 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If it were neutral it would reflect the sentiments of both sides, or niether side. To show a picture of one side in a defining moment of the war is to support that sides exploits in what is still a controversial issue. The image is not only biased it is grossly offensive. Doktor Waterhouse 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. In war there are winners and losers, and this is a picture of the winners- no different from :Image:Marshals.jpg in the WWII article Isarig 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If it pleases Jmw0000 and others who protest the photo, we could also show the Syrian side of the war, but I have a feeling that photos of Syrian tanks fleeing the Golan would look rather pathetic.  --GHcool 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A single photo shouldn't be stuck with the task of showing all sides to this complicated story.  The solution is to add photos which in combination show all the sides.  It is not necessary for every single individual piece to have an ambiguous POV. 70.137.129.116 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Image

message: This article is Arab propaganda. Just one example -- the mention of "disputed" territories along the Jordan River. The "demilitarized zones" were not "disputed". They were, and are, Israeli territory that Syria occupied in May and June of 1948, the last one, Mishmar Hayarden, only hours before a cease fire went into effect. The UN does not dispute Israeli sovereignty, which is why there is no pressure on Israel to return the Golan Heights. Syria merely claimes that it took the land fair and square. The territies were "demilitarized" by the of 1949, but Syria never withdrew from them nor permitted Israel to maintain civil control, as provided in the agreement.
There is also no question about ownership of the Banias water. This was settled in 1923 when Winston Churchill handed the Golan Heights over to France in exchange for some land along the Yarmuk for Emir Feisal. The water belonged to the Palestine Mandate, aka the "Jewish National Home".
This matter is not subject to legintimate dispute. The Syrians may claim it, but no one else (other than the Arab League) supports them.
I could go on, but this article, as it stands, is simply Wikiganda, to coin a phrase -- propaganda disguised as neutral scholarship.Scott Adler 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's work on fixing it, according to WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab Propaganda

message: Shlaim claims that the decision by the Israeli Government to return the captured territory in exchange for peace was apparently kept secret. I just found a source mentioning foreign minster Abba Eban saying that Israel is willing to exchange the new territory (or, more precisely, that Israel is not willing to exchange the territory for anything less than peace). Any comments? Here is the article: http://www.pressfellowships.org/IsraelSimplyWants.pdf -- Heptor  talk 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see what you see in that article.  Eban only speaks about "negotiating new borders" not of returning the captured territory.  There was a cabinet decision to offer Syria and Egypt peace deals on the basis of the mandate borders, not the armistice lines (eg. Israel would keep Gaza) but it did not mention the West Bank or Jerusalem at all. (My source of the moment: Gorenberg, p52.)  There is an argument over whether this decision was actually conveyed to the Syrians and Egyptians.  If I remember correctly (does Shlaim have this?) Israel passed it to the Americans but there is no record of the Americans passing it to Syria or Egypt. --Zerotalk 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Decision? 

message: Section: Israel and Syria
In addition to sponsoring attacks against Israel (often through Jordanian territory, much to King Hussein's chagrin), Syria also began shelling Israeli civilian communities in north-eastern Galilee (to the much greater chagrin of the Israeli civilians killed while farming), from positions on the Golan Heights, as part of the dispute over control of the Demilitarized Zones (DMZs), small parcels of land claimed by both Israel and Syria.[15]
I propose the bold part to be deleted. Killed civilians can not experience chagrin. please also review the commas. 
Section: Egypt and Jordan
Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. Although the size of Jordan's army meant that Jordan was probably incapable of executing such a maneuver, the country was perceived as having a history of being used by other Arab states as staging grounds for operations against Israel; thus, attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence.
repetitive. i propose the first bold sentence "such a coordinated ... existence" to be deleted. 
— Sensodyne (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistics & Coherency 

message: In the war result, it is unnecessary to use the word "decisive." - just use Israeli victory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borgmore (talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.) The war was going to start anyway.  I suppose you'd like it better were the Arab states allowed to have their first strike so that they could perform genocide against the Jewish people?  That was, after all, their stated war aim.  2.)  Even if a state which starts a war is always evil (a position that is not consistently tenable in any internally consistent moral system) that does not make the state that was attacked good.  If nothing else, the state that was attacked may have started wars of its own at other times.  To use the 1991 Gulf War as an example, I suppose you would call the United States evil for starting the war, but if that makes Iraq good, what about the war that Iraq had just started against Kuwait?  Or the Iran-Iraq war?  Nothing is so binary as what you propose.  Rogue 9 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 3.  Members should use talk pages constructively about improving the article, not as a soapbox for their own opinions.  --GHcool 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: The section concerning the warfare starts out by stating "Israel's first and most important move was a pre-emptive attack on the Egyptian Air Force". Since "pre-emptiveness" is a legal term in Public International Law that implies legitimacy, I would like to see this claim supported. PJ 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed the notes regarding "pre-emptivness" in the introduction of the entry. PJ 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive strike 

message: Any ideas on Soviet contributions to the war?
:There is an article in the Jerusalem Post today  discussing a new book that claims that the USSR engineered the six-day war in order to set up a situation where they could destroy Israel's developing nuclear weapons program by bombing Dimona, but that the plan failed because of the unexpected Israeli success on the battlefield.  I don't personally know any more than what I just read in that article. Vegasprof 14:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A CIA report declassified this week, gives an idea. Seems it was unlikely they wanted that war, and they probably was very aware of Israels superiority. But they did warn the arabs that Israel was planning to go to war, and that made the arabs prepare for it, which in turn led Israel to start it. Read it here CiaPolitica 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet involvement 

message: The numbers mentioned under strength (150,000 egyptian troops, 75,000 syrian troops) are very very unreasonable. I don't have the exact figures, but the egyptian army had at least 300,000 soldiers in command. Please correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.229.184.79 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength 

message: I think this classic picture is under copyright. did someone check? Shmila 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the central picture 

message: In "The combatant armies" section, it says the Egyptians had 4 infantry and 2 armor divisions, but in "Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula", it says 2 infantry and 4 armor. Which is it? Clarityfiend 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Egyptian division composition

message: Anon, your own sources do not support your claims: . ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 19 edit war 

message: The article is not a featured article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. It is a featured article in the Urdu Wikipedia. Please correct.--Doron 09:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see what to change.  --Zerotalk 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: According to page Operation Focus, one Lebanese aircraft was destroyed.
But I dont see Lebanon in the Battle Box. How come? Fvdham 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon 

message: Saudi Arabia did not fire a single shot during this war. Yet it is listed as a combatant in the battle box. Fvdham 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They sent a brigade to Jordan to support the Jordanian army.. This is similar to the many nations listed under the "coalition forces" for the Iraq war, the vast majority of them not having taken an active part in the fighting. Isarig 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia 

message: When unprotected, please be sure to add this. Thanks. --Shamir1 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hi there. 
I was just checking out the CTV news (Canada) webpage on the anniversary of the Six Day war and I noticed that the photo of the soldiers at the West Wall has the troopers names listed on the CTV site. I'd plug them into the caption myself, but the page is protected right now... anyway, their names from left to right are Zion Karasanti, Yitzhak Yifat and Haim Oshri. Apparently they are paratroopers.  Mike McGregor (Can) 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The names are already listed at :Image:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg#Summary. I don't think the names are particularly needed for the caption in the article itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names for photo caption available  

message: There is a dispute between me and Jayjg in Talk:West Bank, which editors of this article may be interested in commenting on.  Specifically the dispute is about what events (if any) of the Six Day War should be mentioned in the West Bank article. Sanguinalis 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Bank article 

message: I removed the Begin quote (at 3k of text it doesn't seem useful to post here so check the page history) from the "Drift to War" section. As I was reading the article the other day I noticed something odd about the quote and the way it was used. When I read the speech from which it was excerpted, it became clear that the quote was taken out of context and used to imply something different that what Begin was originally saying. Instead of deleting the thing, I chose to expand it, to add in more of Begin's speech in order to accurately present what Begin actually said. Now I've changed my mind. The whole quote is irrelevant. It adds nothing to the article and it interrupts the flow substantially. This is a political speech, not about the Six-Day War but about Begin's own interventions in Lebanon. I think it would be useful in an article about Begin or preemptive strikes, but it has no value in this context.
My idea is to expand the section by adding some historical accounts about what was happening at the time. Israeli fears of annihilation, Jewish volunteers flying in from abroad to fight for Israel, wealthy Israelis fleeing, etc. Michael Oren explains these events in a compelling way in Six Days of War. GabrielF 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote is very interesting, but it is less says less about the objective reality of the Six-Day War than it does about Begin's opinions on the Six-Day War and Arab-Israeli conflict in general.  Perhaps the quote might have made for an interesting read as an aside in a comprehensive history such as Oren's book, but GabrielF did the right thing by removing it from this article because of the reasons he/she gave above.  --GHcool 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove begin quote 

message: This iconic photograph will be removed from the encyclopedia if it is not used in a way that complies with WP:NONFREE. I'm sorry to be be asking others to do this (I'm on vacation but still check in because of severe wikipedaholism), but can someone carry out what Abu Badali says at the ifd? Thanks everybody. nadav (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested a clarification of our fair-use policy at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#clarification_re:_use_of_historical_photos_in_articles_about_events for those interested. GabrielF 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic [[:Image:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg]] may be deleted 

message: For the record, per WP:PROTECT, a locked version in an edit war is not an endorsed version. The locking did not endorse any aspect of the article nor the section in question. JoshuaZ 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, I am not requesting that the section remain unchanged because it was included in a locked version.  I am simply asking the person that removed it to discuss the proposed changes and try to get approval or agreement before editing the article.  Please see my comment under Undue weight for "Accusations of IDF killings ...". OpTioNiGhT 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section that was in locked version. 

message: OK, I'd like to suggest the radical proposition that we rename the main article with an neutral POV heading, such as "1967 Arab-Israeli War."
The current title "Six-Day War" is not, as we know, neutral. If it were, the Arabs would call the encounter by that name. To the Arabs, the conflict is the "June War" or "al-Naksa;" It's the Israeli's who called it the Six-Day War. 
I admit that most in the US know it as the Six-Day War, but this doesn't make it any more neutral. Plus, anyone who searches for "Six-Day War" will be redirected to "1967 Arab-Israeli War."
I know I'll get pushback on this, but consider how ridiculous it would be if someone insisted on naming the page "Al-Naksa." And even though "June War" may seem neutral, since the term is pretty much exclusively Arab, it won't do either.
So, I open it to discussion. - Menaus 19 July 2007
:The problem with this suggestion is that the term "Six-Day War" is standard not only for the Israelis, but for the general public in the West, the media and scholars as well. For example, googling "Six-Day War" results in almost a million hits whereas "1967 Arab-Israeli War" results in about 72,000.  If we adopted this suggestion we would be rejecting the most widely used term in favor of one with a slant that is more amenable to some. That would be in conflict with our purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to  accurately reflect the current knowledge about a topic rather than shape or influence public perceptions. GabrielF 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GabrielF has it exactly right.  Few could argue that Six-Day War is the name by which it's known, overwhelmingly, in the English-speaking world - and this is the English Wikipedia.  Without checking any wiki policies, I assert that the fact of common usage has to count most strongly.  It isn't as if we're talking about a scientific theory that was commonly accepted, but now has to be scrapped in the light of new evidence.  I say stick with the current title. Hertz1888 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The six day war is the zionist name, reflecting the nationalist euphoria of post-67 Israeli society. The subtext being, "We beat those damn Arabs in only 6 days, it was a peace of cake". The question is: is this Wikipedia or Zionipedia. If the former then a prefer the NPOV title suggested above.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean they didn't? Sorry, here in Singapore we know it as the Six Day War too. Apparently Arabist propaganda disputing that name failed to displace its popular use in the Anglophone world. Good grief. Get over it.220.255.26.148 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Title and Neutral POV