Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 3

message: Is there no site or any sort of work blah blah that talks about the Six Day War and theological....stuff? It's like (from a theological perspective), in six days, God created the Heavens, Earth and everything around it. And in six days, God's chosen people fought off an invading army of 5 different nations? Of course, we can't just put it there because of that, but is there any sort of source that talks about it? Surely it's of an importance, right? Seriphyn 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.220.255.117.227 10:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your theory isn't really based on fact; you're just comparing one number to another number.  In response to your question, though, you may wish to post it on "conservapedia."Bryantheis (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In six days, God created the world etc. etc. 

message: 40 years later. what about that story?
Takima 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet plot? «Foxbats over Dimona» 

message: Now that Samu Incident has its own page, surely it's time to reduce the Samu section on this article? It's practically longer than the page dedicated to it.
This article is already far too long and in need of pruning, the Samu section would be an obvious place to start. Gatoclass 07:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samu section 

message: The section at the end is just that a Benny Morris section featuring his point of view.  Now this would be perfectly fine in an article about his book but unless his scholarship can be integrated into the whole of the page, it probably would be best to have it removed and perhaps relegated to a see also.  Especially since the section does establish the prominence of Benny Morris or why anyone should consider his point of view.  However, if it can be integrated into the page, I'm sure it would be valuable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benny Morris section 

message: Hello, I have placed  on this article. Reading the article, it makes out like Israel was such a victim, Egypt got their asses kicked, and it was a glorious victory for the Israelis. Examples:
"Egypt had a crushing defeat."
"Israel had no other choice."
"Fifty Jordanians were killed but the true number was never disclosed by the Jordanians in order to keep up morale and confidence in King Hussein's regime."
 Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that I dealt with these problems, which seem to have mostly been the result of a series of IP additions and deletions that were previously missed. TewfikTalk 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How does "Egypt had a crushing defeat" (or the Jordanian quote) make Israel sound like a victim?  I'm not really getting your point here. Superm401 - Talk 02:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it look like Israel had a great victory and decimated the Egyptians.  Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see "Egypt had a crushing defeat" or any of the other quoted lines in the current article.  If you see similar issues, please describe them in detail. Superm401 - Talk 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issue 

message: I removed:
Immediately after Israel's victory, Jews living in the Arab world faced persecution and expulsion. According to historian Michael B. Oren,
mobs attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Egypt, Yeman, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco, burning synagogues and assaulting residents. A pobrom in Tripoli, Libya, left 18 Jews dead and 25 injured; the survivors were herded into detention centers. Of Egypt's 4,000 Jews, 800 were arrested, including the chief rabbis of both Cairo and Alexandria, and their property sequestered by the government. The ancient communities of Damascus and Baghdad were placed under house arrest, their leaders imprisoned and fined. A total of 7,000 Jews were expelled, many with merely a satchel.Six Days of War, pp. 306-07
because it is poorly punctuated and I have no way of verifying that it's a real quote.  If it is, someone should fix the punctuation before putting it back in, and it should probably have some more context. Superm401 - Talk 02:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what "no way of verifying that it's a real quote" means. It is just as verifiable as any quote from a book. As the footnote noted, it's from Michael Oren's book Six Days of War, pages 306-307. And what do you mean poorly punctuated? All I can see is that "Yemen" and "pogrom" were misspelled. Wouldn't the appropriate action be to correct the spelling of these two words, rather than remove the section? I'm putting the quote back in, with the corrected spelling. Gni 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I have no way of verifying that it's a real quote (since I don't happen to own this book).  I was a bit skeptical that those misspellings would be in a published book, but I don't have any problem with you putting it back in corrected. Superm401 - Talk 09:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This quote was put back into the article on November 9 already. Paul kuiper NL 18:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Displaced Jews from Arab Countries" 

message: I removed some text that said, "of particular interest is suchandsuch division."  It didn't explain why.  Also, I removed some of the text re the alleged US/British involvement, because that topic is already discussed in much more detail later in the article.Bryantheis (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Bry9000 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've cleaned it up.  Bry9000 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War in the Air section 

message: I hear of this war as the Seven-Day War as well www.varchive.org. Which is the accpeted title? 58.173.3.153 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating old article you found there, but note the date: 1948.  A different war (which, by the way, lasted a lot longer than the seven days discussed in the newspaper — see 1948 Arab-Israeli War).  This article is about the 1967 war — six days in June. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six or Seven? 

message: Yet another aspect of the war touches on the population of the captured territories: of about one million Palestinians in the West Bank, 300,000 (according to the United States Department of State[100]) fled to Jordan, where they contributed to the growing unrest. The other 600,000[101] remained
Either the first number needs to be lowered by 100k, or the second and third numbers needs to be adjusted (with proper source of course), or there needs to be some statement, perhaps in a footnote that all 3 numbers are properly sourced and 100,000 people are simply unaccounted for.  SJMNY (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Numbers 

message: Regrettably, the foolish and unnecessary edit war about the word 'pre-emptive' is going on. That the word "pre-emptive" is incorrect here has been ascertained by Bdrasin, Nickhh, Eleland, TFighterPilot, JabrH, Rookpsu, Lordjeff06, JetLover, Suladna, and myself. Nevertheless, the partisan pro-Israeli zealots keep going on. They are obviously using several sock puppets (Anonymous 84.128.101.145, for instance, made his first ever edit in Wikipedia and added in his edit summary: "stop edit warring and reverting a long-standing consensus". Quite some knowledge for someone who is completely new here!)
I`m afraid we are talking to the deliberately deaf. It is completely obvious that calling ANY war a "pre-emptive war" is unencyclopedic as this is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. On top of that, above under 1) user Rookpsu has given correct and important quotes from many Israeli leaders who have confirmed that Israel KNEW that Egypt could not and would not attack, so it is certain that the attack by Israel was simply NOT a pre-emptive war.
How can we defend Wikipedia against these gross violations of its neutrality? The suggestions of all responsible editors are welcome here, but let me make two suggestions:
1. I suggest that every time someone inserts again the words "pre-emptive war", we replace it by "war of aggression". Replacing one POV by another POV may convince some other users that it is advisable to leave BOTH out.
2. I propose that we include in the article;
a) the information that on June 5, when Israel started this war, Israel first claimed that it actually WAS attacked by Egypt, and only later on this claim was replaced by another falsehood: that Israel was forced to attack because otherwise it would have been attacked;
b) the important statements made later on by Rabin and others that Israel knew quite well that Egypt could not and would not attack Israel.
Hopefully, this way we can create some counterweight against those who are trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda leaflet for their own political views, thereby destroying Wikipedia`s neutrality. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: Not with provocative posts like this. The only thing you accomplish with comments like this is making enemies of editors who would otherwise not care. Your comment clearly violates WP:AGF. Your suggestions, if implemented, clearly violate WP:POINT. Any attempts to implement these suggestions will be reverted. Rami R 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i really hope kuiper isnt serious about intentionally edit-warring in his POV just to make the point that he feels the other edits aren't NPOV or good faith.  lets try and be civil and avoid the article-lock and much more uncivil attitude that surrounds many other politically charged articles.  SJMNY (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to defend Wikipedia agains the partisan zealots? 

message: A number of claims recently inserted into the lead have been cited to The New York Times and Le Monde. These citations are entirely inadequate - they do not list an article title, author, even a page number. Have the people inserting them actually read these articles? I note that Le Monde is a French newspaper, and that Wikipedia:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it states "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear." If these are, indeed, correct claims, please make sure to cite your actual sources for them. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, you have again inserted material using the citations "Le Monde, February, 28, 1968" and "New York Times, August 21, 1982". We need proper citations; an article title, author, page number. As Armon asked above, have you actually read these articles? Please review WP:CITE as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Paul, in addition to the issues with the material raised below by Dr. Drakken, you have yet again inserted it without even proper sourcing. Can you please provide proper sourcing? Have you, in fact, read these articles? Please respond. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CITE]] 

message: there was recently a dispute in the article with the same line alternatively reading:
US Secretary of State Dean Rusk was bitterly disappointed that Israel had started the war on 5 June as he thought he might have been able to find a diplomatic solution...
and
US Secretary of State Dean Rusk was bitterly disappointed that Israel attacked on 5 June as he thought he might have been able to find a diplomatic solution... 
rather than argue over it, why not see what Rusk actually said and put it in quotation marks to make clear that it is attributed to him?   SJMNY (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any real "dispute" over the change so far. I think it would make sense to wait to see if one develops before proposing solutions. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rusk 

message: The three sources being used to support this POV statement are misleading, used out of context, and do not actually make that statement, on top of all.
The Dayan quote, for starters, is talking about the Syrian front, and the decision taken on June 9th, when the war was already raging for 4 days. It does not at all refer to Egypt, and obviously can’t be used to support the claim that Israel  “had known all along that Egypt could not and would not have attacked Israel. “
The Begin quote is from a political speech he made in 1982, the context being a Knesset debate on the war in Lebanon. His political opponents had accused him of launching a “war of choice”, and he responded with rhetoric to the effect that other wars, when his political opponents where in charge, had also been wars of choice. We would no more use such political hyperbole to support contested facts in a historical debate than we’d use an election speech by GWB in which he compares Osama Bin Laden to Hitler, in order to support a claim in the al-qaeda article that Muslim terrorists are Nazis.
Finally, the Rabin quote, in full, refers to the situation on May 14th – prior to Nasser’s ordering the UN out, prior to his blockade of the straights (an act of war, in and of itself), and most importantly – prior to the movement of the 4th armored division into the Sinai in late May. It possible that on May 14 the opinion of the Israeli government is that war is unlikely, but that was not the situation on June 4th. Please stop trying to push your POV into the article. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i quite agree. These quotes are being used out of context, and political hyperboleis being quoted as historical fact. This is clearly not a reasonable interpretation of such material. Lobojo (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ”Israel knew all along...” 

message: Some argue that the Six Day War was not a one hundred percent preemptive attack. Israel could have built a strong defence army instead of fighting Egypt, Syria and Jorgan. If it is a preemtive attack Israel would have stopped within the first hour, after destroying the Egyption's airplanes. It also would not had occupied the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raed 5 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel, given it's industrialized economy and relatively small population, could not afford to remain mobilized for very long, your "defence" army idea is simply inconsistent with historical fact.  The idea that it could have bombed the airplanes and then just "stopped" is pretty absurd and i think thats self-explanatory.  please sign your comments.  SJMNY (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War May not be a Peemptive Attack 

message: i reverted/removed this: 
 Pakistan Air Force, considered at that time to be the only air force in the world apart from the USAF whose pilots were capable enough to combat the Israeli Air Force
its a pretty silly statement, ever hear of the soviet union? how about great britain? france? thats just three.  i have no idea where anyone would get the silly idea that the Pakistani pilots were somehow equivalent to the Americans and yet the Soviets weren't.  SJMNY (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted 

message: Not sure anyone has noticed with the volume of edits to this article, but at the current version, the timeline section doesn't read at all like a timeline. Since it would probably be complicated and counter-productive to convert the section into a timeline-like format, I suggest renaming the section to something like 'Theaters', which better reflects what the section is all about. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline section 

message: Whoever put the neutrality tag on the section on "displaced populations" would you care to explain your reasoning here on the talk page?  we can't discuss your neutrality prblems unless you tell us what they are.  i'll remove the tag in a week if nobody speaks up.  SJMNY (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i've now removed the tag because nobody had anything to say about it.  if you choose to put it back, and please don't feel that i'm stopping you, tell us WHY. thanks.  SJMNY (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality tag 

message: PedroGonnet, you reverted an edit that said the '73 war was an attempt to destroy israel and made it say an attempt to regain lost territory.  but how is that any less 'editorializing' (your word in comment) about the Arabs' war goals than avilozowick's edit that you reverted?  can one of you please post a source on the arab war goals of 1973?  
from what i've read elsewhere i remember Sadat wanting the war for domestic political reasons more than anything else, syria could most likely be said to want the territory it lost back, and hussein's jordan was essentially "dragged along for the ride" for a 2nd time 
it might be better if the sentence simply linked to the 1973 war without giving a broad "this is why it happened", let readers go there and find out, but if you indist on keeping it, cite please SJMNY (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hey Avi, i see you made an edit above, how about addressing this question to yourself and pedro about sources?  SJMNY (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '73 edits 

message: Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail this article, as it does not meet the GA Criteria at this time. More specifically, some of my concerns are as follows:
*Inline citations are missing from quite a few paragraphs and, in some cases, entire sections. This includes, but is not limited to:
**The first two paragraphs of "Suez Crisis Aftermath"
**Much of the first paragraph of "The Straits of Tiran"
**The final paragraph of "The Straits of Tiran"
**The final sentence of "Egypt and Jordan"
**The end of "The drift to war" (which currently reads as original research)
**The final paragraph of "Preliminary air attack"
**Almost everything in "Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula"
**Four paragraphs in "West Bank"
**Almost everything in "Golan Heights"
**The entire "War in the air" and "War at sea" sections
**The first, fourth, seventh and eighth paragraphs in "Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation"
**Much of "Allegations of U.S. and British combat support", including quotations
**The second paragraph of "U.S. and British non-combat support"
*The article contains four "citation needed" tags and a "specify" tag *--Datapolitical (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: So thanks to GaryColemanFan we've got a task list to work off of. I'm going to start going through and starring everything I've finished doing, and anyone else who's working on improving the article can feel free to do the same. My goal is to have this done by the end of the semester.
--Datapolitical (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to Good Article Status 

message: So I've gotten the article semi-protected for a month so we can fix this thing up without vandalism. I'm confident the edits over the past few days are bogus, so i'm gonna do a revert now. If someone feels that this is in error, please feel free to undo that, but also provide your reasoning here. Specifically in relation to the changes from US to Nato and Soviet Union to Warsaw Pact, those need clarification as there is a material difference between the two.--Datapolitical (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the changes were wrong or meaningless.  "Nato" in the 56 war is ridiculous - it would amount to Britain and France pressuring themselves;  India and Yugoslavia is correct, India and South Africa isn't, Egypt wasn't worried about anyone but Israel attacking, etc.John Z (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Since we can't use the Life Magazine image (of the soldier in the Suez Canal) found in this article: http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=387, which was removed for copyright issues, I put a link to that site in our external links section. I'd like to reference the photograph in the article itself and talk about its relevance, so any thoughts on how to do that properly (i'm thinking something on "Images of the Six-Day War" to talk about the significance of the image that headlines the article (of the three soldiers entering the Old City) and of the Life magazine cover.--Datapolitical (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on a copy-protected image 

message: This paragraph was in the article and had no source, and clearly needs one. I've been unable in about 20 minutes of searching the web and in searching the four reference books on the war I checked out from the library to find any reference to the story. I've moved the section here, so if anyone can find a source on this, put it back, but I figure it should stay on the talk page until we've got some reference to it.
:A possibly apocryphal story was going the rounds that the UK had supplied some Chieftain tanks to the IDF for evaluation. When hostilities broke out, the UK Ministry of Defense, in a panic, called Israel for assurances that the tanks would not approach the border combat zones. Back came the Israeli response, "Don't worry, we've moved the borders!" 
(there were a few spelling errors as well which I've cleaned up, and which make me just a bit more unsure about this section)--Datapolitical (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for apocryphal quote on British tanks 

message: The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was not only able, but also willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons, but perhaps not the strategic ones,[specify] and would launch an attack in 1973 in an attempt to reclaim their lost territory. [110]
The phrase "but perhaps not the strategic ones" can be considered editorializing, and since the source cited makes no reference to the claim, I removed that clause from the sentence. If anyone can find a reference directly supporting it, please add it back in. --Datapolitical (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editorializing removed 

message: I notice that the list of combatants in the info box keeps changing and I think there must be some confusion about countries and flags, etc.  The United Arab Republic split in 1961, however Egypt continued to be known by that name until 1971.  Its flag was the flag now associated with Syria.  Following the rise of the Ba'ath party in Syria, in 1963, they adopted the flag used by Iraq at the time.  So, the Arab belligerents in the 6 Six Days war are: the United Arab Republic, Syria (with the flag of Iraq), and Jordan (with the flag of Jordan).  I don't know why other involved countries were removed (e.g. Iraq and Libya), but I just wanted to raise the issue of naming. JEB90 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Belligerents 

message: I stumbled across that article. It has many problems, and it doesn't appear in the main article. What do you suggest be done about it? Should it be merged? -- Nudve (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waiting period (Six-Day War)]] 

message: Recently, an anon has been an edit warring, claiming that "100 000 Syrians fled the Golan, not 1000" (as it is currently written). He was thrice reverted, once with the "rv uncited change", which I assume means "change to sourced statements" (otherwise this is not a legitimate reason to revert).
 
My question is, whether the number is really sourced. The ref is "International Committee of the Red Cross, 1998, p. 454.". (possibly dumb question ahead, please correct if so) What is this referring to? The ICRC's 1998 international review? Or possibly the annual report? If the international review, then page 454 does not appear to have contained any meaningful information (pages 445-453, pages 455-462), and adjacent pages don't appear to contain directly relevant information either. The 1998 annual report didn't appear to contain the needed information either. Also, it is important to note that the article's text originally read "about 100,000", but was changed mid-February by an anon, without anyone taking notice.
Wikipedia's article about the Golan heights states "Between 80,000 and 109,000 of the Golan's inhabitants [...] fled or were driven out during the Six-Day War", citing Benny Morris(2001) and Report of the UN Secretary-General. 
So, given all this, I believe a slight rewrite is in order. If no one opposes, I will modify the sentence to incorporate the above sources. Rami R 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support -- Nudve (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of the Syrians who fled the Golan Heights were residents of Quneitra, a city which was handed back to Syria in 1974. DrorK (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Quneitra suggests that there were about 20,000 before 1967. This Syrian site says 60,000; while this one says 153,000. Does anyone here have an RS on exactly how many of the refugees were from Quneitra? -- Nudve (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 20,000 is apparently from britannica. Anyway, I have updated the article based with the current available reliable sources. The article can be further updated, if any new reliable sources are found. Rami R 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Syrians fled the Golan heights 

message: I think this article would benefit from a before/after map showing the territorial changes as outlined in the info box. Currently:
 Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt,
 the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan,
 and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Paulshannon (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before / After Map? 

message: I dont see how the UAE was part of the war as the country was formed in 1971. Before that it was a number of Emirates all being British protectorates with no military force other than the trucial scouts that were under British command.--81.156.165.31 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. Plus, since the articles itself has no mention of it, it should be removed. Any objections? -- Nudve (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Arab Emirates 

message: So what was the makeup of Egypt's forces in the Sinai?  From the article, there were seven divisions.  One of them was mechanized.  But the article contradicts itself on the other six.  Either it was four armored and two infantry, or vice versa...   I don't have any references, or I'd fix it myself. 70.168.46.226 (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt's forces? 

message: In my opinion, as the article and others refer to Lebanon as being neutral, showing it in the list of oponents of Israel makes no sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lususromulus (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its inclusion is just plain silly.  The other combatants listed in addition to Egypt, Jordan and Syria are presently Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya and Algeria.  Iraq is the only one which is at all reasonable to include. The others are about as silly as Lebanon. For the real but relatively minor Iraqi involvement, see Oren or Trevor Dupuy's Elusive Victory.  Iraqi planes made a raid into Israel, and Israel bombed an Iraqi airfield.  So, I changed it, with Iraq listed last and least.John Z (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually found a source that specifically states that Lebanon was not one of the countries to send troops into Israel. (Syria & Lebanon by Carter, Dunston, and Humphreys, p. 31: "Lebanon may have not sent troops to fight in the 1967 but, along with the rest of the Middle East, was profoundly affected by the conflict.") I'm going to remove them from the infobox. ← George [talk] 08:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a big deal worth edit warring over, but it is certainly not "plain silly" to include Lebanon - it sent aircraft into battle, one of which (a Hunter) was shot down over Rayak. Not major involvement, to be sure, but clearly a participant in combat action. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's definitely not a "plain silly" issue. Do you have any sources regarding Lebanon sending aircraft into Israel? Was it just a single aircraft? Do sources state that it was actually a "participant in combat action," or would it have just been used for reconnaissance? The article currently states "In addition, one out of 12 of Lebanon's Hunter fighters was shot down after entering Israeli airspace," but it's (a) unsourced, and (b) unclear if this is one of twelve total fighters that Lebanon had, or one of twelve fighters that entered Israeli airspace. ← George [talk] 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a little digging, I found this source, which seems to pretty much agree with any other sources I could find. It states: "On the morning of June 6th 1967 a Lebanese hunter was shot down by an Israeli Mirage IIICJ flown by Uri Even-Nir, near the Lebanon/Israel border." Unfortunately, none of the sources are specific about whether or not it was over Israeli or Lebanese airspace, and whether it was aggressive, or engaged in any "combat action" at the time, so we may never know the details for sure. ← George [talk] 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: here is another source for you: "During the first day of the Six Day War, a force of four Lebanese Hawker Hunter fighters ambushed 4 Israeli Mystere jets that were returning from the Golan Heights and one of the Mystere jets was brought down near the town of Nabatiye and its pilot was captured.  Israel retaliated by sending four Mirage III jets and shot down a Lebanese Air Force Hunter." . Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this sounds like quite an interesting story. Can you find anything to confirm this from a reliable source? Or even to confirm that one of the pilots was captured - that should have made some headlines for sure. Unfortunately http://www.lebaneseairforce.info/ this website] is just one person's personal account of the history of the Lebanese army, and it's not clear that that person is an expert on the subject. When they're basically saying that a published book on the subject is wrong (in the paragraph precedeing the one you quoted), we definitely need some independent confirmation. ← George [talk] 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon? 

message: Recent edits by Nierva have introduced a number of POV changes to the article, most of them cited to Quigly. The link provided does not work, and in any case, no page number is given. I am therefor removing these POV edits, and restoring previous consensus version. Please discuss any changes here, giving the exact page number in Quigly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have provided no evidence or argument to explain why the edits are POV. Page numbers should have been given; the information is not difficult to find with the aid of Google Books. The given information is drawn from pages 158-164, as far as I can tell. Some of the language is problematic; "After threatening to invade Syria" in particular does not seem to be supported by the book. The closest I can find is a public declaration by then-IDF Chief of Staff Rabin that Israel could not be secure until the Syrian government was overthrown. Much of the language was not problematic, and seems to me to be a valuable counterbalance to the sort of Abba Eban-Michael Oren melodramatic nonsense about Israel being "strangled" by the Straits closure. <eleland/talkedits> 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are a few reasons why the changes were POV. The original text had given the time-line, correctly,  as Egypt mobilizing and expelling the UNEF on May 16, as a reaction to already existing Israeli-Syrian tension, followed by Israeli mobilization on the 19th. The change  "cites" an alleged Israeli threat to occupy Syria on the 19th (which you acknowledge is not supported by the reference) as the first action. Then come numerous "rationalizations" for why the Egyptian blockade of Tiran wasn't "that bad", complete with editorializing on why this was fair and reasonable. You are welcome to your opinion that a respected historian such as Oren is engaged in "melodramatic nonsense", but just like the article does not include claims that Israel was  being "strangled" by the Straits closure, it will not include the equally nonsensical language of apologists such as Quigley who are eager to defend violations of international law. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A sufficient justification for the deletions made by the user above have not been provided. To describe in detail the decisions taken by the UAR Government concerning its territorial waters in Tiran hardly qualifies as a biased addition. What is biased is to omit important pieces of information concerning the measures taken by the UAR Government and the effects it could have had towards Israel. You are entitled to your opinion of John Quigley as an "apologist", but this should not dictate the content in this article. The motive of these deletions seem to be less concerned with abiding by Wikipedia guidelines than pushing an unattractive agenda.Nierva (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. I have described exactly why your edits were POV, and eleland agreed that your claim that Israel was threatening to occupy Syria was unsupported by your reference. The material about the utilization of the Eilat port is already in the article, there's a limit to how much space should be given to this type of apologia. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quigly 

message: FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:  . Cla68 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sources 

message: Hi. I've not read the article yet, so I'm not going to comment on the neutrality of the text.
However, having glanced at the article it seems somewhat strange to me that the only photograph of combatants is quite an "artistic" one of noble-looking IDF troops. Not only that, but it is sourced from the Israeli government's website and the description notes that its use has been widespread in Israeli media and culture: clearly it has significant sentimental/symbolic/propagandic value for the Israeli side of the conflict.
Now, I'm not saying that this means it should be removed from the article - on the contrary, it seems like a very appropriate image to include. What I find peturbing is that in the rest of the article there is not a single image of Arab troops, even though it seems from the troop numbers cited in the article that there were twice as many Arabs as Israelis involved in the conflict. To a casual observer such as myself, who knows nothing about the conflict, this gives the impression of bias to the article before I've even started reading it, though it might turn out to be completely objective military history.
Perhaps somebody with better knowledge of the subject than me (and indeed more wikipedia experience!) could find an appropriate photograph to balance this one? Davidkleinfeld (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: I have shortened this section because it is too long and incoherent. Information about when Egypt signed a treaty is irrelevant to the discussion. The section needs to get to the point.
The statements: "However, it has long been a part of state practice and customary international law that ships of all states have a right of innocent passage through territorial seas." and "This is however, contentious..." amount to original research that seek to prove a point instead of citing the views of scholars.Nierva (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While some of your points may be valid, even your most recent edit removed one side of the argument while maintaining the other, and removed the straightforward fact that Israel cited international law in its 1957 statements. I've cleaned that up for you, and as a bonus, cleaned up some copyright violations - a direct copy of entire sentences from a source, for example. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straits of Tiran