Jump to content

Talk:Six-Day War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeppiz (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 17 August 2024 (→POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeSix-Day War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 12, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 5, 2004, June 5, 2005, June 5, 2006, June 5, 2011, and June 10, 2012.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Egyptian OOB

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

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

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

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


Amendment request

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

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

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

A probable mistake

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

The Egyptian Army

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

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

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

undue

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

Peacekeeper casualty info is patchy on United Nations Truce Supervision Organization too. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sources discuss it is justification for it being in the article overall, but not a reason why it needs to be in the lead. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fact that one of the two countries started the war before the UN peacekeepers had even left the area and killed 15 UN Peacekeepers, which as far as I know had never and has never since been done by any other country in the world, is more relevant than many other sections included in the introduction. The fact that some users are so adamant into preventing this one half-sentence that is duly sourced to figure in the introduction does nothing but confirm that it is a consequential piece of information. Dan Palraz (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It provides obvious detail to the situation on the ground at the time and helps paint the picture started by the sentence before, which notes that UN peacekeepers were still in the process of pulling out from the area. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Palraz, @Dovidroth: Ahem, both of you have breached the WP:1RR limit on this page today. Dan, you have dodged a bullet, since you've already been reverted in turn, but Dovid, I suggest you self-revert ASAP. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
totally UNDUE, a very fringe element in the war's commonly reported outbreak. Tombah (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Honestly, the USS Liberty incident gets more coverage in sources that I've seen, and we don't put that in the lede either (not even as a mention the way we do that UN peacekeepers were still withdrawing). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should mention that also. Both UN and US casualties should be bare minimum in the casualties section of the lead. Both are very high casualty numbers for entirely uninvolved forces. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the procedure now? Dan Palraz (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a little time for people to express a view about it. No rush. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia?

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

You aren’t “indirectly involved” if you are sending troops. That is direct involvement. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's still indirect not direct. Most civil wars among nations have had foreign interferences and indirectly troops have been sent like the Russian civil war but does it say Russia was fighting US, The rest of Europe and Japan? No still Russian civil war. My point still stands Nlivataye (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

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

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

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

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

It should say "surprise attack", not "pre-emptive attack" because there was no imminent Egyptian attack to pre-empt 76.126.165.59 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove "pre-emptive." The source cited does not support this, and generally it seems illogical given that a paragraph or so earlier, the article states that Israel had said that if Egypt were to close the strait again, Israel would consider that a causus belli, i.e., a cause for war. Certainly the more logical interpretation of the events that followed, then is that Egypt closed the strait again, and given its knowledge of what Israel had just said about how they would interpret this as a causus belli, Egypt mobilized its army in order to defend against a presumed impending Israeli attack, which indeed did happen, just as Israel had said it would.

If you still feel this request is "against consensus," could you please cite a source to evidence that consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C895:9F01:F439:8122:4D69:CEE (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies about Lebanese involvement

This Wikipedia page on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict has conflicting information on the Lebanese involvement in the 1967 war. It sources state that "Lebanon rejected calls by other Arab governments to participate in the 1967 Six-Day War. Militarily weak in the south, Lebanon could not afford conflict with Israel."

A sentence should be added to mentioning the conflicting reports of Lebanese involvement. Stork19 (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Reference 81 links to a broken Archive.org link. The material is still partially available on Archive, but the corrected URL should be "https://archive.org/details/caseforpalestine0000quig/mode/2up". The full reference (fixing both links) would be the following source: 

Quigley, John (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. London: Duke University Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-8223-3539-9.

Curlsstars (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Not an error, just a stylistic choice that makes the map a little less intuitive. The map at the top starts with Israel in dark blue, then different shades of green, then turquoise—it is a little hard to visualize the gradual attack with such colors. I think the flow of the war could be more easily understood at a glance if, e.g. day 1 was a moderate blue, day 2 a light blue, day 3 a blue-green, day 4 a darker green, day 5 a lighter green, day 6 a lime green. This would create a chronological gradient that would make the map significantly easier to comprehend. 108.147.175.124 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or just use categorical colors and make the figure legend bigger. Terrible figure hinestly. 82.147.226.185 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli expansionist plans

Seems like there is no mention in this article of the fact that Israel had been planning expansionism into West Bank and Gaza ever since the 1948 war? This was detailed notably by Ilan Pappe, who noted that these ambitions and plans had been fulfilled in 1967 war, which goes against the traditional Zionist narrative of having found themselves in a war they "did not start". Makeandtoss (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Pappe is an extremely opinionated source unfortunately, we cannot present his views as straight facts if not significantly substantiated by other sources. In reality there was a deep debate within Israeli authorities whether the West Bank should be captured or not. ABHammad (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We cannot present his views as straight facts if not significantly substantiated by other sources." This is not true at all, Pappé is a respected scholar and a reliable source, especially for facts. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pappé is a significant voice, and per WP:NPOV, we must include all significant views. If he is truly in isolation, it can go in attributed; if he is not then it is even more due and necessary. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, also, anyway, he is not the only RS to have written about this. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-06-03/ty-article/.highlight/israel-said-67-land-conquests-werent-planned-declassified-documents-say-otherwise/0000017f-e738-df5f-a17f-fffe3ac80000 - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also now having read more of Pappe's works, there are many good points to be highlighted here: Israel's military superiority due to US weapons was a factor in winning the war, northern Israeli incitement and provocations that aimed to illicit a Syrian response in order to occupy the Golan Heights, Israeli plans to occupy the WB from Jordan in 1957, 58 and 60. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1967 ethnic cleansing

Do we have a separate WP article on that? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1967 Palestinian exodus. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Interestingly very little information there that did not even show up on a google search; also few WP links to it. Pappe has also written about the expulsions of that period which he also charachterized as ethnic cleansing. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive

Pappe disputes the preemptive narrative, and I am sure other scholars do too, so why is this stated in WP voice? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Every single picture in the article except the first one seems to revolve around Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Which pictures do you propose to add? Jeppiz (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War&oldid=1240769407"