Wikipedia

Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 8

< Talk:Six-Day War
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ling.Nut in topic 1st paragraph line still
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Numbers

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These numbers are highly illogical plus false considering that it says 1,000 israelis were killed while 23,000 arabs were killed that doesnt make since. This article is a highly israeli point of view someone needs the real story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerftwman1 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

how did you come to the conclusion that this doesn't make sense? lol... 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Analyzing specifically

Latest comment: 14 years ago53 comments10 people in discussion

Regarding this revert, which broke the 1RR as listed above. The sources for the edit are as follows:

  • An editorial in the Guardian's Comment is free section by Ron Prosor who argues that this is really the underlying problem in the I/P conflict but doesn't mention this conflict. And even if it had, this source would only be appropriate for what former Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs thinks, not for a statement of fact
  • Paper by the ITIC, a partisan think tank, which does not once mention this conflict.
  • The one RS cited, a news article in Haaretz. Now this does mention the conflict, but only when defining the Green Line as the border prior to this conflict.
  • AJC director opinion piece that does not once mention this conflict, and even if it did would only by good for the opinion of the director of the AJC
  • CFR background information on Hamas. Mentions this conflict but never makes the point that the article makes. It says that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, not that the refusal to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" is a central issue in the conflict and so obviously does not discuss that supposed central issue within the context of this conflict.

What we have here are a couple of op-eds that say this is really the most important issue in the I/P conflict. Those are synthesized together to make the statement of fact that this is true and that it is somehow relevant to this conflict. None of the sources cited discuss this supposed central issue within the context of this conflict. nableezy - 05:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is even disputed. The Arab nation's refusing to recognize Israel isn't even disputed. I suppose "Jewish state" could just be "the state". It looks like an underlying cause at the time deserves to be in. It deserves prominence in the lead as part of the background. Here are just a couple books that do that exact same thing: second line!again the second line and this is fromBarron's Educational Series. There is nothing controversial about it. It is a simple piece of history that is repeated in multiple texts (do you really want more?). So maybe remove "Jewish" and maybe move the line to another part of the lead but it is something that deserves prominence as sources do it.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
And it appears that JJG thought he was balancing a harsh line from his edit summary ("Adding additional cause for I-A conflict, sourced. I'd rather the lede stick to the bare facts of the 6-Day War but since we're on a slippery slope...". Why is that line there anyways? Wouldn't it be better lower in the lead? It could be argued that that line focuses on general concerns of the region and is too much for the lead. I think it should be in since it is related fallout but it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. IF adding that part of the background was blatantly POV then it could be said that the preceding lines were POV as well. I say keep them both but move them to appropriate parts of the lead. We could also axe both and discuss it only in the body but that should not be necessary.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
While I would agree that the refusal of some Arab countries to recognize Israel as a state is an impediment to peace in the region, that's not what this sentence talks about. It needs to be read in context. The sentence before it talks about the immediate results of the war ("At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, ... the West Bank and East Jerusalem, ... and the Golan Heights"). This sentence talks about the long term impact of those results ("The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem... are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict"). The refusal of some Arab nations to recognize Israel wasn't a result of the Six-Day War in 1967, it was a result of the foundation of Israel in 1948, and Israel's subsequent refusal to allow the Palestinian refugees to return (most neighboring Arab countries viewed thousands of foreign refugees as a drain on their own resources). However, this sentence could be improved. First, it would be good if it was preceded by a count of how many Palestinian refugees were created in 1967; if there weren't many, I wouldn't mention them in this sentence. Second, the entire end of this sentence ("...raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs") is long-winded and veering off topic, and would probably be best removed. My two cents on the matter, anyways. ← George talk 10:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly George, the occupation of Arab territory was a direct result of this conflict. It is self-evidently relevant to the topic of this conflict. The line inserted by Jiujitsuguy is both poorly sourced and wholly irrelevant to this conflict. nableezy - 13:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yo George! Unbeaten streak baby.
I was looking at the edit and modified my reasoning because I did not realize that JJG was trying on tack it onto a passage on the long term results. I agree JJGs line should not be there. However, that paragraph may need to be in the last paragraph or removed as you suggest. A line about the refusal to recognize the state could be in as the sources point to it being important background info. If we are going to discuss the results in such a fashion than surely such an important part of the background deserves some mention in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should pay closer attention before making arguments and presenting sources from publishers of books for children. That is not "such an important part of the background". The sources you provided are of low quality. Googling only gives you results for whatever it is you are already looking for. nableezy - 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono - Down with Marathon! And I don't disagree that the results should probably be the last paragraph in the lead.
Nableezy - Really not necessary to put another editor down. We're all working together towards the same goal of creating a great Encyclopedia. ← George talk 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone doubt that Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish state was the cause of the Six-Day War? Pre-war rhetoric was fill with blood-curdling chants of "itbach al-yahud" or "slaughter the Jews." This mantra was repeated over and over. Moreover, there was no "occupation" before the Six-Day War. Yet the Arabs, led by Egypt, still called for "throwing the Jews into the sea." So the question is why? why would they want to throw the Jews into the sea if there was no "occupation." the reason stems from the fact that the source of the conflict has nothing to do with the so-called "occupation" and everythingg to do the persistent Arab refusal to recognize a so-called "foreign implant" or Western dhimmi presence in the "plundered soil of Palestine." Therefore, this edit [1] is accurate and adds balance. In truth, I'd rather see the entire sentence that precededs it, The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs, removed per the concerns raised by Cptnono. Also, it constitutes WP:SYNTH. It is summary opinion that doesn't belong and it is not encyclopedic. So I propose that either my edit be allowed to remain or in the alternative, the entire aforementioned sentence be removed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can doubt that. Can you explain how it is "synthesis" to say that a result of the war, the occupation of Arab territory, remains a central issue to the conflict. A lead section is supposed to be a summary, so saying it is "summary opinion" is close to meaningless as it is quite obviously not an opinion and being a summary is what it should be. Before answering how it is "synthesis" please read WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 03:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I support Jiujitsuguy proposal. Israel is a very small country, she is not up to the task to occupy anything. She wants to live in peace, and the only reason for all wars Israel fought has been her fight for her very survival. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Full-on support for a line in the lead about this aspect of the background. It is also clear that the "occupation" stuff would be more chronologically suited later in the lead if it needs to be in. And Nableezy prefers academic sources. I provided a source by educators for people going into college to create the sources he likes. Pretty neutral also. Disregarding it is laughable. Do you want other source? Really? I simply cannot believe that this is even disputed. But if you really really want I will pull up some more. I would rather get back to my soaps though. Has anyone asked for more sources on the occupation being part of the conflict related to this conflict? No, of course not.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And thank you for this partial revert[2] Nableezy. I usually give you a hard time about pushing the occupation thing (well usually it is with Israel, but same principle) but that was right on.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course it must be balanced... what is this, Al Jazeera Arabic? Either take out all the crap or add in the sentence to show the other side. No brainer. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the removing it altogether for all the reasons previously stated but otherwise support Jiujitsuguy's proposal. Offered the following sentence to replace it: ""Besides adding to an already difficult refugee problem, the Six-Day war had far-reaching political and legal consequences." The refugee problem could be a "see also" and we could simply say that the 6 Day war had "far-reaching political and legal consequences." That would not be arguable, I think. 172.130.28.105 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
These arguments are changing too swiftly to keep up with. I opened this section about an edit that introduced text saying the following:

At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, as well as continued Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The sources for this statement are listed above. This edit presents the view that "Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state" is both a central concern in the I/P conflict today and that it is a result of the 67 war. Now you would like to cite this Arab refusal as a cause of the war, not an effect. That is a different discussion. If you want to discuss what sources say are causes for the war I suggest you at least widen your google search a bit. That is a much more complicated question than your search for a predetermined cause that led you to that fine book published by Gareth Stevens. Yes, the Arab states refused to recognize Israel. Yes, that could merit a mention, but there are many other causes for this war. To the IP, this isnt about a "side", Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" was not an outcome of this conflict, it isnt even a cause of the conflict. Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a state may be part of a cause, but, again, it is not an outcome of the conflict. You are seeking to add "balance" in the form of word counts, as in it says "occupation" once in this sentence so the same sentence must also say "Arab refusal". And on the talk page I ask that you either be more polite or log in with your account so that we can put a username to those barbs. nableezy - 05:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the topic has changed somewhat but luckily we are not bound by what your original intent was. There are tw and a half good questions here: Where does the occupation line go in the lead (if at all in the lead) and should the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a state be mentioned in the lead somewhere since it is so important to the background of the war? Would you prefer if I opened a new section and copy and pasted the responses in? I could simply make the changes as I want to but know that it might be contentious and would prefer the input first.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The "occupation line" is following a line discussing the results of the war. The occupation of Arab territory is one of those results and it is one that continues to be a, if not the, defining issue of the overall conflict. Where else would it go? nableezy - 09:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a long term result so if it stays in the lead it should go next to the other line discussing a similar long term result: "The nature and outcome of the war caused a significant realignment in the competition for power between the Arab states, brought secular nationalism into widespread disfavor among Arabs, and led to a concurrent rise in the growth and influence of Islamism in the Arab world." It may be the defining issue for you but for many others it is the bombs and people being shot. I'm not really going to debate opinions with you (I understand how strongly you feel about it).Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It is an immediate result that has had long-term impact. The line is immediately after one that talks about Israel capturing those territories. You shouldnt try to "debate opinions" with me until you have read more than what a google search told you. nableezy - 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
So you are basically saying "No you are wrong I am right" while disregarding the provided reasoning? I personally think that no matter what you are going to debate but when several editors tell you that that line is misplaced in the lead for different reasons you should consider the solutions available.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
And please reread what I said since I mad eit clear that I did not want to debate opinions with you. That is not what we are here to do.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Those reasons are spurious and the actual reason two of those editors want to remove that line is because it says occupied. The lead was crafted by many more users who reached a consensus on that version. I am not saying "no, you are wrong", I am saying you havent done enough reading to know what is right, or for that matter to know what is an "opinion" and what is well documented fact. The line is immediately following the occupation of those territories by Israel, there is not a better spot for it. nableezy - 15:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not on here much lately, and lost track of much of this discussion, but quickly reviewing some of the commentary:
  • Jiujitsuguy - Your contention is based on a shoddy foundation. Certainly (and unfortunately) there was some racism against Jews. Racism is a great rallying cry for any military campaign, regardless of if its Arab fearful of "evil Jews" or Jews fearful of "evil Arabs". However, from the Arab perspective, the establishment of Israel in 1948 constituted an immediate occupation Palestine - regardless of if the occupiers were Christian, Jew, or Martian. The fact that Palestinian refugees couldn't return to their homes following the 1948 war meant that hundreds of thousands of refugees were camped out in countries that didn't want them, and that couldn't support them. Arab aggression in 1967 was largely driven by an attempt to reclaim former Palestinian land to get rid of the refugees, less so by racism.
  • Cptnono - I agree that moving the longer-term results to later in the lead makes more sense.
  • Nableezy - I agree that this conversation getting derailed isn't useful. I agree with your original issue with JJG's edit; the discussion on the rest of this should probably spawn new discussions. But also we need to stay civil in these (often touchy) discussions. ← George talk 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
One editor believes it belongs in the first paragraph while others commenting think it should at the very least be moved and maybe even removed from the lead altogether. It should be removed from the first paragraph to start but I don;t know if it should go with the other information discussing consequences or moved into a later section.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cause versus consequence

I've been looking into Jiujitsuguy's edits. This edit formed the basis of a 48 hour ban from the article, but resulted from Jiujitsuguy's misunderstanding of the reason for the language:

"At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs."

He thought that language concerned the causes of the war, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wgfinley&diff=prev&oldid=379168895 when the reason it is there in the lede is that the military victory in the Six Day War put Israel in the role of occupier of the lands and raised the issues associated with Military occupation. This error is understandable; at first I couldn't see why adding another cause to the list would be wrong, but it is, as general Arab, or Muslim, antipathy toward Jews is a cause of the whole conflict, the Arab-Israeli Conflict rather than being specific to the Six Day War. The acquisition of large chunks of territory where Israel plays the role of military occupier, and in some cases refuses to recognize that role, is specific to the Six Day War. Fred Talk 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it understandable to think this was a cause of the war when the sentence begins: "At the war's end..."? Not that it matters. I just find it odd that there could be any misunderstanding on that point. JRHammond (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
He has a point he's trying to make, and it is a valid point that can certainly be sourced; it just doesn't belong in the lede to this article, at least not when conflated with the consequences of the war. Fred Talk 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that it was in the wrong place but I do believe it is important enough to be in the lead per the sources provided above.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the sources Jiujitsuguy cited say that recognition of Israel as a Jewish State was a cause of the Six Day War. So, it looks like WP:Synth editorializing that shouldn't be included in the article. Neither the editorial piece by Ron Prosor nor The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center article contain any mention of the Six Day War. The Council on Foreign Relations article mentions the territory that Israel occupied after the Six Day War, but contains no mention of a "Jewish state". The only mention of the Six Day War in the Haaretz article is this one: "The Palestinians recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, which Jerusalem demands, is meant to bolster Israel's position that rejects the return of Palestinian refugees to areas inside the Green Line - the border before the 1967 Six-Day War."
FYI Henry Siegman summed-up the opposing viewpoint: “The claim that Israel is the incarnation and defender of Jewish values is contradicted by its treatment of an Arab population that has now lived for over two generations under Israel's military subjugation. Israel's problem is not the Palestinian or Arab refusal to recognize it as a Jewish state. It is, rather, the increasing difficulty of Jews familiar with Jewish values to recognize it as a Jewish state.” [3] harlan (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that point is, or why the sentence doesn't belong in the lede. It isn't "conflated with the consequences of the war", it states plainly direct consequences of the war. What's the problem, exactly? JRHammond (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"None of the sources Jiujitsuguy cited say that recognition of Israel as a Jewish State was a cause of the Six Day War." sources have been presented since. It is important background information and there is no reason to omit a single line when it has recieved prominence elsewhere.Cptnono (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Uhh no. The source you gave, from a publisher of books for children, does not support the idea that the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" was a cause. The refusal to recognize Israel as a state may be a cause, but it is a cause with causes (the ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 members of the native population and the destruction of over 200 villages, ...) If you want to discuss causes for the war great, but do some reading first. Googling for a predetermined cause will not help anything. nableezy - 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It is academic. And many of those going into college are legally not children. You like academic. Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
[4][5] Just a couple that are not for "children".Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"Academic" does not mean what you apparently think it means. Those are not good sources, they arent written by established scholars in the field and they arent published by high quality presses. On top of that, they dont even say what you think they say. nableezy - 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Maybe it would be best to go to the RS noticeboard then because it makes zero sense to discount sources used in college level courses. And there are also other sources but I figured no one would actually dispute that this was part of the background. Are you sure you are not just trying to WP:WIN? Serious question. If you can honestly say you are not then we can keep on discussing it but it just seems so hard to fathom.Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I dont care about what you think, kindly keep your personal opinions about me personal. Have you not yet realized the subtle difference in the words "recognize as a Jewish state" and "recognize as a state"? Would you like me to explain it again, only this time I use smaller words? nableezy - 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've already said that I didn't mind saying state in stead of Jewish state. So is it acceptable if we drop the Jewish part and just say that they did not recognize the state?Cptnono (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the missing reversioner theory illustrates that non-recognition has always been a two-way street. Resolution 242 applied to Israel's belligerent occupation and the territorial integrity of Jordan, i.e. "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" harlan (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A major part of the background was that the neighboring states did not recognize Israel. Resolution 242 was after the war.Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
There really is no inter-temporal issue. UNGA Resolution 194(III) addressed the right of the refugees to return to their country of origin, but Israel treated them as "infiltrators". The members of the Security Council reaffirmed the Palestinian refugees' right of return, every year, right-up until the Six Day War. Then they adopted resolution 242, which still requires a just settlement for the refugees. The General Assembly, the Security Council, and the ICJ have each called upon the member states not to recognize or assist Israel in connection with on-going flagrant violations of international law. The CERD panel of experts called upon Israel to ensure that "the definition of Israel as a Jewish nation state does not result, in any systemic distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin in the enjoyment of human rights" They also urged Israel "to assure equality in the right to return to one's country and in the possession of property." See CERD/C/ISR/CO/13. harlan (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That is completely off topic though. Israel not being recognized is an important part of the background. I'm not placing blame by saying which side has done wrong so there isno need to convince me of anything.Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You of course are more than welcome to suggest that the information you are discussing needs to be addressed properly in the article but unless you have specific reasoning to assert that the recognition issue was not a prominent aspect then please stop arguing since no one appears to be arguing against what you are saying.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you raise the issue of recognition in this article, then the views of all the interested parties to the conflict have to be fairly represented. It is no secret that Israel deliberately refused to deal with the Palestinians at the Rhodes and Lausanne conferences and also refused to recognize the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan or the Arab League trustee government in Gaza. Many sources report the view that Israel is simply trying to eliminate the national rights of the Palestinian people under the guise of a peaceful solution to the Palestinian question, e.g. Neil Caplan, The Lausanne Conference, 1949: a case study in Middle East peacemaking, Moshe Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University, 1993, pages 41-42. The UN decision regarding non-recognition does not preclude Israel from complying with its international obligations and negotiating an agreed upon settlement in accordance with resolution 242. harlan (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the logic of this whole discussion. From what I understand, the suggestion is to include a statement about Arab nations' refusal to recognize Israel in the lede. What is the relevance for the Six Day War? Information not immediately relevant to the war, either a direct cause or direct consequence, should not be included in the lede. JRHammond (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious you don't follow it! :) You have been ranting about other issues. Not a big deal since it has meandered around so much. So if you take a moment to read the sources provided (I believe it is 4 right now) you will see that they link the recognition issue BEFORE the war as an important aspect of the background. It is even given prominence. So yes we can discuss the other recognition issues of course but right above, it is shown that more than 1 editor believe it deserves a line. JJG was wrong in putting it where he put it but it was the start of not a bad idea.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the fact of my stating that I don't follow the logic of the discussion makes it "obvious" that I don't follow it, logically. That's not to say I haven't been following this discussion, as you wrongly imply with your inappropriate "ranting" remark. So, if I understand you correctly, you think that the article should state that the Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state was a significant cause of the war? If that's not correct, please clarify.
Now, turning to the sources, and even setting aside the ridiculous assumption that the demand that the Arabs must accept Israel as a "Jewish state" is valid or reasonable, we find: (1) The Guardian article doesn't even discuss the '67 war, except to an oblique reference to the "reunification" of Jerusalem -- a statement assuming the validity of Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, which is rejected by the international community, as reflected in numerous UNSC resolutions stating that Israel's attempts to annex Jerusalem are null and void, having no legal basis, and in violation of international law. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[6] (2) The IICC article does not even discuss the '67 war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[7] (3) The Haaretz article does not even discuss the '67 war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[8] (4) The ACJ letter does not even discuss the '67 war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[9] (5) The CFR backgrounder mentions the '67 in the context of the international consensus that a two-state solution should be based on establishing an independent Palestinian state along the Green Line, with minor and mutually agreed upon changes. There is no further discussion beyond that of the war. Moreover, this is a backgrounder on Hamas, which did not even exist in 1967, and so its statement "Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel" is totally irrelevant. This backgrounder does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[10] So, like I said, I don't follow the logic of this entire discussion, which seems to me to be entirely moot. JRHammond (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Huh? You just brought up multiple sources that I was not even discussing so I don't follow you. The sources I brought up mention it in the first line. And for the third time: It does not need to say JEWISH state. Just state is fine.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The sources I referred to are those used by Jiujitsuguy in his edit. My observations apply whether or not "Jewish state" or just "state" is preferred. Those sources are irrelevant and don't support the assertion either way, so that's a moot point. Now, you say those aren't the sources you're referring to. Looking back, I see you cited the following: (1) Great Debates at the United Nations.[11] I presume you're referring to the sentence, "The Arabs refused to recognize Israel." But this statement is in the context of the aftermath of the war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state/state was a cause of the war. (2) Israel's quest for recognition and acceptance in Asia [12] I presume you're referring to the sentence, "While we fully appreciate the dangerous nature of the present situation, it appears to us that the fundamental difficulty that dominates any attempt to find a solution is the refusal of the Arabs to recognize Israel as a sovereign state." But again, this is in the context of "the aftermath of the Six Day War". The source does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state/state was a cause of the war. Those two are the only sources I see you've offered to support your proposition. Neither support your position, and so your proposition must be rejected. JRHammond (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the ones I presented first are better. "second line!again the second line and this is fromBarron's Educational Series." ( a few days ago) A single line stating that the nonrecognition was important to the background is good enough for the lead. I understand that you view the conflict differently and wish to dispute it but we have he sources verifying its prominence. I'm not making any claim that the Arabs are bad or anything.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
(1) Please explain the relevance of this source:[13] (2) This source presents Arab refusal to recognize Israel as background, but does not assert or support the claim that this was a cause of the '67 war: [14]. Now, if you wish merely to insert somewhere in the article that the Arab states refused to recognize Israel, I have no objection, but any such insertion should include a discussion, at least briefly, of their reasons for not doing so. JRHammond (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Both sources have it at the very beginning of their descriptions of the war. Why would we not follow suit? It is a single line that is of importance to the conflict. I could understand why you might be hesitant based on prominence (although I would disagree with you) but I don't see how you could even question the relevance. That makes no sense.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change Re: UNSC Res 242

Latest comment: 14 years ago35 comments6 people in discussion

I intend to again make this correction to the article once the protection is removed: [15]. So if anyone has any objections, please state them here. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

On another note, I have been blocked for a week for making this edit, correcting a point of fact supported by numerous authoritative sources, and User:WGFinley reverted it back to the unsourced (and demonstrably false) version. Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to create an environment in which editors can maintain and improve the quality of articles. It is a serious problem that admins see fit to "enforce" policies for the sake of enforcing policies not only with complete disregard for, but directly contrary to their clear purpose and intent. This a further issue I would like to address and find a solution to, so that those of us working in good faith to improve this article can do so. JRHammond (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I have an objection, but it's based purely on formatting matters, rather than propositional truth or lack of truth. I quickly copy/pasted your footnote to my sandbox, and it makes a pretty good start for a new, separate article on that topic... which is precisely what I believe should be done with it. It would be quite OK, in a footnote, to have one sentence and a link to the new article. In fact, I would prefer it... to anticipate possible objections that there are other sections of the notes that are big enough to swallow a small Welsh village, I would say that working together with Jiujitsuguy to trim that humongous section of notes (replacing them with 2 or 3 higher-quality ones) is definitely an item on the To Do list.• Ling.Nut 12:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I can't imagine how the Russian language version contains the word "the", although there could be some alternative formulation that means the same thing. Fred Talk 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, I hear ya. I avoided making the edit a very lengthy one in the article, but at the same time felt it was necessary to deal with an objection on sources to provided a great deal of detail demonstrating the point in the footnote. I understand it will need cleaning up, but I figured that could happen once the attempts to revert it back to the false statement have finally stopped. Your alternative suggestion of starting a new section for this is something I have no objection to, although I believe there is already a Wikipedia article on that very topic. I was trying to keep the discussion of it here brief. But I'm all for it. JRHammond (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Gonna stick to Six Day War article, myself. Hard enough to find time for even one article, much less 151. JRHammond (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but I have to return to my point: I would Oppose your addition, strictly 'cause the article is too stuffed full of factoids and long lists as it is. Too.. much.. stuff. • Ling.Nut 13:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll tidy up the references. I trust that will satisfy your objection. JRHammond (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

you have never addressed my objections above so I won't bother repeating myself like a broken record. the edit is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually, I would still be unhappy. My goals are for the article to be crisp, clean, bland, NPOV, well-written, coherent, cohesive, etc. Now, just because I'm "unhappy" doesn't mean I would engage in a revert-war. What it does mean is that at some point I would be actively engaged in searching for a cleaner approach. Until then, I would certainly let the edit stand, unless someone somehow pointed out a factual error. • Ling.Nut 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
and i have pointed out errors in the past, which were ignored. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that you removed well-sourced material on your own personal say-so and then offered a number of non-sequitur quotes that did not directly refer to the subject of your edit. If this article needs to be locked-down to protect it from confirmed editors, then we need to ask IPs to cooperate by not trying to prolong editorial conflicts on the basis of unsourced tendentious arguments. harlan (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
stop "flooding" the talk page harlan. the edit war at the 242 article is calling you. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm kinda lost in this little exchange. I don't see any objections by 174.112.83.21; perhaps they were archived? You don't have to log in, but things might be less confusing if you did. If everyone is civil and constructive, then we can have an end to the series of blocks that have been handed out to more than one editor. That wold be infinitely preferable. [OH, if any editors want to tack a snide "told you so" or "I know you are, but what am I?" or whatever on to my remarks, please resist the urge. I want the sniping to stop.]. • Ling.Nut 05:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Please state your objection, User:174.112.83.21. User:Ling.Nut, I don't understand the problem. You think the edit is not crisp? What does that mean? Not bland? What does that mean? Not NPOV? In what way? Not well-written? How not? Not coherent? How not? Not cohesive? How not? If you're going to say you object, Ling.Nut, you need to explain what that objection is, specifically, so that I can try to address your concern. JRHammond (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably too long for a footnote, and more importantly, almost certainly belongs in some article other than this one (with a link to that article here, of course). In the other article, it would presumable be body text rather than a long footnote.. • Ling.Nut 08:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So, like I said, I'll clean up the footnote. It will be short and succinct, just citing the sources without the excerpts from those sources. That will completely satisfy that objection. As for your opinion that it belongs in another article, I would direct your attention to the fact that this is not an addition to the article. It's a correction to material that already exists in the current version. That current information is false. I wish to correct the factual error. Consider the consequence that your objection could mean the current false information would remain. Is that what you want? Reconsider the basis for your objection, please. JRHammond (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've had some time to read the source (Yehuda Blum) for the opposing position. In the opinion of a non-lawyer (an important point, see later text), it marshals a compelling argument. At the same time, you seem to be marshaling a compelling (categorically different) argument using different sources. At this time, and probably on an ongoing basis, NEITHER argument can stand as Wikipedia's position. I am not a lawyer. I have no proof that you are a lawyer, and even if I did, it seems very clear that legal opinion differs. Before you claim UNDUE I'll state that this question needs a great deal of research. How many sources echo Yehuda Blum's position? Perhaps many; perhaps few. It will take a considerable amount of time to find out. Which sources are more authoritative (if any such thing actually exists)? It will take time to find out. Which sources are biased? It will take time to find out. And in the midst of all this need for research, I'd be willing to bet a dollar that neither you nor I nor any Wikipedian can ever come to a definitive answer on this legal question. We are not lawyers, and Wikipedia is not a legal document...so what's to be done? I suggest this: A single sentence saying that interpretations of 242 vary, and a link to a separate article that attempts to untangle it. These point-by-point arguments (for both sides) do not belong in THIS ARTICLE. The current body text needs to be rmv'd as well; this article should not draw conclusions and should not even marshal arguments. It should link to another article, which attempts to do that. • Ling.Nut 09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the entirety of Yehuda Blum's argument on the point:
In any event, while French was admittedly a working language of the Security Council in 1967, having regard to the legislative history of the resolution and to the fact that the French version is ambiguous on this point, the original English version must be considered as the “basic language” of the resolution.
Now, Ling.Nut, since you find this argument "compelling", kindly explain to us in what way the French version is "ambiguous" on the point in question. And then explain to us why its "ambiguousness" means that the French version is not authoritative, despite being an official language of the UN Security Council, and despite that official language having equal force under international law. JRHammond (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Your characterization of Blum is inadequate. I see weeks of time-wasting in our future, no matter which path I choose: if I don't answer your objections, you'll cry foul (unfairly); if I do, you'll spend weeks attempting to fisk them. I remain unmoved: every single word of this point-by-point argument, from both sides, should be shipped to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. It does not logically belong as part of an article on the Six-Day War (although it deserves a one-sentence mention); it is a tangled legal argument regarding the consequences. • Ling.Nut 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, I didn't characterize Blum in any way. I observed that the entirety of Blum's argument for why the French version is not authoritative is this: In any event, while French was admittedly a working language of the Security Council in 1967, having regard to the legislative history of the resolution and to the fact that the French version is ambiguous on this point, the original English version must be considered as the “basic language” of the resolution. Now, since you object to my edit on the basis that you find the argument of the former Israeli ambassador to the UN "compelling", please explain to us in what way the French version is "ambiguous". If you wish not to waste time, just kindly answer this very simple question. Your opinion about what I hypothetically might do in the future is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm asking you a question that goes to the heart of your objection, so please just answer the question.
Now, you're pitting a self-serving argument from an Israeli official as having equal authority/merit/credibility/weight as the following:
* The concept that authorized texts in multiple languages are equally authentic is well founded in international law: "When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language..." Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 [16]
* French is an official language of the United Nations and of the Security Council: "The present Charter, of which the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic...." U.N. Charter, Article 111 [17]
* "Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be both the official and the working languages of the Security Council." S/96/Rev.7, Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council [18]
* "Similar to Article 111 of the Charter of the United Nations which stipulates that 'the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic", the texts of constitutive acts of treaty-based organizations or the texts of treaties administrered by them have been signed in one or a given number of languages and such texts are considered as authentic texts." Implementation of Multilingualism in the United Nations System, Joing Inspection United, United Nations, 2003 [19]
* "[F]rom the strictly legal viewpoint, the French version of the resolution [242] carries, in every respect, just as much weight as its English counterpart." Toribio de Valdes, The Authoritativeness of the English and French Texts of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) on the Situation in the Middle East, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 311-316 [20]
* The French delegate at the U.N. Security Council meeting prior to the vote on resolution 242 observed, "We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories"." This is a statement on the record at an official UNSC meeting during the discussion on 242, which was not challenged by any other delegate, including Israel's. [21]
* U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk has acknowledged that "the French version ... is equally authentic" as the English, adding that the U.S. "never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war." "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389
* Professor Michale Lynk states in "Conceived in Law: The Legal Foundations of Resolution 242", that "Since English and French have equal and primary status at the Security Council, a legal interpretation must strive for a meaning that harmonizes any possible distinctions between the different linguistic texts of a resolution.(47) Plainly, the harmonious meaning would be the complete-withdrawal reading, which is also, as shall be argued, the only reading that is consistent with the inadmissibility principle". Footnote 47 states, "This rule derives from Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [entered into force 27 January 1980]. The Article stipulates that the terms of a treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text and, where a difference in meaning arises between the different authentic linguistic texts, 'the meaning which best reconciles the tests, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.'"[22]
* Michael C. Wood, a member of the International Law Commission, a U.N. body,[23][24] observes that draft UNSC resolutions are in the final stage "circulated as an official Council document" and "will ... exist in the six official languages of the United Nations. The draft will almost invariably have begun in English only (though drafts often record that their original langauges were French as well as English); at some point along the way they may begin to appear in French (prepared either by the French Mission or the Secretariat)." Wood observes the fact that "there are six official and working languages of the Security Council, and resolutions of the Council are adopted and published in all six. In principle, all six language versions are authentic."
* Wood notes futher that "Only the Security Council, or some body authorized to do so by the Council, may give an authentic interpretation in the true sense. As the Permanent Court said, 'it is an established principle that the right of giving an authoritative interpretation of a legal rule (le droit d'interpreter authentiquement) belongs soley to the person or body who has power to modify or suppress it'."[25], and it is a demonstrable point of fact that most UNSC members who voted on 242 interpreted as meaning that Israel must fully withdrawal from all of the territories it occupied, in accordance with the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war.[26]
Any interpretation contrary to that, in which 242 calls only for a partial and not complete withdraw fro those territories, is irreconcilable with that principle, which is clearly stated in the preamble to 242. As Lord Caradon observed, "it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the 'inadmissibility of territory by war' and that meant thatthere could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war."[27] Blum's self-serving interpretation is thus irrelevant, even if his argument that the French version is "ambiguous" had any ounce of merit, which it does not. His private interpretation is directly contradicted by peer-reviewed journal articles written by prominent authorities on international law, by authorities representing U.N. bodies, and by bodies of international law itself. Your lending of equal weight to Blum's totally baseless argument is unreasonable, and your objection on that basis must be dismissed.
The bottom line is this: The article as it currently reads states as a fact that the French version of the resolution is not authoritative. That is false. The incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. This error needs to be corrected. So, Ling.Nut, are you going to cooperate to help or hinder the correction of this error? JRHammond (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:174.112.83.21, again, please state your objection. You have this opportunity, now, to state the basis of your objection. Merely stating that you object, without explanation, is not a sufficient basis for this edit not to be implemented. Please state your objection so we may take it into consideration. Naturally, if you are unwilling to state your objection, we will not be able to consider it in making a final decision to approve/disapprove of my proposed fix. Speak now or forever hold your peace. JRHammond (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR. i'm not going to repeat myself over and over. ling has added legitimate concerns here too. and boris below. you don't have consensus for your pov change. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
and by the way, you keep repeating yourself like a broken record "please explain how the french is ambiguous". do you speak french? i guess not, because if you did, it would be crystal clear to you why "des territoires" is ambiguous and could be interpreted either way. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This material does not belong here. It belongs to the article about the specific resolution. If a short footnote is absolutely necessary, it should convey both points of view. - BorisG (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, JRHammmond's suggestion reads one-sided. There are ways to convey clearly both points of view without saying that one is correct while the other is wrong. JRHammmond's interpretation of international law in this specific case reads like original research. To avoid original research, you should only refer to statements directly about 242, not about international law in general. The approach taken by JRHammmond is to say 'Some people have argued... However, in fact...' I am not quoting directly but that is the approach adopted by JRHammmond. Please rephrase it to make it more balanced. All points of view supported by reliable sources must be presented. This is especially important for such a contentious issue where expert opinions are known to diverge. - BorisG (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:174.112.83.21, I support the request to you to concisely state your objections. You say 'above' but we cannot find them. - BorisG (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

JRHammmond, another problem with your approach is that you somehow imply that because the French version contains 'des', and is equally authoritative, it somehow means that the resolution implies 'all the territories'. But this is less than convincing. First, even if the two texts have equal standing, they do contradict each other. Second, what does 'des' really mean? This requires much more detailed analysis than can be accommodated in this article. Maybe we should avoid this altogether? There is a separate article on 242 after all. - BorisG (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:174.112.83.21 Please state your objection so it can be taken into consideration. If you're not willing to state your objection, we can't very well consider it. Also, it's not enough to claim that the French text is "ambiguous". One must demonstrate that claim has merit. You haven't done so, or even attempted to do so. So your objection on that basis has no validity. User:BorisG, nothing in my proposed fix implies a conclusive interpretation of the resolution. It merely states the fact that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. That is a fact, and the current false statement must be removed. I disagree that there is any contradiction between the two versions, but like you said, that's another issue and I'm fine with avoiding it altogether. The bottom line is that the current, unsourced, and demonstrably false statement that the French is not authoritative must be corrected. We cannot allow such a false statement to remain in the article. If other people have alternative solutions they'd like to propose, I'm all ears. Until then, I'd like to achieve a consensus on my own suggested solution. JRHammond (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate the problem and my reiterate/amend my proposed solution. The current article states: The framers of Resolution 242 recognized that some territorial adjustments were likely, and therefore deliberately[j] did not include words all or the in the official English language version of the text when referring to "territories occupied" during the war. The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English.

There a numerous problems here. The first sentence is at best misleading. It's true that territorial adjustments were expected, but this does not mean the UNSC agreed that Israel could retain some of the occupied territory. The only territory Israel was envisioned to retain was that obtained through minor and mutually agreed changes to the Green Line. The great majority of UNSC members were explicit about their intent being that Israel must fully withdraw from the territories occupied, and that this is the only valid interpretation of the resolution, since any other would be irreconcilable with the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. That the word "the" was not used was deliberate -- the U.S. was responsible for drawing up this language, and it did so because it wanted Israel to accept the resolution. Israel objected to the "the", so the U.S. pushed for its draft text, which was incorporated into Lord Caradon's draft text, which was the one finally adopted. There is nothing in the relevant documentary record (the time prior and up to the passage of 242) to support the claim that the "the" was removed because the framers intended that Israel could keep some territory, apart from what I already noted, minor and mutually agreed revisions to the final border. This should be made clearer in the wording of the article.

More importantly, the second sentence is simply false. The statement that "according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document" is demonstrably false. Under international law, the French version is equally valid and authoritative as the English. See sources and discussion provided above. For these reasons, I propose the following fixes:

(1) Remove this entire section.

(2) Revise it to read more correctly and accurately. I suggest: The framers of Resolution 242 envisioned a withdraw of Israeli forces from the occupied territories and a final settlement on borders in which minor and mutually agreed revisions to the Green Line would be made. Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, arguing that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés"), that most Security Council members were explicit that their intent in voting in favor of the resolution was to see Israel fully withdraw from the territories, and that the opposing interpretation of 242 that it allowed for Israel to keep some of the territory is irreconcilable with the preambular emphasis on "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" under international law.

I feel option (2) is better because simply taking out this section might result in certain editors trying to revert it back in. If others think option (1) is better, fine, we'll do that. A well-sourced replacement with consensus approval instead might help prevent such from occurring, though. This proposed fix is factual, well-sourced, and neutral. Please express approval or disapproval. If the latter, please explain your objection(s) so they may be taken into consideration so we may arrive at a consensus solution. Again, I'm open to alternative suggestions, but I think my proposal is at least a good place to start. JRHammond (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I still believe the above suggestion is long, one sided and contains too much speculation/research. I suggest the following: Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, pointing out that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés"). References to both arguments should also be included. - BorisG (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Length is one thing. But how is it "one sided"? I disagree. And what "speculation" is there? There is none. And "research"? Do you mean WP:OR? Nothing in my proposed change is OR. I've provided sources for every fact mentioned, there is no synthesis, and I draw no conclusions. However, that said, I like your alternative suggestion. I'm willing to use yours as our working model for the proposed change. I'll start a new section to clean this up and lessen any potential confusion. JRHammond (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

JRHammond, intention of framers is speculation, because it is not known for sure to anyone. You youself suggested above that ommission of 'the' was deliberate. If so, and if members of UNSC voted for it, then that speaks of their intentions. Anyway, if we can have a compromise, that's good. - BorisG (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Boris, it's not speculation when the framers explicitly stated their intention. I've been over this before. Yes, the compromise is good. Thanks for your cooperation. [28] JRHammond (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Current working draft proposal

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments8 people in discussion

Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, pointing out that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés").

Approve. JRHammond (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. BorisG (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very leery; basically disapprove

Grammatical aspects of the resolution have generated differing interpretations regarding whether it leaves open the possibility that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war <footnote here> <note says>The absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the English version of the resolution (and the presence of the definite article "des" in the French version), see [link to article],</note>'' • Ling.Nut 13:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I like Ling.Nut's proposal more than my own. Not only it is brief, but it also explicitly refers to the long standing (and somewhat odd) debate on the minute grammatic descrepancy. This is not so clear in either JRHammond's or my own version. I support Ling.Nut's version. - BorisG (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Strongly object. This lends an equal WP:WEIGHT to a fringe view dependent upon demonstrably false arguments. That is absolutely inappropriate. I don't think it serves to raise the issue and not briefly outline it. Might as well just not mention it at all. If it's going to be mentioned, it should be discussed at least briefly. One extra sentence doing so should not be an issue. Also, Ling.Nut, you say you are "leery", and "basically disapprove", but offer no explanation. Please do so. If I understand your reasons I can take them into consideration, but I can't very well do so when you don't explain your leeriness and objection. JRHammond (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe that WP:YESPOV requires that the majority and minority viewpoints be clearly identified in this case. The current version of the article cites remarks that were reportedly made by Gordan Brown to the Jerusalem Post in 1970 regarding "phrasing" of the resolution. I would recommend we substitute a more relevant quote that has already been discussed here and at WP:RSN. Brown addresses the negotiations; the meaning of the resolution; the authenticity of the French version; and the scope of any territorial revisions:

It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn't they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later. See Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209 [29]

Article 13 of the UN Charter tasks the General Assembly with promoting the progressive codification of international law. It adopted GA resolution 686 (VII), "Ways And Means For Making The Evidence Of Customary International Law More Readily Available" It mandated that a répertoire of the practice of UN organs be prepared under the supervision of the Secretariat of the United Nations. The official 'Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council' [30] contains an analytical table of Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968 which says that the preamble of resolution 242 contains two substantial measures that govern the final settlement.[31] See for example on page 5:
  • "IV Measures for Settlement"
    • "A." Call for compliance with principles and purposes of the Charter
      • Situation in the Middle East(II)
        • Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble, para 1(ii), second part para 2(c)"
    • "E. Provisions bearing on issues of substance including terms of settlement"
      • "1. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement"
        • "(a) Inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war,
          • Situation in the Middle East(II):
            • Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble"
Paragraph 3 of the Summary Legal Position of the State of Israel in the ICJ Wall case recited Blum's theory that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable in the Palestinian Territory because Israel did not recognize Jordanian sovereignty. See Annex 1 [32] The Judges unanimously disagreed (15-0) and said the Geneva Conventions apply. 14-0 joined in the majority opinion which cited the Charter prohibition against the threat or use of force, and its corollary in customary international law regarding the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. harlan (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what Harlan is talking about. But to JRHammond, I would quote from WP:YESPOV: An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. and It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. Arguably, it is at least a significant minority's view that lack of 'the' in the English version is deliberate and that this version has more authority. You may not like Wikipedia policies on this, but you've got to follow them. You know, certain authors assert that the earth is flat []... but some recent studies dispute this []. Welcome to Wikipedia :) - BorisG (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose any wording that definitively suggests that the French wording unambiguously states Israel should withdraw from all territories. The wording "des territoires occupes" is ambiguous and anyone with knowledge of the French language should understand this. JRHammond continues to ignore arguments against his edit that he cannot refute. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think my wording still needs trimming a bit. But here, JR, is my objection: I want to encapsulate this article. I want to ship all peripheral controversies to the place where they logically belong (in more literal terms, to a different Wikipedia article). This article is a huge mess and we have spent more time arguing over details than is warranted. This entire controversy about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 is (gasp!) completely irrelevant to this article, which is about the Six-day War, and is NOT about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. I suggest that this article take NO SIDES in the controversy. I furthermore suggest that all point-counterpoint argument on this controversy be deported. I suggest we have one and only one excruciatingly neutral sentence, and a nice pretty blue link to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in the body text (not necessarily in a footnote). • Ling.Nut 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
BorisG, you may not like Wikipedia policies, but you've got to follow them. My point precisely. According to WP:YESPOV, the POVs should be presented "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." The Israeli argument that the absence of the definite article means it could keep some of the territory is a fringe view rejected by a majority of authoritative sources -- including the only true authoritative sources regarding interpretation of UNSC resolutions, the majority of UNSC members (see my response to anon IP guy below). Hence my objection to Ling.Nut's version, which affords the ludicrous Israeli POV equal weight. The minority view should be expressed as the minority view. Also, to even regard this as a viewpoint is to lend more credibility to it than it affords, because this really is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, and the fact is that 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied during the war. The fact is also that the French version is equally authoritative (see discussion above). This facts cannot be credibly disputed. They are incontrovertible. The fact is that there's a minority position that rejects the UNSC's own interpretation of its own resolution. Now if people want to take that seriously, okay, I'm willing to compromise and agree to it being represented in the article. But it must comply with WP:WEIGHT and WP:YESPOV. On that basis, I oppose Ling.Nut's proposal. In fact, even the compromise proposed rewording is extremely generous to the Israeli POV. That was an extremely generous compromise for the fringe view. But at least it outlines the situation accurately, even if only extremely briefly and insufficiently. Anyone unfamiliar with the issues who read Ling.Nut's version would be no closer to understanding the situation. And footnotes are for sources and addendum. Its not appropriate to put an explanatory note in the footnote, as it belongs in the body itself. People shouldn't have to go to the footnotes in order to understand a statement made in the article. If this information is going to be included, it should be included in the body. If it isn't worthy of inclusion in the body, then just omit the whole discussion altogether. That would be a preferable solution. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous IP Guy, you offer no explanation of how "des territoires occupes" is ambiguous on the point in question. Merely saying so does not make it so. Moreover, your argument that "anyone with knowledge of the French language should understand" that this is ambiguous falls flat on its face. To demonstrate your fallacy, one need only observe the fact that Armand Berard, the French representative at the U.N. at the time of 242's adoption -- who speaks French, by the way -- stated explicitly: "We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories"."
Furthermore, as already noted, "Only the Security Council, or some body authorized to do so by the Council, may give an authentic interpretation in the true sense." (Michael C. Wood)[33] Again, most UNSC members stated explicitly their view that the resolution called for a complete withdrawal, and that any other interpretation was irreconcilable with the emphasized principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war.[34] Your objection, being baseless, is dismissed. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, you are being most unreasonable. You proposed the above for Six Day War, not for the Resolution 242 article. WP:WEIGHT and WP:YESPOV apply to this Six Day War article, and you cannot argue that the policy doesn't apply here. My objection stands. Your version does not comply with Wikipedia policy in this regard, because it affords equal eight to a fringe view. JRHammond (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Ling.Nut, your objection that "peripheral controversies" shouldn't be referred to in this article is unreasonable. This is why Wikipedia articles link to each other. Shall we not mention the Suez Crisis, for instance, because it is a "peripheral controversy"? And who decides what is "peripheral" and what is not? Who decides what is "controversy" and what is not? To your further objection that the whole discussion is irrelevant because the article is about the '67 war and not 242, I would observe that 242 was a direct consequence of the war. You favor including discussion of other consequences of the war, so I see no grounds for dismissal of this one on that basis. However, as I've said repeatedly, not discussing it at all would be preferable to granting the fringe view equal weight, so I'm all for simply removing this whole bit. My only reservation about that is that not having something about it might mean people trying to revert to include it again, including inclusion of the false statement currently existing in the article. Having something there, at least a brief discussion, would help to prevent that. JRHammond (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, you argued that the whole discussion was, quote, "completely irrelevant". So I'm not sure how I was supposed to interpret that as being an argument favoring its inclusion. Now, I completely agree with you that a fuller discussion of 242 belongs with the 242 article. However, we are talking here about two sentences. The compromise version proposed by User:BorisG is two sentences. Your own counter-proposal is precisely two sentences (with one relegated to a footnote). So I hardly think your objection on those grounds warrants serious consideration. JRHammond (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I move that the "edit protected" template be used to correct article, replacing the current falsehood with User:BorisG's compromise solution: Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, pointing out that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés").

Summing up any objections raised to this fix: (a) Ling.Nut is worried about length and relevancy, noting that there exists an article dedicated to the topic of UNSC Res 242. However, the proposed fix is not long, a mere two sentences, and the resolution as a direct consequence of the Six Day War is perfectly relevant, so I fail to see any problem on either basis here. The fact that an article on 242 exists does not mean it cannot/should not be noted briefly here, any more than the fact there is an article on the Suez Crisis means no mention should be made of that war in the Six Day War article. (b) Anonymous IP objected on the basis that the French version is "ambiguous". This is that editor's own private opinion, and has no basis. As I observed, the French delegate to the UNSC himself stated explicitly that the French version is unambiguous in its wording. The UN documentary record trumps Anonymous IP as a source. The current false information should not be permitted to remain in the article any longer. The above fix is perfectly reasonable (factually correct, neutral, and brief), and I maintain that all raised objections to it have been satisfactorily addressed. Without further objection, I will employ the template to have it fixed. JRHammond (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

JRH, the fact that you reject all other opinions does not constitute consensus. Ling.nut is actually right, the resolution is relevant but the controversy not so much. You seem to be missing this point. The controversy is discussed in detail in the article on the resolution, along with many other details of the resolution which we, rightly, omit here. I am sorry but your references to one POV as being fringe or ludicrous reveal your strong bias towards one particular POV. This is wrong and you probably should not be editing this article at all. But this is not for me to judge, of course. Anyway, here is a neutral account from a very authoritative book The United Nations Security Council and war: the evolution of thought and Practice since 1945: Resolulion 242 asserted the non-admissibility of the acquisition or territory through force, and stipulated that Israel should ultimately return 'territories' occupied through the course of the 1967 conflict. Famously, the English language version of Resolution 242 did not specify that Israel should return 'the' territories, though the French language version does - the formulation 'the territories' was understood by Israel to constitute too precise a reference to all of the land east or the 1967 ceasefire line. The French language version is used to support a broad interpretation of Resolution 242, particularly by Arab states, such that Israel is required by Resolution 242 to return all of the lands seized during the 1967 war to gain peace and recognition. This interpretation, however, is at odds with the account of Lord Caradon who made it dear that the definitive article 'the' was deliberately excised from the resolution to gain consensus within the Security Council. The Soviets accepted the resolution, stating in their vote that they did so on the basis of the interpretation that the reference to 'territories' encompassed all the territories gained in 1967, an interpretation explicitly rejected by the US and the UK in their vote. Rarely has a definite article been of such import in international politics. By the way I do not understand your concern that if we leave it out, someone will insert the old verison back in (with the definite article even in the Russian language, where there are no articles:). But by the same token, what stops them from replacing your new text with the old one? Maybe there are some protections I am not aware of? - BorisG (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:BorisG, I would observe that you are here objecting to the implementation of wording that you yourself proposed and that you yourself have already approved. Now, dismissing your ad hominem arguments, your argument here rests on the basis that the interpretation of 242 "that Israel is required ... to return all of the lands seized during the 1967 war" "is at odds with the account of Lord Caradon". That is demonstrably false. Lord Caradon has never taken up the position that the absence of the definite article meant that Israel could retain some of the territories occupied (and the source doesn't actually demonstrate anything to the contrary, inasmuch as assertions are distinct from facts). Caradon has said the "the" was deliberately not included. That is true. I'll grant your source that. But Caradon has never stipulated that this decision meant that Israel could retain territories. On the contrary, Caradon's view was that "it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the 'inadmissibility of territory by war' and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war". In fact, according to the then Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Gideon Rafael, Lord Caradon actually tried to insert the definite article "the" before "territories", but Israelis and Americans rejected this wording. It was not Caradon's view that the absence of the definite article meant Israel could annex some of the territory occupied, but only that there might be a final settlement on borders that involved minor and mutually beneficial revisions to the 1949 armistice lines.[35] The foundational premise of your argument here is demonstrably false.
However, I would be satisfied, may it please you, to simply remove the text in question, without replacing it. Whereas you've expressed approval for this already, and whereas Ling.Nut has expressed that the entire thing is "completely irrelevant" anyways and repeatedly expressed his desire to keep the article brief, bland, etc., etc., and whereas no other editors have objected to this secondarily proposed solution, and whereas the current wording contains a false statement, I will move to have it removed, rather than replaced. Any replacement text can continue to be discussed if others wish, but there's no sense permitting false and misleading information to remain in the article in the meantime. JRHammond (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete ok with me. And my version is ok with me as well. But delete is preferred. - BorisG (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

Currently the Six Day War article, under the "Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation" section, states: The framers of Resolution 242 recognized that some territorial adjustments were likely, and therefore deliberately[j] did not include words all or the in the official English language version of the text when referring to "territories occupied" during the war. The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English.

The claim that the French version of the text of UNSC Resolution 242 is not authoritative is false. French is an official and working language of the U.N. Security Council, and French texts of resolutions are equally authoritative as English texts of resolutions. This is an incontrovertible point of fact under international law.[36] The option of replacing these two sentences has been discussed, but disagreement over the replacement wording remains.[37][38] Whereas the assertion here is false, and whereas even those who might inexplicably deny the fact that this assertion is false must concede that there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy (to say the least) and that it is contested and has no consensus approval to remain, I move for it's immediate removal from the article, either permanently, or until a suitable replacement wording can be agreed upon. This is the only reasonable course of action at this point to further the goal of improving the article. JRHammond (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is very messy (m:The Wrong Version), I don't see a clean consensus (feel free to discuss here and re-add the tag if there are no objections etc). I think it is best to wait until unprotection.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I wish for the matter of false information being included in the article to be taken seriously. A link to a joke neither demonstrates a serious desire on the part of User:Commander Keane to address and help resolve the problem, nor constitutes reasonable grounds not to grant the request. Moreover, the explanation for not implementing the fix on the grounds that said admin doesn't "see a clean consensus" is all the grounds necessary to remove the disputed material until such a consensus can be arrived at on an alternative wording. This is the only reasonable solution to the problem. Moreover, as a point in fact, nobody has actually ever objected to simply removing this material, so that's a moot point anyway. I request that the next admin to consider this take it more seriously or relegate the task to someone else who can do so. JRHammond (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotes about the attempts to add or remove the word "the" detract from the reality that US Ambassador Goldberg attempted to remove the withdrawal clause altogether. He circulated drafts for the use of the non-permanent members with the clause removed. [39] Within a matter of days, all of the proposed drafts once again contained the restored clause, and Goldberg was instructed to make a statement to the Security Council on behalf of the US government that the text of the resolution would not prejudice the position of those directly concerned. See the verbatim minutes of the Security Council, para 190, page 22: [40] and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 521, para 5 & 6 [41]
In the Georgetown University Symposium ‘UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, 1981, Caradon provided his views on the meaning of the policy regarding the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war. In section 2. He wrote

At the same time scores of Israeli settlements have already been established on the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan. The process of colonisation of Arab lands goes rapidly ahead in disregard of objections from nearly every Government in the world, including' even the American Government. These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242. They constitute an open rejection of the policy so widely supported in 1967. They are in effect an endeavour to annex all the Arab lands of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in an expanded Israel, and to condemn the Palestinian people to permanent subjection or exile.

In Section 3 (b) he wrote

"But it is very necessary to remember that when we drew up Resolution 242 we all took it for granted that the occupied territory would be restored to Jordan. I give my testimony that everyone, including the Arabs, so assumed."

Abba Eban claimed that Caradon's memory must be defective. Caradon was given the right of reply, and he wrote an additional chapter on the subject. The Israeli MFA and CAMERA cherry-pick quotes from the symposium, but do not include the two mentioned above.
The Security Council is required to adopt decisions in accordance with the Charter and international law and to report on its decisions in order to make the sources of customary international law more accessible. I provided a cite above to the legal analysis of the decisions contained in the resolution from the Repertoire Of The Practice Of The Security Council. It explains that the decision on inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is a substantial measure that the Security Council included to govern the negotiated settlement. harlan (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  Not done for now: Ihave disabled the request again. JRHammond: sorry, but by my reading of the discussion, your proposed wording is not currently supported by a broad consensus of the editors involved with this article. Please continue to discuss and reach a compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The stated reason for rejecting my proposed edit was "your proposed wording is not currently supported by a broad consensus of the editors". Let me be clear: I did not employ the "editprotected" template to have the wording changed. Once again, I'll copy/paste from my first request, which I hope will finally be taken seriously by an admin who cares to actually take the time to understand (a) what the problem is and (b) what the edit is that I am requesting. Really, is that too much to ask?

Currently the Six Day War article, under the "Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation" section, states: The framers of Resolution 242 recognized that some territorial adjustments were likely, and therefore deliberately[j] did not include words all or the in the official English language version of the text when referring to "territories occupied" during the war. The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English.
The claim that the French version of the text of UNSC Resolution 242 is not authoritative is false. French is an official and working language of the U.N. Security Council, and French texts of resolutions are equally authoritative as English texts of resolutions. This is an incontrovertible point of fact under international law.[42] The option of replacing these two sentences has been discussed, but disagreement over the replacement wording remains.[43][44] Whereas the assertion here is false, and whereas even those who might inexplicably deny the fact that this assertion is false must concede that there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy (to say the least) and that it is contested and has no consensus approval to remain, I move for it's immediate removal from the article, either permanently, or until a suitable replacement wording can be agreed upon. This is the only reasonable course of action at this point to further the goal of improving the article.

I request that the next admin who considers my request actually understand my request and actually address my concern. Again, is that too much to ask? Look, if you can't even take the time to do that, then relegate the task to another admin who is willing to do so. JRHammond (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your request to remove some text seems reasonable, as I can see agreement for removal in the conversation above. Please quote exactly the words you want removed. The two sentenced quoted above, or just the last one? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You see agreement? Where? • Ling.Nut 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to BorisG's last comment immediately above this section. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Boris seems to have changed his mind repeatedly. I want one neutral sentence a and a wikilink. He agreed to that, earlier. Plus I did not say the topic was irrelevant, I said arguments about the topic are irrelevant. • Ling.Nut 00:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Amatulic, both sentences. The first implies that the UNSC deliberately did not include the word "the" in the text because it intended that Israel should keep some of the land it conquered, which is completely untrue. It doesn't state that conclusion explicitly, but is used in conjunction with the second sentence containing the false statement to lead readers to that conclusion. As the first sentence is misleading and the second false, they need to be removed. Ling.Nut seems to wish nothing be done until a consensus can be achieved on a replacement. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to wait until a consensus can be found on a replacement text for false and misleading information to be removed from the article. Let the discussion here continue, but let not the article continue to offer readers false and misleading information. We will continue to discuss whether/how to include Resolution 242 in the discussion. In the meantime, please remove both sentences of text that do not comply with Wikipedia policies and standards that exist precisely to prevent false and misleading text such as this from appearing in articles. JRHammond (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. The two sentences are gone. I see no issue removing contentious material when the parties concerned agree that the material should eventually be replaced with something more neutral. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Amatulic. JRHammond (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That was probably a bad move, Amatulic. How much time did you spend familiarizing yourself with these threads? The odds that JR will accept the insertion of a neutral sentence are vanishingly small; now we will need to spend weeks arguing about it. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 01:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, an ad hominem argument. Superb! And yet, because of Amatulic's action, false and misleading information has been removed from the article. What, pray tell, Ling.Nut, is "probably" "bad" about not having false and misleading information -- information you yourself have agreed needs replacing -- in the article? I congratulate Amatulic again on choosing the most reasonable course of action. Now, Ling, as I've requested with you repeatedly, please try to refrain from employing ad hominem arguments. In response to your suggestion I won't support a "neutral" sentence, I would observe that your proposal affords the demonstrably false, marginal, fringe view, which is not taken seriously among authoritative legal scholars, that 242 permitted Israel to retain some of the territory it conquered by war (the Zionist, pro-occupation argument) equal weight as the authoritative position of the UN Security Council itself that 242 called for a full withdraw in accordance with the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war (the international consensus argument). And that's what you call "neutral". I rest my case. JRHammond (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I would further observe that I made an enormous concession to BorisG in accepting his proposed solution, despite the fact that even that solution still lends undue weight to the illegitimate fringe view, and yet further that you have not elucidated on any serious objection to BorisG's proposed solution, which I have already expressed approval of. So who is the one preventing an alternative from being implmented? Who is the one who will drag this on for weeks? Certainly not I, as evident by the actual facts and circumstances of this discussion. So again, spare me your vain ad hominem remarks, and spare my your hypocrisy, as well. JRHammond (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I spent enough time familiarizing myself to know that all sides in this dispute, including JRHammond, agree that a neutral statement should be substituted with the ones I removed. Please remember to assume good faith. The edit request below this section, however, I can't see fulfilling, and I recommend it be withdrawn. That edit request started a long debate. Instead, edit requests should appear at the end of a debate after consensus has been reached. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Amatulic, you just recommended my other request be withdrawn on the basis that it "started a long debate". You are mistaken. You will please observe that in that section I pointed to two separate problems with two separate solutions. While there has been some debate under point (2), you will please observe that despite my repeated requests for comment and stated intent to request the edit be implemented, there have been precisely zero objections to my proposed fix for point (1), which is the one I put in the "editprotected" request for. Please take a moment to reexamine. Thanks very much! JRHammond (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Proper usage of the editprotected template

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

JRHammond: You state, I will carry on as I've indicated and apply the "editprotected" template to have my proposed solution implemented.

Stop right there. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the editprotected template. Here is how it's supposed to work:

  1. Propose an edit to the community here (not to an administrator via editprotected)
  2. Present your rationale, and request input from others to modify your proposed text.
  3. Other editors give you feedback, perhaps suggesting their own alternatives.
  4. Eventually a consensus is reached. If no consensus is reached, stop here or go back to step 1.
  5. Only then is it appropriate to place an editprotected tag on the page, with the consensus version proposed.

You're doing it backwards. It isn't surprising that administrators have been declining these requests. I granted one, to remove some text, because I did see agreement on that point, even though the procedure I outlined above wasn't followed.

The misuse of the editprotected tag is disruptive, making it look like an attempt to shop for an admin to railroad changes past the article protection. Well, here I am. You all have me now, and you'll find me more sympathetic to the requests if you use the editprotected template properly. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In both cases where I've employed the editprotected template, I:
# Proposed an edit to the community
# Presented my rationale, and requested input from others
# Received feedback or met no objections
# Reached agreement on my proposed fix or was met with no objections
So I fail to see what the problem is. I'm using the tag precisely as it was intended, as you yourself just outlined. And, as I said, I will continue to employ the tag as it was intended to be used. JRHammond (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the last time you employed it, you proposed two changes, one of which generated a huge debate. That wasn't the right way to go about it. Perhaps separating the proposed changes into different sections would have helped. Furthermore, this isn't a government organization where "non-response equals concurrence" is assumed. No administrator is going to implement a change in a protected contentious article without seeing positive evidence of consensus. That's why your last editprotected request was denied.
If you proposed these changes before, they could easily have been missed amid the megabytes of other text generated on this talk page. Wikipedia consists of a bunch of volunteers who may or may not check in every day — including me.
I suggest proposing a specific change, without an editprotected request, in its own section, with a brief rationale, and then wait a week or so for others to comment. I'll be watching for a clear consensus to emerge supporting the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, there were two separate points in that section, point (1) and point (2), both clearly marked. The change I employed the template for (point (1)) generated NO debate. There were precisely ZERO objections to my proposed fix. I don't know how it was in any way unclear that the request was for (1) and not (2). As I already observed, I used the template properly, and will continue to do so as I feel necessary. I'll also heed your suggestion. I'll wait until 9/6 and if it remains the case that there are no objections, I'll reactivate the template then. JRHammond (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
JRH - you can't post something for a couple of hours or days even and assume there are no objections. People have lives, they're not on WP every day. The article is locked because of this mindset that leads to edit warring. Proposed changes to a protected page should be up there days if not weeks for people to give their input. They're not being allowed to give any input. You keep stating there were no objections, you're missing the point, there's NO SUPPORT.
You have over 100 edits to this talk page since coming back from your block for edit warring on this article. This page previously had some discussion among various editors that was making some progress - you have drowned it out with a deluge of proposed changes with no discussion with anyone else -- that's disruptive and tendentious (I really wish you woud read that essay, it's clear you haven't). Your continued biting tone is disruptive and your refusal to respect any differences of opinion is disruptive. Basically at this point it seems to me with the deluge of material you've posted they've thrown their arms up and walked away saying "to hell with trying to work with this guy". That's unfortunate and it's not going to continue. I'm begging you, please try to work with other people and be productive and represent your bias while allowing others to have theirs. We all have bias, we're human, it doesn't mean you can't try to work together. --WGFinley (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
WGFinley, it's an uncontroversial fix. If it was even the least bit controversial, it might make sense to wait weeks. But it's not. There's no reason to wait to implement the fix. You certainly haven't presented one. JRHammond (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You see, WGFinley, that's the response you get if you try to be rational. Clearly, as I said earlier, JRH wants to be the last man standing, and, as you said, won't accept ANY reasoning. But hey, what would you expect from a man who believes The Partition Plan had no legal effect, and cites Norman Finkelstein as some kind of authority. I give up. - BorisG (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have an objection, state it. Setting aside your ad hominem argumentation, as for UNGA resolution 181, (1) it was a recommendation; (2) UNGA resolutions are not legally binding; (3) The U.N. has no authority to take land from one people and give it to another against their express will; (4) Israel came into existence not on November 29, 1947, but on May 14, 1948. Those are the facts. JRHammond (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
JRHammond, I am gratified that you have agreed to follow the procedure I outlined, but you seem to have missed an important point that I can't stress strongly enough: Any editprotect requests will be denied without evidence of support. The absence of responses, positive or negative, does not constitute support.. You won't find an administrator on Wikipedia who will agree to a request to edit a contentious article without clear positive evidence of consensus. Is that clear enough?
By all means, make your proposed changes to the community here, and post editprotected requests only for those changes that have achieved consensus support. That's the only way it will work. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an uncontroversial edit that still has not received even one objection. Seriously, if anyone can give me even a single reason why not to make this fix, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's see the fix made. Please. This is becoming increasingly ridiculous. JRHammond (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought my last message was clear, but I guess I need to state it again: Lack of objections doesn't equate to support. Especially after only a couple of days.
While a contentious article such as this is fully protected no administrator will agree to make changes unless the proposal has support from the involved editors. Your sole assertion isn't sufficient; I need to see others agree that the change isn't controversial. Until that happens, neither I nor any other admin will change the article.
To facilitate this further, I ask other editors involved here to break silence regarding JRHammond's uncontested proposal #1 in the section above. Support or oppose? Tell me, and we can move on from there. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought my last message was clear, but I guess I need to state it again: "It's an uncontroversial edit that still has not received even one objection. Seriously, if anyone can give me even a single reason why not to make this fix, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's see the fix made." Thanks for the call to action. But if you or I request editors to respond, and nobody does, it is completely unreasonable not to implement such a benign edit as this on that basis. If there are no objections, I expect the correction to be made to the article. That is perfectly reasonable. JRHammond (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which one? There are usually several. • Ling.Nut 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The one in the section titled Suez Crisis aftermath above. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • There's a pattern to these requests. There's disagreement about whether UN Res. 242, agonized about at length about, leaves any wiggle room for Israel to retain territory acquired after the 6-day war. JR either wants either a version that legitimizes his position (i.e., there is no legal wiggle room for Israel retaining any territory at all), or he wants the topic expunged. He emphatically does not want verbiage that scrupulously takes no sides... Now, here's the real problem: it is a deep matter for diplomatic and international lawyers to wrangle over. I think the debate must be mentioned, but I don't think this article should have even a whiff of text taking sides. I think that debate should be exported to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 article. I'm well aware that, in all likelihood, that article will subsequently be carpet-bombed by POV-laden edit wars and talk-page flooding, but I cannot monitor every forum and article on Wikipedia. [I'm barely able to follow this one.] In the passage we are now looking at, the text currently states "...prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel". JR objects to anything that suggests or even sniffs of culpability from any quarter of the Arab world; he wants that culpability expunged. This matter may be more amenable to simple Wikipedia-style "research & report" than the first – or it may not. Whether it is or isn't, here's the problem: researching it will take time. Plenty of time. I have no time. I'm not supposed to be editing at all this week. I'm supposed to be busy in real life, but I have been editing one article because it tugged my heartstrings and I wanted to get it on the main page as a DYK. SO (there's a point to all this): Let's assume I say, "OK, that sorta looks neutral, go ahead". Let's further assume that 2 or 3 weeks from now I do some research and find problems with the edit. What will happen if I try to change it? JR will rest upon the air of credibility and of [[WP:CONSENSUS] that this admin-mediated thread lends to his version, delete any changes I might make, then spend weeks tying me up in wrangling arguments on this talk page. My problem, then, in the case of this second request, is not whether or not I know it to be correct or incorrect. My problem is the air of authority this thread would lend to the changes if they were made. Done. • Ling.Nut 02:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • There is no "air of authority" to this thread. There is simply an attempt to establish consensus or non-consensus. You can vote "conditional support" and change it any time, and if you find a good rationale for changing it later, you must get consensus for the change just like anyone else. JR is but one voice here. I'm going to assume good faith that JR should know enough to address the merits of an argument rather than rely on some perceived authoritative air from a meta-discussion about consensus. If you don't feel comfortable expressing support for a change because you aren't comfortable with your knowledge, that's a perfectly valid statement to make too. The point is, we now have a large amount of text devoted to a change that nobody has objected to, and nobody has supported. There is an opportunity to get one point over with, and all it takes is a response from the involved editors: support, oppose, not right now, whatever. Any response on that particular proposed edit is better than none at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a pattern to your responses, which is that you never address the issue. The proposed edit for which I employed the "editprotected" template has nothing to do with UN Res 242. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Kindly address the issue and refrain from ad hominem argumentation. It's unproductive, to say the least. JRHammond (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't address he issue because I haven't had time to research it... as for "let's settle this point (Amatulic, above): Forest for the trees. This whole point-by-point 10,000 word debate approach smacks of W:GAME at worst, and at best ensures no real progress. It needs to be scrapped in favor of editing an entire section at a time. • Ling.Nut 04:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a perfectly valid response, and a count against a consensus to support, as I see it.
Regarding the "individual tress vs forest" approach, that wasn't the intent here. If a procedure for making changes can be established and followed, then my hope was that the changes proposed would move away from "gaming the protection", gravitate from niggling details to more substantive and meaningful proposals. That said, however, I have seen progress made on a point-by-point basis in other articles. Over at Intelligent Design, for example, just about every. single. word. in that article has a debate associated with it. And eventually, through all that, it became a featured article. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

operation dawn

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Operation Dawn (1967) should be mentioned in the article.--58.8.110.113 (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) If you think not please explain why. this is what i feel.

I have no objection to it being mentioned, but the weight afforded to it should reflect the weight afforded to it in the body of scholarship literature on the Six Day War. As Norman Finkelstein has observed, "even mainstream American and Israeli historians crediting Operation Dawn typically consign it to a footnote or a phrase".[45] JRHammond (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Dawn is mentioned in section Six-Day_War#Diplomacy_and_intelligence_assessments, although not by name. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

( Listien People ) Norman Finkelstein is not an authority. Michael Oren in his Six Days of War dedicated many pages to this operation Down (Fajr).--58.8.110.113 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem argument. Finkelstein is an impeccable scholar and this comes from a peer-reviewed journal. Since you mention Oren, allow me to provide the full passage from Finkelstein:
A major thrust of Oren's account suggests that Israel launched its strike in the face of an imminent and overwhelming Arab attack. Basing himself on a few self-serving postwar Egyptian memoirs, Oren gives over many pages to Operation Dawn, a preemptive strike allegedly planned for near the end of May by Nasser's powerful defense minister, 'Abd al-Hakim 'Amer, and said to be abruptly aborted by Nasser. Yet, even mainstream American and Israeli historians crediting Operation Dawn typically consign it to a footnote or a phrase, whereas Oren, citing the same Egyptian memoirs, turns this ephemeral and inconsequential alleged episode into a centerpiece of his history, thereby magnifying the threat Egypt posed. Fabricating a mammoth speculative edifice on an already flimsy evidentiary foundation, Oren professes to divine Nasser's subtle calculations for supporting Operation Daawn (pp. 95, 120), even after acknowledging that it is unclear whether "Nasser even knew about the plan" (p. 92). Oren further observes that the "Egyptian first strike" posed a "potentially greater threat" to Jordan than an Israeli attack because an unsuccessful Egyptian offensive would be blamed on Jordan, undermining Hashemite rule, while a successful Egyptian offensive might "continue onward to Amman." "The predicament, as defined by royal confideant Zayd al-Rifai," Oren continues, "was mind-boggling: 'Even if Jordan did not participate in a war ... it would be blamed for the loss of the war and out turn would be next'" (p. 128; the ellipsis is Oren's). Turning to the source Oren cites, we read that King Hussein feared an Israeli attack in the event of a regional war "no matter what Jordan did." To document Jordan's worry, the source quotes Rifai: "Even if Jordan did not participate directly in a war that was started by Israel it would not only be destroyed by the Arab world and even blamed for the loss of the war but our turn would be next" (emphasis added). It would seem that the "predicament" posed by an "Egyptian first strike" to Jordan would not have been quite so "mind-boggling" if Oren had not excised the phrase "that was started by Israel."[46]
Say what you will about Finkelstein, he is not demonstrably guilty of intellectual dishonesty, as he has shown Oren to be, here and elsewhere. JRHammond (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Finkelstein is extremely biased and he is worthless as a source for any article that makes an attempt at neutrality. He can be used as a source on his article, to talk about his extreme positions. As a source here? Not really. Enigmamsg 20:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Where was it proposed that Finkelstein should be used as a source in the article? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Finkelstein's assessment on the weight given to Operation Dawn by historians other than Oren is spot on. Segev in his book "1967" has no mention of the operation in the book index, and I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the book. There was a sentence which went something like "There were questions of whether Nasser were in complete control of his army" (incorrectly quoted from memory) which I unfortunately was unable to find. That sentence may have been a reference to the Dawn. I also looked at some other books I've read on Israel and the I-P conflict without finding a reference to Dawn in the book indices. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have article banned JRH indefinitely for tendentious editing on this page. I expect he will appeal, that matter is for another venue.

The matter I come here for is to ask all editors on this article to resist the urge of tendentious editing. I have linked a great essay on the subject. I think if everyone read it, tried to find areas where they may be engaging in tendentious editing and did their best to overcome it this article would be a lot better off and come off of protection. I think some progress was being made, that progress was stifled (this talk page has gone up 100k in just a couple of days) and I believe it can be productive again. I would encourage any editors who may have backed away because of the rancor here to come back and work to make this a better article. Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved editors and uninvolved administrators may comment on JRHammond's appeal, in the appropriate sections. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Suez Crisis aftermath

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} As there have been no objections, I've moved to make the following fix to the article, under the "Suez Crisis aftermath" section. See details that immediately follow (1): JRHammond (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency Force, to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel.[25]

This sentence does not accurately reflect the UNEF mandate. UNEF was established by the General Assembly under Resolution 1000 (November 5, 1956), which "Establishes a United Nations Command for an Emergency International Force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of General Assembly resolution 997 (ES-I) of 2 November 1956" [47]

Resolution 997 noted "the disregard on many occasions by parties to the Israel-Arab armistice agreements of 1949 of the terms of such agreements, and that the armed forces of Israel have penetrated deeply into Egyptian territory in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 24 February 1949". It urged a cease-fire, urged withdrawal from Egyptian territory.[48]

The assertion that UNEF was established to prevent attacks on Israel from Egyptian soil flips reality on its head. UNEF was established in the wake of Israel's invasion of Egypt, in direct response to that attack. JRHammond (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed fix (to include the appropriate reference, above): After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities".

Approve. JRHammond (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors are hereby on notice that, as there are no objections, I will move to have this fix implemented via the "editprotected" template. If anyone would have a problem with that, now is your opportunity to state your case. JRHammond (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  Not done for now: Is there support for this change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an uncontroversial fix, and there have been no objections, as you can see. There's no reason not to make this edit. It simply quotes directly from the actual UNEF mandate to correct the mischaracterization of that mandate that currently exists. I cannot fathom any legitimate reason not to implement this fix. Nor can anyone else, if the lack of objection is any indication. I presume it was you who separated the two points into different sections? Thanks. I'll do that in the future to prevent any confusion. JRHammond (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Until others support this change, the change will not be made while the article is protected. I encourage other editors to weigh in, so we can establish a consensus and move on. Sorry if this sounds too procedural and bureaucratic, but that's the way it has to be while the article is protected. So I ask other editors: support or oppose? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an unreasonable standard. I've requested editors to state their approval/objections already. As I already said, I'm willing to wait longer to give more opportunity, but if a reasonable amount of time passes (you suggested a week, which is fine with me), and nobody has objected, the fact that nobody may have expressed approval either is not a reasonable basis not to implement a fix, particularly one as completely uncontroversial as this. Give it time. If there are no objections, please make the edit. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
No. This is the standard while the article is protected due to edit-warring.
Bottom line, while a contentious article is protected, no edits will be made without support from the community. Doing otherwise would undermine the reason behind protecting the article. Non-response doesn't constitute support at this time. If the article were unprotected, there would be no problem. But while under protection, if nobody expresses support for a change, even after a week, the edit will not happen. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Technically you are correct, but some amount of common sense can be applied here I think. As per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus the fact that no one else has commented on this proposal since 29 August (nearly a week ago) likely means that no one opposes it. (It is interesting that no one has commented in support either; this may indicate a general unhappiness with the actions of JRHammond elsewhere on this page.) In the context of this page a week is a good length of time to allow others to comment, so I will make the edit forthwith. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No. Please be aware that here is no consensus for this change. One day or other I hope to have time to look into these things. If I see it is wrong, I will change it without debate. This thread reflects everyone's complete unwillingness to participate in the wall of words debate about the issue.. and absolutely zero-point-zero more than that. • Ling.Nut 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  Reverted. Ling.Nut: I asked on 2 September whether there was support for the change and you chose not to comment. How am I, as an uninvolved admin, supposed to know if there is any opposition unless someone tells me!? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
MSGJ, it's hard to find these answers. Had you noticed the end of the "Proper usage of the editprotected template" section below, you would have seen Ling.Nut's unwillingness to support, which I took as a "no consensus" position. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I will restate my "opposition", perhaps more clearly: I very, very clearly remember seeing the exact text that JR wants deleted in one or two sources. But wait – I am not arguing that the version I saw was correct or authoritative or should stand indefinitely. Perhaps the two or so sources that I saw were POV; I sincerely do not recall. That was weeks ago.
  • JR wishes to expunge the text of any statement (or even implication) of culpability on the part of any Arab parties – and perhaps that is OK in this particular phrase, but perhaps it is not. In fact, I am not "Opposing" JR's desired edit so much as I am saying for the record: I wish all parties to be advised and to lodge into their memories that this edit is merely one step in the process. Its content may or may not reflect the best sources, and is not in any way guarded by any imputation of WP:CONSENSUS that would in any way inoculate it from being changed, without discussion, if I find at some later point that it does not reflect the best sources. is that clear? • Ling.Nut 01:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am 100% with Ling.Nut. - BorisG (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The sentence is sourced to a RS. Unless it is shown that this is not what the source says, it can stay. I don't have the source to check. Want to add statements from other sources? Fine. - BorisG (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

EDITORS!!! Please review the above proposed edit and state your approval so we can get this over and done with, move past the bureaucratic procedures, and get down to the business of improving the article already. If anyone has any objection to the edit, please state it. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Suez Crisis aftermath (2)

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion

(2) After the 1956 war, the region returned to an uneasy balance without the resolution of any of the underlying issues. At the time, no Arab state had recognized Israel. Syria, aligned with the Soviet bloc, began sponsoring guerrilla raids on Israel in the early 1960s as part of its "people's war of liberation", designed to deflect domestic opposition to the Ba'ath Party.[27] Even after nearly two decades of its existence, no neighboring Arab country of Israel was willing to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel or accept its existence. Tunisian President Habib Bourgiba suggested in a speech in Jericho in 1965 that the Arab world should face reality and negotiate with Israel, but this was rejected by the other Arab countries.[28][29]

This paragraph not only implies that the "underlying issues" leading to the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 included Arab refusal to recognize Israel, but affords this great weight, to the exclusion of other issues. I don't believe this assertion is supportable. The underlying issues were that the British and French wanted to control the canal, and Egypt wanted to exercise sovereignty over it; Egypt nationalized the canal, so Egypt and France went to Israel and engaged in a conspiracy to invade Egypt; Israel, for its part, was motivated by territorial conquest (indeed, Israel attempted to colonize the Sinai between the invasion and its later withdrawal). The notion that Israel invaded Egypt because Egypt didn't officially recognize Israel is fairly preposterous. Even if it had some merit and was supported by sources, there is an issue of WP:WEIGHT here. The primary issues leading to the war should have greater weight than more minor issues afforded little (or no) weight from sources. JRHammond (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph not only implies that the "underlying issues" leading to the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 included Arab refusal to recognize Israel, but affords this great weight, to the exclusion of other issues. In my reading, it doesn't imply this at all. It implies that for Israel, the underlying issue was frequent attacks from Arab countries. The issues for France and Bretain are irrelevant here. - BorisG (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Boris, it states that the "underlying issues" of the '56 war were not addressed, and then states that "At the time, no Arab state had recognized Israel." The entire rest of the paragraph after that topic sentence on "underlying issues" is devoted to discussing that issue of non-recognition. I fail to see how this does not imply that Arab non-recognition was among the "underlying issues" referred to. It certainly does. If all that follows the topic sentence has nothing to do with that topic ("underlying issues"), then they shouldn't be in the same paragraph, and there should be some kind of segue from the one topic to the next, so as to avoid the implication if it was unintended (which I highly doubt was the case). JRHammond (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
JRH, if you want to be taken seriously, it would behoove you to learn the most elementary facts related to the conflict. The area of Eilat was designated as part of the Jewish state by the 1947 partition plan, and the town itself had been under Israeli control since 1949, when Israeli forces raised their flag there. It was not 'acquired' as a result of the 1956 war. HupHollandHup (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hup, the 1947 partition proposal was just that -- a proposal. It was rejected. It had no force of law. It lent Israel no legal claim to Eilat, which remained Egyptian territory until 1949. But thank you for the correction. It was indeed 1949 when Israel took that ground by conquest (inadmissible under international law), despite the cease-fire, not 1956. A momentary lapse of reason on my part. The correction has been appended above. My point remains, which perhaps you would care to address. JRHammond (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The partition plan , which forms the basis for your claims elsewhere , gave Israel this land - how could it be taken 'by conquest'? If the plan gave Israel "no legal claim to Eilat" it gave it no claim to any land - is that what you are arguing? Thatis surely a fringe position, if ever there was one. And conversely, how could it be "Egyptian territory" if Egypt was only there after invading? I don't think you know what you are talking about. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. UN General Assembly resolution 181 adopted the recommendation of the report of the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), which explicitly rejected the right to self determination of the majority Arab population of Palestine (the minority Jews owned 7% of the land at the time, the majority Arabs 85%). The resolution was a recommendation. Needless to say, to have any legitimacy, the proposal would have to be accepted by both parties. It was not (the Zionists accepted it as a step towards the total conquest of Palestine, the Arabs rejected it on the basis of its blatant inequity, taking land from the Arabs to give it to the Jews and the necessity of surrendering their right to self-determination). Furthermore, even if it had partitioned Palestine, instead of being merely an adoption of a recommendation, it would have no legal authority, as only Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding. Moreover, even had it actually partitioned Palestine (it didn't) and had been legally binding (it wasn't), any such action would have been in violation of the U.N. Charter and other relevant bodies of international law, and therefore null and void. These are the facts. You are wrong. And I don't think you know what you are talking about. Thus, I would return to you the compliment you offered me: If you wish to be taken seriously, it would behoove you to learn the most elementary facts related to the conflict. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I am quite right. The UNSCOP plan was a recommendation - but once it was voted on by the UNGA and passed, it was no longer just a "recommendation". If we accept your position, Israel has no legal claim to any part of its territory (and, neither do the Palestinians have any legal claim to the territories the UN repeatedly refers to as "Occupied Palestinian Territory") - this is such a fringe position that I know of literally no-one, on either side of the conflict, who supports it. At the same time, you find it possible to argue that Eilat was 'Egyptian territory', by virtue of Egyptian invading forces holding it. There are only two option here: either you have no clue what you are talking about or (b) you are not interested in any encyclopedic content, merely anti-Israeli soapboxing. In either case, you are not to be taken seriously. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it wasn't a recommendation? Perhaps that's why the operative clause of 181 stated, "Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;". And I'll close with that. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I take that back, I'm not done yet. Furthermore, even if it was as you say, that it wasn't merely a recommendation (which it was), as I also observed, only Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding. Ergo, even if you were correct on that count (which you aren't), you are still mistaken to suggest that UNGA resolutions are legally binding. I notice you didn't bother to even address that little fact previously. So I wanted to reiterate that point. I might as well go ahead and also reiterate that even if it hadn't been merely a recommendation (which it was), and even it UNGA resolutions were considered legally binding (which they aren't), any such action would be in violation of the U.N. Charter and other relevant bodies of international law, and thus null and void. But the latter two points are admittedly moot, since the fact is that it was merely a recommendation to begin with. JRHammond (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it was not a 'recommendation': "The recommendatory function of the General Assembly is not a bar to adopting, in special cases, within the framework of its competence, resolutions establishing an objective regime. The partitioning of Palestine and the internationalization of Jerusalem is an example". - Land and maritime zones of peace in international law, Sūryaprasāda Suvedī, p. 219, Oxford University Press. As I said, you have no clue what you are talking about. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hup, I hate to have to tell you this, but to "recommend" something is to make a "recommendation". I find it ironic you take such a tone of insulting my intelligence while trying to assert that when the resolution "Recommends" a plan, that is not a recommendation. Elementary rules of logic and common sense apply. I would note that it is uncontroversial that Israel came into being on May 14, 1949, when the Zionists unilaterally declared its existence, without specifying borders. You will not find a single source to support the logical corollary to your own argument, which is that Israel must have come into existence on November 29, 1947. So there is yet a further irony (or "hypocrisy" if you prefer) in your suggestion I've expressed a "fringe position".
Your source, needless to say, doesn't support your rather inexplicable claim that when UNGA resolutions "Recommend" something that is not a recommendation. But it does demonstrate certain of my own points. You'll notice it notes that according to the ICJ, "the General Assembly is in principle vested with recommendatory powers" and that its resolutions are "non-binding".
Returning to the resolution itself, you'll note that in addition to its recommendation to adopt and implement the plan proposed by UNSCOP, it referred the plan to the Security Council. Well, it never made it to the Security Council. The recommendation was never implemented. The source you cited suggests just because it was a recommendation does not mean it could not establish a "regime". It then goes on to discuss Jerusalem. Unfortunately, that discussion is not available on Google. But let's look at that example. Resolution 181 recommended that a "special regime" be established placing Jerusalem under an international trusteeship administered by the United Nations. Did UNGA Resolution 181 itself establish that regime? No, it did not. The UNSC would have had to do that, but, as already noted, the recommended plan never made it to the UNSC.
Now, so far all you've given me is an argument that when the UNGA "Recommends", that is not a recommendation. Your fallacy here is plain enough. But you've also failed to address my other points, which are that, even if the resolution wasn't a recommendation (which it was), UNGA resolutions are not considered legally binding (as your own source notes). Moreover, even if UNGA resolutions were legally binding (which they aren't), any such action, taking land away from the Arabs to give to the Jews, would have been a blatant violation of the principles of the U.N. Charter and other relevant bodies of international law, and thus null and void. The UNGA has no such authority, and you will find nowhere in the U.N. Charter where such authority, to take land away from a people against their express will, is invested in the General Assembly (or the Security Council, for that matter) You will observe that the principle of "equal rights and self-determination of peoples" is encoded in the U.N. Charter. Any rejection of the equal rights and self-determination of the majority Arab inhabitants of Palestine by the UNGA would have been a violation of the very charter under which it operated. UNGA 181 was not a violation of the U.N. Charter because it did not take land away from the Arabs and give it to the Jews. It made a recommendation that this occur; naturally, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both parties for it to have any legal force. Needless to say, it was not accepted by both parties.
Now, what is HupHollandHup's answer to all this? When UNGA resolution 181 "Recommends" that the UNSCOP plan be taken up by the UNSC, that is not a recommendation. That's it? That's your argument? On the basis of its patent idiocy, your objection on the basis that a recommendation is not a recommendation is hereby dismissed. JRHammond (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
My answer is that an eminent scholar of international law, in a book published by an academic press of the highest order (Oxford University) has written that UNGA 181 established an objective regime. You can call that 'patent idiocy', you can engage in all the original research you like to "prove" that it could not have, but it does not matter. We have a reliable academic source stating, explicitly, that what you've said is wrong, and that's it. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Your own source in fact acknowledges that the power of the UNGA is "recommendatory" and that UNGA resolutions are "non-binding". So I fail to see how your source supports your argument that when a UNGA resolution states in its operative clause that it "Recommends..." something, that is not, ipso facto, a recommendation (an argument, yes, of patent idiocy, completely unsupported by your source, needless to say). You have four incontrovertible facts you've yet to substantively address: (1) UNGA Resolution 181 recommended that the proposal to partition Palestine made by UNSCOP be implemented, and referred that plan to the UNSC, which never took up the matter. (2) UNGA resolutions are not considered legally binding. They are, as your own source observes, "non-binding". (3) The UNGA has no authority to take land from one people and give it to another against their will, which would be an act in violation of the very U.N. Charter under which the UNGA operates, so even if the UNGA attempted to do so, which it has not, any such action would be null and void under international law. (4) Israel did not come into existence on November 29, 1947, but on May 14, 1948, not by any act of the UNGA, but by a unilateral declaration of the existence of the state by the Zionist leadership under David Ben-Gurion.
Now, if you wish to persist in your argument, you must show that (1) UNGA made no recommendation in saying it "Recommends..." that the UNSCOP plan be implemented, (2) UNGA resolutions are legally binding, (3) the UNGA had the authority to take land from one people and give it to another against heir will, and (4) Israel came into existence not on May 14, 1948, on November 29, 1947. Best of luck finding sources to support those assertions. JRHammond (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Whereas the paragraph in question is presented entirely from the Israeli POV, without any discussion of the "underlying issues" from the Arab POV, it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I move for its deletion. Alternatively, a brief discussion can be made to Arab refusal to recognize Israel that includes the reasons for that refusal, along with any other "underlying issues" proposed for inclusion.

Remove. JRHammond (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Retain.. There is no reason to remove text supported by RS. Want to add more text? Propose it. - BorisG (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet there is every reason to remove text that blatantly violates WP:NPOV. As your objection doesn't address that fundamental point, it is hereby dismissed. JRHammond (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've moved for removal on the grounds already stated, the concerns of which you haven't substantively addressed (or even attempted to do so). If you wish to add more text, you propose it. It is not incumbent upon me to do so. I don't wish to do so, and will not do so, as it is not my favored solution to the problem.JRHammond (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors are on notice that I will move to have this paragraph removed via the "editprotected" template. If anyone wants to present an argument for why this text, which stands in blatant non-compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, should not be removed, or wishes to propose an alternative solution to this problem, please use this opportunity to state your case. JRHammond (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Two editors have objected to this, and presented their arguments. You are on notice that moving this over the objections is disruptive editing, which will likely lead to another block for you. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hup, make that three editors. Hammond take your biased POV back to your obscure Blog where it belongs--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That is false. You have never previously stated any objection to this solution; nor have you offered any explanation as to why you object to this proposed solution, or in any way, shape, or form addressed my objection to this material on the basis that it is in non-compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT (your discussion in this section has been entirely on a completely tangential point, and has never directly addressed either of my concerns or my proposed fixes). BorisG expressed his view that the text should remain along with the suggestion that it should be amended with additional material; in doing so, he did not in any way, shape, or form address my objection to this material as being a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I am under no obligation not to move to have improvements made to the article when my objections to included material have not been substantively addressed, nor any reasonable explanation offered for why my proposed solutions are not themselves reasonable. Like I said, if you object to my proposed solutions, state your case. If you fail to do so, I will carry on as I've indicated and apply the "editprotected" template to have my proposed solution implemented. You are welcome to present an actual argument. Failing that, the template will be used. My position is perfectly reasonable, and demonstrates full good faith on my part. JRHammond (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
JRHammond asks for arguments but I have never seen him even once accept any arguments. He wants to wear us all down so that he is left the last man standing. Calling your own position perfectly reasonable does not make it so. - BorisG (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Nor does suggesting my position is not reasonable make it so. You actually have to make an argument. Which you haven't done. Again. JRHammond (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this paragraph violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. It should therefore either (a) be removed, or (b) revised so as to include a fuller discussion of the "underlying issues" that led to the 1956 war. I propose (a). If anyone has any objection to that solution, please state it. If anyone would prefer solution (b), please propose a revision. JRHammond (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal. I understand that the whole section is not well written (i.e. repetition of "After the 1956 war"), but removal of this paragraph will not make it better. Those underlying reasons were real. Ruslik_Zero 08:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

!Vote to add {{EditProtected}} so Cptnono can trim cites

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • Cptnono proposes (see thread immediately above) to remove the vast majority of the more than 40 cites under "preemptive war". I stipulate that at some point in the next few weeks I hope to start researching again, and may replace whatever three or so cites he leaves on the page with better ones. But aside from that (very minor, in my opinion) stipulation, I Support this idea.• Ling.Nut 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer not to use the template again if there is any question. So I would appreciate it if people would speak up now. If not I will use it again but don;t want to see another round of back and forth on it. It has had plenty of time for debate against it so say no now if you want.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Sorry for the delay. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary.
There is a debate raging on if the line is appropriate or not. This is separate from that and is only focused on how to address the current sources.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

wordchoice

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would avoid loaded words like "seize". Take, capture or occupy are more neutral. Dubroy (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead length

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it too long? I personally feel that it is a good summary and that is needed for higher caliber articles. The issue has been raised. Any concerns on the total bits or any particular lines that should be reduced, merged, or cut altogether?Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • The version that i posted, which was relatively long, was already both as short as possible and as long as permissible, in my opinion. Then folks came along and shoved their favorite bits of trivia in. • Ling.Nut 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

POV sentence in lede

Latest comment: 14 years ago35 comments8 people in discussion

It is rather amazing to see the 40+ footnotes intended to bolster the thesis that the 6 Day war was a "preemptive" war. I should think that one could winnow out some of the lesser quality or known biased sources, such as Salon magazine, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Cockburn or the Egypt State Information Service. Another point is that the vast majority of these sources refer to a preemptive strike not a preemptive war.

A number of these footnotes note that the "preemptive" nature of the strike was "defensive in nature," "justified," "morally justified," "war was inevitable," "legitimate anticipation," "the primacy of Security interests," "proper to fight." Yet this general sentiment is not reflected in the sentence in the lede which it references "The Six-Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war,[d] an "inadvertent war",[19] and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, among other things" That sentence and the footnotes associated with it attempt to prove that Israel struck first without provocation or justification, illegitimately, and from the majority of the sources, we know this is not the case.

The last part of that sentence, that the war was fought to "preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy" is not referenced, although the Quigley reference (6.5) does so and could be used. The idea is not expanded upon in body of the article, however, and so by Wikipedia's definition of what the lede should be about, that is, the article should expand on what is in the lede, this phrase does not belong in the lede at all. Ditto for the phrase "inadvertent war". There is no expansion on these ideas within the body of the article. The sentence is clearly intended to portray a negative judgment with respect to Israel, adding to the POV nature of the article. It only serves to advance a particular non-neutral view of Israel, in my opinion, and does not belong in this article at all! JuJubird (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. We have been intending to trim those multiple cites for a while, but..
  2. The reason there is no expansion of those ideas is because:
    1. Everyone spent weeks bickering, quarreling and edit warring over every single one- or two-word chunk of the lede, which in turn
    2. caused the article to be put into lockdown.
  3. Do your part to help the article: stop obsessing about the lede, and work on the body text. • Ling.Nut 06:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I obsessing over the lede? I don't think so. I have only made a handful of edits and really don't appreciate being called names ("obsessive"). Perhaps the article would move along better and there would be less "bickering" if you did your part by avoiding personal attacks. I do not agree with that sentence in its entirety and you did not address any of my legitimate concerns except to tell me to work on the body of the article. I did what I was supposed to do and put my concerns here on the talk page. The article will always be POV and contentious and locked-down if editors do not bother to listen to the concerns of others. My main point, if you care to address it, is the POV nature of the sentence. JuJubird (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Jujibird, may I suggest we all come down a bit. Ling.Nut is usually very balanced and he himself knows there is a problem with that sentence. But he has been through enough battle over the lede in the last few months to see the futility of this battle. That's why he is so irritated. His position appears to be that the lede should really reflect the main body of the article, and therefore we need to work on the main body and only then come back to the lede. I am not sure how it is going to work, given that the body will be constantly challenged, but this appears to be the opinion Ling.Nut has formed recently. He is so tired over the bickering over the lede that he responded in this manner. This does not mean he is right though. In any event, the article in its current form with its ridiculous number of footnotes is not an encyclopedia article but a research thesis. I don't know what needs to be done (or even where to start) to make it coherent. Of course this is a separate matter to the one you raised. Sincerely. - BorisG (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi BorisG. I hope that Ling.Nut appreciates your valiant defense of him or her. I am simply reminded of my grandmother's saying (and many other grandmothers' I suppose) that "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." Do you know when the article will be available for editing again? There is so much on this talk page, much of it doesn't have anything to do with the article but about other editors. It is impossible to read it all and come to any coherent understanding. That is why I brought up one sentence and one sentence only to discuss. I particularly noticed that most did not refer to a preemptive war but to a preemptive strike, and that "inadvertent war" was only used in one instance, and that nobody had included the idea that while the strike was preemptive, it was generally thought to have been justified, legal, appropriate etc. Do you have a thought on that? JuJubird (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The sentence is not POV, nor is it even close to being POV. It is extremely verifiable, if you'll take some time to look at reliable sources rather than speaking from your own perceptions. You seem to be asserting that there is one, and only one cause of the war: "premptive" strike. This is one explanation, and it is an extremely common one both in popular culture and in some quarters of academia. It is extremely far from being the only valid view. • Ling.Nut 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well Ling.Nut it seems that you are addicted to personal attacks in place of actual discussion. If you read my original post in this section, you will see that it is clear that I read all 40+ references that someone(s) put up there. We all speak from "our own perceptions" ultimately, who else's? I'm not asserting that the cause of the war was a preemptive strike. I'm asserting that it is inaccurate to call it a preemptive war and that it was merely a preemptive attack or strike. Israel held that blocking the Straits was an act of war as far as Israel was concerned. So the war was already on when Egypt did that. It was only the strike itself that was preemptive. This is mostly noted in the more fair references given. Israel had every reason to believe that Egypt was serious in its threats, its moving its forces, its expelling UN forces, and its closing of the straits. So while the surprise attack was preemptive in a military way, the war itself was started by the Egyptians. If someone says to me, "If you slap me, I will consider it an act of war" and then I slap him, I can expect that he will retaliate. I may not know how or how much or when. I am not sure what you are talking about when you talk about various "valid views," but I do know that people are always trying to revise history to suit their own prejudices. JuJubird (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me collapse these issues in order to simplify things for you: there are tons of sources that say precisely what the lead says. That is all you or I or anyone needs to know. Wikipedia is not about truth; it is about verifiability. That is the end of the story. • Ling.Nut 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it still cool to remove 41 of the 44 sources as previously discussed? I'll throw up a edit protected request thingy if there are not any objections.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. But please make that proposal in a new section so everyone can see it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, before I started editing Wikipedia I familiarized myself with the rules. You do not have a corner on verifiable sources, and as I have noted, your sources do not say what you seem to think they say. Reread your own 40+ sources and you will see that the verifiable and reliable sources mostly call it a preemptive strike not a preemptive war, and most of them say the strike was "defensive in nature," "justified," "morally justified," "war was inevitable," "legitimate anticipation," "the primacy of Security interests," & "proper to fight." JuJubird (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Please note that not all sources are of equal quality. High-quality sources for an article like this are books by respected historians. That there are dozens of non-historians out there who claim that A or B to be correct is of little importance. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. How about noting here which references you are thinking it appropriate to keep? JuJubird (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't note them here. Do it in a new section. • Ling.Nut 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • We already discussed it so there is no reason to list them. Anything that says "preemptive strike" (41 of them) instead of "preemptive war" should go. We have enough sources with the remaining that it should be fine. Editors can also google it if they want more.Cptnono (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Cptono says: Anything that says "preemptive strike" (41 of them) instead of "preemptive war" should go. Why? - BorisG (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Because Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • You did not read my post above that the majority of sources refer to a "preemptive strike" and not a "preemptive war"? Why would you remove the most common usage in favor of the least common? Also, I would appreciate your view on my original post in this section. JuJubird (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • As discussed in archive 7 (I think that is where it is at least), preemptive strike is not necessarily the same as preemptive war. This article is about the war so there is nothing wrong with using the sources that do verify that it has been called a preemptive war. Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
              • Sorry I missed Archive 7. There is so much talk it is impossible to keep up with it. While there are sources that do call it a "preemptive" war, there are more that call it a preemptive strike only. The discussion as to whether the war was preemptive or preventative, necessary or not, is a fairly recent one. How about the "inadvertent" war that is discussed in the lead and referenced to one book. Are you ok with that too? JuJubird (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
                • I'm OK with what the sources say. Since "preemptive war" is in the sources that is really all I am getting at at the moment. The section below can fix it if we are changing gears all over the place.Cptnono (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • Google Books, limited and full view only, "Six Day War" and "Preemptive war" [49] Google Books, limited and full view only, "Six Day War" and "Preemptive strike" [50] JuJubird (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • Evidence that the idea that the Six Day War was considered a preemptive strike and NOT a preemptive war and that the idea of it being a preemptive war is only a recent one can be found at the Google News. Note the proliferation of articles in the timeline for "preemptive war" and "Six Day War" : [51] Compare this with this for same except "preemptive strike" [52]. So while only a recent construct, and not so popularly used as "strike," we are going to say "war" because... why again?? JuJubird (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Boris that we should keep only high-quality sources by respected historians. JuJubird (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources say it was a preemptive war. Not all sources but enough that "it has been called a preemptive war" is not out of the question. I was hesitant at first but if enough sources say it and we word it appropriately there should be no worries. We aren't applying a label. We are simply mentioning what some sources say.03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've picked through the archive for the background on this to no avail so I'll just look dumb and ask straight out; what's the difference between preemptive war and preemptive strike? I know the legal difference between preventive and preemptive wars (which I thought was the bone of contention here) but I've not seen a text distinguish difference between a preemptive war and preemptive strike and establish them as separate terms with distinct meanings. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If a state of war existed prior to the first strike, then only the strike itself would be preemptive. Since Israel had told Egypt that any closure of the Straits would be seen as an act of war, then the moment the Straits were closed, a state of war existed. Israel then preempted an attack (which there was reason to believe was imminent) by a preemptive strike. It may seem picky but the vast majority of sources have always looked at it this way. To say it was a preemptive war is to put the onus of the war itself on Israel. The idea of a preemptive war was basically started around the time that Bush invaded Iraq, and some historiographers these days like to claim that the 67 war was an example of it. This is an example of sloppy thinking or distortion of the facts to fit the theory. If you check the Google links above in the news archive or Google books, you will see that the concept of "preemptive" war is a new one and only recently back-formed to apply to the 67 war. (btw, thanks for asking. It helps clarify the thinking for both myself and others) JuJubird (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it is logical to assume that if the strike that kicked off the war was preemptive (very well sourced) then the following war was preemptive (less so but still properly sourced). However, a line like "The Six-Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war...) only needs sources that say preemptive war instead of the actual first strike. There could have been a strike without a war but that isn't what happened. We have the sources we need so there shouldn't be any problem.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) This issue has already been extensively discussed in the archives. It's a point of view that the war was preemptive. We know it is only a POV because there are other sources which dispute the preemptive characterization. So this information, if it is presented in the lede at all, should be presented as a POV, not as an undisputed fact. Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • This issue has layers and more layers. One way to look at it would be that Egypt never really accepted that the war had ended. I've seen cites that maintain that this was Nasser's position. In that case, Israel's actions did not even start the war. • Ling.Nut 16:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You mean previous war? Legally, they were indeed in the state of war regardless of Nasser's position (no peace treaty). But hey, being in the state of war is not the same as actually fighting a war. If tomorrow, G-d forbid, Israel attacks Syria or vice versa, we will say they started a war, even though they have been in the state of war all aling. Does this make sense? - BorisG (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I wonder. Talking theoretically here, what if Israel started massing troops at the border, and Netanyahu and/or his ministers started threatening to take Syria out, and they closed the ports to Syrian shipping so as to cripple its economy; and if Syria had warned that doing so was casus belli. If Syria then attacked Israel first, would the world hold that Syria had started it (the war) or just (the incident)? Just asking JuJubird (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I see the distinction now, thank you for your patience. In regards to JuJubird's original post on the matter, I don't think preemptive war is defamatory to Israel; the opposing side doesn't claim it was preemptive but preventive. A preemptive war is considered just so I'm not sure what's gained by changing the wording to 'strike'. But for the lead shouldn't both sides by represented, something like "its status as a preemptive or preventive war is contentious"? The article goes into great depth explaining the various scholars and countries that claim the war was preventive and their legal reasoning. It seems like the NPOV thing to do is include both sides in the lead or at least mention the issue. I don't find the "preventive" war argument particularly compelling but it's certainly a well established view. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the current phraseology, that the war "has been characterized" as preemptive, is fine. There are probably other variations which would be equally acceptable, just as long as the "preemptive" bit is presented as opinion not fact. Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to mediate, it seems to me that Goldstone's proposal has a great deal of merit. Wouldn't the best way to have a NPOV for the article be to mention ALL variations/points of view regarding the way in which this war has been characterized? (Presuming you stick to reputable historians as sources)Bobzchemist (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

1st paragraph line still

Latest comment: 14 years ago53 comments9 people in discussion

"The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs.[9]" This has not been commented on since the 25th. The conversation can be found in the most recent archive. It is time to move this out of the first paragraph as multiple editors suggest. I will be adding the edit protected edit request template if there are no objections.Cptnono (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. JuJubird (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If I were to do the template right now it would be for its removal altogether since consensus was leaning towards it not needing to be there but not where to put it. I would actually prefer for it to be in the final paragraph of the lead discussing the consequences of the war since it would fit perfect and deserves some prominence. Cptnono (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I object to removing it. I'm OK with moving it to the last para of the lede, but then you may need to tickle the text a bit to get it all to come out smoothly. • Ling.Nut 04:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It would probably make more sense to have it in the last paragraph, but as Ling Nut says, it all depends on how it is done. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A simple cp[y and paste is all I am thinking. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree to moving to the last par. Later this can be expanded since I suspect different sources have different opinions as to what are central concerns. In particular, many Israeli sources would say that central concerns are unwillingness of the large portion of Paletsinian population to accept Israel's right to exist. Others would say that the rise of Islamic radicalism and Iran is a central concern. etc. etc. - BorisG (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a line similar to what JJG was trying to add and there appeared to be some traction. That would be a different part of the lead if it goes in I assume so is probably a different conversation. For this line, can we just move it after the line discussing the consequences or does it need tinkering? We could also move the line on what was captured (maybe third paragraph?) to make the lead more chronological but I don't want to over complicate it!Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I object as well for reasons already enunciated. nableezy - 21:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You object to removing it or simply repositioning it in the lead? The discussion above appears to favor repositioning, whereas previous discussion favored removal. Do you object to both? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I feel the sentence should be in the first paragraph. The long term impact of this war has been Israel's occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory (and once upon a time Egyptian territory). I dont feel that should be at all obfuscated. 400,000 refugees and a now 43 year occupation merits mention in the first paragraph. nableezy - 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
For you it is the issue. Your concern over giving it prominence has screwed up the readability in a chronological sense.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Uhh no, not for me. If you bothered to do even a minimal amount of reading on this topic you would realize that this is the long term impact of the conflict according to countless sources. But I cant make you go to the library. nableezy - 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Moving it but keeping it in the lead still gives it substantial weight. There is no absolute need to have it there and numerous editors agree for different reasons. You do not have have to agree for it to be moved. Your arguments have already been addressed.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody, least of all you, has addressed any of my "arguments" and I have already explained why that line belongs where it is so simply saying "there is no need" falls in between being meaningless and being untrue. The {{editprotected}} template requires consensus for the requested edit. If an uninvolved admin feels there is such consensus they may make the edit. If there is not they will not. nableezy - 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the archive if you do not feel that your issues have been addressed.Cptnono (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The occupation of Palestinian and Syrian land that continues still today is without any doubt the most significant result of this war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying it isn't significant. Just that it is placed incorrectly.Cptnono (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Editors have to understand the information structure and the relative degree of prominence that position grants a statement. First of all, putting something anywhere in the lead automatically grants it more prominence than leaving it out. It licenses the issue as a topic to be discussed (although in this article, because it is so very long, I hope the topic will get three sentences and a pretty blue link to a more suitable article). Second, within the lead, the two most prominent spots are the very beginning and the very end (the middle bits are slightly less so). It's probably true that it is slightly less prominent as the last sentence of the lead than at a spot near the very beginning, but the difference is only one of relative degree... • Ling.Nut 22:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The last sentence would be fantastic. It would give it some umph as the closing remark and would make the most sense chronologically since tit is result with ongoing ramifications.Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the latest suggestion. If it is moved to become the last sentence of the lede, it will be the most prominent.

BTW the debate about relative prominence of different locations in the lead suggests to me that the lede is far too long. - BorisG (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Move "The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs.[9]" from the final line of the first paragraph of the lead to the end of the final paragraph of the lead.

Multiple editors have endorsed moving or removing the line which has been problematic for quite some time now. These include: myself, Jiujitsuguy, 172.130.28.105, JuJubird, Ling.Nut (with stipulations), Gatoclass (with stipulations), BorisG (with stipulations), George, and Mbz1. Moving over removing is being requested based on the comments made by BorisG and Ling.Nut. Nableezy is still very much against the change but this shouldn't be held up due to that.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont see any consensus for this request. 2 of the editors you reference as supporting the change dont appear anywhere on this talk page. nableezy - 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I know you do not agree. But you were involved in previous discussions so you know that this was discussed: Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 7 and Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 8.Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
And there is no consensus for your proposal either there or here. nableezy - 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Consensus (both discussion and !votes) is that it is problematic there. Moving it to the last line is not controversial while full-on removing it would be. Be happy that something you want in the lead has support to stay in the lead instead of making this a frustrating process.Cptnono (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont see that consensus anywhere. You not getting what you want is not the equivalent of me "making this a frustrating process". Me having to explain something to somebody who has done no reading on the topic, that is frustrating. nableezy - 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Stop making personal attacks. That is your second one. You are bogging down this process.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I havent made a personal attack. Me opposing your push to remove what is undeniably the most significant result of this war from the first paragraph is not "bogging down this process". nableezy - 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator; that is, I am not part of any discussion, just here as an overseer and mediator in an administrative role. First let me say consensus doesn't equate to unanimity. That said, I do see unanimity that the sentence is a key sentence and should remain in the lead section. BorisG also makes a valid point that putting the sentence at the end can give it special prominence, rather than burying it in the middle of the lead where it is now. Therefore, I trust that Nableezy's objection is partially addressed by moving it there. I see consensus for moving it (Cptnono, Jujubird, Ling.Nug, Gatoclass, BorisG). I see no problem performing this edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My objection is not partially addressed. As the most significant result of the war the line belongs in the opening paragraph. It is not currently somewhere in the middle, it is in the first paragraph. My objection would be addressed by including the following after the sentence At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria:

Israel has continued to occupy the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories (the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem).

Not including the fact that the occupation that began in 67 continues to be a major issue is a problem. nableezy - 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
As previously mentioned, that line might need to be moved as well. That is another discussion and this one problematic line should not be held up by another possibly problematic line (more chronological concerns not actual incorrect content). There is an edit request for one line to be removed based on an emerging consensus. We can do the process again for any other lines if needed. This has become sidetracked and that needs to not happen since the template is in place and one uninvolved admin already sees the value in the change. Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to copyedit my comment to add that Nableezy's objection may be partially addressed by moving it to the end if the middle paragraphs are shortened or eliminated (they are sandwiched between two more general paragraphs, and they seem too detailed). But perhaps first you should discuss how to shorten the overall lead. The sentence to be moved likely wouldn't raise objections if the lead were shorter. In any case, I am on the verge of performing this edit but would like to see comments on Nableezy's proposal above and whether shortening the lead would improve the prominence of that sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Shortening the lead is debatable. I think it is a good summary but again am resisting the urge to provide details reasoning in this particular conversation. The length was mentioned and I do understand the concerns.
  • "At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The " would be better chronologically later in the lead. Yes it is a prominent aspect and moving it to a different location of the lead should not reduce the reader's understanding of the war.
  • Adding a line like "Israel has continued to occupy the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories (the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem)." presents the same concerns as the longer line. And having both would be duplicating information. The land seized is already duplicated so we do not need more of that.
  • I do see that that one line has consensus to not be there and moving it has support from multiple editors. This request addresses that and that only.Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some folks need to simmer down, when the personal attack accusations start flying things get unproductive. If they start that direction again article bans will be needed. --WGFinley (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for that. He made a comment on an article then asserted here that I did not read anything on the subject. I feel justified in calling it a personal attack but (totally just as bad, huh? I'll strike that)) will take it to the user's talk page next time since it only bogged the conversation more. And I also feel crappy that this has turned into such a long winded request. I didn't anticipate it being this big of a conflict so will be more cautious in the future. In regards to some of the points raised partially related to this request, I will open up separate discussions now.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


So what is the status on this? One uninvolved admin looked like he was leaning towards accepting the edit but there was also some back and forth. The other issues are now being discussed. Does this need to be delayed until those are closed out? Is there consensus amongst the editors or is the minority opinion on it significant enough to not make the edit. Realistically we can make it work either way but I still think the comment should be to be moved now while the other stuff can get handled on there own merits.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, while I see consensus for moving the sentence, there also exists an underlying concern that hasn't really been addressed or resolved, about the overall structure of the lead. Can I get a sense of whether everyone agrees that a chronological lead makes the most sense to serve as an overview of the article, as opposed to a logical structure having key points grouped together?
WP:LEAD says: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points. The lead could be arranged in that order, or it could be chronological. Right now it's a muddle of the two forms. In view of the fact that WP:LEAD doesn't require chronology, I'd like to get a sense of consensus that a chronological lead does indeed serve the purpose defined in WP:LEAD better than a logically-structured lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If it was up to me it would be chronological but we are discussing (hopefully) what we are doing below this. I believe the line would be better in a paragraph discussing results regardless. However, the line before it discussing the seizing of land might not be going anywhere it looks like.Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with chronological order. - BorisG (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea but unfortunately this isn't the place to discuss it. It is obvious that any major overhaul of the lead will take sometime and might not even happen. This one line has consensus and shouldn't have to be held up. One editor is even calling for us to ignore the lead. So before that happens this one needs to be handled.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead has already had a mjor overhaul, see this. Compare especially to the previous version. Now, there were some minor errors left in it, but it was NPOV. Then the assault began. One editor wanted several changes to make it more pro-Arab. Another editor or two added a handful pro-Israeli facts. And so on and on and on. And now we wanna rewrite it. Rewrite? Fine; delete the changes the POV warriors added. I will assure you of one thing: when the rewrite is done, it will be far more congenial to one POV or the other (unless edit warring begins again). Given the current cast of this page.. mmmm.. let me guess... I'm guessing it will somehow become far more congenial to Israel's POV. Magically. Not sure how that could possibly happen, of course, since absolutely no one here is a POV warrior. • Ling.Nut 03:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand why you are frustrated. But unless "The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs.[9]" was one of those edits it is not related to this edit request. If it was one of those edits then removing it might be fine too. However that would go against what several editors have already commented on so not sure if that would be acceptable without more bureaucratic like mess.Cptnono (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The pro-Arabs are correct: The refugee problem and the territorial issues are almost certainly the most important consequences of the war. Third in line would be Israel's sudden military dominance of the region. Fourth in line would be Israel's newly-acquired defensive breathing room. And yet we want to remove the first two facts. How strange that is. How very strange. • Ling.Nut 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Edit conflict: And this request again shouldn't be held up by yet another drawn out request (RFC or the like).
  • Not edit conflict: No one is saying it wasn't significant. In fact, its significance is why it is not being buried. You were involved in the discussion. Why is this still being held up? One editor was very very against it. Numerous others were onboard. PLease say so if you no longer feel the change is acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe that the current organization is the optimal one: two most important consequences early, then a chronological presentation (later crapped up by trivia, giving folks ammunition for their calls for a complete rewrite), then the third and fourth most important consequences. I support no change to that ordering. However, I went agreed to letting folks move the consequences to the end – so long as they are not deleted!! – because I simply cannot fight every possible battle. If it stays in the lead, but is moved, then at least it wasn't deleted. A relative victory, of sorts, against POV editing. • Ling.Nut 03:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well if Nableezy is voicing his opinion loud enough and you have changed your mind there is no longer consensus so this request is invalid. I started a new conversation yesterday on the other line and length after requests so now we will have another month of back and forth on those without anything being fixed right now. This sucks. Again, feel free to not work on the lead as you have recently said is your thought on it. There are enough other editors voicing their concern with it that some of us will probably continue discussing it regardless.Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ihaven't change my mind; I'm willing to concede the change. I think it is pointless and (mildly) POV to move it (and massively POV to delete it). But I won't bang my shoe on the table if it is moved. • Ling.Nut 03:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well then I misunderstood you original comment. If you did not think it should be moved at all then the edit request should not have been opened. If you would concede it and enough other editors want to make the change then I still think it is appropriate but not sure.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I concede a move (but still within the lede). I will bang my shoe on the table to prevent deletion. • Ling.Nut 04:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War/Archive_8&oldid=1136380821"