Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Let us clear the air here

Hello to all the regular Editors who have obviously worked for years on this excellent article.

I need to say a few things, as the posts on the previous section appear to be attacking me. I may be reading it incorrectly, but that is my impression at this point.

• I have never attempted to get involved with this area of WP, but I thought I would give it a shot, as I have an interest. A non-POV interest. Do not make too much of my username, although I do admire "weapons systems" that paradoxically are designed to protect life.
• I sense that you appear to think that I am a "sockpuppet" or a "meatpuppet", whatever that actually is. (It conjures up unpleasant imagery). I am an Ed with about 13 months experience, and in my modest way, I have contributed to the project. I am still on a steep learning-curve re the technical side of WP, and I have difficulty in putting sources onto my mainspace Eds. I am actually oddly scared of doing it. However, my grasp of RS and other permissible or unpermissible usage of mainspace is rather good.
• I reverted an edit earlier which appeared to me to be -while well sourced- had no place in the lede, which should be as concise as possible. My logic was that the material is duplicated in the article main body, and it merely cluttered the lede. I therefore undid it, with a perfectly clear explaination in Ed reasons. If this edit somehow screwed something up, I apologise. Nor am I aware of the history of that materials' insertion and history. I only put T6DW on my watchlist 3 days ago, or just under that.
• It is small wonder that many Eds choose not to contribute to controversial subjects, including I/P and Falkland Islands dispute, not to mention India/Pakistan. I came here in good faith, and will continue to contribute according to the tips given me above in the previous topic. It will be based on reliable sources and a NPOV bias.
• Other purely article - related issues, including the "civilian" tag, can be discussed when I get my shit together and provide sources.
• I would like to contribute. I do not edit war. I actually "get" the project. At least 1 of my barnstars is cited to my "diplomacy". Thanks for reading. Cheers.Irondome (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Irondome. thanks for your contributions to the topic area. AFAIK none of the above discussion was directed towards you. What we are really debating here is how to deal with sockpuppet edits once they have been identified and blocked through WP:SPI. In this case Elirhann Oraz89 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of AJH and the dispute is over how to handle the edits he made to the page. It's probably something that we should have a centralised discussion about in the topic area so we can agree some sort of best practice for dealing with edits of exposed SP's rather than keep having ad hock edit wars/disputes every time a new SP is exposed. 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading the intervening comments since I posted the above, and apologise for sounding paranoid. I am beginning to understand the lines of argumentation here. I will certainly not cause disruption or unwittingly restore dubious content, etc. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I second the idea that we open up a formal discussion. If anything this tiff has been useful for clarifying a notable problem. As to working I/P articles, it's quite simple and immensely difficult. Best practice suggests that we try to source everything to academic works by specialists on each topic (via a library, personal stores, or google books etc.) (b) there are at least two competing narratives, Israel and Palestine here, and all articles must strictly seek to give both narratives equal weight per WP:NPOV; (b) writing is generally sloppy. Take the lead here, e.g.

Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli civilian settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli responses against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border,

Aside from 'civilian settlements' (see Zero above, this is quite complicated technically and as it stands, insists that Israeli citizens were targeted rather uniquely. (i) generally, all conflict articles favour using the word 'response' in accounts of Israeli actions. One learns to carefully note from such usage how the narrative is being 'spun'. (iii) here the sentence has it that Syria kept shooting at civilians, and Israel 'responded' (self-defence); 'Israeli responses against' governs both 'Syrian positions' and 'encroachments' grammatically, which means that the 'encroachments of increasing intensity in the DMZ' were Syrian forays, not as the text and history says, Israeli encroachments. What the writer meant was to allow the adjective 'Israeli' in 'Israeli responses' to govern 'encroachments', neglecting to realize that the syntax actually is ambiguous and allows the sentence to be read in the opposite way.

It's rather hard work here at times. It's not so much editors that are intimidating, but the quantity of work required to make the article, informative, neutral and readable, and comprehensive (you'd never guess from the article that one of the fears inducing Israel to make a preemptive strike was fear that the Egyptian airforce might attack the illegal Dimona nuclear power plant and destroy Israel's atomic bomb project, which was a major threat to Egypt.(Ami Gluska,The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War: Government, Armed Forces and Defence Policy 1963–67, Routledge, 2007 pp.34-5,76,112-113,123-4,126, 128ff.)(Of course now their fear is that Iran might secure an illegal atomic bomb capacity). etc.etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed posting. It all helps. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyedits

In the subsection headed "Arab": "As a result of the war, a wave of Palestinians was displaced. An estimated 300,000 Palestinians left the West Bank and Gaza, most of whom settled in Jordan."

I don't think the phrasing to the effect that a "wave" was "displaced" is good English - better to say that as a result of the war, 300k Palestinians were displaced from et etc. Also, were they actually settled in Jordan, or did they become refugees there? (I.e., were they given Jordanian citizenship or otherwise absorbed into the Jordanian population?) PiCo (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a technical problem with any choice of terms ('displace'/'refugee'), aside from the figures which, in the article, are rubbery.

• 'in the light of the 1967 war when approximately 370,000 Palestinians were expelled or otherwise displaced from the West Bank and Gaza and moved into Jordan. Most Palestinians made homeless during the 1967 war were legally considered "displaced persons," not refugees. Interestingly, 113,000 Palestinians are classified as both refugees and displaced persons. These were Palestinians expelled from their homes in what became Israel in 1948, generally settling in the West Bank-and therefore classified as refugees- who were exiled a second time in 1967, thereby qualifying as displaced persons as well. In sum, the 1967 war produced approximately 260,000 displaced persons and an additional exodus of 113,000 Palestinians already defined as refugees.' Doug Suisman, Steven Simon, Glenn Robinson,C. Ross Anthony, Michael Schoenbaum,The Arc: A Formal Structure for a Palestinian State,Rand Corporation ‎2007 p.82

Those that finished up in Jordan are classified differently depending from where they were expelled. Jordan classifies refugees from Gaza as displaced persons from the Gaza Strip,with minimal rights, to distinguish them from refugees from the West Bank who, in 1967, had and retained Jordanian citizenship. One could also add to this section the fact that:-

• 400 square kilometres were expropriated from internally displaced Palestinians (IDPs)immediately after '67.Terry Rempel,'International Protection and Durable Solutions,'Nur Masalha, (ed.) Catastrophe Remembered: Palestine, Israel and the Internal Refugees,Zed Books, 2005 pp.260-290, p.269Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Background and summary of events leading to war

I have a serious problem with the second sentence of the introductory paragraph to this section. 1) The provided reference does not support the entry. 2) The sentence leaves the erroneous impression that only Syria was involved in the admonishment by the UN Security Council. 3) The sentence belongs (if at all) in the sub-section "Events: Israel - Syria. Erictheenquirer (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have split the "background sentense". It seems that you are right and the sentence should have been moved to the "syria" sub section. Concerning the content, you might attach a "citation needed" tag to this sentence, with an explanation what is wrong there. after a while, if no one clarify the point, you might delete the sentence. Ykantor (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

to Dailycare: Why did you deleted the sentences referring to the Water Plan ?

Your deletion Diff page.

your reason: "The Johnston plan wasn't accepted by e.g. Syria, so it's irrelevant to mention here."

• Concerning the water plan:

1. This is not accurate. "The Plan was accepted by the technical committees from both Israel and the Arab League. A discussion in the Knesset in July 1955 ended without a vote. The Arab Experts Committee approved the plan in September 1955 and referred it for final approval to the Arab League Council. On 11 October 1955, the Council voted not to ratify the plan, due to the League's opposition to formal recognition of Israel. However, the Arab League committed itself to adhere to the technical details without providing official approval" ( source Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan). That means it was accepted De facto by the Arab League.
2. Syria planned to divert the water to the kingdom of Jordan, who was obliged to the plan. "Israel and Jordan provided assurances they would abide by their allocations."( source Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan)

• concerning your deletion of:"canal for irrigation in its west, and southern desert". The irrigation purpose should not be deleted, since the Arab opposed the Israeli diversion plane since "The Arab leadership also argued that the increase to Israel's water supply would encourage the immigration of more Jewish settlers" ( source:Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River))

I will appreciate it if you un-delete it. Ykantor (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I read the source used on the page you refer to, and it states that Israel and Jordan "undertook to operate within their allocations", it's not clarified what the "technical details" were that the Arab side in general would have agreed to. In any event, the plan wasn't formally accepted by Israel or the Arabs. The section we're editing is the background to the Six-Day War and needs concise summary style, so quotas that Syria hadn't agreed to in the first place don't IMO need specific mention. I'm also OK with just saying, as we do now, that across-border conflict over water had preceded the war without specifying that Israel bombed the Syrian diversion project in April 1967. Similarly for the sake of conciseness I don't see utility in mentioning which parts of Israel would have been irrigated. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Concerning Johnston water plan acceptance by the Arab League, as said it was half way accepted, and there was no alternative plan. At the moment the section is somehow misleading that it was like the "wild west": every state took over whatever amount of water that was decided upon. It is better too show that there was a water plan, that was at least half way accepted by all side, and there was no other alternative plan. So Israel have consumed less than its quota, while Syria planned to divert some of the Israeli water quota to Jordan, although Jordan was obliged not to consume more than its quota .
• Concerning the section size, it can be reduced e.g the April 1967 event, may be condensed. The water dispute reasons, are more important than some of the section other details.
• concerning your deletion of:"canal for irrigation in its west, and southern desert", I have to repeat myself. The irrigation purpose should not be deleted, since the Arab opposed the Israeli diversion plane beacause "The Arab leadership also argued that the increase to Israel's water supply would encourage the immigration of more Jewish settlers" ( source:Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River)). Actually, this is the first link in a chain of events that evetually caused the war. Ykantor (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Concerning Johnston water plan acceptance, according to the first quote(Kobori), the involved states has agreed to the plan, but eventually have not ratified it, because of political reasons. Ykantor (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, now re-reading the Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River) article, I noticed that it says that following 1956 the Arabs in fact opposed the plan. So not only was it not formally approved by either side, the Arabs were against it since way before 1967. Concerning its mention in this summary section, see also WP:SS, others when discussing the background of the SDW don't even mention it (e.g. Parker). Removing already present material from this section is rather hard as it's a result of a long process. There are some important aspects of the Background that need to still be added to it, such as Arab concern over Israel's nuclear-weapons program. Despite your repetition, I'm afraid I still don't see your point concerning the west+south point. Do you have a source that links the Arab leadership's concerns over Jewish immigration to the Six-Day War via the intended irrigation of western and southern, as opposed to eastern and northern, parts? Why would the Arabs be more pleased with Jewish immigratrion to the eastern and northern parts of Israel? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• concerning the water plan status, it is a clear that it was not legally binding for Syria. However:
  • The Arab League technical experts approved it ( after negotiating for 2 years )
  • It was not ratified because of political reasons that had nothing to do with the water quotas

Thus it is important to clarify and to avoid a somehow misleading section that it was like the "wild west": every state took over whatever amount of water that was decided upon.

• The water plan is important since:
  • The Syrian - Israel water dispute is a major factor of the border clashes between Israel and Syria.
  • The border clashes between Israel and Syria are a major factor of the tension that leaded to the war start.
• Concerning the section size, as said, it can be reduced e.g the April 1967 event, may be condensed. The water dispute reasons, are more important than some of the section other details.
• yours: "the intended irrigation of western and southern, as opposed to eastern and northern, parts? Why would the Arabs be more pleased with Jewish immigration to the eastern and northern parts of Israel?". The Israeli national water carrier main purpose was to divert water to the sparsely populated south, since the (Negev desert northern part) land was relatively fertile, but could not be cultivated due to a lack of water. Naturally, cultivating the region is supporting a bigger population, which is the reason why the Arabs opposed it. There were no eastern / northern sparsely populated regions so it does not matter for the article.
• I have carefully read the wp:ss but have not found what is wrong. Will you please highlight the exact section / sentence their?
• It seems that we are in a standstill. Will you cooperate if I will open a dispute ? A volunteer may convince us to compromise. Ykantor (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any specific sentence in wp:ss in mind but e.g. "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs" is relevant to the point I made. What do you mean by opening a dispute? Assuming it is one of the normal dispute resolution methods in the projet I'll naturally co-operate with you. Before proceeding to those, however, we can see if there is real substance to the content issue we're discussing. Namely, do you have sources that explicitly tie the material I deleted to the buildup of the six-day war? If there are sources that say the (ultimately) rejected water plan quotas and geographic distribution of Israel's irrigation plans were relevant to the buildup of tension then the argument is there that the stuff merits mention. If not, then not, IMO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Shemesh (2008). Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967. Sussex Academic Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-84519-188-7. Retrieved 30 August 2013. "the water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relationship that led to the six days war in 1967" Ykantor (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• The present section is misleading: it was like the "wild west": every state took over whatever amount of water. It has to be rectified. Since we do not compromise, let us continue with involvement of wp:drn
• The link to wp:ss seems to be irrelevant.
  • Both of us agree to reduce the size of other less important details ( e.g. the April 1967 shooting). Hence, the added proposed words, will not increase the section size.
  • Your quote is relevant to the lead, which is not the case here. Ykantor (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, the Shemesh source is good. However, the text fails to mention both the geographic distribution of Israel's irrigation plans and the planned quotas so it isn't an argument for including them. Rather, it says that water was an issue, like our present text in the article. Concerning the wild west analogy, it sounds rather good as the Syrians were busy diverting and Israel bombing the diversion plans. Clearly there was no multiratelally accepted framework for managing the water resources since air strikes were used. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Shemesh (2008). Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967. Sussex Academic Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-84519-188-7. Retrieved 30 August 2013. "The water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relations that led to the Six Day War in 1967. The Arab states’ struggle over Israel’s water plans. especially the National Water Carrier (NWC) plan that was designed to carry water from the Jordan River and Sea of Galilee to the Negev, was an integral part of both the overall Arab struggle against Israel and the inter-Arab dispute over the method of solving the Arab Israeli conflict. The struggle generated discussion on all aspects of the Arab Israeli conflict and stood at the center of the conflict.

Following the debates the Arabs prepared, for the first time, a military plan for liquidating Israel. and long-term and short-term strategic goals in their struggle against the Zionist state. Water became the main topic in the Arab media and in inter-Arab forums such as the Arab League Council (ALC). Arab Defense Council (ADC). Arab chiefs-of-staff conference, and the highest forum the Arab summit conferences- at tended by the monarchs and presidents of Arab countries. Discussion in these forums centered on the modus operandi for meeting the challenge of Israel’s water plan.

Since the Arab world viewed the Jordan River’s water as a key element in the overall Palestinian problem and Arab Israeli conflict. then its solution became part of the Arab. Egyptian. or Syrian strategy. Egypt had determined the strategy in the Arab Israeli conflict and the Arab response to Israel’s plans to divert the Jordan River. Just as Syria’s position was the exact opposite of Egypt’s on the first issue, so too was its position on the water issue." Ykantor (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree that counts as a source that mentions the geographical extent in connection with the leadup to the war. Mentioning in the text e.g. "to the Negev", using that source, would in my opinion be OK. Not that I still see a point in mentioning it, but if you feel strongly about it go ahead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Will you accept: "Israel tapped the Jordan River (and the Sea of Galilee) by canal for irrigation of the Southern Negev desert, consuming the water quota allocated by the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan" ? Ykantor (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the same applies here as did to the "Negev" issue. Shemesh, for example, doesn't say that Israel's diversion would be in-line with the plan, rather he says the Arabs rejected the plan and Johnston's mission failed (see p. 32 onward). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat the quote as in those deleted lines: name="Murakami1995p287">{{cite book|author=Masahiro Murakami|title=Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East; Alternative Strategies|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xVGo3B-82GMC%7Caccessdate=15 July 2013|year=1995|publisher=United Nations University Press|isbn=978-92-808-0858-2|pages=295|quote="both Jordan and Israel undertook to operate within their allocations, and two major successful projects were undertaken: the Israeli National Water Carrier and Jordan's East Ghor Main Canal...The initial diversion capacity of the National Water Carrier without supplementary booster pumps was 320 million m3, well within the limits of the Johnston Plan." Ykantor (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please see my comment above, timestamped 18:52, 29 August 2013. The Murakami book only mentions the Six-Day War once, on page 284, and there doesn't mention that Israel's plan to irrigate the Negev would have been in-line with the failed Johnston plan. In fact, it doesn't even mention the Johnston plan overall, or the leadup to the Six-Day War. --Dailycare (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• It seems we are advancing along a circle, and we start to repeat the same questions and answers. Is it fair to prolong the discussion by returning to the same points?
• unlike your claim, murakami mentions Johnston plan few times.
• the water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relationship that led to the six days war in 1967" (shemesh)
• The increase in water-related Arab-Israeli hostility was a major factor leading to the June 1967 war(murakami)
• Political considerations cited by the Arabs in rejecting the 1955 Johnston Plan were revived to justify the diversion scheme. Particular emphasis was placed on the Carrier's capability to enhance Israel's capacity to absorb immigrants to the detriment of Palestinian refugees. In response, Israel stressed that the National Water Carrier was within the limits of the Johnston Plan..(murakami)
• The technical committees from both sides accepted the Unified Plan ...Israel and Jordan have generally adhered to the Johnston allocations, and technical representatives from both countries continue to meet two or three times a year ...These events set off what has been called "a prolonged chain reaction of border violence that linked directly to the events that led to the [June 1967] war" (Safran cited in Cooley, 1984, p. 16). Border incidents continued between Israel and Syria, triggering air battles in July 1966 and April 1967 and, finally, all-out war in June 1967.(kobori)
• so, these points are proven:

• So my contribution (that you deleted) is fully justified. However, I propose to compromise and not to mention that Syria planned to consume more than it's allocation.

I agree that this does seem to now return to territory we've already covered. For the record, I didn't say Murakami doesn't mention the Johnston plan. I said Murakami doesn't discuss the Johnston plan in connection with the lead-up to the Six-Day War (=on page 284 which is the only place it mentions the Six-Day War), and so isn't a very good source to use in a section that discusses the lead-up to the Six-Day War. What I wrote above applies, namely you need sources that support what you want to include in the article. If you feel like editing the section on the lead-up to the war, you need to consult sources that discuss the lead-up to the war. It may be in fact easier to find a source and then decide on the wording, rather than the other way around. You might want to try a thought excercise: a lot of territory that is on the "Israeli" side of the Green Line was allocated to the Arab State in the Partition Resolution, which the Zionist leadership publicly accepted, or at least signaled acceptance. Would you support mentioning this in connection with places and events in Israel that occur at these locations, if sources don't make the connection? --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• concerning Murakami and the Johnston plan, you said:"In fact, it doesn't even mention the Johnston plan overall", which is rather strange.
• to your last question: Yes, I support mentioning a relevant information, although not mentioned in a RS. If you are interested, I have already done it in another issue
• However, there is no analogy here. Everything here is well supported. It seems that you ask for Murakami support only, but I have used Murakami, Shemesh and Kobori. Is that the problem?
• Can you please list whatever is not well supported in your opinion? We have a communication problem, since in my opinion everything is well supported. Ykantor (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to add that the Israeli plan would have been within the Johnston plan allocation in this section, you need a source, and preferably several, that mentions this specific item in this specific context (the leadup to the Six-Day War). So far, there is no such source. This encyclopedia has articles on the Johnston plan and the Israeli diversion effort. That info seems appropriate there rather than here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• At least, we know where we are standing now. As I understand Wikipedia rules, the article sentences relies on wp:rs , but not necessarily the same RS. It was proven (not by the same RS) that

1. - The Arabs opposed the Israeli NWC (National water carrier) since it would be used to irrigate the Negev and enable more Israeli farmers there.
2. - The Israeli NWC consumed water were within the Johnston plan allocation
3. - Israel and Jordan adhered to those quotas. The Arab League technical committee accepted it as well, but the League rejected it later, because of political reasons
4. - The increase in water-related Arab-Israeli hostility was a major factor leading to the June 1967 war.

• Should we hold on until you provide a a proof that those points must refer to the same RS? or should we continue with wp:drn? Ykantor (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If you take information from different sources, particularly "Primary sources" to make them say something that is not in a secondary reliable source, that is WP:OR. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have not read the discussion. i.e. "Primary sources"? "to make them say something that is not in a secondary reliable source"? Ykantor (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, have a look at this section of WP:OR: " (...) is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The relevance here is that no reliable source has placed the content you're proposing in the topic of the section, namely the lead-up to the Six-Day War. As no source has placed the compliance of Israel's plan with the (failed) Johnston plan quotas in the context of the lead-up to the war, it has no place in that section. Overall, I'm sure that if you think about this, you agree that this is a good rule to have since otherwise anyone could enter any sourced material anywhere in the encyclopedia. See also WP:TOPIC Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your quote's source is: Synthesis of published material that advances a position. As I understand it, our case complies with SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. I will verfy it with the help desk. Ykantor (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What you suggested to include is a WP:SYNTH because it gives the WP:OR feeling that the Arab opposition to the way Israelis expected to use water ressources was not legitimate and that it is one of the key point that produce the war. What WP:RS source would state so ?

Could you please indicate to us what is your first language ? It is not English. It looks like it would be French. Is this the case ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In order to avoid any [[wp:synth] claims, I have modified my proposal:

1. the water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relationship that led to the six days war in 1967 (shemesh p. 32 ; murakami; kobori, wolf). On 1964, Israel completed and started using the National Water Carrier (NWC) that carried water from the Sea of Galilee for the Southern Negev desert (shemesh p. 32).
2. The Arab states opposed the Israeli National Water Carrier (NWC) project because it enabled Israel to irrigate the Negev desert(murakami) and support a population growth of up to 5 millions (sosland 2007 p. 80). Moreover, Syria did not regard Israel as a party with any Jordan river riparian right (sosland 2007 p. 79). Hence, the Arab states decided to divert the Jordan river tributaries to Syria and Jordan which would result in Israel loosing one third of the water planned for its NWC (shemesh p. 50; kobori), and Syria would gain more water then its allocation (shemesh p.49) according to the Johnston plan. the Arab scheme was only marginally feasible; it was technically difficult economically inefficient(wolf) and expensive (murakami c.4)
3. On 1966, After few israelis killed as their cars detonated mines (the perpetrators' tracks led to Syria) Israeli army destroyed Syrian ground moving equipment used for their diversion project. (shemesh p. 65). The Syrians nearly halted the diversion project. (shemesh p. 66)

• Will you please tell me, if you have any objections. Ykantor (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What text, exactly, are you proposing to put into the article? --Dailycare (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

All of it. Once the content is agreed upon, it may be concised. Ykantor (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As we discussed previously, the Murakami reference doesn't discuss the lead-up to the Six-Day War. I'm puzzled that you're once more citing it as it doesn't relate to the subject-matter of this article and should not be used as a source here or anywhere else in this article. I made a search into the Kobori reference in Google Books, according to which it fails to mention the phrase "Six-Day War" even once. What is the Sosland source? Another point is that if we expand the water issues with this kind of block, it will have roughly as much space in the article as the actual border skirmishes and threats issued during the actual lead-up to the war. As to the content above sources to Shemesh, I'm OK with replacing the first sentence of the Israel-Syria section with the first sentence of point 1) above, sourced to Shemesh. On page 32, Shemesh doesn't mention 1964 so the second sentence of point 1) above seems unsourced. Concerning point 2) above, the sections sourced to Shemesh are quite similar to what we already have in the article. We can have the current wording or those, I'm OK either way. Concerning point 3) I can't comment specifically as I don't have access to Shemesh after page 63. However pages leading up to 63 quite clearly say the reason for Israel's attacks was water, not mined cars. --Dailycare (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• the Murakami reference does discuss the lead-up to the Six-Day War. it is quoted in the article.
• The Kobori source does mention it:"These events set off what has been called "a prolonged chain reaction of border violence that linked directly to the events that led to the [June 1967] war" (Safran cited in Cooley, 1984, p. 16). Border incidents continued between Israel and Syria, triggering air battles in July 1966 and April 1967 and, finally, all-out war in June 1967."
• I have undone your deletion. the sentence is well supported. It was not justified to delete it.
• The Sosland source is quoted in the sentence that you deleted and I un-deleted.
• as for this sentence:"On 1964, Israel completed and started using the National Water Carrier (NWC) that carried water from the Sea of Galilee for the Southern Negev desert (shemesh p. 32)." , I apologize. it is Shemesh p. 43 (and not 32), and Murakami as well.
• Concerning Shemesh p. 65, I can read it with Google books (while I can't read page 63). Are you sure you can't? try to search for the word "mine". Ykantor (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a complex topic it is this, and simplifying it misleads:

'The Arab states opposed the Israeli National Water Carrier (NWC) project because it enabled Israel to irrigate the Negev desert(murakami) and support a population growth of up to 5 millions (sosland 2007 p. 80).'

Selective snippet. The objections were based on numerous grounds, that being one of them. Palestinians had traditional water rights to the Jordan and 150 pumping stations before 1967, and immediately Israel won, it forbad them to use that water resource. There are dozens of interests, not only watering the Negev to allow immigration. Subtraction of resources, bombing of diversion projects, all meant Arabs would less developmental water, and the objections specifically re Negev also concerned the real fact that the Palestinian refugees would be denied water in order to provide water to Israeli immigrants who at the time weren't there. The anomaly remains that:Teagan E Ward and Hillery L Roach, ‘Hydropolitics and Water Security in the Nile and Jordan River Basins,’ in Dhirendra K. Vajpeyi (ed) Water Resource Conflicts and International Security: A Global Perspective 2012 pp.51-102 p.88 ‘This project was one of the very few examples in the world where water is being diverted from an international river basin by one riparian state to areas outside the basin, without the consent of other riparian states and peoples sharing the basin.’ (Elhance 1999). The whole thing is extremely complex, multifactored and with conflicting attitudes in the 'Arab camp', and is covered by dozens of technical works in great detail. To snip up a picture in three points like this makes for caricature if you intend it to be a summary of the relevant issues. It ain't. I suggest one look at the whole page, and contextualize the water issue as that is given in books specifically dealing with the 67 war. If one does not do this, one will bloat out a section violating WP:Undue, and perhaps risking WP:Synth suspicions. I myself have long studied it, and never undertaken to synthesize the materials for articles like this because it is too unwieldyNishidani (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• yours:"If there is a complex topic it is this, and simplifying it misleads:". Do you mean it can not be simplified?
• yours: " The objections were based on numerous grounds, that being one of them". All the sources (mentioned by myself) are repeating the same reason.
• yours:" all meant Arabs would less developmental water,". This is called a compromise. Johnson spent 2 years (1953 to 1955) in negotiating with all sides, and eventually the technical experts of all sides have compromised and agreed to the Johnston plan. The Arab League rejected it later , but on political ground and not because any problem with the quotas. the plan was seriously considered by Arab leaders. e.g. name="Gat2003p101">Moshe Gat (2003). Britain and the Conflict in the Middle East, 1964-1967: The Coming of the Six-Day War. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-275-97514-2. Retrieved 7 September 2013. [on 1965]Nasser too, assured the American under Secretary of state, Philip Talbot, that the Arabs would not exceed the water quotas prescribed by the Johnston plan</ref>
• In my opinion, Hillery L Roach has a fringe view. Have a look at the quote:

1. "his project was one of the very few examples in the world where water is being diverted from an international river basin by one riparian state to areas outside the basin...". This is ridiculous. She try to present it as a crime. What is wrong with piping the water to the desert? once the state is using its' quota, it can use it anywhere, even if Ms Hillery L Roach does not like it.
2. "...without the consent of other riparian states and peoples sharing the basin". She is twisting the facts again. She completely ignores Johnston plan, and that Israel and Jordan has used no more than their plan's quotas.

• yours:"one will bloat out a section violating WP:Undue, and perhaps risking WP:Synth suspicions". As everyone has agreed to the previous writing of this issue, there is no reason to start talking about a WP:Undue for the same issue with a different concise content. Concerning WP:Synth, we can ask at a help desk whether there is such a problem. Ykantor (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is exactly the same as the other places where you are in conflict with other contributors. You refuse to comply by yourself with WP:NPOV in providing by yourself a fair view of the different points of view of an issue.

When you decide to comply with this, there will be a chance that you can collaborate fruitfully with other contributors. As long as you refuse, there will be endless discussions.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

what is the WP:NPOV here? note that Dailycare opposed my writing, but have not mentioned NPOV. Ykantor (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we could step back a bit here, and have a look at the text in the article. It now says water was an issue, and mentions the competing diversion projects. I think that's OK and presents water issues in this summary section. Many scholarly sources don't give enormous space to water issues so there is an argument that the present wording is sufficient to cover water. YK is right, by the way, that Murakami does mention this war, but this point doesn't move the earth here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So why have we spent the last 3 weeks, for nothing? why have we spent the last 3 weeks with all sort of your content objections? You could have said it 3 weeks ago that is not a content dispute but ... (I am not sure what is the problem now). unfortunately, we have to continue in the wp:drn. Ykantor (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

to Dailycare:Will you be able to reply in the Drn ? Ykantor (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We haven't spent the past three weeks for nothing, we've been discussing the content and agreed on changes to the content (the Negev point), and now we have participation from more editors than just the two of us which is a definite advance to have more pairs of eyes looking at the issue. Nishidani's comment, for one, seems reasonable in my opinion. --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Children"?

I have changed the caption in one of the images from "israeli children" to simply "israelies" since 6 of the individuals that can be discerned are children but the other 5 are clearly adults (the other 2 heads are undiscernable with at least one appearing to be another adult as well). Likewise for the caption of "israeili women and children" (changed to "israelies") since an adult male is shown in that picture. Mercy11 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Classic WP:Original research reverted. The original captions in at least 1 of the pics reflect title given, and the second is equally valid. Do not revert without consensus based on discussion. You appear to have an aversion to the term Israeli children, or women and children. And the capitalisation of the term Israel or Israeli. How odd. Irondome (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact shown HERE is that you were the only 1 dissenting voice in a consensus that included 10 other editors against you. As the closing admin qualified it ("stupid "), perhaps you can use this time to reflect on your real goals in the Wikipedia community. Disruptions such as this are not very well taken. Mercy11 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What a pompous and deliberately deceptive comment! The closing admin notes that bringing your POV to the board was "stupid". Your escalation provoked this "stupidity". I further note "Why do not the two of you try to find a common ground..writing Israeli civilians". I will follow the admin advice and will be using Israeli civilians. The discussion will be here, prior to any edit From your previous comments Israeli civilians would appear to be acceptable to you. Do not attempt to provoke WP:Drama by escalating again and running to the boards. The discussion for the new wording shall be here. You made no attempt to engage with me in the previous fiasco, and I hope you shall actually engage in dialogue this time around. I will follow the Admin advice and attempt to work with you, although your cynical cherry -picking of specific and contextually problematic quotes of just some of the participants I find disturbing. You appear to have badly misrtead the closing comments. I strongly suggest you examine your POV issues. You are the disruptive influence here at this point, and your perception of disagreement taken as "disruption" in itself is troubling to me. Examine your own motivations. Irondome (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Abd al-Azim Ramadan

Who's that guy ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I found several references to him on googlebook. In all the ones that I have checked he was considered as a reference for the modern history of Egypt. It seems he deserves to be quoted. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theories"

Section: "Allegations of military support from the U.S., U.K. and Soviet Union"

Passage: "Many of these allegations and conspiracy theories have been disputed and it has been claimed that some were given currency in the Arab world to explain the Arab defeat."

Made a minor edit to remove the term 'and conspiracy theories'. If this is just meant to mean 'theories about a conspiracy' it is at best redundant - 'allegations' is quite sufficient - and probably simply inapt, since if 'theories' are supposed to be distinct from 'allegations', then this is the first mention of such 'theories'. If, however, as is the natural reading, 'conspiracy theories' is being used in what has become its usual sense, then it is as a heavily value-laden term, generally used to suggest 'paranoid' fantasising.

user Ykantor has twice reverted my edit so as to reinstate this heavily loaded weasel term. The reasons given by each of us were:

1st edit, stax68: "Removed phrase "and conspiracy theories" which is either redundant or, if not, a 'weasel' term."

1st revert, YKantor: "this is the stable version. you need a reason to delete it"

2nd edit, stax68: " I gave a good reason for my correction"

2nd revert, YKantor: "where is the RS support? you can't change the stable version with no support)"

Since YKantor has twice failed to give any valid reason for reverting my change, I am going to again remove the offending term. I trust that YKantor will not revert the change again without providing a good substantive reason for doing so.

Stax68 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You have to obey Wikipedia rules, which state that you have to provide a wp:rs if you change the article stable version. Why I have to repeat it? why can't you provide an RS? I undo your deletion and, the next step might be a wp:an. Ykantor (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Podeh 2004 without a page number is not enough.

In which page in the source would this come from ? It's worth checking what is stated.

(I will try to see who is Podeh later.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The mention of "Conspiracy Theories" is not attributed to Podeh, but spoken in the editorial voice. The sentence in question first asserts that (some of?) these allegations are 'conspiracy theories' (and links to a page about a supposed racial sybtype of this supposed category: 'Arab Conspiracy Theories') , and then describes Podeh's claims. If it is considered important to include mention of 'conspiracy theories', then this needs to be done within the scope of the term 'it has been claimed that' (i.e. by Podeh).

So I am going to remove this one more time, and I suggest that if YKantor thinks it important to include this term, he/she should reinstate it in the correct part of the sentence, e.g. "Many of these allegations have been disputed and it has been claimed that some of them are conspiracy theories given currency in the Arab world to explain the Arab defeat." (I don't think Podeh actually refers to the racially-specific kind of 'conspiracy theory', so glossing 'conspiracy theory as 'Arab Conspiracy Theory' doesn't seem justified even within a report of Podeh's views. A link to 'conspiracy theories' would, I suppose, be justfiable.)

I can't in good conscience make that change because I don't think use of the term 'conspiracy theories' ever helps shed light on any subject. But if YKantor makes such an edit, I will go along with it. Pending any such edit, the article is improved by removing the offending term, which I am now going to do.

Stax68 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You have to obey Wikipedia rules, which state that you have to provide a wp:rs if you change the article stable version. Why I have to repeat it? why can't you provide an RS?. Unless you undo your unjustified deletion , I will have to report you to wp:ae for edit warring and for breaking the 1RR rule. This warning is placed in your talkpage as well. Ykantor (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. I don't know exactly what a 'stable version' is, or how one recognises one. But in any case, your objection currently seem to be that my deletion has no support from a source. This makes no sense to me. I've removed an unsourced phrase, on the grounds that it adds nothing useful - for example any concrete factual information about the topic - and only serves to introduce loaded language in the editorial voice. How - and why - is that deletion supposed to be backed by a 'source'?

I'm satisfied that I've acted correctly here, and your warnings - threats, really, including one made via a newly created stax68 talk page - don't seem justified to me. I've gone to some trouble - more than I would have thought necessary for such a minor edit - to lay out the issues as I see them. I'd suggest you address those issues and seek consensus before referring the matter to the WP authorities. But do what you gotta do, I guess.

Stax68 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You ignore this WP rule: WP:PROVEIT - Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source'. Ykantor (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems confused. The first clause cited appears to justify my deletion, as YKantor seems tacitly to admit. The clause in bold applies to YKantor's reversions, not to my deletions: I did not 'replace' anything. I'm happy to engage in constructive discussion of the issue, but with respect I don't think I need spend any more time responding to spurious formal objections. Stax68 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no page number given with Podeh 2004.

Stax68, if Ykantor reverts, I will revert him, until we can have this page number to comply with WP:V, the Second Pillar of WP..

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone needs to do his part in avoiding entering into an edit war. That Podeh 2004 needs a page number is a fact, per WP:V. It is also true that WP:PROVEIT applies here. However, Ykantor, if the the so-called "stable version" is not fully cited, then WP:PROVEIT applies equally well to the text that has been sitting there and which Stax68 is rightfully questioning - the so-called "stable version". Per WP:BURDEN, whoever entered the text as it existed in that so-called "stable version" must provide WP:RS or else the entire statement - and not just questionable "conspiracy theories" phrase - may be removed. Mercy11 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK but my edit is justified regardless of whether the source is properly cited; even if a page number were supplied, the edit should stand - correct? BTW, 'Middle East Quarterly" is not in fact an academic journal but the product of an avowedly political organisation called Middle East Forum ( http://www.meforum.org/about.php ). I wonder whether WP:QS might apply to this source (i.e. the publisher/editorial board). A campaigning organisation seeking to influence opinion for political reasons would seem to have an interest that directly conflicts with a scholarly concern for truth-seeking. I'm a very inexperienced editor, so I don't know about that. I do know that I wouldn't rely on it myself; especially not pre-2009, when it wasn't even nominally peer reviewed: "since the Middle East Quarterly began publication in 1994, its editors have made nearly all publication decisions because, as we noted in our inaugural issue, so few other specialists on the Middle East and Islam shared its mission of considering the region 'explicitly from the viewpoint of American interests.' Indeed, many other journals, we wrote, 'even tend to sympathize with states and organizations hostile' to the United States." ( http://www.meforum.org/2037/editors-note-on-peer-review ). Even after peer review was introduced, the situation seems little improved, since the editor makes it clear that referees are selected on the basis of their political views: "In 2009, circumstances have begun to change. This journal finds itself part of a growing community of specialists not hostile to the United States and its allies. As other journals and organizations have joined our ranks, they increased the circle of those with professional and expert knowledge of the Middle East and created a larger pool of reviewers to engage in a constructive process of refereeing." Maybe this is not the place for ths discussion; maybe my standards are too stringent for WP. Apologies if so, but I thought I'd mention it anyway, since this little disagreement has focused my attention on the publication.Stax68 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@dailycare: Shlaim & Louis p. 63

Here is the Shlaim & Louis p. 63 you asked for. Ykantor (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

adjective-heavy sentences.

In the section 'The mid front (Abu-Ageila) Israeli division' there is a bit that goes 'Sharon's forces came under heavy shelling as they advanced from the north and west. The Israelis had to struggle through sand dunes and mines while under heavy fire, and took heavy casualties.' Now I know this is military history, but still, three uses of the word heavy? I can't edit the article, but I think this sounds rather clumsy. I'd change or remove at least one of them ('heavy' is used a fair bit in the article, so keeping them relatively well-spaced is a good thing) My suggestions would be either to get rid of the middle 'heavy' and let 'fire' stand on its own, or replace the last one with something like 'significant'. Depends a bit on the source though I suppose.122.61.157.138 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dlv999: The straights closure

yours: "Actually it is a misrepresentation. they are talking about troops into SES not closure of the SoT".

Will you please have a look at the Shlaim & Louis p. 63 and see that although Nasser quote does not contain the straights closure, the previous 6 lines refers to it. In my opinion, it is clear that in this case the author refers to both events as identical. Ykantor (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I already read the text or I would never have altered your edit. Your interpretation of the text doesn't make any sense considering the text directly below the quote is entitled "Step 3 closing the Straits of Tiran" and begins with the text explaining that the closure of the Straits of Tiran was more important than the event discussed in the previous passage (i.e. Troops into Sharm El Sheik). In any case, good job uploading the text. Other editors can have a look at the text and make up their own mind. Dlv999 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the scanned page so promptly. I read the cite as referring to the "Egyptian military presence in Sharm-al-Sheikh" 2-3 lines immediately above the cite. --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nasser-Israel destruction

user:Dailycare deleted an important , well sourced and concised Nasser quotes, and did not replace it. He said: "Concentrate discussion on Nasser's declarations to one place and have a source characterize it rather than cite verbatim]". He added a separated issue text which has nothing to do with the deleted text.

- The deleted Nasser quotes are:

--on May 27, Nasser stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

--According to Shlaim & Louis, in the end of May 1967, Nasser claimed in a public speech to have been aware of the implications of the Egyptian decision to send troops into Sharm El Sheikh: "Taking over Sharm El Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. It also means that we ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation". On 26 May Nasser declared, "The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel".

- Nasser was the Arab world leader and the strongest Arab state- Egypt president. Those concised quotes are very important . I'll appreciate it if Dailycare returns those important quotes to the article.

- Nishidani supported him and said:"History is not pro'paganda pitched to pander to emotions, rhetoric is not facts, and history is based on cold calculations and hardware".It is not true that using a quote is problematic. e.g. World War II#War breaks out in Europe (1939–40) : "On 6 October Hitler made a public peace overture to the United Kingdom and France, but said that the future of Poland was to be determined exclusively by Germany and the Soviet Union. Chamberlain rejected this on 12 October, saying "Past experience has shown that no reliance can be placed upon the promises of the present German Government."

- The sources are Shlaim and Mutawi, which can not be suspected as biased towards Israel. So, there is no dispute that Nasser said so.

- Since during the relevant period , the 3 weeks before the war, Nasser decisions are a matter of debate among historians, it is especially important to keep his quotes in the article.

- Ben Gurion words: "Expell them" are used here, and I do not see any reason to eliminate it, because it is supposedly a propaganda. On the same token, Nasser words should stay here. Notes:

Ykantor (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

To repeat: history is not based on scare-quotes, which is beginning to look like what you do to pages. Nasser made threats no intelligent person could take seriously, and it was rhetoric pitched to the Arab street. You refer to the 'expel them' bit, i.e., Ben Gurion's behaviour as reported by Rabin. B-G didn't yell threats for newspapers. A mere silent wave of the hand left no paper trail, but was understood to imply dramatic actions against innocents far more effective than Nasser's quotes. B-G's gesture (not words) had a profound impact on the execution of policy, Nasser's had no impact whatsoever. Of all of the threats of massive bloodshed from Arabs, almost no incidents are recorded when opportunities arose, whereas Yishuv statements publicly on this are zero, and yet from 24-60 odd substantial massacres of Palestinians villagers in cold-blood took place in a very brief period. Historians understand when to attachs weight to words/events, you don't. We could make a book-length article of inflammatory quotes, and no one would be the wiser as to what actually happened in the war. Thus your habit of harvesting this incidental material is not only narratively pointless, it appears to endeavour to create an hysteric atmosphere of imminent destruction. There's a lot of work to do here on important issues, and you would do well to try and understand what is important and what is hot-air.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You should read p.94 of Mutawi, the page before the one your quote is extracted from; the whole page explains how, in all likelihood, Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel. For example:

• "Nasser's actions have been regarded as part of a political manoeuvre to demonstrate his readiness to challenge Israel while having no intention of carrying out his threats."
• "As late as 2 June, when asked by the British MP Christopher Mayhew: 'And if they do not attack will you let them alone?' he replied, 'Yes, we wll leave them alone. We have no intention of attacking Israel.' Similar assurances were repeatedly given to the USA by the highest Egyptian authorities."
• "The belief that Nasser was only bluffing was shared by the Jordanians."

    ←   ZScarpia   22:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

one of the the Mutawi quotes, is already in the article, see note no. 90. Nasser rhetoric is important and should be quoted, as well as historians assessments e.g. Mutawi.

-There is a difference between current historians retrospective assessment of the rhetoric significance, and the real time worries. In fact, according to Oren, Nasser planned to attack Israel at the 27 May , hence his speeches are not of declarative value only.

- Spurred by the virulent Arab rhetoric, mounting concern and pressure from the media, ... the Israeli public sense was of heightened fear and of an approaching holocaust. So it is important to to show what rhetoric caused the worries.

- According to Ramadan, Nasser was not a rational leader. He tended to take important decision without consultation. e.g.

---------Nasser recorded phone call to Hussein, at the war's 1st day, when Nasser told Hussein that U.K aircraft carriers helped Israel and then he asked Hussein whether the U.K has aircraft carriers at all. Nasser was not predictable. He could abruptly change his mind without a consultation. Hypothetically he could say that he won't attack, and in the next day change his mind and decide to attack.

---------Nasser's ambivalence about his goals and objectives was reflected in his orders to the military. The general staff changed the operational plan four times in May 1967, each change requiring the redeployment of troops, with the inevitable toll on both men and vehicles. Hence, at real time, no one could be sure whether Nasser speeches are just a rhetoric or are a meaningful threat.

- Would you accept : "Nasser said.... However, most historians claims that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel" ?. Actually, this proposal is problematic, because Egypt planned to attack Israel at the 27 May (Oren) . Also "According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation". And: "the testimony of Egyptian Chief of Staff General Mahmoud Fawzi to the effect that an Egyptian air attack was scheduled for 27 May, and that the relevant orders had already been signed by Abdel Hakim Amer when Nasser ordered its cancellation on 26 May" (Gluska 2007 , p. 168) Ykantor (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2014

We can state this only and only if historians state the facts that way, ie if they report both the threaths of Nasser and the fact he had no these intentions. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The section 'Events: Israel–Egypt', is devoid of any significant reportage of the intense flurry of diplomatic efforts, threats, counter-preparations for a preemptive strike from mid-May to the outbreak of war. This is very complicated. Nasser's reported threats were countermanded by US threats, in the case of an Arab attack, to side operatively with Israel. Ezer Weizmann had before Nasser's declaration also had refined an attack plan (all nations have them) that was to be put into operation on the 25th. May (Ami Gluska,The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War, Routledge p.162. But see the entire coverage pp.152-203) Quotes are fine if the basic political, strategic and diplomatic history has been duly reported for its salient elements. Otherwise, Ykantor, the selective use of cherrypicked scare-quotes is disruptive in the face of the primitive fact-bare narrative we still have.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

)

Hi guys, I think the standard YKantor seeks to meet isn't the right one. Whether the quote is verbatim in a reliable source isn't the point, rather the point is whether historians have chosen to assign weight to the specific wording of the quote. I don't feel that's the case, e.g. Mutawi explicitly characterizes Nasser's rhetoric as something that wasn't taken seriously at the time. Furthermore, this is the Background section which should limit itself to the most pertinent aspects. We need to prune this section down to the most pertinent aspects, not add further non-pertinent details to is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussions

Ykantor. Apart from the huge mess caused by sections, subsections, all of which have dribs and drabs of a few bits of info that strike your attention, WP:NPOV requires narrative balance. To see what you are doing, reread the two sections above, and tell me, or anyone else, where the narrative balance is. The Israeli section is all about calm, and defensiveness; the Egyptian section all about the opposite. One could easily reverse the impression by highlighting the bluffs on one side, and the cold calculations on the other. As it is, you appear to be accruing and marshalling tidbits to make a thesis of responsibility fall hard on one side.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to revert to a readable version of this page before the present mess was created

I find the page unreadable. It has been split up into numerous sections, each with a favoured dollop of info, usually begging for either expansion or NPOV balance. It has expanded while fragmenting, and all narrative flow is, or has been, lost. I went back to February 2013 and found that readable though many things were questionable. I don't think the main drafting editor has the foggiest idea of how a wiki page is to be edited, and the time required to fix the mess we have would be enormous. In that sense, I'd like to hear from other editors to see if the notion of a revert to the page when it last presented a narrative, and not a 'wretched patchwork' of cherrypicked tidbits by theme is acceptable. And if so, has any one an idea of what the last readable page was? Such a revert need not elide the sources Ykantor has added, if they can be reworked into some version of the earlier narrative.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

- The content: I will appreciate it if you show me examples of a POV and I will try to balance it.

- The article structure: I might be wrong, but it seems that the structure is more logical. Hence, the current structure exposes a lack of information (e.g. Syrian army) and duplicated content (e.g. The Jordanian army), which were previously buried in long sections

- Yours: "It has expanded while fragmenting, and all narrative flow is, or has been, lost. I went back to February 2013 and found that readable". I fully agree with you. My writing style is unfortunately not fluent, which is noticeable in the section of Israel during the weeks before the war. However, the major reason for the loss of the narrative flow, is the shifting of text blocks to more suitable sections. e.g. The Jordanian army section, is composed of 2 different blocks of text which were shifted from there previous not so suitable locations to this section. When moving text, I am in a difficult position since people are rather suspicious (e.g. user:Huldra in the 1948 war article), but after a while, if people are not complaining, I can try to merge the shifted text blocks.

- The Israel section, is still missing the U.S- Israel communication, which I plan to add yet. Ykantor (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not your writing style, which can be fixed. Asking for me to point out a POV means you can't see any so far. Take section after the lead, starring a minor figure Sosland, to showcase the Syria to blame thesis, and then stating that Israel tapped water vs Syria took it to thwart Israel. Dear Ykantor, this kind of error of emphasis is elementary, and yet is all over the page as you reworked it. I started a list last night but fatigue overtook me. Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Nishidani. It's been edited with an agenda since February, but that has backfired because the article is now such a reader-unfriendly mess no one is going to want to read it! It's a sad but not untypical Wikipedia story. But, (hypocritically, I admit) it's not a topic I have enough interest in to want to put time and energy in helping to sort out. For tge record, I support a revert to February though. DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Going back to Feb and then discussing proposed changes before making them sounds like a good idea to me. --Dailycare (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani: "to showcase the Syria to blame thesis, and then stating that Israel tapped water vs Syria took it to thwart Israel."

- This text was already here at the 30 January, so a February version recovery does not change this specific point.

- Most of the sources are using the word "thwart" for the Syrian diversion, and a words like tap, divert, irrigate etc. for the Israeli and Jordanian projects. see a list of sources, including a real time Reuters and A.P reports.

- the background: Water politics in the Jordan River basin

--------At the early 50's, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the irrigation expert Eric Johnston as "Special Representative " to deal with the water conflict between Israel, Jordan, and Syria. He negotiated the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan with Israel and the Arab states. The plan was based on principles similar to those embodied in the Marshall Plan – reducing the potential for conflict by promoting cooperation and economic stability, and was commissioned by UNRWA. The Arab league technical committee approved the plan but the Arab League have not ratified the plan, due to the League's opposition to formal recognition of Israel. President Nasser assured the U.S, that the Arabs would not exceed the water quotas prescribed by the Johnston plan. Israel and Jordan assured the U.S that they won't use more than their quota, and the U.S financed the diversion projects of both countries .

-------- I guess that the sources describe the Israeli diversion project (and the Jordanian one), using tap, divert, irrigate etc, because its water consumption was within the U.N sponsored Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan. However, the Syrian/ Lebanese diversion projects, the Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River), were costly and hardly beneficial. It added water to Jordan and Lebanon which had already used / about to use their quotas. It's main reason was to frustrate the Israeli diversion project, because of it was expected to strengthen the enemy, Israel.

- "thwart" was used by Reuters and A.P at real time: Arabs meet, Arab plot strategy, Arab summit disbands, Syrian... complaining off the conference's weak resolution against Israeli plans.

- "thwart" is used by Murakami, Shemesh[1], Gat p. 34 [2], Gluska p. 29 [3], , Reich p. 443[4], Khouri p. 227 [5]

- I will appreciate it if you show me other examples of a POV and I will try to balance it. Ykantor (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

- Looking again at the "thwart" issue, we may soften it a little bit by saying sort of: Syria diversion purpose was mainly to hinder the enemy ( Israel) strengthening by the diversion of the Jordan water". Ykantor (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• How about reverting the Background section to this version? It pre-dates the "events israel-syria" format. --Dailycare (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not an expert of this period but I find this background more clear than the current one and it sounds neutral. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • When I first came accross this article a couple of three years ago, it was a huge bloated mess of 200kb. The reason was that cumulative POV editing had resulted in a huge emphasis on the origins of the war. Each side had added their favourite facts that supported their "who's to blame" POV. About half of the article was a tedious and confused narrative of the road to war. So, with the aim of rescuing this article from unreadability, I created Origins of the Six-Day War and transferred most of the pre-war text to that article, leaving a very brief Background section behind. This cut the article down from 200kb to 100kb and although it was still far from perfect I hoped that this would give it the best chance of readability and avoidiing the POV carousel. That was naive. Here we are again, it's 183kb and with a new confused narrative mess on the origins intended to demonstrate who was to blame. (And btw YKantor's made an equal POV mess of the Origins article as well now). While reverting to the version linked to by Dailycare is certainly preferable to the current version, IMHO the best starting point is what was left behind when the Origins article was created I.e. this. As there's a whole other article on the road to war only a brief Background section is warranted here per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Let us look at the facts.

-When I edited the Origins of the Six-Day War at the first time, in 10.6.2013, his "readable prose size" was 55 kB (size was 110000 bytes). At the moment, the "readable prose size" is 56 kB (size 115000 bytes). Hence , the article "readable prose size" was hardly changed.

-There were duplicates and triplicates of the same event , along the article. One of the editors wrote:"The article is not without its flaws and certainly needs improvement ,...--Frederico1234". I have listed problems in the talk page , some were wrong and some are correct but still not dealt with. In order to cancel the duplicates and sort the article along the timeline, I improved the structure and shifted text accordingly, without any text modification. My improvements, were not necessarily right, so I have listened to the other editors. You did not like one aspect, and it was changed according to your view.

- As I recall, I have deleted duplicates only, and have added a few sentences only. Most of the initial criticism is still in the talkpage, and have not dealt with yet. If the contents is hardly changed, how come that "YKantor's made an equal POV mess of the Origins article as well now"? I will appreciate it if you tell me where is the POV? Ykantor (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Let us look at the facts, concerning this article too.

-When I edited this article at the first time, in 10.6.2013, his "readable prose size" was 80 kB (size was 154000 bytes). At the moment, the "readable prose size" is 89 kB (size 184000 bytes). So, over the last year, the "readable prose size" has been increased in 11%, and I believe that a lot of it is not mine. How come that I supposedly made a POV mess? . to be continued later. Ykantor (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm OK with reverting to DeCausa's version too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I support DeCausa proposal to return to his revision of 1 March 2011. This version is clear and refreshingly short. Some factual points should be added / modified. e.g:

-General Fawzi told the Egyptian leadership that there are no Israeli forces close to the border with Syria

- The Attack controversy is limited to Israel and Egypt only. Syria and Jordan attacked Israel before Israel attacked them. Ykantor (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If a consensus emerges to revert to that I propose an editor note to the text (I.e. not visible to reader) should be added saying something to the effect that pre-war text should not be expanded without consensus agreeement on the talk page as the Origins article is the place for that.

On the two additional points you mention: the first seems too detailed. On the second, why mention that? There's no reference to controversy in that version at the moment. And you'll only provoke counter-POV edits saying it's all the one controversy because of the mutual defence agreement, an attack on one was an attack on the other. DeCausa (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hussein joins Nasser

Nisidani deleted: "For these reasons, all levels of Jordanian society (with some exceptions) were in favour of going to war. The Ordinary people, particularly the Palestinians, had been whipped up into a state of frenzy against Israel and in favour of a war" which is a factual sentence. But the analysis of king Hussein joining Egypt, is expanded, based on Mutawi. However, other historians have different analysis. :

- According to Morris in "Victims" , Hussein realized that he might loose his crown if he does not join Nasser

-Shlaim apparently claims that Hussein's actions were prompted by his feelings of Arab nationalism

- Oren discuss the King deeds during the days before he joined Nasser. Oren claims that Hussein had a rational alternative: "Hussein’s only answer, then, was to try to stay out of a war between Syria and Israel, and if Egypt became involved, to participate only indirectly and symbolically, by sending a few regiments to Sinai" (Oren,2002, p. 128). But the mood was not rational. what happened:

----A according to Burns, the U.S ambassador: "Hussein was “prepared for brinkmanship,” and that he would “react like Samson in the temple . . . risking possible annihilation by the Israelis rather than the high probability of internal revolt" .

----"We will watch him like a hawk and sit on him when he goes into orbit,” Touqan confided to Burns (I guess its about Nasser) (Oren,2002, p. 129)

----When Hussein returned from Cairo: "as he told Burns, “shifted the burden of the ‘Palestinian problem’ off his shoulders and onto Nasser’s,” "(Oren,2002, p. 131)

----"In Cairo, Hussein believed that he had purchased “political and military insurance” for Jordan at a time when the U.S. had refused to guarantee its territory and was instead arming Israel. He also believed that Egypt, while not backing down from its blockade, would not start a war but would wait for the Israelis to strike first and then destroy them."

---- "Burns, observing that “the king has opened a Pandora’s box wider than he probably anticipated,” noted how events in Jordan “are alarmingly reminiscent of August 1914)"

---- Moreover, the king placed his army,"Jordan's pride", under an Egyptian General, who planned to use the Jordanian army as a tool to draw Israeli forces and thus relieving some pressure from the Sinai front.

- Hussein was not a rational leader. He stated different motive any now and then. He went to Cairo without preparations and made himself vulnerable to Egyptian pressure and even lost control on his beloved army, his main survival instrument.

- The question is whether it is better to mention Hussein reasons briefly only, and elaborate in a separate article, or to discuss it here , which is a lengthy description of his different motives at different times? Ykantor (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Cite all of the sources you like. You miss the point. Cherrypicking sources to get in 'whipped up into a frenzy', even if in a source, is not consonant with WP:NPOV. To gather from my daily reading of Israeli newspapers over the last decade and a half, one could find numerous sources to state that over significant periods, Israeli news reports and politicians 'whipped up the Israeli people into a frenzy' (Uri Ben-Eliezer Old Conflict, New War: Israel’s Politics Toward the Palestinians, ‎2012 writes that 'Netanyahu's speech whipped the crowd into a frenzy,' during his famous Zion square speech against the Oslo Accords, and the book has many instances of hysteria and panic in inflammatory speeches of that period from Israelis. Tom Segev's 1968 period book has a lot on hysteria. So what? If you do a google search 'whipping up frenzy' has a meme-like frequency in reportage on Arabs who, the mainstream papers repeat, a wild incoherent fanatics. This is an encyclopedia, and we are obliged to avoid in our narrative language terms that sneak in prejudices. And saying 'Hussein was not a rational leader' is one more reason for doubting your ability to sieve, sift and assay sources. He had a no-win dilemma, and the only object in his life was to secure his fragile power over the kingdom. 'Rationality' is a complex term: I personally don't think it applies to many politicians, at least of the modern era, except in the restricted sense of using 'instrumental reason' (any rhetorical argument) to obtain, whatever the costs, one's aims. Read Plato.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with your:"Rationality is a complex term: I personally don't think it applies to many politicians".A lot of the leaders have an irrational decision taking process. But there is a difference between Democracies and dictatorships / Active monarchies. The dictators / Monarchs, especially the following generations, are not exposed to public criticism (e.g. Nasser, Hussein), hence they tend to ignore the advising process. However, some leaders, like the late Syrian Hafez Asad, are rational. In my opinion, most of the Lebanese leaders were rational. At the Vasa (ship) museum, the say that the Swedish king decided to substantially increase the ship size, which was already half built. So the upper half became heavier, and the lower part stayed the same. No one dared to tell the king that his order would lead to a disaster. Ykantor (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor contributions

I compiled this list in order to discuss the POV mess claim and identify the POV contributions. It is based on all my contributions in the history page, and does not include small / unrelated contributions. some edits may have been deleted already . I apologize if have missed some. If required, I can add a similar list sorted by the contribution size.

Please reply in the section "suggestion to revert" or open here a "discussion" sub-section and discuss there.

1 734 bytes added; 28/05/2014 12:00

-- ‎The aftermath of the war: Nasser forestalled any movement toward direct negotiations with Israel. In dozens of speeches and statements, Nasser posited the equation that any direct peace talks with Israel were tantamount to surrender

2 1,042 bytes added; 26/05/2014 13:19

-- ‎Events during the weeks before the war: The U.S. forces planned not to allow the Arab states, to destroy Israel, but also not to allow Israel to expand. On May 20, 1967, a cable of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff was sent to EUCOM and STRICOM. STRICOM

3 1,092 bytes added; 26/05/2014 12:00

-- ‎Israel: On May 22, Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping, blocking 90% of Israeli oil that passed through the Straits of Tiran.[9] Oil tankers that were due to pass through the straights have been delayed

4 134 bytes added; 24/05/2014 2:09

-- ‎Israel: on 25 May Israel mobilized the whole army reserves, which caused the economy to come to a standstill.[

5a 149 bytes added; 24/05/2014 1:22

-- ‎Israel: During May- June 1967, Eshkol's government did everything in its power to confine the confrontation to the Egyptian front

5b 391 bytes added; 24/05/2014 0:01

-- ‎Israel: During 22 to 24 May, General Rabin was incapacitated for 2 days because of a nervous breakdown. The collapse may have been triggered by Ben Gurion, who blamed Rabin for his mistaken mobilization of reserves that made the crisis acute and that

6 248 bytes added; 24/05/2014 1:30

-- ‎Golan Heights: n May–June 1967 The Israeli government did everything in its power to confine the confrontation to the Egyptian front. Eshkol and his colleagues took into account the possibility of some fighting on the Syrian front

7a 364 bytes added; 23/05/2014 23:41

-- ‎Israel: Egypt planned to Attack Israel at 27 May. A couple of days before the attack date, Israel discovered it, and asked the Americans to deal with it. The American president called the Soviet leadership, and the Soviet ambassador, in the middle of

7b 278 bytes added; 23/05/2014 23:08

-- ‎Israel: During May 1967 the Israel wanted Jordan to keep out of any war with Egypt, and it had no plans for the conquest of the West Bank or East Jerusalem. The Israelis sent Hussein three messages saying they had no hostile intent towards Jordan

7c 334 bytes added; 23/05/2014 23:03

-- ‎Israel: Israeli military officers had occasionally made reckless and belligerent public statements, but Eshkol had no intention of provoking a war with the Arabs and still less of expanding Israel. Territorial aims developed during the war. The Israel

7d 285 bytes added; 23/05/2014 22:57

-- ‎Israel: add

7e 169 bytes added; 23/05/2014 22:43

-- ‎Israel: Israel and the UN protested that the Russian were falsely reporting on 13 May of Israeli forces concentrations near the border with Syria.

7f 153 bytes added; 23/05/2014 22:27

-- ‎Israel: On May 21, Eshkol had told the cabinet Defense Committee that Egypt wanted to close the straits and to bomb the reactor in Dimona

7g 228 bytes added; 23/05/2014 22:12

-- ‎Israel: Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt.

7h 388 bytes added; 23/05/2014 22:07

-- ‎Israel: the leaders of the confrontational states were caught by complete surprise when Israel took their threats at face value

7a 987 bytes added; 23/05/2014 18:06

-- ‎Events: Israel–Jordan I am blamed for too long edits to an already long article. So I summarize and then accused for too short writings.

7b 271 bytes added; 23/05/2014 16:20

-- ‎Events: Israel–Jordan According to Mutawi, all levels of Jordanian society (with some exceptions) were in favour of going to war. The Ordinary people, particularly the Palestinians, had been whipped up into a state of frenzy against Israel and in

8 892 bytes added; 13/05/2014 17:21

-- It is a pity to fight against facts. Nasser stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight. It is a different issue wether he planned to initiate the war

9 473 bytes added; 11/05/2014 18:15

-- ‎Events: Israel–Egypt On 26 May Nasser declared, "The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel

10 725 bytes added; 21/04/2014 15:51

-- ‎Events: Israel–Syria add a source

11 330 bytes added; 17/03/2014 23:01

-- ‎Events: Israel–Egypt Eshkol denounced the Egyptians in his speech on 21 May, but his response to this development was a model of moderation. He demanded that Nasser withdraw his forces from Sinai but made no mention of the removal of UNEF from the

12a 111 bytes added; 15/02/2014 10:58

-- ‎Allegations of military support from the U.S., U.K. and Soviet Union: Many of these allegations and conspiracy theories have been disputed and it has been claimed

12b 1,516 bytes added; 15/02/2014 10:46

-- ‎Allegations of military support from the U.S., U.K. and Soviet Union: Anwar Sadat implied that Nasser used this deliberate conspiracy in order to accuse the United States as a political cover-up for domestic consumption

13 359 bytes added; 15/02/2014 9:48

-- ‎Events: Israel–Egypt fix my mistake- p. 63 and not p. 199 , According to Shlaim & Louis, in the end of May 1967, Nasser claimed in a public speech to have been aware of the Straits of Tiran closure implications

14 441 bytes added; 14/02/2014 23:02

-- ‎Events: Israel–Egypt According to Shlaim & Louis, in the end of May 1967, Nasser claimed in a public speech to have been aware of the Straits of Tiran closure implications

15a 1,573 bytes added; 14/02/2014 14:43

-- According to the prominent historian Abd aI-’Azim Ramadan, Nasser mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967, led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of mi

15b 834 bytes added; 14/02/2014 12:49

-- According to Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, [Gamal Abdel Nasser| Nasser]] had admitted his responsibility for the military defeat in the June 1967

16 132 bytes added; 3/11/2013 7:39

-- ‎Events: Israel - Egypt Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria.

17 316 bytes added; 2/11/2013 0:06

-- ‎The Egyptian army: President Nasser , having learned of the results of the air strike, decided together with Field Marshal Amer to pull out the troops from Sinai within 24 hours. No detailed instructions were given concerning the manner and sequence

18 516 bytes added; 18/09/2013 11:26

-- ‎Events: Israel - Egypt Fawzi (general)]] left for Syria for one day tour, verified that the Soviet report is false and reported that there are no Israeli armed forces near the Syrian border

19 406 bytes added; 17/09/2013 22:05

-- ‎Events: Israel - Egypt the Straits of Tiran were opened to Israeli traffic and The Sinai peninsula was demilitarized

20 183 bytes added; 13/09/2013 0:43

-- ‎Events: Israel - Syria Before 1967, Syria exacerbated the confrontation with Israel, in order to divert attention from its internal economic and political instability.

21 356 bytes added; 11/09/2013 21:19

-- ‎Events: Israel - Syria use a quote

22 79 bytes added; 4/09/2013 1:50

-- ‎Events: Israel - Syria Israel tapped the Jordan River (and the Sea of Galilee) by canal for irrigation of the Southern Negev desert

23 70 bytes added; 30/08/2013 18:48

-- ‎Events: Israel - Syria War over Water was a major factor for the six days war

24 87 bytes added; 30/08/2013 15:56

-- ‎Events: Israel - Syria Syria started the Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River) in order to thwart Israel's plans to use the water

25 584 bytes added; 25/08/2013 4:25

-- ‎Events: Israel - Syria Israeli armoured tractors, often guarded by police, would start to plow in a disputed area of the DMZ. From its high ground positions, Syria would fire at those advancing

26 595 bytes added; 25/08/2013 3:08

-- ‎Background and summary of events leading to war: Syria planned to reduce Israeli water consumption well under the allocated Johnston plan quota

27 1,208 bytes added; 10/06/2013 18:58

-- ‎Background and summary of events leading to war

Ykantor (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

tldr. Ykantor, you're missing the point in two ways. As far as POV is concerned look at Nishidani's posts above. But the main point is you've made the article unreadable. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)