You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of yourcommon.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
You are not anextended-confirmed user, soyou must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make anedit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs,RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You must be logged-in andextended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except formaking edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except inlimited circumstances)
This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Six-Day War was agood articles nominee, but did not meet thegood article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSyria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIsrael on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographicPalestine region, thePalestinian people and theState of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visitingthe project page, where you can add your name to thelist of members where you can contribute to thediscussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theArab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEgypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is related to thePritzker Military Museum and Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofLebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
In the casualties table it is written that 400 Israeli tanks were DESTROYED. This number seems to be too high, and seems to refer to DAMAGED tanks. Most of the damaged tanks were repaired sooner or later. In addition, some 200 Arab tanks were taken by IDF and perhaps it is needed a different entry in this table.
This phrasing which you reverted reflects RS: “ Syria. It captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai desert from Egypt; the Golan Heights from Syria; and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, from Jordan.”[1]Makeandtoss (talk)13:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a friendly note on your talk page about BRD.
Makeandtoss, thank you for engaging on the talk page. I do not believe it reflects the WEIGHT of mainstream narratives as to the abandonment of Gaza and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan and I am concerned that the revision I reverted would mislead our uninformed readers as to the context and mainstream understanding of the history of the current occupation and the prior abandonment of the Palestinian people. We need to keep in mind that our readers do not come to these articles, particularly lead-skimmers, with an awareness of surrounding facts and narratives. While I know that some analysts believe that the war was precipitated by Israel as a pretext for the conquest of the occupied Palestinian lands, that is not currently the mainstream consensus view. SPECIFICOtalk14:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your talk page message to Jeppiz was unnecessary. BRD relates to when one’s own edits are reverted, not that of others. The previous version is awkward and I’ve provided the supporting RS for the new one.Makeandtoss (talk)16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal remarks should go on my user talk. However you appear to have confused BRD with the "enforced BRD" CT restriction on some pages. Please review BRD. Tag-team edit warring is being discussed now atWP:AE, and it's apparently quite a concern recently. Hence my note. SPECIFICOtalk02:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: There is no confusion.WP:BRD states: "Discussyour bold edit with the person who revertedyou." It does not state discuss another user's bold edit with another user who had reverted them. Furthermore, your accusation towards@Jeppiz: that they are engaged in tag-team edit warring because they disagreed with your edit and reverted you once is an unacceptable and baseless assumption of bad faith. Again, as communicated to you below, please do better.Makeandtoss (talk)09:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Tagteaming is a serious aspersion and shouldn't be made idly on talk pages. Either it's serious and you should raise it on a reporting page, or you shouldn't raise it at all.Iskandar323 (talk)10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, your talk page note was not particularly helpful as you erroneously claimed I had engaged in discussion despite explaining my revert. Please do better in the future. Your reading of Makeandtoss's version is equally erroneous. Nowhere does it claim a "pretext". It simply states the neutral and sourced fact that Israel occupied these territories.Jeppiz (talk)22:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced facts aren't necessarily NPOV. SeeWP:ONUS. The prior version I reinstated is a more neutral summary for editors unaware of the context and relations with Jordan and Egypt. Disagreements need to be discussed on talk. SPECIFICOtalk02:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The various shades of green are confusing, unnecessary and the legend is barely readable. Do we have an alternative map showing only two colors; pre- and post-1967?Makeandtoss (talk)10:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2024
I suggest that you change a line in the paragraph about the uss liberty from'After an investigation, the U.S. accepted the explanation that the incident was friendly fire and the issue was closed by the exchange of diplomatic notes in 1987.' to'After an investigation, the U.S. accepted the explanation that the incident was accidental and the issue was closed by the exchange of diplomatic notes in 1987.'as 'friendly fire' implies that the US was directly on Israel's side during the war when in reality they kept a position of strict neutrality.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNapoleon583 (talk •contribs)16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The U.S. was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, and some historians claim that they may never have received the offer."
Incorrect. Israel told the US not to tell anybody about the offer nor did they do so themselves. As another Wikipedia article puts it:
"On 19 June 1967, shortly after the Six-Day War, the Israeli government voted to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a permanent peace settlement and a demilitarization of the returned territories. This decision was not made public at the time, nor was it conveyed to any Arab state. " -Land for peace#Peace treaties
"Background" section: One source is not enough, wording leaves user puzzled. Suggest adding more explicit & nuanced Egyptian source: Elbahtimy, Hassan (June 5, 2017)."Did the Soviet Union Deliberately Instigate the 1967 War in the Middle East?",The Wilson Center. It suggests unintentionally wrong intelligence and general Soviet reluctance in supporting Egyptian war intentions. It's also available online, unlike the only ref so far, a book.
More is of course needed. Didn't the USSR have useful satellite assets in 1967, did they depend on human assets or various intercepts, which can more easily be inaccurate? We're talking of some 10,000 soldiers and hundreds of tanks, which weren't actually where the Soviets said they were! ("An Israeli infantry brigade typically has about 1,000 to 2,000 soldiers, while an armoured tank brigade has about 100 tanks." Seehere.)
"On May 13, 1967, the Soviet Union provided information that Israel was amassing around 11 brigades to attack Syria through at least three channels. It was first communicated to Anwar Sadat, speaker of the Egyptian parliament, during his short stop in Moscow following an official visit to North Korea. It was directly communicated twice more in Cairo, through Egyptian intelligence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As this information accumulated on Nasser’s desk, by May 13, Egypt was considering how it could come to Syria’s rescue."
In the penultimate sentence of "Casualties and losses", it states, "Jordanian losses accounted to 21, including 17 military aircraft, 1 helicopter and 3 passenger aicraft." Please change the word "aicraft" to "aircraft", correcting the typo.Elios Peredhel (talk)09:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:add a link toOperation Focus in the lead (diff is just a suggestion of many possible implementations, i just thought it was weird it wasn't linked when there seemed to be a great opportunity to do so)
Diff:
−
Israel launched a series ofairstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities
+
[[OperationFocus|Israel launched a series ofairstrikes]] against Egyptian airfields and other facilities
Despite not being used, that plan is probably described more often than any other aspect of the war in recent sources, but currently the only mention of anything nuclear on this page is this:
"One Israeli plane, which was damaged and unable to break radio silence, was shot down by Israeli Hawk missiles after it strayed over the Negev Nuclear Research Center.[91]"
Operation Shimshon could be added in the subsection after that, at the top of the Gaza and Sinai section, as shown below.
Among the Egyptian planes lost were all 30 [[Tu-16]] bombers, 27 out of 40 [[Ilyushin Il-28|Il-28]] bombers, 12 [[Su-7]] fighter-bombers, over 90 [[MiG-21]]s, 20 [[MiG-19]]s, 25 [[MiG-17]] fighters, and around 32 transport planes and helicopters. In addition, Egyptian radars and SAM missiles were also attacked and destroyed. The Israelis lost 19 planes, including two destroyed in air-to-air combat and 13 downed by anti-aircraft artillery. One Israeli plane, which was damaged and unable to break radio silence, was shot down by Israeli [[MIM-23 Hawk|Hawk missiles]] after it strayed over the [[Negev Nuclear Research Center]]. Another was destroyed by an exploding Egyptian bomber.The attack guaranteed Israeli [[air supremacy]] for the rest of the war. Attacks on other Arab air forces by Israel took place later in the day as hostilities broke out on other fronts.The large numbers of Arab aircraft claimed destroyed by Israel on that day were at first regarded as "greatly exaggerated" by the Western press, but the fact that the Egyptian Air Force, along with other Arab air forces attacked by Israel, made practically no appearance for the remaining days of the conflict proved that the numbers were most likely authentic. Throughout the war, Israeli aircraft continued strafing Arab airfield runways to prevent their return to usability. Meanwhile, Egyptian state-run radio had reported an Egyptian victory, falsely claiming that 70 Israeli planes had been downed on the first day of fighting.=== Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula ===[[File:1967 Six Day War - conquest of Sinai 5-6 June.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|The capture of Sinai. 5–6 June 1967]][[File:PikiWiki Israel 16401 Israel Defense Forces.jpg|thumb|People in a bomb shelter at [[Kfar Maimon]]]]The Egyptian forces consisted of seven [[division (military)|divisions]]: four [[Division (military)#Armored division|armored]], two [[Division (military)#Armored division|infantry]], and one [[mechanized infantry]]. Overall, Egypt had around 100,000 troops and 900–950 [[tank]]s in the Sinai, backed by 1,100 [[Armored personnel carrier|APCs]] and 1,000 [[artillery]] pieces. This arrangement was thought to be based on the Soviet doctrine, where mobile armor units at [[strategic depth]] provide a dynamic defense while infantry units engage in defensive battles.Israeli forces concentrated on the border with Egypt included six armored [[brigade]]s, one infantry brigade, one mechanized infantry brigade, three [[paratrooper]] brigades, giving a total of around 70,000 men and 700 tanks, who were organized in three armored divisions. They had massed on the border the night before the war, camouflaging themselves and observing radio silence before being ordered to advance.<sup>[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (June 2022)">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>The Israeli plan was to surprise the Egyptian forces in both timing (the attack exactly coinciding with the IAF strike on Egyptian airfields), and in location (attacking via northern and central Sinai routes, as opposed to the Egyptian expectations of a repeat of the 1956 war, when the IDF attacked via the central and southern routes) and method (using a combined-force flanking approach, rather than direct tank assaults).<sup>[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (June 2022)">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>==== Northern (El Arish) Israeli division ====
+
Among the Egyptian planes lost were all 30 [[Tu-16]] bombers, 27 out of 40 [[Ilyushin Il-28|Il-28]] bombers, 12 [[Su-7]] fighter-bombers, over 90 [[MiG-21]]s, 20 [[MiG-19]]s, 25 [[MiG-17]] fighters, and around 32 transport planes and helicopters. In addition, Egyptian radars and SAM missiles were also attacked and destroyed. The Israelis lost 19 planes, including two destroyed in air-to-air combat and 13 downed by anti-aircraft artillery. One Israeli plane, which was damaged and unable to break radio silence, was shot down by Israeli [[MIM-23 Hawk|Hawk missiles]] after it strayed over the [[Negev Nuclear Research Center]]. Another was destroyed by an exploding Egyptian bomber.The attack guaranteed Israeli [[air supremacy]] for the rest of the war. Attacks on other Arab air forces by Israel took place later in the day as hostilities broke out on other fronts.<supclass="noprintInline-TemplateTemplate-Fact"style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citationneeded|<spantitle="Thisclaimneedsreferencestoreliablesources.">citationneeded</span>]]</i>]</sup>The large numbers of Arab aircraft claimed destroyed by Israel on that day were at first regarded as "greatly exaggerated" by the Western press, but the fact that the Egyptian Air Force, along with other Arab air forces attacked by Israel, made practically no appearance for the remaining days of the conflict proved that the numbers were most likely authentic. Throughout the war, Israeli aircraft continued strafing Arab airfield runways to prevent their return to usability. Meanwhile, Egyptian state-run radio had reported an Egyptian victory, falsely claiming that 70 Israeli planes had been downed on the first day of fighting.=== Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula ===[[File:1967 Six Day War - conquest of Sinai 5-6 June.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|The capture of Sinai. 5–6 June 1967]][[File:PikiWiki Israel 16401 Israel Defense Forces.jpg|thumb|People in a bomb shelter at [[Kfar Maimon]]]]The Egyptian forces consisted of seven [[division (military)|divisions]]: four [[Division (military)#Armored division|armored]], two [[Division (military)#Armored division|infantry]], and one [[mechanized infantry]]. Overall, Egypt had around 100,000 troops and 900–950 [[tank]]s in the Sinai, backed by 1,100 [[Armored personnel carrier|APCs]] and 1,000 [[artillery]] pieces. This arrangement was thought to be based on the Soviet doctrine, where mobile armor units at [[strategic depth]] provide a dynamic defense while infantry units engage in defensive battles.Israeli forces concentrated on the border with Egypt included six armored [[brigade]]s, one infantry brigade, one mechanized infantry brigade, three [[paratrooper]] brigades, giving a total of around 70,000 men and 700 tanks, who were organized in three armored divisions. They had massed on the border the night before the war, camouflaging themselves and observing radio silence before being ordered to advance.<sup>[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (June 2022)">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>The Israeli plan was to surprise the Egyptian forces in both timing (the attack exactly coinciding with the IAF strike on Egyptian airfields), and in location (attacking via northern and central Sinai routes, as opposed to the Egyptian expectations of a repeat of the 1956 war, when the IDF attacked via the central and southern routes) and method (using a combined-force flanking approach, rather than direct tank assaults).<sup>[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (June 2022)">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>====OperationShimshon:Sinainuclearoption====TheIsraelishadaplanto[[Samsonoption|resortto]]using[[NuclearweaponsandIsrael|nuclearweapons]]iftheywereatriskoflosingthewar.Theycalledtheplan"OperationShimshon"([[Hebrewlanguage|Hebrew]]:<spanlang="he"dir="rtl">מבצעשמשון</span>,<small>[[RomanizationofHebrew|romanized]]: </small><spantitle="Hebrew-languageromanization"><ilang="he-Latn">MivtzaShimshon</i></span>),namedafter[[Samson]]from[[Judges16:30|theBible]].TheSamsonplanwastoconductafirsttestonthebattlefieldinEgypt.TherusheddeploymentplanwasalsopartlyinspiredbyaworrythatEgyptwouldtrytothwartIsraeliattemptstodevelopfullyfunctionalweaponsbyattackingIsrael's[[ShimonPeresNegevNuclearResearchCenter|nuclearresearchfacility]].Theversionofthedeploymentplantoldby[[Dr.AvnerCohen]]wastoodetonatea[[NuclearweaponsandIsrael|nuclearweapon]]onthetopof[[MountSinai]]asanintimidatingshowofforce.Israelisimprovisedmultiplenever-before-testeddevicestodeployinEgypt.GeneralYitzhak(Yitza)YaakovwasworriedthatiftheplanwasusedthenheandhistroopsinEgyptwouldbekilled.However,thecontingencywasnotrequired,sotheimprovisesnucleardeviceswerenotdetonated.==== Northern (El Arish) Israeli division ====
Operation name:
English sources using the name "Operation Shimshon".[6][9][10][11]
English sources using the name "Operation Samson".[12][13]
Hebrew sources using the name מבצע שמשון Mivtza Shimshon.[14][7]
I am not sure which, Haaretz articlekikar.co.il is talking about, they shortened the title and the date "6.4.2017" is ambiguous. These two are both the right year and topic (two article published on the same day).
HebrewHaaretz 4 June 2017.[16]Note: The names used were שמשון (Samson) and מבצע יום הדין ("Operation Doomsday" or "Judgement day", Hebrew wikiיום הדין links toJudgement Day in English, General Yitzhak Yaakov has a page in Hebrew:יצחק יעקב but not English
EnglishHaaretz article, and this article seems to not be paywalled?[17]
Good result but for the wrong reason. The request is clear as to what he wants to add and the sources. However, this is a major change to an article and may be controversial. Our rules on edit requestsrequire that you discuss it with others before posting an edit request. So it's properly
Non-extended confirmed editors are not allowed to establish consensus though, since they can not participate in discussions on talk pages and can only make edit requests.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)23:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would fall within "making edit requests" and not discussion since you are not arguing a certain position but ask to look into it. I will make a request on your behalf though so that there is no doubt that the rules are being followed.Szmenderowiecki (talk)04:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^abLong (1984), p. 19, Table 1. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFLong1984 (help)
^abOren (2002), p. 178. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFOren2002 (help)
^abOren (2002), p. 175. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFOren2002 (help)
^abc"Israel's secret plan to nuke the Egyptian desert".politico.eu.POLITICO. 5 June 2017.Of course, Israel never went through with it. The plan — called Operation Shimshon — was intended as a last resort. As it happened, Israel destroyed the Egyptian Air Force on the ground in 3 hours, and Shimshon was never spoken of again, just another victim of Israel's nuclear taboo — until now.
^ab"כך הגרעין הישראלי הכניע את מעצמות המערב - ללא שהופעל".כיכר השבתKikar HaShabbat (website) (in Hebrew). 6 October 2024. [Already on the eve of the Six-Day War in June 1967, when Israel feared for its fate, it quickly assembled an improvised nuclear device and threatened to activate it, according to researcher Dr. Avner Cohen. (Haaretz, "Dayan's Dilemma", 6.4.2017) This was the first hint of "Operation Shimshon"[1] - a scenario in which Israel activates its nuclear weapons as a last resort, in the sense of 'let my soul die with the Philistines'." That footnote explains the name Samson, "[1] 'Samson's Choice' is a code name for the event that Israel decides to use an atomic bomb. The analogy of the authors of the name is, of course, after Samson, the hero-judge (and Messiah of his generation) who pulled down the pillars of the temple of the god Dagon in Gaza, and on the day of his death killed more than in his entire life, as he wrote: 'My soul shall die with the Philistines'.]
^abCohen, Avner (3 June 2017)."The 1967 Six-Day War".www.wilsoncenter.org.Wilson Center.While I knew that during the 1967 crisis Israel crossed the nuclear threshold — Israel had improvised two or three explosive nuclear devices — I did not know any concrete details … [or] … the strategic purpose of this rushed assembly? … In 1999 … I met former Brigadier General Yitzhak Ya'akov (nicknamed Ya'tza), who in 1967, as the IDF colonel in charge of weapons development, was the chief liaison between the IDF and all the civilian defense industries, including the nuclear project. In May 1967, Ya'tza took it upon himself – with his commanders' blessing – to add an operational-military dimension to the fast-created, new situation on the ground. He drew a preliminary contingency plan – codenamed "Shimshon" ("Samson") – proposing how such an improvised device could be exploded for demonstrative purposes…
^abLaron, Guy (29 June 2017)."The Six Day War and the Nuclear Coup that Never Was".War on the Rocks.United States.On the eve of the June 1967 war in the Middle East, a small group of men in the Israeli elite considered a doomsday scenario. They all supported Israel having an overt nuclear strategy, but the dovish prime minister, Levi Eshkol, had resisted. Now, with war looming, they felt that their hour had come. Behind the scenes, these bureaucrats, scientists and officers prepared the ground for using Israel's ultimate weapon: the nuclear bomb. Three weeks ago, The New York Times revealed part of that story which the newspaper described as the "last secret" of the Six Day War. The truth is, evidence of these events has been out in the open for several years now. Yitzchak Yaacov, a top scientist who served as a senior officer in the Israeli army, had published his memoirs detailing the deliberations for the secret operation already in 2011. Based on this book as well as several interviews, Amir Oren, military correspondent for Haaretz, wrote in the same year a long analysis of the decision-making process surrounding this chapter in Israel's history. And in 2014, Oxford University Press published a monograph by Or Rabinowitz that distilled all these Hebrew-language sources into an English-language text.
^אדרת, עופר (4 June 2017)."עוזרו של דיין בששת הימים על התוכנית לפיצוץ גרעיני: "כמובן שדיברנו על ניסוי"" [Dayan's aide on the Six-Day War on the nuclear explosion plan: "Of course we talked about a test"].Haaretz הארץ (in Hebrew).Nuclear researcher Dr.Avner Cohen, who is responsible for revealing the documents, told Haaretz that his goal is to present the "nuclear narrative" of the Six-Day War to the general public, in an attempt to better explain the reasons for the outbreak of the war.
^ויליאם ברוד; ודייוויד סנגר (4 June 2017)."ישראל תכננה פיצוץ גרעיני בסיני כאמצעי הרתעה ב–67'" [Israel planned a nuclear explosion in Sinai as a deterrent in '67].Haaretz הארץ (in Hebrew).The New York Times.Retired Brigadier General Yitzhak (Yitza) Yaakov described in interviews the secret contingency plan, which he called "Operation Doomsday." The plan was supposed to be put into action in the event that Israel felt it was about to lose the 1967 war ... the program's code name was "Samson." Israel's nuclear deterrent program was called "Samson's Choice," after the biblical Samson who killed his Philistine enemies and himself in the process. Yaakov said he feared that if Israel, as a last resort, carried out the secret plan on Egyptian territory, the nuclear explosion would kill him and his commando team.
^"'Last Secret' of 1967 War: Israel's Doomsday Plan for Nuclear Display". 3 June 2017. Archived fromthe original on 2024-05-04.The secret contingency plan, called a "doomsday operation" by Itzhak Yaakov, the retired brigadier general who described it in the interview, would have been invoked if Israel feared it was going to lose the 1967 conflict. The demonstration blast, Israeli officials believed, would intimidate Egypt and surrounding Arab states — Syria, Iraq and Jordan — into backing off.
^Oren, Amir (16 September 2011)."Former IDF chief reveals new details of Israel's nuclear program".Haaretz.com (English ed.).The mission? To fly to a high and lofty site in the Sinai Desert, unload some object from the helicopter, operate it, and hurry out of the scene. While the fighters, who did not know exactly what risk they faced, were busy planning and training, the mission was canceled.
^Cohen, Avner (3 June 2017)."The 1967 Six-Day War".www.wilsoncenter.org.Wilson Center.Ya'tza Testimony and the "Shimshon" Contingency Plan: … While I knew that during the 1967 crisis Israel crossed the nuclear threshold — Israel had improvised two or three explosive nuclear devices—I did not know any concrete details about the who, when, and why involved in that crash effort. Did the initiative come from the political top or from the developers and managers in the field? What was the strategic purpose of this rushed assembly? … In 1999 I obtained an extraordinary first-hand testimony that addressed many of these questions. That summer, I met former Brigadier General Yitzhak Ya'akov (nicknamed Ya'tza), who in 1967, as the IDF colonel in charge of weapons development, was the chief liaison between the IDF and all the civilian defense industries, including the nuclear project. In May 1967, Ya'tza took it upon himself – with his commanders' blessing -- to add an operational-military dimension to the fast-created, new situation on the ground. He drew a preliminary contingency plan – codenamed "Shimshon" ("Samson") – proposing how such an improvised device could be exploded for demonstrative purposes. To be clear, the operation would have been purely demonstrative, yet the crash effort to make such a contingency plan possible is indicative of the enormous anxiety in Israel in those days.
I'm interested in finding a source for the following claim under "10 June":"Throughout the night, the Israelis continued their advance, though it was slowed by fierce resistance. An anticipated Syrian counterattack never materialized. At the fortified village of Jalabina, a garrison of Syrian reservists, leveling their anti-aircraft guns, held off the Israeli 65th Paratroop Battalion for four hours before a small detachment managed to penetrate the village and knock out the heavy guns.[citation needed]"
I foundthis analysis from the Army Concept Analysis Agency which seems credible. It confirms on page 169 that Jalabina was taken on 9 June along with other positions and lists 3 additional references which may contain more details. Unfortunately it does not confirm any details beyond simply stating that the position was taken. The following additional sources are referenced:
Ayalon, Lt. Col. A. The Six Day War. IDF Army Spokesman's Office, April, 1968.
Dupuy, Col. Trevor N. Elusive Victory,. New York, 1978.
IDN Spokesman's Office, The Six Day War: Description of Combats by Commanders. Northern Front. August, 1967
Unfortunately, I do not have access to any of these sources so I can't speak to whether or not they contain any additional details, although I might be able to check my local library if necessary.
I'm thinking an additional sentence could be added to the beginning of the paragraph, maybe something like"On 9 June, the Israeli forces advanced, securing the Syrian-held positions at Darbashiya, Jalabina, and Dardara." and include the ACAA source.Dekadoka (talk)17:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2025
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
In Aftermath#Israel and Zionism, the reference toWaqf should be toJerusalem_Waqf as the first one is about a topic in Muslim law and the second one refers to the organization which the original article was intended to refer to.
Change:"Despite theTemple Mount where theAl-Aqsa compound is located being the most important holy site in Jewish tradition, it has been under sole administration of the Jordanian MuslimWaqf, and Jews are barred from praying there, although they are allowed to visit. "to"Despite theTemple Mount where theAl-Aqsa compound is located being the most important holy site in Jewish tradition, it has been under sole administration of the Jordanian MuslimJerusalem_Waqf, and Jews are barred from praying there, although they are allowed to visit."LocalGoose1234 (talk)22:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is believed to have begun full-scale production of nuclear weapons following the 1967Six-Day War, although it had built its first operational nuclear weapon by December 1966.[1] ACentral Intelligence Agency (CIA) report from early 1967 stated that Israel had the materials to construct a bomb in six to eight weeks[2] and some authors suggest that Israel had two crude bombs ready for use during the war.[3] According to US journalistSeymour Hersh, everything was ready for production at this time save an official order to do so. Israel crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six-Day War in May 1967.[4] "[Prime Minister Levi] Eshkol, according to a number of Israeli sources, secretly ordered the Dimona [nuclear reactor] scientists to assemble two crude nuclear devices. He placed them under the command of Brigadier General Yitzhak Yaakov, the chief of research and development in Israel's Defense Ministry. One official said the operation was referred to as Spider because the nuclear devices were inelegant contraptions with appendages sticking out. The crude atomic bombs were readied for deployment on trucks that could race to the Egyptian border for detonation in the event Arab forces overwhelmed Israeli defenses."[4]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"The June 1967 war is the subject of disagreement even as to its name. To Israel, it was the “Six-Day War,” an appellation that highlighted Israel’s military superiority for winning in a short time."
"The symbolic meaning of the Hebrew appellation of that war is obvious: just as the universe was created in six days, so was the Land of Israel emancipated in six days."
Oppose: Probablyanything but 1967 War. Even if I simply search up "1967 War" and this conflict pops up, I still feel like it would be a vague title. There were many other conflicts that took place in 1967, too, such at theSino-Indian War of 1967 (well, it was technically a skirmish),Nigerian Civil War (1967-70),Cambodian Civil War (1967-75),Aden Emergency (1963-67),1967 Algerian coup attempt (1967 only),1967 North Yemen coup d'état (1967 only),1967 Sierra Leonean coups d'état (1967 only), and probably more. Yes, I admit that this war is far well-known than others, but given the amount of conflicts I just mentioned, the proposed title may be a bit vague.
Also,when I search up the conflict (without saying the current title and the proposed title), the title "Six-Day War" seems to be mentioned by reliable sources more than simply "1967 War". Some alternates popping up seem to be "June 1967 War" or "1967 Arab-Israeli War" more than "1967 War".Hacked (Talk|Contribs)02:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The conflicts cited above are not even referred to as "the 1967 war."
The Google search results page is rather anecdotal and experiential and not as quantitative or demonstrative of common name as the Ngram and Google Trends queries I included above.إيان (talk)06:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - theWP:COMMONNAME argument is rooted in error. "1967 war" and "six-day war" were left uncapitalized – when capitalized as proper nouns (like they are) "Six-Day War" is far and away more common than "1967 war"[2]estar8806 (talk)★03:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ifthe numbers are roughtly equal, how does that support your claim that "Six-Day War" or "Six Day War" is the common name? If the numbers were indeed roughly equal, that would be a reason to use "1967 War" perWP:POVTITLE.
Oppose - Your search entries don't include just mentions that refer to this war when you search "1967 War" right? These sources also still attest to the name Six-Day War and that non-neutral common names have a built-in exception to POV rules(WP:NPOVNAME).Originalcola (talk)04:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commonname according to what metric, though? The only decent metric in favor of Six-Day War as common name was provided by estar8806, whoclaimed that, despite the quantitative metrics I've provided above that show 1967 War is the common name, Six-Day War was the common name if the inputs were capitalized. I thendemonstrated that if the query were made case-sensitive, "1967 War" was still the common name over "Six-Day War."إيان (talk)22:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't demonstrated support for any kind of name change here on the basis ofWP:COMMONNAME. There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to do something, but if you're not familiar with how to interpret or use this kind of search tools for specific topics like this then you can ask for help from other editors.Originalcola (talk)04:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to do something, but if you're not familiar with how to interpret or use this kind of search tools for specific topics like this then you can ask for help from other editors—this appears to be condescension, which is inappropriate and I remind you to maintainWP:Civility.
Again, I have providedNgram andGoogle Trends metrics showing the proposed title as the common name over the current title. We have yet to see such a metric showing the opposite from those !voting "Oppose", so perhaps you could help them if you are offering help.إيان (talk)17:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific issue for your searches is related to the issue of vagueness that others have pointed out. The phrase "1967 War" gives results for a wide range of other things when you search it, like the conflict between China and India or the Vietnam War as well as just other generic stuff(eg. defence policy, history, etc.). estar8806 already pointed out the issue with the ngram search, that being that a name is a proper noun and needs to be capitalised to get results for the usage of either phrase as a name. You've claimed that if you make it case-sensitive it was still the common namewhilst linking a search with case-insensitive selected. What they did was also clearly offering search metrics.Searching on google trends also just has lower usage if you remove the hyphen.
You've also just changed your proposed name without offering any justification, despite repeatedly stating that "1967 War" is the common name. "1967 Arab-Israeli War" is more descriptive but has a lot less usage than "Six-Day War". If your primary issue is just a POV issue with the name,non-neutral are allowed if common which is why nobody addressed it because the primary issue here is whether "Six-Day War" is the common name.Originalcola (talk)10:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fallacious argument to claim that, because a feature of a thing is true, it is NPOV to name the thing for that feature.إيان (talk)19:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
Oppose perWP:COMMONNAME, it's clearly the common name in English language sources. By the metrics used in the previous discussion it doesn't really come close to the same usage and this is true no matter how you use hyphens or for any case sensitivity (N gram,Google Trends). In the previous discussion you claimed that "1967 War" was the common name, and now you've started a second request move with the same justification ofWP:COMMONNAME. Both of those statements can't be true.Originalcola (talk)16:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:COMMONNAME. The fact that the nominator previously claimed that "1967 War" is the common name, and now is claiming that "1967 Arab-Israeli War" is the common name suggests that neither of their suggestions are the common name. The current name is the common name (with or without a dash), and it should be kept.Nehushtani (talk)06:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims, such as claiming WP:COMMONNAME without providing any sort of metric, as some have been doing here. I will therefore adjust the RM and provide proper argumentation such that it be fitting for my signature.إيان (talk)20:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you originally changed the previous requested move you did not strike throughWP:COMMONNAME as you can see in theedit history, so I think it’s unfair to criticise the mod who closed and opened the previous discussion when you did not removeWP:COMMONNAME or update your argument when changing the proposed name.Originalcola (talk)21:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's partially correct—I also did not strike throughWP:POVTITLE or the RS testimony or anything beyond the title. PerWP:REDACT: "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing it should be avoided as it may deprive any replies of their original context." The arguments were available in the discussion.إيان (talk)23:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I overstepped, editorإيان, indeed I was trying to be helpful. It is confusing when one changes oars in the middle of the stream. I came here because I monitormalformed move requests; the RMCD bot flags when strikeouts are made as you did with[this edit]. I should have been more explicit when I opened this RM.P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previous argument, which is that there is no one common name and that 1967 Arab-Israeli war balances POV concerns the best. In addition to the US government sources I provided that don't use Six-Day War, I also checked Khalidi who refers to it as the War of 1967. When the foremost living Palestinian historian doesn't use the term Six-Day War, I can't accept that it's theWP:COMMONNAME or meetsWP:POVNAME.EvansHallBear (talk)23:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think in general some alternate names like "June 1967 War" are commonly used in Arab sources in general whilst Western and Israeli sources use "Six-Day War" so I didn't read too much into any individual scholar's choice of name when making my decision.[1][2] InThe Hundred Years' War on Palestine and in some other interviews I could find from a quick search Khalidi seemed to prefer using "1967 War" (although he did use "Six-Day War" a singular time in the book). Some of the editorial notes in the Office of the Historian use "Six-Day War"[3][4][5][6][7] but I don't think any of this constitutes the opinion of these branches, nor do I think any individual government branch opinion would matter.Originalcola (talk)03:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I also checked Khalidi who refers to it as the War of 1967". But the current suggestion is not to use "War of 1967", but rather "1967 Arab-Israeli War" for which you have showed little literary support.Nehushtani (talk)06:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EvansHallBear, there is no POV issue here. The name "Six-Day War" is neutral and just reflects the length of the war. Also a name can be the most common name in English even if it was never used by "the foremost living Palestinian historian" (which in fact is not even true as Originalcola noted here). Incidentally, the Palestinians were not even an active side to this war, so I don't know why do you wish to give "the foremost living Palestinian historian" a veto power on this name.EntropyReducingGuy(Italk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚14:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that Khalidi was not the foremost living Palestinian historian(this is obviously somewhat subjective), although I do agree that it is somewhat questionable to give specific emphasis to Palestinian historians given that the war was between Arab countries and Israel.Originalcola (talk)15:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is no POV issue here. The name "Six-Day War" is neutral and just reflects the length of the war—not according to thesereliable sources:
"The June 1967 war is the subject of disagreement even as to its name. To Israel, it was the “Six-Day War,” an appellation that highlighted Israel’s military superiority for winning in a short time."
"The symbolic meaning of the Hebrew appellation of that war is obvious: just as the universe was created in six days, so was the Land of Israel emancipated in six days."
Oppose perWP:COMMONNAME. This is theEnglish Wikipedia. If Arabic sources use names like "June 1967 War", then the Arabic Wikipedia can use that name, and ifWestern and Israeli sources use "Six-Day War", we use that name.Lova Falk (talk)06:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignore, but if CNN uses one name, and Al Jazeera another name, in my opinion the CNN name is more relevant for us than the Al Jazeera name.Lova Falk (talk)17:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in my opinion the CNN name is more relevant for us than the Al Jazeera name—based on what?
And when you do, please note that those are essays, not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, unlikeWP:COMMONNAME, which is policy. In any case, I think you meant to say "Arabic" (the language) rather than "Arab" the people. There is no such thing as "Arab Wikipedia".Coining (talk)21:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked closer at the arguments and want to refine my comment. It appears that the RM's rationale is not that "Six-Day War" and "1967 Arab-Israeli War" are used comparably, but that "Six-Day War" and "1967 War" (the original RM) are used comparably so that there is no single common name. Therefore, we should use "1967 Arab-Israeli War" because it is neutral, even if used much less.
This doesn't hold water because the underlying comparisons on N-gram between "Six-Day War" and "1967 War" are fatally flawed. First of all, acase-sensitive comparison of the proposed titles actually shows hugely greater use of the "Six-Day War". Secondly, the case-insensitive searches of 1967 War (or a case sensitive search for "1967 war") shared by @إيان above[3][4]) have 3 problems:
One is that the results include places where there is punctuation/and or extra white space between "1967" and "war". Inthis example, a result is found based on one line ending "April 9-13, 1967" and the following line, a separate section title: "War on Poverty", even though they're on separate lines and no human reader would have conjoined them, N-Gram does.
That example also illustrates the second problem,elaborated by @Originalcola - not all uses of "1967 War" - even when those words are genuinely adjacent - are about the subject of this page.
The third issue is that "1967 war" is so innocuous a phrase that any texts will use it to refer to this war, even if they use "Six-Day War" as its name. A book on the Arab-Israeli conflict or of military history might refer to the "Six-Day War" in its title, chapter or section headings, but refer to it as "the 1967 war" in the text simply for concision and to avoid repeating the name of the war - uses of "1967 war" (however capitalised) need to be qualified if they're using it asthe name of the war, rather than simply an easy way to refer to it in context. E.g., our own Six-Day War article includes the sentence:After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Egypt reviewed the causes of its loss of the 1967 war.
Samuelshraga, this is an excellent analysis of the metrics and I thank you for illustrating the flaws. The matter of common name was central to the original RM, flawed though it was, but common name is not so important now.
WP:POVTITLE says a common name lacking neutrality should be avoided in situations of "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious," which is the case here. Per sources, "Six-Day War" is a POVTITLE, and in theWP:CT/PIA. "1967 Arab-Israeli War" more neutrally and fully satisfies theWP:Article title principle of recognizability, which the policy of COMMONNAME is intended to serve, while also satisfying other article title criteria asWP:PRECISE andWP:CONSISTENT, matching1948 Arab–Israeli War.إيان (talk)09:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your argument as based onWP:POVTITLE saying that we should avoid "colloquialisms" in favour of "more encyclopedic alternatives". I don't see anything colloquial about "Six-Day War". Some wars are named for their duration (Hundred Years' War,Thirty Years' War,Seven Years' War,Ten-Day War and other examples). Other encyclopedias (Britannica etc.) will refer to these wars by these names.
The "colloquialism" issue aside,WP:POVTITLE specifies thatthe fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. I think that Six-Day War has become the proper name, and that the N-Gram comparisons and their analyses demonstrate this.Samuelshraga (talk)15:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:…
2.Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious
This is the case we have here.
Inthe original RM, it was demonstrated that that use of “1967 war” is comparable to “six day war”—if notmore prevalent—throughGoogle Trends andNgrams. (If madecase-sensitive, the Ngram shows a surge in use of the term “Six-Day War” starting around the time Second Intifada and the September 11 attacks, but this is not such a significant consideration asWP:Article title policy prioritizes “natural” over “official” terminology.)
The prevailing counter-argument, amidst a bunch of “oppose” !votes that simply cited COMMONNAME without bothering with proof, was that “1967 War” was too vague. It wasargued that “1967 war” could refer to conflicts such as that theNathu La and Cho La clashes (1967) and the1967 Sierra Leonean coups d'état, as well as other conflicts spanning multiple years that included the year 1967, such as theNigerian Civil War, though it was acknowledged that these were far less prominent, and it was not proven that these are referred to as the ‘1967 war’ in any significant capacity. The same “vague” argument could also be made for “Six-Day War” with regard to theSix Days' Campaign,Six-Day War (1899),War in Abkhazia (1998),Six-Day War (2000). The title1967 Arab-Israeli War isWP:Precise and resolves both of these issues.
In the original RM, it was certainly not proven that usage of "1967 War" was comparable to "Six-Day War". Numerous editors pointed out issues with those metrics including myself. There was a near unanimous consensus amongst editors that "Six-Day War" was preferable to "1967 War". In fact, you were the only editor who either expressed support for that name or suggested it was as or more prevalent than the current title.Originalcola (talk)00:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conscious of the fact that I've made a large number of replies to you and have written a lot, so I'll refrain from further comment to give other editors a chance to share their opinion.Originalcola (talk)00:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A possible compromise title is“The 1967 Arab–Israeli Six-Day War”, which best meets the recognizability criterion by combining the conflict’s most familiar name (“Six-Day War”) with clear chronological and geographic context (“1967 Arab–Israeli”). This formulation also appears in reliable (and even anti-Israeli) sources, for example [1][2][3][4] and many others.EntropyReducingGuy(Italk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚15:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the common name and brevity are considered the primary criteria, then “Six-Day War” is the clear choice. However, إيان argued that the common name shouldnot be the paramount factor, and instead emphasizedrecognizability, which he defines as making clear both the time period and the parties involved. By that standard, the title “The 1967 Arab–Israeli Six-Day War” is even more recognizable, since it not only identifies the who and when, but also distinguishes the conflict from theWar of Attrition, which began in the same year between the same parties. In this sense it also meets the criterion of conciseness, asWP:CRITERIA defines concise as “not longer than necessary to identify the article’s subject and distinguish it from other subjects.”EntropyReducingGuy(Italk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚17:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:Article title, COMMONNAME is not among the fiveWP:Criteria. It is just a way of establishing a name’s recognizability, whichis the most important of the criteria.
If you continue readingWikipedia:Article titles, you'll see in theWP:COMMONNAME section:When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. I.e. when there is a single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used, there is no need to compare it to alternatives against theWP:CRITERIA. The people citing common name as an argument do not need to engage with the criteria -we've already agreed that your earlier evidence that Six-Day War isn't the common name was flawed.Samuelshraga (talk)13:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The term "Six-Day War" is not onlyused by Israel and its allies, it is a term in common parlance, as most importantly recognized in many of the references and further reading sources cited in the article that is proposed to be moved.
Furthermore, "Six-Day War" is found in1.2 million Google search results versus103,000 for "1967 Arab-Israeli War".
The proposed destination of "1967 Arab-Israeli War" is not more encyclopedic or recognizable -- though it states the year and (to some extent) the parties involved (though not all Arab countries were involved), it importantly loses the most salient aspect of the war. As has been pointed out, it is not unique as a war in 1967, nor is it unique as a war between Arab countries and Israel. The quintessential element of the war is that it lasted only six days. We'd probably be hard pressed to find any other war of a six-day duration. That's the reason for the name, not some after-the-fact rationale about its parallel to the days of creation or one side's military superiority (as the name alone doesn't convey which side was victorious, let alone militarily superior).
Lastly, I do not understand the requestor's simultaneous objection that "Six-Day War" is not the common name and the invocation ofWP:POVTITLE to argue that the common name should be avoided. These arguments are a bit contradictory.Coining (talk)03:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quintessential element of the war is that it lasted only six days—according to whom?
We'd probably be hard pressed to find any other war of a six-day duration— I actuallylisted four others in my comment above.
I do not understand ... these arguments are a bit contradictory Does your confusion stem from theirregular opening of this request? As you did not see the four examples of other six-day wars, I presume you did not readmy rationale closely. Please feel free to ask further questions if you still have any after you read my rationale.إيان (talk)04:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll freely admit to having missed a sentence at the end of one of your paragraphs, for which I apologize, but thefour examples of other six-day wars aren't, in three of four cases, really six-day wars at all. They are better framed as six-day battles in larger wars. Simply quoting the Wikipedia articles:
"The conflict is sometimes referred to as theSix-Day War of Abkhazia; however, this name only takes into account the Abkhazian offensive that lasted from 20 to 26 May 1998, while hostilities and insurgent attacks had already occurred before that date." This article's infobox identifies it as part of theAbkhazia conflict.
Re:Six-Day War (2000) - "The war formed part of the wider Second Congo War (1998–2003)." That framing is matched in the infobox.
TheSix-Day War (1899) does seem to be a war lasting six days. It is far less prominent and I don't think it's a stretch to say that its impact on world history has been less. Its article has four sources, and I don't think it displaces the common name or relative uniqueness of six-day wars rationales for the existingSix-Day War article name.
And yes, I do still view it as a bit contradictory to say that a term isn't a common name and to cite a policy to argue for why the common name shouldn't be used.Coining (talk)04:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and similar disqualifications could be made of the other conflicts happening in 1967 cited in theearlier RM, but it’s all kind of a moot point now.
It is indeed a bit messy and confusing, but the previous RM was about "1967 war" being more inline with NPOV and being used more than "six day war." There was valid criticism of "1967 war" as being too vague, and there was some consensus starting to develop for a move to1967 Arab-Israeli War instead, which was the basis for this RM, which is about1967 Arab-Israeli War being a more NPOV, precise, and encyclopedic alternative to the current POV title. Hope this clarifies it somewhat.إيان (talk)06:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
إيان, earlier when I proposed a compromise, I tried to use your perspective. But since you rejected the compromise, I must note thatSix-Day War serves at least 3 of the criteria inWP:CRITERIA better than1967 Arab–Israeli War.
Six-Day War is the most commonly used name in the sources, so by definition it is also the mostrecognizable.
Natural title is defined inWP:CRITERIA as what readers are likely to search for. Google Trends shows thatSix-Day War leads here as well.
As for precision: the longer name is somewhat more precise because other wars are also called Six-Day War, but perWP:NCDAB the usual solution is parenthetical disambiguation, which was done for the other wars with this name (e.g.,Six-Day War (2000)). Since the war in this article is far more notable, no disambiguation was deemed necessary here. Still, I would not object toSix-Day War (1967), which is more concise and more precise than1967 Arab–Israeli War (because not all of the Arab countries participated in it, and because of theWar of Attrition, even if it continued beyond 1967).
Oppose. Contrary to إيان's claims, I contend that Six-Day War (SDW) is neutral and compliant withWP:POVTITLE:
Contrary to إيان's claim that SWD is "used by Israel and its allies", anti-Israeli sources also use SDW extensively. I checked the first 3non-red RS from Middle-Eastern countries (that don't have diplomatic relations with Israel), and found that SDW appears in them MORE than "1967 Arab-Israeli War" (and less, but about the same order of magnitude, as "1967 war"):Al Arabiya123,Al Jazeera123,Al Manar123.
The definition of a non-neutral title inWP:POVTITLE seems to be a name that "includes non-neutral words". SDW clearly doesn't contain any non-neutral words. Instead what we have here, AT MOST, are two names that use neutral words only, yet each one of them is somewhat more preferred by a different group.WP:POVTITLE doesn't say that this makes any one of them more neutral than the other.
The 2 sources that إيان brought, that claimed that SDW is non-neutral, are themselves biased against Israel, and therefore cannot be used to establish neutrality evaluations, which are subjective by nature.John Quigley holds anti-Zionist views [See1,2,3]. And Uri Ram is a self-declared post-Zionist [4].
There is no POV issue in noting the length of the war. There aremany wars called after their duration. Furthermore, the shortness of the war, compared to the magnitude of its geopolitical results, is objectively notable, even for an anti-Israeli.
Furthermore, as others have already shown, according toWP:POVTITLE even if SDW was less neutral, this concern would generally be overridden by a name that had "effectively become a proper name", such as SDW.
If the current title were neutral, why would the personal opinions on Zionism ofQuigley andRam, the authors of the peer-reviewed publications that state that 'Six-Day War' is a non-neutral Israeli term, be relevant?إيان (talk)09:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was exactly that their personal opinion, i.e. that the current title is not neutral, shouldn't indeed be relevant. PS I think that I approach the 1000 words limits, and so probably do you. So I'll stop commenting here. If you want to continue this discussion we can do it on my talk page.EntropyReducingGuy(Italk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚09:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right on the word limit—thanks for the reminder—so I'll make my last two quick final points:
If the Palestinian/Arab appellation for 1967—an-Naksa, 'the setback'—were the common name, would it be an appropriate, encyclopedic title for this page?
That I didn't support your proposedcompromise ofThe 1967 Arab–Israeli Six-Day War (and it appearsI wasn't alone) is not because I am unwilling to compromise (this whole second RM is because I heeded the consensus forming in the previous one and remedied), but because the proposal is needlessly cumbersome. It is better than the current title, though, in that it does offer the two points ofindexicality—the year,1967, and the parties involved,Arab-Israeli (and therefore likely something in the way of geography, stakes, etc.)—unlike the current title, which has far lessWP:Recognizability in that it tells a reader seeing the term for the first time absolutely nothing other than it lasted 6 days.
Weak Oppose per commonname. I had thought the original RM was clearly foolish, but this one seemed to have a better chance. I didn't have a good look at evidence, but what little has been presented as to whether 1967 Arab-Israeli war is truly more common has failed to impress. it should also be noted that if the war was 6 days, it was 6 days, there is nothing nonneutral on stating that fact.hiding that Israel didn't have military superiority or that it didnt use pre-emptive airstrikes would be non-neutral, ofc, but that's not the question at play here.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)17:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Louis WR, Shlaim A, eds. Introduction. In: The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences. Cambridge Middle East Studies. Cambridge University Press; 2012:1-21.
^Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (London: Penguin Books, 2002), p. xiii
level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Done, thanks,Huldra (talk)22:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.Day Creature (talk)17:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the.svg)
Note: I did not create this new RM; itwas created byPaine Ellsworth, who saw fit to absurdly reduce and therefore misrepresent my rationale and argument and place my signature on the RM. I assume they were attempting to be helpful, but this misrepresentation is inappropriate to say the least. Ihad asked if I could redirect the RM to1967 Arab-Israeli War after noting some consensus forming in support of1967 Arab-Israeli War over1967 War fromEvansHallBear,Bluethricecreamman, andSuperPianoMan9167, and I wasencouraged to WP:BOLDly do so.
Facepalm ← Metallurgist (talk)19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]