Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-11/Six-Day War

Where is the dispute?
The problem is in the article for "Six-Day War": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The issue is in the third paragraph, first sentence. It has long read:

"On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt."

Who is involved?
Myself (JRHammond) JRHammond (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC) et al
 * Harlan wilkerson
 * BorisG
 * Jiujitsuguy
 * Hertz1888

What is the dispute?
I've outlined details on the talk page. In sum: The use of the adjective "preemptive" to describe the attack is a subjective judgment. There is no conclusive evidence that Egypt had intended to attack Israel, and would have done so had Israel not attacked Egypt first. On the contrary, the documentary record indicates Nasser had no intention to attack Israel. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed that Nasser would not launch a first strike. U.S. intelligence assessed that Israel would defeat the combined Arab forces in 2 weeks -- 1 week if Israel struck first (which proved to be an accurate assessment). That the attack was not actually "preemptive" is uncontroversial among serious scholars. Prominent Israeli leaders have acknowledged that there is no real indication Nasser intended to take on the vastly superior Israeli military. Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, for instance, both Prime Ministers, have both acknowledged this. Current Israeli Ambassador Michael B. Oren's account "Six Days of War" is widely considered the definitive account, and he acknowledges that both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed that Nasser would not attack, and that the view of the Israeli leadership of the time, rhetoric about Israel's impending doom aside, was that Nasser would have to be insane to attack Israel, and that he would in all likelihood not do so.

I began this discussion. It's since dragged on unnecessarily. Nobody is arguing that it should read that the attack was NOT preemptive. But to meet Wikipedia's standard and to meet policy, the article must take a neutral point of view. Describing the attack in statement of fact as "preemptive" is not a neutral POV. This is subjective. I edited the page to remove the biased POV, but another editor undid my change. His argument was that there needed to be a "consensus" before a change is made. I replied by pointing out that by his own standard (and Wikipedia policy), until there is a "consensus" that the attack was "preemptive", the adjective needs to be removed, and I did so so that the sentence is now (at the time of this writing) neutral, asserting neither the one POV nor the other as historical fact.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to be sure the article reads in a neutral manner, as I've so edited it, without it being revised to contain the subjective use of adjective "preemptive".

How do you think we can help?
I'd like you to help ensure that the article reads in a neutral manner, without it containing the subjective use of the adjective.

Mediator notes
It's very basic: what sources say the attack was preemptive? If you're at an impasse with NPOV (and everyone has their reasons), then go with the sources. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it is very basic, as I outlined above. The bottom line is that no sources provide conclusive evidence that Egypt intended to attack Israel in a first-strike, because none exists. On the contrary, the documentary record is quite clear that Egypt had no such intention, again, as I outlined above. Sources have been extensively discussed on the talk page. I was hoping for a more helpful response. JRHammond (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there a plurality of reliable sources claiming that the war was "preemptive", is what I'm asking. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the question. It is a common assertion among mainstream media, yes, just as a plurality (majority, actually) of mainstream media sources claimed in 2002-2003 that Iraq had WMD. Yet, as I and others were pointing out at the time, there was no actual evidence to support those false claims.

Claims should be presented as claims, not as facts. The fact that a "plurality" of sources might make a claim does not by any means suggest that it is therefore proper to assert that claim as fact in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's standard and policy in fact forbid such, and rather demand a neutral point of view (the "preemptive" claim is a pro-Israeli POV), and verifiability (the claim cannot be verified; in fact, the documentary record, as I outlined above briefly, and more extensively on the talk page, demonstrates just the opposite, that Egypt had no intention at all of making the first strike).

Your question is not relevant to the issue here. The bottom line is this is a subjective judgment. It should therefore be presented as such, rather than being presented as a proven fact. I've edited it again to read neutrally. All I want from you is to help ensure that it continues to read neutrally, rather than being reverted back to the biased version that existed before.JRHammond (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I fear I may be projecting onto this. You mention Iraq, and the US (where I'm from) claimed that that war was "preemptive". I get cynical when I hear the word, and I figur(ed) others would as well (that is, the word is so prostituted that it's lost all meaning). This would also be my third Israeli-focused one-word-dispute (e.g., Gilad Shalit: "hostage" or "captive"? Seriously. And I couldn't solve that one, either.) The problem with one-word-disputes is that there's rarely a compromise: it's either in or out, or this one or that one). If you can think of a third option...
 * But the fact of the matter is you have sources that say it was pre-emptive; you also have sources that say it wasn't (as you've outlined above). If the sources that say it wasn't preemptive are of greater veracity than the ones that say it was and you still have a dispute, then someone is failing to see the writing on the wall. How would you like me to deal with that? Can I or anybody else deal with that? You've had a discussion on sources already, so I can't take that route and expect better results.
 * I'm going to add this to the new list, again, and get another mediator to handle this. I can think of a guy... Xavexgoem (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. claimed the war on Iraq was "preemptive". But would it be proper for a Wikipedia article on the war to assert as fact that this was so? Certainly not! It's not more proper to say Israel's attack on Egypt in '67 was "preemptive".

I'm not looking for a "compromise", I'm looking for Wikipedia to uphold its policy of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Does Wikipedia "compromise" on those policies?

Nobody is arguing that the article should state as fact that the attack was NOT preemptive. All that is requested is that it remain neutral, neither asserting the one view nor the other as fact. Wikipedia policy requires this. All I am asking is for someone to uphold the policy. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever that anyone should object to the sentence reading as it does now, without the adjective.

Thank you for passing this on. The sentence in question is currently neutral. I just want to make sure nobody reverts it back to asserting as fact that the was was "preemptive". This is a subjective judgment, not a proven fact.JRHammond (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * JR, you bring your OR analysis to counter the thousands of RS? The vast majority of RSs claim the attack was preemptive, yet you merely bring your insight into history above, and do not bring sources that claim that it 'was not' preemptive. --Shuki (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume you didn't even bother to look at the Talk page, or you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment. If you're not going to bother to familiarize yourself with the discussion, then don't bother trying to tell me what the situation is. JRHammond (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the etiquette is for commenting on these pages, so excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn (I have been involved in the discussion on the Six Day War article). Basically, there are many notable academics on both sides of the argument (as can be seen on the Six Day War talk page). It therefore seems a fundamental breach of NPOV for Wikipedia to baldly state that the Israeli attack WAS preemptive. I also think we need to be careful about saying things such as "the attack is widely described as preemptive" unless we add that the "preemptive" description is also widely disputed. We should also be careful in assuming that everyone - including mainstream newspapers and magazines - means the same thing when they use the word "preemptive". In most academic literature, a "preemptive" attack (as opposed to a "preventive" or "defensive" attack) is one carried out in the belief that an attack by your enemy on you is imminent. However, in recent years this meaning has begun to drift. Notable sources, for example, frequently speak of a possible "preemptive attack" by the US or Israel on Iran, yet it's clear that they don't believe an attack by Iran on either of these countries is imminent. The fundamental question is this: Did Israel genuinely believe that an attack by Egypt was imminent? Many notable scholars (and two former Israeli Prime Ministers) do not believe it did. Phersu (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phersu that to have the article state as fact that the attack was "preemptive" is a fundamental breach of NPOV. However, the issue is not whether or not Israeli leaders actually believed an Egyptian attack was imminent or not, but whether or not such an attack actually was in fact imminent or not. Either way, the documentary record is perfectly clear: 1) Israel's own intelligence assessed that it was extremely unlikely Nasser would attack, and 2) Prominent Israeli leaders like Begin and Rabin have since acknowledged this fact. All edits I've made have been to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * JRHammond, that is your OR so your comments are irrelevant here. What do the 'RS' sources say? --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already given you sources. See talk page and the footnotes I added in the 3rd paragraph. JRHammond (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but most say otherwise. You know, that according to your logic, the entire idea / article about preemptive war is POV and that preemptive war does not exist. --Shuki (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do "most" who "say otherwise" include both U.S. and Israeli intelligence? Does it include prominent Israelis like Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Michael B. Oren? When you've got Israeli Prime Ministers acknowledging that the attack was not actually 'preemtive', and their own intelligence having assessed the likelihood of an Egyptian attack as being extremely low, why is this even in the least bit controversial? Seriously, what gives? You're demonstrating your own prejudice by playing ignorant in the face of these facts.


 * This is not an opinion but a point of fact: Describing Israel's attack as "preemptive", as fact, violates WP:NPOV. Why? Because this is not a FACT, but a CLAIM. There is no proof that Egypt intended to or would have attacked Israel had Israel not struck first. In fact, as I've outlined extensively, the preponderance of the evidence from the documentary record demonstrates the unlikelihood that Nasser would have done so.


 * Finally, you employ a strawman argument to make your point. If you have any valid arguments to make, make them, rather than attributing logic to me that bears no resemblance to my own. But even if I did employ such logic, my opinion on whether there is such a thing as preemptive war or not is irrelevant. What matters are the facts, and I've given them to you. JRHammond (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Both JRHammond and Jiujitsuguy have served blocks in the past few weeks for edit warring, often with each other. There is too much argument in this case submission already so I want this resubmitted. If you resubmit it and both of you are in earnest about working out differences I will take this on. If both of you care looking for someone to come to your side in an edit war you came to the wrong place. --Wgfinley (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page and offer to help. I see the edit warring has not stopped, so I'll be resubmitting momentarily. JRHammond (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I put the POV tag on the lede because a group of editors have continuously reverted all attempts to include significant opposing or balancing viewpoints from reliable mainstream sources. NPOV does not permit a plurality of sources to exclude the views of another plurality, i.e. (1) there is no support in WP:UNDUE for advancing a single POV; (2) WP:Fringe never includes views that have been published in mainstream sources, and views which have been discussed by mainstream sources. Reliable published sources, including the American Society of International Law, say that a plurality of authorities agree that the Israeli actions amounted to a preventive war, which is an illegal act of aggression. harlan (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Harlan. JRHammond (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)