How plainly obvious can it be that some people here wish to convey their OPINIONS in this article? Whereby Wikipedia policy forbids such non-neutral or POV contributions, a certain few of the regular editors of this article apparently feel that asserting their opinions through the proxy of a "well-cited source" does not constitute a POV contribution. You are WRONG. Just because you find published material that you agree with does not mean 1) that it is true 2) that it is neutral or 3) that it is relevent to the article.
Aiden, I reverted the page solely because you deleted a significant amount of material - some of which I find very hard to see how it can be considered POV, false or irrelevant - e.g. the fact that Israel had informed the world that it would consider closure of the Straits a casus belli when it withdrew from them in 1957, which I happened to put in earlier. The newer introduction also uses significantly less neutral language, sometimes with the effect of making Israel look worse. I noticed that you put in some material which was relevant and a contribution to the article, and I was planning on reincorporating it. But when you delete and add in the same edit, you ensure that your positive contributions become much less certain of remaining, because you make other people have to do much more work if they feel you have unjustifiably removed content. It is necessary to realize that you are not the arbiter of truth or falsity. If something is well-cited and represents a significant element in debate, it belongs in the article - seeWP:NPOV. The aim of NPOV is to present the debate, and for this it is necessary to have POV positions presented in a fair and neutral way. You should also not personalize things with terms like Ianpedia. If you really think something should be deleted, especially in a contentious area like the Arab-Israeli conflict, you should explain why on a case by case basis, not do things en masse without specific explanations.
What you call expostfacto pondering is hardly that; it is just one very significant - probably the majority opinion - on the legality of the preemptive strike; in fact the US State department's legal advisor said much the same thing before the war. I agree this section is maybe too long, I personally tried to make it less argumentative and more neutral earlier on, but something like it certainly is relevant. Some of your changes put words in people's mouths which they would never say - the FM of Egypt would hardly call an Israeli strike retaliatory rather than punitive, a much better word there. On the Golan shelling, it is not and never has been in dispute that Israeli actions in the DMZs were an important cause of the shelling. These sections could have been better, more neutrally written or better sourced, but it is much better to neutralize, modify and understand than delete somebody else's work just because you feel it is opinion rather than fact. You may even find that if you read the other side's sources, your opinions might change. I hope you realize they may feel the same way about your contributions - the point is to try to collaborate on something both sides can agree on, and fairly represent scholarly disputes on matters if two editors have different opinions. If something is blatantly one-sided, then make it less blatant, and give the other side; that is how Wikipedia insists things be done.
Finally, you should realize that although I don't care and am willing to talk anywhere on the page, the usual thing, that most prefer, is to put additional posts on the bottom, not the top. I think most people would find it difficult to use the strict chronological order of what is being discussed, and I think it unlikely that you will get most people to go along.John Z 04:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Aiden, Apyule reverted to my version. I would put in your new stuff now, but I am too exhausted, and will do so tomorrow if no one else does. It's better to debate about what should be changed or not be in the article then. RegardsJohn Z 10:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
John, in order to avoid an edit war, I will list my grievances with the article and attempt to justify my previous changes.
"Norman Finkelstein has argued that this shelling was often deliberately provoked by Israeli incursions into, and settlement of, the Israel-Syria demilitarized zone."
Finkelstein/Syria
editNorman Finkelstein, the provider of the "well-sourced" material on the Syrian shelling of Israeli villages, is in no way a respectable academic source. His justification of the Syrian shelling does nothing to contribute to the factual information provided in the article. What it does do is attempt to convince the reader that what happened is justified. It is simply being used as a proxy for other editors to convey their opinions through this source.
Riad/Egypt
edit"In 1966, Egypt and Syria signed a military alliance, initiated for both sides if either were to go to war. According to foreign minister Mahmoud Riad Egypt had been forced into the mutual defense pact by the Soviet Union. The pact had two objectives: (1) to reduce the chances of a punitive attack on Syria by Israel and (2) to bring the Syrians under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s moderate influence. [1]."
Just as the Finkelstein addition, this contribution does not simply inform the reader of the creation of the defense pact--which is the primary purpose of the 'Background' section--it goes beyond this and gives the reasons for the defense pact from the sole perspective of the Egyptian FM. The cited source for this material is Rikhye's Sinai Blunder, and is not directly from Mahmoud Riad. Actually, the source, according to Rikhye, is from "The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Riad, in a conversation with me in July 1967 on this subject..." Considering we do not have a direct quote, not to mention the fact that this is a paraphrase of a conversation 13-years later (the Sinai Blunder was published in 1980), the account is not only hearsay--inadmissible under Wikipedia policy--but it is highly probable the account is not accurate. The actual quote from Rikhye's Sinai Blunder is that the Soviet Union had "persuaded" not forced "Egypt and Syria... to enter into a mutual defense pact..." The characterization of the objectives of the defense pact as a means to prevent "punitive" Israeli attacks is also from the perspective of the Egyptian PM, certainly not a NPOV source. The same applies to Nasser as a "moderate" influence. This "moderate" influence also is the same guy who said "We will drive the Jews into the sea", blockaded Eilat, kicked out the UNEF from the Sinai, etc., etc., etc.
Legal
edit"In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage."
This is in the "Background" section. The point of this section is to layout the framework for the cause of the war, not to question the actions of only one party after-the-fact. Yet again, the only source used is one which questions Israel's actions, after-the-fact, and from the perspective of only one source.
Intentions/Nasser
edit"Nasser himself wrote that "I am not in a position to go to war" and Rubenburg states that Egypt believed that the issue of navigation in the Straits of Tiran was amenable to peaceable resolution, but that from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations. [2]"
And yet again, we are given only one side of Nasser, the side that portrays him as a "moderate" influence, or perhaps someone who by all means does want to go to war. What is left out of our little book of Nasser quotes are ones such as "There is no longer a way out of our present situation except by forging a road toward our objective, violently and by force, over a sea of blood and under a horizon blazing with fire." Or how about, "I will throw the Jews into the sea"? Why do I feel this article continually tries to perceive the Arab states as helpless victims while Israel is obviously the evil aggressor?
Painting a picture of a situation according to the perspective of an author, even if cited, does not guarantee that the information is NPOV. Like I said before, I can find just as many bogus, one-sided, bigot sources and add them to the article. Sure my information will be "well-sourced" with the appropriate footnotes, references, and all the things that make you tingle inside, but will it be neutral? Not a chance. Aiden Cathasaigh 20:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Aiden, if scholars disagree on the interpretation of the primary sources that disagreement should be explained and the sources cited. --Ian Pitchford 23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Ian, the article is already too long, and the materials removed in no way contribute to the factual accuracy of the article or are relevant to the "Background" subject matter; hence, they were removed. Pitting one POV source against another is not going to accomplish anything nor is that how an article should be written. I've supplied sufficient reason above as to why the 4 entries in question were removed. Just because they happen to be your opinion and from whatever author you can find to support your opinion does not mean it is a) NPOV b) true or c) relevant to the article. Aiden Cathasaigh 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Aiden, if you think a source is POV you can illustrate that by showing how the interpretation in question doesn't withstand scrutiny. That's what I've done, for example, in showing that Oren doesn't even accurately report his own book in the article already cited [3]. However, even authors as far apart as Rubenberg and Oren are agreed that Egypt was not planning to launch an attack on Israel, i.e. there's no real dispute about the fact that the Israeli attack was not pre-emptive and so whether the introduction has "strike" or "war" it is still false. Lyndon B. Johnson and "17 maritime powers" might well have declared the Straits international waters, but he and they had no right to do so. A group of Arab nations could just as easily get together and declare their right to sail up an down the Thames. It has no bearing in international law. The section with the reference to Rikhye is his report of a discussion with the Egyptian foreign minister. It shouldn't be altered to reflect some other point of view not expressed in this source. --Ian Pitchford 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
You are missing my point entirely, Ian, (in part because I doubt you even read my exhaustive justifications for my changes) and I hate to have to spell this out for you yet again but it appears I must.
The article is not about pitting one POV source against another. It is about presenting FACTS to the reader in an understandable format.
"According to foreign minister Mahmoud Riad Egypt had been forced into the mutual defence pact by the Soviet Union. The pact had two objectives: (1) to reduce the chances of a punitive attack on Syria by Israel and (2) to bring the Syrians under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s moderate influence. [4]"
Explain to me how it is OK for you to cite as the purpose of a defense pact only one source who just so happens to be one of only two members of said defense pact. How can you honestly argue that Mahmoud Riad--the Foreign Minister of Egypt, the author of the defense pact--is a NPOV source? Your quote may have come from Rikhye's Sinai Blunder, but it still remains a paraphrased quote of Mahmoud Riad, the Egyptian FM, who two sentences later affirms Nasser as a "moderate" influence. If this isn't POV I don't know what is. Not to mention, hearsay isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles and this is clearly a case of hearsay: a paraphrased quote written in a book 13 years after-the-fact.
"In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage. [5]"
The details on a debate that occurred after the war, for one, do not belong in the background section of the article. As another reviewer stated, this material does not only present the fact that Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt--the purpose of the article, mind you--it provides an argument that the attack was unjustified. Yet another instance of a POV argument being made through the proxy of a source.
- The purpose of this article is not to "present the fact that Israel launched a pre-emptive attack" - it is to describe the war. That it was a pre-emptive attack is your opinion. Especially construing "preemptive attack" in the sense of international law, this is not at all the majority scholarly opinion, nor was it even the opinion of the USA immediately before or after the war.
"Nasser himself wrote that "I am not in a position to go to war" and Rubenberg states that Egypt believed that the issue of navigation in the Straits of Tiran was amenable to peaceable resolution, but that from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations. [6]"
It is an accepted fact that the blockade was considered casus belli and Egypt knew this when initiating the blockade. Can you deny the fact that Egypt blockaded the straights? No. But on the other hand, is it a matter of opinion that Egypt wanted peace and that Israel wanted war? Yes. So like I said before, why is this here? It only conveys one opinion, that of Nasser, and is clearly present solely to portray Israel as the aggressor. "...from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy..." Need I say more?
- The blockade was considered a casus belli - but by whom? Israel, yes, certainly, and Nasser knew this, which is why his actions were so stupid in the end, but it was not officially considered as such by anyone else, including the USA.
Once again, Ian, the article is not about pitting my POV source against your POV source. It is about presenting facts, and frankly it seems you and some others clearly are not interested in doing so. Aiden Cathasaigh 00:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Aiden, none of the above is POV in Wikipedia's usage. Riad's report on the purpose of the pact is reported as such, i.e. it's a fact. If you don't think he represents the situation accurately, then cite other sources to support that conclusion. I think you will find this difficult. Whether a pre-emptive strike was justified under international law is obviously a key issue and that's why I have cited legal authorities on the issue. Why should Wikipedia readers be denied access to these? Israel did reject multilateral diplomacy (e.g., UN, World Court) and launched the war after they had been told by the US and their own officials that Egypt's deployment was defensive. US diplomacy was ongoing at the time - in other words Israel rejected that too even though the Americans were confident that a diplomatic situation could be achieved. The resons why Egypt wasn't prepared for war are mentioned in the article, sourced appropriately. As far as I can see your only objection is that the article doesn't reflect your own POV. --Ian Pitchford 06:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Aiden, I am very glad to see this, but I think you still may not entirely understand Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Of course we strive to present neutrally worded cited information that every editor can agree on, but sometimes this is not possible because there is a genuine scholarly debate about a matter. We then try to present both sides as fairly as we can, not decide which is right. In this case, the only choice is to get your own "bogus, one-sided, bigot sources and add them to the article." Wikipedia is "about pitting my POV source against your POV source." because people cannot always agree on what the fact of the matter is. In my opinion, most of the things you have a problem with however don't need this kind of treatment, but should at most be reworded, modified or replaced by something presenting a scholarly consensus view. One of the good things about the conflict is that the scholarly narratives of each side are slowly but surely converging, once they completely talked past each other. Take a look at 9.7 Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete on WP:NPOV - if you think these sections need improvement try to follow that.
See also Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles, Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial In general I think it is a good idea to go into much detail about the background to the war - everyone agrees that it is very complicated, and some things are still debated. The war started because both sides had to be Mr. Tough Guy, but neither side really wanted war - at least I would say that is the most popular scholarly view - and this naturally made for a complex runup to war, for which there should be more not less. Getting down to particulars, I disagree about Finkelstein. Many other sources could be used for this, but something is better than nothing here. It is an accepted fact that the Syrian border troubles were a major cause of the war - in fact the it is often said to have started on the Syrian border. Describing how they happened is relevant. About the Egyptian FM, there are two issues. First the actual writing - I think we should trust that the reader understands that he will present the Egyptian POV - so "punitive" is neutral here, while "retaliatory" is not. Wikipedia does not present "NPOV sources" - just accurately attributed respectable ones representing major POVs In a political matter, one can hardly avoid using biased politicians. The second is the presence of this