Jump to content

Talk:Six-Day War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSix-Day War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 12, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 5, 2004, June 5, 2005, June 5, 2006, June 5, 2011, and June 10, 2012.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Requested move 13 November 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Six-Day War → 1967 War1967 War – WP:COMMONNAME per metrics:

According to WP:RS, the current title is also a WP:POVTITLE:

"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."
  • Quigley, John (2012). The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 5. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139424530. ISBN 978-1-107-03206-4.
"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: Probably anything 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 the Sino-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 the WP: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 - the WP: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" [1] estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you make it case-sensitive, "1967 War" is still the WP:COMMONNAME. إيان (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per Hacked. Lova Falk (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Nehushtani (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to what metric? The metrics above show the opposite. إيان (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the Google trends graph spelling "Six Day War" without a dash, the numbers are roughtly equal. Also, as pointed out by @Hacked, a search for middle east conflict in 1967 shows a lot more results for Six Day War (with or without the dash). Nehushtani (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the 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" per WP:POVTITLE.
And again, the first page of Google search results is not an adequate metric; it is not comparable to the quantitative Ngram and Google Trends (or this case-sensitive query) results. إيان (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose commonname. Its wp:snowing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose per Hacked. Qhairun (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I meant to say Support per Hacked. Qhairun (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qhairun: Request you clarify because I'm opposing, not supporting. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm actually Oppose. Sorry, I misunderstood. Qhairun (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely all good. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the oppose !votes have even attempted to address the matter of WP:POVTITLE raised above.إيان (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They read your arguments, but commonname trumps it so much pov doesnt really matter. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:26, 14 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, who claimed 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 then demonstrated 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 of WP: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 maintain WP:Civility.
Again, I have provided Ngram and Google 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 name whilst 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 seems Nehushtani already pointed the hyphen thing. Originalcola (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOVNAME Originalcola (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: there was more than one way in 1967—blindlynx 18:23, 13 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.

Requested move 16 November 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Day War → 1967 Arab-Israeli War1967 Arab-Israeli War – WP:COMMONNAME Added note: This request opened by P.I. Ellsworth  for the editors in the previous move request who supported this title, and specifically for the previous nominator, إيان (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP: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 of WP:COMMONNAME. Both of those statements can't be true. Originalcola (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME. Speedy close this and moratorium on it if need be. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP: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]
Information Note: I did not create this new RM; it was created by Paine 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. I had asked if I could redirect the RM to 1967 Arab-Israeli War after noting some consensus forming in support of 1967 Arab-Israeli War over 1967 War from EvansHallBear, Bluethricecreamman, and SuperPianoMan9167, and I was encouraged to WP:BOLDly do so.
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 through WP:COMMONNAME as you can see in the edit history, so I think it’s unfair to criticise the mod who closed and opened the previous discussion when you did not remove WP: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 through WP:POVTITLE or the RS testimony or anything beyond the title. Per WP: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, editor إيان, 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 monitor malformed 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]
PS. I have added a note in the nomination above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All forgiven Paine Ellsworth! Thank you for your pure intentions, apology, and note above. إيان (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all editors who took part in previous move request:@Hacked, Estar8806, Lova Falk, Bluethricecreamman, Originalcola, Qhairun, Blindlynx, Pppery, Srnec, EvansHallBear, and SuperPianoMan9167: Originalcola (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean asides from the ones who have already responded Originalcola (talk) 23:01, 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 the WP:COMMONNAME or meets WP: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] In The 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]
Because I'm not making an argument that 1967 Arab-Israeli War is the common name, but that it best fulfills WP:CRITERIA. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:53, 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(I talk, 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]
What I meant is that it is not even true that Khalidi never used the name Six Day War. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 16:02, 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 these reliable 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 - per Originalcola's N-gram comparison (I tried variations myself and saw no change). Samuelshraga (talk) 13:57, 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, a case-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 [2][3]) have 3 problems:
  1. One is that the results include places where there is punctuation/and or extra white space between "1967" and "war". In this 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 as the 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.
If actual evidence that Six-Day War is not the WP:COMMONNAME is shared, I'm open to changing my mind. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 the WP:CT/PIA. "1967 Arab-Israeli War" more neutrally and fully satisfies the WP:Article title principle of recognizability, which the policy of COMMONNAME is intended to serve, while also satisfying other article title criteria as WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT, matching 1948 Arab–Israeli War. إيان (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your argument as based on WP: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 that the 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]
Support per WP:POVTITLE.
"Six-Day War" is the appellation used by Israel and its allies. According to reliable sources, the Israeli term “highlighted Israel’s military superiority for winning in a short time” and “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.”
It is inappropriate to use as the title for an article of this importance in the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict, which requires the utmost care and attention to the matter of NPOV.
WP:POVTITLE tells us that:
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.
In the original RM, it was demonstrated that that use of “1967 war” is comparable to “six day war”—if not more prevalent—through Google Trends and Ngrams. (If made case-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 as WP: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 was argued that “1967 war” could refer to conflicts such as that the Nathu La and Cho La clashes (1967) and the 1967 Sierra Leonean coups d'état, as well as other conflicts spanning multiple years that included the year 1967, such as the Nigerian 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 the Six Days' Campaign, Six-Day War (1899), War in Abkhazia (1998), Six-Day War (2000). The title 1967 Arab-Israeli War is WP:Precise and resolves both of these issues.
Per WP:Article titles, the number-1 criterion of the 5 WP:CRITERIA is recognizability. The point of WP:COMMONNAME is recognizability. 1967 Arab-Israeli War is more recognizable than "Six-Day War" because it tells us when and who was involved, and it does so with neutrality. 1967 Arab-Israeli War is NPOV, immediately recognizable, and the obvious encyclopedic choice. إيان (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 15:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its definitely not a commonname. And rather unsuccinct. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:28, 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 should not be the paramount factor, and instead emphasized recognizability, 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 the War of Attrition, which began in the same year between the same parties. In this sense it also meets the criterion of conciseness, as WP:CRITERIA defines concise as “not longer than necessary to identify the article’s subject and distinguish it from other subjects.” EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 17:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Article title, COMMONNAME is not among the five WP:Criteria. It is just a way of establishing a name’s recognizability, which is the most important of the criteria.
The 1967 Arab–Israeli Six-Day War is unnecessary as the War of Attrition was not in 1967 but rather spanned 1967–1970; no distinction is necessary. The main issue with “Six-Day War” as the title is POV. إيان (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue reading Wikipedia:Article titles, you'll see in the WP: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 the WP: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 only used 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 in 1.2 million Google search results versus 103,000 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 of WP: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 actually listed four others in my comment above.
I do not understand ... these arguments are a bit contradictory Does your confusion stem from the irregular opening of this request? As you did not see the four examples of other six-day wars, I presume you did not read my 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 the four 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 Six Days Campaign (10–15 February 1814) was a final series of victories by the forces of Napoleon I of France as the Sixth Coalition closed in on Paris." The article's infobox identifies it as part of the Campaign in north-east France (1814), which in turn is part of the War of the Sixth Coalition, which in turn is part of the Napoleonic Wars and the Coalition Wars.
  • "The conflict is sometimes referred to as the Six-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 the Abkhazia 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.
The Six-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 existing Six-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 the earlier 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 to 1967 Arab-Israeli War instead, which was the basis for this RM, which is about 1967 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]
Oppose renaming it will only blend the conflict in with the other Arab Israeli Wars. Rager7 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree—the proposed title is more WP:CONSISTENT إيان (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent doesnt apply to war names Facepalm Facepalm ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, calling it the "1967 Arab-Israeli War" will just blend with the other wars and conflicts. Rager7 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Contrary to إيان's claims, I contend that Six-Day War (SDW) is neutral and compliant with WP: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 3 non-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 Arabiya 1 2 3, Al Jazeera 1 2 3, Al Manar 1 2 3.
  • The definition of a non-neutral title in WP: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 [See 1, 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 are many 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 to WP: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.
PS SDW appears in over 10000 academic papers/books in JSTOR alone. So إيان is clearly wrong in describing it as "colloquialism". EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 09:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the current title were neutral, why would the personal opinions on Zionism of Quigley and Ram, 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(I talk, 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 proposed compromise of The 1967 Arab–Israeli Six-Day War (and it appears I 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 of indexicality—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 less WP:Recognizability in that it tells a reader seeing the term for the first time absolutely nothing other than it lasted 6 days.
إيان (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 17:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose What an absurdity. The common name in English is far and away Six Day War. Arab government opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (London: Penguin Books, 2002), p. xiii
  3. ^ https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v21/d21
  4. ^ https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v21/d21
  5. ^ https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v24/d35
  6. ^ https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v14/d217
  7. ^ https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v17/d184
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.

Introduction improvement

[edit]

The introduction is currently poorly formatted, especially the first paragraph. Per MOS:BEGIN:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

Therefore, the occupations and displacements, the most prominent features of the war, should be addressed in the opening paragraph. إيان (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the lead. Claiming that it is the "most prominent feature of the war" is POV and should remain where it was previously in the third paragraph. Nehushtani (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BEGIN is specifically about the first paragraph. Brittanica supports most of the changes. Let's see what others think. إيان (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica says in the first paragraph that Israel captured "the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Old City of Jerusalem, and Golan Heights". I would be open to possibly adding that to the first paragraph. The displacements are not due in the first paragraph and not in that position in Britannica either. I will remind you that as per WP:BRITANNICA, the Britannica is a borderline reliable WP:TERTIARY source. Nehushtani (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the capture of the "the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Old City of Jerusalem, and Golan Heights" should be added to the first paragraph as they are universally accepted as the most important results of the war. The displacements are not universally considered as a very significant part of the results of the war, particularly as most of them were temporary. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 13:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you good with the following version of the first paragraph?
The Six-Day War,¹ or the 1967 Arab–Israeli war (5–10 June 1967), was fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan within the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict. In the war, Israel captured and occupied the West Bank (including territory it would annex as East Jerusalem) from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
1. Hebrew: מִלְחֶמֶת שֵׁשֶׁת הַיָּמִים, romanized: Milḥemet Šešet HaYamim; Arabic: النكسة, romanized: an-Naksah, lit. 'The Setback' or حرب 1967, Ḥarb 1967, 'War of 1967', also known as the June war or third Arab–Israeli war}}
إيان (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the words "it would annex" shouldn't be in the opening sentence, as this happened after the war ended. I also wonder if an-Naksah is really a name of the war. In the article Naksa it seems to describe only the (mostly temporary) flight of Palestinians following the war. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 06:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could go further down, but it should be linked somewhere in the introduction. Naksa (defeat) is the word popularly used in Arabic to refer to the war and its consequences, similar to Nakba (catastrophe) for the war of 1948. See, for example: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] إيان (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
The Six-Day War,¹ or the 1967 Arab–Israeli war (5–10 June 1967), was fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan within the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict. In the war, Israel captured and occupied the West Bank (including the Old City of Jerusalem and territory that would become East Jerusalem) from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
1. Hebrew: מִלְחֶמֶת שֵׁשֶׁת הַיָּמִים, romanized: Milḥemet Šešet HaYamim; Arabic: النكسة, romanized: an-Naksa, lit. 'The Setback' or حرب 1967, Ḥarb 1967, 'War of 1967', also known as the June war or third Arab–Israeli war إيان (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"(including the Old City of Jerusalem and territory that would become East Jerusalem)" is too long and cumbersome for the first sentence. Also the Old City of Jerusalem is only part of East Jerusalem, and this area was called East Jerusalem even before the Six-Day War. Why not write simply "(including East Jerusalem)"? EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 15:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "(including East Jerusalem)" makes sense and is commendably briefer. I also think that this version is better than the one that mentioned annexation. If we start talking about annexation of East Jerusalem in this sentence, it seems odd to me to not mention the ultimate (or at least current) disposition of the other territories. Better to leave these details to the rest of the article. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok to me. إيان (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders/leaders in the infobox

[edit]

Skitash, in these edits [9][10], you have added two commanders/leaders, Nureddin al-Atassi and Abdul Rahman Arif, that are not supported by the body of the article (and more specifically, the readable prose).

A search for Arif on the article page gives three hits (excluding the infobox). Two are in the navbox at the bottom of the page. One is in the caption of an image in the Aftermath section that reads: Some of the attending heads of state at the Arab League Summit in Khartoum following the Six-Day War. ... A caption is not part of the readable prose. Thhe caption evidences that they were a heads-of-state attending the Khartoum summit after the war but it does not evidence they were a key or significant leaders in the context of the war.

There is only one hit for al-Atassi (excluding the infobox) and this is in the navbox. In neither case is their inclusion supported by the body of the article (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and they sould be removed from it. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since those two heads of state presided over the war and played a fundamental role I believe their inclusion is essential. I've added brief mentions of them in the article body per what the already cited sources state if that's okay. Skitash (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think that my edit summary that removed Nureddin al-Atassi from the infobox should be sufficiently clear as to why it was done. While a passing mention of Abdul Rahman Arif is not particularly strong evidence that they were key, I have not removed them. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OMA5577, you keep readding Salah Jadid to the infobox. Their inclusion is not supported by the body of the article and is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Salah jadid was the de facto leader of Syria from 1966 until 1970 he should be in the Infobox alongside Nasser, Hussein and Arif OMA5577 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He is not mentioned in the body of the article. The article does not evidence that he was key or significant in the context of the article. There is nothing in the article to tell the reader why he should be there. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement of phrases in sentence would address ambiguity

[edit]

Background section of article currently says in paragraph 1, "Nasser closed the Straits to Israeli shipping on 22–23 May." This seems to say that Nasser closed the Straits for two days in May, when the meaning is that as of 22–23 May, Nasser had closed the straits. The phrase would be less ambiguously written if it were to say "Nasser closed the Straits to Israeli shipping indefinitely on 22–23 May" or "as of 22–23 May, Nasser closed the Straits to Israeli shipping" or "on 22–23 May, Nasser declared..." or "Nasser ordered..." or some other formulation which resolves the ambiguity. —catsmoke talk 00:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, but Israeli passage through the Suez Canal and Straits of Tiran says: As a result of the Six-Day War, the waterways were again reopened to Israeli shipping. "Indefinitely" would make it sound as if it was still closed. I will go with "Nasser ordered".
 Done Lova Falk (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War&oldid=1358689422"