This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
the Assyrians/Babylonians were important powers in the middle east. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Outside of Wikipedia, I have only ever heard Middle East conflict to mean "Arab-Israeli conflict" or "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Does it really mean "any conflict which occurs in the middle east?" Is that a concept which deserves reification? If so, why not call it " List of conflicts in the Middle East"? djk
Here's what I found searching google for "Middle East conflict"
Another thing - The article makes some pretty bold statements that only a grouping of all the Presidents of the United States, CIA chiefs and Pentagon chiefs could really be justified to make. It shouldn't be assumed that the U.S. always interfered in the Middle East because of oil, combatting the Soviet Union was the primary goal of a lot of Cold War era politics. This bland simplification of U.S. post-WW2 strategy needs a big expanding on - then again, I'm with whoever wrote the above, I think this should be
List of conflicts in the Middle East. The idea there's some big "Middle East conflict" perpetuated by Uncle Sam's lust for oil is fallacious at best, downright propagandistic at worst.
--- To the anonymous commenter: log in with a name, and chose an identity, Please. Its still anon, but at least it gives people an understanding of who they are dealing with. As for RK, he has gotten into the bad habit of being unreasonably defensive, ( who knows why ), and his ignorance is demonstrable with each and every entry he makes. He's human, though, and has the capacity to learn - however, he needs to experience some revelation of Goodliness in his life in order to gain perspective. But lets not dwell on him.
The truth is, that There are no Arab-Israeli conflicts now, outside of those conflicts which are part of the Middle-East conflict - Orchestrated by a political and military control system, nearly a hundred years in the making. Israel is incidental. They wanted a state, western interests said, well back you up maybe... Israel does some military jobs for western intrests, America and the west say : brother!... Its all very simple, its about oil, and these surface issues of cultural differences, and anti-semitism, and terrorism, yadda yadda... are all just deliberately derisive code-words to keep people dumb. Thats all.
Read this for a good primer. Ive been referring to this quite often, because its truth thats not often said or heard. RK has decided to become an example of a very typical archetype - the kind that is all-too-quick to call anything Anti-Israel as anti-semitic. I should also say that this inlcudes defacto anti-Israel comments - in the form "anti-US" (Israel's employer )- comments.
He jumps on anything I edit to include a quote by Noam Chomsky or anyone else "who is not an expert"... he is a fool. Of course by arguing with him, I take the great chance that that you might not know the difference. --- Stevert
When did Libya, Chad, and Sudan get moved into the Middle East? -- zero 13:16, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Mustafaa, that War On Terrorismphrasing is good.-- Samuel J. Howard 08:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Should the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan be included here, or is that considered more within the realm of India and Pakistan? I don't think the Kashmir conflict falls into the "Middle East" region, but Afghanistan is in a gray area.
For that matter, should internal conflict, such as the Iranian Revolution be considered? How about the Kurdish-Ba'athist conflict in Iraq prompting the creation of the Iraqi no-fly zones?
-Peter
Fair questions. I wouldn't count Afghanistan as Middle Eastern, but I know some do. And internal conflict could certainly be worth adding, though the current format of the page militates against it. - Mustafaa 07:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A lot of [1] might be good to add... as perhaps would this obscure border clash. - Mustafaa 07:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the Gulf War I link from the Arab Israeli conflict list. Is there a part of the Gulf War I've overlooked? Was it an Arab-Israeli conflict in some fashion? - Flockmeal 06:23, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Who put the 2003 Invasion of Iraq section as the US/UK/Australia/Poland Iraq conflict. Sorry shouldn't it be US/UK/Australia/Poland/Denmark/South Korea/Italy/Spain (formally)/Thailand (formally)/Japan (formally)/Netherlands (formally)/etc.-Iraq conflict. It should be US Allied invasion of Iraq, Second Gulf War, Iraq-US/Coalition war but we don't really need to list all the participants in the subheading like that it is to POV, as not all the countries involved are mentioned. Italy initially sent more troops to Iraq than Australia, why does the section mention Australia and not Italy? In short it really shouldn't list all the nations like that or else the header will look rediculous and
Why does this list omit the war in Yemen, in which Egypt played a major role?
Is there a reason for starting the list with the foundation of modern Israel? People have been fighting in the Middle East for probably as long as they've been there, and over it since at least 1274 BC—hardly surprising, since it's the strategic juncture of two major landmasses (Eurasia and Africa) and two major bodies of water (the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean), and it contains large amounts of one of the most important resources of the modern era. Unless there are objections I'm going to start expanding the scope of this page. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-Yeah I was hoping for a more historical list
These sections either need some sort of content (ie an explanation of what happened in the Middle East during these wars and how it fit into the overall conflict), or direct links to that information in the WW1 and WW2 articles. A general link to the articles isn't good enough, IMO. -- Me Holla! 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding the 1978 South Lebanon conflict to the list, as although it was brief, its impact was great in that it marked a major invasion of Lebanon by Israel and set the stage for the major war that began in 1982 involving all of Lebanon and a host of foreign powers. I've also cleaned up this talk page a bit, though I did not remove or alter any discussion whatsoever. BostonFenian ( talk) 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Clear definition should be applied for this section to reflect importance of conflicts. I suggest only conflicts with 1,000+ casualties should be included (similar to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East). Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a list (defined in title), it should include dated events alone (without expension on each and one of them, unless this article nominated for title change). This is especially important since this list covers thousands of years of civilisations in what is now Middle East, thus the article shall become huge and unusable if all conflicts are provided with supplementary info. Please add relevant info with references to the article History of the Middle East, or history pages for relevant countries and periods. Greyshark09 ( talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
So read again.
Signing comments during same response is not necessary as long as conventional separation is followed.
Greyshark09, I don't need your support (approval?) for converting a list to a prose article, which is neither forbidden, nor "disastrous editing".
Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.
It is therefore far more preferable to have a prose article than a list because it conveys more information to the reader without the need to constantly navigate the linked articles. The Modern period part of this list will definitely one day become Military history of the Middle East article in its own right
As I explained above, there are major problems with this list. Commonly, when something is listed there is a presumption of linkage between the entries. As it says in
WP:LIST
List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings). The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items.
Ostensibly the subject area here is Middle East, but this didn't exist until the Modern period as the article would inform the reader. When I tried to include the explanation of this in the lede per WP:LIST advice that
the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title
, you removed it.
Moreover, this list is also a
A Timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events.
, but not all the events on the timeline in this list are related, i.e. they are not sequential. Therefore it is deceptive to those readers that are not familiar with general history of the region. This is also covered in WP:LIST where it says
The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written...as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors
For now I'm not able to focus on this article, but please take heed of my suggestions and the WP:LIST guidelines. Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a case of involuntary comedy, or excessive WP:SYNTH. The Battle of Kadesh is not a "conflict in the Middle East".
Please try to apply some WP:UCS. Yes, the Battle of Kadesh is just an example. This goes for all pre-modern clutter which has accumulated here. It should be split to lists dealing with the respective historical periods. -- dab (𒁳) 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering previous criteria of 1,000+ casualty conflicts - the list section has grown too big for the modern times, and actually was suggested to be merged with "List of modern conflicts in the Middle East", which includes conflicts of 100+ casualties. This list also includes historic events, thus 1,000 casualties might be to low for modern times (inflates too much). Maybe we make it 5,000 or 10,000 for better readability? ideas? Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently, i have restructured the article List of modern conflicts in the Middle East, to include description of sub-conflicts (within spanning conflicts), and thus, the "post-Ottoman conflicts" section here became virtually identical to the "list of modern conflicts in the Middle East". Hence, we need to solve the doubling issue as following:
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This proposal is issued per discussion above, suggesting renaming this article into "List of conflicts in the Near East" in order to cover the pre-1918 period (when the Middle East had generally been related as the Near East), and delete post-1918 conflicts here (leaving wikilink to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East), in order to avoid doubling of information between post-1918 section here and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. Please share your opinion below. Greyshark09 ( talk) 14:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
*Oppose As stated in the article
Near East, the term has been abandoned by many and not used very often. There are multiple definitions of
Middle East, but many include the countries listed in this article. If editors are concerned about the status of nations in the greater Middle East - I would support a split to
List of modern conflicts in the Near East.
Wikifan
Be nice 20:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
the Assyrians/Babylonians were important powers in the middle east. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Outside of Wikipedia, I have only ever heard Middle East conflict to mean "Arab-Israeli conflict" or "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Does it really mean "any conflict which occurs in the middle east?" Is that a concept which deserves reification? If so, why not call it " List of conflicts in the Middle East"? djk
Here's what I found searching google for "Middle East conflict"
Another thing - The article makes some pretty bold statements that only a grouping of all the Presidents of the United States, CIA chiefs and Pentagon chiefs could really be justified to make. It shouldn't be assumed that the U.S. always interfered in the Middle East because of oil, combatting the Soviet Union was the primary goal of a lot of Cold War era politics. This bland simplification of U.S. post-WW2 strategy needs a big expanding on - then again, I'm with whoever wrote the above, I think this should be
List of conflicts in the Middle East. The idea there's some big "Middle East conflict" perpetuated by Uncle Sam's lust for oil is fallacious at best, downright propagandistic at worst.
--- To the anonymous commenter: log in with a name, and chose an identity, Please. Its still anon, but at least it gives people an understanding of who they are dealing with. As for RK, he has gotten into the bad habit of being unreasonably defensive, ( who knows why ), and his ignorance is demonstrable with each and every entry he makes. He's human, though, and has the capacity to learn - however, he needs to experience some revelation of Goodliness in his life in order to gain perspective. But lets not dwell on him.
The truth is, that There are no Arab-Israeli conflicts now, outside of those conflicts which are part of the Middle-East conflict - Orchestrated by a political and military control system, nearly a hundred years in the making. Israel is incidental. They wanted a state, western interests said, well back you up maybe... Israel does some military jobs for western intrests, America and the west say : brother!... Its all very simple, its about oil, and these surface issues of cultural differences, and anti-semitism, and terrorism, yadda yadda... are all just deliberately derisive code-words to keep people dumb. Thats all.
Read this for a good primer. Ive been referring to this quite often, because its truth thats not often said or heard. RK has decided to become an example of a very typical archetype - the kind that is all-too-quick to call anything Anti-Israel as anti-semitic. I should also say that this inlcudes defacto anti-Israel comments - in the form "anti-US" (Israel's employer )- comments.
He jumps on anything I edit to include a quote by Noam Chomsky or anyone else "who is not an expert"... he is a fool. Of course by arguing with him, I take the great chance that that you might not know the difference. --- Stevert
When did Libya, Chad, and Sudan get moved into the Middle East? -- zero 13:16, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Mustafaa, that War On Terrorismphrasing is good.-- Samuel J. Howard 08:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Should the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan be included here, or is that considered more within the realm of India and Pakistan? I don't think the Kashmir conflict falls into the "Middle East" region, but Afghanistan is in a gray area.
For that matter, should internal conflict, such as the Iranian Revolution be considered? How about the Kurdish-Ba'athist conflict in Iraq prompting the creation of the Iraqi no-fly zones?
-Peter
Fair questions. I wouldn't count Afghanistan as Middle Eastern, but I know some do. And internal conflict could certainly be worth adding, though the current format of the page militates against it. - Mustafaa 07:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A lot of [1] might be good to add... as perhaps would this obscure border clash. - Mustafaa 07:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the Gulf War I link from the Arab Israeli conflict list. Is there a part of the Gulf War I've overlooked? Was it an Arab-Israeli conflict in some fashion? - Flockmeal 06:23, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Who put the 2003 Invasion of Iraq section as the US/UK/Australia/Poland Iraq conflict. Sorry shouldn't it be US/UK/Australia/Poland/Denmark/South Korea/Italy/Spain (formally)/Thailand (formally)/Japan (formally)/Netherlands (formally)/etc.-Iraq conflict. It should be US Allied invasion of Iraq, Second Gulf War, Iraq-US/Coalition war but we don't really need to list all the participants in the subheading like that it is to POV, as not all the countries involved are mentioned. Italy initially sent more troops to Iraq than Australia, why does the section mention Australia and not Italy? In short it really shouldn't list all the nations like that or else the header will look rediculous and
Why does this list omit the war in Yemen, in which Egypt played a major role?
Is there a reason for starting the list with the foundation of modern Israel? People have been fighting in the Middle East for probably as long as they've been there, and over it since at least 1274 BC—hardly surprising, since it's the strategic juncture of two major landmasses (Eurasia and Africa) and two major bodies of water (the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean), and it contains large amounts of one of the most important resources of the modern era. Unless there are objections I'm going to start expanding the scope of this page. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-Yeah I was hoping for a more historical list
These sections either need some sort of content (ie an explanation of what happened in the Middle East during these wars and how it fit into the overall conflict), or direct links to that information in the WW1 and WW2 articles. A general link to the articles isn't good enough, IMO. -- Me Holla! 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding the 1978 South Lebanon conflict to the list, as although it was brief, its impact was great in that it marked a major invasion of Lebanon by Israel and set the stage for the major war that began in 1982 involving all of Lebanon and a host of foreign powers. I've also cleaned up this talk page a bit, though I did not remove or alter any discussion whatsoever. BostonFenian ( talk) 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Clear definition should be applied for this section to reflect importance of conflicts. I suggest only conflicts with 1,000+ casualties should be included (similar to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East). Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a list (defined in title), it should include dated events alone (without expension on each and one of them, unless this article nominated for title change). This is especially important since this list covers thousands of years of civilisations in what is now Middle East, thus the article shall become huge and unusable if all conflicts are provided with supplementary info. Please add relevant info with references to the article History of the Middle East, or history pages for relevant countries and periods. Greyshark09 ( talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
So read again.
Signing comments during same response is not necessary as long as conventional separation is followed.
Greyshark09, I don't need your support (approval?) for converting a list to a prose article, which is neither forbidden, nor "disastrous editing".
Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.
It is therefore far more preferable to have a prose article than a list because it conveys more information to the reader without the need to constantly navigate the linked articles. The Modern period part of this list will definitely one day become Military history of the Middle East article in its own right
As I explained above, there are major problems with this list. Commonly, when something is listed there is a presumption of linkage between the entries. As it says in
WP:LIST
List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings). The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items.
Ostensibly the subject area here is Middle East, but this didn't exist until the Modern period as the article would inform the reader. When I tried to include the explanation of this in the lede per WP:LIST advice that
the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title
, you removed it.
Moreover, this list is also a
A Timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events.
, but not all the events on the timeline in this list are related, i.e. they are not sequential. Therefore it is deceptive to those readers that are not familiar with general history of the region. This is also covered in WP:LIST where it says
The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written...as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors
For now I'm not able to focus on this article, but please take heed of my suggestions and the WP:LIST guidelines. Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a case of involuntary comedy, or excessive WP:SYNTH. The Battle of Kadesh is not a "conflict in the Middle East".
Please try to apply some WP:UCS. Yes, the Battle of Kadesh is just an example. This goes for all pre-modern clutter which has accumulated here. It should be split to lists dealing with the respective historical periods. -- dab (𒁳) 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering previous criteria of 1,000+ casualty conflicts - the list section has grown too big for the modern times, and actually was suggested to be merged with "List of modern conflicts in the Middle East", which includes conflicts of 100+ casualties. This list also includes historic events, thus 1,000 casualties might be to low for modern times (inflates too much). Maybe we make it 5,000 or 10,000 for better readability? ideas? Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently, i have restructured the article List of modern conflicts in the Middle East, to include description of sub-conflicts (within spanning conflicts), and thus, the "post-Ottoman conflicts" section here became virtually identical to the "list of modern conflicts in the Middle East". Hence, we need to solve the doubling issue as following:
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This proposal is issued per discussion above, suggesting renaming this article into "List of conflicts in the Near East" in order to cover the pre-1918 period (when the Middle East had generally been related as the Near East), and delete post-1918 conflicts here (leaving wikilink to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East), in order to avoid doubling of information between post-1918 section here and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. Please share your opinion below. Greyshark09 ( talk) 14:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
*Oppose As stated in the article
Near East, the term has been abandoned by many and not used very often. There are multiple definitions of
Middle East, but many include the countries listed in this article. If editors are concerned about the status of nations in the greater Middle East - I would support a split to
List of modern conflicts in the Near East.
Wikifan
Be nice 20:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)