Talk:List of conflicts in the Near East

message: the Assyrians/Babylonians were important powers in the middle east.  ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrin/Babylonian rule

message: 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"
* http://www.thenation.com/special/2002middleeast.mhtml Seems to be synonymous with "Israeli-Palestinian 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.
:You are correct. What you read was some recent vandalism by an anti-American radical who calls himself Stevertigo. He literally makes up things off the top of his head, and demands that they be accepted as facts. Worse, in a view that I consider hatefully bigoted, he refers to all views by Arab historians and Arab scholars as "Zionist" or "Western", except for the views of anti-American Arabs. I am not sure whether it is a problem of honestly, or just bias to the point of blind idiocy, but he literally cannot admit that many Arabs exist that have views that differ from his own. He sees himself as the last defender of the Arab cause, even if he himself knows nothing about the subject. An analysis of his posts indicates that He is not so much pro-Arab as anti-Western and anti-Israel. RK
:This article, of course, does need expansion. But the truth is that I have never read an analysis of these conflicts by an Arab scholar or historian that agrees with Stevertigo's conspiracy theories. Arabs themselves are quite willing to admit that internal politics and religion exist in their own nations, and not just in Europea and America. Most Arabs admit that they sometimes go to war against each other for their own reasons. Outside of Al Qaeda terrorists, one just doesn't find Arabs making the kinds of claims that Stevertigo does.  That should tell us a something about his credibility. Finally, note that his favorite "authority" is a linguist who specializes in the development of syntax and grammar. That by him is a non-biased expert on the middle-east? RK
---
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)
replies: text: Good points. Chad and Sudan aren't there. However, Libya is commonly discussed in regards to the middle-east conflict, funding of militant groups in the middle-east, etc.  A related terminology problem may be that Americans (and maybe Europeans?) use the term "middle east" to cover a set of nations that includes what used to be called the "near East". RK 22:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what's Libya, Chad, Sudan, Morocco, Mauritania, and the Western Sahara doing here?  They should be moved to, say, List of conflicts in the Maghreb (since the Chad and Sudan ones involve Libya.)  In fact, I think I'll do that. - Mustafaa 07:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  need to talk more 

message: 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)
:Someone was obviously thinking of the Scuds aimed at Tel Aviv, but I don't think it's a particularly significant point one way or another. - Mustafaa 06:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulf War, an Arab-Israeli conflict? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea. I'll try to expand the scope of this article back to ancient and medieval times. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948 

message: 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.  -- MeHolla! 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW 1 and 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding 1978 South Lebanon Conflict 

message: 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)
replies: text: Also i suggest defining Middle East in its traditional form (since most conflicts here are historical). Meaning Middle East is stretching from Egypt and Cyprus in the West to Iran in the East, and from Arabia in South to Turkey (Anatolia) in the North. ME is not including Caucasus, central Asia and countries South of Egypt.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern conflicts 

message: 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".
#you can find a reference confirming that the Battle of Kadesh took place in what is now Syria
#you can find a reference confiriming that Syria is in the Middle East
#'but you cannot find a reference confirming that the Battle of Kadesh was a "Middle Eastern conflict".
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)
replies: text: Why not just rename it to list of conflict in West Asia, and cover it all? And why did you disrupt the chronological timeline (it doesn't make sense now)?Greyshark09 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Here goes your WP:SYNTH - the Battle of Kadesh in the book "Ancient Armies of the Middle East" is described here Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:SYNTH

message: 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)
replies: text: The current division of M.E. conflicts into two lists (modern and older) seems reasonable to me (the fall of the ottoman empire and post WWI settlement constitute a clear watershed in terms of the geopolitical landscape in the region).  This division offers two advantages 1/ it keeps the size of lists manageable 2/ it allows differential thresholds for inclusion – ie most people would agree that the threshold of notability grows higher as we move back in time (all other factors being equal, a conflict which kills a hundred people last year will be more relevant and noteworthy to us than such a conflict which took place more than a hundred years ago). I would say that the current thresholds for mention, in terms of casualty numbers, in each of the existing lists, are reasonable (I don't see the current lists as unmanageably large, and setting the casualty threshold higher would exclude some quite significant conflicts). Re. "Middle East" v "Near East" v "Western Asia", all of them have problems in terms of a clear definition, but (in my judgement) "Middle East" is the more commonly used term. As long as both lists are linked to appropriately, then I would say, "if it ain’t broke don't fix it". Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if i understand correctly, you say keep it the same?Greyshark09 (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would be happy if someone wants to remove most of the information from the "Post-Ottoman era conflicts" section of this article (thus removing unnecessary duplication) and clearly signpost where that information can be found eg "For conflicts after 1918 please go to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East". + The "Unification of Saudi Arabia (from 1902-1932)" information should probably appear on both pages (as it spans the older/modern divide line). Other than that - yes I would leave things as they are. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: PS If the above suggestion is followed then I suppose we could also rename this article "List of conflicts in the Middle East (pre 1918)" to make things clearer. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we make this one "List of conflicts in the Near East", it clears up the definition of pre-WWI (pre 1918), when Near East had been the common term. Then we can also delete all the post 1918 conflicts, making it only a wikilink.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for modern conflicts inclusion