Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 7

message: Could someone, preferably User:Viriditas explain why this article needs complete rewrite. I do see some moderate dispute/discussion on talk page. But complete rewrite... it's kinda too much. --tasc 11:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lokiloki 11:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the number of edits, it appeared the article was being completely rewritten.   That and a NPOV dispute on the talk page makes the use of the subpage ideal, but not absolutely necessary.  It may be one way of avoiding a future dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ain't your template implies that article should be rewritten again? besides, there is no npov dispute. there is a dispute regarding top image, which is now being discussed. --tasc 12:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just left that in to compare versions; it can easily be removed.  There does seem to be a NPOV dispute on the talk page. Perhaps the temp page could help solve this problem. —Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On talk page seem to be section "npov dispute". I doubt if it could be called npov dispute. --tasc 13:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite 

message: if anyone is wondering were the quotes are, thats where. This is customary if anyone is doesn't know.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about moving the Arab hostility quotes there? Lokiloki 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving quotes to wikiquote and adding an interwiki 

message: If anyone wants to see bias at work, go to the Islam and other religions page: a group of rabid islamofascits have taken over that page, protected by a monitor who in violation of wikipedia rules "disappears" editors who attempt to provide a npov to the article.  wikipedia is not a valid reliable source of information so long as it permits extremest monitors to "own" certain sites.Incorrect 16:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of POV warriors on the opposite side that are saying almost the identical thing just turned around.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please use Arab-Israeli conflict/temp for controversial changes and to avoid edit wars on the main page.  I encourage everyone to use this page so we can discuss such edits. I still haven't heard from anyone except Lokiloki regarding breaking up the history and views sections on the temp page.  —Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the phrase, "pretty much single-handedly a pro-Israel screed," is uncivil and **highly insulting** to the editors who have been working on this page up until recently.  Reading through the page, there have been many editors working here with many points of view.  If the page didn't read like a "boycott Israel" fact sheet, that's because this is Wikipedia and all points of view are supposed to be presented here in a respectful way.  I am very confused about exactly what is happening with the current rewrite.  Could someone please state what exactly the goals and process are here?  elizmr 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loki,  I am not debating the sourcing of BBC on Wikipedia.  I am just saying that it has a bias; it is not a neutral source.  OK?  elizmr 20:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countering Systemic Bias

message: The comparative statistics section needs an introductory paragraph which summarizes the data. —Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative statistics

message: Please discuss deletions on talk before making them.  I would once again like to recommend that we agree on versions represented on talk.  Anyone can edit the temp version and post a link to their preferred version here, so that we can all discuss it.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the content doesn't reflect the section title, then rename or move it.  I don't understand why you want to delete it from the article merely because it lacks the proper heading. —Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As for reducing size of the article, have you looked at the current temp page?  I would like to see betweeen one and three paragraphs (summary style) on the main page with a link to the split article.  We can preserve the full content on the respective main articles. —Viriditas | Talk 10:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the "Palestinians as victims of extremism" section, without citations I can't make a decision. Opinions from other editors would be welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you be interested in creating History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and replacing the text on the temp page with a 1-4 para summary style section?  —Viriditas | Talk 13:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the note above this one, Loki, I don't follow your metaphor at all.  elizmr 13:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any reason for showing a map of Israeli settlements but not the map of the sides in the conflict. Just another attempt to turn AIC into IPC. Do the settlers threaten Syria? Saudi Arabia? Lebanon? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: I understand that this is a proto-section, but can we please keep in mind the NPOV policy? Attribution might help. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli willingness to make peace 

message: Hi, could someone tell me the history of this sentence as the representative example for the "Reasons for the conflict"?  I don't think this is a great thing to have as the only example here for a few reasons, but I'd like to know the history before editing.  
A powerful example of this divide can be found in opinion surveys of Palestinians and Israelis. In a March, 2005 poll 63% of the Israelis blamed the failure of the Oslo Peace Process on Palestinian violence, but only 5% of the Palestinians agreed. 54% of Palestinians put the blame on continuing Israeli settlement activity, but only 20% of the Israelis agreed [1]. It is therefore difficult to develop a single, objective reason for the conflict, so this article will present some of the arguments made by each side, in turn.    elizmr 13:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you edit the temp version linked on top? That section needs work. —Viriditas | Talk 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until someone provides an overview of what the new pages will be.  I'm totally confused by what is going on here.  elizmr 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for the conflict 

message: Please, can the both of you reach a middle ground?  If the article(s) conform to policies, then we shouldn't be arguing about terms.  If there is a policy issue, then bring it up directly. I would like to suggest that both of you work on writing for the enemy, that is to say, exchange POV's for the sake of compromise (Lokiloki should try writing from the Israeli POV while Humus should try from the Arab POV).  This will not only mitigate conflict, but will lead to some very interesting edits. —Viriditas | Talk 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you can both exchange POV's, and represent the other side fairly, you will establish a good working relationship together. —Viriditas | Talk 06:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to thank you and Humus for both attempting (in your own way) to improve the articles.  A little bit of respect and understanding on both sides will help. —Viriditas | Talk 06:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am trying to rely strictly on facts and logic. We, the Arabs, cannot have it both ways. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing for the enemy

message: In this article (in table near the end), it says there are about 500 Jews in Morocco as of 2001, but at Jewish exodus from Arab lands it says there are 5,230 . AnonMoos 07:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for watching! If it was I who made the mistake, it was unintentional. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: There exists divergent subjective interpretations about what the text of the resolution deliberately or benignly "did not state all territories occupied during the conflict, as the framers recognized some territorial adjustments were likely and rejected previous drafts with the word all." Interpretations of deliberate intention is a POV. What "the framers recognized" is a POV. Now, I changed the word from Israel claims, to Israel argues, for a more neutral stance, but it continually gets reverted to Israel notes. This is taking one side over the other. --AladdinSE 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you make sure that whatever changes are finally agreed upon are included in the mirror copies at the top of the page... this article is slated for splitting into 3 separate articles.  Lokiloki 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I accept Moshe's version as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute regarding interpretation of the text of [[UN Security Council Resolution 242|UNSCR 242]] 

message: The article states: "Most of these Jews [those leaving/fleeing Arab countries] lost most of their property and continue to claim compensation."  Given the description at Jewish exodus from Arab lands it seems a real reach to suggest that "most" Jews lost their property, given that that article indicates that only in Egypt and Libya did property confiscations occur (and in Egypt it was described as "hundreds" of Jews, and not the 75,000 in Egypt at the time; and in Libya the confiscations began in 1969, 20 years after the initial conflict).  The other large Jewish populations in Morocco, Tunisia, Iraw, and Algeria, who compose the majority of the Jewish populations in 1948 Arab lands, did not experience confiscations, per the article.
Please repair this section.
Lokiloki 03:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute regarding Jewish loss of property after 1948 

message: There are problems with the split proposal now, most notable is that the different pages now all contain different material.  The temp pages have been edited and contain different information; the current article has been edited and now contains different material.  I have tried to reflect the changes from one to another, but it is growing increasingly complex.  Lokiloki 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution is to come to an agreement about the main temp page.  Can we agree to move Arab-Israeli conflict/temp over to Arab-Israeli conflict?  I would like to do this to preserve the split structure, and argue over the specifics on talk.  Please keep an eye on the category watchlist to monitor recent changes. —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've inserted the same 3 boilerplates to the monolithic article, but I support replacing it with the version from temp. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tally: 3 support, 0 oppose. —Viriditas | Talk 04:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You are the third person, but I wanted to make sure. —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with splitting

message: I'm putting this article on RfC. —Viriditas | Talk 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this article should be on RFc.  elizmr 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For background, please see #Viability of a Palestinian State, #Caption edit war, and #What is at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Lokiloki 02:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: as do I- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if the Arab nations see it as critical to an Arab-Israeli peace?  Lokiloki 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loki--this is a bizarre little cite to base a statement like that on.  elizmr 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  It indicates that the Arabs view the issue of a Palestinian state as central to their involvement in the AIC. Lokiloki 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, i'm not saying it is unimportant, but to claim centrality of an issue to a very long-standing conflict when the A's behavior until recently has been inconsistent with any centrality for this issue and then base on one BBC news brief seems a bit thin (think this is not the place to have this argument) elizmr 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We are not voting on whether or not the Arab-Israeli conflict is occurring.  This is an attempt at dispute resolution. —Viriditas | Talk 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Current surveys.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you not reflect the poll in the Wikipedia:Current_surveys section?  A Wikipedia:Requests for comment is not a poll, but a request for comments.Lokiloki 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an informal poll.  It has not yet reached the stage of an official survey, nor has anyone agreed to it.  It is one attempt at dispute resolution. The RfC will help bring in other opinions.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: There is a dispute regarding the caption of :Image:Cia-is-map.gif in this article.  Versions of the caption under discussion may be viewed at Arab-Israeli conflict/temp.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) in the voting section, beneath the caption, with Support or Oppose and a brief comment.  You may add at least one new caption to this list as well as vote once for each caption.
*Caption 1: Israel's existence as a Jewish state; the future of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
*Caption 2: Israel's existence as a Jewish state; the future of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights; and the viability of a Palestinian state are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
*Caption 3: The future of Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
*Caption 4: The CIA World Factbook's map of Israel.
*Caption 5: No caption, no map.
====Vote====
==========
Israel's existence as a Jewish state; the future of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
# This is a stable version. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the Arab nations see it as critical to an Arab-Israeli peace?  Lokiloki 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loki--this is a bizarre little cite to base a statement like that on.  elizmr 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  It indicates that the Arabs view the issue of a Palestinian state as central to their involvement in the AIC. Lokiloki 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, i'm not saying it is unimportant, but to claim centrality of an issue to a very long-standing conflict when the A's behavior until recently has been inconsistent with any centrality for this issue and then base on one BBC news brief seems a bit thin (think this is not the place to have this argument) elizmr 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We are not voting on whether or not the Arab-Israeli conflict is occurring.  This is an attempt at dispute resolution. —Viriditas | Talk 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Current surveys.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you not reflect the poll in the Wikipedia:Current_surveys section?  A Wikipedia:Requests for comment is not a poll, but a request for comments.Lokiloki 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an informal poll.  It has not yet reached the stage of an official survey, nor has anyone agreed to it.  It is one attempt at dispute resolution. The RfC will help bring in other opinions.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal poll

message: ==========
Israel's existence as a Jewish state; the future of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
# This is a stable version. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the Arab nations see it as critical to an Arab-Israeli peace?  Lokiloki 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loki--this is a bizarre little cite to base a statement like that on.  elizmr 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  It indicates that the Arabs view the issue of a Palestinian state as central to their involvement in the AIC. Lokiloki 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, i'm not saying it is unimportant, but to claim centrality of an issue to a very long-standing conflict when the A's behavior until recently has been inconsistent with any centrality for this issue and then base on one BBC news brief seems a bit thin (think this is not the place to have this argument) elizmr 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Israel's existence as a Jewish state; the future of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
# This is a stable version. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{highlight|Caption 1}}

message: Israel's existence as a Jewish state; the future of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights; and the viability of a Palestinian state are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
# disagree---The Arab Israeli conflict needs to be distinguished from the Israel-Palestine conflict.  elizmr 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the Arab nations see it as critical to an Arab-Israeli peace?  Lokiloki 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loki--this is a bizarre little cite to base a statement like that on.  elizmr 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  It indicates that the Arabs view the issue of a Palestinian state as central to their involvement in the AIC. Lokiloki 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, i'm not saying it is unimportant, but to claim centrality of an issue to a very long-standing conflict when the A's behavior until recently has been inconsistent with any centrality for this issue and then base on one BBC news brief seems a bit thin (think this is not the place to have this argument) elizmr 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{highlight|Caption 2}}

message: The future of Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
# This would be my second choice.  elizmr 21:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{highlight|Caption 3}}

message: The CIA World Factbook's map of Israel.
# How about this? :) Ashibaka tock 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{highlight|Caption 4}}

message: *Huh?  How can one vote on actual facts and their representations?  Will we next vote on whether global warming is occuring or not? Lokiloki 02:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not voting on whether or not the Arab-Israeli conflict is occurring.  This is an attempt at dispute resolution. —Viriditas | Talk 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Current surveys.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you not reflect the poll in the Wikipedia:Current_surveys section?  A Wikipedia:Requests for comment is not a poll, but a request for comments.Lokiloki 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an informal poll.  It has not yet reached the stage of an official survey, nor has anyone agreed to it.  It is one attempt at dispute resolution. The RfC will help bring in other opinions.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What are you talking about Loki? you are the one that is disputing a lot of this, viridatas is trying to sum up the conflict.  Also there are more quite a few anti-Israel editors that edit this page but don't participate on the talk page, and besides you are much more prolific an editor then any of the editors with an opposite pov here.  It should be clear of this when you are the only one that is able to really change things around on the article while everyone else just attempts to keep up with your various edits.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anti-Israel"?  I strenuously object to that characterization.  I think you will find that my edits are not very large, although they are frequent since I save frequently.  Further, you will find that I always provide citations, and that, if anything, the edits could be described as "pro-Arab": to characterize them as "anti-Israel" is objectionable.  As well, I feel it is impolite to suggest that frequent editing is somehow wrong.  Lokiloki 02:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with editing a lot, I think it's great when people are making NPOV or non-controversial edits, I can get kinda irritated though when almost every edit a person makes only represents their POV, I am also saying that you shouldn't really complain that there are too many pro-israel editors on this talk page when you edit substantially more than all of them combined.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you folks move the above discussion to your respective talk pages?  We're supposed to only discuss the article, here. —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be glad to... if I can find out how to get back to the Archive of this discussion area... "Archive 8" above isn't working apparently. Lokiloki 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good luck because your not going to find anything because I didn't write it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting interpretation of an article titled "'Provocative' mosque visit sparks riots" . Lokiloki 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BBC is biased. Eyewitness: Inside ruined Jenin. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Lokiloki

message: I don't know what the issues are here, but there's been a 3RR complaint about the map and cutline edits. Perhaps you could all decide here on talk whether to have the map, and what the cutline should say, before reinserting it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map and cutline

message: :Some uses of the term Middle East conflict referring to this matter, but the region has been host to other disputes and wars not directly involving Israel.
It might be more grammatically correct to say: "Some uses of the term Middle East conflict refer to this matter; however, the region has been host to other disputes and wars not directly involving Israel.
Not sure why this edit was reverted, but by all means, please, add your comments here. CommonGround 23:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second sentence

message: I think "people around the world" is a bit vague, as there is a history of other countries, expanded on later in the documents, involved in this country, not least the USSR, UK, USA, Iran, EU, UN, etc etc.  "People around the world" doesn't reflect the involvement of countries in this conflict. Lokiloki 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous version said "people in other countries"... We can say "Many countries and individual people". CommonGround 00:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both, "people" doesn't imply governments, and "countries" doesn't imply individuals and NGOs, maybe we could say "Many countries, individuals and non-governmental organizations"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good.  Lokiloki 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it sounds good.  After all I wrote it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People around the world, versus countries

message: Recently, a user added an article about the Avalon Hill board game "The Arab-Israeli Wars".  This caused some confusion.  After some effort, we now have the game detangled from the real wars, as follows: 
* Arab-Israeli Wars (game) refers to the Avalon Hill game.  
* Arab-Israeli conflict is unchanged.  
* Arab-Israeli Wars is now a disambiguation page.  
* The Arab-Israeli Wars is now a redirect to Arab-Israeli Wars, the disambiguation page.
All relevant links have been updated, pointing to the game or the real world as appropriate.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled dispute.  Thank you. 
--John Nagle 08:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation housekeeping notice 

message: Please express your views at Talk:Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict/temp#Do we even need this section? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need Views as a separate article? 

message: I think some light should be given to the fact that though it is often called the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is not really bound by those two groups.  It seems a little misleading to present the conflict purely in terms of Arab Nationalism versus Israel.  I think some light should be given to the fact that it is a Pan-Islamic movement in the Middle East thus encompassing Iran.  Though they have not had a major impact on the conflict militarily, they have had more of an impact than many of the members of the Arab League. --CRobey 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, there is Iran-Israel relations linked from here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This issue keeps coming up - the term "Arab-Israeli conflict" is of course a blatant oversimplification. This is however not a Wikipedia issue, it just so happens that the series of military and diplomatic crisises concerning the existence, and more recently the extend, of the state of Israel are generally refered to as "Arab-Israeli conflict". Both media and international diplomats are using this term, and it is not Wikipedia's job to correct them. -- Heptor  talk 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's included as a Primary participant in the template, it should also be included in the map.--Cloviz 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: The term "Arab-Israeli" conflict is a misnomer. It's not about "Arabs" versus "Israelis", it's about Muslims who want to wipe out Jews. 190 Proof 13:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody bothered to discuss. I'm putting it back. 190 Proof 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It may more accurately describe the conflict, however we can't be novel here (see WP:NOR), we have to be encyclopedic so we're stuck with the terminology sources use, and "Islamic-Israeli" conflict is pretty much a neologism.  Probably the direction to take is to find sources that address the issue of Iran's part in the "Arab-Israeli" conflict and present what they say about it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer 

message: The blue and red parts of the map on the infobox (:Image:Israel and Arab states map k.png) are quite hard to see. It would be good to have another small box within the image zooming in that part of the map. --cesarb 04:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'll put it on my todo list. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox map visibility 

message: This article has been decimated! I realise there was a split, but currently the article is in an unworkable state. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that it was explosive mess of edit conflicts, I think this version is better. Do you find it hard to navigate or what? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that this is all there is to the conflict? If so, you must be kidding. The history of conflict is (read it!) one paragraph. That's not even close to comprehensive! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was only a summary. I restored the link to the main article that someone removed. The link may be found also in the template. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but you miss the point. Are you saying that one paragraph accurately summarises History of the Arab-Israeli conflict? If you are, then you are sadly mistaken. From a read of that paragraph, I have learned almost nothing. Trust me on this one: I have had to write FA standard articles and use summary form, and this is not a good example of summary form. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has happened to this article? 

message: Doesn't it have an African majority? Why is it on the map?
Auspx 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a member of Arab League. End of story. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Djibouti and Somalia are members of the Arab league because they have less than 15% Arab minorities. There is a similar situation in the Comoros Islands - by your logic, why shouldn't we include this small island nation in the map too? This is not a map of the Arab league, it is a map of the "Arab-Israeli conflict", which Djibouti, Somalia, and Comoros have never been a part of. No offense, Humus sapiens, but looking at your user boxes I find it hard to believe you can have a neutral POV on this. You have also chimed in on almost everything that ever happens on this page. For this reason, I would humbly suggest that you spend your efforts elsewhere - it will be less frustrating for everyone. Brianski 04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think my request was quite civil, and it was not intended as a personal attack. My apologies if you read it as such. Still you have not answered the question of why, if your logic is followed, the Comoros are not included on the map. Brianski 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will assume good faith and assure you that no bad faith was involved here: Comoros is not on the map only because of its remoteness. Earlier the map's caption contained the text "Comoros not shown" (incidentally it was I who have added it) and then this phrase was lost when the template was created (maybe also by myself, that I don't remember). Will try to readd it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Somalia an Arab nation?