Template talk:Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we list the intifadas then the riots of 1920s and 1930s should be listed too. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why is the Gulf War listed?

Why is the Gulf War listed? Is that considered part of the Arab-Israeli conflict? I thought that was a US war. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gonna remove it, the only thing relating to Israel in the ODS, was Iraq launching a few SCUDS at them, there was no retaliation, and during the conflict Israel had no aircraft sorties, or boots on the ground, in Iraq. Discuss it here if you disagree. King nothing 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone seriously object that it was a part of the military conflict? 39 SCUDS were fired, and the entire country was huddling in gas masks expecting a chemical attack. Seems like a campaign to me. I am not convinced that all/any of the items you listed are necessary for inclusion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict

please, compare this conflict to the others listed, no way it should stay here--TheFEARgod 11:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The list contains things like the comparitively small 1920 Palestine riots, the Jaffa riots and the two intifadas. Thomas Blomberg 09:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Thomas Blomberg and have re-added the entry to the template. El_C 15:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm working in reverse order and reading this after I removed it. It is already included in Template:Campaignbox Al aqsa and we don not include individual ops in this box. To take your own example, the 1920 riots were "comparatively small" indeed but not included in other campaigns and very influential for the future to be left out. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

so, This Gaza event is a part of the al-Aqsa intifada--TheFEARgod 11:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years

Why do we need years on everything? It's not in keeping with the normal campaignbox style; and while I understand why they'd be useful for things that would otherwise be ambiguous, what's the point of having them for the events that are already very uniquely named? Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not do it for disambiguation purposes. I tried to improve the box for consistency - some events had years and others did not. Also I thought it would be useful for a reader to see the dynamic of the events over the years. I there is a consensus against it, I won't insist. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, years generally aren't used in campaignboxes (in most cases, they're not particularly meaningful); but it's a minor point, in any case. I just think they make the list needlessly complicated. If they're kept, though, I would suggest using a parenthesized form; "Six-Day War (1967)" parses better than "1967 Six-Day War" (which suggests, at least to me, that there have been six-day wars in other years). Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)