Template talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First half missing[edit]

This template needs expansion: it omits the pre-1948 part of the conflict. See History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, {{Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict}}, History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict & Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template size[edit]

This template is too huge! Make a portal and put a link to the portal (see bottom of Serbian article on the Six-Day War. [1]--TheFEARgod 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cold War has a similarly large template - personally I don't think the size is a problem since it's at the bottom of the article page. Joffeloff 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't oppose the creation a portal, but I don't think a template on the bottom of the page bothers anyone. Sijo Ripa 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This template is too large to be suitable for inclusion on many pages. It might just make more sense to move this to an article called "Overview of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" and then pare down the template a lot to just create a link with the text "For more on the Arab-Israeli Conflict, go here..." --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to make it able to be hidden? Some other articles have either references or templates that can be hidden and shown with a click. --Iorek85 03:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Found what I was looking for; Cold War. --Iorek85 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"Hide" option included now. Enjoy, Sijo Ripa 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's much better. Nice work. :) --Iorek85 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Won't it make more sense if it was somehow auto-hidden, and those who want to "know more" can click it to reveal the rest? Seems more logical to me. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It would not be logical to assume the bottomreader doesn't want to know more. Someone who looks to the bottom of the page is usually searching for more information, whether they search for external info ("references", "footnotes" and "external links") or more Wikipedia info ("see also" and templates like this one). If this template would have been included in the middle of an article, it could be possibly be more logical to auto-hide however. Sijo Ripa 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you assume that, the whole "hide" function is useless. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 10:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it needs to be auto hide, or at least remember what my choice was. Everytime you edit or reload the page, it pops back up again. --Iorek85 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

States and people[edit]

On an entirely different note, why are there no Norwegians on this template? I guess our role in the so-called 'peace process' is vastly overrated in our media.. Joffeloff 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I started working on this template today, and I'm far from satisfied with the "states" and "people" parts. For instance the UK and France have played a major role from the 1910's till the end of the '50s, but aren't mentioned... The role of the USSR... Norway's role has been important also. The whole time period (at least from 1917 till 2006) is just way too big to have a summary of the most important people, as I can mention a at least a dozen equally important people. Something else that bothers me is the name of the template. Iran has played a very important role, but isn't an Arab state. Sijo Ripa 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, neither is America. I don't think it's a problem, the conflict is (currently) one between arabs and Israelis and has been up until now, time will tell if Iran joins in. Their current behind-the-scenes role in supplying arms and other things to Hezbollah is no bigger than America's role on the other side, so I don't think the conflict ought to be renamed just for that.
Also, I didn't know this template was that young. Great work! What, in my opinion, would be a great addition would be flags for the various organizations. Hezbollah, the UN and the Arab League already have their flags uploaded on Wikipedia - however I have yet to see the flags of the various Palestinian organizations, even the ubiquitous green Hamas flag with the shahada on it. What do you think of this? Joffeloff 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't create the template, but I started improving it today, as I think it was (and still is) underdeveloped. Adding flags is a good idea I think. Sijo Ripa 17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice edits! I'm going to dig for a proper version of the green Hamas flag. Even fotw doesn't have it. Joffeloff 20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush II?[edit]

When I created the template, I decided not to add George W. Bush because his administration has not been heavily involved in the conflict, at least compared to those of earlier presidents. Please provide some examples of heavy Bush involvement. -- 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask User: Staxringold, he added it. Sijo Ripa 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I am reading this after I've added him, along with a few others. See Road map for peace. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Could someone please add the Lebanese leaders, I only know of those who have been in the news very recently.

Also, should Hassan Nasrallah be beside the Hezbollah flag or the Lebanon flag?

I think it should be Hezbollah.--Dimigw 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I just changed it. CynicalMe 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm.. Perhaps the UN people like Rød-Larsen etc should be represented by the UN flag instead if we're going to follow this format? --Joffeloff 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Robin Hood 1212 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're asking why Canada is included, it's because Lester B. Pearson, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, played a crucial role in the diffusing of the 1957 Suez Crisis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

--Soviet Canuckistan 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arab League[edit]

The Arab League is listed twice. SOmeone remove it: I'm not sure, myself, where it should be omitted from.—msh210 06:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i didnt see it was already up, my bad. --Dimigw 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Won't it be more useful to have it within the EU/UN, not between the first organization category? The Arab League works a bit like EU and surely is wrong between Hisbollah, Fatah et. al. -- 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya, i added it because i though that that would be where it shoud go, i didnt bother to look above because they were all terrorist groups, the Arab League should definitly be moved.--Dimigw 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Added Siniora[edit]

i added the PM of Lebanon to the list. I believe that it was required because it is under his leadarship that the Hezbollah-Israel conflict began. Also, he has been the one leading the charge for a cease fire between the two groups. So i believe that he should be in it.--Dimigw 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Individuals column is by far the longest. We can easily double or triple its size, but I'd rather make it as short as possible. So far Siniora did not do anything important to make serious impact oin the AIC, so I took the liberty of removing his name. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
But it is because he did not follow 1559 that a lot of this has happened, his inaction played a very serious role on the AIC.-- 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

UN SC RES 1559[edit]

I think we should add United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 to the list. It is the faliure of the Lebanese government action towards this that helpes spark the war between israel and hezbollah. just an idea.--Dimigw 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, 1559 is not directly related to the AIC. Let's try to make this as compact and relevant as possible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it not related? It was enacted to help stop the tensions arising on that border. And it is one of the reasons Israel invaded Lebanon. The resolution also feuled hezbollahs anger towards Israel. I was in Lebanon last year, and i visited some of the villages in the south, and al over the place were signs denouncing 1559 as well as Israel, side by side. It is very relevent.-- 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If other editors think that UNSCR/1559 is important, I won't object. But let's keep in mind that this template is for the entire AIC, and not for the latest flareup. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgun and Lehi[edit]

Why is the flag of Israel used as the logo of the lehi and the Irgun? They both had their own symbols... Elite compact 11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And what about the Palmach?[edit]

Elite compact 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union[edit]

i moved Soviet Union to former participants.ComradeWolf 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I added UAR, Levi Eshkol, Benjamin Netanyahu[edit]

Elite compact 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


And on that note about the size of the box, I was going to start to add NATO to the template of participating organizations, under the EU and UN. It seems that word from the UN is that any kind of buffer zone that will be created when/if this conflict ceases, may be patrolled by NATO. But, of course, I'm not going to add anything until there is something concrete written about it. Bsheppard 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More additions[edit]

As we try to keep this template current and up to date, we should probably add Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (her shuttle diplomacy) and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (for obvious reasons) and probably even US Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton (for his actions in the UNSC to keep the group from demanding a cease fire through the threat of a veto) and Britain's Tony Blair (for staying the course with the US president in their war on terror). Bsheppard 20:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommend adding Oswaldo Aranha to this template. He is acknowledged by the Jewish community as ons of the responsibles for the pursuit of the creation of the State of Israel. Do a search for Oswaldo Aranha + Israel on Google. --Pinnecco 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


They regularly carry out government rally and chant anti-Israeli slogans.--Patchouli 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And? Kaveh 07:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Politicians[edit]

Should fouad Siniora and Émile Lahoud be added? They seem pretty important in the Israel-Lebanon conflict. 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is many lebanese politicians missing. imi2 12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Added them. 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I added many logos of organizations that had them missing and they were reverted. Why? They should have their logos. 01:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a policy that unfreely-licensed content cannot be used in template space. A number of editors feel that logos should be an exception to this rule, but the policy seems unlikely to change. Jkelly 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not anything about Sabra and Shatila massacre?[edit]

The 1953 Qibya massacre has a link, so why not a link to Sabra and Shatila massacre ? imi2 12:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Because that's part of the Lebanese civil war, which already has a link in the template. Almost every link in the template has sub-events. Adding them all is exaggerated and confusing for the user. However if you think it's really important, be free to add it. Sijo Ripa 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre link. 700 people were killed. Since the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of 11 deservedly rates a link, so does this. Massacres covered in a major way by the international news media deserve a link. Both massacres were critical factors in world opinion and subsequent events. --Timeshifter 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Sabra and Shatila massacre wasn't an arab Israeli conflict but a Lebanese Maronite Christian-Palestinian conflict. Israel's involvement is depicted in 1982 war. I'm assuming the munich massacre is there to explain the operation God of Wrath operation. There were dozens of massacres against Israelis during the 1970's but they're not included. Amoruso 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
--Timeshifter 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC). One could argue about all the players involved in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, and the degree of Israeli involvement. But the event was, and remains, significant in worldwide public opinion, and therefore deserves to be on one of these templates:

See the relevant section below for more discussion about which template it belongs on. --Timeshifter 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


these list templates are getting out of hand. templates are not categories: link ten or twelve central topics, don't list everything and everyone involved. Ask yourselves, who will benefit from a template that is essentially a list with 200 entries? If I want a list of articles, I use categories. dab () 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the size is fine. As you see in the earlier notes about it, you can "hide" the template. It's huge because the Arab-Israeli Conflict is huge. It's not something you can condense into a 1 inch box.Bsheppard 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
but what use is it, especially if you hide it? "hideable templates" are a hideous idea. It's not supposed to summarize anything: it's supposed to present the main links to the summaries. "Its topic is huge" is simply not a valid point, see {{Solar System}} (not to mention {{Objects of the Solar System}}): I am sure that is a template about something huge. So what? dab () 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove the "other participant"-section and perhaps the people's collumn. The first adds almost nothing (the links provide no explanation how these countries were important + it's debatble who has played a role - and almost every country has played one, which means that it can keep expanding). The latter can expand almost infinitely, as events are already going on from 1917 onwards and is currently biased in favor of the events since the 1990's. If no one objects, I will remove both sections. Sijo Ripa 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the people's collumn[edit]

As there are no criteria defined for the inclusion of individuals, this template is getting more and more bloated. There are at least (!) a few dozen extra people that were really important. Because the template is currently biased towards more recent events (events since the '90's) they are not yet added. (Also, many people since the '90's are not added.) Don't forget the conflict and tensions are going on since 1917. Do we really want a template with 100 people or more mentioned? This is not a category of "Arab-Israeli conflict people". Furthermore the links to the people's collumn do not directly explain how these people were relevant for this conflict, while the conflict and diplomacy collumns are directly relevant. Even more: relevant people are mentioned in these pages. I will restore this template. If you disagree, provide arguments. 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As I do agree that some people there were irrelevant, most of the really important people should be there. People like Medeline Albright,Cytus Vance and Chaim Weizmann should not be there since they hardly represent anything in the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, people like the al-Assads, Mahmoud Abbas, Yasse Arafat, Golda Meir, Ehud barak, Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, Lester B. Pearson, Faisal of Iraq, Arthur Balfour and Hassan Nasrallah should definitely be listed. Many of the people in the list have been invovled in the coflict during the nineties (there was more peace then) like Arafat, Abbas and Clinton as well as conflicts. 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I never stated that people in the collumn were irrelevant. I said that there are simply way too much important people, that this not a category (but a template), that the links do not provide a direct explanation in how they were important, and that the links in the other collumns already explain how these people were important. I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't respond to my arguments. Until we make strict criteria for the inclusion of people, we should refrain from a people's collumn (and as a consequence I will be bold and restore the template to its former form until such criteria are made). 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Who makes criteria? The template was OK. Most of the people are important in the conflict and links to these people do tell something about the involvemnt in the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example: Mahmoud Abbas, Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, Faisal of Iraq, Balfour, the al-Assads are all involved in this and all of their articles do talk about their involvement in the conflict. We should revert is to what is was until and admin or a senior member come and make criteria. 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when do admins have to make criteria? Normally regular users do so in a (rough) consensus. At this moment, only you seem to object - while I and some other users have complained about the fact that this template gets bloated. Also please respond to my arguments, which you still haven't done. If you keep reverting it, at least don't revert the added things (a few UNSC resolutions). 15:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't respond to any of your arguments because I can't see them. Would you mind actually listing them? The only thing I understand from you is that it should not be listed because it is unnecessary. I think it should be listed because it provides users information on the people involved in the conflict and if you click on them how they were involved. Also, they are based on other columns, such as Conflicts and peace proposals. Who made the conflicts and the peace proposals: the individuals. See? They must be there. //BTW, it's me,190.... My IP has chaned for some reason...// 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

List of arguments and poll[edit]

List of arguments[edit]

For several reasons, I want to remove the people's collumn and the indirect participants section. Because it seems unclear why I want this, I list my arguments in numbers, which should make it easy for everyone to follow. Please reply below my list in the opinion poll and not in between my arguments:

  1. The template is getting way too big.
  2. The indirect participant section (of the first collumn) doesn't add anything, because it doesn't say in what way they were indirect participants, when, how, etc. nor do their links.
  3. The people's collumn: (1) There are simply way too many important and relevant people. There are at least a few dozens people that could be added. The conflict has its roots since at least 1917 - which means that there are a lot of people not yet mentioned. Do we want to have a list of (more than) 100 people? (2) The people's wikilinks often do not provide a direct explanation in how these people are relevant - which does not mean that the page does not mention how they were relevant - but they often do not deal in the first place with the conflict - unlike the diplomacy and conflict collumns. Even more, how they were relevant is already mentioned in the last two collumns (conflict and diplomacy), which further reduces the need of a people's collumn. (3) The choice of people in this collumn is subjective (while the direct participants, the conflict and the diplomacy collumns are not) because there are no objective criteria who should be included and who shouldn't. The conflict and diplomacy collumns do not have this problem: they include all conflicts and plans/agreements/resolutions. (4) A template is not a category. Those are two distinct concepts and this template should not strive to be a category - in this case by trying to include all relevant people to the Arab-Israeli conflict - a specific user category could do this.
  4. Minor argument: aesthetic concerns. 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) The template may be a little big, but it is usually at the bottom of long articles and people that read these articles may be interested in the individuals involved in the conflict and other events.

(2)I partially agree with you that some of the links (most of them do) do not talk about the involvement of individuals in the conflict. However, it is important that whether they are or aren't links that people be able to know more about to conflict from the part of the conflict they were reading (an article with the template at the bottom). It is not so important to mention how they were relevant, but that they were involved in the conflict. The mission of this template is to inform readers that the subject they're reading is part of a larger subject and provides links to other important areas of the subject. (3) That I agree with you. But still, over 80% of the links to individuals do mention their involvement and they were very important people in the conflict. I do agree with you that some people can definitely be removed from there, such as Madeline Albright, which is subjective. (4)Most of the people that are there are relevant. Some are not, which can be removed.

Minor argument: IMO, it looks good. It is slightly larger than the edit window. It is large because of its importance and duration of events. I see this as the most complete and useful template in Wikipedia.

Until the future of the template is agreed, it stays the way it was. 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


This poll is designed to get to know the ideas and arguments of other people, as this seems currently to be a difference in ideas between me and 190/201.

    • Support the above mentioned change.
    • Oppose the above mentioned change.
      • 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • PLfan 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 190/201 is right.
        • Note that this user is most likely a sockpuppet as the first and only edits made by this users were the above oppose. 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Could you add your arguments? Sijo Ripa 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (note that I'm now permanently home, as opposed to the earlier days on which I used random computers)
    • Comment

Until it is decided, it stays the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Though I do not wish a edit war, I'll refrain from restoring the page. But remember that simply saying "I decide that it should stay this way" is a bit uncivil. Also, I don't like the fact that one sockpuppet and one anonymous user without arguments entered the poll. I wish a true debate between real users. 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The individuals are important. They basically represent the entire conflict.

No one ever said that individuals weren't important. Read my arguments carefully. 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean that until things are decided things must stay as they are. And I don't know about those two, they voiced their opinion. 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The individuals section is very important because it helps a reader to be informed simply about the people that participated in the conflict. It doesn't really matter if thei links don't give too much information about their participation (they do BTW) but they just simply inform people about it, and further research if necessary may give them some results. 12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A (link in the template to a) category of such people can fulfill that function much better. Reading the conflict and diplomacy articles would give the same (but quicker) result then the "further research" you mentioned. Btw: if I wouldn't obey WP:POINT (which has become a general rule - not only referring to policy preferences), I would just add 30 or 40 (or more) relevant people, simply to make my point. Now, I will just have to wait: gradually people will add their favorite conflict person - and this will give the same result. Sijo Ripa 12:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw do you oppose a link to such a category? Sijo Ripa 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Individuals Columns and Other States and Governments[edit]

These sections of the template must remain under 1 individuals column and the other section under the participants columns. Here are my arguments:


(1) the other states and governemnts, organizations and former states are important and must remain there because they have been involved in a lower level than the other states in the conflict. `For example, Norway was important laying the Oslo accords, Iran laying a lot of support for resistance movements, Russia providing small military and moral support to nations at war with Israel, the US by supporting Israel, supplying arms and laying many peace accords, the UK for bsically sparking this conflict, Germany for being a mediator in a prisoner exchange, the UN for making all the UNSC resolutions in the 4th column, etc. As you may see, these are very important. (2) Two columns for individuals in unnecessary. They all fit appropriately in one column, and it is in fact slightly smaller than the full participants column. It looks very uneven being split up and an indivuduals 1 and 2 column does not look good. Also, the template width is slightly large with another column. I've seen other templates similar to this one such as the Cold War and War on Terrorism ones and are very similar in width and slightly smaller in length. This template aesthetically is fine. 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


(1) (a) The links do not provide an explanation about how these countries were relevant. If such links would exist, I wouldn't object. I don't say these indirectly involved countries weren't important (they were!) - but links to the economy, culture and demographics of a country doesn't add anything which is relevant to this template. An uninformed user of this template doesn't know how these countries were relevant and as such it doesn't add value (or even more: such user can get confused). (b) How these countries were relevant however is dealt with directly (but partially) in the people's collumn (the flags) and indirectly (but completely) in the conflict & diplomacy collumns. (c) This template is getting too big. Much more countries were relevant and important, and adding them all would further bloat this template - but not provide new information. (d) The choice of countries is subjective.

(c) & (d) Algerian volunteers fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Algeria sent squadrons of fighters and bombers, armored brigades, and dozens of tanks in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Morocco sent three brigades to the front lines in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, while Libya sent Mirage fighters and gave Egypt around $1 billion to arm for war. Tunisia sent over 1,000 soldiers, who worked with Egyptian forces in the Nile delta, and Sudan sent 3,500 soldiers. Cuba also sent approximately 1,500 troops including tank and helicopter crews who reportedly also engaged in combat operations against the IDF. Also: Tunisia provided shelter for the PLO, which caused Operation Wooden Leg. Iran is also not (anymore/yet) added. Uganda under Idi Amin played an important role also.---These are just some examples. There are many more. Should they all be added? - by providing wikilinks to their countries, not their role? Who decides what countries are/were important enough to be added?

(2) It looks much more prettier. I'm not the only one would finds the old template extremely ugly because it had excessive and unnecessary long collumns.

Btw, 201, I must admit I get annoyed. I don't really know why you make such a huge point out of a minor edit. Normally, one leaves the template/article as it is and then discusses the matter. After a few days of discussion and after reaching a consensus, one can possibly revert it. Its getting very hard to assume good faith because of this, especially considering your earlier (first and multiple) violation of the three-revert-rule, the sudden appearance of sockpuppets, and the fact that you reverted the template again before reaching a consensus. What further bothers me, is that you never check whether there were other edits which were not related to your concerns. Last time, you reverted unquestionable important UNSC resolutions, this time you reverted some small edits which were included in my edit. I would also suggest you register, or log into an extisting account (if any). Sijo Ripa 02:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a minor edit. The whole template is being reshaped. I say that we leave the template as it is, discuss it, and then change it after reaching a consensus, as you say. I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia, I'm mostly a reader and make small minor edits as you may seen in my history, so I'm not quite aware of every single little rule in Wikipedia. And I do completely apologize about that incident about the UNSC resolution. I didmake a mistake there, and since then I've been closely watching what I revert. I checked what I reverted this time and I did not see any minor edit from you which I reverted. 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The reverted minor edit was that I shortened the 1948 declaration. Oh well, it doesn't really matter. The reshaping is a minor edit as the content is not really altered, only the view, and I never had (until now) an edit conflict/discussion about a new look - and this new look is not even a drastic change as it is quite similar to the previous (only a reshaping of a collumn...). I would also wish to have some response to my arguments. Sijo Ripa 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(1) The links to the countries certainly do not necessarily talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict but dempgraphics, geography, etc. However, they are used as reference. If a user wants to know more about any of these coutnries involvement in the conflict, they may do so by clicking in links in the peace declarations or the specific articles about smaller conflicts. And if the template is getting too big, a fifth column would make it even wider! And all those countries you cited did took part of the conflict. But those countries took part in the conflict like, only once or twice, which doesn't make them too important. Most of the countries you cited took part in the 1973 war, and if there was a template for the 1973 war they should definitely be included. On the other hand, states in the Other States and governments section took an important role throughout the whole conflict, from its roots till this day.
(2) And this is basically personal opinion, I think it looks good, you bad, there isn't much to discuss about it. I agree that the template can be describes as big and making it wider doesn't really help. Plus, templates are at the very bottom of the page, and if someone bothers to scroll down to see the template seeing a long one doesn't really matter. Plus, if people think it is too long, they can click the Hide button and make it vanish. 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(1)A fifth collumn does not make the template larger as the width remains the same (i.e. 100%) and the length is reduced. I don't see any way how you can claim that it gets larger. Adding links to indirect participants doesn't add anything, while the demographics, geography, etc. of the primary actors however is relevant (for instance: the location of Egypt, or the youth bulge in Lebanon). I don't see how the geography and culture of France (for instance) is relevant to this template. And your last argument makes even less sense: Canada, France, Germany and Norway for instance also played only one or two times a major role. Russia and the EU didn't really play a major role yet, let alone multiple times or let alone "from their roots till this day". I would also like to add that the role of for instance Tunesia is not a one or two time role. And this is the case for many other countries as well.
(2) Again, the template doesn't (and cannot) become wider - this is impossible as the template was already put on 100%. What you do have is that collumns take 1/5 instead of 1/4 of this 100%. This however merely condenses information, while at the same time reducing the length (=reducing the overall size). Sijo Ripa 03:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're right. It doesn't make it wider. But the peace proposal's column would look a little smashed. You're also right about the indirect participants, and I'd be willing to talk with you on removing some unnecessary ones, as well as some individuals. Not many, but some unimportant ones. Would you be willing to discuss that? I agree that some individuals don't ought to be in the individuals column 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC).


This poll is to see ideas of other people since about the individuals and the other participans of this templates since there is an ongoing disagreement between me and Sijo Ripa/134...

    • Support the above mentioned change.
    • Oppose the above mentioned change.
    • Comment

What is the purpose of the template?[edit]

Please, all you debating whether the people column should remain or whether it and the participants column should be split into even more columns, start your thought process a bit earlier, by asking yourself the purpose of the template, i.e. what people are supposed to use it for.

The purpose of the template should not just be to create a list of everything and everybody closely or remotely involved in the conflict, but to create a convenient way for people to learn more about the conflict. Consequently, every link should enable them to do so. If we look at the current columns, I think we can all agree agree that the links under "Conflicts" and "Diplomacy / Peace proposals" meet this criteria, as these articles deal exclusively with aspects of the conflict. We can probably also all agree that the list of links of primary states and organisations under "Participants" is valid, as the articles about these states and organisations devote a significant amount of space to their involvement in the conflict. However, the list of other states and organisations doesn't meet this requirement, as the linked articles contain very limited or no references to the conflict. The same goes for most links in the "Individuals" column. These articles are biographies, and although a few of them have references to the person's involvement in the conflict, hardly any of them will enhance the readers' knowledge about the conflict. However, all these people are already properly linked in the various articles about the conflict, and in those articles their role is explained. Consequently, I think the whole "Individuals" list should be removed, as these individuals' roles in the conflict is better explained in the articles about the conflict than in their biographies. Thomas Blomberg 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


There is a bug in the template. Anything added in an article after the inclusion of {{Arab-Israeli Conflict}} will be inserted between the navigation bar and the columns. See [2] at the bottom, where all the footnotes appear in between because the reference pointers (<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> <references /></div>) where placed below the template pointer. Please investigate! Thomas Blomberg 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Compensation to former landowners[edit]

I just added UN General Assembly Resolution 194.--02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Conversion to portal?[edit]

A discussion about possibly converting large footer templates for wars—such as this one—into portals has been started here; comments and suggestions would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What about a template portal?[edit]

I think that there should be a toolbar of templates. In this toolbar format:

{{Middle East conflict}}

The above small toolbar leads to full wikipedia pages. Instead, I suggest creating a similar toolbar, but with links only to template pages. Such as this template page:

I love the templates. The more detailed the better. But the long ones should not be on wikipedia pages because they take way too long to load. Especially with all the flag images. And especially for dialup users.

A toolbar that links only to templates would be very useful. That way template indexing can be very detailed, and can go deeper and deeper. Yet the templates would not clutter up individual wikipedia pages. See also the next talk topic section I started below. It shows a problem when trying to put more than one detailed template on a wikipedia page. --Timeshifter 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bug. 2 particular templates don't work together.[edit]

When they are on the same wikipedia page these are the 2 conflicting templates:

{{Arab-Israeli Conflict}} {{Israeli-Palestinian Conflict}}

See this revision of the Camp David 2000 Summit article.

It is confusing due to the placement of the template title bars and the hide-show buttons. Shouldn't they be completely separate from each other? Otherwise one can't tell which template box is which. The 2 title bars are right on top of each other. But their link boxes are both below both title bars. Very confusing to figure out. --Timeshifter 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a hide-show template toolbar with subsections that expands to a new page altogether[edit]

--Timeshifter 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC). I absolutely love these type of long template pages:

Category pages do not have the great timelines that the template pages have. Category pages do not have nested topics and sub-topics listed on the same page.

I want the template pages to be bigger, not smaller. But to do so means that these long templates can no longer be at the bottom of already long wikipedia articles.

So for those long wikipedia pages how about this idea for an additional hide-show template toolbar for the Arab-Israeli Conflict? A toolbar that one can add to the bottom of long wikipedia pages without the fear of longer loading times for already long wikipedia articles. Especially for dialup users. I have broadband, and the flag and organization images make even my loading time too long.

I suggest for this new toolbar that when one clicks the "show" button that one is sent directly to the Arab-Israeli Conflict template page, on a new page, and not at the bottom of the long wikipedia article.

The unexpanded toolbar would list all the section and subsection titles:


States and authorities:

  • Active organizations
    • Former
  • States
  • Other organizations
    • Former



  • Conflicts
  • Diplomacy / Peace proposals


The list of subsections in the unexpanded toolbar would show that this is not your typical category link, and it would entice people to explore the template.

The "show" button would open up the Arab-Israeli Conflict template page on a new page, and not at the bottom of the wikipedia article. --Timeshifter 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Should 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre link be on Arab-Israeli conflict template?[edit]

--Timeshifter 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC). Amoruso said in his October 15, 2006 comment removing the link for the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre of 700 people:

"sabra and shatila wasn't an arab israeli conflict. 1982 lebanon war was and the implications are there..."

I disagree. Please reread the article:

Since the Munich Olympics massacre of 11 deservedly rates a link, so does this. Massacres covered in a major way by the international news media deserve a link. Both massacres were critical factors in world opinion about the Arab-Israeli conflict and subsequent events.

I think it makes more sense to put this in this Arab-Israeli Conflict template rather than in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict template:

But I am not wedded to which template it goes in. So I will put it in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict template for now. That template uses the broader section heading "Conflicts / Violence / Terrorism"

Maybe the Arab-Israeli Conflict template could use that section heading instead of just "Conflicts". --Timeshifter 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed more discussion in the talk section higher up called "Why not anything about Sabra and Shatila massacre?" One could argue about all the players involved in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, and the degree of Israeli involvement. But my point in this section is that the event was and remains significant in worldwide public opinion, and therefore deserves to be on one or both of the templates. --Timeshifter 02:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"One could argue....". I don't think it should be in either, because if it's disputed it's disputed, and putting it is misleading. Amoruso 02:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The dispute is not my point. My point is that it is "violence" concerning Palestinians and Israelis. And therefore it currently qualifies under the section heading "Conflicts / Violence / Terrorism" in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict template. There is no dispute that the massacre occurred for 36 hours while the Palestinian refugee camps were surrounded by Israeli forces. --Timeshifter 02:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously Israeli forces were in LEBANON, but it's a bit too much to ask Israeli Army to actively defend the Palestinians IMO. Anyway, it might be ok to add it to the palestiniant template but call it and direct it to Sabra and Shatila massacre#Israel's role in the massacre to avoid confusion. Amoruso 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I added the article link to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict template, and I used the link to that specific section of the article.--Timeshifter 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

International Day of Quds[edit]

In which section should this occasion be added?--Sa.vakilian 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not fit any of the categories on the template. It is an annual event. It is not part of the conflict timeline, nor the diplomacy timeline. --Timeshifter 04:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
We can make a separate part for occasions in this template.--Sa.vakilian 05:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of pages that use this template. Here is a list. I don't see how a section for rallies would be useful to most wikipedia pages that have this template.
Also, I don't think it would be feasible or NPOV to start putting all the different rallies from all the different players in the Arab-Israeli Conflict on this particular template. It would be a very long list, and I think this template takes too long now to load. Mostly because of the flag icons that seem to take a very long time to load since they are all separate files that must be pulled up.
Maybe a new wikipedia page could be created for listing all the different rallies from all the different players in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. There are lots of list pages on Wikipedia. Feel free to set one up. :) --Timeshifter 06:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War[edit]

I'd like to add some figures from the Lebanese Civil War, but I don't have enough knowledge of it. Does anyone have any suggestions.Soviet Canuckistan 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Joschka Fischer?[edit]

Nothing in his own article makes it obvious why he is included hereA Geek Tragedy 16:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a problem of the article. Fischer was an important mediator. The Germans are more important than some people think, becuase they have good connection to both sides. Marcus Cyron 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PIJ flag[edit]

What is the source of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad flag that appears in the template? I'm not even sure they have a flag. They have an emblem, which is not white on black. I saw once a white-on-black flag similar to the one in the template being flown in a rally, but how do we know that this is their official flag? Their website shows the regular Palestinian flag. Anyway, the full resolution flag from this template has nonsense scribbles instead of the inscription that their emblem has.-- 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Saud, Faisal and Abdullah of KSA[edit]

I thank those three should be added --Menasim( discuss | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg )

Former states[edit]

Right now this subsection has 2 entries:

Flag of the Soviet Union.svg Soviet Union
Flag of the United Arab Republic.svg United Arab Republic

Why not League of Nations, United Arab States, Arab Federation, Federation of Arab Republics, etc.? I propose to remove it for the sake of space and clarity. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Lebanese political parties[edit]

I don't think we should be adding Lebanese political parties like the Kateb Party. Amal and Hezbollah are only there because they're still armed, while the others largely disarmed after the Civil War. I don't see Kataeb as any different than Kadima, Labour or Likud.

I also don't thing we should have every single Palestinian group. The article on the PPSF says it has very limited influence.

Soviet Canuckistan 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I in general think this template should be massively cut down in size, as long as people have decided it should be this big, then it should contain all parties that have played notable roles in the conflict. The Kataeb Party and people it represents was a crucial party in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict (see Sabra and Shatila massacre). The PPSF carried out huge acts of terrorism back in the day. In short we have to be wary of recentism. nadav (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that if the party played a larger role in past events, it should warrant inclusion. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The "people it represents" argument applies to Israeli political parties too; Labour and Likud are descended from very different streams of Zionist thought. Perhaps this template should be divided in two: one for the pre-Israel time period and one for the post-1948 time period.
Off topic question: does "Phalange" in the Lebanese context have the same meaning as it does in the Spanish one?
Soviet Canuckistan 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If there was a separate article for the Phalangist militia of the Kataeb Party, then we could've linked directly to that, but there isn't any. I don't know about the other question. nadav (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


I've added the current conflict because the Lebanese Civil War also can be seen here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the link, but your logic is faulty. Israel's invasion of Lebanon made it a player in the Lebanese Civil War (it's shown in the last infobox). Fatah-Hamas conflict doesn't mention Israeli interference at all. I'm not going to debate whether Israel is involved in the Fatah-Hamas conflict, I'm just explaining why there is a difference between the two articles vis-à-vis their inclusion in the template, which is probably the reason the link was removed last time. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Malik. Every other entry describes military confrontations between Israel and Arab groups, so I'm removing this exception (I don't want to get involved in an edit war). nadav (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I had a little edit war about that. And we conclued that the best solution was to add "Hamas-Fatah Conflict" to the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict template" adding a footnote which will explain that the conflict isn't really between Palestinians and Israeli but invole Insrael a lot ;)

--Mrpouetpouet 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

no, it's not faulty, of course the Israelis are involved, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ongoing. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
the fighting in Gaza was going on as Israeli planes bombed, just like in Lebanon 1982. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious pruning needed[edit]

This template has way too much information on it. I was at Six Day war, looking for a good template to link me to other articles, and I came upon this. We have mentions of practically everybody that ever said a word on the conflict. Madeline Albright and George W. Bush? Canada as an involved government? And, for that matter, maybe we should restructure it. The most notable stuff at the top: the severals wars, a few important people; and leave the less important stuff at the bottom (e.g., most of the 10000 toothless UN security council resolutions proposed). As it stands, I hope no one takes offense, but this template is an eyesore; it needs a lot of pruning. The Evil Spartan 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've split the template up into four sub-templates focused on specific topics. What should probably be done next IMO is to convert this template into a much smaller set of overview links and use those sub-templates only on the articles that are on those particular topics. But for now, at least, a great deal of screen real estate has been recovered. Bryan Derksen 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Gaza flotilla raid[edit]

Most of the activists in this flotilla were Turkish, and not Arab. Also, no Arab country was among the organisers of the flotilla. Since there is a separate {{Israeli-Palestinian conflict}} template, I don't think it should be included in this one. --386-DX (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)