Talk:Recent conflicts in the Muslim World

Do we need to decide what is considered "recent" for all the articles on this SEWiki? Do the other Wikipedias have a rule about this? To me "recent" would mean more like "since 1970" (approximately) (And I don't know why 1970 seems to be approximately the right date to me.)

It might mean different things for different plcaes in the world, which is why it's good to use in titles... the first line can say what exact times are involved. It's like "Early...", "Ancient...". You're right that standards must apply but they won't be rigid dates. In CHina obviously 1949 is a big marker, in India 1947, in Mideast 1948, etc.

We might want to rename this article Conflicts In The Muslim World Since WWII or [[Conflicts in the Muslim World Since the Creation of the State of Israel]. -- RJWiki.

The right marker could be either WWI or WWII, and Israel isn't the only issue. India was also partitioned in 1947 remember, and places like Bosnia and Kosovo fell firmly under the control of Serbia at this time in Yugoslavia under Tito. "...since WWII is fine or even 20th century conflicts in the Muslim World since some are actually settled more or less (like Bosnia and Kosovo and Iran I think - I cant see anyone invading 'em now!).

"Conflicts" is also a broad term; it should include religious disputes and political arguments short of armed conflict. -- RJWiki

Ideally, yes, but that isn't the way it is used in Wikipedia, where there is an "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" etc. It does in this sense mean armed conflict. Religious disputes and political arguments are universal, aren't they? We only hear or care about them if someone is getting killed. In which case it's an armed conflict on some level.

Let's work out some standards for all this in History/Talk. Full English Wikipedia is inconsistent on this in many ways, so maybe we can work out better standards they they are now using.