Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 2

The most common usages are "al X","al-X" and "the X" where X is any of the trans-script-ions of Koran in english. As for current English 'speakers' at least on the internet, "teh" seems to be a common spelling for "the" - I do it all the time due to fast eclectic-method typing and rarely bother to correct it. So you surely do'nt mean that "one-person-one-vote" decide this - surely expert English speakers and writers get to cast more votes. (That "decide" is ablative case - please leave it alone). If you go along with that (since you say it is not very important to the article), look up any number of literary sources - The Satanic Verses for example.

There is a point to this. We south asians, anglophone africans etc. bother to learn (at least the UK and US variants of) English so well that sometimes it becomes our mother tongue; we (Nuruddin Farah - somalia, Salman Rushdie - south asia, Edward Said, Arundhati Roy, nobel laureate Wole Soyinka, ...) are at the cutting edge of the production of English literature. I see few US people, even writers (with honorable exceptions like Paul Theroux who speaks fluent swahili) bothering with non-first-world languages. So which cultures are more tolerant is a more subtle issue than some wikipedians think. [ more arguments needed for that, but you'll find ample in the UK press] (And State != people.) Chomsky exhorted US people to learn democracy from Haiti, but again some wikipedians think Chomsky is wacky.

Take the "in memoriam" bit with a prominent link on the main page. No one outside US would make sense of what it is doing in an encyclopedia. I've read the "talk" space on the 9/11 article; but the point is that "In memoriam" remains on that article. No, I will not edit it; I just hope that, some time, enough mainstream-US wikipedians will see that "in memoriam" violates a) NPOV b) the definition of what is an encyclopedia entry ("In memoriam" is emotion, not fact.) Prefixing it with "most people feel that an "in memoriam" along the following lines should be there in wikipedia" would correct b) but not a). Not until you (I'll use "we" once I decide to log in) have similar and equally extensive "in memoriam"s of noncombatant Palestinians who have been and are being killed by successive Israeli governments. Not until you research why an 18-year old modern palestinian kid blew herself up, killing in the process a 17-year old israeli kid among other. Unless you find out what broke the young palestinian woman so completely that she gave up on life; and have an "in memoriam" that has her name in it, so that we (homo sapiens) can remember her with empathy and sorrow. And similar "in memoriam"s on Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai, the list goes on and on. And then for NPOV you have to have all those IMs for non-white-and-no-US-connection victims of killings outside US by anti-US-govt. tyrants. ("State terrorism is not terrorism" violates NPOV.) Is that feasible? Does that belong in an encyclopedia? Won't it be better, encyclopedia-project-wise, to remove the "in memoriam" and write an aricle that just reports facts (including facts about opinions)? And does not rate a US human life higher than a non-US human life?

(and whether I count Blairites as US govt. people or not, UK is just an "Island by the Sea" (title of a Paul theroux book, with the first word "The" omitted))

Another point: "Osama bin Laden" is Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden (bin = son of). Most English speakers including me have got used to call him Osama bin Laden, but the encyclopedia entry, while so self-conscious of trans-script-ions at word level (I would say "transcriptions" to any non-US-majority audience but many wikipedians are unaware of this, original and non-obsolete, only now somewhat technical, meaning) has forgotten that in an encyclopedia you have to get the larger-than-word-level right before you start worrying about word-level accuracy. Someone write an entry for "transcription" in all its meanings, and I'll start writing "transcription" here too.

There was an op-ed article in NYT about most of the above material in *this change*, including other-culture-awareness, for which that article took exactly the example in tha above paragraph. And that article was written by a US citizen. (And no, I am not violating any copyright, NYT or other.) Wikipedia should certainly have world-acceptance as its goal; but it should reach NYT-level accuracy first and fast.

Reason for above paragraph: by definition, in an encyclopedia accuracy takes precedence over current english usage, though it must mention the latter as an accurate record (in this instance, of how c.2001 most English speakers, and more in US than outside, got the name of a certain person horribly wrong.) An encyclopedia is not a dictionary.

Look, I live in India, the only other country I've been to is Nepal, and I read Saul Bellow, Mirza Ghalib and Mahasweta Devi in the original. The latter two wrote (resp. write) in the national (though not the majority) language of Pakistan and Bangladesh resp. These languages are called Urdu and Bengali resp. And my girlfriend and I have had two children together and we did not marry because she is strictly not into marriages. There are hundreds of thousands like me; I hope one of them takes up this from here, so that I can get along with the emergency work of protesting against the [warning: flame coming] chief minister and butcher of muslims of gujarat (gujarat is a state of India), and ditto against Ariel Sharon butcher of palestinians. (I am making my second foreign visit; to Palestine; in a couple days. I am a (non-practicing) christian, my name sounds very christian, so Sharon will be killing a non-Arab chistian if he kills me.

The reasons for the correction I introduced: That summarizes most of the changes (reversions) that I had introduced. --Uriyan
 * Statement by Yasser Arafat was copyrighted, since he's not yet dead. Since he didn't explicitly transfer this statement into public domain, it can't be used in Wikipedia. The individual who had pasted it in is welcome to import points out of it into the Arab position though - or contact PA and ask it to release the statement into PD.
 * A great, overwhelming majority of Israelis believe that the Palestinians now constitute a separate nation. Saying otherwise would be fallacious. Furthermore terrorism (blowing up people in cafeterias) is hardly "resistance". It is terrorism - although some Arabs probably that a national sentiment can be a justification for any attrocities, terrorism included.
 * Israel won the Yom Kippur War mostly on its own. US aid started to come in around October 13th, when Israel the Golan was again in Israeli hands and the forces in Sinai were fully deployed. If Arabs see a problem with the American support - let me remind them of the equally overwhelming Soviet support that they received before, during and after the war - and still were defeated.

Please, do NOT remove large portions of any entry's text, without justifying these changes in the "Talk" section. I am restoring the deleted material. If you have reasons for your large set of changes, please discuss them here one at a time. RK]] - Palestinians point out that many other countries failing to comply with such resolutions have been delt with harshly by the U.S. and international bodies and ask why so little has happened here.


 * The resolutions were not issued under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and therefore they can't result in the dispatching of troops. This as opposed to the resolutions against Iraq (e.g. S/RES/661), which include the clause "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations". --Uri

Is the intent of this article to include historical facts? And "Reasons for the Conflict"?


 * According to Islam, Jews must accept the status of dhimmis (second class citizens) if they want to live with Muslims. Islamic law allows Muslims to go to war against Jews...)

Is that one of the Israeli reasons for the fight? And when does the Palestinian view end?


 * What do you mean? If the Muslims think Jews have to live like second-grade citizens, then Israel is going to have a problem with that.


 * According to all Arab publications, Zionism is worse than German Nazism. Many Arabs believe Israel practices a form of apartheid against the Palestinian people, worse than that practiced by South Africa, a

Thats not the Palestinian view its more like the Israeli view of what the Palestinian view is. --BL


 * Actually, it was written by an Arab, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know whether he was Palestinian or not. --Uri


 * According to Islam, Jews must accept the status of dhimmis (second class citizens) if they want to live with Muslims. Islamic law allows Muslims to go to war against Jews...)

You have probably found that in the Qu'ran somewhere right? You can find similar stuff in the Torah/Bible like that the jews should commit genocide in Kaanan (Israel) and chase out all other people living there and if they dont God will get angry at them. There is a difference between an Islamic state (like until recently Afganistan and Iran) that Hamas and similar organisations want and a Muslim state that PLO wants (like Turkey and Saudi Arabia). And even if its written by an Arab its still wrong. --BL


 * The problem is - the status of the Dhimmi has been actually implemented, in many Muslim societies. So it's not pure theory anyway. Moreover, it's been widely documented, that Arabs boost numerous anti-Semitic beliefs, both on religious and nationalistic grounds. They do consider Jews inferior. --Uri

I think it is reasonable to believe that Jews would not be treated equally to Muslims in a Palestinian state. On the other hand, would you say that Muslims are treated equally to Jews in Israel?


 * Muslims are treated quite fairly. This includes the freedom of worship (in spite of the Islamic Movement's open incitement for violence), participation in the democratic process. True, historically there have been some problems. However the tendency in the last 30 years was to make Muslims (and other non-Jews) equal to Jews in all questions of citizenship. The only areas where a de-jure inequality exists is the immigration policy (which is a part of a political issue, RoR), and (to a lesser extent) land purchases (it is a subject of a heated debate these days). --Uri

The thing is, that in the law of many (most?) Muslim countries, the concept of dhimmi is not in the law, in much the same way that there is no law in the US that discriminates afro-americans but many believe that they are discriminated

A Palestinian state would most likely NOT include any religious laws. --BL


 * A Palestinian state would be likely to accept 4 wives for a single man, allow for summary executions without a decent trial, and sponsor torture, as common elsewhere in the Arab world. So while indeed, the 'Dhimmi' status might be missing de-jure, it'll be a very hard and difficult thing to be a Jew in a Palestinian state. Compare this to Russia's treatment of Jews in the 19th century (and into what it had evolved in Soviet Russia). --Uri

Deleted text:
 * Arabs presented an alternative plan for a federal state in Palestine.

What was the alternative plan? --Ed Poor


 * It is probably a mistaken reference to alternative UN plan (that was rejected in favor of the partition one). It was never a formal one, and as soon as the partition offer passed, the Palestinian-Arab leadership chose to (a) start a civil war and when it had lost it (b) summoned external Arab nations. So this is yet another utter fallacy. --Uri

-- Reasons for restoring these paragraphs: while some of them were not worded clearly enough ("X declares that Y"), most of them were in fact truthful. Palestinian universities do teach that there was never a Jewish state in Palestine prior to 1948 (a form of etiological warfare). Most rivals of the PLO declared its acceptance of the Jewish state treacherous, and still maintain that Israel has to be destroyed. If you want to argue about something - do it here, please. Doing what "Neutral" (name contrary to essence) did is the definition of trolling. --Uri -- Palestinians wish to return but are neglected by most Arab nations and the world, causing their poverty and hatred.


 * Even after the 1948 war, the Palestinians lacked a unified political authority and a definite agenda. The Palestinians' current political aspirations are discussed elsewhere (e.g. Proposals for a Palestinian State).

The US forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai


 * ... in exchange for something.

During the war, the US sent almost 30000 tons of critical military equipment to Israel in a major airlift, and some say this help was decisive.


 * While the airlift was clearly an important part of Yom Kippur War, it began only by October 13th (Israel blocked the offensive at the Golan by the 10th). Also, I must wonder why all the good souls remember the American airlift but keep forgetting about the Soviet one.

Began when Israel attacked Lebanon in an attempt to remove the Palestinian Liberation Organization from its Beirut headquarters and from South Lebanon, claiming it supported terrorism.


 * "Claiming it supported terrorism"? One word: Fatahland. --Uri

-

"The only legitimate argument against this is whether issues are fact or fiction, as these are not easily determined, due to our already pro-Israeli-biased media sources. " Stevertigo


 * Great more anti-Jewish attacks from someone who implies that nothing can be trusted, because the media is somehow controlled by those who are pro-Israel (i.e. "the Jews control the media"). Disgusting.

Responding to above: People of the Jewish ethicity are justified in being wary of 'criticism', after all, the historical record is filled with antisemitism, and in the United States this is different only because of a deliberate self-serving use of Israel as a tool for imposing westernism into the middle east. Separating anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism is fundamental.


 * That's simply not true. The State of Israel was not created by America at all, and the USA even initially opposed the idea of supporting Israel. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that first recognized Israel, becase they thought that since it was fairly socialist, it would support a non-Western and pro-socialist point of view. Please do not rewrite the history books. RK


 * If you read it correctly, it says nothing of the US creating Israel. It does say that the US was deliberately active in being involved with Israel, (Since Truman) and this was deliberately contradictory to the anti-Jewish sentiment in the US at the time. So we are in agreement, though you responded before actually reading what I wrote. The main issue was pro-Israeli bias in the US, and one has to only compare the numbers of Arabic to Jewish decendants in the US media to observe an imbalance, and whether or not this carries over into a lack of objectivity in the quality of the reporting.. well, like I said before, we are all only human.

And as per the statement above, it is my opinion based on my observation of a white-glove treatment in dealing with issues for which offensive points of view to the Jewish American political block. (It is an air-human, water-fish, sort of thing, you simply will not see it if your swimming in it, so I wont explain it more here.) Anti-semitism is really a misnomer - in two ways. For one, it implies that Semitic peoples suffer a racism different than any other people do. First of all - anti-Arab racism IS anti-semitism, though it has been a hijacked term, used in common speech to only refer to the Jewish.-Stevertigo


 * No, this is factually wrong. The word anti-semitism was invented to mean anti-Jewish, and anti-Jewish alone. That is always what the word has meant, and that is what it still means. Sadly, it is only anti-Semites who have been trying to confuse the issue; in recent years Jew-haters have begin a campaign to rewrite the dictionary, to make the word "anti-Semitic" appear to apply to all Semitic peoples, such as Arabs. The trouble with this is twofold: (A) This is an artificial rewriting of the dictionary for political purposes. (B) Arabs and Jews are not semitic peoples; there are no semitic peoples. The only thing that does exit is semitic language groups. RK


 * Factually wrong? In your statement above you claim that the term was invented. This begs the question: Are words like intellectual property, where their original source maintains copyright over its future use? I rather, like most people who understand how words and their use have always been dynamic, intermixed among cultures etc. find this a laughable argument. Rather in the course of word evolution, the one universal constant is efficiency and reduction, that is to say, words will boil down to mean what they actually say. Anti means against, and Semitic refers to Semitic peoples. One and one is two, yet your arguing that its three, because it was invented so. Whether or not it was ever used in any other sense before its colloquial use, as I said before, the term is hijacked term, -Stevertigo

Second, it is always disingenuous for a group to take a larger common principle, i.e. to resist racism, (which I define as: the dark side of the coin we call 'ethnic pride), and specialise it to suit their cause. In the case of Israel, we see a prime example of a higher principle being reduced to a hypocritical contradiction : i.e. 'all anti-Israeli sentiment is racism.'


 * No, you misunderstand their views. Israelis in particular, and Jews in general, have never claimed that disagreement with Israel is anti-Semitic. But they do correctly point out that the systematic deligitimization of the very State of Israel itself is anti-Semitic. RK


 * I disagree. Though I understand that there is conspiratorial politics among Arabs against Israel. And this goes to the heart of the issue as to what is Jewishness? Is it a racial definition, like, African? Is it religious? And how can ethnicity mean automatic citizenship in Israel? Even Israel is unclear on this (see recent Israel Supreme court decision on 'ordained Jews' vs 'Orthodox' Jews).
 * Israelis cannot expect outside opinions to be too careful to separate and distinguish the two, since Israel has always said Jewishness equals Israeli citizenship. Whats needs be done? The young, moderate, secular, views in Israel must rise up and overtake the aging, paranoic, Zionist views, or Israel will die of its own hatreds. -Stevertigo

Though the perception of non-Jews is that there is little difference in POV among Israelis, I have to admit that surprisingly concise criticisms of Israels apartheid policies are coming not from the Arab world. Rather, from the liberal Israeli youth, who are rightfully disgusted with the lack of respect their conservative countrymen show for principle.

It is the same here in the US. An Arab writer titled a new book : 'A clash of fundamentalisms', continuing with the point that there is little difference between Muslim, Christian, and Jewish conservatives, save POV. For Israelis to latch onto the wave of American conservative power, is a self-serving move that will backfire. In one way or another, the 'karmic' balances must find equlibrium. -Stevertigo

To those who have been frequenting this page of late: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. These comments are inappropriate. If you must engage in your anti-Semitic Jew-bashing, go elsewhere. But stop filling these entries with your hateful conspiracy theories about how "the Jews" control the public and the media. ---
 * It is a fact and therefore should be stated here. IF there is such a thing as bias, wherever it is. We are here dicussing (TALK page) many related issues, and bias is the primary one on this page. How then could we be so blind as to avoid the big picture?
 * For you (Mr/Ms anonymous) to mischarachterise my or any point of view that you might find uncomfortable, as hate speech, is disingenuous and you make my point exactly, by your censorship.
 * I've made a simple case of fact - The number of Jewish decendants far outnumbers Arabs in the western media - whether this contributes to bias, is a more involved discussion.
 * Its certainly something that right wing racists have latched onto as an issue for years. Regardless of the sad absurdity of their general beliefs, (ethnic superiorty based on non-criteria-race, similar to Zionism) it's entirely possible that these morons might actually make a legitimate point every once in a while, as tough as this may be to accept. Their opinions, though you charachterise them as similar, are not the same as the objective point of view I and millions of others hold.
 * I do understand that Jews in America are not here as part of some takeover conspiracy, they simply want to make a life, contribute. We do, however understand human nature as being preferential to family. We also see an imbalance in reporting. What is the reason for this? I and millions of open eyed people are asking why. We know the answer more, by the way people such as yourself react. Sometimes we know things by what people do not say.
 * Since people of your caliber do not listen to reason, it behooves the rest of us to ignore your calls for ignorance, and continue turning over stones, regardless if what we uncover bears too much salty truth for your gentle ears to stand.-Stevertigo

- The subject matter of this article is disputed. This article claims to be about Arab-Israeli conflict, but appears to be about Palistinian problems with Israel and Israel problems with Arabs. These are two VERY different topics. It should be noted that this confusion is common, and sometimes deliberately encouraged by both sides for political reasons. Palistinians are not responsible for the surrounding Arab countries, and vice versa. Israeli relations with its Arab neighbours do not provide justifications for its relations with the Palistinian people, and vice versa. This article should be trashed, and there should be another attempt at writing it. --Karl


 * I agree with Karl. This article is almost terminally sick.  There is a separate Israeli-Palestinian conflict page where that stuff should go.  This page should focus on Israel versus the Arab states.  Of course the Palestinian issue has to be mentioned, but mostly as pointers. -- zero 09:46, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reasons for changes:


 * operation to stop terrorist attacks

"terrorist" unneccessary - Fedayeen targeted both military and civil objectives.


 * Muslims to kill Jews and Christians in Arab lands who refuse to accept this status

Quran says that Jews and Christians who do not accept dhimmi status should receive a death sentence. If they have the choice whether to accept or not they are most likely already captured.


 * In contrast, Palestinian Arab refugees were confined by other Arabs in refugee camps for many decades, artificially creating a refugee crisis as a way to create an army to one day fight against Israel.

Blanket statement. Maybe they just couldn't afford to welcome 800 000 refugees?


 * They regret that they are being denied even this

No they are offered a Bantustan.


 * they seldom occupy positions of importance

If they are leaders, they are by definition, occupying positions of importance. The following paragraphs are very unclear. Do (most) Palestinian leaders sponsor terrorism or do they condemn it?


 * (ironically, the militant Palestinian organizations fail to make this distinction applied to real-world events)

What does that mean? That the Israelis are not responsible for the crimes of their government?


 * (The nation of Jordan is an ethnically Palestinian state, but ruled by Hashemite Arab family, and most Palestinian nationalists no longer consider the conquest of Jordan by them to be a feasible goal.)

It has been claimed in many other places that the Palestinian ethnicity is a construct from 1967. One of the claims is false, either that Jordan is populated by Palestinians OR that Golda Meir was right. It's disputed and should therefore not be there. --BL

Haj Husseini & Arab Riots
I saw the Arab uprisings of 1936-1939. But I didn't see anything about Haj Husseini leading the Arab riots of 1920-1921, 1929.


 * maybe that's because he didn't. --zero 13:50, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

''for example, immediately after the Six-Day war, Israel offered all the occupied territories to the Arab nations in exchange for mere recognition of Israel's existence an offer which all Arab nations mutually refused. The gratious offer was very soon withdrawn when they realised that it was way to generous, considering the horrendous defeat the Arabs had suffered, and had not been approved by the knesset.'' -- The problem with this statement is that it is false. For one thing, no such offer was made (or has been claimed to have been made) to Jordan. Indeed, eastern Jerusalem had already been annexed. Second, the offer to Egypt excluded Gaza. Third, Israel wanted lots more than mere recognition--there was a list of demands. Moreover, there is a dispute about whether the offers were ever really made at all. The Israeli account is that offers to Syria and Egypt were transmitted to the USA, which then supposedly put them to Syria and Egypt and got a negative reply. However, the minutes of the relevant Israel-USA meeting mentions the offers but says nothing about giving the USA the task of transmitting them. As far as I know, there is no actual evidence that the USA ever did. Egypt and Syria always denied receiving such offers. Better proof one way or the other might not come until more archives are declassified. Even though this section of the article is supposed to be representing the Israeli point of view, there is an obligation to stay within the facts. I tried to make the minimum change necessary. --zero 13:50, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Exodus of the Palestinian Christians
Exodus of the Palestinian Christians

Dear Sir The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species. When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80000. Now it’s down to 60000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification ‘Christian’ includes some 20000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union. So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland? We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget. I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see the modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to Paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to Hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel. Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations. The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone. Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) said: ‘God Appeared to Abraham and said: “I am giving you this land,”the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.’ House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright: ’I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank… I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.’ There is a phrase for this. Ethnic cleansing. So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well… since Christ? Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done. Palestinian ChristiansMaronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religionsMuslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha’is for centuries. We want to do so for centuries more. But we can’t if we are driven out by despair. What we seek is supportmaterial, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost, and few people (the Ashkenazi Jews are one) have lost more than us. But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.

(Signed Prof. Abe W. Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian born in Bethlehem. He is the author of 11 books including Intermarriage between Christians and Muslims : the case of the West Bank (Melbourne, David Lovell Publ. 2000)

This article is still biased. Before I made a minor edit, this was incredibly biased. "many Palestinian and Arab leaders from around the world, have stated they believe the Palestinians are justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians." Nearly every single sentence in the Arab view section has some sort of claim or statement which portrays Arabs and Palestinians in a negative light. Also why are Israeli viewpoints inside the Arab section ? I seriously disagree that this section is at all balanced however I will refrain from deleting anything until we have some more discussion. Hauser


 * This is one of many pages in the ME section that is sitting around waiting for someone with a lot of time, knowledge and courage to massively revise it. I don't think that making little pecks at it is ever going to make a decent article out of it. --Zero 12:52, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could someone clarify what the spelling conventions are on the Wikipedia ? The recent change cleared up many spelling errors however some were correct within the bounds of New Zealand/ Britsh/ Commonwealth English. Which do we use ? American English or British English ?


 * We use any spelling that is correct in some part of the English speaking world. --Zero 12:52, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That could - No, would - lead to very...strange reading. My thought re BritEng/AmEng differences *ALONE*: Keep with what the author originally used. Or at least keep them consistent. Seeing 'armor' and 'armour' (for example) in the same page is very, very jarring. -Penta 08:52, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)