Jump to content

Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 24 November 2014 (Archiving 17 discussion(s) from Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Iraq War Fatalities

Why is there such a huge discrepancy between the Iraq War casualty toll and the one presented here, could that be updated or explained? Varalf 14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You must consider differently the Second Gulf War and the Civil War in Iraq. Or at least share the alliance soldiers toll (3849 at 3 nov 07 - http://icasualties.org/oif/) and the Iraqi soldiers and civilians toll (disputed 655,000 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html). 

 --217.186.205.50 09:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited it from around 80,000 to ~600,000 for the more conservative estimate since making my post here Varalf 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the tally of Iraq II fatalities. The figure of 650,000 was derived from a now obsolete study by the Lancet. Extrapolation of this figure to the end of 2007 leads to a death toll of one million plus. This is, I must stress, a rather CONSERVATIVE estimate of the lives lost as a result of George Bush II's folly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.225 (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But you put it in a liberal estimate? It should be left alone until somebody comes up with a better one that is NOT made for dark motives. SG2090 (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It should reflect the truth, nothing more. Fifty7 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

War in Spain? Yeah, I don't think so

Operation Active Endeavour is NOT what could be classified as an actual war since there have not been any combat engagements between opposing forces. I really think it should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

THE NEW CIVIL WAR IN PAKISTAN

Anyone else see the news lately? Apparently civil war has broken out in Pakistan. People are dropping like flies there because the military dictator Musharaff wants to stay in power while Islamists want him gone. Can somebody update the Wikipedia website on this. (unsigned comment)

It's since been added to the list. -- Beland (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ARMED CONFLICTS, WARS, BELLIGERENCE

Just a comment which might help you sort out some of the questions. Legally, concepts like wars and belligerency (which need to be declared and recognised) do not exist anymore as they were replaced by the notion of "armed conflict". What is an armed conflict? International humanitarian law (laws of war) treaties (1949 Geneva Conventions and 1977 Additional Protocols) specify these treaties will become applicable as soon as there is an armed conflict. There are 2 broad categories of armed conflicts:

1. International / Inter-State armed conflicts

These exist whenever there is resort to armed forces between two States

2. Non-international / Intra-State armed conflicts

These exist when there is protracted armed violence either between two groups within a State or between the official armed forces and one group.

The source for this two-pronged definition is the ICTY decision in the Tadic Case (Appeal chambers, DECISION ON THE DEFENCE MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON JURISDICTION, 1995): http://www.un.org/icty/tadic/appeal/decision-e/51002.htm (at §70).

The consequences of this definition are:

- For international armed conflicts, you're not looking at any level of violence to determine wshether an armed conflict exists or not, you're just looking at whether the armed forces of one State are involved on the territory of another State or whether citizens of one State are under the control of the armed forces of another State. As soon as this condition is met, there is an armed conflict even though there might be no single round fired, no wounded soliders, ...

- In cases of non-international armed conflicts though, you're looking at protracted armed violence. Which means (1) use of fire arms (2) over a certain period of time (although the American HR Commission in the La Tablada case found that in these circumstances, 30 hours was long enough, considering the level of violence, to qualify as an armed conflict - see http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/97eng/Argentina11137.htm para. 154-156) and (3) by an organised armed group

Concretely, inter-State conflicts where there is still occupation of part of a territory or where some persons from one State are still under the control of the other State, still qualify for an ongoing armed conflict even though there might not be any acts of violence for al ong time.

But to continue qualifiying as an ongoing armed conflict, an intra-State situation would have to have a certain level of violence.

Hoping these definitional elements are useful to you. Ppolar 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a definition of "ongoing conflicts" on the main page. Why not just use some of this information above?

I think we've got a pretty good definition now. -- Beland (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MOLDOVA

Why Moldova is highlighted on the map?War of Transnistria ended long ago...

Ok somebody else already said this. Lecky333 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's since been de-highlighted. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PALESTINE???

Come on people, there is a war between Israel and Palestine. I can not beleive there is no reference to that conflict, is just unbelievable.

Well, the very first item on the list is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Wouldn't that constitue a reference to the conflict between Israel and Palestine? EngineersAnon 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The War in Mexico

I went ahead and added Mexico to the list of ongoing wars since that country is now in a state of war. A month ago the Los Angeles Times reported that the death toll in Mexico's drug war this year has passed the 2,000 mark. Theres also been a handful of deaths as a result of the violence in Oaxaca this year. The United Nations defines "major wars" as military conflicts inflicting 1,000 battlefield deaths per year. This puts the conflict in Mexico on the same level as the other wars listed here previously. This is an old conflict but the number of deaths resulting from this conflict rose alot in 2006, the casualty figures have doubled since 2005. As to where the worst violence is taking place, I would say the southern third of Mexico if somebody wants to color that area red on the map. This conflict is most similar to the one in Colombia. On Monday, Mexico's new president Felipe Calderon sent 6,500 troops to Michoacan to fight drug cartels. This isn't the first time the military has aided the police in the Mexican Drug War in but it's definitely the biggest escalation we have seen so far. The main combatants are government forces versus drug cartels. Theres also been low-level conflict between leftist forces (Zapatistas) and the government in Mexico during the past decade.

Sources:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/14/MNGL3MC3I91.DTL

http://www.ngodpiexecom.org/conference05/resources/media/story2_peacebuilding_commission.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/mexico_drugs_dc

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

December 13, 2006

by Rockydesert8Rockydesert8 00:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why have five wars disappeared?

An anonymous IP editor has successively deleted five wars (Srì Lanka, Haiti, Second Congo war, West Papua...), without any obvious reason (see the difference between the versions. Does anybody know why, or should we revert it?--Robin.rueth 20:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

These have since been restored, except the ones that are no longer active. -- Beland (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Low-level wars

Are we sure the Second Congo War is still going at a rate to qualify for its inclusion in this list? According to its entry, the war officially ended in 2002; most conflict in the country since then has been part of the seperate and seperately-listed Ituri conflict. I don't want to make changes without more support, but I would appreciate input.

Yeah, I agree. The Second Congo War, the Ivorian Civil War, the Aceh War, and the Darfur Conflict are all technically at ceasefires. The Casamance conflict is so incredibly low level nowadays that it might very well be written off entirely; the Zapatista rebellion is described in our own article as "armed but non-violent." Since the situations in these conflicts are complex, it may be useful to have a brief paragraph with each one explaining the context and level of violence. Listing them without any explanation may be misleading. Adam Faanes 05:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, no mention of Palestine?

There is the Korean war as well. The war is not technically over there has only been an armistice. The page on the Korean War even says that is is technically not over.

The Community of Sant'Egidio (see #Section on other ongoing conflicts) still has Congo (Kivu), Darfur and Ivory Coast on their list of ongoing conflicts; Aceh is gone.--Robin.rueth 06:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"War" or "belligerence" in Chad?

(From a similar message posted on Talk: Current Events)

There's a conflict between Chad and Sudan resulting from a Chadian rebel attack for which the Chadian president says Sudan is responsible. Different sources say different things, though. The BBC quotes a Chadian statement as saying Chad is in a "state of war," where Reuters, al-Jazeera, and CNN quote it as saying "belligerence." A Google News search for the exact phrase "state of belligerence" and +Chad has a few more results than the exact phrase "state of war." The Sudan Tribune used a Reuters report that said "state of belligerence."

In English, if a head of state says he's declaring war, that's a little different from talking about "belligerence." I'm guessing the difference is in translation, but I think it's a key distinction. You'd think they'd be able to get a direct quote right.

I think it really looks like "belligerence" is the right word. I haven't seen any news reports of troop mobilizations in either country. They're clearly not on good terms, but if they're actually at war, they're not being very active about it yet. --Mr. Billion 02:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The BBC article does actually mention a call for "mobilisation" on the part of Chad... What's not clear is how much connection these "militias" who are causing trouble for Chad on the border, really have with the Sudan government, as Chad alleges... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says: "In a statement, the government calls on Chadians to mobilise themselves against Sudanese aggression." That's not the same thing as the government actually activating its army to fight Sudan. I haven't seen any reports of further violence yet. I hope this doesn't escalate. --Mr. Billion 03:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't escalate too! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the two countries are literally at war is currently based on a single dubious quote. I don't think the article should say that the two countries are at war until it's clear that they actually are. --Mr. Billion 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If they not are at war, why is the state of war-page claming it? If they have declared war, then they must be at war.Jonatanj 11:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The state of war-page claims that the Chadian government declared war for the same reason this one did: This is a wiki and anyone can edit it. It was added by User:TheFEARgod.

My point is that I haven't seen evidence that they actually have declared war. The BBC quotes a statement from the Chadian government as saying "state of war," whereas the Sudan Tribune (which might be expected to know if its own country is at war) quotes the statement as saying "state of belligerence." I haven't seen the Sudan Tribune call Sudan's conflict with Chad a war anywhere. The linked Sudan Tribune article also talks of preventing war, which would indicate that war hasn't yet begun.

If the statement actually said "war," or if the two countries' armies actually attack each other, then it will clearly be a war. But to say they're formally at war based on conflicting reports when Sudanese sources aren't calling it a war is premature. --Mr. Billion 21:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Iraq

Isn't fighting still going on in Afghanistan, with U.S. (and other "coalition") troops involved? I hear every once in a great while about soldiers being killed in Afghanistan, and I get the feeling that it happens more often than we (in the U.S.) hear about, or least more than "gets through" the fog of other news about Iraq, Senatorial filibusters, Angelina and Jen, Paris and Nicole, yadda yadda yadda...

As for Iraq, the article describes the "ongoing war" as "Insurgent rebellion." It seems to me that we started a war there in 2003, and I have to ask, has that war really ended? Was there ever actually a stop to the fighting? Have U.S. (and British etc.) troops stopped dying over there? I think the answers to all these questions is "No," and that being the case, isn't that the war that is going on? When did it become transformed from an invasion and occupation by us (whether one believes it to be justified or not) into a "rebellion"? 6SJ7 03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've got a good point about Afghanistan. Fighting continues over there, and the struggle there is too easily forgotten. The conflict in Afghanistan is listed as an ongoing war on the GlobalSecurity link on this article. --Mr. Billion 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I wholely agree. Not listing Afghanistan and Iraq is highly POV.
Note -- The USA passed the 2,000 KIA milestone after about 30 months in Iraq. The USA didn't pass the 2,000 KIA milestone in Vietnam during its first four years of boots on the ground.
Note -- even with heavily escorts civilian truck convoys still face heavy risks.
The USA remains at war in Iraq. And so long as the Iraqi military, such as it is, answers to US Generals at a US HQ, circumventing much or all of the civilian oversight of the Iraqi Minister of Defense and the the Iraqi Cabinet, then Iraq remains under foreign occupation. -- Geo Swan 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good points, Geo. I'm putting Afghanistan in. But, a quibble: The U.S. hasn't passed the 2000 killed-in-action mark yet in Iraq. According to this page, there have only been 1854 killed in combat so far, and 2311 total. The comparison might still stand, though--I haven't seen any other figures for the yearly U.S. deaths in Vietnam. --Mr. Billion 01:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in order to head off any controversy about what is or is not technically a "war", the page should move to "Ongoing military conflicts" ?? Just a thought ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


The war is not being forgotten or overshadowed in my country Canada, since the beginning of Operation Archer our mission in Kandahar (the most volatile region of Afghanistan) our nation has suffered 44 casualties (incl. one civilian and one diplomat). Those are the highest casualties we have seen since Korea, where we lost 516 (let's just hope that the number does not get anywhere near that mark before we are due to leave in 2009). Not too mention the second highest casualties seen in the Afghan War, after those of your country of course. - Chris Gilmore

In my opinion, the listing of Iraq since 2003 is incorrect. This is no more than the continuation of the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) following Iraqi violation of the cease-fire. The correct date of the start of conflict is therefore 1991 (or 1990 for the Iraqi invation of Kuwait). EngineersAnon 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A technical note: the First (Persian) Gulf War was the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, whereas Operation Desert Storm was the Second (Persian) Gulf War (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War). Ppolar 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Aceh peace deal

Seem like the Aceh rebels are disarming as per the negotiated peace agreement, a possible Indonesian troop movement not withstanding, it seems that this means peace has been achieved. I'm gonna take Aceh off in a couple of days if there are no changes to the GAM's position.

--mexicatl 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating a section for armed conflicts under cease-fire

It seems like a good amount of the conflicts on the list are not really active anymore, they are kept on the list merely because there is no permanent cessation of activities or peace treaty/agreement and sometimes militarization in the theater of combat continues. I suggest the creation of a new sub-section titled Ongoing conflicts not formally resolved and militarized I also suggest a conflict gets put on this list only after a substantial amount of time without armed belligerence (say at least a couple of years, maybe even five). Any opposition? --mexicatl 20:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


This is a good idea, but maybe we should put them in a different section but on the same page. Starchy 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I was trying to propose, didn't come through. Putting it in a different page would incite too much issues I think, and in the end, a war doesn't necessarily have to be an active military conflict. --mexicatl 03:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Section on other ongoing conflicts

I've added entries from a list of ongoing conflicts as of January 1st, 2006 that was compiled by the Community of Sant'Egidio which is very active in peace negotiations (see [1]); unfortunately, it does not give any further information about these conflicts, but basically, what I've added are all the other armed conflicts still around right now, I hope someone can take a closer look at this.--Robin.rueth 06:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions!
Maybe we should split the list up further into wars that only technically never ceased, military conflicts that continue at a much-reduced level, and more heated wars. If we're going to include all these different armed conflicts that might or might not be recognized as actual wars, maybe we should move this to Ongoing armed conflicts. Comments? --Mr. Billion 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What I added was just a makeshift thing. I never meant my addition to form a second list. Instead, these are just armed conflicts/wars/you name it that I don't know anything about (status and beginning), I just know from a list that I consider reliable that they exist. So I put this article to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/War, hoping that some wise man will know about these conflicts and give more information and a link about them.
I think splitting the list up into "armed conflicts" and "wars" is a bad idea: You never know when a conflict will shift from one category to the other (and how do you judge it?) so it will just create confusion and a lot of work.
Incidentally, there's another list, List of civil wars, which I would like to be integrated into the List of Wars, because IMHO, it's often hard to tell the difference (like what do you do with the war in Congo, which is perhaps a civil war, but then again, Uganda has its hand in it...?).--Robin.rueth 08:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Top v bottom

What's the difference between the conflicts at the top of the list and the conflicts in the other conflicts section? I may end up making it one large list. Theshibboleth 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no fundamental difference, except that, when I added these conflicts from a list (from the community of Sant'Egidio), see #Section on other ongoing conflicts, I just had these countries, without dates when they began and without further explanation. In order for these conflicts to be integrated into the top of the list, which is where they should eventually go, the entry must be completed by:
  • the date when a conflict began
  • a link to a wikipedia article about the conflict (or a red link, if need be), so far I've only linked to the country. I think this point is important, because this list is not about "countries where there is war", but about the wars themselvese, so this is where the links should lead us.

--Robin.rueth 11:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Wars that are "technically" not over

Now that the list has reached a certain completeness, I wonder if we should (re)include the wars that are considered to be over but are technically going on - the article once ([[2]]) listed WWII, Chinese Civil War and Korean War.

CON: This may be a bit of a trivia point (PRO: even trivia can go into Wikipedia)

PRO: None of them is completely "over": At least in the case of the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War, warfare has prolongued into ongoing major tensions between China and Taiwan, and North and South Korea, respectivel. It is not a mere "technicality" that these wars are not over: a missing peace treaty means a lot of missing security and mutual confidence.

So, I advocate reincluding them.--Robin.rueth 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How about adding them to a separate section in the page to explain why those wars are exceptions? — J3ff 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what I would have wanted to say.--Robin.rueth 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Many countries never signed official treaties and are still technically at war, Israel and Syria/Lebanon/Iraq for example. These should be included somewhere in this list. --NEMT 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the wars in northern Ireland. There hasn't been violence lately, but paramilitary forces on each side are still at war with each other. This, i admit, is more of a low-intensity conflict.

Non-existant wars

Can anyone explain, why Georgia is still in the list of ongoing wars. It's really strange to sit here and suddenly find out that there is a war in the place were I live and it is marked by Red on the map in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no fighting activity here. So please, fix it. Pirveli 10:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as nobody replies to me here, I have to remove the false information about my country myself. Pirveli 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess everybody takes your word for it, and agrees with there being no hostilities.--Peidu 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I can't change the map (remove the red colour from Georgia), so please, somebody that is responsible for the map, do it. Pirveli 13:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and remove the red, I guess. The map isn't one of wars per se, but "ongoing conflicts". I believe the Wikipedia article on the particular conflict in Georgia states that while the fighting has mostly ceased, there are still occasional flare-ups. We need a better definition of what an armed conflict/war is. Theshibboleth 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Northern Spain/ETA

On the map there is a conflict in the north of spain and south of france it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the list of conflicts

I´m from Spain, there is NO WAR in our country even with ETA terrorists active. You can not say there is a war just because there is a terrorist group in the north of the country, if you do that we can find hundreds of wars in the world actually, for example in United States.

The problem is that the map and the list seem to have been created separately and with separate intentions. The list is for ongoing wars, while the map seems to be areas of recurring conflict or violence. I agree that the Basque stuff shouldn't be on there at all if the Korean war can't even make the cut since those countries are still actually at war.157.174.221.167 18:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are no wars in spain, even so there are some terrorist/separatist organizations in some of their autonumous regions, such as the Basque Country, Catalonia (+Valencia + Baleares islands), Galiza, Andaluzia, Canary Islands, and their colonies in Morroco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.100.246 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Map

Just a quick note... Doesn't highlight Colombia, although Colombia appears in the text. - FrancisTyers 23:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the map pending a fix. - FrancisTyers · 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Map of sites of ongoing armed conflicts worldwide.png is also missing Darfur. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Has been fixed. Readding. -- 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can of worms

I wonder if the phrase "Intifada in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories" is neutral. The phrase implies land occupied by Israel (presumably in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem) is rightly Palestinian and ignores Palestinian attacks in Israel proper. -- Mwalcoff 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to give it a neutral name. Hope that works better. --Mr. Billion 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Better, but I think it's best to simply say "al-Aqsa Intifada in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip." -- Mwalcoff 01:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

Although a broad topic, perhaps one should broaden the list by the war many terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, are waging in the west and in the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.55.142 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 July 2006

Nah. That's making the word "war" a little too figurative. --Mr. Billion 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and POV hounds will start fights over listing every semi/para/legitimate military organization in the book. Let's keep this as narrow and well-defined as possible. Angrynight 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to List of terrorist incidents. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

image update

Which one is up to date? The list (the table) or the image? There is some small conflicts in Indonesia, but not war, for example. --kandar 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This has since been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Uganda/Lord's Resistance Army

Is there a reason Uganda is not listed in the on-going wars section? There is a link from the Lord's Resistance Army page to this page, in reference to the conflict being one of the longest-running in Africa (since 1986). Just curious.

According to the article on the LRA the government of Uganda has not been able to end the insurgency to date and the LRA still has 2, 000 active combatants engaged in war. So yeah I would say that the war continues, so I added it to the list. - Chris Gilmore

Minor Disambig

I placed a note at the top of the page leading to War of Currents since this page redirects from Current Wars. I didn't think a whole disambiguation page was warranted. If you think a disambig page is necessary, then please feel free to create it, I'm on the fence on this one, and just want War of Currents to be easier to find. Angrynight 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Someone however removed it on 26 December 2006. I placed a new one 18 March 2007. Hope this one stays. -- Petri Krohn 14:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Phillipine Insurgency started in 1831?

This has been up here for quite a while, and unless I'm over looking something, the MILF began its war in 1981, and the NPR in 1969. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.172.112.96 (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

This has since been changed to 1969. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ogaden National Liberation Front

When did the conflict between the ONLF and the Ethiopian government begin? It needs to be added here. Richard Cane 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It has since been added, with a start date of 2007. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey map

Adding any line to any side of Turkey's borders is unacceptable . What is the thing in the southeast of Turkey shows ? Kurdistan ? Oh dream more ..

There are no wars ongoing on Southeast Turkey . The map should be corrected ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.99.6.67 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

The corresponding article Turkey-PKK conflict does not say that this conflict is over, and shows deaths as recently as February 2008. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Maoist insurgency in India" more consise

I made that little edit, but hadn't logged in yet. Sorry. Mikael Häggström 08:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Remove the Map

I think we really need to just take the map out entirely unless someone is going to personally keep it up to date. More than half of the comments here stem from the conflicts between the map and the list. Also with the very nature of "war" it really is too much effort to keep the map up to date. Opinions?157.174.221.167 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a neat little thing. Besides, it is easy to edit. Just download, paint, and upload again. That's what Wikipedia is all about. If people are dissatisfied because they keep complaining but never see any result, then it's their own fault. Wikipedia is editing, not just standing there and complaining. Mikael Häggström 06:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There, I updated it now. It just takes ten minutes or so. Mikael Häggström 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Myanmar/Burma

The insurgency in parts of Myanmar/Burma is still going on, see Karen National Union and [3]. So why do others remove Conflicts in Myanmar from the list? Béka 12:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Drug War

Does this really qualify as a war? It seems more like armed civil disorder to me, and I think it should be removed from the list. Blue403 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I agree with this guy. Because what about The USA's war on DrugsAlexNebraska (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been renamed, "Ongoing conflicts". -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Korean war

Where is the korean war on "ongoing war" section ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalh (talk • contribs) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There is no "ongoing war section", this list is for conflicts presently being fought with significant casualties, something the Korean War has been without for over 50 years 66.191.250.7 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
See declaration of war instead. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Synchronized list and image

I changed the list of conflicts to be concistent with the new map update. If you have any further suggestions you are free to contribute with them. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies

List of wars 2003–current, Image:Map of sites of ongoing armed conflicts worldwide.png, and Ongoing wars don't show the same info. The following are not listed as ongoing, but no end-date is given:

Since removed from the map. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now on the list. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now on the list. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now on the list. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now on the list. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now listed as ending in 1992. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Various periods are now listed separately with end dates. -- Beland (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now listed as Civil war in Afghanistan. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now listed as Insurgency in the Maghreb. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now listed with article. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now listed as ending in 1994.
Now listed as ending in 1993.
Now on the list. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Now listed as ending in 2004. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

These should either be supplied with an end-year, or re-listed.

Listed as ongoing but not on the map:

Now on the map. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Still on the map, but not listed as ongoing:

Removed from map. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Added to list. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Added to list. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed from map. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Needs to be removed from the map; ended in 1994. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's been fixed on the map to indicate the active but isolated conflict. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Beland 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I added Afghanistan back to the active list, given the renewed seriousness of continued fighting there. -- Beland 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Chhattisgarh

Should the conflict in Chhattisgarh be added here? -- Beland 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Communist Party of India (Maoist)

I have read that the military wing of the CPI (M) currently has ten thousand guerrilla figthers and has been engaged in open combat with Indian police and military. I think that qualifies the rebellion in the states of Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Orissa. Also these states are highlighted on the world map of ongoing conflicts, so I will add the insurgency. - Chris Gilmore

Mistake on the Map

For some reason, Georgia in Eastern Europe is shown as if it were in war. It is not more realistic that to put Spain, for example, in the red color. Could you (who created the map and look after it) fix this? Pirveli 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)\

Ok, I have pointed out a serious blunder on the map, nobody pays attention for 10 days, so I guess I will delete this map quite soon to bring your attention to this issue, guys. Pirveli 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Abkhazia? AnonMoos 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What about Abkhazia? You think there is a war there right now? If you do, your info is kind of wrong:) Pirveli 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Georgia is no longer colored red. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ituri

As the Ituri conflict is now over, can I move to the other lists? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. —Nightstallion (?) 00:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been moved. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

2013 updates

Chad

Chad is not included on the list and yet it is shaded on the map. Can we please remove it from the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prepster (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Chad is listed in Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present), but I'm not very knowledgeable of this conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Chad should be removed. I recently made some order at the Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present), and apparently Chad has only limited involvement in that conflict, with none (or marginal) happening on its soil.GreyShark (dibra) 21:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done - Chad removed from map.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Western Sahara conflict removed

An IP removed the Western Sahara conflict, indicating that the military phase of the conflict ended in 1991. I tend to agree in accordance with the above proposed set of guidelines (civil protests do not belong to this list, even if they result in multiple casualties).GreyShark (dibra) 23:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Map updated: Western Sahara removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

CAR conflict - major

Seems like the CAR conflict is clearly a major one - almost 400 killed in last 3 days. Any source on full 2013 casualties?GreyShark (dibra) 17:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly over 1,000 killed by now. so -  Done.GreyShark (dibra) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
@FutureTrillionaire: please update CAR conflict as major in the map.GreyShark (dibra) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done Nice job with the research and calculations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you as well, your contributions here are vital and finally those tables and maps are reasonably arranged and sourced.GreyShark (dibra) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Morocco

For some reason it is on the map; should be removed (perhaps it is on the map due to Western Sahara conflict, which is not an armed conflict any more).GreyShark (dibra) 21:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) article, Morocco is involved in that conflict, or some of the insurgency is taking place in Morocco.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Not really, Morocco may be involved there, but except arresting some "al-Qaeda suspects" on their territory, nothing has happened in Morocco so far. The main activity of this conflict is in Algeria and Niger. The article on insurgency is pretty bad - nothing is sourced.GreyShark (dibra) 18:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
checkY Removed from map.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Xinjiang conflict

I think Xinjiang conflict should be removed from this article. The term "Xinjiang conflict" seems to be used to describe various protests and terrorist attacks that have occurred in Xinjiang. This doesn't seem to be an "armed conflict". The United States occasionally experiences protests and terrorist attacks. Does that mean that there is an armed conflict in America? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - Xinjiang conflict refers to East Turkestan Independence Movement insurgency and associated events. In comparison, also in Turkey not all events are linked directly with PKK conflict, but are put within the context of the armed struggle; same in Iran with PJAK and in Iraq with Iraqi insurgents.GreyShark (dibra) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that state that there is an insurgency in Xinjiang? There is a big difference between insurgency and terrorism.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Terrorism by a militant group is generally a form of insurgency. The reason attacks don't follow the pattern of what might be considered a traditional insurgency is that it is extremely difficult for militant groups to acquire arms in china. Most attacks by the ETIM in china are low tech often militants are only armed with knives, homemade weaponry, and simple crude explosives.XavierGreen (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Here you go - "China believes the East Turkestan Islamic Movement aims to establish an independent East Turkestan in Xinjiang, and blames the group for the low-intensity insurgency in the region." [4]. If that satisfies you, please add China to the map.GreyShark (dibra) 21:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

Initially i thought there is some armed aspect to the political conflict, but it seems that except Sinai insurgency (a separate case), nothing serious has happened in Egypt in terms of armed struggle so far. I'm in favor to remove it as a non-armed conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The Morsi-supporters have not taken up arms.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been a huge uptick in the conflict in the sinai this year and that is a military conflict but i dont think the protests in Egypt constitute an armed conflict though.XavierGreen (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Disagree - Many Morsi supporters HAVE taken up arms (even if minimal) and carried out several attacks and assassinations in many places in Egypt other than the Sinai. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I know that, this is why i initially thought that the conflict belongs here. Can you bring some good sources?GreyShark (dibra) 22:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

July 24 - Mansoura bombing: (1) (2) (3)
August 14 - Kerdasa massacre: (video) (1) (2) (3)
September 19 - General shot dead in Kerdasa: (1) (2) (3)
November 18 - Assassination of Mohamed Mabrouk: (1) (2) (3)
December 12 - Ismailia bombing: (1) (2) (3)
And many others.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but there is the Muslim Brotherhood political wing claim that they have nothing to do with it. Bortherhood do have arms, but i'm not sure this is a military conflict yet.GreyShark (dibra) 10:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
But there are armed groups involved whether the MB says it's behind the attacks or not. They're just players in all of this and they're not the only Islamists in the country.
Also, even if some those armed groups come from the Sinai, they still perform their attacks in other parts of the country. Lebanon's spillover conflict from Syria is already mentioned in the list and i find mentioning the post-coup violence in Egypt a bit similar but of course that's not the only reason i believe it should be listed. I also believe time will explain things much further in the coming days in Egypt.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Update: The article's name became Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present) now, in case the word "protests" bothered anyone. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm still tending to agree with @FTrillionaire that the conflict is still "civil". I welcome other users to comment. I guess the situation may change any day however.GreyShark (dibra) 09:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Somalia

Does anyone have a source for Somalia casualties this year? The current source is just about the Kenyan mall shootings. Just looking at 2013 timeline of the War in Somalia I count at least 255 addition casualties, but someone must have a better source. Empire3131 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Empire3131: See below (response by Xavier).GreyShark (dibra) 05:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

South Sudanese internal violence

I see Lihaas added South Sudan's recent crisis. Let's hope it will not deteriorate into a major conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 21:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor is reporting 1,000 dead in South Sudan as of today, so it could categorize as a major conflict. 50.186.215.232 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, should go to majors.GreyShark (dibra) 10:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Now i'm suddenly puzzled with the claim that the 2013 South Sudanese political crisis is a part of the ongoing South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present). Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 10:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I'm seeing some major citation overkill. Although it is important to make sure information is properly sourced, too many citations can impede readability. Would it be possible to delete some citations, or better yet, merge them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B14709 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have temporarily addressed this issue by collapsing any 3 or more citations. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

shading for the US

I've changed the shading for the US to red, because, on average, more than 1,000 people per year have been killed in the ongoing war in Afghanistan and the US continues to participate in that war. Sources:

It means that all the nations involved in major conflicts must be shaded in red? Helliko (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC).
Only territories of countries with conflicts should be marked, not those sending forces.GreyShark (dibra) 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I've indicated that decision in the image's description and in the caption in the Wikipedia article (I linked to [5] which I hope matches the criteria that were used), and reverted my change. Is there an image which shows the warring parties in the Afghanistan war? —rybec 05:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Good work, thanks. What do you mean regarding Afghanistan? A map or a list of participants?GreyShark (dibra) 16:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

More 2014 changes

addition Nagorno Karabakh

Shouldn't the Nagorno Karabakh conflict be added to the list of minor conflicts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.98.210 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Any casualties recently?GreyShark (dibra) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes there a a significant number of deaths on the front every year. For example, [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]. Heavy fighting regularly erupts without a moments notice along the front, and sniper attacks are a frequent occurance.74.105.130.90 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done Also Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article created for this purpose.GreyShark (dibra) 16:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I've tinted Armenia and Azerbaijan in orange on the map. —rybec 12:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

War in Darfur and Sudan-SRF conflict

Both conflicts are said to be ongoing, but we list only the Sudan-SRF conflict here. There also seems to be much overlap. Can anyone enlighten us on the situation in Sudan? Does the Sudan-SRF conflict makes an aftermath of the War in Darfur or is it a part of it?GreyShark (dibra) 20:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Paraguayan People's Army campaign

I noticed there has been Paraguayan People's Army campaign listed here in the past. Is there any evidence for it to resurge recently?GreyShark (dibra) 16:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently ongoing - Guerrillas Step Up Campaign in Paraguay (November 2013 - 5 killed). Adding to the list.GreyShark (dibra) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Moro insurgency

There has recently been an announcement by Moro on putting down arms, however i must remind you that only if no casualties are indeed recorded until the end of this year, we may remove it. Correct for today, it is just another conflict which is ongoing despite peace efforts, like Kurdish insurgency in Iran, Kurdish-Turkish conflict, Nagorno-Karabach conflict and others.GreyShark (dibra) 06:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency 2014 death toll

The 2014 figure of 2,074 deaths seems too low. According to Iraq Body Count,there have been 3,015 deaths during the first three months of the year. Fatalities currently average about 30 each day. Since it has been 110 days so far this year, a better figure would be 3,300. As of April 20, the 2014 death toll is 3,660. Zee money (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Zee money

"1,000= deaths per year" - should this be "1,000+ deaths per year" ?

Re "1,000=" - this use of the equals symbol doesn't make much sense to me. If the section is for "more than 1000" then should it be a '1,000+' or '>1,000' or something? Or we could say "More than 1,000".

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Some vandal user created this  Fixed.GreyShark (dibra) 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Kenya in the Somali Civil War

Can we consider the recent significant attacks in Kenya as a part of Somalia's spillover conflict? Kenya is more than just 'involved' now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Map changes

Changes required for the ongoing conflicts map:

If anyone can help it would be highly appreciated, because in its current form the map is very misleading to readers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of these requested changes are questionable. Violence between North and South Korea has been minimal over the years. It has been agreed that Morocco should be removed (see 2013 updates thread). I don't think casualties from a major crackdown on protests (Egypt, August 2013) should be included in this article, which is about wars. Shading these countries would be more misleading than not shading them. Also, Uganda is already on the map.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Colouring of Russia

My general feeling is that Russia is such a tremendously large country that it looks a bit wrong to colour in the entire country on the map. The actual location of the insurgency in Russia, namely, the North Caucasian Federal District itself has an area of 170,000km2, that's larger than most countries, and even then, the NCFD is the second smallest of the nine federal districts of Russian.

As such, my argument would be that:

  • The Russian federal districts are so huge that they exceed most countries in size.
  • The North Caucasian Federal District, at 170,000km2 is large enough that it could easily be seen on a map if coloured in
  • However, it is still the second smallest of nine enormous districts, and thus it seems a bit wrong to allow that to be representative of the entire country, whose landmass covers a monumental 17,098,242km2, roughly the size of South America and almost 100 times the size of the NCFD.

I'm not too certain of what the opinion is on this issue, but I think it's worth bringing up all the same. Uranium grenade (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not a practicle solution, colouring only first order political divisions was tried in the past and was virtually impossible to keep current and accurate. The sourcing alone for such a detailed project is virtually impossible with the limited resources available to editors hear.XavierGreen (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Additionally your assertion that the conflict is restricted to the NCFD is not exactly accurate, as there have been bombings and other insurgent attacks in other federal districts including in Moscow itself.XavierGreen (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Why is this not listed? Am I missing something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo#Civil_wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.142.132 (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yemen

Does Yemen enjoy some kind of special status that allows it to continually be mapped as the location of a high-intensity conflict when there has been no evidence of such a conflict in years? 75.131.42.151 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Combined between the three ongoing conflicts in yemen there are over 1000 casualties this year. There are well over 700 casualties in the al qaeda conflict and over 300 in the houthi conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't that information be cited in the article then? The present totals for this year (and last year) are less than 500. Also, by the logic applied above, (northern) Sudan should also be labeled a high-intensity nation, due to the sum of its multiple conflicts exceeding 1000 last year. 209.92.200.98 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be yes, the numbers cited on the page for vitually all conflicts are woefully incomplete and outdated. For example here is a source stating that at least 540 combatants had been killed between april 1st and june 5th in the al-qaeda conflict in yemen alone.XavierGreen (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria

I have noticed that the Islamist insurgency by book harem in Nigeria is no longer on the list of major wars, even though the death toll continues to climb??Leo33675 (talk)

@Leo33675: Apparently, the issue has already been fixed (it is certainly a major conflict).GreyShark (dibra) 19:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine/Crimea threshold?

There is no doubt this is an armed conflict, though the casualties have been curbed by the players. Clearly the Russian military occupies and annexed Crimea. Where does the line get drawn with regard to such 21st century tactics in conflicts? Are casualties the only metric of an armed conflict? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We use 25 deaths as the threshold, since it is the threshold used by many organizations (such as Upsella) in determining whether or to list a conflict as active. As for Crimea, that conflict is no longer active and never reached the 25 deaths threshold, however the insurgency in eastern Ukraine will probably reach it soon and be listed.74.105.130.90 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand the measure the article uses based on death toll. That is what I question. That would usually make sense. My reason for bringing this up is this situation is not the norm for such situations. I am at a loss for a historic example of comparison. Can Crimea be dismissed as not an 'armed conflict' because the Russian forces weren't opposed and the casualties were minimized? Can the reality on the ground in Crimea be divorced from the eastern Ukrainian strife given the international denial of Russian autonomy there. Given, by design, this conflict is murky and difficult to define. However a state's sovereignty being violated, and subjugated, by another states armed forces. In defining the article does this imply that when one armed force imposes itself belligerently and faces no credible opposition or resistance, and in the process absorbs assets of that nation's forces, in military terms it is not defined as an armed conflict? Then what else is it, passive subjugation? Perhaps the article should be 'Ongoing hot armed conflicts'? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You are describing a political conflict; as long as there are no significant deaths - this is not a notable armed conflict, otherwise, practically anything could be listed here. Armed is equivalent to violent, meaning multiple deaths.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The threshold is 100 deaths total, and 1+ per last year. Some sources also use 25 deaths per year, but this is too high in my opinion, so we implement the first one.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Support adding Ukraine - Making 100 deaths a threshold is completely arbitrary. There is obviously an insurgency going on in eastern Ukraine. What constitutes a war is not dependent on the number of causalities. See the dictionary definition: "a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
disagree, without putting a threshold also the 2000 Cochabamba protests, California Water Wars and Water wars in Florida could have made it to be here. The sources which list conflicts rely on deaths alone. period. In case of Ukraine, however, it is highly possible 100 deaths are not far away, but not yet.GreyShark (dibra) 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I originally moved this page to its current location to resolve an issue ongoing at the time where various things were being added such as riots, mobs attacks, and other sorts of sustained unorganized violance as well as so called wars against social concepts like the war on drugs and poverty. Those types of incidents were clearly not intended to be listed on this page when While the criteria are somewhat ambiguous, i think it is quite clear that in order for an outbreak of violence to be listed here the a conflict must be of at least a quasi military like nature: ie it must consist of two organized armed forces engaged in combat with one another. Another thing that i believe should be required is that the conflict be one of a sustained nature. For example a one off border clash like 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash would not be listed here.
So while Euromaiden itself i don't think would be listed here, the Donetsk People's Republic insurgency likely would qualify without a overall casualty threshold.
I do think that the overall casualty threshold minimum is somewhat arbitrary, but that at least one death should have occurred within the current or past year for a conflict to be listed here.XavierGreen (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ask and you shall receive, I guess. The 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article says that there have been 25 deaths. It also doesn't appear to include the casualties of May 2, 2014 in that total. I'd recommend adding it to the list of ongoing conflicts. Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

With the events of the past weekend, it seems the argument is pointless - the number of deaths has reached around 100. Now it is clearly in the list.GreyShark (dibra) 16:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please qualify how long a 'conflict' needs to have been going in order for it to be 'ongoing'? Two days? Two months? Two years. There's a notable absence of criteria (even a criterion) for the definition in this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no rule for that, but it is custom to look at this differently: in case there were deaths during this or past year, then the conflict is ongoing. If calendar year passes with no casualties, then the conflict is technically over (most declarations on cease-fire or peace do not reflect reality for this matter, unless deaths stop piling up).GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine has become a major conflict

Official estimates range between 423 (UN) to 1,250 (Ukrainian government). This is then a major conflict. Sadly.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 changes

Well, there has been some major copy-editing recently, attributed to 2013-14 transition of dates. There were however few changes, as listed below.GreyShark (dibra) 09:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Mexican drug war

Excuse me, I just want to ask a question. Why is Mexico listed in the 1000+ casualties/year list, if the same list says there have been 66+ casualties in 2014?LJ-38M (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Somali civil war

Moved to minor conflicts since there are no sources for major casualties in 2013.GreyShark (dibra) 09:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure the casualties are well in excess of 1,000. If one did a search through news archives, i'm sure they would be able to find in excess of 1000 casualties.74.105.130.90 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
January-March only, 600-700+: http://www.acleddata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ACLED-Country-Report_Somalia_April-2013.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.110.158.9 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I see that the table lists around 300 casualties in January-March, but there is no exact number.GreyShark (dibra) 20:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Colombian conflict

moved to minor conflicts since there is no info on casualties for 2013 and indeed it seems the conflict is less violent now.GreyShark (dibra) 09:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

South China Sea tensions

Not yet relevant since we are talking on occasional incidents with few casualties overall. Once it reaches 100 deaths, we may consider inclusion (see clarification notes at the top of the article).GreyShark (dibra) 09:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Civil conflict in the Philippines

The Civil conflict in the Philippines refers to the ongoing civil war in the country with the New People's Army and the Moro people against the government that began in 1969. The two conflicts may not be the same ideologically but the fact that they are occurring simultaneously and cover pretty much the same area (Mindanao), they should be grouped together. This is similar to the Somali Civil War or the Internal conflict in Burma where different factions not aligned with each other are fighting the government. The previous conflict the Hukbalahap Rebellion ended 15 years before the present one began so there was a period of peace albeit briefly.--Theparties (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Fruit of Misuari's Capitulation", Bulatlat. Quezon City, Philippines. December 2 - 8, 2001.:
"Among those who found the agreement spurious was Jose Maria Sison, the founding chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines and once a comrade of Misuari’s in the underground Kabataang Makabayan."

The Founding leaders were in cahoots with each other in order to start the conflict. I could find other sources from Google but I think this will suffice.--Theparties (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

They are surely related, and so are Arab League conflicts, but there are reasons to keep them apart.GreyShark (dibra) 18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
What are those reasons?--Theparties (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Generally it seems there is a geographic and political separation between those conflicts in the Philippines, so we should treat them as separate. Same in Iran - there have been several insurgencies ongoing through the last decade, but not related with each others (MEK, KDPI, Jundallah, Akhwaz separatists).GreyShark (dibra) 20:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment -First of all, there is a lot of inconsistencies with the table; the Internal conflict in Burma is a series of unrelated conflicts but they are grouped together. Second, the "Communist insurgency" is in fact two unrelated conflicts, one of them (The Hukbalahap Rebellion) ended in 1954. You did not even consider my arguments. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I'm not re-merging them because doing so is Sisyphian labor. We are never going to get a consensus. Although, I am putting the correct title and the correct date.--Theparties (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem, i agree with you - it should be separated from the Hukbalahap Rebellion.GreyShark (dibra) 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

CAR conflict

An ip is trying to remove it over and over again, claiming the Central African conflict is over, which is not accepted for two reasons - first, it is too early to determine the conflict is over (since it is a major conflict, it should actually anyway stay on the list until the end of the year); secondly, i just saw news that more people are killed [9], so nothing is over until it is really over.GreyShark (dibra) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern Mali

The table here lists just 9 fatalities in 2013, but I count about 275 in 2013 on Northern Mali conflict. Junuxx (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly it is much more than 9, please add more with sources.GreyShark (dibra) 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Egypt

Considering this, this and this, i'm now tending to the idea to add Egyptian crisis as a (low-level) military conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 20:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

About time, and there's a lot more than this. But kindly give us your opinion on the recent developments in the article's discussion because it's a lot more than a "civil" conflict. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Probably however we should simply expand Sinai insurgency (already in the list) to the whole Egyptian political crisis (2011-present).GreyShark (dibra) 05:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree because Timeline of the 2011–present Egyptian civil unrest is a poorly developed article and it's still in a very bad shape. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
So what do you propose?GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be best if we added Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present) for now then wait to see if there is a chance to improve the parent article. Also, not all events in the civil unrest are armed conflicts (the notable ones at least), they are mostly "civil" like you said before. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Not all the events in Syrian civil war are armed, but once there is a significant armed element it becomes an "armed conflict". It is clear that Sinai insurgency and current Islamist unrest are armed (at least partially) and they are both clearly a part of the general political crisis in Egypt. I supported your merge of the aftermath article - it can be a good basis for complete crisis description.GreyShark (dibra) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed your support now, sorry. Maybe we have consensus on the other issue now. But please note that the non-armed events of the Syrian Civil War have a special article → Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War. And there is also a recent proposal i made in the Islamist unrest's talk page of whether to create a separate article for the non-civil conflict events and to keep the original article for protests only. I'll appreciate it if you gave us your opinion there too. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Note, that civil uprising in Syria also included armed clashes in June 2011; the civil uprising phase is a general definition for first phase of the Syrian civil war. You cannot separate Islamic unrest in Egypt to "armed" and "non-armed" if it occurs in the same place and in the same time (in case of Sinai it is at least separate location). It seems there is an armed element in the Islamic unrest in my opinion, so it is still unrest (not uprising per WP:COMMONNAME) but is already armed conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 22:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sort of confused sorry. Do you want to add the Islamist unrest or the 2011–present civil unrest as a whole? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Fitzcarmalan: I suggest to exchange Sinai insurgency (already listed and part of the 2011-present Egyptian political crisis), with the 2011-present Egyptian crisis. I don't think it is a good idea to have both Sinai insurgency and the Islamist uprising here because they are both clearly interconnected. Do you agree?GreyShark (dibra) 11:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How can the Sinai insurgency be part of the unrest when the latter is still called civil unrest? The Sinai conflict is an impact and is not part of the core events. I also do maintain that a bigger part of the 2011-present civil unrest is not considered an armed conflict.

I agree with you however, that it's not necessary to add both the Sinai insurgency and the Islamist unrest separately in this article. But in my opinion, the 2011-present civil unrest article has to be moved first to be mentioned here. Maybe if we called it civil uprising it would be better? Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I would go for "Egyptian political conflict (2011-present)", thus not using the word civil, which complicates things.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with civil to be honest. It's just confusing when associated with unrest. Egypt was always in a "political conflict" and the date tag wouldn't do much difference. You can go ahead with your proposal for now, but we should also agree on a proper title to make a RM because in its current form it would complicate things later like you said. I prefer civil uprising since the 2011 revolt is also called an "uprising" and the Muslim Brotherhood also called for an uprising after the coup. I could go for crisis too as it is the most neutral and is used by numerous sources. The Islamist unrest is also called an "insurgency" by many sources [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], and thus can't be encompassed under "political conflict". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
"Crisis" sounds good to me, you are welcome to nominate rename to "Egyptian crisis (2011-present)" or similar. I would support.GreyShark (dibra) 18:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 DoneGreyShark (dibra) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Ukraine

I think Ukraine should be added to minor conflicts, giving the fact that the Russian invasion of Crimea is technically an undeclared act of war, as of March 2, 2014.

Not yet, we only include it if there are cumulative 100+ casualties (hopefully not), otherwise it is not notable as an "armed" conflict, but rather political.GreyShark (dibra) 09:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added yet, because there are no fatalities reported yet attributable to the conflict, but i disagree with the 100+ limit. Various other reputable organizations use 25 as a bottom limit for notability.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Somalia Casualty Figures

I finally was able to find a report on casualty figures for 2013 in somalia. acleddata reports that there were an estimated 3150 casualties in Somalia during 2013 down from an estimated 3300 in 2012. The source information can be found here [[15]].XavierGreen (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please add it and relocate Somalia war to major conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 05:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

General questions

Since the standard appears to be a minimum of 100 deaths to qualify as a conflict for the wikipedia page, it makes sense to remove all the conflicts that did not eclipse 100 deaths in 2013. That would include:

Kurdish separatism in Iran
Korean Conflict
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Papua Conflict
Communist insurgency in the Philippines
Internal conflict in Peru
Casamance conflict
Kurdish-Turkish Conflict
LRA insurgency
Xinjiang conflict
Insurgency in the MAghreb (at a minimum the "countries need to be updated since conflicts have only been in Algeria and Nigeria in 2013)
South Yemen insurgency
Sudan-SPLM-N conflict

I would like input to see what people think, but I think it would be consistent to remove those from the ongoing conflicts section. (71.206.111.234 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC))

The threshold rule is 100 casualties TOTAL (not per year), in order to exclude single incidents which do not develop into prolonging conflicts (such as the Crimean crisis).GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Colouring Ukraine

According to both, government and rebels, the death toll has surpassed the 1,000 mark needed to blur Ukraine in red. What do you think?Helliko (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The source in the table is for a BBC article which has no mention of 1,250 people killed. I've tagged that reference as such. Further, the EN wiki article on the conflict as a whole has: Killed: 237–348 militants (indep. estimates);650 militants (gov't claim);800[24]–1,000[43] militants (separatist claim);. I prefer independent estimates to the highly POV claims of the combatants. In this regard would someone please:
  1. Fix get the Ukraine conflict out of the 1000+ list (for the second time in a week now) and
  2. Fix the map?
Thanks. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The BBC article DOES mention that number. There's a section "Human cost of conflict" below the pictures, just add the numbers together. 37.72.122.52 (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Philippine Moro Conflict

A user has been removing the conflict, however it is still ongoing. Abu Sayaf, BIFF, as well as dissident MNLF groups are still fighting in the southern philippines. The user asserts that the conflict is inactive, however recent news reports indicate otherwise. See here [[16]], [[17]].XavierGreen (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The fighting is over. The last reports I heard said the violence was in Malaysia, not the Philippines. The Moros were always the main combatants in this conflict, and they have laid down their arms. The conflict is effectively over. Even if their are still some deaths, it doesn't mean that the war will continue. Lots of Conflicts have had violence continue after the war ended, and with the exception of the Korean conflict, they violence usually subsides soon afterwards. Toolen (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
All armed groups resisting Philippine rule in the ARMM are made out of Moros, whether its MILF, MNLF (Muslimin Sema faction), MNLF (Nur Misuari faction), BIFF, or Abu Sayyaf. Only the MILF and MNLF (Muslimin Sema facton) have signed the current peace deal. MNLF (Nur Misuari faction), BIFF, and Abu Sayyaf are all continuing armed conflict against the Philippines. Just last month, Abu Sayyaf was fighting and killing Philippine troops, and the Philippine army was hunting down a BIFF bombmaker. Nur Misuari's MNLF faction pulled off this major raid last September - Zamboanga City crisis.
In 1996, Nur Misuari's MNLF faction signed a peace deal with the Philippine government. But the MILF and Abu Sayyaf just continued the war and it was most certainly not over. Misuari's MNLF then returned to the war in 2002. Then in 2008, when the MILF started negotiating with the Philippines, the BIFF led by Ameril Umbra Kato split off from MILF explicitly because of the peace talks, so BIFF could continue waging war against the Philippines.Rajmaan (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Conflict is still ongoing with BIFF and Abu Sayyaf. Perhaps we should be distinguishing more than one conflict here though. GeoEvan (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with GeoEvan and others - conflict clearly ongoing.GreyShark (dibra) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine deathtoll

The death toll of 2038, cited to some lists at the UK wiki, seems a bit absurd. The EN wiki article on the conflict cites the UN at 356 killed, and numerous WP:RS sources at the death toll in the low hundreds. Can this please be fixed? --Robert.Labrie (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 FixedGreyShark (dibra) 18:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Again(?), wiki lists 1450 death toll with link to Reuters. However that page gives only quite vague "258 Ukrainian servicemen have been killed, ... Hundreds of civilians and rebels have also died." - what's the origin of ~1450 fatalities? 95.135.29.159 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

UN says 356, but it is clearly way above 1,000. Just the Malaysian airliner incident added 298.GreyShark (dibra) 20:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

It seems the article is once again targeted by vandals, thus i propose protection maesures, any opposition?GreyShark (dibra) 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've only seen one or two instances of vandalism on this page in the past couple days, and it's just been adding more zeroes to numbers. If we protected every page that someone scribbles on this wouldn't be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. —Kazinsal(t·c) 02:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
There were several deletions with IPs and some user removed and added several conflicts with no discussion. See history.GreyShark (dibra) 20:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts/Archive_1&oldid=635170819"