Talk:List of ongoing military conflicts

WikiProject Military history

(Rated List-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... Associated task forces (general topics): National militaries task force

Iraq War

There has not been any major battles, attacks, or activity in Iraq over the past 6 months. Also, over the past 3 months it seems like most of the fighting has moved to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am suggesting that Iraq War move to a conflict rather than a major war. Also, to support this there has been confirmation from WSJ.com, NYTimes and numerous other news agencies that the plan to withdraw troops is on and troops have already begun to be withdrawn. Dgreco (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The categories are 1000+ per year and <1000 a year. Here is a source which is commonly considered reliable, it's about Iraq War casualties. Under the table of coalition casualties you can find one for Iraqi casualties, civilian and military. I'll quote it for you:

• Oct-09 35 285,
• Sep-09 62 96,
• Aug-09 42 397,
• Jul-09 47 193,
• Jun-09 51 316,
• May-09 39 149,
• Apr-09 45 302,
• Mar-09 49 229,
• Feb-09 39 163,
• Jan-09 54 133.

This totals 2726 (and these are not even the complete figures) for just 10 out of 12 months of this year. While coalition casualties are 136 so far, it would make a total of 2862 this year, which is well over a thousand. Iraqi Insurgent casualties are per, this wikipedia article 289 so far (and that's excluding suicide bombers). I'm putting it back in the 1000+ list.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(paragraph moved by 92.117.118.80 (talk) to merge sections) I think that the "Civil War in Iraq" should be taken off this page. Both the articles for Civil War In Iraq and the Iraq war say that they are over and this list should reflect that. -- 65.39.13.223 (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Iraq should be removed from this list because it has moved to be a peacekeeping like the US has in many other countries that are not on this list. It is now a war that ended recently. ~Stidmatt 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stidmatt (talk • contribs)

It's still an ongoing conflict. Check Iraq_Body_Count_project#Body_count. -- 92.117.118.80 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bangladesh and others

There is currently a Maoist insurgency in Bangladesh. It is not as big as the one in India but the BBC reports in a recent article that 70 people died last year. 3 cops were killed yestoday. It certainly should be added to the list and map.

There are also small Maoist insurgencies still active in Turkey and Peru (2 turkish guerillas died a few weeks ago). And the situation in Nepal is has the occasional violent spillage too.

There are many conflicts, some very low intensity, that should not be ignored. Perhaps differant shades of blue should be added to the map, rather than just 2 ? Conflicts like northern Ireland, Peru, Greece, etc could be a pale blue. I think this would be a good idea, as such small conflicts need to be mentioned, but not alongside the more active wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.226.199 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be interesting; do we have sources or Wikipedia articles for this though? -- 92.117.118.80 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorting the tables

Not directly related to this specific article, but I think Wikipedia needs a better sorting system for those tables. Trying to sort the tables for fataties will result in inproper sorting: placing 6,000 next to 600,000 and the ~2,500 at the end. Perhaps a way of solving would be adding a hidden bogus number just for sorting purposes (e.g. someone manually assigns numbers 100, 200, 300, etc to the current entries on the table, then when entering new entries, users are advised to properly place a bogus number like 150 for the things in the middle, or leaving it blank (thus sorted at the end until someone adds the number) and bots could search wikipedia tables for numbers like 150, 175 and reassign number to the whole table in the 100, 200, etc; Note that this () is just an idea, but the problem still should be considered). I know this may not be the best place for such comment, but I don't know where is, sorry. I'd like to ask that whoever knows please copy this to the proper place. 189.123.161.217 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw the same problem myself which is why I'm here, and I while, given that it hasn't been addressed since August 2010, I don't have high hopes it'll be fixed, I do know what the problem is. The table sorts numbers, those of total casualties let's say, "alphabetically" rather than by their numerical value. This is why, for example, The list currently reads along the lines of, "4000, 3500, 2,000,000, 19,000, 1500." I don't know if there is a way to just change what value the table uses to organize data or if, as the previous poster said, we need to assign ghost numbers in front of the values. In either case, it's not something I have the know-how to fix: I just figured I'd try to be somewhat helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.149.148 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict in the Niger Delta

If we believe is written in this article, then the war ended in 2009. However, some editors are regularly added this conflict in a list of ongoing wars, [1], [2], [3]. An anonymous editor without any arguments changed this article, and another editor argues its actions solely in French. Who is right in this situation?.Sentinel R (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You, you begin to annoy me, you do not give yourself any argument as to end the conflict in 2009. This conflict is not over. The amnesty has affected a very small number, and activists for many it is a travesty of the Government of Nigeria. Now instead of crying gives me arguments.For information, I am not a "small" contributor and I know quite well the field of armed struggle because I am one of the main contributors to this issue on the French wikipedia. Thank you. Yotna (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I spit on your threat. Provide references that the war continues or to stop vandalism in the article.Sentinel R (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're really starting to annoy me. I'll give them your sources: [4] [5] [6] Now YOU @#!*% English gives your sources ! Yotna (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Links do not work. In any case, let the administrators had already dealt with this problem - [7].Sentinel R (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty to reformat the links; should work now. -- 92.117.118.80 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yotna, please restrain yourself from making personal attacks. Noneofyour (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Civil war in Iraq?

This violates Wikis stance on neutrality by taking sides in political issues. It would be more neutral such as 'violence in Iraq'.

I suggest we let editors figure this out over at "Civil_war_in_Iraq" and follow their naming convention. If/when that article gets renamed, we can change the text on this page. -- 92.117.118.80 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I think that the current status of the page is the only solution until the current conflict is resolved...--Novus Orator 04:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Image out of date

The image doesn't have DR Congo, Central African Republic and Uganda (Lord's Resistance Army insurgency) colored; possibly more (didn't check). Someone care to update it? -- 109.250.214.90 (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

European Terrorism (Basque conflict)

Basque conflict isn´t a military conflict, it´s a crime/political conflict. Spain and France use their security forces to combat the basque terrorism, not their armies. I think a terrorist conflict must be included in this list when a armed group and army fought. ETA attack spanish armed forces personal, but spanish armed forces isn´t attack basque terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.86.213 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is ongoing military conflict. What you write - it's original research. Before you arrange a edit warring, please provides links to authoritative sourced. Otherwise your changes will be rolledback, and you will be blocked from editing.Sentinel R (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn´t a ongoing military conflict. See this http://www.elpais.com/especial/eta/historia.html (in spanish). Spanish and French armed forces aren´t fighting basque terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.86.213 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article about war. War = military conflict. In Basque country are carried out military actions killed thousands of people. No need to replace the concept. Plus, you again morning of edit warring, so I will to contact the administrator.Sentinel R (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree to you, but it´s Basque Conflict it´s a ongoing war, I think this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_Irish_Republican_Army and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Continuity_IRA_actions#2010 should be considered as war. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.55.108 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This armed group is not a "war". Write an article about the armed conflict with the participation of this group and add it to the list.Sentinel R (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This armed group is in a war. The armed conflict with the participation could be this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Ok, you can say that The Troubles in Nothern Ireland are finish, but there is some IRA factions that no recognize they, like Continuity IRA. If you check the second link you can see that the last C-IRA action was in september 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.71.11 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In this article the date, when this war ended, in 1998. If you do not agree with this, you first discuss it on the discussion page in that article. And do not delete the Basque country from the list.Sentinel R (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I only comunicate you. I can discute the article because it´s judging by Wikipedia moderators. I think this is a ongoing wars discussion and I think I can talk about this. I only show some contradictions of Wikipedia, only this. I only want to help you to do a best on-line encyclopedia. Only this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.71.11 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, stop deleting information from this article. If you continue, you will be blocked again and again.Sentinel R (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spain and France aren´t in war with basques. I live in Basque country and all it´s normal. There isn´t tanks and soldiers fighting ETA. ETA last victim was in march of this years. You aren´t neutral in this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ETA_attacks#2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.157.175.160 (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• We have an IP editor -- perhaps more than one -- who keeps blanking the Basque Conflict entry without explanation. I wonder why? Is it an objection to the inclusion of the conflict as a "war" or maybe it's because a ceasefire has been declared? (see ETA#2010_ceasefire) In any event, should the ceasefire hold, perhaps we can remove this entry. --S. Rich

(talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Note -- Basque Country now added to locations listing. Flag not used IAW MOS:FLAG (and I could not find a flag icon for them!) --S. Rich (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I remove Basque Country because Basque conflict isn´t a war. There is a ETA history in this thread and none read this. There isn´t spanish and french units fighting ETA terrorism. ETA terrorism it´s a crime/political trouble not a military problem. An armed group don´t make a war, said Sentinel R about CIRA. And there is now a ceasefire, so the conflict it´s stopped untill a new information by ETA.

Please note the article deals with military conflicts -- not war. While the idea of a "military conflict" (distinct from "war") is vague, it is broad enough to include conflicts where the military is involved. The Basque Conflict article mentions that 98 Spanish Army soldiers are casualties (dead). The Spanish destroyer Marques de Ensada was bombed too. So there is military involvement -- certainly enough to include the conflict in this list of "military conflicts." Perhaps the 2010 ceasefire will hold and it can come off this list of ongoing conflicts. But that editorial decision is for another day.--S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UT

98 soldiers died in more than 30 years of conflict. ETA kills soldiers, policemen, politicians, journalist... I think in an armed conflict there is a military involvement, with attacks of the army to the terrorist and attacks of the terrorist to the army. In the case of Basque countries, attacks are in one way: terrorist attack soldiers in their plan to collapse the law. End.

I'm afraid I may be late here, but I was the one who created the Basque Conflict page and who originally added it here. First of all, I have say that I added it when the page was named "List of ongoing political conflicts", so at that time it made sense. If any contributors or editor now thinks it does not fit anymore in this page, I guess it is ok to be removed (although not for the reason another editor did the other day, that there had been a peace accord, that is false and the conflict is ongoing). Second, in my opinion it is a military conflict. It may be a very low scale one (and especially now that there's a ceasefire and seems the conflict is going to end soon), but if the army isn't fighting it's because there's a police force with military status (Civil Guard (Spain)). Also, with the information I wrote on the Basque conflict page and all the sources I gave, I think it does fit here too. But I'm new here, so if anyone else (I guess a registered user) feels it has to be removed, it is ok. Thanks Pencil (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Conflicts in 2010

Should this category be set? Sarcelles (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War ongoing

There are still more than 3,500 victims this year, according to the IBC. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Iraq War ongoing

There are still more than 3,500 victims this year, according to the IBC. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadlessMaster (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And Spain and France are not in a War, Basque terrorism is that, terrorism. I mean the article and image aren't reliable at all... 95.123.126.161 (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Some Changes Needing to be made

Columbian Armed Conflict fatalities should say 2000+ in 2010, not +2000 Afghan Civil War should have civil war capitalized, and a link to the War In Afghanistan 2001-present Somali Civil War should have a link to the War In Somalia 2009-present Iraq War should be removed Sudanese Nomadic Conflict should have an accurate date and casualty count, NOT including the Darfur War Korean War should have fatality count Insurgency in the North Caucasus should have date of 2007

Would somebody please make these changes since I'm not allowed to?

Thanks,

174.5.11.131 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And remove Basque Country. A terrorist group don´t make a war. Basque Country it´s a political/policial problem. Not military units of both countries involving in military operations.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.225.222 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Korea -- post Korean War section

Searching wikipedia for "Korean Conflict" gives us results related to the 19th century. See General Sherman incident and others. (Indeed, see {Campaignbox Ganghwa Island War} .) With this in mind, Korean War should remain as Korean War. As far as the dates go, we do not have any WP:RS that says there was fighting between the North and South pre-1950. Unless, of course, you go back into Korean history where you will find lots of fighting. (There is good reason for Taekwondo to be the national sport of Korea!) By keeping post-Korean War as it is (e.g., Korean War) we have it properly referenced.--S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note XavierGreen asserts "The fighting between the north and south started before the war and continued on afterword, there was a communist insurgency in south korea that started in 1946." However, this statement is without RS. Moreover, Xavier does not resolve the disambig issue with 19th century Korean Conflict topics. --S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

When i originally posted i put the wrong date down, it should have been 1948. Regardless there are dozens of sources which state that the conflict began in 1948, and i have linked one as a source on this page. As for the name, the issue of confusion is not really that valid when the date is included. It is a common wikipedia milhist naming convention to include the date at the end of a title of a conflict that has a name similar to others.XavierGreen (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's do this: We have 3 different activities going on. 1. Insurgency pre-Korean War. 2. The Korean War. 3. Post Korean War skirmishes, attacks, tunnel digging, etc. To lump them all together ignores the 531 books listed by the Library of Congress which gives us the 1950-1953 Korean War dates. With this in mind, I've added the 1948-1950 insurgency stuff to a pre-Korean War section in List_of_wars_1945–1989#1945.E2.80.931949. That keeps the insurgency available as a distinct activity leading up to the major war. For your part, I ask that the "Korean Conflict" term be dropped. It is distasteful to those who fought in The War. It disambigs with the 18th century stuff. And the term "conflict" is to strong to accurately describe the off-and-on relations between the two sides. Sooner or later the North is going to drop the Juche stuff and re-unite with the South. (Although I understand the South is wary about the cost of rehabbing the North.) When that occurs, the need for a "peace treaty" between the two sides will be gone and future historians/wikipedians can decide if "Korean Civil War" or some other title will work. But for now, please, something other than "Conflict" is needed for the post-Korean War aftermath. How about an article titled "Aftermath of the Korean War"? Then the conflict, Olympics, trade stuff, family re-unifications, tourism, border tunnels, etc. can ALL be discussed in context. And this article can be referenced in our "on-going" conflict table as an article which meets [Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Content Content, etc.] guidelines. E.g., it will cover the dates 1953 to 2xxx/present. It will not be a POV entry that improperly extends the Korean War beyond the 1953 date which hundreds of published historians agree is the actual end date. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont see how the term Korean Conflict is distasteful, many major texts use it as a discriptor and many others simply refer to the Entire period from 1948 to the present as the korean war. The library of congress bit is quite irrelevant as they often classify wide subjects under narrow terms. I guarentee that many of the works listed refer to the korean war as still ongoing within their texts, or that it began before 1950. If you refer to the discussion on the Korean War talk page as well as to discussions on the milhist talk page, the term Korean Conflict was seen as acceptable by most editors, ( most of those that objected, including myself, wanted the conflict as a whole to be refered to as the korean war. A page titled Korean Conflict (1946-present) would have a sourcable title and follow established naming conventions, for example Arab Isreali Conflict. The only other commonly used title to refer to the entire conflict Korean War (1946-present) was rejected by the majority of editors.XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I might also add that the Korean Conflict box including campaings from the 1800's should probly be renamed or deleted, no reliable source would link all of those incidents together and they are all unrelated except for the fact that the Koreans kept an isolationist policy at the time.XavierGreen (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Colombian Armed Conflict

Recent edits have apparently overlooked the details found in the sources, so I feel it is necessary to look at them more closely here.

First off, this link to an El Espectador article was provided, referencing a 2010 report from the Corporación Nuevo Arco Iris NGO. However, the text does not mention what was the estimate for the total number of deaths during the year.

Looking at other articles which do mention the actual content of the same report, such as this one, striking differences emerge:

According to Nuevo Arco Iris, the guerrillas lost 473 men in combat with state forces between January and September, but were able to kill 357 members of the security forces and injured another 1,382.

The think tank estimates that by the end of the year the guerrillas may be able to have killed or injured 2,500 policemen and soldiers.

There is a clear distinction between the number of military and police killed vs. those who have been wounded. Therefore, the Nuevo Arcoiris report is not claiming that there were "over 2000 military deaths" and thus the recent edits are inaccurate in this respect.

The remaining source deals with historical data but it also doesn't have any numbers for 2010. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Nuevo Arco Iris, the guerrillas lost 473 men in combat with state forces between January and September, but were able to kill 357 members of the security forces and injured another 1,382. => That means that 830 men have been killen in just 9 months, not counting the civilians. That is around 90 people killed per months, what would mean that around 1100 would be killed during the whole year, NOT COUNTING THE CIVILIANS. SHould we move it back into "over 1000 deaths" section? HeadlessMaster (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that under Wikipedia's guidelines we cannot engage in extrapolation or original research, however, but must stick to what the sources actually say. I don't think we have figures for battle-related civilian deaths in 2010 yet either, to use the specific term employed under the Uppsala methodology (which isn't being strictly followed here anyway, but that's a technicality). The rate of death cannot be assumed to remain consistent across the entire span of a year if there is no specific information expressly supporting it. The intensity of the conflict varies from month to month. Reaching that conclusion would be a possible guess, but only a guess. Not a verifiable statistic. There's a 50/50 chance that would be right or wrong. If once we're out of 2010 and into 2011 new sources indicate that the death count has risen past 1000, then I would agree with making the appropriate modifications. Until then, I believe a prudent position is best. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll wait then ;) HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like somebody to check this. I guess some informations are available as it is february already. I would do it myself, but I am not fluent in Spanish. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing conflicts at Current events sidebar

This page could be cross-checked with Portal:Current_events/Sidebar section "Ongoing conflicts". I have done some digging in expanding the list lately. --Kslotte (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking from this list into sidebar done. Checking in the other direction still undone. --Kslotte (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Cumulative fatalities" column

None of the colums called "Cumulative fatalities" are really sortable by number of deaths. Could anybody please fix it? I would do that, but I don't know how to. Thank you, BlueWorld (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

yemen is the wrong color

according to the list of major conflicts sa'dah insurgency is a major conflict, but on the map yemen is light blue. it could be argued that this is one of the more minor conflicts in yemen, but then the map should specify that--70.253.64.134 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Map Key

The map key for minor conflicts is a different shade than what is in the map.98.228.227.12 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Dan

Global Security list

Should any of the entries from Global Security's Current Conflicts list be included? Such as the Nigerian/Uzbek Civil Disturbances, or the Cabinda fighting in Angola. Teh Bomb Sophist (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Insurgency ongoing in South Sudan

More than 100 killed in January.

A mutiny among the Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) led by soldiers loyal to militia leader Gabriel Tang resulted in up to 50 deaths.

See more: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/13/sudan.violence/index.html?eref=edition

This deserve an article and a mention here.--93.137.6.95 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a atermath conlfict of War in Darfur or related to Sudanese nomadic conflicts? --Kslotte (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

no, this is new. Factions of the SPLA rebelled against the SPLA--78.2.39.213 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya

Why isn't Libya even mentioned in this article? The Gadaffi and anti govt forces have been going at each other now for about 3 weeks now... with more than a thousand dead. The Libyan protest should be listed as a major conflict.Loro-rojo (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya has been added. If someone could chip in and update the image, that would be stellar. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More

I can think of still more conflicts: Casamance conflict in Senegal, the activities of the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda in Angola, and the activities of the Shining Path in Peru. I think the Naxalites are also active in Bangladesh, not just India. If you can add these, please update the map, too. Metaknowledge (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I added them. The Naxalites activity in Bangladesh is very low, so I left only India as the territory on which the conflict is ongoing. HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You can also add the Nagorno-Karabaj conflict, in fact, both countries are in war. And what´s happen with Peru and Shining Path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.5.183 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Colombia

Can somebody who is fluent in Spanish please check the victims for the last year. It is around 1,000, so it is doubtful in which section it should belong. HeadlessMaster (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Laos???

And why is Laos listed on the map when it does not appear in the text at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.59.108 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

same can be said for ethiopia, while syria is not on the map. it could use an update--70.253.87.27 (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

middle east/north africa protests

should we show nations on how violent the conflict is? you know in terms of color, or just all dark blue?--99.179.96.109 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is entitles "list of military conflicts" for a reason... I think only conflicts that involve the military should be put up, like the Syrian uprising... There is definitely no military involved in, correct me if I'm wrong, Morocco. Nor in Azerbaijan, or Saudi Arabia... You get my point. I think that the protests as a whole should be taken off and replaced with individual uprisings, like how the Libyan civil war currently is listed. CuboneKing (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

that is a valid point. if we were to include these protests we would have to add a new section for every protest in any country wouldn't we? i agree that we should only put in some nations that use military forces to attack protestors, and seperately (for example, syrian uprising, much like the libyan uprising before it was considered a civil war)--67.67.196.69 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a military conflict unless there are organized combatants on both sides. A few protesters shooting off guns or throwing rocks does not a "rebel army" make. I still think Libya is the only "protest" country that can be properly considered to have an ongoing military conflict related to this wave of protests, with the possible stretch exception of already-included Yemen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

change libyan civil war's casualties please

the casualties on Libyan civil war are almost certainly wrong. just adding the rebel, and government deaths alone makes over 3,000, so it should be changed.--67.67.219.38 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

lords resistance army

has the lords resistance army done anything in uganda during 2011? i might be wrong, but i think all bases in northern uganda, as well as southern sudan, have been destroyed. the conflict should stay as the DRC, and the central africa republic have some fighting in them. --75.55.117.180 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

casualties changed

i changed the casualties on the syrian and yemeni uprisings to what the articles say. if someone could put citations that would be great--99.62.33.72 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Syria and Yemen

Is it really appropriate to list the uprisings in Syria and Yemen here? In Syria, we have seen no categorical evidence of an armed conflict, just a crackdown on demonstrators. In Yemen, the armed conflict has been limited in scope and ended quickly, with the vast majority of deaths being caused by the crackdown. Casualty figures may also overlap with figures from the fights against the Houthi and AQAP insurgencies. I think both of those should be removed from this page, which is for conflicts between organized armed combatants. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. Let's keep the list according to its definition list of ongoing military conflicts. I will drop the entries. --Kslotte (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no "list of one-sided military conflicts", so I think any such conflicts should certainly be listed here. It's useful to have a list of all places large-scale violence is happening. (And 2011 Syrian uprising has references for deaths on both sides, anyway.) -- Beland (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it is a fact military is heavily engaged in operations in Syria and Yemen, having hundreds of casualties. Both are certainly military conflicts.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. There is no conclusive evidence that Syria has experienced fighting between opposition groups and government forces. It's no more a "military conflict" than the assassination of President Kennedy was a "gunfight". -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there exist no list for non-military political conflicts causing death. Maybe creating one would be a good idea. --Kslotte (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I take Kudzu's point, but I think to make such a distinction between 'military conflict' and 'hostility involving military forces but not taking place in such a way as to create a "military conflict"' is really splitting hairs unnecessarily. I agree with Beland that lists like these exist to provide a comprehensive overview of a certain topic. Not a meticulously whittled down list of examples whose qualities precisely satisfy the exact semantic criteria of the terms involved. So, personally, I would advocate reinstatement of the entries in question. Ug (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

other conflicts

could anyone add a casualties in 2010 list for the other conflicts? i think that would be interesting--99.62.34.48 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

western sahara conflict

why isnt it on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.38.205 (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

added--99.62.39.201 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OEF-trans sahara

operation enduring freedom-trans sahara why is this conflict not on here? about 365 have died in the conflict and i dont see it on here at all. is it considered part of the insurgency in the mahgreb?--Lv171998 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

no one has said anything in more than a week so i added it--Lv171998 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more properly part of the Insurgency in the Maghreb, myself... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

well until someone has a good arguemtn, not one of those people with no accaount who does random edits, complains about it i will just keep it on there--Lv171998 (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an account, and I don't just do "random edits". The full article for Insurgency in the Maghreb lists the US as a combatant; I think properly the operation isn't a full-scale conflict, but is part of the Insurgency in the Maghreb. I'm fine with having a debate about it, but I don't get the haughty attitude on your part. If you have an argument to present in defense of it being a separate conflict, then present it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

no im not trying to start an argument, i didnt know if you were saying we should or shouldn't keep the article in your first post. you can delete it if you want i was just unsure if they(OEF enduring freedom, and the insurgency in the maghreb) were the same thing. you probably have more experience on this than i do as a matter of fact, and i wasnt saying that you make random edits, i was meaning people that have just numbers for their names. like 227.289.957 etc. you can delete it if you want to--Lv171998 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your initial response. No worries; I'm going to go ahead and remove it while merging the places in which the conflict is taking place into the Insurgency in the Maghreb entry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Northern Nigeria

There is an ongoing conflict of the state with Boko Haram, I believe it started in 2009 with a mass uprising.--93.137.118.193 (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

thats interesting. do you have any reliable sources about this conflict from a news network or something? Edit:i found an article about this islamist group Boko Haram, and their secretarian violence, but the article says the violence has been over for several years, as i said before if you have a news source claiming they are becoming active again just inform me--Lv171998 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

500 dead in just one day in 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8555018.stm), at least four major attacks in 2011 (the last one left 150 dead). It started in 1953, and is still ongoing. Maybe even for the 1,000+ deaths category.

In 2010:

• January, Borno attacks - 4 deaths
• January, Jos Riots - 492+ deaths
• March, Jos Riots - 500+ deaths
• September, Bauchi prison break - 5 deaths
• October, 1st Abuja attack - 12 deaths
• December, 2nd Abuja attack - 4 deaths
• Overall - 1017+ deaths HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is from 1953, Boko Haram engaged in first clashes only in 2009. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15605041 (table) --93.137.187.179 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

thus I propose an article Islamist insurgency in Nigeria (2009-present)--93.137.187.179 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mexican Drug War but no Drug War anywhere else?

Just food for thought, why is only the Mexican Drug War considered an armed conflict? Is it merely because the military is involved? Military involvement has certainly ramped up the casualties but most of the deaths are tied to the gangs, a similar feature in "Drug Wars" everywhere in the world.

I'm having difficulty finding sources that approximate, at the very least, gun homicide that's directly attributable to the illegal drugs trade in different countries, so I'm not sure what to make of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.49.149 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan Clashes

Were the 2011 South Sudan clashes an isolated incident, or is it an ongoing event. I haven't taken it down in case I'm wrong, but can anyone clarify this? Ug (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

there is an ongoing mix of several (proxy) conflicts. See Sudanese nomadic conflicts, Sudan–SPLM-N conflict (2011), 2011 South Sudan clashes, and Renegade General Athor's campaign encopassing both North and South. I believe we need a single article talking about the situation in global. I need help in that --93.137.139.211 (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The next war?

ABC and other news outlets are mulling the same thing you are, Uranium grenade. 198.151.130.51 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, this is a separate incident or bunch of incidents. Seems like this wasn't the cattle raid the Wiki entry was talking about. The Khartoum government of Sudan may have run into another fork of the ongoing Arab Spring, or, perhaps, ongoing Sudan issues might have flared up again, and rebels are gearing up to pounce on Khartoum. Tensions have escalated between the Sudans, and Sudan has bombed South Sudan. 198.151.130.51 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

War on Terror/Drugs

What are opinions on the additions of the War on Terror and War on Drugs? Obviously there would be some crossover between existing categories, but is that necessarily a bad thing? It could be used accumulatively in the same way the Arab League and its respective member states are listed separately in this List of countries by proven oil reserves. Just a thought.Uranium grenade (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Both the war on terror and the war on drugs are phrases used to describe the conflicts against terrorism and drugs (respectively). I don't think adding them is necessary because they're basically terms to summarize a group on conflicts with a common cause. It would be essentially the same as adding "War on Communism" to list of wars.--Lv171998 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nigeria

Somebody needs to change Nigeria to light blue on the map, as it is not having at least 1,000 deaths per year. I don't have the ability to do this on my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.45.178 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ogaden

Hi Wikipedia!!! There is a problem in the article of Ogaden War. If you click in the article, it´s appear as a ongoing war but in the description it´s appear as a finish conflict. Please, give me an answer because I´m interested in the XXI Century wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.101.232 (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)