Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated List-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.

2015 table amendments[edit]

Conflicts to remove[edit]

There are two conflicts, which seem to have been terminated in 2014 in terms of casualties - the Korean dispute and the Conflict in the Niger Delta, so we should remove them upon updating the table. The rest are unfortunately ongoing or are in various peace effort stages.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Conflict in the Niger Delta while has mostly subsided has not ended completely http://www.tribune.com.ng/news/news-headlines/item/25394-gunmen-kill-3-jtf-soldiers-in-bayelsa. I think we should wait for some time before removing it, there have been some deaths in 2014 so perhaps move it down to 0-100 casualty area? AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, it looks like those guys in Niger Delta are really determined to stay on the list. You are correct!

What about Tunisia? Hardly anything has happened there. Some minor incidents, but not unlike other countries that sometimes cope with sporadic dangers. I don't feel like it belongs on this list. Looskuh (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Tunisia is not on the list, except in regard to Insurgency in the Maghreb (mainly in Algeriam with spillovers).GreyShark (dibra) 08:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts which might be added[edit]

There are few conflicts, which are still too low-level to be included, but we should follow - including the Dissident Irish Republican campaign, the Paraguayan People's Army insurgency and other.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that despite not producing any casualties this year, in the korean conflict there were two firefights along the DMZ and one at sea near the northern limit line, so it is possible it may meet the criteria again sometime next year. Other conflicts that still have active combatants but have not produced deaths are the Cabinda Conflict, and the insurgency in corsica.XavierGreen (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@XavierGreen: Agree on Korean conflict (removing for now, but keeping track if new casualties arise). I'm not familiar with Cabinda conflict and insurgency in Corsica.GreyShark (dibra) 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The FNLC has waged a pro corsican independence insurgency against France for several decades, the main faction of the FNLC recently declared a unilateral ceasefire, but there are small splinter factions that still wage war against the state, and such ceasefires had been declared in the past but the group would splinter and reform. [[1]]XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I recall someone raising this in the past, but failing to provide casualty count: any idea how many deaths we are talking about in this conflict?GreyShark (dibra) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
As for Cabinda, FLEC has waged an insurgency against Angola ever since Angola invaded Cabinda after it declared its independence from portugal. The insurgency their is heavily splintered and the Angolan government keeps a tight lid on insurgent attacks that occur in the country.XavierGreen (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Any recent incidents? I can only find 2011 [2]. University of Central Arkansas say the last incident was 2010 [3]. Anyway let's keep track on this.GreyShark (dibra) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Also Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia shows possible signs of resurgence - let's watch it.GreyShark (dibra) 22:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Map[edit]

BullShark seems to have attempted an update to the map, but Colombia was incorrectly greyed and Libya was incorrectly downgraded to yellow; Mexico and Egypt need to be downgraded to red and yellow respectively, Korea needs to be downgraded to grey. 75.131.42.151 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • And Taiwan needs to be greyed; it is not presently part of any conflict. 75.131.42.151 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Updated the coloring and fixed the alignment issues. Bullshark44 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yemen needs to become red, since if you total together all the casualties from south yemen, Houthi and AQAP you get over a thousand deaths in 2014.AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria must become dark red due to over 10000 deaths AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • And now that Afghanistan's total for last year has been revised, it needs to be dark red too. Also Taiwan has been yellowed again, despite no conflict in that country, it needs to be reverted to grey. 209.92.200.98 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
DRC needs to be made red and Burundi needs to be made yellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsolutelyHaram (talkcontribs) 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Katanga Insurgency[edit]

I don't have vert good estimates for Katanga Insurgency, but I know casualties for it in 2014 were in the hundreds does anyone know where I could get a source for that? I also need help with updating the Katanga insurgency page as it is lacking info. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A List for Ongoing Civil Unrest? (Egyptian Crisis, Tibet Unrest, Hong Kong, Eric Garner Protests,etc.)[edit]

There is already a page for ongoing protests that has not been updated in a while. I think it would be beneficial for us to move some of the conflicts we removed from here (Egyptian Crisis, Bahrain Protests) and move them there. I'll be trying to update that page and sort by amounts of deaths. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. The unarmed protests do not belong here, especially when the number of casualties is low (under 100 total).User:Greyshark09 08:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yemeni conflict[edit]

A lot of media sources refer to the Yemeni conflict as a single conflict (like Financial Times, Newsweek, USAnews) with three arenas (Ansar al-Sharia, Houthis and Southern separatists), however we still list here 3 separate conflicts. This also creates a dilemma with coloring of Yemen (intensive conflict if all combined, but each conflict by itself is below 1000 casualties) and with assigning the deaths, as sometimes it is not entirely clear where the sub-conflicts are separate (for example when Houthis fight with Ansar al-Sharia). Maybe we should list Yemeni conflict with its subconflicts in a single cell and count the casualties together?GreyShark (dibra) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I think the articles should be combined into one article called Yemeni Conflict or Yemeni Civil War. I can help with merging the articles if we agree to that. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

While the AQAP and Houthi conflicts are merging now, previously they were entirely separate conflicts. The houthi insurgency has a very long history, i would be wary of merging that page into any others. Creating a new one for the current / overal situation is a good idea though.XavierGreen (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Merging the articles is not the question, but merging the casualties in this table. I agree with you, that the only solution in terms of articles is creating another "umbrella" article - perhaps named Yemeni conflict (2011–present) (i'm not sure civil war is yet a proper naming).GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@AbsolutelyHaram: I already created the Timeline of the Yemeni conflict (2011–present) to include the unified timelines of the conflict, which apparently merged into a single conflict around 2011 (?). I guess an overview article Yemeni conflict (2011–present) is also needed.GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on it on the upcoming few days after I finish up katanga insurgency, I'm kind of drunk now so I probably shouldnt do it right now AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mashrwb hadha 7aram!GreyShark (dibra)
I don't know arabic lol, I'm guessing 7aram is haram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsolutelyHaram (talkcontribs) 03:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, i'm studying Arabizi scripting.GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinks to casualties articles[edit]

I think it would be useful to link the articles about Casualties of the Syrian civil war and Casualties of Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) in the related cells of the cumulative fatalities column, so as to provide more detailed information. I made a test and controlled this does not impair the sorting function of the table. Alternatively, I would link the articles in the “see also” section. Nykterinos (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - i'm pretty neutral on this. Though i've reverted this and other addition attempts of more wikilinking in the table over the past year, i assume if there is no problem with the "sortable" feature and there is no objection of other editors, we can implement Nykterinos' suggestion. It might however add some "over-complexity" to this table, but maybe it is reasonable.GreyShark (dibra) 18:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @XavierGreen:,@DylanLacey:,@Bullshark44:,@Skycycle:,@Helliko:,@Leftcry:,@Catlemur:,@Jem87:,@Fitzcarmalan: - calling for important article contributors over the past year to give their opinion (others also welcome).GreyShark (dibra) 19:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm ambiguous about Nykterinos' proposal, although both conflicts share several circumstances in common, they still are two different conflicts, unless the community wanted to merge both articles to form a "War in the Levant" or "Third Gulf War" page. So technically an article about "Casualties of the Syrian civil war and Iraqi insurgency" points to info of two different topics, in my opinion. Helliko (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Huh? You may be misinterpreting the proposal. DylanLacey (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Since it doesn't affect sorting, then it should be fine. It seems like a good idea. DylanLacey (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with it, I'm relatively new though so I don't know how valid my opinion is. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral- I do not perceive this as something important.--Catlemur (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on this.XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - seems like a consensus, @Nykterinos: - you are welcome to implement.GreyShark (dibra) 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015 updates[edit]

Possible Upcoming Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

It is seeming increasingly likely that the FARDC will soon lead a push against the FDLR in the jungles of the Eastern Congo http://www.voanews.com/content/un-congo-prepar-offensive-against-fdlr-rebels/2586565.html . If this comes to pass, there are two ways to approach this one would be to create an entirely new article for the FARDC's offensive against the FDLR another (the one I support) would be to create an article called "Hutu Insurgency in the DRC" or "FDLR Insurgency" and then combine the likely future offensive into that article. Currently the FDLR's activities do not have a wikipedia article outside of Katanga Insurgency (where they really do not belong). Thoughts on this, @Catlemur: @Greyshark09:? AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think that a new offensive against the FDLR should be included in the article about Kivu conflict as Phase 3 of the conflict, which currently is described as finished after the end of Phase 2 with the defeat of rebels M23 in 2013. A new article about the offensive should be considered part of that broader conflict, like the 2009 Eastern Congo offensive. A new article about FDLR Insurgency would be redundant since there already is an article about FDLR which needs to be updated.Nykterinos (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree - seems like the Kivu conflict re-emerged.GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That does make sense, but then we might need to move that article on to this list anyway since even when the a FARDC offensive is not going on there are substantial casualties caused by the FDLR. FARDC and other armed groups. So in that case would anyone oppose/support adding the Kivu Conflict to the list of ongoing armed conflicts? AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this related 99 killed on Burundi-Congo border?GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no, the attack was most likely done by some sort of Hutu militia or another perhaps the FNL or one of its allies. If we are going to go with the idea that all the Eastern DRC Conflicts should be placed into the Kivu Conflict article then it is related, however the Kivu conflict article does not currently reflect the insurgencies waged by the FNL, FDLR, etc. If we combine all Eastern DRC conflicts together we might end up pushing the casualty count for 2014 close to or over 1000 if excess deaths are included (just an estimate not hundred percent certain of that). AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don’t know if FNL and other groups can be considered part of the Kivu conflict, but it seemed to me that FDLR is one of the key rebel groups of the conflict, from the beginning in the aftermath of the second Congo war. Therefore, I support adding the FDLR-Kivu Conflict to the list of ongoing armed conflicts, as long as reliable data about the fatalities can be found. Regarding excess deaths: if I don’t misunderstand the article, only violent deaths (fatalities), and not also indirect deaths, should be included in the death toll. At least for the current and previous year, it seems to me clear that only violent deaths are counted, because the difference in mortality rates is not yet known (for example, for Syria and Iraq only violent, documented deaths are counted by SOHR and IBC). Perhaps the introduction to the article should address the question.Nykterinos (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@AbsolutelyHaram: the question is whether the sources refer to Burundi-Congo border clashes as part of the Kivu conflict; if not then we shouldn't refer to it as such. Looking more into the articles on the Burundi-Congo border violence in the past week, it seems that the sources are referring to it as related to Kivu instability: "Burundian officials and witnesses said the group of unidentified fighters crossed into the country overnight on Monday from DRC's eastern Kivu region, a chronically unstable and resource-rich area that is home to dozens of rebel groups." [4]. I therefore suggest to update the Kivu conflict as "3rd phase" and readd it to the table.GreyShark (dibra) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The VOA source is also connecting all the dots with the Kivu conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Greyshark09:@Catlemur: @Nykterinos: I updated Kivu Conflict a bit to reflect the current status and added it to the list. Casualty totals for 2014, and total casualties are a working estimate. In a few days I'll have accurate estimates for both. Also, I started a subreddit on reddit called /r/DRCConflict (it will be in the style of /r/syriancivilwar). If/when war breaks out on a full scale in the Congo it will be useful for aggregating news sources. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

DHKP/C insurgency in Turkey[edit]

Looks like the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party–Front is continuing to make troubles in Turkey with a terrorist campaign - 2015 Istanbul suicide bombing is claimed by them, though Al-Qaeda and ISIL are also suspected. In any case, DHKP/C insurgency has so far produced about 20 fatalities in the past 15 years, but could be much more in the 1980s and 1990s. Could anyone count the fatalities per sources? if indeed 2015 Istanbul suicide bombing is DHKP/C's work, then they might be added here (if total fatalities are above 100 of course).GreyShark (dibra) 20:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mozambique[edit]

The RENAMO insurgency ended in September 2014 and there have been no signs of conflict since. It should be removed, as it is not an ongoing conflict. DylanLacey (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The criteria for ongoing is not a shaky peace agreement, but actual lack of fatalities for more than a year (look at the guidelines on the top of the page). The statistics are that most of cease-fire and peace agreements collapse within several months, so unfortunately there are high chances that RENAMO will resurge on the course of this year. If you look at the news, you can see that RENAMO spokesman was arrested earlier this week for anti-government activities, which are on the brink of violence, due to a political crisis with RENAMO.GreyShark (dibra) 06:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Map Changes Going into 2015[edit]

  • DRC should be colored red (Even if the current casualty estimates are off (which they are to a certain extent, until uppalsa releases their 2014 report I'm in the dark about a lot of mai mai attacks, given the massive amount of IDPs we can make a reasonable assumption that at least a few hundred people have died till we get more data) in either case the FARDC is going to push against the FDLR this year so casualties will inevitably go over thousand due to civilian deaths)
  • Burundi should be colored yellow (FLN is a Burundian phenomenon, recent attack by them was on the Burundi-DRC border, so including them makes sense)
  • Afghanistan should be colored dark red
  • Taiwan should be greyed (de facto it is an independent country, and its claim over China is irrelevant as they are not a party in the Xingjang Conflict) AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sudan should be colored red. Nykterinos (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Colour Paraguay and Eritrea.I know the fatalities are really low but those are conflicts still.--Catlemur (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Afghanistan should have been dark red weeks ago, can someone please change that? As for the rest, I am personally for Taiwan going gray, And Eritrea needs to be colored as well. Paraguay has not crossed 100 total fatalities yet, so it remains off the map. Same goes for DRC, until we get a source it cannot change based solely on estimates. Skycycle (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've updated 2014 DRC fatalities using ACLED, and now it's 468 (Kivu)+440 (ADF)+123 (Katanga)=1031 fatalities, so it should be colored red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nykterinos (talkcontribs) 15:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram in Cameroon[edit]

I can see Boko Haram spillover in Cameroon has just been added by user:Kristijh - some explanation here will help.GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/boko-haram-fighters-believed-kidnapped-5001347 ~~Leo33665~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.162.58 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the deaths regarding Islamist insurgency in Nigeria and Boko Haram spillover in Cameroon should be combined. It is essentially one conflict being fought in both northen Nigeria and Northern Cameroon. What do you guys think? 98.230.35.253 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Leo3367598.230.35.253 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger should be considered a single conflict. By the way, I suggest renaming the conflict “Boko Haram insurgency” (start of conflict 2009) instead of “Islamist insurgency in Nigeria” and wikilinking the article about Boko Haram, which is much more detailed and updated, instead of the article about Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. Nykterinos (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the time to check if it was you, but someone had already linked it to Boko Haram, which I just undid. Whoever it was, next time discuss here first and get consensus! Skycycle (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I’ve already discussed my edit: Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria and neighbouring States should be considered a single conflict, as it involves the same actors, therefore the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria spillover in Cameroon entry, which User:Kristijh keeps adding, should be deleted; Boko Haram insurgency should link to Boko Haram and not to Islamist insurgency in Nigeria, because the latter is not updated and is limited to Nigeria. @Skycycle: @Kristijh: @Greyshark09: @DylanLacey: what do other editors think? Nykterinos (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
All of this I agree with, but IMO it's better to keep the link to the Islamist article and expand and update that instead. The conflict is one of the largest in the world by now and deserves a proper map (like Syria, Iraq, etc) and a large update + inclusion of activities of Cameroon and Chad in recent months. Skycycle (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree that Boko Haram insurgency is a single conflict (including spillovers); it is not similar to the case of Syrian Civil War and Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon, because there there is a separate conflict in Lebanon named Bab al-Tabbaneh–Jabal Mohsen conflict, which is affected from Syrian violence but is not part of it, and also Lebanese-Syrian clashes between Lebanese Army+Hezbollah vs. Al-Nusra (one of the groups in Syria) is not the same as Boko Haram (the only powerful Jihadi force in Nigeria) raids on neighbouring countries. In addition, i think we better rename Islamist insurgency in Nigeria -> Boko Haram insurgency per user:Nykterinos's suggestion to reflect the changes in the conflict over the past months.GreyShark (dibra) 16:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with user:Nykterinos's suggestion, I'm swamped right now with stuff so I won't be able to help at all though. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - user:Kristijh is constantly edit-warring by trying to add the spillover articles, with no respect to this discussion. His next revert will result in filing an edit-warring complaint.GreyShark (dibra) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Filing a complaint...GreyShark (dibra) 17:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Not the first time this has happened either, I hope something is done! Skycycle (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Middayexpress: as well.GreyShark (dibra) 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe[edit]

The Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe is clearly active with the recent line of incidents in France and Belgium, and the number of casualties is well in the hundreds (just Madrid bombings was at 100+ killed). Opinions?GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the 2004 Madrid train bombings are not attributed to al-Qaeda, and without it I don’t think we reach 100 cumulative deaths; besides, if we consider al-Qaeda-Europe a separate conflict, we should include in this conflict al-Qaeda militants killed by European countries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, etc., i.e. in conflicts already included in the list. Not even US-al-Qaeda is listed as a separate conflict, even though it’s much more intense. Nykterinos (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Spillovers?[edit]

Somali Civil War spillover has been added by somebody, i think this should be merged into Somali Civil War. I think 100+ total casualties should be the requirement for creating "spillover" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsolutelyHaram (talkcontribs) 03:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I merged that WP:POVFORK back into 2011–14 terrorist attacks in Kenya, as it was just a duplicate of it. Many of the attacks are also not the work of Al-Shabaab but rather local Kenyan groups, as already explained [5]. It has since then also come to light that the Kenyan government was/is operating death squads, assassination units which have themselves claimed responsibility for many of the killings [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@AbsolutelyHaram: See the above section on spillover of the Boko Haram insurgency.GreyShark (dibra) 18:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Greyshark09: Saw it and I agree with the name change. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming Conventions?[edit]

Why do we call things insurgencies when the non-state actors have de facto control of territory? Both Boko Haram and the Houthi's have de facto control of large amounts of territory. I suggest that we come up with a consensus on what the meaning of "insurgency," and "civil war" mean. Until recently the war in Iraq was called "Iraq Insurgency" when it is quite clear that IS/ISIS/Da3sh has set up a governmental structure and is in clear control of portions of Iraq. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot discuss such general things here, but rather at an article page itself (each article separately, unless you want to go for a village pump, but i doubt it is relevant).GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian conflict[edit]

Recently the Egyptian Conflict (2011-present), was removed in favor of Sinai insurgency, as protests in Egypt "paused" for some time. Removal of Egyptian Crisis was done, despite the fact that there had been casualties in violence in Egypt throughout 2014 (not only in Sinai), and in contrast to article guidelines to continue listing conflicts in case there are fatalities in current or previous year. Now, quite expectedly, the Egyptian conflict produces more deaths, with at least 1 dead in Alexandria [7]. I herewith raise the return of Egyptian conflict to the list as a whole, including the combined casualties rate (Sinai violence+Egypt wide violence).GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - I agree that the whole conflict in Egypt should be listed and not just the Sinai insurgency: ACLED counts 5,318 fatalities in Egypt from January 2011 to December 2014, of which 1,540 in Sinai, and 1,415 fatalities in Egypt in 2014, of which 981 in Sinai. These data show that the conflict in Sinai has escalated in the past year and accounted for most of the fatalities in Egypt, but a considerable number of people are still killed in battles, riots and protests outside of Sinai. Finally, if we list the whole conflict in Egypt, Egypt should be colored red. Nykterinos (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't Support Excluding the Sinai all the deaths in Egypt are primarily protest related. If we start to include deaths from protesting we will have to apply that standard to places like tibet and Bahrain. We will have to add a 5th conflict to the DRC (That might be a record for number of simultaneous conflicts), since more than a hundred people have been killed in protests there this past month. Do we include protest deaths in Xingjang, Kashmir, NE India in their respective conflicts? This list is for "ongoing armed conflicts" ideally there should be another list for persistent violent civil unrest that Egypt, Tibet, Xingjang should go on. AbsolutelyHalal (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Halal.Catlemur (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The protests across Egypt would be better suited to List of ongoing protests. If they escalate into an armed conflict, then they could be added as a separate entry. Currently, the Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–14) article says the unrest ended in January last year, which is a bit questionable. DylanLacey (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)