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.

2013 updates[edit]


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 (talkcontribs) 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)
Yes check.svg Done - Chad removed from map.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Western Sahara conflict removed[edit]

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)

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

CAR conflict - major[edit]

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 - Yes check.svg 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)
Yes check.svg 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)


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)
YesY Removed from map.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Xinjiang conflict[edit]

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." [1]. If that satisfies you, please add China to the map.GreyShark (dibra) 21:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


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)


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[edit]

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. (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)

2014 changes[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
January-March only, 600-700+: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

  • also I'm adding Malaysia because of the Lahad Datu standoff last year.--Theparties (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better if they were seperated. The NPA and the various Moro Nationalist / islamist groups do not fight together. Additionally the NPA has forces scattered all over the Philippines such as in Luzon, while the Moro/Islamist conflict is restricted to the souther philippines.XavierGreen (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Xavier; per WP:GF i would ask Theparties to self-revert.GreyShark (dibra) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The two conflicts are not related. It's possible for a country to experience two conflicts at the same time, for example the Taliban insurgency in NW Pakistan and Baloch insurgency in the SW.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's the source why they are related:
"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 - per majority opinion, the Philippines conflicts are restored into 2 separate sections (Moro insurgency and NPA conflict)Yes check.svg Done.GreyShark (dibra) 18:58, 22 January 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[edit]

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 [2], so nothing is over until it is really over.GreyShark (dibra) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern Mali[edit]

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)


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 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], 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)
Yes check.svg DoneGreyShark (dibra) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Ukraine[edit]

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[edit]

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 [[8]].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)
Yes check.svg Done.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

General questions[edit]

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. ( (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)

Citation overkill[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

More 2014 changes[edit]

addition Nagorno Karabakh[edit]

Shouldn't the Nagorno Karabakh conflict be added to the list of minor conflicts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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, [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. Heavy fighting regularly erupts without a moments notice along the front, and sniper attacks are a frequent occurance. (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

shading for the US[edit]

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 [12] 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)

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

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)

Ukraine/Crimea threshold?[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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)


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)

Kenya in the Somali Civil War[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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? (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. (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)

Ukraine deathtoll[edit]

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? (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)

RENAMO insurgency[edit]

Adding up RENAMO insurgency in Mozambique, following a post by user:GeoEvan last year, and apparent pile-up of deaths in that conflict to over 100 total in the recent weeks.GreyShark (dibra) 21:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And of course thanks to user: for bringing up the issue.GreyShark (dibra) 21:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Colouring Ukraine[edit]

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. (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Philippine Moro Conflict[edit]

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 [[13]], [[14]].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)

Constant vandalism[edit]

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)