Jump to content

Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Iraq War Fatalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE NEW CIVIL WAR IN PAKISTAN

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

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

ARMED CONFLICTS, WARS, BELLIGERENCE

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

1. International / Inter-State armed conflicts

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

2. Non-international / Intra-State armed conflicts

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

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

The consequences of this definition are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOLDOVA

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

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

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

PALESTINE???

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

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

The War in Mexico

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

December 13, 2006

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

Why have five wars disappeared?

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

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

Low-level wars

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

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

Ummm, no mention of Palestine?

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

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

"War" or "belligerence" in Chad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan and Iraq

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

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

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

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


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

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

Aceh peace deal

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

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

Creating a section for armed conflicts under cease-fire

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


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

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

Section on other ongoing conflicts

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

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

Top v bottom

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

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

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


Wars that are "technically" not over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-existant wars

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

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

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

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

Northern Spain/ETA

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

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

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

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

Map

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

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

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

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

Can of worms

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

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

Terrorism

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

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

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

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

image update

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

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

Uganda/Lord's Resistance Army

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

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

Minor Disambig

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

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

Phillipine Insurgency started in 1831?

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

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

Ogaden National Liberation Front

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

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

Turkey map

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

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

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

"Maoist insurgency in India" more consise

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


Remove the Map

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

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

Myanmar/Burma

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

Mexican Drug War

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

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

Korean war

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

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

Synchronized list and image

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

Discrepancies

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

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

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

Listed as ongoing but not on the map:

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

Still on the map, but not listed as ongoing:

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

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

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

Chhattisgarh

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

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

The Communist Party of India (Maoist)

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

Mistake on the Map

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

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

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

Ituri

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

Sure. —Nightstallion (?) 00:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been moved. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts/Archive_1&oldid=1039590640"