Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 6 October 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Military history: National Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Hmong Insurgency

As stated in the document Genocide Victims Accused of Genocide through link of http://www.nnn.se/n-model/foreign/hmong.htm there is no conflict between the Hmong people and the Laos communist government. It has been the Hmong people who have plotted coups and other violent revolutions but everything has been disrupted. No conflict is occuring in Laos. "Many of the reports on the Hmong inside Laos suggest that the government is engaged in an ethnically inspired campaign of discrimination against them. In fact, the Lao constitution and laws are more tolerant towards minorities than many of its neighbours. More tolerant than Thailand, for example.<ref/http://www.nnn.se/n-model/foreign/hmong.htm /ref> " —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmerCana (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Free Papua Movement|Organisasi Papua Merdeka

There is no evidence that a organized independence movement is proceeding in Western Papua province of Indonesia. In the year 2009, 8 people including a suspected gunman who claimed to be a seperatist were killed in several reported news stories but until this year there was little or no reported evidence of anything remotely entertaining a conflict —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmerCana (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Operations of ETA]]

ETA is a terrorist organization it is not a conflict as no ongoing conflict has a terrorist organization but actual para-military or guerrila units. All incidents from ETA should be in terrorist incidents. Not an ongoing conflict.

Eritean civil-war

There is no evidence as there is no reporting from Eritea that a conflict is ongoing. They are definitely a player in the Somali civil-war but it does not appear that any home-grown military force is attacking the Eritrean military, government or people.(Patty wack (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

The Second Congo War

This should be put back in the ongoing conflicts to emphasize that it continues today. Especially important is the cummulative deaths of 5+ million. The Second Congo War article makes it clear that it continues. The Kivu conflict is the continuation and not an independent conflict.172.130.209.162 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Todo, as of Nov 2008

• Add Basque Country/Spain to the map, with ongoing campaing of terrorism and multiple casualties; Remove Northern Ireland, most militant groups have disbanded. 84.90.209.215 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Add minor conflicts from worldstatesmen.org
• Cross-check with PIOOM map
• Cross-check with 2006 UCDP list
• Add references where noted and sync casualty counts with supporting articles.
• Just to let you know, conflict in Peru actually it is in the region of two valleys in the jungle, as soon as I get the geographical info, I will updadate the map. regards. Mzdilgrs (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine conflict

How on earth was the figure of 0.5-1 million dead achieved? Most wars (with the casualty count on Misplaced Pages) were far from reaching even 50,000 dead. The only reasonable way I can see this occurring is for someone to include the Lebanese Civil War. I've seen a source, but I imagine it might count as opinionated, putting the Arab casualties of all the wars and some minor operations Israel has participated in at 60,000, I doubt Israeli casualties make up the other 0.94 million. Fdskjs (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but i dont understand how this conflict can be described as a minor one. Yes there are little civilian losses these days on the Israeli side but the people of Palestine are still living under an illegal occupation and the suffering of Palestinians is one of the top causes of radical islamic extremism around the world. This conflit has been ongoing for over 40 years and helped make the region so unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.134.144 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The death toll of 120,000 includes mianly the casualties from the wars between israel and syria, Egypt, jorden, lebanon and other non-bordering arab countries and not only palestinians

I suggest changing the "Start of conflict" date for 1964 (Establishment of PLO) or 1948 (Establishment of Israel) or 1920Artist (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also made changed the "major wars" section to make it clear this is for conflicts which are currently causing 1000+ violent deaths per year. Hopefully that will avoid major vs. minor arguments in the future. -- Beland (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any combat going on in the so-called "Arab-Israeli Conflict", how can it "currently" be making 1000+ violent deaths? The term itself does not describe a single conflict but rather a number of wars involving Israel, the last of which practically ended in January 2009. Should this really be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.247.202 (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This article faces the philosophical problem of identity. If North Korea invaded South Korea tomorrow, would that be the same war as the Korean War? Is the war in Afghanistan the same as the war in Pakistan? I think there is a valid argument to make that the conflicts between Arabs and Jews / Israelis since 1920 have all been due to a consistent set of underlying disagreements and can be meaningfully grouped together as a single conflict, which the Misplaced Pages article Arab–Israeli conflict does. The article says that the conflict is ongoing, which makes sense, as the underlying issues haven't been resolved, and while we can hope that there won't be 1000 violent deaths this year caused by it, I think it is a little premature to say that there won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.123.100 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The map needs to be altered

First of all, as is widely known Northern Ireland should not be included. The Provisional IRA has put it's weapons beyond use and officially abandoned violence as of 2006. Even according to international observers.

The loyalist paramilitaries (Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association and Loyalist Volunteer Force) still have their guns, but they have largely refrained from the sectarian murders of Catholics that defined their tactics during The Troubles. Most agree that their main activities now include drug trafficking and extortion.

The only real terrorist threats come from a handful of small, dissident Republican paramilitaries that have refused to recognize the Good Friday Agreement. These movements have virtually no support from the Nationalist/Republican community. They have engaged in recent violence, but have killed very few people, the only massive attack being the Omagh bombings of 1998.

It can hardly be called a war any longer, low scale or intense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.168.255.244 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any ongoing conflict listed on this page in spain. Marlarkey (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

short list?

This is sort of a joke if those are all the conflicts that are listed. Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen more ongoing conflicts.

Not to mention the article doesn't even define what a conflict is. More than 10 people killed a year? 1000 throughout the conflict's history? A series of car bombings without casualties? We need to define it: there are set academic definitions of "wars", "low intensity conflicts", "conflicts", and "political violence" that need to be adhered to. I would offer them up, but don't want to dig through my papers from grad school. I'm sure they are available online.

Moreover, I don't have time to edit this or I would rewrite the whole article. For the layperson who may edit this in the future (if I don't get to it first), here is a good reference for starters:

http://www.goalsforamericans.org/gallery/d/35-14/atf_world_conf_map.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of dozens of the top of your head please mention them, I personally can't think of any.Nwe (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The PDF is produced by PIOOM, but is for 2001-02, and I can't find an updated map. They have three categories:

• High-Intensity Conflict: 1000+ deaths per year
• Low-Intensity Conflict: 100-1000 deaths per year
• Violent Political Conflict: ~25-100 deaths per year

PIOOM also has a detailed comparison of similar lists, most of which are not nearly as comprehensive as their own. One of these is from the Uppsala University Department of Peace and Conflict Research, which has a 2006 list and says a 2007 update is pending. These sources would be good to sort through to find the most common definitions and to see if Misplaced Pages is missing any notable conflicts. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The list should only include wars between a country and some insurgency or another country. Domestic terrorists are mostly controlled by the nations police force or military police. Those should not be added to the list. If that was so every country would be colored. The list seems to be fairly accurate when looking at both Major war and then Major Conflicts. Also lists of Peru etc... are mostly dead and are minor things that are no longer controlled by military force. I think an interesting one is Palestine-Isreal since they have recently agreed to cease fire. Also, the civil war in Palestine has also ceased. A lot of interesting changes lately. Another thing to look at is the Somalian pirates and the recent attacks India has made on them. I would like to see if there might be some sort of Northern Somalia - Indian conflict. Can Somalian separatists spread themselves that thin? Dgreco (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008

Agreed, can't really count individual domestic terrorists as conflict, but definiteions would be good. If we were to include Violend Political Conflicts on the map as defined above, that would probably make the map look extremely red. Or yellow, or whatever color we happened to choose. However, a couple things: Mexican Drug War missing? Peru missing? Northern Ireland still red?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.241.79 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "major war"

For some reason, the 1000 fatalities per year definition was removed, in favor of something like "the threshold varies depending on the discussion, but here are some that usually pass" which is incredibly vague. A numerical threshold attributed to a reasonable authority makes deciding on inclusion a lot easier, and makes the list more neutral. -- Beland (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-Current Conflicts

Of the listed major conflicts, the Second Congo War and the War in South Ossetia have been stated on their respective articles to have been effectively concluded while still being listed as ongoing conflicts. This produces a discrepancy which should be resolved. Something has to change either on this article or theirs - we cannot have them contradict each other. As a reminder, official ceasefires are simply documents, but we should looking for effective conclusion of hostilities, not official declarations.

I believe we can agree the South Ossetian War is more or less done and over with, and should be considered for removal from the list. However, the article on the Second Congo War speaks of ongoing hostilities in direct relation to the war, implying that it is at least still ongoing, if not major, rather than having ended in July 2003 as the article's infobox states. Furthermore, the Kivu Conflict came about in the wake of the Second Congo War, so perhaps it is logical to consider the former as a subset of the larger Second Congo War, hence rendering the Second Congo War current. Ariedartin JECJY 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe Conflict The Zimbabwe conflict is not a conflict at all. A poster has put a link indicating that 12 to 20 people are missing after having gone to a Botswana training camp (unproven as well). Many people go missing in Zimbabwe. If the poster wants to do like Kenya and post post-election conflict in Zimbabwe March 2008 - November 2008 and the hundreds that died with proof that they died then go ahead.

Trans-African Inititive The transafrican inititive concerns about anti-terrorism. It lists no operations, or battles, or deaths and rails against the U.S for starting the inititive. We already have the insurgency of the maghred that includes Algeria, Maurtanian and Morrocco. We do not need anti-u.s rhetoric in the list of wars. Find another article.

Thai-Cambodian Conflict I have no problem n posting about the Thai-Camobodian conflict that killed an estimated 5 people. However, since the Djoutbi-Eritea border clash has not been posted which killed over 100+ people I do not think this needs to be posted in wars and needs to be in its own list of list of border skirmishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

stupidity or else?

Someone removed from the map a major war, Mexico, and a minor, Peru and added Zimbabwe, Botswana and Libya, why?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator?

Is the above diff meant seriously, i.e. is the scope of the article such that we include fiction, because everything else seems non-fiction, reality based? No? Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Obvious nonsense/vandalism. This is clearly an article about real-world events. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to seek someone else's opinion in the off chance the edit was made in good faith. I don't want to call anyone out during the holidays and all unless it is certain. Best, --A Nobody 22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm it seems that nobody had thought about an article for this kind of conflicts because I found out that somebody has just started the article Fictional war a few days ago, maybe that's what you are looking for. EOZyo (мѕğ) 04:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Separation of major wars

I thought it was a good idea to have the major wars sorted out, as in this version, before this edit. The reason for the revision was "Why is the American intervention portion of the Somali civil War considered as a major conflict, massive revision". We probably need a better reason for such action. Indeed, treating all conflicts as equally devastating may be just as wrong. And actually, that United Nations definition of major war was actually the best definition we had in this article. It may not be completely without controversy, and there may always be arguments for what conflicts fill the criteria for it, but after all, we have the same problem for every conflict on the list. So what we have to to is either to reintroduce the 1000+ deaths per year-section, or we delete the whole article, since the same arguments for deleting that section applies for the whole article as well. However, I strongly favor having that section than deleting all of it. Daughter of Mímir (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted it now. I used the conflicts that were in the list before (this version). Still, the image needs some update, so I suggest doing that as soon as we have sorted out how the article itself should look. Daughter of Mímir (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL

I think all of there wars should classify as a world war so we might be in world war 3, i do not know? Mickman1234 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image needs updating

If anyone can, the image used for this page needs updating in accordance with the lists provided. -PatPeter 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The image still doesn't show Israel and Palestine as conflict zones. JosiahHenderson (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Revolution in Guadeloupe?

User:Jersay keeps reintroducing an unsourced claim of a recent revolution in Guadeloupe, with a single casualty. Does anyone have a source for this, or should it be removed? I've removed it as unsourced twice now, and I'm unwilling to get into a protracted edit war. Thoughts? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nagaland conflict

Number of casualties of Nagaland conflict is probably false as the citation is about Kashmir conflict. Also the state of this conflict is unclear as some sources, including the Misplaced Pages page about Kukis, says that the conflict is over. However, I could not find any authoritative source, just some blogs. Does anyone know what is the current status of the conflict? 82.181.65.126 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find anything that this are still current conflicts? this site: http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/current_conflict.php?id_state=107 talks about the peace talks and the non-violence since 2007. The Kashmir above has seen no conflict in years, and lastly the Maoist, besides some protests (hijacked plane with no killings) there has been hardly any conflict in over 2 years also. Dgreco (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

United States is at war, isn't it?

Why is the US not listed as "at war" when Iraq clearly is listed. The fighting isn't taking place in US, but it is the US that is fighting, right? The US _started_ that war (see Iraq Resolution), but isn't listed. Can someone explain the rationale behind this? Maybe the same could be said for the UK? Seer (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read it clearly says LOCATION. As you just pointed out it isn't happening in US so simply there is no war LOCATED in US. This shows LOCATION and not countries involved Barciur (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Korean War

Since ROK is technically at war with DPRK since 1950, shouldn't that be listed? There was never a peace agreement, just a fragile cease-fire. It could be noted somewhere of a situation

- You're entirely correct. I'm adding it. The Frederick (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove Turkey-PKK Conflict

It's absolute nonsense how Northern Ireland or Catalonia isn't listed and Turkey is. The conflict between PKK and the government is nothing more than sporadic terrorist attacks or ambushes. It's just terrorist activity, and as a previous user stated, if we were to add terrorist attacks, every country would be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnaaye (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that Insurgency in the Maghreb be removed also. Both seem like spread out terrorist attacks over an extended time and not an ongoing conflict. Over a year and a half in the maghreb there has hardly been any considerable conflict to consider it an "ongoing war". Dgreco

This is a war which has costed over 40,000 lives. More Turkish soldiers are killed every month by the PKK, than American soldiers are killed in Iraq. As for why, Northern Ireland isn't listed, the war there has ended, they made a peace treaty, something which hasn't happened in Turkey yet. Now you (Gnaaye) migth be a Turk, but that doesn't mean the whole of wikipedia has to conceal facts and lie to make your country look "peacefull". This is by no meens "spread out terrorist attacks", there are gunbattles weekly which kill several people every time. Mines kill soldiers daily. I'm re-adding this conflict, which is much more of a war than many which are listed here.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are just some examples of what's happening there, all from this month: 2 seperate attacks (in different provinces), 6 Turkish soldiers killed and 5 injured, 5 guerillas killed, 8 September,8 Turkish soldiers killed, 9 September 2009, 2 soldiers killed by mineblast and 8 wounded, 10 September, 3 militants, 1 soldier killed in fighting, 15 September, 3 people wounded by bomb blast, 23 September.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Should this conflict be put on?

This one is still ongoing. Third Eritrean Civil War Noneofyour (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Remove Sri Lanka labled as "Ongoing War"

I saw somebody removed Sri Lanka from Ongoing war list ,but again user : Andrewlp1991 or Nwe revert it back. I would like consider here WikiPedia is 💕 and will respect the Democracy.

Sri Lanka Government Gazette and made statement in parliament the War has End.

wiped out officially 17-May-2009 .

It is up to anybody to admit it or not. anyway there is no war in Sri Lanka and no humanitarian catastrophe like in Afganistan or Iraq . Eeriyaka (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply because the government declares the Tigers defeated does not mean it is over. And with regards to your comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of its extremely dubious accuracy, Afghanistan and Iraq are also on the list. --Nwe (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Philippines wrongly marked

The Philippines, according to the image File:Ongoing_conflicts.svg, states that roughly 2/3 of the country is on a conflict. Why is it so? The only real conflict happening here right now is on the southern part, not the whole of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulhis899 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Peru

It's marked as, "other conflict" and I remember reading an artical about tribemen attacking policemen, but there is no reference to it on the page, if it aint an ongoing conflict the map is wrong. The page needs an edit anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.134.149 (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict: 1000+ deaths/year???

I thought the death toll was far below this, in the low hundreds maybe.

68.40.121.118 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)N

The majority of deaths stem from the Yom Kippur War, Six-Day War, War of Attrition, the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and the 1982 Lebanon War. All of these wars occurred over a period of less than 2.4 years and led to about 90% (70-90k) of all confirmed-fatalities in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For scale and comparison, the Syrian's killed 40,000 in 24 hours - virtually all civilians. The Arab-Israeli conflict can be summed up as the Middle East's response to the US/Soviet Cold War, if we set aside the ME's participation in the original cold war. Israel's cold peace with Egypt and Jordan has eliminated two hostile countries, and Israel's strong defensive deterrent has prevented Syria from launching attacks even as Israeli actively flows over Syrian airspace. So out of the 60 years since this conflict began, a fraction of the time has actually involved open-warfare. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

removed from the page because the last uprising was in January 2009. They are at "peace" right now and when the uprisings happen again it can be readded. Every other one is removed once the conflict has ended, temporarily or not. Dgreco (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's valid reasoning, but it still leaves an inconsistency with the Arab–Israeli conflict article which says the conflict is on-going, and over 1000 people have died in the last 12 months. Should the "conflict" infobox be updated to say "Result: Suspended" or "Result: Ongoing (ceasefire)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.104.60 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is it not the case that rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel on a more or less bi-weekly basis, to this day? And there is street violence. It is definitely (these days) under 1,000 deaths, so why not keep it in the second table?Foundpra (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC) user foundpra

Definitely Ongoing - DRC

Do not take DRC off the list. Can't anyone check the news carefully? This is conflict that continues to produce violent deaths, displacements, rape and everything else associated with an ongoing conflict.

• November 2, 2009 CNN News ... Two weeks ago, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston, said that at least 1,000 civilians had been killed this year in eastern Congo. ... The United Nations has suspended assistance to a Congolese army brigade battling rebels amid allegations that its troops killed 62 civilians, including women and children, between May and September. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/11/02/un.aid.congo/
• November 6, 2009 VOA News ... more than 16,000 civilians have fled ethnic violence in the northern Democratic Republic of the Congo ... this latest violence, which is taking place in the west of the DRC is unrelated to fighting going on in the east. That conflict, he says, has displaced 1.7 million people http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-06-voa27.cfm

UN - Daily Press Briefing (7 August 2009) "The UN refugee agency (UNHCR), says that an unprecedented 55 rebel attacks by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo have displaced some 12,500 civilians in THE PAST MONTH ALONE. This is a spike from 23 LRA attacks in May and 34 in June.

UNHCR says that the Ugandan rebels have MURDERD 1,273 civilians and abducted 655 children and 1,427 adults. A number of women were also raped and houses were looted and torched. Fleeing civilians have found shelter in public buildings including schools and churches. And the situation is made worse by a lack of basic medical supplies at local hospitals, while aid agencies have so far reached only half of the internally displaced persons. And that’s due to widespread insecurity in the region. You can read more about this upstairs." 172.129.252.149

BBC News - ‎Aug 10, 2009‎ US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged students in the Democratic Republic of Congo to speak out against the country's deadly civil conflict. ...

Where is Darfur

The Darfur conflict does not appear in any list.

(talk) 01:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The War in Darfur article states that the war ended in 2009. If you disagree, please check the references in that article and update it as necessary.

Iraq War

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

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

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

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

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

Sa'dah insurgency

There seems to be some disagreement about the scale of the Sa'dah insurgency. The linked article gives references for the following number of fatalities:

• Yemen: 1,000
• Saudi Arabia: 9
• Opponents: 2,700-3,500

By my count, this is about 4,500 fatalities, which is the number given in this article too. At the time of writing this, it is November 2009, and the linked article says the conflict began in June 2004, which is almost 5 and a half years ago. 4.5 thousand fatalities in 5.5 years is not 1000+ deaths per year.

The latest objection to placing this entry in the "Other conflicts" section is that doing so would make the text of the article inconsistent with the map. This is true, but placing the entry in the "1000+ deaths per year" section would make the text of the article inconsistent with the rest of Misplaced Pages, and presumably inconsistent with reality. I think the map should reflect the article, not the other way around, unless the map is using some extra information that needs to be added somewhere to make things more consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.138.226 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dgreco claims "(you do not divide total deaths by years, a lot more would be up there, it is more than 1,000 in a year and there have been over 1,000 deaths in 2009.)". It is right that the casualty rate is probably not constant, but without a reference it is wrong to assume that the most recent 12 months has seen an above-average level of casualties. The main article on the conflict says "Skirmishes and the clashes between the two sides during 2009 began in June." and the article covering the phase of the conflict from August onwards (Operation Scorched Earth) states "hundreds" of casualties, without giving a reference. These articles do not contradict the supposed "over 1,000 deaths in 2009", but they do not support it either. Rather than mess around reverting each other's edits, I will leave Dgreco's edit in place and hope that someone can find some evidence to substantiate it, which should be added to the aforementioned articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.138.226 (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is now a figure of "8,300" in the article, and a reference to http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-Yemen.htm#Status so things might seem to be moving forwards. Unfortunately I cannot see where that number comes from, and what I can see is: "Total: Between 3,700 and 5,500 militants and civilians are said to have been killed since the first outbreak of violence on June 18, 2004." (the page says it was last updated in January 2009, which is 12 months ago). To make matters worse, the reference for the "4,700" number also appears to not mention that number either, simply calling this "a conflict that has killed thousands". What is going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.25.175 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Now the al-Aqsa intifada may be over but rocket fire is still continuing to hit Israel and Israelis still carry out air raids sometimes against Gaza or arrest militants in the West Bank. Now since many minor conflicts have been included here, I think we ought to include this one.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why has 1987 been chosen as the year since the conflict began? The conflict has been around the region since the 1930s, and it does not seem right to say it all started from the first intifada. Dustman15 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it did start in the 1930s but these were all seperate wars which happened in the past, mostly between Israel and Arab countries like Egypt and Syria (not Palestinians) the ongoing insurgency by Palestinians started in 1987.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on.... you're all in favour of chaining together a whole series of disconnected conflicts when its in Afghanistan (Civil War in Afghanistan) but not when it is in Palestine ? Marlarkey (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. If we were linking to the intifada articles that would be one thing, but we link to Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which specifically lists the conflict date as "early 20th century - present". This is really a judgment call. For consistency's sake, I think the start of conflict date in this article should correspond with whatever is used in the article linked to. Joshdboz (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that there is no article for the current part of the conflict, you had the second intifada, you had the gaza war, but right now the war is still ongoing, there are incursions and gunbattles in Gaza as well as air raids and rocket fire by Palestinians while in the West Bank there are still Palestinian attacks and Israelis carrying out crackdowns against militants but there is no article about it, so I don't know very well were we should link it too.Kermanshahi (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, you haven't answered the point. In Civil War in Afghanistan you vehemently and proactively link all the separate conflicts in Afghanistan into a long-running single conflict, and you revert anyone who splits the conflicts into their constituent parts and present the ongoing conflict as a stand-alone affair. And yet here you seem to be arguing the reverse - namely that the current events are disconnected with previous conflicts that occured in the past. Your edits in relation to Israel/Palestine do not take a consistent approach to your edits in relation to Afghanistan. They both seem very similar situations and for consistency they should both be treated the same - either the current conflicts are stand alone affairs or they are simply the latest phase of a longer term conflict. Marlarkey (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge

shouldnt we merge wars like the conflicts in India and Yemen? After all they are fighting an insurgency? (USMCMIDN (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

India

someone should change the color for India, I would do it but don't know how. 93.136.19.60 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Add this

Can somebody add Civil war in Ingushetia? B-Machine (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Map out-of-date

Spain and Northern Ireland are not listed here, they should be. The IMC regularly call dissident republicans a threat and they have claimed at least 4-5 threats in the last 2 years (soldiers in the barracks, the cop the following day, Newry, an attempted bombing the next day (the 1 and 3 ont he RIRA and the 2 and 4 on the CIRA), and another shooting of a catholic officer. this in addition to the regular pipe bomb attacks and other activities. ETA have also claimed deaths within the last 2 years. (3-4)

Also if Mexico's war on drugs is here then where is the War on Terror? The Korea's caused deaths apparently. Darfur is not here, the FLNC have claimed a few attacks in Corsica, Indonesia has both Jemaah Islamiya (with a year) and the other Papuans. Congo without a doubt should be here, FLEC in Angola (2010)Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved the list to more appropriate title

It moved the list because due to its (previously) inappropriate title: Obviously nobody's trying to list all existing ongoing conflicts, but we're talking about political conflict(*). In contrast, ongoing conflict between individuals is not relevant here; conflict between animals is not relevant here; conflict between companies is not relevant here; even violent conflict (incl. gangs etc.) is not generally relevant here... indeed not even conflict between religions or other identity groups, unless it amounts to a political conflict. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

this move was not needed as we have many lists of wars which have an appropriate title--DAI (Δ) 12:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bangladesh and others

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

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

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

Sorting the tables

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

Conflict in the Niger Delta

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

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

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

You're really starting to annoy me. I'll give them your sources: Now YOU fag English gives your sources ! Yotna (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.lejdd.fr/International/Afrique/Depeches/Nigeria-Attentats-Un-acte-ponctuel-Mend-224309/
2. http://www.politis.fr/Le-Nigeria-empoisonne-par-le,11673.html
3. http://www.afrik.com/article16843.html

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class national militaries articles
• National militaries task force articles