Talk:List of non-international armed conflicts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Questions about 2 wars

Listing the Pelopennesian War and the war between Carthage and Rome (Punic wars) as "civil wars" is inaccurate because they were really separate cities/nation-states; not the usual definition of a civil war. They probably shouldn't be on the list. Am I missing something? FeanorStar7

I was about to ask the same thing. Maybe someone thinks Ancient Greece was a nation state? The waring states period of China also was not a civil war.Dejvid 16:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Warring States Period is different to the Peloponnesian War in that the Chinese states nominally acknowledged to overall rule of the Zhou kings until 256 BCE (i.e. for all but 35 years of the quarter of a millennium long conflict). In that sense I think it is as reasonable to class it as a civil war as it is to class the Japanese Warring States (Sengoku Jidai) as a civil war.

Order

Should we consider changing the order the wars are listed in so they are in alphabetical order rather than chronological order to make them easier to find? Or we could have separate lists in both orders though that would be more work to maintain. RJFJR 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Please stop removing the Yugoslav Wars from the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How can someone put here wars on the territoy of the former Yugoslavia as "civil wars"? These aren't civil wars. By definition. The combatants haven't fought for the rule in the same country.
Croatia fought against Serbian attack and Serbia's try to annex Croatia and expel/exterminate Croats. Croatia hasn't fought to be the ruling party in SFR Yugoslavia.
Bosnia and Herzegovina fought against Serbian attack and Serbia's try to annex B&H and expel/exterminate Croats and Bosnian Muslims. B&H hasn't fought to be the ruling party in SFR Yugoslavia.
Kosovo Albanians fought for their independence, not for being the ruling party in Serbia. Kubura 07:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All wrong. Both Croatian and Bosnian "governments" fought wars against their own ethnic Serb citizens, not against Serbia, thus both wars were civil wars. PANONIAN (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Serbia regular military and paramilitary units were on the territory of Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina, sent there to fight against those countries. Serbia fought against Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Croatia hasn't fought to be the ruling party in SFR Yugoslavia. Neither Bosnia and Herzegovina. Neither they both fought to be in SFR Yugoslavia. Kubura 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kubura, a quick question for you: did the armies of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and the Republika Srpska include people who were inhabitants of Croatia and Bosnia? -- ChrisO 09:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did. Just like Volksdeutschers in Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, that put themselves in the service of Hitler, functioning as fifth column in those (and other) countries.Kubura 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you then compare Croats from Herzeg-Bosnia with Hitler too? PANONIAN (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because Croats from Herzeg-Bosnia voted for independent Bosnia and Herzegovina (abbreviation:B&H). Croats from Herzeg-Bosnia defended B&H from Serbian aggression. Croats of B&H organized the defense of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Bosnian Muslim leaders were thinking that "they are in good relations with Serbs, the Serbs won't do anything bad to Bos. Muslims". While Bosnian Serbs killed B&H Muslims later, at the same time Bosnian Muslim refugees retreated through Herzeg-Bosnia Croats-controlled areas to Croatia, where they lived safely in hotels and touristic camps, away from battlefields. Kubura 13:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Serbia DID NOT HAD A REGULAR MILITARY BEFORE THIS YEAR (2006). It was former JNA (Yugoslav Peoples Army) that fought there, but it was not main side in the war - the main side were LOCAL SERBS that were citizens of Croatia and Bosnia and that make these wars CIVIL. PANONIAN (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Than what, Panonian? Is Hitler's entrance in Sudets ("Sudetenland") "a civil war"? Is Third Reich's attack on Poland "a civil war", because Polish Germans have joined SS and Wehrmacht? Tell the Frenchmen, Belgians, Dutchmen that "it was a civil war", because local Germans have supported Hitler. Kubura 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Main side? You think that spoiled brat can terrorize neighbours without the big brother? That local rebelled Serbs could terrorize whole Croatia without the Serbia (whose personnel consisted major and key positions in federal army) behind their back? Serbia, which stood behind the Serb rebellion in Croatia? Which intensivly (since 1985) prepared the conditions for rebellion in Croatia, by planting the ideas to Croatian Serbs that they are "endangered" in Croatia? Kubura 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You should first compare Hitler with the Croats from Herzeg-Bosnia, and only then with others. Of course, in both cases, the comparison is wrong because you cannot compare WWII events with those from Yugoslav wars, they are too different. And now it is federal army, not Serbian? So make up your mind, was it federal or Serbian army? And do you want to say that Serbs were not endangered in Croatia? Why then nationalistic HDZ government of Croatia changed status of Serbs from nation to national minority? And that was before Serbian rebellion started, of course. PANONIAN (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Serb-controlled federal army. Don't play stupid. Read again, I've wrote it many times. The army had the name "JNA", as ex-Yugoslav federal army had, but it was controlled by Serbs and Montenegrins. Croatian towns were shelled and occupied, not Serbian. Second, Serbs weren't endangered in Croatia. Third, Serbs are national minority in Croatia. That feudalistic-type privileged status of Serbs couldn't hold any more. What do you expect for the population that sided with outer enemy, that betrayed their own country? Bosnian Croats have fought for Bosnia, rebel Serbs fought against Croatia. Kubura 13:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous claim! Serbia did not have a regular army before 2006??? What was then the name of the army that defended it? You really must think that everybody is that stupid to think that the former JNA (Yugoslav peoples army) simply vanished into thin air. Where did the Serbian citizens of Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina get their Russian combat planes, tenks, granades etc.? Whose battle ships shelled Adriatic cities? What army captured Vukovar, a Croatian border town? Whose army did the Serbian war criminal Mladic belong to? And why did the UN impose sanctions on Serbia if it had nothing with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia? 83.131.11.157 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the army before 1992 was JNA (Yugoslav peoples army), between 1992 and 2003 name was VJ (Army of Yugoslavia), between 2003 and 2006 name was VSCG (Army of Serbia and Montenegro), and since Serbia became independent in 2006 name is Army of Serbia. I do not claim that JNA vanished, but that IT WAS NOT ARMY OF SERBIA!!! JNA was later transformed into 3 armies: army of Yugoslavia (FRY), army of Republika Srpska and army of Krajina. Army of FR Yugoslavia was not involved in any war. PANONIAN (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Look what you've just said. JNA transformed into... army of FRY, army of Republika Srpska and army of Krajina. You've drowned yourself already here. Army of FRY wasn't involved? Be serious. This claim nullifies your credibility here. Kubura 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Army of FRY was a NEW army of the NEW country, thus, that NEW army was not involved. PANONIAN (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was - you're forgetting Kosovo, which was (of course) a civil war. -- ChrisO 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that, I meant in any war he mentioned here (in Bosnia and Croatia). :) PANONIAN (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

JNA was later tranformed into 3 armies??? Are you kidding me? And what was the name of the institution, may I ask, that took the decision to tranform it into three armies? Was it the Serbian parliament? Was it the Balkan butcher and Serbian and Yugoslav president Milosevic? I mean surely a decision to divide an existing army into three separate entities must have been based on some legally-binding decision? But let's not beat about the bush any longer. You just made this up. Pathetic. 83.131.79.116 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

JNA was officially transformed into VJ, but was de facto also transformed into VRS and SVK. And Serbian parliament did not had jurisdiction over army, so it were institutions of Yugoslavia that made such decision. And pathetic thing here is your lack of knowledge about this. Maybe you should stop watching Croatian television until HDZ is in power (only a friendly suggestion). :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

JNA was officially transformed into VJ, but was de facto also transformed into VRS and SVK. I am aware that the Serbs have problems grasping law but are you being ridiculous on purpose or are you merely that challenged to think that your Serbian byzantine crap can fool someone? De facto? Lay off Latin for fuck's sake. It won't make your attempts to evade answering a simple question any less obvious. I am asking again: who took the decision to transfer weapons that belonged to the Yugoslav national army into the hands of Serbian paramilitary groups in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? What is the name of the official body that sanctioned this transfer of Russian Migs, tenks, heavy artillery? Btw, just a "friendly" information. You might like to know that the HDZ has been in power since 2003 so I guess I don't have to wait for anything. You know, there is a world beyound that shit-whole of a country that Serbia is (or whatever its name is at the moment) 83.131.84.20 14:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"A Serbian byzantine crap????" Hahahahahaha LOOOOOOOOOL Seems that you have serious problem with understanding of reality, but anyway, I will repeat what I just already said: it were institutions of Yugoslavia that had jurisdiction over military issues. And I know that HDZ is in power in Croatia, but seems that I did not said my advice correctly: you should not watch Croatian state television until HDZ leave from the power. HDZ propaganda obviously washed your brain, so stop watching TV because your brain damage could be permanent if you continue. PANONIAN (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Which Yugoslavia transferred Russian Migs, tenks, heavy artillery into the hands of Serbian paramilitary groups in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? Who took that official decision? WHO WAS IT IN BELGRADE WHO OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED THE TRANSFER OF WEAPONS INTO THE HANDS OF SERBIAN PARAMILITARY GROUPS IN CROATIA AND BOSNIA WHEREBY THE LATTER GOT HOLD OF RUSSIAN MIGS, TANKS, HEAVY ARTILLERY ETC.? I mean, how difficult can it be to answer a question that the whole of the civilized world knows answer to? As for the Croatian TV, who are you kidding? Every single cable company in Serbia ILLEGALY distributes Croatian TV channels (in the civilized world that is called stealing, but hey it is Serbia we are talking about). Every newspaper in Serbia includes Croatian TV program into its TV guide. And as far as the brain damage is concerned, I think you might want to reconsider before paying that compliment, especially if you are going to re-edit every single messages of yours half a dozen times only to produce some pointless drivel. 83.131.4.243 15:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I watch Croatian TV channels too, and that is why I know how much (anti-Serb) propaganda you can hear in "državni dnevnik" there. Regarding name of the person that gave order for weapon transfer, I do not know name of the person, but that is completelly irrelevant for the subject. PANONIAN (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "drzavni dnevnik" on Croatian TV, or any other Croatian TV station. Your accusation of the perceived anti-Serb propaganda on Croatian TV is laughable, especially in the light of the fact that the program of the Croatian TV is distributed by all cable companies in Serbia (another blatant example of theft on a national level and a good example of how far from European standards Serbia is). Also, every newspaper in Serbia lists Croatian TV channels in their TV guide (a bit strange for a TV station that you accuse of anti-Serb propaganda). The institution that offically ordered the transfer of the JNA weapons, air-planes, tenks etc into the hand of the Serbian paramilitary groups in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina is one of the key elements that prove Serbia's participation in the agression on those two countries. Those weapons were not just snatched away. 83.131.78.113 11:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "državni dnevnik" is not its proper name, but you know what about I speak. And the person influenced by propaganda could not to recognize this propaganda very easy, so take some time. :) And please tell me the name of the "institution that offically ordered the transfer of the JNA weapons", and then we can conclude what that prove. PANONIAN (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again Panonian, there is no such thing as "državni dnevnik" (what a twisted Serbian concept!) in Croatia, or in any civilized country. As for my understanding, the only difficulties I seem to experience appear to be related to your excellent English. As for the institution that offically ordered the transfer of the JNA weapons, it is up to you to cite it. After all you don't want to suggest you invented that whole story about "de facto transformation of the JNA", "jurisdictions over the army" etc. Indeed, Panonian, WHO WAS IT IN BELGRADE WHO OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED THE TRANSFER OF WEAPONS INTO THE HANDS OF SERBIAN PARAMILITARY GROUPS IN CROATIA AND BOSNIA WHEREBY THE LATTER GOT HOLD OF RUSSIAN MIGS, TANKS, HEAVY ARTILLERY ETC.? Or should the whole world just take your word for it? 83.131.6.121 12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

O yes there is "državni dnevnik" there, no matter how you call it (isti kurac drugo pakovanje). :) Regarding the institutions which had jurisdiction over military issues, I already said - it were institutions of SFRY and FRY. If you want to know names of the people that worked in these institutions in that time, I cannot help you with this. PANONIAN (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't turn the war into a political issue. HDZ is purged of most of its extremer elements. It is also in coalition with a Serb political party as we speak. Meanwhile, one of the most popular (if not the most) parties in Serbia is a self-proclaimed Radical Party...

Anyways, your own president told the Croatian Serbs to participate in this year's Oluja celebrations. If they can start moving on, maybe there's hope for even the two of you to discuss this civilly...

I'd just like to add one thing. The fact that Croatia charged FR Yugoslavia at the International Court of Justice (awaiting trial), shows that both Serbia and Montenegro can be considered accountable for the actions of the "Yugoslav" government of that time. --Thewanderer 02:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that HDZ is in coalition with Serbian party does not mean that it is "purged" (vuk dlaku menja ali ćud ne). Serbian Radical Party is also in coalition with ethnic Hungarian party in Bečej, and so much about these coalitions. :) Regarding charges, anybody could charge anybody for anything (that is how juristical system works), but the final verdict is important, not the charge. So, we should wait verdict to speak properly about this, should we? :) PANONIAN (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, every Yugoslav war was mainly a political issue. Wars were started by Mafia (International tribunal proved that they were Mafia) with the single purpose that members of this Mafia become wealthy. Therefor, the main goal of the wars was a robbery of property, while ethnical and religious reasons were used only as excuse. And I talk about all sides that were involved in war, of course, so the stories about "patriotic defense of homeland" no matter which side use these stories are nothing but crap. PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite an ICTY verdict which proves that it was all down to "mafia"? It is simply amusing how you are desparate in your attempts to dodge answering any argument by resorting to complete nonsense. 83.131.78.113 11:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can cite it: http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii011008e.htm See quotes: "Slobodan MILOSEVIC participated in a joint criminal enterprise" "This joint criminal enterprise came into existence before l August 1991 and continued until at least June 1992" "In order for the joint criminal enterprise to succeed in its objective, Slobodan MILOSEVIC worked in concert with or through several individuals in the joint criminal enterprise. Each participant or co-perpetrator within the joint criminal enterprise played his own role or roles that significantly contributed to the overall objective of the enterprise" etc, etc... A clear example that they were Mafia. PANONIAN (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, Panonian, don't play stupid! Why are you resorting again to the (in)famous Serbian Byzatine tactics of lies and half-truths? I can understand why you would want to obfuscate the true nature of the Serbia's role in the agression on Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.. Let us then cite from your source:

The purpose of this joint criminal enterprise was the forcible removal of the majority of the Croat and other non-Serb population from the approximately one-third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia that he planned to become part of a new Serb-dominated state through the commission of crimes in violation of Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal. These areas included those regions that were referred to by Serb authorities and are hereinafter referred to as the "Serbian Autonomous District /Sprska autonomna oblast/ ("SAO") Krajina", the "SAO Western Slavonia", and the "SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem" (collectively referred to by Serb authorities after 19 December 1991 as the "Republic of Serbian Krajina /Republika Srpska krajina/" ("RSK")), and "Dubrovnik Republic /Dubrovacka republika/".

In the process the Serbian paramilitary troops robbed, pillaged, raped, murdered but it was all secondary to the main goal of the elected Serbia's leadership: the creation of Greater Serbia by an open agression on Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. 83.131.6.121 12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you play a little with logic here? The purpose of every "joint criminal enterprise" is always that participants in such enterprise benefit from it. The purpose of "joint criminal enterprise" simply cannot be an ideological cause such is "Greater Serbia". The "Greater Serbia" rethorics was sometimes used by members of that "joint criminal enterprise" simply because they wanted with it to cover their true goals. Their true goals were to abuse power as long as they can and to gain personal benefit from it. To say that "Greater Serbia" (an ideological cause) was a goal of an "joint criminal enterprise" is against every logic indeed. PANONIAN (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You've drowned yourself again. Read what 've you wrote. Expansionism in action is not criminal action? Kubura 13:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars?

Someone removed it from the list (one of) and explained it by "removing an insult"?...? --PaxEquilibrium 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

I realise that this may be a hot potato, but how can anyone at present determine that Iraq right now is in a state of civil war?The.valiant.paladin 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't really a full-blown civil war between Sunnis and Shites (there is some conflict, but that would be minor, compared to terrorism agaist U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens) as much as it is a religious insurgency against U.S. presence on the streets of Iraq. Not a civil war. - 70.109.72.185 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably being labelled a 'civil war' because there is an official Iraqi government and there is an insurgent force present in the state. The insurgents aren't only killing Americans - they're going after government buildings and citizens as well. The freddinator 15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to include "Iraq" as a current civil war because it meets the criteria stated in the articles. The premise "they kill more Americans than each other" is simply not correct. There are hundreds of "sectarian killings" everyday including a shelling of a school yesterday. AStudent 11:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NOB (NOR)

War of national liberation (NOB-narodnooslobodilačka borba, NOR-narodnooslobodilački rat) in area of Yugoslavia (1941-1945) had also elements of civil war (besides the elements of socialist revoution and war of liberation).
But, there were a lot of smaller civil wars in it:
E.g., in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina:
- combats between forces of NDH and Tito's partisans (for the status of future Croatia)
- combats between forces of Tito's partisans and chetniks (for the status of future Yugoslavia)
- combats between forces of NDH and chetniks: these should be treated as internal rebellion (domestic chetniks) and war against external aggression (chetniks from Serbia that came to Croatia; chetniks didn't want the existence of Croatia at all)
On the areas of other republics, there were other or similar types of clashes. Kubura (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Civil war in Croatia"

Why have I removed that line? Here's the section from the book "Serving My Country" of Hrvoje Kačić [1] (Cro. original title is "U službi Domovine"), that deals with "civil war" and aggression on other country.
In this case, comments by English parliamentarists are also useful [2], as well as of some English university professors [3] :
"Arbitražna komisija dana 4. srpnja 1992. donosi Interlokutornu odluku kojom se utvrđuje neosnovanost žalbenih navoda i odbijaju se svi podneseni prigovori. Naime, Arbitražna komisija utvrđuje da ingerencije i nadležnost svojeg rada ne temelji na Brijunskom sporazumu, nego na uvjetima kako su određeni zajedničkom deklaracijom prihvaćenoj jednoglasno na ministarskoj konferenciji svih država EZ, održanoj 27. kolovoza 1991, radi postizavanja mira, ali i sa svrhom uspostavljanja arbitraže. U ovoj odluci Arbitražne komisije utvrđuje se da su uvjeti kako su utvrđeni Deklaracijom o Jugoslaviji bili prihvaćeni od svih šest jugoslavenskih republika, već prilikom otvaranja Konferencije o miru, te da su ti uvjeti stupili na snagu dana 7. rujna 1991".
"U obrazloženju donesene odluke, Arbitražna komisija se također pozivala i na odluke Međunarodnog suda pravde u Haagu. Datum 7. rujna 1991. ima svoj poseban značaj, jer se svi sukobi nasilja do tog datuma tretiraju kao unutrašnji sukobi ili građanski rat. Međutim, nakon utvrđenog datuma svi sukobi, a osobito oružana suprotstavljanja i ljudske žrtve, te rušenje odnosno nanošenje imovinske štete na teritoriju Hrvatske, spadaju u režim Međunarodnog sukoba. Činjenica je da su beogradski (velikosrpski) sateliti vožda s Dedinja upotrebljavali oružanu silu i sudjelovali u agresorskim operacijama od postavljanja kninskih balvana (kolovoz 1990.). No moramo prihvatiti da je autorativno tijelo Međunarodne zajednice utvrdilo da Srbija vrši agresiju na Hrvatsku od 7. rujna 1991. na dalje. To najbolje pokazuje i dokazuje primjer žrtava i rušenja Vukovara.".
I owe you the translation, it'll over in few days.
Hrvoje Kačić was a participant on Peace Conferences on former Yugoslavia (Brussels, London...), he's international expert for the maritime law, former President of External Affairs Committee of Croatian Parliament. Also, Hrvoje Kačić was Olympic silver medalist (waterpolo, 1956).Kubura (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the translation. Sorry, my knowledge of English iurist terms isn't the best one, so feel free to ask, if anything confuses you.
"On July 4, 1992, Arbitration Committee (in further text: AC) has brought the Interlocutory decision, that ascertained that the appeals are unfounded, and with that decision, all objections were rejected. Point is, that AC has ascertained, that ingerentions and jurisdictions of AC weren't based on Brijuni agreement, but on conditions determined in joint declaration, which was unanimously accepted on the conference of all ministers of EEC countries (conference was held on August 27, 1991). The aim of declaration was achieving of peace, but also the establishing of arbitration. In that decision of Arbitration Committee it is ascertained that, the conditions, in the form they were ascertained with Declaration about Yugoslavia, were accepted from all six Yugoslav republics, already by the opening of Peace Conference, so these condidions came to power on September 7, 1991.
"In the explication of the decision, AC has referred to decisions of International Court of Justic in Hague. The date of September 7, 1991 has special significance/importance, because all violent conflicts till that date are treated as internal clashes or civil war. But, after that date, all conflicts, especially armed confrontations and human victims, and destructions, and making of damage on properties on the territory of Croatia, belong to regime of International conflict. It's the fact, that all Belgrade's (Greater Serbian) satellites of vožd from Dedinje (translateor's note: S. Milošević) 've used the armed force and participated in aggressive operations, since laying of tree-logs near Knin in August of 1990. So, we must accept that authoritative body of international community has concluded that Serbia is doing aggression on Croatia since September 7, 1991, and onwards.. The best example and proof for that are the Vukovar's victims and the destruction of Vukovar." Kubura (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ETA and the Spanish Government

What a shame!! Who put it as a civil war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.8.89 (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I see that someone has put a cleanup tag on this article and for good reason. Why don't you redo the article following the wikitable style as seen here?

You would list them by name in one column, date in the next, and notes in the third, simular to my example. Vadac (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bleeding Kansas (listed as civil war)

I beleive that Bleeding Kansas should not be on the list because it is a event under the US civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.115.234 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cypriot civil war and England?

Why are the various English Civil Wars bulleted under the Cypriot Civil War? They had nothing to do with one another. Misterdoe (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria and rigour

If this list is to have any credibility at all, well-sourced criteria defining civil war need to be provided in an opening explanatory paragraph (or two). Currently, there are many conflicts listed that, prima facie, do not qualify as civil wars (I've removed a couple). A lot more rigour is required for this list and for the discussions on this page. Pinkville (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

indeed. the problem is, as it turns out, that there is a narrow (literal) and wide meaning of the term "civil war".

the narrow meaning is also the historical meaning, while the wide meaning is the "contemporary", post-World-War-II "geopolitical" meaning. Unfortunately, the modern meaning is also used anachronistically of historical conflicts, such as the Islamic fitnas.

Just "citing sources" to prove that the fitnas "were civil wars" isn't enough in this case. It is true that the fitnas have been called civil wars in literature, but in reality, they were wars of succession within an empire.

In the modern usage, the "wars of succession" (aka military coups) of today are simply labelled civil wars. This is extended to historical contexts in sloppy use. But this list article needs to make clear which usage is being employed in each case.

Take the fitna, or "Islamic Civil War" as an example. Google books gives me 22 hits for the term "First Islamic Civil War"[4] Unsurprisingly, almost all of these hits date to after 1985. With the exception of single 1950s hit[5].

This confirms my suggestion that the term "civil war" has seen a modern widening of its scope, apparently this happened only near or after the end of the Cold War.

so, it is conceivable that we list the "Islamic Civil War", and the other instances of wars of succession, in this article, but if we do so, we need to be aware of the fact that before 1950, it wouldn't have occurred to any historian to describe these conflicts as "civil wars".

case in point, the traditionally conservative OED defines "civil war" as a "war between the citizens or inhabitants of a single country, state, or community". The examples cite concern the Roman civil war, the English civil war, the American civil war and the Spanish civil war, plus a figurative use dated to 1985, referring to "the bitter civil war within the [Labour] party after 1979". MW's (11th ed.) also has "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country".

by contrast, the less precise Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (targetted at non-native speakers of English) has the more general "a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country.

Thus, the shift of meaning since the 1980s has been that while the original meaning of the word referred to conflicts between citizens of a single country, as opposed to clans, tribes, feudal dynasties etc., the new meaning simply requires that the conflict take place between "groups living in the same country", the civic, or "civil" aspect being dropped altogether. There is a difference. In the narrow meaning, a military coup isn't a civil war, as it is fought between rebel military units vs. loyalist military units. In the wide meaning, any such coup will be a "civil war", regardless of the fact that only parts of the military are involved. Describing a coup of one part of a military force against an other as a "civil war" is of course an etymological absurdity, but nevertheless this seems to be what is covered by the term in more recent usage.

--dab (𒁳) 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

alright, in the light of the above, I think I have figured out that the more respectable / educated English term for the fitnas and any other sort of war of succession would be "intestine war". This term is actually used of the fitna in a 1905 source[6]. "Intestine war" of course just means "internal war", where "internal" means the political entity, in this case the caliphate. Now "intestine war" as a term has fallen out of use, I assume because of the close association of the adjective intestine with the noun intestines. It seems that today, "civil war" is used of pretty much anything that can be described as "intestine war". But the term "intestine war" has also been replaced, by the more modern "internal conflict". See Internal conflict in Peru. Here, "internal" is less committing than "civil", and "conflict" is less committing than "war", so anything that may or may not be a "civil war" sensu stricto may safely be called an "internal conflict". Google news hits over the past month: "civil war": 24,000; "internal conflict": 529; "domestic conflict": 29; "domestic war": 6; "intestine war": zero. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the wording (though I think not the intended sense) of the definition as now given is, at least as most people would read it, contradicted by one of the early uses quoted in the supporting reference. The general understanding of republican is (at least) non-monarchical, but both sides in the civil war in Portugal were monarchical - in at least this aspect, it was a war of succession, even if one in which the liberals saw themselves as primarily fighting for the Constitutional Charter as representing the will of civil society, and for particular claimants only because those claimants would support the charter.

I am therefore removing the wording about at least one side having to be republican - though not the bit about claiming to represent civil society - from the introductory section.

(By the way, I'd see at least some of the fitnas in the same light, providing one regards the Umma as in important ways analogous to civil society - but I'd need to chase down some reliable sources before having this argument.) PWilkinson (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary civil wars: criteria for inclusion

The list of Contemporary civil wars seems far, far too inclusive; I would expect that very few of them will be included as civil wars in next century's history books. For example, in the list of past civil wars, the Cuban insurgency of the 1950s which led to the overthrow of the Batista government is, rightly, not included, although in the later stages there was virtually an army of insurgents.

This is a technical distinction based on the scale and organisation of the parties, not a political issue (my "terrorist" is your "freedom fighter").

I have added a note implying this at the beginning of the section, but have not deleted any entries. 213.208.107.91 05:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One could take the narrow interpretation that a contemporary civil war is one that has been declared to be a state of civil war by the United Nations, as they just did with Syria. That is, at least, a notable and verifiable standard. 66.31.219.208 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian civil wars

The list neglects to mention the 3 Ancient Egyptian civil wars. At any rate, I could not find them under "Ancient and medieval" in the Article as it stands. They should be mentioned, not only because the Ancient Egyptian absolute monarchy was the longest lasting single political state in all the history of our planetary civilization, but also because the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms are separated by the first 2 civil wars of that longest lasting state, and a third civil war was in progress when the Persians conquered the Egyptians (at the end of the New Kingdom). So, I highly suggest placing them on this list of civil wars. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

List

I've integrated the list of old wars from the main article and moved the article to the more generic title. --Joy [shallot] 23:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a good move. I wonder about the Time Stamp, though, and I hereby suggest that this Talk Page should be Auto-Archived by now. Does anyone object? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

English / British Civil Wars

The list includes The Anarchy and The Wars of the Roses - both essentially wars of succession and hardly civil wars in terms of one side representing the civic society any more than the other. Not that I am complaining, I too view these under the more general heading of civil wars as being wars fought predominately between the citizens of a single state.

However, under the same criteria the two Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745 would surely also qualify as British Civil Wars or Wars of the Three Kingdoms? In no way were they simply Scotland v England even though they are often represented as such - plenty of Scots fought on the winning side at Culloden. In essence the Jacobite rebellions were repeats of the 3rd English Civil War.

The Irish war/rebellion of 1690 is another of this sequence of largely religious civil wars between the Stuarts and their various opponents.

Of course it could also be argued that only the 1st Civil War is significant enough to appear on this general list of more noteworthy civil wars. Newburychap (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yemen and Syria

Should we add syria and yemen... The UN list them as being a state with civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danalm000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Libya was also in civil war last year as well. If the conflict in Syria is not considered a civil war then I don't know what is! 67.170.2.155 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War on this list?

Should the American Civil War be on this list, or should it be on the wars of independence list? Although it has been named a civil war, it technically was fought over secession, which would make it a war of independence. In other words, the southern states were not trying to overthrow the government in Washington, they simply did not want to be ruled by it. Any thoughts? --J8427 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely should, not least because almost everyone refers to it as a civil war; it's not our job as Wikipedians to invent new terms because we don't like the terminology that the majority uses. See Wikipedia:No original research. -- ChrisO 09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we rename the American Civil War to be something else; there's all kinds of crazy things that some southerners call it. I was questioning what list it should be included in, considering the type of war it was. J8427 18:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Bleeding Kansas should be on this list. Far too few people died for this to be a civil war. Civil conflict, maybe, civil war, by no means. Piff133 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, if the American Civil war qualifies as a civil war, doesn't the war of independence qualify as well? It was a war of succession between two parts of the British Empire. Had the Tories won in 1776, then this would be a civil war. If the South had won in 1865, then they would be calling the Civil War this War of Independence. Interesting question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmcc (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The American Civil War should definitely be on this list because it was a war between two different parts of the same country, which is the definition we're working under here. The motivation of the rebels doesn't matter: They could have been fighting over whether lite beer tastes great or is less filling, and it would still qualify as a Civil War. The fact that they were engaged in warfare against the lawful government automatically qualifies it for inclusion in this list. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The American Civil War was fought between two different nations, the Untied States and the Confederate States. When two nations fight, it is an international war. The Great War of '61 should be removed from this list.71.228.186.13 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)The rebel sharpshooter

Korean Civil War

Should we add the Korean Civil War? Alinor (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would add it as such though most people would say its not because its a cold war proxy war but that does not change the fact that it was two nations fighting over a claim territory, its a civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't, as it definately wasn't a civil war by the civil war definitions. It was two seperate countries (North Korea and South Korea) at war (besides all of the other countries). The definition of a civil war is opposing factions within the same country, and these were two distinct countries with two different and distinct legal systems and governments. 136.177.33.218 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Korea and Vietnam

We all need to agree to either add Korea to the list or remove Vietnam from that same list.

To keep Vietnam but to take out Korea was contradicting because both are civil wars being supported by a foreign power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In both cases they are two separate countries with different legal systems and governments, hence they do not meet the definition of a civil war. A civil war is a conflict betwenn opposing forces within the same country. They cannot be the same country with two completely different governemnts in place before hostilities begin. And, if they 'were' the same country, how could one invade the other, ala the Korean War. Those were internationally recognized as seperate countries for what, 5 or 6 years before large-scale hostilities insued, and they both had their own internaionally recogized borders, again in contradiction to the definition of a civil war. wbfergus ^Talk 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove the American Revolutionary War

The first source is from the BBC and is laughably biased and condescending. The second source from History.com does not even use the phrase "civil war." 67.181.111.184 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You can remove it. Wikipedia is do-it-yourself.

War in Donbass not a civil war

This article needs some serious cleaning up. Much of the content (i.e., lists of civil wars) is explicitly WP:OR. For a start, I've removed the war in Donbass from the post-WWII and the ongoing civil wars sections. Reliable resources would need to be referenced in order to qualify it as such. As it stands, Nato, Amnesty International, the EU, the USA do not call it a civil war (see the relevant section in that article for an expansive list of RS as a rebuttal for calling it a 'civil war').

This is by no means a WP:POV one-off in this article. Suggestion: bring WP:RS supporting 'civil war' for each and every instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)