Jump to content

Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

May 2017

Suggestion - A new column named 'Factions' would be very helpful

Suggestion - A new column in the tables, named 'Factions' would be very helpful. This column would name the groups that are involved in the conflict, letting the reader instantly know who is involved in the dispute, thus greatly increase the productivity of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.196.180.5 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is so complex that this would reduce the readability of the page. All factions are listed on each conflict page for more detailed information. But any sandbox suitable proposal is welcome. Wykx (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Wix. This is beyond the abilities of this page at the moment.GreyShark (dibra) 06:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Venezuela riots

Still not an armed insurgency and still not 100 casualties, but it seems to be going fast towards an armed uprising. The number of casualties in riots from 2014 already 96 fatalities - many in the last month 2017 Venezuelan protests, which begin to resemble an uprising. Adding it to watchlist.GreyShark (dibra) 06:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been alot of speculation by news media today that [it might turn into a civil war][1], but i haven't yet seen any reports of paramilitary organization such as insurgent activity or arming of the mobs, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ [1]

Other source

Hello, what do you think of the figures including in this source, the annual report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) [2]. Figures for Afghanistan (16K), Iraq (17K), Mexico (23K) and Yemen (7K) in 2016 are very different from the ones collected until now. How is it possible? Wykx (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Not familiar with it....GreyShark (dibra) 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi casualties

Updated to 268,000 as for 2017, and removed the source from 2011, which is highly outdated and frankly a very doubtful estimate ("based on survey"?).GreyShark (dibra) 18:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

See also

Desperately searching for a concise list only of armed conflicts the United States is currently involved in. If there were such a page, it should be listed under "See also". Sadsaque (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The page List of wars involving the United States gives you the information. I don't think it is necessary to add it (because then we should add for all countries...) here but why not. Wykx (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, what do you consider involvement to be? The ones where the united states in actively engaged in combat operations are, Afghan Civil War, Iraqi Civil War, Syrian Civil War, Second Libyan Civil War, Somali Civil War, the Yemeni Civil War and possibly still in Pakistan. There are several other conflicts where the United States has deployed advisors, but is not currently engaged in active combat operations.XavierGreen (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wave of terror in Europe

We have once again multiple casualties in Great Britain from what seems to be an ISIL attack against European targets. There is an article Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) to treat this campaign led by radical Jihadist organizations (most notably ISIL), with several hundred cumulative casualties since 2014/5. I'm tending to include it in the list.GreyShark (dibra) 12:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding a page about terrorism would suggest that Europe is a warzone, and that there are shootouts between ISIL and European security forces (or that this would be implied). Aside from politicians and tabloids labeling Europe a "warzone", the continent really isn't one; personally, I'd place that article in a different list, but this is just my opinion. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, UK and France have raised their security level to highest - meaning wartime has come.GreyShark (dibra) 12:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with GreySkark09, it is an armed conflict after all. That being said, while it has been added to the list, the map isn't up to date. EchoLambda (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Now it is. Wykx (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
What has changed since last time we decided inclusion was not appropriate? Wykx (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The terror campaign is continuing, predominantly led by ISIL cells in Europe, who succeed in striking civilian and military targets despite security crackdown. This begins to resemble terror campaigns of the IRA, Palestinian militancy groups or the Basque ETA back in the 1970s and 1980s, also in Europe.GreyShark (dibra) 05:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
OK Moreover the UCDP has added it as a one-sided conflict. Wykx (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Would point out that inclusion condition 1 on this article is "Armed conflicts consist in the use of armed force between two or more organized armed groups, governmental or non-governmental alike". Even if we assume that all these attacks are the direct result of ISIL or other Islamic group (and the linked article makes clear that that is not the case, the motivation for many is wholly unknown, others substantially unclear). So even if we assume that we know who one side in this conflict is, (Islamist groups), who exactly are the other 'organized armed groups'? The entire population of Europe? Do RS actually generally treat this as an 'armed conflict', or is including it here as WP:OR as the above discussion makes it seem? btw most of the recent attacks in Europe have been pretty much proven to be 'lone-wolf', possibly copy-cat, but certainly not 'led by ISIL cells in Europe', the number of attacks would come down to a very small number if only those with a discovered link to ISIL were included though these have tended to be the most deadly (eg Paris). Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
We go by sources and hence inclusion of the conflict UCDP makes it a valid conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 12:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
You keep using that source. I do not think it says what you think it says.
In summary, the UCDP does not remotely include Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) as a conflict. TompaDompa (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW this source lists many fewer ISIS attacks in Europe since 2004 than WP and lists 266 deaths since 2004 (Paris, Brussels, Normandy, Nice, Berlin + 6 in E. Europe?). The WP articles list 394/455 deaths since 2014, (depending on whether one reads this page or the linked article and ignoring the non-ISIL ones). It does not AFAI can see treat 'Europe' as part of ISIL's war, though I think it would be fundamentally dishonest to treat the source as valid for whether an armed conflict existed, but ignore it for casualty and other info, such as perp. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
ISIS had not existed in its current form prior to 2013 and had (almost) no activity in Europe and the West, hence talking of 2004 is irrelevant. In many warzones you can find much attacks made by "lone wolves" carrying a certain ideology, but without clear central chain of command - this doesn't mean such attacks do not have to do with the general conflict. People of certain ideology do not just spontaneously carry out dozens of suicide bombings, shootings, knife attacks and vehicle run-overs targeting specific people and areas - this is a clear indication of ongoing conflict with ISIL and affiliates on one side and EU on on the other (some add Russia and Balkan countries as well); ISIL attacks on civilian targets is the essence of terror tactics in an armed conflict, which is spillover of the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 12:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: UCDP doesn't list 2017 yet so UK is not yet included. As for other countries and attacks, they were not linked a particular organization but with islamic motives. Anyway we'll have to add it in the references with the appropriate sources in the coming week. Wykx (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wykx: Fair enough about 2017 with regards to the UK, but that doesn't explain away Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also doesn't change the fact that the source doesn't support the assertion you say it does. That's failing WP:Verifiability. You've conflated what according to the source is not one conflict, but multiple separate conflicts. That's WP:Synthesis. In addition, you've arbitrarily restricted the conflicts both temporally and geographically, directly contradicting the source. That's WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I ran out of patience, and removed it for being wholly unsourced. I'm not opposed to its inclusion per se, but it needs to abide by our policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Before adding it back, note that The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material per WP:BURDEN. TompaDompa (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

And for the same reason, I reverted the map to the previous version. TompaDompa (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Sources added.Wykx (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It's good that you added sources for the individual attacks' number of fatalities, but that doesn't really address the issue of the "this is an armed conflict" assertion being unsourced. It's directly contradicted by the UCDP, which classifies is as portions of several different conflicts. The Le Monde source used for the number of fatalities similarly lists other attacks tied to the same organisations that we do not include and does not classify all the attacks we do include as tied to the same organisations. The parameters by which this putative armed conflict gets defined on this page—the individuals committing the acts of violence, the geographic location, and the timeframe—have all been chosen arbitrarily by the editors. As such, I can only agree with what Pincrete wrote above: the inclusion is WP:Original research. And that's not even getting into the other thing Pincrete brought up, namely that it doesn't seem to fit the inclusion criteria.
Because of this arbitrary definition, I also dispute (with regards to the summation of fatalities) that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources per WP:CALC. I'll note that both the UCDP and Le Monde sum it up differently from how it's done here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
My primary doubt is whether this meets its own definition of an armed conflict. I haven't looked in detail at all the new casualty figures, partly because to do so is inordinately complex, however for 2017, "Le Monde" seems the only reasonably sound source, though the paucity of text makes it difficult to assess what or how Le M have calculated. Even so the source does not appear to use the word 'Islamic', though I'm inclined to think their 62 figure is probably fairly OK. But is either this or this even remotely RS and what info do they convey?
Relying on such marginal sources, cherry-picking favoured parts of sources, and obtaining such discrepant fatality results, is indicative to me that, whilst there is no doubt these were terrorist attacks, this is simply not an armed conflict according to any sensible definition. As Nykterinos says here, Not all armed violence constitutes an armed conflict, which requires two or more organized armed groups … fighting each other: this is not a … List of terrorist attacks. Relying on UCDP to define this as an armed conflict (though they appear to be treating this as 'overspill' of Middle East conflicts), then ignoring who they say are in conflict, and the nature of the conflict (one-sided, civilian-IS) is a formula for OR.
Before spending too much time haggling about details, I think we should establish whether this entry meets its own definition of 'armed conflict'. Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: UCDP explains in IS page that Since 2014, a number of groups in other countries have pledged allegiance to IS. After a group has been accepted as member of ISIL by the ISIL leadership, it is seen as part of the IS structure. Subsequently, IS attacks against civilians have been carried out in a large number of countries (in addition to Iraq and Syria), including Afghanistan, Egypt, France, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.. Thus those attacks are parts of the conflicts involving ISIL. We cannot count two times casualties: so Europe attacks are not part of other conflicts identified and already listed separately. As for counts between Le Monde and UCDP, I see for 2016 a difference regarding the Nice attack (for which a claim has been done but not proven). For attacks in Russia mentioned by Pincrete they are included by both Le Monde and UCDP. Given the "emergency state" in place in France and the 115,000 forces deployed in the country we can fairly say that the state is an organized armed group. Wykx (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually what the French source says is "Quelque 115.000 policiers et gendarmes sont actuellement mobilisés dans le cadre de l'état d'urgence" ..."Some 115,000 policemen and gendarmes are currently mobilized under the state of emergency", France has a police force and one of its current priorities is defending against terrorist attacks. Isn't defending prominent people, events and buildings what police and army do at all times all over the world?
What has 'some groups' pledging allegiance to ISIL got to do with what is happening in Europe? Especially as the only European countries mentioned are France and Russia. My comments about the 'Russia' sources (RT + what I believe is a blog) were more about the quality of the sources, their numbers may be correct. Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not buying it.
  • Since 2014, a number of groups in other countries have pledged allegiance to IS. After a group has been accepted as member of ISIL by the ISIL leadership, it is seen as part of the IS structure. Well the tally includes attacks by AQAP, an enemy of ISIL. So this doesn't hold water as an argument.
  • Thus those attacks are parts of the [http://ucdp.uu.se/additionalinfo?id=234&entityType=0#2016 conflicts involving ISIL]. Conflicts, plural. Cherry-picking among them and combining them into one is WP:Original research. Adding other conflicts to that (as done with AQAP, see above) is even more so.
  • We cannot count two times casualties: so Europe attacks are not part of other conflicts identified and already listed separately. There we agree. But it doesn't make the Europe attacks a conflict in their own right. They might be (parts of) several different ones, for instance.
  • For attacks in Russia mentioned by Pincrete they are included by both Le Monde and UCDP. Then the solution is simple: use one of those sources (or both) instead.
  • Given the "emergency state" in place in France and the 115,000 forces deployed in the country we can fairly say that the state is an organized armed group. That's debatable, but it's an argument in favour of including a conflict called "Islamic terrorism in France (2015–present)", not "Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)" (or combined with the rest of your argument, "ISIL–France conflict (2015–present)").
In conclusion, this is still a blatant violation of WP:No original research. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
On armed forces: Yes they defend, and...? On AQAP: it's also islamic terrorism (grouped as such by Le Monde for example). There are many conflicts, notably in Africa, were several parties are part of the conflict. Why only France? There are also armed forces in UK, Germany... and the problem is tackled at european level. Wykx (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, all this tortured logic would be completely unnecessary if only there were a handful of RS that said 1) an armed conflict started circa 2014 that had X, Y, and Z on one side and A,B and C on the other. … … 2) this armed conflict was seen as a single entity and called "Islamic terrorism' by most sources, (unlike the Troubles, or the Basque conflict, or other terrorist campaigns, this campaign somehow never acquired a name, apart from the very broad ideology that linked it?). Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You mean violent Islamic extremism in Europe since 2014 involving counterterrorism police? Then I encourage you to read this Europol report from pages 21 to 27 about in the past two years, (...) the unprecedented form of jihadist terrorist attacks across Europe while the EU is facing a range of terrorist threats and attacks of a violent jihadist nature, from both networked groups and lone actors (...) Jihadist actors can be both directed by Islamic State (IS) or merely inspired by IS ideology and rhetoric.. You'll note the report is full of counterterrorism actions figures. Wykx (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I've read most of these, they speak of attacks not of a singular unified armed conflict, nor even several dispirate armed conflicts. No one disputes that there have been fairly numerous terrorist incidents and attempted incidents, principally in France + Belgium, to a lesser extent UK and Germany + others + seperately in Turkey. Many of these attacks have similarities and appear to be motivated by similar ideologies, some have concrete, discernible relationships with known groups like IS and AQ. That does not make an armed conflict, not even according to this article's own definition. Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Still not buying it.
  • On AQAP: it's also islamic terrorism (grouped as such by Le Monde for example). The argument you were making was that attacks by other groups than ISIL are included in conflicts involving ISIL when those groups are accepted as members of ISIL by ISIL leadership. I pointed out that this does not apply to AQAP.
  • Why only France? Because the emergency state you cited as a reason is an emergency state in France, not Europe. And because the forces you cited as a reason forces in France, not Europe. And because the state you referred to as an organized armed group is France, not Europe. That's why I said that all of that was an argument in favour of including an armed conflict in France, not Europe.
  • the problem is tackled at european level That's the European Union, not Europe. You'll notice the entry for the conflict in the table includes events in Russia, which is not a member of the EU.
  • Then I encourage you to read this Europol report from pages 21 to 27 [...] You'll note the report is full of counterterrorism actions figures. Okay, I read it. That source also relates specifically to the EU. The same argument as above applies. In addition, this being a single conflict is wholly your interpretation, not what the source actually says.
I don't mean to be rude, but do you not see how this is WP:Original research (WP:Synthesis in particular)? You keep drawing your own conclusions from pieces of different sources and ignoring the parts of those same sources that contradict your central thesis. What's more, you keep making motte-and-bailey arguments; the arguments you make support much weaker claims than the one you are contending (or more to the point, the one I am contesting). TompaDompa (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't been active here for a while, but I still believe that ISIS-linked terrorist attacks in Europe do not qualify for inclusion, for the reasons explained by @TompaDompa: and @Pincrete:. UCDP lists terrorist attacks by ISIS all over the world under the category of "one-sided violence" (IS-civilians), which is NOT an armed conflict according to its own definitions (civilians are not an organized armed group). In our list, we include one-sided violence (called civilians intentionally targeted by the parties to an armed conflict in the guidelines) if and only if it's part of an armed conflict, and we don't list it separately (unlike UCDP) but as part of that conflict. E.g., one-sided violence by ISIS against civilians in Iraq is included in the Iraqi civil war as part of the armed conflict between the Iraqi government and ISIS. However, ISIS-linked one-sided violence against civilians in Europe, besides not being an armed conflict in itself, is not part of any armed conflict in Europe. The only armed conflict between some European states and ISIS takes place in the Middle East and is included in the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars (UCDP includes it in the Iraq-IS armed conflict, too). There is no armed conflict (no actual fighting) between European governments and ISIS on European soil, certainly not one reaching 100+ deaths.
Besides, most terrorist attacks against civilians are actually not carried out by "ISIS cells" (the only known such cell was, perhaps, the Brussels ISIL terror cell, responsible for two attacks). Most attacks are carried out by individuals whose degree of affiliation and operational ties to ISIS are often unclear and disputed, and deciding which ones to include and which not, and the geographical scope of this supposed "conflict", entails original research (it's unclear which attacks from this list have been included and which not). --Nykterinos (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To all, I have removed the entry. Wykx (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have this on my watchlist (since I have little experience of armed conflicts in general), but would be happy to be contacted if this specific issue returns. Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Wykx, and I hope there are no hard feelings. I noticed you also changed the map to reflect this. I removed the entry from Template:Ongoing military conflicts. Like Pincrete, I would be happy to be contacted if the issue returns. TompaDompa (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. For consistency, the infobox armed conflict should be removed from the article Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), too. As you can notice, the infobox lists as belligerents ISIS on one side and a whole lot of European states on the other side, as if ISIS was militarily engaging all those states, but then the only casualties listed in the European states column are civilians, who are not parties to the conflict and should not be put in that column, which is for military deaths. --Nykterinos (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I filed an edit request. TompaDompa (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's OK. But I was also speaking of the Template:Infobox military conflict which is used in the lead of Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) to summarize the article and is inappropriate given that it's not a military conflict. --Nykterinos (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh. That's what I get for not reading carefully. There's currently an ongoing RfC on the scope of Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), and a discussion about the casualty tallies in the infobox, both of which relate to the issue you bring up somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, that article is a mess. I notice you have already brought up the problem of the infobox, and I think it should be removed altogether, as it misrepresents the terrorist attacks as an armed conflict against European states, but it's not an armed conflict at all, as we have concluded here. --Nykterinos (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It is certainly yet to be concluded. I really disagree to disregard this conflict as "non-conflict".GreyShark (dibra) 10:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Salafist insurgency in Indonesia

There was an attack [by salafist insurgents in Jakarta today] in which 3 police and 2 suicide bombers were killed. This low intensity salafist insurgency has been going on for a number of years, does anyone have a total for casualties over the conflict? It might meet the inclusion criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing military offensive against one of the salafist groups in Sulawesi, there's not much information on the wikipedia page, but the operation is still ongoing and [two militants were killed in a firefight earlier this month].XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Good catch - we can begin developing the operation article as a base for the conflict page if found relevant. Adding it to watch list.GreyShark (dibra) 07:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Should Colombia be in the map?

Colombia reached an agreement between government and FARC in November 2016, and according to this page itself, there is no ongoing conflict there, so it probably shouldn't be highlighted in the map. In theory, there has also been a ceasefire since June 2016, so by now (May 30) the "current or last year" window should also be approaching a 100% peaceful period. Riffraff (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not exclude conflicts based on peace agreements, due to the sad fact that most peace agreements fail. The exclusion criteria is that a conflict is not producing mortal casualties within current or past calendar year. Colombian conflict produced 152 casualties in 2016 (mid-level conflict) and indeed due to peace accords the level reduced to only 12 mortal casualties in 2017 (low level conflict), hence it is still de facto ongoing. Sorry to disappoint you.GreyShark (dibra) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
There are two leftist insurgent groups which contine to fight the government, the EPP and the EPL. The EPL has been building stregnth since the FARC signed the ceasefire agreement, absorbing FARC defectors and siezing control of territory abandoned by the FARC. ELN has been conducting negotiations with the government, but still stages attacks against government forces. The current EPL was originally formed out of a cadre of hardliners who had rejected a ceasefire signed by the main body of the EPL, the remnant EPL killed off most of the militants that demobilized under the ceasefire agreement. As such, the government refuses to conduct any further negotiations with them and seeks to annihilate them through military conflict rather than sign any further agreement with them.XavierGreen (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of ongoing armed conflicts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Add United States

Add United States as it is listed as location of spillover conflict in the info box for Mexican Drug War.--Heyhowareyoudoing (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Frankly this makes sense, though I would like to to hear other opinions.GreyShark (dibra) 05:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, the United States should not be added to the Mexican Drug War row because the article is mainly focused on Mexico. If there was a separate page named "U.S. Drug War" or something along those lines, that could be added instead as its own row, such as how the Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon is included on this page. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 20:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
United States is not listed in location of the info box for Mexican Drug War but listed as a belligerent party. Wykx (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Insurgency in the North Caucasus

Insurgency in the North Caucasus is listed as ended with multiple sources in the article (by the end date). Should I remove it from the Template:Ongoing_military_conflicts? I tried to do that, but there is some opposition.

Actually there are still some casualties and the sources don't say the conflict is over. Wykx (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
As long as there are casualties, the conflict is considered ongoing. The alleged "end-date" to the conflict is just an optimistic announcement. Unfortunately most peace agreements fail.GreyShark (dibra) 12:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Then, should we remove the end date? Smeagol 17 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed it one week ago. Wykx (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Philippines, Marawi Crisis

I think it should be added. (Marawi crisis) Socialistboyy (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Marawi Crisis is a battle, its part of the Moro Conflict, which is already on the list here.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Berber separatism in North Africa

I've just started the article on this long-going and wide conflict. Two notable subconflicts are already included within other conflict statistics - the Tuareg rebellions in Mali and Tuareg militant activity in Libya during the war. However, in recent months there is a build up of protests by ethnic Berbers both in Algeria and Morocco, which are on the verge of escalating. Apparently in 2014 and 2015, the conflict produced casualties in Algeria, which we have missed. I'm putting this conflict on the watch list.GreyShark (dibra) 14:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Wykx (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Venezuela

An interesting development in the Venezuela riots, apparantly a faction of armed police have joined the rioters, siezed a helicopter, and used it to bomb the top court in Venezuela. This moves it closer to the inclusion critera of armed and organized inclusion critera. We'll have to wait and see if its an isolated incident or part of a pattern of organization of an armed force resisting the government. See here [[3]]XavierGreen (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Could well be an isolated incident, but the country is on the verge of collapse. Let's see what happens.GreyShark (dibra) 19:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@XavierGreen:@Greyshark09: I should note that the Spanish Wikipedia included Venezuela among the armed conflicts and that around 75% of the deaths have been caused by firearms.[4] For the time being the protests have ceased, but it's possible that next year there's another wave and I recommend including Venezuela in the map.--Jamez42 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Death of civilians by firearms during protests is not defined as an armed conflict, as long as protesters do not use weapons by themselves. In an armed conflict two sides have to utilize weapons, otherwise it is a brutal suppression of protests, which belongs to List of ongoing protests and civil unrest. There are at least two incidents in Venezuela involving armed insurrection against state's military, but still not something organized. I guess if such incidents continue we will include it here.GreyShark (dibra) 10:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Paramilitary organization is the key factor missing here. As GreyShark said, there have been at least two organized paramilitary type attacks (the helicopter incident, and defeated raid on the military base). I have seen no sources which state the group that used the helicopter has launched any other paramilitary type attack and the group that attacked the military base was apparently liquidated by the Venezuelan military during the attack. I have yet to see any third party source which states that there is an ongoing armed conflict in Venezuela. Right now the situation seems to be just large mobs of protesters harassing government forces, without any armed organized paramilitary type opposition.XavierGreen (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Venezuela at war?

It seems more Venezuelans are starting to fight back. I think this could be considered an armed conflict now. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKBN1AM0HA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex of Canada (talk • contribs) 08:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What are the criteria met? Wykx (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the beginning of an armed conflict. We are yet to see an organized militant group to take responsibility - if so, this warrants inclusion (together with massive casualties in preceding protests it is well over 100 dead).GreyShark (dibra) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Another casualty of ISIL insurgency in Gaza

Hamas guard in Rafah (Gaza Strip) was killed by what looks to be an ISIL suicide bombing. With several preceding armed incidents against Hamas (standoff from 2015) and against Israel (such as this) by Gazan organization affiliated with ISIL (Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade and several others), i add this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Ongoing conflicts watch list.GreyShark (dibra) 09:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

CAR should be red

Over 1,000 deaths this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex of Canada (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark. It is now  Done Wykx (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Unrest in Awamiya

It looks like the Saudi town Awamiya is in a warzone, between the Saudi government and the Shia militants. The clashes started since May 2017. Activists claim there are at least 25 people (20 civilians and 5 militants) killed, however the Saudi government claim only 12 people (8 police officers and 4 special forces personnel) are killed. The government did not give some information about the casualties of the civilians and the militants in their claim, but its possible that both of the claims are right. So i guess the death toll is between 12 and 37 people, should i add this in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Ongoing conflicts watch list? CPA-5 (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely, there has been a very low intensity shia insurgency in eastern Saudi Arabia for some time now, there have likely been other casualties bsesides that at the Siege of Awamiya.XavierGreen (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a part of the Qatif conflict, which has its roots in the Unification of Saudi Arabia in early 1900s, when the Sunni Saudis defeated the chieftains of Emirate of Jabal Shammar and subdued the Shi'ite majority region of Qatif under their rule. Since 1979 this has become a low level insurgency and i guess it is about time to group those into a single article, which warrants inclusion here.GreyShark (dibra) 18:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, since May 2017 is in the region of Qatif and Awamiya a lot of clashes. The Saudi government claim that the Shia militants (terrorists) are responsible for the attacks in the region. [n 1] CPA-5 (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Would you like to start Qatif conflict article (from 1979) or an article on currently ongoing unrest only (2017 Qatif unrest)?GreyShark (dibra) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I made an article about the currently ongoing unrest (2017 Qatif unrest). CPA-5 (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks, i will later expand the general conflict article.GreyShark (dibra) 15:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to be sure: is it more than civil unrest and political crackdown? Wykx (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
According to BBC it is an armed insurgency - quote "Awamiya in Saudi Arabia, a town in the east of the Sunni Muslim-ruled kingdom that has been rocked in recent months by deadly clashes between security forces and Shia militants". The thing is however that armed insurgency took place in 1979, but from 1979 to 2017 it was mainly civil unrest; in May 2017 it turned armed conflict once again. If we count all casualties from 1979 - we are well into the 100+ deaths.GreyShark (dibra) 21:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that even the 1979 Qatif Uprising is described as civil unrest in its article, with "occasional armed incidents". Wykx (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, also the Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War began as civil unrest, but turned increasingly violent. We can certainly see armed clashes during past several months in Qatif and it looks like rebel armed groups like Organization for the Islamic Revolution in the Arabian Peninsula and still functional Hezbollah Al-Hejaz operated since 1979 at low level.GreyShark (dibra) 05:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Mexican Drug War inaccurate figures

The figures quoted for the Mexican Drug War 2017 totals represent total homicides in Mexico. Given that intentional homicide rate in Mexico in 2015 was 16.35 per 100,000 persons (including drug war deaths) and its direct neighbors had the following homicide rates (US with 4.88, Guatemala with 31.21 and Belize with 34.40), without new figures it's impossible to tell how many of these were drug war related. CultureArchitect (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark. I changed the source and figure to update with drug war related deaths only. Wykx (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Oromo-Somali clashes in Ethiopia

Does a conflict page already exist for the Oromo-Somali clashes in Ethiopia started this month and that led to hundreds of dead? It should be created and then added to this page. Wykx (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there is a page on that yet. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I found more information about the conflict. The conflict started on 1st September 2017 (This is the earliest date I could find) in Eastern Ethiopia. However there were even more clashes in 2017 one in January 2017 and another one in April 2017, there was even a peacefully agreement between de both ethnic groups. So maybe we can put all of the clashes in one page? CPA-5 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead.GreyShark (dibra) 11:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oromo-Somali clashes page is created. Wykx (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Good job.GreyShark (dibra) 07:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Iraq conflict death toll

The Iraq comflict death toll needs to be updated to include all casualties from 2003 to the present because the conflict has been raging since then. Charles Essie (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, is the current Iraq vs Kurdistan war it's own conflict? Alex of Canada (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Alex of Canada
It doesn't seem to escalate beyond one-week long limited fighting. It did produce several hundred people killed and more than a hundred thousand displaced, but it looks like an episode of the wider Iraq War and not a separate conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 07:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself- Pakistan should be orange

Pakistan should be orange but it is red. But down the article in the table it has the correct information. Edit the map please.

There are 1,803 people killed "last year" [5] that means that Pakistan is over the 1,000 deaths, it is in the correct section so there is no reason to change Pakistan from red to orange. CPA-5 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Philippine drug war

Should the Philippine drug war be on this list? Nicholas S8 (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you check Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts/Archive_9#Philippine_Drug_War_3 and add new information in reply here if you see a change? Wykx (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Islamic extremism in the US, Islamic extremism in Europe

There are deaths to be counted. Many. We are suffering also ongoing armed conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.78.179 (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you check Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts/Archive_10#Wave_of_terror_in_Europe and add new information in reply here if you see a change? Wykx (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not able to track every case, but I think something must be included, because neither Europe and the US are free of comflict and of victims. I do not know exactly under which tittles (there are attacks of ISIS and also of Al Qaeda). Also the maps need to reflect it. Saying it as European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.22.62 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the US this can be a useful basis to find links to follow every case and to count victims. This is a real ongoing conflict at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Islamist_extremism

In the case of Europe there is this, but the issue started before (Madrid,...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014-present)

Nepalese 2017 elections incidents

There are a lot of terrorist incidents in Napal since the 2017 elections.[6] For now there is just one temporary police killed by one of the bombs incidents,[7] also there was an ambush on 30th November 2017 in the city of Biratnagar only 4 people get injured. [8] The biggest bomb incidents was just days before the second phase of the election 11 people get injured.[9] For now its too early to put this incidents in the list, however i will put it in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Ongoing conflicts watch list for if the violence getting worse than they already are. CPA-5 (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As i recall, there are still some very small break-away leftist militant groups still active in Nepal, its not clear if these groups are behind the violence or if its random unorganized elements acting.XavierGreen (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The website South Asia Terrorism Portal (satp) [10] claimed that there are still some casualties since the end of the civil war. Between the years 2007 and 2012 there are 298 people killed, since 2013 there are no casualties anymore so yes there is an ongoing low insurgency in Nepal. However like i said before if the violence getting worse than they already are than we have to make an article and put the article in the list, if the incident where the police officer died is linked with this conflict of course. CPA-5 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisions towards 2018

We are closing to the end of the calendar year, with several conflicts potentially changing status. Please bring more sources and numbers for the following ones:

  • Kurdish–Turkish conflict - currently listed casualties at 760 (which may downgrade it from war status, requiring 1000 deaths)  Done
  • Communal conflicts in Nigeria - currently listed casualties at 797 (which may downgrade it from war status, requiring 1000 deaths)  Not done
  • Yemeni Crisis (2011–present) - currently listed casualties at 932 (which may downgrade it from war status, requiring 1000 deaths)  Not done
  • South Kordofan conflict - currently listed casualties at 223 (which may downgrade it from war status, requiring 1000 deaths)  Not done
  • South Thailand insurgency - currently at 44 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Israeli–Palestinian conflict - currently at 83 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Colombian conflict - currently at 78 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - currently at 27 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Internal conflict in Bangladesh - currently at 79 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Insurgency in Ogaden - currently at 27 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Insurgency in the North Caucasus - currently at 56 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • RENAMO insurgency - currently at 50 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Turkey–ISIL conflict - currently at 46 casualties, possibly to be downgraded to low-level conflict (less than 100 deaths)  Done
  • Casamance conflict - no listed casualties yet, may be removed into watch list  Done

Share your thoughts and sources.GreyShark (dibra) 12:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Casamance, one of the three MFDC factions is on cease-fire and negotiating with the government [11], but has threatened recently to end the ceasefire [12] there is little information available regarding the other two factions. There were a few casualties in Casamance due to landmines this year [13], but i am unaware of any fatalities. I would support moving it to the low level watch list on the incubator page, its clearly still active but only at a very low level.XavierGreen (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Per user:Wykx - Nigerian communal conflicts, Yemeni War and South Cordofan conflict remain as they are.GreyShark (dibra) 19:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Casualties in Yemen are far too low

The war in Yemen has caused a famine which multiple sources state has killed at least 50,000 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Yemen_(2016-Present)

Since famine deaths caused by war are counted for conflicts like the Second Congo War, they should be here.

The war has also caused a major cholera outbreak, leaving over 2000 dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_Yemen_cholera_outbreak

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.190.78 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We count deaths caused directly by the war, hence Yemeni hunger and cholera outbreak are not to be included in the casualty count of this page. However, Yemeni War main page should of course list indirect casualties as well.GreyShark (dibra) 07:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Why shouldn't they be counted? They are caused by the war. Alex of Canada (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
As a contribution, several countries are affected [14]. Indirect deaths are subject to debate. Wykx (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of ongoing armed conflicts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Countries on the map should be coloured individually

Countries involved in conflicts should be coloured on the map based on how many deaths they have suffered individually. Saudi Arabia, for example, should only be coloured according to how many people have died on its territory during the war with the Houthis.

Agree with that.GreyShark (dibra) 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Myanmar conflict death toll

For 2017 448-6700 is a large range. Wasn't the death toll confirmed to be somewhere in the thousands? Shouldn't it be moved to the 1000+ deaths graph? Alex of Canada (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

6700 is the number of MSF NGO, and it seems to be more precise and credible than 448 so this conflict should be displaced to 1000-9999 deaths Martopa (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
We usually classify by the lower estimate.GreyShark (dibra) 12:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Iranian protests

Seems like a civil uprising - 2017–18 Iranian protests, with first casualty also among the security forces. Putting on the watch list.GreyShark (dibra) 12:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks to be declining, so not a prolonged conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Map Error Notice

Myanmar, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo & Ethiopia should be in Red. Eritrea should be removed since no deaths in 2017 or 2018. And use SVG format. Putting on the watch list.

  • I just added the Casamance conflict once more since there was an attack earlier today. This means that Senegal needs to be added to the map in yellow, and Russia needs to be updated to orange after I added all the 2017 casualties just now. Thank you! Skycycle (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there an Insurgency in Greece or not?

I am just curious but is there an insurgency in Greece? Because there are left-wing rebels groups who are fighting against the government. They started with fighting in the year 1975 after the Regime of the Colonels ended, in total there were 8 (maybe more) different groups. Some people claimed that some groups of the 1990s and early 2000s are successors of the other older groups called.

(some of them are already disbanded)

In total i only found 38 deads however, it's possible that there are more people killed within more than 400 attacks most of them are bomb attacks. those groups are still ongoing last year there were 3 attacks with no casualties. [15][16][17] I understand that they are terrorists because they killed some civilians too but again is it a conflict because they attack police officers, they are armed (by graneds bombs and even wapens), they are in militants groups and they want to remove the government with a new (left-wing) government. If its a conflict than we have to put it in our Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Ongoing conflicts watch list if its not than please expalin why not?

@CPA-5: interesting, i'm always surprised to find new conflicts we have not been aware of. Probably warrants an article (perhaps Leftist insurgency in Greece or something similar?) and putting it on the incubator watch list indeed.GreyShark (dibra) 07:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a very low level insurgency there, Revolutionary Organization 17 November was the strongest of these groups, but it fractured after most of its leadership was captured in the early 2000's, though the economic crisis in greece has been [leading some of the newer organizations to grow in strength with some militants going to Syria and fighting alongside the YPG](http://www.dw.com/en/greek-extremists-go-abroad-for-training-in-revolution/a-39094660), a former [prime minister was attacked and wounded in December](http://www.dw.com/en/former-greek-prime-minister-papademos-injured-in-car-blast/a-38985190). The anarachist groups there have also attacked American interests within Greece, attacking the US embassy multiple times over the length of the conflict [including in 1996](http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-16/news/mn-36785_1_u-s-embassy-in-athens-attacked) and [in 2007](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-embassy-in-athens-attacked/). American military personnel were killed in attacks [in Greece in 1983](http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/15/world/us-navy-captain-is-shot-dead-by-two-men-in-an-athens-suburb.html) and [in 1988](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordeen). XavierGreen (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed from the start of the conflict in 1975 the groups were anarachists, however they became violent and armed, they do not attack only the goverment but also its allies too. The groups started their own conflict this conflict was part of the Cold War, and maybe Soviet Union did supported them against the capitalists in the early years of the conflict. I also found some more groups who are/were left-wing rebel groups in this conflict. CPA-5 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I made an article about the conflict called Leftist insurgency in Greece, it still needs a lot of work but i am working on the page. CPA-5 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to find the total death toll of a conflict in a year?

Having to add a source for every incident in a conflict may begin to clog up the page soon. Alex of Canada (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately most conflicts are professionally counted by sources such as ACLED and CSP. Since they are not updated daily, sometimes we use a combination of sources. Anyway, this page is running for many years and we have not encountered a problem of page clogging. You can find earlier conflict years on their own pages, as part of resolving this issue, such as List of armed conflicts in 2016. List of armed conflicts in 2017 is yet to be created. GreyShark (dibra) 11:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. If I started a blog just listing war events, with sources, could that be considered a source on wikipedia? Alex of Canada (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Alex, blogs are generally considered non-reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines, so a blog can be referred in talk page discussions, but certainly not as a source. Please read reliable source guidelines for more details.GreyShark (dibra) 07:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Even if I have sources in it? I honestly just want to, so the main article doesn't have a ridiculous amount of sources. Alex of Canada (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Islamist insurgency in Mozambique

OK i know we just had a conversation about the Insurgency in Greece. But i was just searching and reading in the List of terrorist incidents in January 2018 page and i did found an other conflict we all didn't were aware for this conflict, there is already a page called Islamist insurgency in Mozambique. It's about Islamist insurgents who are fighting against the goverment in Northern Mozambique. They want an Islamic state in Mozambique what isn't suprising me of course, because every Islamist rebel group want an Islamic state. Anyway the conflict started on 5th of October 2017 so not that far ago. However the deadtoll is rising fast there are at least 76 people killed, soon the page will be in the list. CPA-5 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The conflict there seems to be escalating rapidly, there have been several attacks reported throughout January, with an attack from this past monday with two civilians killed possibly attributed to the militants.[18]XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Depressing :(GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Colombia

I have updated the death toll for Colombia. Can someone please change the colour. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.71.103.116 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The death toll of the Mexican Drug War is wrong

The deaths toll of the Mexican Drug War is wrong because we do not have to count the deaths caused by intentional homicide but only the deaths that occurred between firearms between the three factions that are part of the conflict (Mexican Armed Force, Sinaloa Cartel, Los Zetas). If we count also the deaths for intentional homocides or finds of corpses we should put for example Brazil, Venezuela, El Salvador and others. Read this article to better understand what I mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Thanks for the attention. Gu2082 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Gu2082

The sources doesn't count non-war related deaths. Wykx (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello, I'm trying to update the death toll in the Colombian armed conflict. But is says that the formating is wrong. Can anybody help me? Thanks a lot.

February 2018

List of armed conflicts in 2017

I created the article for "List of armed conflicts in 2017"

Can the graph of fatalities by year be updated? Looks like 130,706 total by the way, continuing the trend of decreasing fatalities. With Iraq all but over and Syria winding down 2018 may well drop under 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.36.234 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Colombia death toll

The death toll from the Colombian armed conflict has already reached more than 100. Can someone change the colour on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky to be me (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Bangladeshi conflict

There is a request to change the titel of the page. "Internal conflict in Bangladesh" --> "Terrorism in Bangladesh" In my opinion the conflict between the Islamists and the government isn't a conflict anymore. Why because the groups are not fighting against the government anymore, but they are now more terrorising the minorities like Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and Ahmadiyya. However the communist rebel groups like PBCP, PBSP and others are still fighting against the government on an Urban guerrilla warfare's way. So in my opninion the page needs a split one page for the Islamists called "Terrorism in Bangladesh" and the other one for the Communists called "Communists insurgency in Bangladesh" or "Left-wing insurgency in Bangladesh" or something like that but that's just my opinion i did replied my opinion in the talk page CPA-5 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The page its titel was changed and it is not count as a conflict anymore. I still believe the leftists are rebels and need their own page. SATP claimed there have been 754 people killed in total, last year there have been 15 Left-wing extremists killed. Also the first dead in 2018 was announced, so the conflict is still ongoing. So maybe we can replace the Internal conflict in Bangladesh with Left-wing insurgency in Bangladesh.[19] CPA-5 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

War in North-West Pakistan and Afghanistan death toll

In counting the deaths in the War in North-West Pakistan, it is only necessary to count the deaths in the FATA and KP districts and not consider all the deaths in Pakistan. Since the beginning of 2018 33 deaths have occurred (14 FATA, 19 KP) and not 89 as reported.

In Afghanistan, instead, the wounded are reported over the dead. In January 2018 there were 1,199 dead and not 2,044. In the number reported by you there are also the wounded who were 845 in January 2018.

Thanks for the attention. Gu2082 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Gu2082

Thanks for founding my mistake in the "War in North-West Pakistan" and i did changed the toll of Afghanistan thanks again. Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Qatif conflict

I began updating the info in that article, finding that the number of casualties continues to rise and has almost doubled since mid-2017. Do we have a good casualty summary, instead of counting the deaths one by one?GreyShark (dibra) 05:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Update Venezuelan conflict

I just found there was a military raid in El Junquito in January 2018 against Óscar Pérez's rebel movement. The raid cost Óscar Pérez his life with five of his men, 3 pro-Govermnent forces and a woman were killed, In total 10 people were killed in the raid. The group was also responsible for the Caracas helicopter incident in June 2017 and Operation Genesis in December 2017. The group is/was active since end June 2017. So I think this is a start of a conflict in the area because the group is/was organised and armed. CPA-5 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

By all accounts the El Junquito raid wiped out the militant group entirely. I havent seen any other articles that talk about an insurgency ongoing in Venezuela.XavierGreen (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Xavier - we can update it in the watch list, but it looks as a standalone series of incidents, doubtful whether there will be any continuation.GreyShark (dibra) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed true that the whole rebel group was massacred by pro-govermnent's forces, and yes maybe it's indeed true that the "conflict" is over. But shall the "conflict" get a page or shall it be part of the Venezuelan protests page? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that while the two incidents themselves are notable enough to have their own pages, that the "insurgency" itself was to minor be notable enough for its own page. Its better covered under the Venezuelan protests page and the two subsidiary articles related to each incident.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon

I just saw a news report from VOA today that stated 200 people have died overall during the conflict in Southern Cameroons. It thus meets the inclusion criteria. See here [20]XavierGreen (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree to include. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 15:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Requested move 31 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. wumbolo ^^^ 19:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

List of ongoing armed conflicts → Portal:Current events/Ongoing conflicts – WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism. This extremely well-maintained article is by its definition subject to change and has no place in an encyclopedia. If we move it to the Portal namespace, it won't lose anything, and even gets more freedom, e.g. it can have subpages. There has been an AfD for this article, and it was a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT voters. This is one of only two articles on the English Wikipedia which explicitly discuss 'current events'; every other article is sorted by year, or is located under Portal:Current events. wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colombian conflict fatalities 2018

The account of the fatalities in the Colombian conflict of 2018 seems to me excessive. I do not think there were so many victims in the first few months, partly because the Colombian government and the ELN are still negotiating for a peace agreement. I hope you find a better source.

Thanks for the attention. Gu2082 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Gu2082

Understandable it is indeed really high, but we are not only talking about ELN. We have smaller groups too like EPL and FARIP, (even we still don't know or the group still exist) the FARC dissidents are there too and right-wing paramilitaries and the drug cartels like Clan del Golfo and Oficina de Envigado. However i am also surprised about the deathtoll but if all the source are right then the most realistic is that the govermnent is maybe now focusing against the drug cartels in the War of Drugs. Plus indeed ELN is talking with the govermnent about peace but they don't have a creasfire anymore the last one was between 1 October 2017 and 12 January 2018 so in theory they can fight each other without any probleem while they are still talking about peace. CPA-5 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Your speech is very sensible and with a logical thread but I think there is an error in that only the deaths occurred between clashes between the Colombian army and the guerrilla groups (ELN, FARC dissident, EPL, FARIP) must be counted and do not count the deaths occurred for general criminality. Seeing the sources are also counted the deaths occurred for general crime while in the count of 2017 this did not happen. Gu2082 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If the drug cartels aren't part of the conflict, why do the main page says that? The page is part of the War on Drugs like Mexico with its own conflict. If the conflict in Mexico is a conflict why'd not are the drug cartels part of the conflict the drug cartels in Mexico are fighting too and it is count as a conflict? However an error is indeed posible like you said. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Insurgency in Southern Cameroon

A low level separatist insurgency has ignited in former Southern Cameroons, with organized militants fighting for independence from the Cameroon government killing some two dozen or so people over the past few months[(http://www.africanews.com/2018/04/04/cameroon-separatists-deny-fireign-abductions/]. Definately something to keep on the radar.XavierGreen (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you put it on the watch list?GreyShark (dibra) 08:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Good catch Xavier. CPA-5 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this the Anglophone Crisis?GreyShark (dibra) 06:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes Grey the page call itself the "Anglophone Crisis" because a lot of sources call the conflict with this name. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Israel–Palestinian conflict?

Why is the Israeli–Palestinian conflict not even mentioned in the article? At least 40+ people have died in the 2018 Gaza border protests alone, not counting other incidents. I personally can see no plausible reason why this conflict is not included, it certainly meets the standards to be mentioned in this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You missed it at the List of ongoing armed conflicts#Fewer than 100 deaths in current or past year - 42 deaths recorded this year so far.GreyShark (dibra) 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It needs to be updated again. It seems Israel has massacred another 60 in the past two days. It's firmly in the hundred category. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not much concerned about the update frequency - it is still very low-level.GreyShark (dibra) 13:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Shia insurgency in Bahrain

There is a page called the Shia insurgency in Bahrain. The rebel group call itself Al-Ashtar Brigades which are fighting (mostly with bomb attacks) against the Bahraini govermnent it has (suspected) ties with Iran. There are already 20 people killed since the end of the Bahraini uprising of 2011. i will add the conflict in the watchlist if that is okay? CPA-5 (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, definitely a low intensity insurgency with a clear potential for escalation.XavierGreen (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, let's follow it.GreyShark (dibra) 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Map

Okey can someone tell me why Nicaragua is orange, (without any conflict) and Iraq is red? (even it has 10,000 deads last year) Also Mozambique needs to be orange, last year the country suffered over 100 deads. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Misleading main map?

An issue I see with the main map for this article - - is that it's simply based on the raw numbers of deaths from each conflict, without distinguishing whether it's a regional or nationwide conflict or taking into account how the number of deaths compares with the larger population of that country.

As a result, it can be misleading, IMO, when the whole country is colored even though the conflict is (largely or entirely) relegated to a much more limited region. A couple notable examples here are Russia and China, both of which have regional conflicts, but are largely conflict-free in the bulk of their territory.

The failure to account for total population can be misleading too, for example with Mexico vs. its neighboring Central American states. The latter I believe are actually more dangerous, but appear less dangerous because of this failure to account for population.

So I would suggest using a map which showed the deaths *per-capita*, and also one where more regional conflicts were just colored for the provinces/regions/states affected. In those cases, the per-capita numbers could be based on the total populations of the affected regions. -2003:CA:83FD:1800:A98D:F5E7:9C06:4BCA (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Venezuela

The Attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro event shows an organized insurgency. Though still low-level this is an indication that previous violent incidents Caracas helicopter incident and El Junquito raid are not standalone. In my opinion, this incident warrants discussion on including the Venezuela protests in the page, due to increasing insurgency patterns.GreyShark (dibra) 07:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the incidents you mention (and others which happened in the last year) already speak about an armed conflict in the zone. Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yemen should be dark brown

The Yemeni civil war has killed more than 10,000 people this year according to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.190.78 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Nicaragua?

Am i missing something, or Nicaragua is not belonging to this page?GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is Bangladesh colored yellow on map?

Other than Islamic terrorism which is a threat to most countries in the world (also Bangladesh have less terrorism deaths than many countries that are not colored), why is it colored yellow? Tarikur (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Because there is an ongoing low intensity insurgency in Bangladesh which meets the criteria of inclusion for this page, as to why its not listed here i don't know.XavierGreen (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Greetings yes there is an ongoing low intensity insurgency in Bangladesh and there was indeed a page called "Internal conflict in Bangladesh". But in the almost half year ago the page was moved as Terrorism in Bangladesh, which is not count as a conflict. However the main subject were indeed the Islamic terrorists, 'cause of the alot of insidents. There are also left-wing rebels according to satp, in this "conflict" there are already 757 people killed since 2005. [21] So I asked here for some opinions or the page should be split and make an other page for a low intensity left-wing insurgency. But I think we all forgot it in the past I just remind it right now. CPA-5 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Update bar graph to 2017 totals?

Can the graph of fatalities by year be updated? Looks like 130,706 total by the way, continuing the trend of decreasing fatalities. 205.254.147.8 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Mapuche

Someone added the Mapuche conflict to the template:ongoing military conflicts. Unless there is a solid evidence for casualties, it should not be there.GreyShark (dibra) 12:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

War in Donbass 2018 fatalities count

The count was periodically incremented till August 2018 presumably based on Timeline of the war in Donbass which is always listed as the source of the count but on August 27 the count was increased from 88 to 488 without a comment. Then it was increased from 488 to 1088 a month later and finally increased to 1500. All three seems like bogus changes. — Sbsail talk 23:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

In any case Timeline of the war in Donbass should not be used as a source of cumulative fatalities as it does not provide the number. I'm replacing the count and the references with the latest Ukraine government and UN figures. Military 110[1] and civil 43[2]. Total 153. — Sbsail talk 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Потери ВСУ на Донбассе: за 2018 год в боях погибло более 110 украинских бойцов" [Ukrainian armed forces losses in Donbass: 110 fighters died in 2018] (in Russian). BBC. 2018-12-18. Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  2. ^ "Число погибших мирных жителей на Донбассе снизилось вдвое" [Civilian casualties in Donbass are down 50%] (in Russian). 2018-12-20. Retrieved 2018-12-22.

Map needs to be fixed

Ireland should be grey and Israel should be yellow. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ParadiseDesertOasis8888 Fixed. Graymatter501 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mexico needs evidence of casualties beyond "regular" organized crime

I removed Mexican Drug War because before any reinsertion it needs evidence of deaths directly related to the armed conflict in current or past year. This is not the List of countries by intentional homicide rate, whose number was given as the "Fatalities" for Mexico. The Timeline of the Mexican Drug War is completely empty for 2017 and onward. I specified in the guidelines that "gang violence is generally not included", otherwise we'd have lots of additional entries in this article, such as Crime in Brazil. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes and Ctes need audit

This edit caught my eye. This article is on my watchlist, but I don't follow it closely. Looking at it this time, notes 5-7 caught my eye because they run across into the second notes column as I view the article. That's not what sparked this comment, though.

Notes 5 and 6 are from a table column for fatalities in 2018, note 7 for 2019. Fair enough, though it would be clearer if the year was mentioned in the note; perhaps something like, for note 5, Columbia, 2018: ... or, if I presume incorrectly there, some such short description of what the list there pertains to.

Out of curiosity, I followed a few links in note 5; the third one in goes to a ref citing Tiempo, Casa Editorial El. "Hostigamientos en zona rural de Bolívar, en el Cauca". That is a newspaper article dated 13 de octubre 2016 , 09:05 a.m. It does not seem reasonable to me that a cited source from 2016 could support an asserted fatality figure for 2018.

It looks like the Notes and Cites in this article need an audit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts/Archive_10&oldid=891928202"