File talk:Ongoing Conflicts (1).png

Dissident Irish Republican campaign

Is the Dissident Irish Republican campaign still resulting in 10 or more deaths per year? I'm not aware of this being the case, despite occasional flashes of violence. I think the U.K. and Republic of Ireland should be grey again. tom4hawk 02:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoin09 (talk • contribs)

Specific regions

Would it be possible to modify this image to show the specific region these conflicts are occurring in? That way we can show multiple conflicts per country and give a more accurate image instead of just labeling an entire country as a conflict zone. Brutannica (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

i see that this has been here for several months and realize it someone should adress this. it is a very good idea and would help people greatly if they need this for a project or something. please someone start working on a map that shows where they are (for example show darfur only)--75.34.103.240 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Syria

This image needs to be updated to include Syria. --SilverTW (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

andaman and nicobar islands

they are colored light blue, but are part of india--99.62.34.75 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

update the map

it is missing: colombia as a major conflict the papua insurgency the ogaden war being over debatably the basque conflict nicobar and andaman islands are colored light blue, but should be dark blue and i think it would be helpful to have the actual area of conflict (for example russia is labeled as a total warzone when in fact only a small section of it is)--Lv171998 (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How about including the USA? More than a 1000 American lives are lost every year in Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.192.95 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

map update: libyan needs to be dark blue Yemen needs to be light blue Serbia and Kosovo need to be gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.210.199 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed occupy protests

I have removed these protests from the map because we might as well highlight all countries as having protests and conflicts because arguably murder is a conflict and i'm sure pretty much every country has at least one murder a year. But this really should be for military conflicts (those which involve the military) and the occupy protests dont involve the military. It should be about military conflicts because the main article this image is used on is the list of ongoing military conflicts. Please discuss this here before you revert as I want to avoid an editing war. Eopsid (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if someone wants to make a page called list of ongoing protests, then we could make a map showing protests. However this map should only be showing wars and conflicts--Lv171998 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Section of countries unhilighted on map

I support any effort which shows the specific regions/parts of a country where conflicts occurr as long as what these regions are is mentioned in the accompanying article. Currenly unhilighted bits only act to confuse the reader and little justification is given to why only parts are hilighted Eopsid (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not have enough information about how much violence there is in certain regions or what exactly are the warzones. Some conflicts are also more violent than others, therefore an area you would be wanting to delete from the map (make it grey, as no war zone) in country is likely to be see more insurgent activity/violence/casualties than the entire warzone of another, less intense conflict. There is no way to make an NPOV map like that and therefore we should just stick to country borders.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When I am changing the map (first of all, to the CORRECT South Sudan border,) the only sources I will use, are on Wikipedia itself, which follows NPOV, so it is not my POV, and the inside borders are maps from Commons. So the warzones are specifically given as Wikipedia explains it. What I do on this site is never my POV, (most of the time, my POV is the opposite the fact). And if you think that because you created the map, you can control it (in theory), it is a violation of COM:OWN and possibly WP:NOTYOURS. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Subnational borders on the map

I'm going to suggest that subnational borders should be added to this map, like the example provided below. This would make it a lot easier to update, and make it accessible for newer users to contribute to.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37967548/temp/map.png

Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have subnational boundaries or not

Have Subnational areas colored

1. I believe there should not be an entire country filled, as this shows certain problems, like showing that the entire country is in military termoil, not a specific area. This is why there should be certain areas in a country colored in. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can support having subnational areas colored on mainly two conditions. First, to address Kermanshahi's concerns of trouble in having enough information, I think we need a rule that all subregions within a country that may be affected should have the same color, representing either a major or minor conflict, unless the coloring can be referenced with Wikipedia:Inline citations on the image page. Also, the image should have image annotations for each country, to compensate for the fact that borders of countries don't come out as clear with a map with subregions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Have entire country colored

1. I do not think your idea is a bad idea per se, however, here is the problem, if it means compromising factual accuracy with your original research, than against wikipedia rules. And this is the fact: you do not have the facts and figures relating to the map. If you do, please provide me your sources which show how many people died as result of armed conflict in every province of everyone one of these countries in 2011. If not, than it means you do not have the nececary information to change the map and thus it cannot be changed. Also, if you do have this information you will need to work out some kind of standards before making this map, because as it is now, it is terribly inconsistent. Here's an example, I do not know what your Iraq borders are exactly suppoed to be (they don't look much like Iraq's provincial borders to me) but assuming they are supposed to represent Baghdad, Babil and Diyala (and correct me if I'm wrong, 'cause your map isn't very accurate), well then I would like to see first of all where on earth you got information showing these were the provinces with the most casualties), secondly I would like to point out that the city of Mosul (which is grey, in your map) sees more regular bombings and insurgent attacks than almost any area denoted by you as light-purple, further pointing to the inaccuracy in your map. I also don't know where you got those Kurdistan borders from, they don't seem to represent Dahuk, Arbil and Suleymaniyah provinces, but they don't purely denote the conflict area (Qandil mountains) either. Now here's another fact, this area (Iraqi Kurdistan) which you coloured purple is the least violent and most stable area of all Iraq, with all the grey areas being infact less violent than the light-purple areas. And now let's get to Turkey, the area you chose to colour was totally random and based on nothing, now I actually got some figures of my own (collected from adding up casualties in news articles) and infact there are more Kurdish attacks in say Istanbul, than in some South-Eastern provinces, and there is PKK activity in the black sea are, ect. but then again, some of these areas have as little as 5 killed, so where do you draw the line in what to include? As for Afghanistan, the only indication to casualties per province we have, is here: [1] and it doesn't reflect your map at all. But than again, is this about casualties (killed, or killed+injured? or displaced?) or about number of insurgent attacks? What it comes down to is that you do not have the information which is necessary to make such a map and thus made loads of mistakes and created many double standards and inconsistencies, therefore, no matter what you say, if you cannot make such map, we can't use it.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with current map

In several conflicts there are attacks and fighting all over particular countries for example, in afghanistan there is regular combat throughout the entire country, in the Philippines there is conflict with the New Peoples Army all over the country, Naxilite cadres are present all over india, there is continuous conflict in all portions of iraq and yemen, and FARC cadres are present all over colombia.XavierGreen (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Boxes in corners

I find the boxes in the corners of the map extremely confusing. It is not easy to see which part of the world map they are highlighting, and I believe their purpose will be completely opaque to someone who has not read the file upload history - this was the case for me upon first seeing the map. In fact, I still don't completely understand their purpose. Evzob (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to annotions, but the file is based in Wikipedia, and not Commons, so I do not know how to do so. I would note the reason of the boxes, but I cannot. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 17:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a note in the image description page that annotations can be seen when viewing the image in Wikimedia Commons. As noted above, there is a great need of having annotations for each conflict if we are to continue showing subregions of countries on the map. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Munster insurgency?

I note the Irish province of Munster is shaded light blue. Apart from a few drunken louts at weekends it's no more dangerous than anywhere else in Ireland, including the north. This is more silliness by Wikipedia editors that have no clue about things outside the US. Sort it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.184.111 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Word to user:Spesh531

Please revert your edits to this map, back to nation-wide map. Unless ofcourse you have facts and figures to prove how many people died per province, per country. If you do not have any sources for this. I would like to know how you determined which provinces are colored dark blue and which ones light blue and which ones not at all? Until then, this map cannot be used on the article I am afraid because it is just completely factually incorrect and inconsistent.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)