Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

From the section at List of ongoing armed conflicts#Skirmishes and clashes (fewer than 100 combat-related deaths in current or past year) please remove the entry for "Dissident Irish republican campaign". The single death cited for 2022 (which is needed for inclusion on this list) is of a career criminal being killed by a criminal gang for criminal reasons, none of which have anything to do with dissident Irish republicans, and the cited source nor others on the story make no such connection whatsoever. Discussion thread relating to this at Talk:Dissident Irish republican campaign#Loyalists, casualties and Liam Christie, and I further note that the Dissident Irish republican campaign contains no mention at all of the Liam Christie murder, for the obvious reason that it is nothing to do with the topic. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. HappyWith (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Further to this and the attempt to add it with a different murder, what the PSNI said in an expanded version of their statement is It is also now our assessment the murders were carried out by an organised group of criminals who operate like terrorists and who may be, or have been, members of terrorist organisations. That's not the same as it being part of the dissident campaign. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It is frustrating this discussion, and the related one at the dissdent article, are being ignored. The objection to the addition is twofold.

Firstly, when the PSNI are quoted in full (which the unreliable Sunday World did not do) they say It is also now our assessment the murders were carried out by an organised group of criminals who operate like terrorists and who may be, or have been, members of terrorist organisations. An "organised group of criminals" who may be, or more crucially may have been previously, members of "terrorist organisations" is a substantially different kettle of fish than the killings being part of the dissident republican campaign, which is presumably why there's no mention at all of these in the Dissident Irish republican campaign article.

Even once that first hurdle is cleared, there have not been 100+ deaths caused by the dissident campaign, this is a fantasy figure caused by misinterpretation of primary source data (see titles of claimed sources in footnotes 143 to 147), which is against policy. Like the first part of the objection, there are no mention of 100+ deaths in the Dissident Irish republican campaign article, for the simple reason that the dissidents haven't killed 100+ people.

I would suggest anyone wishing to add contradictory, and in reality completely false, information to this article first goes to the Dissident Irish republican campaign article and adds properly sourced information there. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

To demonstrate the pitfalls of interpreting source data, I see 1999 (see footnote 144 from link in post above) has been used to get to the figure of 100+. Eamon Collins was not killed by dissident republicans. Paul Downey was suspected of being killed by the Provisional IRA. Brendan Fegan is difficult, for a long time it was suspected he was killed by the Provisional IRA, but in 2007 it was revealed it might have been the Real IRA. Charles Bennett was killed by the Provisional IRA. So it is not as simple as saying all republican killings since 1998 were by dissidents. Even if such an approach wasn't against policy, am I really expected to believe that every single death attributed by CAIN to a "non-specific Republican group (REP)" has been investigated by the editor making the addition to determine which were by dissidents and which were not? Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2023

Please reverse this disputed (and incorrect) edit. See the discussion relating to this at Talk:Dissident Irish republican campaign#Loyalists, casualties and Liam Christie. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done MorteBiancaFan has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. M.Bitton (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing fewer than 100 deaths

Most countries have much more than 100 normal crime of murders happening every year. Total 107 out of 195 countries have murder count of more than 100 an year. 38 countries have more than 1000 murders per year. See List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate. So better to remove below 100 section and also yellow colour from the map. It misleads people otherwise. Crashed greek (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

But these deaths include only deaths that are "battle-related", "combat-related". Criminal murders (unless they are part of an armed conflict) are not included.--Oloddin (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you see Mexican organized crime with much higher deaths, it is more like the murders between different gangs. Not exactly battle combat. Crashed greek (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The article says that "This is not a list of countries by intentional homicide rate, and criminal gang violence is generally not included unless there is also significant military or paramilitary involvement", so I can assume that these figures include only deaths from clashes between the gangs and the Mexican military and not from clashes between one gang and another. Anyway in the context of the article I think it's understandable that these deaths include only deaths that are related to exact conflict, at least are supposed to include.--Oloddin (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Gang wars in different countries, Sweden for example, should be in this list

As titled 176.72.33.215 (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Per criteria: "...criminal gang violence is generally not included unless there is also significant military or paramilitary involvement." Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian war fatalities

The fatality figures follow the Russian propaganda and totally contradict all the other sources, even all the cited ones. Most reliable sources estimate Ukrainian fatalities at 100K, not 350K The Russian losses are mostly estimated at 150-220K, not 100K

It makes sense to verify the figures and lock the article. 2001:A61:27BB:B501:D576:FAE2:79DD:943E (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

✔️Done DitorWiki (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Moro conflict

This article says the Moro conflict is ongoing, but the Moro conflict page says it ended in 2019. Which is correct? -184.56.75.144 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Already done DitorWiki (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Major Wars

Ethiopia shall be removed from major Wars as there is very little conflict there compared to before DitorWiki (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the classification for "major war" also includes > a certain amount of deaths in the previous year, which Ethiopia did. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

According to the same page Eithiopia has suffered 1,042 in fatalities in 2023 which is much lesser than the major Wars casualty mark (10,000) DitorWiki (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes but major war classification also factors in the past year, which could have more than 100,000 deaths. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Any ground for depicting Nigeria in deep crimson?

So the color is applied when the country sees at least 10,000 fatalities in a given calendar year. So far it seems the death toll for Nigeria in 2023 is not even two thirds of that figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Add Sweden's explosion of gang related killings, which now inolves the military?

The growing number of gang related killings in Sweden has now made the government involve the military to assist the police. 178.174.131.178 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a wiki article about a conflict or crackdown between Sweden and the Gangs because we would need one, and it probably should look like the ones used for the Salvadoran gang crackdown and the Gang war in Haiti, where it shows Belligerents, Commanders and leaders, as well as Casualties and loses also remember Listed conflicts have at least 100 cumulative deaths in total and at least 1 death in current or in the past calendar year if so we might be able to include it. HuntersHistory (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Or if there is not one, you or someone else could make it, so we might be able to include it. HuntersHistory (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@178.174.131.178 sorry if I am spamming you. HuntersHistory (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Serbia - Kosovo

There were some killings in past few months, so it should be also added to the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.3.199 (talk)

(Sub-sections combined)

Sorry for creating another reply but I couldn’t reply to the first Does that have at least 100 cumulative deaths in total and at least 1 death in current or in the past calendar year if so it should be included. HuntersHistory (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@93.139.3.199 HuntersHistory (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Mexican Drug War totals do not tie to deaths by country table

The deaths by country table has totals for Mexico 2018-2022 that, on their own, exceed the cumulative fatalities shown for the Mexican Drug War conflict under the Major Wars section, which supposedly tallies years 2006 to present. Per the deaths by country table, the total fatalities in Mexico 2018-2022 alone are almost double those shown in the Major Wars section. As well as being inconsistent, this would lead one to believe the cumulative total shown in the Major Wars section might be significantly understated when accounting for years prior to 2018. 99.140.59.60 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Coloring of Israel and Palestine

At what point do you color Israel and Palestine dark red? Kk.urban (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Immediately, unfortunately the total death toll on both sides has surpassed 10,000. 62.240.62.184 (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

It is a war now. I suggest someone with authority transfer this conflict into the "Wars" section. Gorgedweller (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have transferred it to the war section thanks for the comment. HuntersHistory (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war

I think including numbers from the active war is problematic, becuase of the sources that can provide those numbers. The "Palestinian Health Ministry" is another name of Hamas, which control the Gaza strip. The problem with that arises when we look at its motives and history: 1. Hamas, before anything else, is a terrorist organization. It's recognized as such by (as of currently): Israel (of course), USA, Australia, UK, EU (27 nations), Canada, Japan, Paraguay and the Organization of American States (35 nations). Hamas officials claimed themselves several times that their intentions are to kill Israeli Civilians (some even claimed that a part of their goal is to rape Israeli women). Even without statements, the fact that they sent hundreds of terror attacks at Israel should be sufficient, with the 7/10 massacare being only one of the never-ending list (the intifadas, 2016, 2017, even the spring of 2023 are great examples).

2. The motive of Hammas is blowing up the numbers of casualties to hurt Israel's image. This motive is best shown by their choice of bases and rocket-shooting sites - civilian houses, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, mosques, cemeteries, etc. Even their headquarters was recently revealed to be below the Shifa hospital, the largest hospital in the Gaza strip. Since they're currently the only source on deaths on the Gazan side, and they didn't provide any evidence for their claims, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

3. Hamas has an history of lying about casualties. from irrelevnt lies such as catorizing terrorists and hamas officials as "civilians" (this is irelevent since the idendity of casualties isn't important for this article), and to more relevant ones such as the Al Ahli hospital incident. Without going into question of "who did it" (altough Israel provided multiple kinds of evidence), Hamas claimed at first that 500+ people had been killed, and later updated the number to 471. This thing is, EU investigation showed that a more likely number is between 10 to 50 people. This wasn't the only lie in this incident (again, without "who did it"), photos of the hospital after the incident shows that the car park is the thing that got hit, and the surrounding building haven't suffered much damage. Other lies are by Gazan reporters, such as a clip of a female reporter saying that "at least 10 babies were beheaded" in a scene of an air-strike attack. This isn't an official claim, but with how Hamas is known to throw reporters into jail, it must be supported by them (there's no free media in Gaza).

And to top it all of, the current claim is 7,000 casualties in Gaza and 1,400 in Israel, for a total of 8,400, lower than 10,000. There wasn't a single year in history, as of today (it might and probablly will change in a few days, and then these arguments are mostly useless), that the conflict had more than 10,000 death annually.

Oh, and in the "d" reference, the wording should be changed to "1,000 terrorists", as I explained in point 1. Calling people who went into civilian houses and murders, beheaded, raped, tortured, cut-off limbs off, set aflame to, violated and paraded bodies of more than 1,000 civilians (and some more IDF soldiers and Israeli police officers) "militants" is a disgrace to western values. The number is also 1,500 terrorists on Israeli territory, but oh well. Shisoy (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Can everyone paint Israel and Palestinian territories in dark red on map (the war exceeded 10,000 casulties). 89.164.158.61 (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas war numbers

...Are incorrect. The lower number includes 1000 Hamas militants killed inside Israel, while the higher number for some reason includes the same number twice. Both figures should be 1000 deaths lower. Gorgedweller (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Israel and Palestine needs to be included in Major Wars category because unfortunately the dead civilians in Israel-Hamas war passed 10.000 and more than 10.000 death means major war! DTDeniz (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clyde H. Mapping Do you think this should be updated? Kk.urban (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is already in the "major wars" section. If you mean the map, I will request an overwrite exception on Commons to update it. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The map should be updated, because Angola and Lebanon should also be Orange. HuntersHistory (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

North Korea is yellow on map, but not South Korea

I'm curious why North Korea is colored on the map but not South Korea when the war is between both.

Philologick (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The map represents combat-related deaths due to conflict. In the current/past calendar year, only North Korea has suffered casualties as a result of the Korean conflict, so South Korea is not colored. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated numbers without updated sources.

Just spotted an edit that updated numbers but no new sources. This happens frequently and requires close supervision (which I do not do). I suspect that many numbers are unsupported by referenced sources. Just wanted to note the problem. User-duck (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? In any case I should note that the ACLED source is updating the numbers regularly, so it's natural to update the numbers in the article according to it. But you can always present another sources as well. Oloddin (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Only one of the numbers sourced ACLED. If ACLED is the source, the access-date should be updated. The two other number changes have no new source. User-duck (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Sudan war casualties

Something weird happened with Sudanese casualties of 2023. I could swear I saw ACLED report of late November claiming that the number of fatalities in Sudan since year start was above 12,000. But since December 1 fatalities suddenly dropped to around 10,000. Is this a common occurence with ACLED? Do they revise their assessments often? And what should we do about the figure in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

They often revise the number of casualties they present, based on the latest developments reported from the field, so it is common. Same thing happened with the total number of casualties last year as well, we should just spot these changes and make the necessary edits. Whitesin21 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to update the map I think

I don't think Syria, Yemen, and Ethiopia should be dark red, and I'm less educated on the conflicts in Nigeria and Burkina Faso but dark red doesn't seem right either Adraria (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ACLED will publish its first 2024 numbers on 8 or 9 January, after which the map should be updated from 2022-2023 data to 2023-2024 data. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For now I have updated the map to just reflect what is available of last year's data (up until early December). Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are data for Ukraine so low in 2023 and unclear in 2022?

The figure of 100,000 comes from ? It is also unknown where the deaths for 2023 were underestimated to 30,000 Everyone’s estimates of the dead are different, but if you start adding minimally confirmed (obviously several times lower than the real) data on the dead to the table, then 30 thousand in 2023 is a figure that does not correspond to reality Because the BBC and Mediazona counted 24,100 documented deaths this year and the UN - 2 thousand civilian deaths At the same time, 4 thousand Ukrainian soldiers could not die in one year. Moreover, according to data on documented dead Ukrainian soldiers, the total number now is about 40 thousand. Did 90% really die in a shorter period of fighting? 2022? I’m posting a link to the documentation of Ukrainian Armed Forces losses; for the Russian military this is the BBC and Mediazona https://ualosses.org/soldiers/ 88.154.42.32 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the page

Could this page maybe not include just armed conflicts, but ongoing protests and strikes? Lukt64 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It'd make List of strikes and List of protests in the 21st century redundant (maybe obsolete). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk That's pretty much what I would have pointed out, too. Also the separate timelines about strikes in 2021, 2022, 2023. Farolif (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But no Timeline of strikes in 2020...it was a simpler time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the War on Drugs not here

I am wondering why the US War on Drugs, and its deaths, is not here? Is it simply that it has never been tracked? Other "wars on drugs" appear to be present on this list ... TWAIL much? Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The wars here are more on the people who use and sell drugs than on drugs themselves. The war on drugs is not a war in that sense, as the reporting mainly focuses on the millions of deaths caused by the inanimate objects on "the other side". It's also not an American war, but multinational (like other once American endeavours), further complicating matters. If we count only those the warriors have killed, it wouldn't seem NPOV much. If we count everyone, it raises questions as to whether drugs can be reasonably considered armed participants (as clear and present a danger as they certainly seem to be). There are even "problems" determining what mainstream society considers a "drug" or "excessive force" today versus in Tricky Dick's time. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine fatalities

It states over 30k fatalities for the ukraine war in 2024, but according to the source cited, that number refers to the number of fatalities since 19/1-2023. 81.230.7.169 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

Why is the 2023 link in Deaths section unlinked Wikiditor 2 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It is linked, but the page hasn't been created. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I want it to be linked DitorWiki (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Map of ongoing armed conflicts is unhelpful/misleading.

I feel like this map [1] is very unhelpful/misleading.

A heatmap of the location of fatalities would be much more representative perhaps with a color to represent what conflict they belong to

[1] Ongoing conflicts around the world by Futuretrillionaire IanisMD (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Dissident Irish republican campaign?

Despite being small in numbers, many dissident Irish groups are still active and continue to carry out attacks in Northern Ireland, so shouldn’t the UK be in the “skirmishes and clashes” category? LordOfWalruses (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it does not have "at least 100 cumulative deaths in total and at least 1 death in current or in the past calendar year" it does not count as ongoing, at least according to the criteria decided upon. Kathleen's bike (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict for control of the favelas in greater rio

Someone has been adding the total fatalities in Brazil as a whole per ACLED all as direct result of confrontations in greater Rio 189.37.77.189 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No Russian fatalities?

In "Deaths by country" there's are no Russian fatalities... why is that? 77.125.238.207 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Because there are more fatalities in other countries. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of data

Further to the discussion thread above regarding incorrect figures for Brazil, I have started a discussion thread at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Use of Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project data at List of ongoing armed conflicts. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The conflict in Rio is a tricky one, perhaps we should find better sources for it, or follow the pattern of other conflicts and use a minimum and maximum number of casualties for current and past year until a better solution is found. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Cross border attacks in Sabah

the conflict in Sabah should be added as there has been deaths in 2023 Christsos (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Map accuracy ?

In other words, this map is not just extremely prejudiced but also outdated. Mystrixo (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind elaborating? Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I do mind, yes.

I could go into more detail, but I know that would just be a waste of time.

There is not a single nation in the West, NATO, or Europe that is colored in any way.

Upon initial glance at the map, it is immediately apparent that the ARAB region has the most color.

Completely unprofessional, prejudiced, and extremely unwikipedian. Mystrixo (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you or another editor were to include/suggest an edit for adding an ongoing armed conflict taking place in a currently-unmarked country that satisfies the article criteria, then the map will be updated accordingly. Active conflicts in Western countries have been previously included (e.g. Dissident Irish republican campaign) when meeting those requirements. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not I modify, include, suggest, or add a topic to the chat page is entirely up to me.

The author of this ought to have employed a neutral point of view rather than providing blatantly biased material in an attempt to indoctrinate readers on which nations are unsafe! WhooooA! I am from a nation that is shown on the map in red, but it is safer than the United States when it comes to safety in general.

According to statistics, there are a lot of gun-related fatalities in the US. In 2023, there were around 43,000 gun-related fatalities, according to organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety and the CDC [1, 2].

Oh, you will argue, it is different; it is not military battles.

Time up! I have wasted enough time already, and I have spoken the painful truth. Mystrixo ✉️ 19:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct, there's a separate article for that. Conflating homicide with casualties in armed conflict even when reliable sources and organizations such as the United Nations make that distinction is blatant synthesis.

Now if these deaths were part of a second American Civil War, their inclusion would be perfectly relevant. Fortunately, it is not the job of editors to misconstrue political realities and make all countries seem equally afflicted by conflict when that is not the case. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Clyde H. Mapping I did not suggest that the editors should make every country appear the same—that would be foolish—but rather, I drew attention to the inaccurate map, pointing out that many of the countries marked as such do not actually have any active conflicts going on, and if the article does contain non-active historical conflicts, then where is the American Revolutionary War? World Wars I and II? If I had not known from multiple sources that the map is out of date, I would not have started this discussion. Why do not we just agree on that? Mystrixo ✉️ 00:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What non-active conflicts are included? Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let us talk about the active conflicts that are not included.

The ongoing armed conflicts between USA and YEMEN ? Mystrixo ✉️ 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How many Americans have died on US soil as a result of the Red Sea crisis?

Per criteria for inclusion: "Location refers to the states where the main violence takes place, not to the warring parties..." Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Who gave you the order to determine whether or not to limit the map to nations with casualties on their soils only? Mystrixo ✉️ 18:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoever first added that without any major opposition. While the consensus to depict locations rather than belligerents hasn't been challenged, it can change; proposing expanding inclusion to countries currently participating in wars (not just the locations of wars) probably warrants a new topic. Judging by a section I found in the talk page archives, this long predates my editing. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a change made regarding this.

Really, all of the participating nations must be included in the ongoing armed conflicts in an impartial manner. Mystrixo ✉️ 19:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about armed conflicts. The countries not highlighted currently are not at war. If your country is in red, well you have my sympathies, but as long as the data is accurate all the map is doing is representing that. Homicide rates in countries at peace are irrelevant to this. There's no "indoctrination" going on here, please assume good faith. — Czello ^(music) 22:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Algeria currently at war? How come it is orange? Is there a war in Morocco? Brazil? Saudi-Arabic? India ? Do they have a war going on? Where is the American Revolutionary War? Where is World War I & II, unless we are talking about wars throughout history? Though it is merely words, you can argue that the data is correct. And if you want to restrict free speech, do not bring up the faith practice; it doesn't apply here. I have the right to start a topic and engage in a conversation regarding the map's accuracy. Mystrixo ✉️ 23:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It might help if you learnt what "ongoing" means before asking about the American Revolutionary War and other conflicts that are very obviously not "ongoing". Kathleen's bike (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It could be beneficial if you read my response with open eyes and notice that I mentioned the ongoing conflicts in nations that the map falsely indicates are at war when they aren't. Mystrixo ✉️ 23:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The article does not distinguish whether a country is de jure at war or verifiably engulfed in armed conflict. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a de jure "special military operation" but it is still included, as was the preluding Donbas war which was likewise never a declared, formal war. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Did I bring up the Russian-Ukrainian conflict during our conversation? No.

Using Algeria as an example, what are the current armed conflicts going on there?

And why are not just de jure war countries included in the article? Mystrixo ✉️ 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any more time, so let us stop here.

Update the map—according to ACLED data, it is out of current.

Case closed. Mystrixo ✉️ 22:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The map is currently accurate to the criteria upon which it is based, detailing conflicts listed in the article table, accounting for deaths on territory due to conflict (not coloring in countries based on participation) as distinguished between major wars, wars, minor conflicts, and skirmishes. I or someone else will continue updating it if new countries meet the requirements for armed conflict listed out there (or as ACLED numbers for countries are updated, something I've kept to for about a year now).

Algeria is listed as a location of the insurgency in the Maghreb to which it has suffered conflict-related deaths within its jurisdiction in the past/current year.

The article is called "List of ongoing armed conflicts" not "List of declared wars/interstate conflicts." "Declaration of war" already has a section on declared wars post-WWII. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I will paraphrase from your response: "Algeria is... the past/current year."

Provide proof and a reference to the locations of conflict-related deaths in Algeria in 2023/2024.

I am holding out! Mystrixo ✉️ 18:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

+

Even the insurgency in the Maghreb article is outdated, so it can not be used as a reference to the on-going conflicts. Mystrixo ✉️ 19:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

From ACLED Dashboard (1/1/2023-22/3/2024):

"ID: 10160903; LOCATION: Bordj Emir Abdelkader; FATALITIES: 1; ACTORS: Military Forces of Algeria (2019-); NOTES: On 10 May 2023, an Algerian army patrol clashed with presumed AQIM militants during a clearing operation in Ain Al Ksira near Bordj Emir Abdelkader (Bordj El Emir Abdelkader, Tisselit). One Algerian soldier was killed and four militants were arrested."

"ID: 9790872; LOCATION: Babar; FATALITIES: 4; ACTORS: AQIM: Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; NOTES: Around 13 January 2023, an IED presumably planted by AQIM militants exploded at the passage of a group of hunters in Boudkhar in the commune of Babar (Babar, Khenchela) killing four of them."

Unfortunately for most African conflicts the lack of media reporting makes databases the next best sources. Should the insurgency in the Maghreb be reliably marked as "over," any countries whose deaths can be attributed to that conflict would be unmarked on the map. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Heh, they still blame Al Qaeda; those are just a series of routine strikes similar to those that occasionally occur in the US, France, and Russia. Thus, the ongoing battles do not correspond to the year 2024, and it is likely that we are still in 2023.

You discuss media reporting from Africa as though it were a single nation, when in reality, Africa is a continent made up of at least 54 countries, as opposed to North America's 23. Is that not what proves my point? Mystrixo ✉️ 19:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There you have it—the only filter I left out is the violent demonstration,

which does not include using armed battles:[1](ACLED Dashboard Screenshot) Mystrixo ✉️ 19:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The starting date I used goes back to 2023, not 2024, hence "past/current calendar year." In just this year, Algeria has no deaths. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I take it that you are holding out for deaths to happen in 2024 😂?

If conflicts are not ongoing in 2024, then ongoing must, in my opinion, exclude conflicts from 2023.

If the sources are available, which they are in this case in ACLED,

the Map of ongoing armed conflicts (number of combat-related deaths in current or previous year),

must be updated to the current year. Mystrixo ✉️ 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of conflicts with casualties only in the past year are included (North Korea, Angola, Peru) mostly under Skirmishes and clashes. Should they be removed? I concede the phrasing is ambiguous since both "past or current year" and "past and current year" are used in the list. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Again I don't care what time span the article chooses to determine a conflict as "ongoing" if a consensus can be reached.

My guess is the current 2 year measure was chosen to avoid the list + map being wiped clean every year, which might give the impression that certain ongoing conflicts had just ended (e.g. Syrian civil war 10,000+ casualties 31 December 20XX, one day later completely reset). Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

For what reason would you view an annual update to the map as wiping?

I do not see why we do not even update the map once a year;

what is the point?

I believe I was right when I mentioned that since it will merely be a waste of my time, I do not mind elaborating.

Since editors are no longer free to edit, update, write, or even exist, you are free to do with the map what you choose.

There is nothing more that I want to talk about, end of discussion. Mystrixo ✉️ 02:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Justification ≠ defense.

Want the list to reflect the current year only? If you could directly edit I'd say be bold, but otherwise, I recommend making an edit request and getting editors on board. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Justification ≠ defense

Kindly refrain from using that legal phrase on me; it is reserved for defendants, not Wikipedians.

Instead of being about (I want), it is about what should be.

I can't edit; the article is on extended protection.

Feel free to archive or delete or mark this discussion as resolved, I no longer want to continue

discussing, since whether I bring up to date credible sources or not, in the end it doesn't even matter. Mystrixo ✉️ 03:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Mystrixo -- With a few seconds of Googling, I found this: "In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC." I assume there would be a roughly similar proportion within the 43,000 number you pulled up... AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not pull that number up, EveryTown for Gun Safety Fund did.

Source Mystrixo ✉️ 02:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Would it be appropriate to add "Arab-Israeli conflict" as the top-level conflict for the "Israeli-Lebanese conflict" listed in the 1000-9999 chart? Like the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", the "Israeli-Lebanese conflict" got its legs back in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Or going even further, perhaps we should merge these two conflict entries into a single conflict, because they have common origins, tend to flare up together, etc. Discuss here, please. --Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Lebanon barely participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Anyway, the current conflict is not really between Israel and the Lebanese government or military as such. It could be OK to group the two conflicts together, but DON'T indiscriminately merge them, not least because Nasrallah is sniping and harassing at Israel, but not daring to launch a full-scale war, while the Gaza situation has gone beyond that. AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that based on the grouping of all other conflicts since 1948 under the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict falls within the scope of the category. The 1948 article lists Lebanon as a participant with troop counts, cites sources of a Lebanon goal to conquer territory in northern Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Syria and Lebanon are listed as participants in both conflicts as well, and both conflicts are dated to 1948, implying that both sections are including the same Syria-Lebanon-Israel conflict since 1948.

I understand the clear distinction between the current conflict in Gaza and the the Israel-Hezbollah engagement, however, I understand from a discussion above that the current methodology in place is to combine all conflicts in areas where there is ongoing violence, which is why the Myanmar conflict is also dated back to 1948.

Is the logical next step to make an edit request to review/further discuss this change? Fileyfood500 (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have learned a bit more, and found that the Israeli-Lebanese conflict is listed under the Arab-Israeli conflict in wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8669.

I checked to see if this error occurred in other entries.

1. For Sudan, I found that the 2 concurrent wars listed are not connected by a parent conflict.
2. For the Yemen Civil War, I found that this also did not connect back to the Arab-Israeli war, and is correct to list separately.
3. It is unclear why Israel is listed as a belligerent for the Yemen Civil war, although it is not listed as a belligerent in any of the linked articles, including the latest article. The United States is listed as a belligerent in multiple of the conflicts, including the current conflict.
4. The Boko Haram insurgency and the Anglophone Crisis in Nigeria are not connected in wikidata

Fileyfood500 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Lebanon was rhetorically belligerant in 1948, but Lebanese troops fought with Israeli troops in relatively few battles. The Lebanon-Israel fighting was unimpressive compared to other fighting in the 1948 War. AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source and clarify what you mean by unimpressive? From our current article on the 1948 war, there are 436 soldiers listed for Lebanon, 300 listed for Yemen, 800-1200 listed for Saudi Arabia, 2500-5000 listed for Syria, 3500-6000 for the Arab liberation army, etc. Currently we list all of these countries as belligerants in the 1948 conflict, and in the arab-israeli conflict dating back to 1948, which is in line with wikidata and the sources.

Are you arguing that we need to modify wikidata, and the article on the 1948 war, and the current entry in the list for the Arab-Israeli war to remove Lebanon? And is your implication to also remove Yemen? Please clarify.

Presently, to be consistent, and without any judgement/sourcing about if the Lebanon-Israel fighting was impressive, we need to combine the Israeli-Lebanese conflict with the Arab-Israeli war, as it's counted twice.

I think it would be great if we could establish a definition of what constitutes a sufficient conflict to qualify as a belligerent, if that hasn't been established already. I'm sure there are existing discussions/guidance on this within wikipedia and from public/international policy sources. Fileyfood500 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about changing anything on Wikidata, but in Quantling's original comment Quantling said "the `Israeli-Lebanese conflict' got its legs back in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War", but while there was a formal state of war, in fact there wasn't much direct fighting between Lebanese and Israeli forces in 1948, which would seem to contradict Quantling's comment. If Quantling meant something different, should have written something different. AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to comment on this, because "got its legs" can be interpreted in different ways. At the simplest, it states that something started, which we agree is the case. Beyond that, I understand you are interpreting it to imply that fighting is substantial, and it's unclear if Quantling is interpreting the phrase in the same way, or yet another.

Given the fighting started in 1948, I'll make a separate edit request to combine the entries. Fileyfood500 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Grouping all of the wars Israel has been involved in since 1948 as one conflict is self-evidently non-factual, tendentious and deliberately intended to inflate the total casualty count (which itself is highly dubious; hundreds of thousands!? Add up the casualties in the 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and then other conflicts does not come close to 300,000). The total Arab casualties in all of the wars of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Arab-Israeli conflict article is around 90,000. I don't know how to do a signature here so sorry User:Idontknowhowtodothissorry

Maoist insurgency in Turkey

Maoist rebel groups are still active in turkey and skirmishes between Maoist insurgents and Turkish army is still happing so shouldn't the Maoist insurgency in turkey be added to “skirmishes and clashes” Christsos (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There have not been any known deaths associated with this conflict in 2023 or this year so far in order for it to be on the list. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

here is a list of deaths due to this conflict

One person killed in attack on Istanbul courthouse | News | Al Jazeera Christsos (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good faith edits by user Illegitimate Barrister

While the edits were in good faith, there are several issues with the removal of all flags, the unlinking of all countries, and the listing of countries through commas. No other article does this. MOS:FLAG does NOT apply here, as this is a military article, and the flags both help the article visually and can help users distinguish between countries in ways outside their name. Also, the italics were on nations like Armenia and South Korea due to them being disputed states (which Illegitimate Barrister would've known had they read the CRITERIA "Italics indicate disputed territories and unrecognized states."). Then, the unlinking of countries to their respective articles is just kinda stupid, considering it makes it harder to find more info on the nations for people who aren't educated in the subject. Also, HARDLY ANY OTHER ARTICLE IS FORMATTED IN THIS FASHION. Look at most other lists around wikipedia. List of wars: 2003–present, Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and the majority of other military-related articles. All would break the MOS:FLAG according to IB's edits on this page. Also, it just looks so damn horrible. Someone, please revert the edits. I cannot do so as I am not extended confirmed. Or hell, even better, @Illegitimate Barrister themselves revert the edits. IdioticAnarchist (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree the edits should be reverted. The flags are in line with other articles and standards. Possibly @Illegitimate Barrister removed the flags because the article is controversial, and MOS:FLAG states that flags may be removed in controversial artricles. However, in this case, the flags do not appear to be the controversial aspect of the article, and the change is now inconsistent with List of wars: 2003–present, as @IdioticAnarchist points out. Fileyfood500 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Make Belarus Yellow

^ 66.244.233.10 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm open to this. Can you provide any sources or documentation of ongoing fighting in Belarus? Also, is this conflict information reflected in wikidata? Fileyfood500 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Legend and map have specified types of war

To preface, I do not think that there is an error, I do believe this is intentional, I just think it would be better done differently.

For the legend for the map: Yellow is "Skirmishes and Clashes (1-99)" Orange is "Minor conflicts (100-999) Red is "Wars (1,000-9,999)" Maroon is "Major wars (10,000 or more)"

Why does it take casualties as a measurement, and then apply a label to it? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to just be by casualties? It seems to be overstating these conflicts, especially considering many conflicts throughout the past 20 years have had well over 100,000 casualties, and in the past 100 years many that have reached millions dead. I am not saying these ongoing ones are not still horrific losses of life, any death is terrible, but calling anything with at least 10,000 casualties a 'Major War' seems a bit strange when looking at the number of deaths of other wars in history.

Pretty much I just think the map and legend should be by casualties alone, without labels such as "Minor conflict" or "Major war" being applied.

If I'm missing something obvious, please do point it out, I just want to make Wikipedia better. Texinova (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)