Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/Archive 6

Philippine Moro Conflict
A user has been removing the conflict, however it is still ongoing. Abu Sayaf, BIFF, as well as dissident MNLF groups are still fighting in the southern philippines. The user asserts that the conflict is inactive, however recent news reports indicate otherwise. See here [], [].XavierGreen (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The fighting is over. The last reports I heard said the violence was in Malaysia, not the Philippines. The Moros were always the main combatants in this conflict, and they have laid down their arms. The conflict is effectively over. Even if their are still some deaths, it doesn't mean that the war will continue. Lots of Conflicts have had violence continue after the war ended, and with the exception of the Korean conflict, they violence usually subsides soon afterwards. Toolen (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All armed groups resisting Philippine rule in the ARMM are made out of Moros, whether its MILF, MNLF (Muslimin Sema faction), MNLF (Nur Misuari faction), BIFF, or Abu Sayyaf. Only the MILF and MNLF (Muslimin Sema facton) have signed the current peace deal. MNLF (Nur Misuari faction), BIFF, and Abu Sayyaf are all continuing armed conflict against the Philippines. Just last month, Abu Sayyaf was fighting and killing Philippine troops, and the Philippine army was hunting down a BIFF bombmaker. Nur Misuari's MNLF faction pulled off this major raid last September - Zamboanga City crisis.


 * In 1996, Nur Misuari's MNLF faction signed a peace deal with the Philippine government. But the MILF and Abu Sayyaf just continued the war and it was most certainly not over. Misuari's MNLF then returned to the war in 2002. Then in 2008, when the MILF started negotiating with the Philippines, the BIFF led by Ameril Umbra Kato split off from MILF explicitly because of the peace talks, so BIFF could continue waging war against the Philippines.Rajmaan (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Conflict is still ongoing with BIFF and Abu Sayyaf. Perhaps we should be distinguishing more than one conflict here though. GeoEvan (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with GeoEvan and others - conflict clearly ongoing.GreyShark (dibra) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine deathtoll
The death toll of 2038, cited to some lists at the UK wiki, seems a bit absurd. The EN wiki article on the conflict cites the UN at 356 killed, and numerous WP:RS sources at the death toll in the low hundreds. Can this please be fixed? --Robert.Labrie (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * GreyShark (dibra) 18:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Again(?), wiki lists 1450 death toll with link to Reuters. However that page gives only quite vague "258 Ukrainian servicemen have been killed, ... Hundreds of civilians and rebels have also died." - what's the origin of ~1450 fatalities? 95.135.29.159 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * UN says 356, but it is clearly way above 1,000. Just the Malaysian airliner incident added 298.GreyShark (dibra) 20:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Constant vandalism
It seems the article is once again targeted by vandals, thus i propose protection maesures, any opposition?GreyShark (dibra) 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've only seen one or two instances of vandalism on this page in the past couple days, and it's just been adding more zeroes to numbers. If we protected every page that someone scribbles on this wouldn't be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. —Kazinsal(t&#183;c) 02:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There were several deletions with IPs and some user removed and added several conflicts with no discussion. See history.GreyShark (dibra) 20:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Threshold of 100 deaths
I would like to draw everyone's attention to the current criteria for inclusion on this list. I understand that this issue has been discussed in the past, but I would like to revive it because I think it needs to be changed. I particularly have an issue with the 100 death threshold, which I believe is quite high and I would like to propose lowering it to 50. I noticed that a few users have tried to re-add the Northern Ireland conflict, which I agree should be here, but has been repeatedly removed for being "too low-level". Bottom line, I do not think that a conflict that continues to result in death and violence is too low-level for inclusion here. In Northern Ireland, there have been 50+ deaths since the 1990s, including 2 just last year. Additionally, there have been several other acts of violence (including bombings) in this conflict that didn't result in any deaths, but were still part of the violent campaign nonetheless. I therefore propose reconsidering the threshold for inclusion here. Constance Lahaye (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There should indeed be a threshold for inclusion, but 100 deaths seems a bit too high. Lowering it to 50 does seem better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.155.187.154 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure how Northern Ireland would be added to the current list by any reasonable criterion... AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason N. Ireland shouldn't be here. It's obviously very low-intensity (nothing compared to Mexico, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, or Ukraine), but still produces armed violence nonetheless: letter bombs, a car bomb, and several other incidents just in the last several years. Since 1998, around fifty people have been killed due to this campaign, including two just last year (see here: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/deaths2013draft.htm). A threshold of fifty or sixty deaths seems like a fairly good option to me. 221.181.104.12 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also support lowering this threshold. I mean, Northern Ireland is not a conflict extended by diplomatic irregularity. It's obviously a conflict that still produces violence & casualties (even if it's just one per year), and it still makes the news once in a while. And the "Ongoing Military Conflicts" template also mentions it, so it seems odd that it's not on this list too. Zwoc-RennisX (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point. The fighting might be low-level, but hasn't completely stopped, so diplomatic irregularity doesn't apply here. And there have been at least two deaths in the past year, as noted above. Constance Lahaye (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, re-add this one, as it's definitely still going on. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-10866072 this article from the BBC mentions a number of violent incidents in 2014, including one fatality in April. I think there's plenty of info about this conflict, if you just know where to look for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.220.218.173 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - it seems to me there is a deliberate attempt here to add the Irish dissident campaign and "play" the rules in order to fit the narrative. Essentially, 50 people killed over 16 years is not something notable. We cannot put every tiny conflict or incident just because somebody thinks it is important. Speaking of which, it seems to me that the previously added Paraguayan People's Army insurgency may get off list as well, because i cannot verify that it is near 100 deaths (it is around 50 apparently).GreyShark (dibra) 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to strengthen my point - above there is a discussion about Chiapas conflict, which is 100 deaths, while some people still consider it "too small". If Chiapas is doubtfully big enough for inclusion, then Irish dissident campaign with 50 casualties is even smaller and hence not eligible to be included. What next? Someone will try to add the North Kosovo crisis again with 4 casualties??GreyShark (dibra) 17:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No I wouldn't support adding the Kosovo crisis, because it really appears to be an ongoing political dispute rather than an armed conflict. Hardly anything turns up on google about it anyway, and I think that article probably needs to be reworked. That's why everyone is saying that we do indeed need to have a threshold for inclusion here, but 100 casualties is a bit too large and 50 would probably work out better. I would certainly think an armed conflict that produces 50+ deaths would be notable. As has already been pointed out, Northern Ireland still produces violence and occasional deaths and has accumulated more than 50 deaths since the '90s (including 2 last year and at least 1 this year). Why is that too low for inclusion? Constance Lahaye (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I really dont think there should be a lower threshold, a conflict can be active and produce very few deaths. I think an objective person would expect to see the northern ireland conflict listed here, it is much more active that the chipas conflict. I think so long as a conflict has seen organized sustained violence longer than 1 day, and has produced at least 1 death in the current or previous year it should be included. The upsella conflict uses a threshold of 25 deaths in the current year as its inclusion criteria. I think there is consensus to have a more encompassing threshold than that, but there really is no non-arbitrary way to set a minimum threshold other than what i suggested above.XavierGreen (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Senegal
Why is Senegal orange on the map? No ongoing conflict is listed for that nation.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ Map updated.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Libya - about to become major conflict
Just checked the casualties for 2014 - it is 906 and rising rapidly. Unfortunately this one may be added to major conflicts very shortly.GreyShark (dibra) 15:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ It's now over 1,000. Map updated.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Plus 5000 civilian casualties http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/afghanistan-war-civilian-toll-united-nations-report

Israel-Gaza
New death toll: 1,898 


 * Comment - i'm thinking whether it should be Gaza-Israel conflict instead of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Essentially PLO's State of Palestine is out of the picture in regard to the conflict, while the conflict with Hamas is the one relevant to Gaza. Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 20:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

CAR
Overall death toll: 2,599 http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jul/16/central-african-republic-death-toll-msf -- 188.194.154.49 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon Spillover
"In the worst Syria-linked violence in Lebanon, the Army said the clashes with “Takfiri, terrorist groups” killed 14 soldiers and wounded 86 others, while 22 were still missing. At least 12 civilians have died as a result of the fighting, including five, while 50 militants were killed, the source said, adding that the military arrested three in a raid Sunday that freed two wounded soldiers." http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Aug-04/265988-army-to-insulate-arsal-from-syria.ashx

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
"From the start of the year to August 1, Armenian forces have confirmed 18 fatalities, with Azerbaijan confirming 25, in various combat incidents on the Line of Contact, including sniper shootings, mine explosions and raids." http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2014-08-01-karabakh-death-toll-mounts-in-tit-for-tat-attacks

-- 188.194.154.49 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Designate 10,000+ and -100 death conflicts a different colour
The three conflicts with over 10,000 deaths per year and the conflicts with fewer than 100 deaths per year have been split on the article to their own sections, same should be done for the map. I propose leaving the dark red for 10,000+ and choosing a different colour for 1000+ or 100+, and choosing a much lighter colour for -100. --Leftcry (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Libya Conflict
Shouldn't we turn the Post-civil war violence in Libya to the new 2014 Libyan conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nris1 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, 2014 conflict is clearly a subtopic of the 2011-present violence.GreyShark (dibra) 07:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

South Sudan coloration
Looking at the map, South Sudan is shaded as a dark red major war. The problem I have is this. It's using the numbers from last year, in which casualties exceeded 10,000. This year, however, it's only at 800-something. At that rate, it might breach 1,000, but won't get anywhere remotely near 10,000 short of some major escalation. The image as it stands is misleading, using numbers from over nine months ago. Shouldn't there be some point in the year in which the past year's numbers are no longer relevant for the coloration? I could understand coloring it normal red. --Blackbird_4 08:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan and Crimea
If Taiwan isn't represented as a part of China then Crimea shouldn't be represented as a part of Ukraine. --Leftcry (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan
Why is Taiwan shaded on the map? Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question, i'm not aware of any ongoing conflict involving Taiwan. It seems it was mistakenly added on June 14 update by our colleague User:Bullshark44.GreyShark (dibra) 09:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestine on the map should be in red
according to this article on Wikipedia, the isreal gaza conflict has claimed 1,184 lives in the last few weeks alone, and is expected to rise further in the upcoming weeks, the map should be updated to match the article. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should color red only the Gaza Strip, because de-facto the State of Palestine doesn't control it (it is ruled by Hamas).GreyShark (dibra) 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mexico and Northern Ireland
The Mexican Drug War spillover in the US and the low-level campaign in Northern Ireland need to be mentioned. I added them and even cited my sources and they were removed for unexplained reasons. There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be here, as they do continue to cause violence and have been covered in reliable sources. This needs to be reconsidered. You are not logged in (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to northern ireland, has there been a death due to the northern ireland conflict within the past 2 years? If so, a cite showing that is enough to include it. As for the drug war spill-over, its the same conflict as is going on in mexico so simply listing the drug war is sufficent.74.105.130.90 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were 2 deaths last year in Northern Ireland. In regards to the drug war spillover in the US, I originally thought what you just said, but I noticed there was a separate entry for the Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon, so I thought the drug war might should be the same. Especially since it s significantly lower level in the US than in Mexico. You are not logged in (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Syrian spillover is a notable topic, whereas Mexican Drug War spillover is not; Irish conflict is below 100 deaths, thus not notable - see previous discussions.GreyShark (dibra) 04:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree here. On my version of google, Mexican Drug War spillover seems very notable, as it turns up numerous credible articles from the last several years. And as for the war in Ireland, why does a conflict need to have 100+ deaths to be notable? It seems to me that if there's any ongoing violence in a conflict, and it is covered in multiple reliable sources, then it should qualify for the list. 100+ is a high threshold IMHO. Can we please try to work something out here? You are not logged in (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You forgot to add quotes, try <"Mexican Drug War spillover">.GreyShark (dibra) 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the exact search terms you use, there's a slew of reliable sources from 2008 to the present that cover this in-depth. Please take a look at these:. I really really think you should rethink this. You are not logged in (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, i have read those and we may find a name convention for this activity if you like, but i'm not convinced that it warrants its own article and most importantly it seems that except a "rise in crime" there is not much happening in the US. It is certainly not on the scale of a 100 casualty conflict with clear parties. By the way, some time ago there was even a claim to take off the entire Mexican Drug War article from this listing, because it is not really a war with clear sides; for the time it stays, but someone may raise the issue once again. Anyway, unless other editors support your idea, in my opinion the "Mexican Drug War spillover in the US" merely warrants a paragraph in the main article "Mexican Drug War".GreyShark (dibra) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There isn't actually an article about that; the link I inserted was merely a redirect to a section in the Mexican Drug War article. But per, I think there've clearly been more than 100 deaths; thereby qualifying it for mention here. Also check out  and  regarding spillover into some Central American countries. Per the info in these, what would you think of adding 🇺🇸 United States 🇧🇿 Belize 🇬🇹 Guatemala 🇸🇻 El Salvador 🇨🇷 Costa Rica and 🇭🇳 Honduras to the "Mexican Drug War" entry in the first chart? You are not logged in (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and here's one more interesting one from just a few months ago:. You are not logged in (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also check out these two:. You are not logged in (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

According to, the level of violence in the US is nowhere near that in Mexico and Central America. In fact the southwestern US has lower crime than anywhere else in the country. But the same source still says that there have indeed been a few notable violent incidents. So there is indeed some occasional spillover into the US (as I have pointed out above), even if it isn't that significant (for example ). What are your thoughts? You are not logged in (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably should mention something about the drug war being in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Belize and should change the shading of those countries on the map. It seems odd that they're not already here, as anyone keeping up with the news should know about the terrible violence there. Unsure about including the US though, as it seems to be little more than occasional spillover, in sharp contrast to the Central American situation. 119.184.120.133 (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Mexico, I guess it's about time someone updated the death toll for 2014. The current status of "66+" makes it look like not much is happening there. Yet, the Mexican Government published a report earlier this year, pointing out that just in the month of January 1,366 people were killed. Article: http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2014/03/at-14-months-of-pri-administration.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.154.49 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Readding Chiapas conflict
One person was killed in May 2014 in Chiapas .GreyShark (dibra) 04:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding this :) How did you do it? I couldn't find anything about recent conflict in Chiapas when I looked. You are not logged in (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up mate.GreyShark (dibra) 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, while I'm glad to see all the new activity, I have to say I disagree on this one. There have been no fatalities from the Chipas conflict in 2013, and as a result that conflict would essentialy have ended. And even if there were a death this, 1 new death from a previously ended conflict shouldn't result on the conflict from being readded to the list. But that's my opinion, let me know what you guys think. Leo33675 (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

CAR
I don't like re-adding the Central African Republic to this list because it seems to contradict the information in the actual article. If this war really hasn't ended, we should change that article as well. Do you have a source that explicitly states this war hasn't ended? You are not logged in (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding on other topics. Regarding conflicts like CAR, you can easily notice that most of them are in fact in a state of "cease fire", which is often violated, and hence is essentially just a part of a war. In order to brand the conflict as "finished", there needs to be a long-term solution, securing a situation with no casualties over a long period of time. It was herewith decided that on this page (see above notifications), that conflicts will be listed here despite official "cease fire" agreements (most of which are shortly violated), until there is a situation of no casualties at all. In case of CAR conflict, it is listed here because there were significant casualties in 2014, thus making it "ongoing". When we reach the end of this year, and not a single new casualty occurs, we can discuss it for removal. Unfortunately, statistically speaking this cease fire is not likely to hold, but let's hope it will and then remove in the beginning of the next calendar year (if still no casualties).GreyShark (dibra) 15:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, CAR truce has already collapsed - 22 killed .GreyShark (dibra) 15:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kenya
Can someone help me figure out the death toll of the 2011–14 terrorist attacks in Kenya so we can add it to the list? I'm also thinking about renaming it to Al-Shabab insurgency in Kenya or Somali Civil War spillover in Kenya to broaden the scope of the article so that it can fit in here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good observation Fitz! It seems the conflict spillover indeed began from the Somali's civil war - in 2008, and is currently ongoing very violently - 29 killed in a single attack on July 6. I also agree that this is much more than just "terrorist attacks" ("On October 17, 2011, the Kenyan Armed Forces invaded Southern Somalia after attacks on aid workers and foreigners in the Northeastern region of Kenya." ). According to "Start", the conflict also spills out to Uganda (see ). The the number of casualties in Kenya is put at 1,000 killed and 5,000 wounded between 1970-2012, out of which al-Shabaab killed 121 . Adding up the 2013-14 casualties, we easily reach hundreds of killed. The naming i found is "Al-Shabaab raids on Kenya", but perhaps "spillover" or "insurgency" can probably also work (i saw some sources).GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

True... I'm surprised this one isn't already here. Hopefully it'll get updated soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.91.68.243 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is just limited to the aftermath of Operation Linda Nchi in 2011. From this source I was able to calculate 16 deaths in 2011 and 118 in 2012. In September 2013, the Westgate shopping mall attack claimed 67 lives. We still need more though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The "2011–14 terrorist attacks in Kenya" page can't be renamed to "Somali Civil War spillover in Kenya" because that inaccurately frames the incidents as all the work of Al-Shabaab. The reality is, per Kenyan officials including President Uhuru Kenyatta himself, many of the attacks were not carried out by Islamists . They were instead likely orchestrated by Kenyan political rivals. A local land dispute involving Kenyatta's Kikuyu community as well as a separatist movement in Kenya's Coast province have also been blamed for a number of the attacks, including the recent ones in Mpeketoni. In at least one incident, a local pastor in Nairobi was actually found with bomb making devices ; so there appears to be an additional, weird religious angle as well. The "spillover" title is also non-standard. That said, the Kenyan government's statistical division may already have published the death toll. If not, one of the online statistical repositories such as Necrometrics would perhaps be the next best option. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * - I strongly apologize for not replying to your input here a while back (for which I'm very thankful). I've been preoccupied by many other things on Wikipedia and in real life. I'm also not familiar enough with the topic at hand unfortunately. I think you were right that spillover was a bad idea, but we have to admit that the most notable attacks were carried out by Al-Shabaab, according to the majority of sources. Do you think we can split the non-Islamist attacks from the article and move them somewhere else (perhaps Political violence in Kenya) then rename this one? How about Aftermath of Operation Linda-Nchi? Maybe my ideas aren't that good, but I think it is really embarrassing not to have Kenya on this list. Cheers, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No prob. I don't think the page needs renaming since these bombings, etc. are after all terrorist attacks. It's the perpetrators that are in many instances uncertain. As such, it would be difficult to weed out what is definitively political violence versus an Al-Shabaab attack. Also, the incidents actually began before Linda Nchi and intensified after it. Another bomb-making pastor was thus also charged in 2010; he was apparently motivated by an inter-church feud . Middayexpress (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Egypt
This article among others says that Egypt underwent a period political tumult, marked by economic decline, social unrest and a flirtation with popular democracy that effectively ended with Sisi's ascent. I'm having second thoughts now and I think we should better stick with the Sinai insurgency in the list for now until we have a new article that deals with the insurgency in the rest of Egypt. I think the Egyptian crisis and Islamist unrest articles should be closed now with the date Sisi got elected, otherwise we will be stuck with 2011–present for a very long time. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The French Revolution lasted for 10 years.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Fitz, this isn't much of a conflict, rather than a political dispute. I think we do need to keep Sinai Insurgency if we choose to eliminate the Egyptian crisis. Leo33675 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of ongoing armed conflicts
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of ongoing armed conflicts's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "allafrica": From RENAMO insurgency:  From ADF insurgency:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Northeast Caucuses
New to this, so I don't know if this is the right way to go about this, but it seems a little hyperbolic to say that the Chechen-Russian COnflict's been going on since 1785. I believe there was no insurgency between 1944 and 1992 - that's almost 50 years. It seems like a start year of 1992 would be more appropriate. Someone changed it to 2009, but I think that that's also inappropriate. Every year since 1992, armed conflict has occured in the Northeast Caucuses. The only thing that changed in 2009 is that the Russian army left Chechnya and the counterterrorism operations were carried out by local police instead. Gjesdahj (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Gjesdahj
 * The Russian-Chechen conflict began roughly in 1785 and sporadically lasted since. Indeed there is a missing information about 1945-1992 period, but let me check more deeply - i assume the reason is simply inaccessibility of Soviet records. If you read "The Insurgency in Chechnia and Northern Caucasus", it explicitly says that the first "Holy War" of Chechens against Russia began in 1785 by Shaykh Mansur ( p.56). A good source for the Soviet post-expulsion period (1944-1990) is the book of Robert Seely, titled "Russo-Chechen conflict 1800-2000: a Deadly Embrace". Seely talks about massive riots in Chechniya in late 1950s and 1960s, which led to deaths of 19 people in 1965 alone . Between late 1960s and 1990 there was clam in the conflict, but that can be said also about multiple other conflicts, which last long like Kurdish separatism in Iran, Iraqi-Kurdish conflict, Arab separatism in Khuzestan etc.GreyShark (dibra) 17:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RENAMO insurgency
Adding up RENAMO insurgency in Mozambique, following a post by user:GeoEvan last year, and apparent pile-up of deaths in that conflict to over 100 total in the recent weeks.GreyShark (dibra) 21:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course thanks to user:197.249.231.84 for bringing up the issue.GreyShark (dibra) 21:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the RENAMO Insurgency, it may already be time to remove this conflict, according to updates to Internal conflict in Mozambique. There seems to be a peace treaty in place. user:prepster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.226.136 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the guidelines - if there are casualties in 2013 or 2014 it makes it valid. Peace treaty doesn't make it go off table.GreyShark (dibra) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Paraguay conflict
Per guidelines the Paraguay conflict should be off the table. I have myself added it in the past, thinking that it had reached 100+ deaths, but following a deeper research there are apparently only ~50. It is certainly too small.GreyShark (dibra) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit, please provide an opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 08:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, what other conflicts do we have worldwide that have less than 100 deaths? Are there any other to compare it to? Skycycle (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Paraguay is featured on the map (1) and the header says 'Fewer than 100 deaths', and that is why I included it. IMO it should be featured, it gets enough regional press now and the economic consequences are more serious than the casualty count suggests. Keep in mind they might be more than 50, not all news are translated into English. Skycycle (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Paraguay's presence on the map of conflicts is a circular reason, as obviously it had been added there due to EPP conflict's inclusion in the table. In any case, we have a good example of removing a similar small-scale conflict - the ongoing Dissident Irish Republican campaign was removed from the table, because total casualties were only 50+ (very similar to EPP conflict). I perfectly agree that if we can find more deaths from the news or (hopefully not) new deaths occur and the total swells to 100, we should then include Paraguay, but for now it is certainly below the threshold.GreyShark (dibra) 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that seems fair enough. I will try to search for more information and update the article in the coming weeks, but I doubt the casualties are approaching 100 right now. When they do, we can include it, and in the meantime maybe someone can edit the map and remove Paraguay? On a side-note, next year the map will have just a few 'major' dark red conflicts and a whole LOT of red ones... Skycycle (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Chechen-Russian conflict
The Insurgency in the Northern Caucasus is part of the Russian-Chechen conflict. The larger conflict is ongoing since 1785 Russian Empire invasion, however some users rightfully claim that until 1990 there was a long pause. The pause of hostilities lasted from about 1965 (the end of ethnic riots in Chechnia) until the First Chechen War in 1990. My question is - do we count the start of the conflict from 1785 (whole conflict) or from 1990 (last phase)?GreyShark (dibra) 17:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither, the conflict ongoing now has superceeded the chechen nationalist conflict of the 1990's. The Caucus Emirate is made up of ethnicities from all over the northern caucus, Dagestanis, Ossetians, ect. It is a belligerent that seeks to establish a jihadi state over the all of the caucus. The conflict's start date should be considered the same date as the formation of the Caucus Emirate.208.67.210.21 (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Insurgency in the Maghreb
Something really should be done about the inclusion of this "conflict". There is little evidence to suggest this is an active conflict and its source page is both poorly sourced and out-of-date, perhaps worse than any other conflict on this list. Although there may be some instability in the region, the assertion that it all constitutes one over arching conflict is not very credible. It needs to be removed fromthe list and the map should be updated to reflect this as well. Prepster) 10:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Prepster) 10:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AQIM and other jihadi groups are active throughout the sahel and sahara. There is active combat regularly throughout tunisia and algeria. There are occasional actions fought in Niger and other nearby countries as well. IE see [], [], [].XavierGreen (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Xavier, certainly an active conflict perpetrated by AQIM in Algeria and spilling into surrounding countries.GreyShark (dibra) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Second Afar insurgency
Adding the Second Afar insurgency as a low intensity ongoing conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Map update
The map needs an update (adding Second Afar insurgency e.t.c.).--Catlemur (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Novorossia
There is a consensus in articles List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition, including talk pages, that Novorossia (a self-declared union of two self-declared "states") does not belong even to states with limited recognition. Therefore, I think it should not be mentioned on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly not as a place of conflict.  Volunteer Marek   16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A state can be unrecognized de jure but recognized de facto according to international law. In any case diplomatic recognition is not relevant here, an entity doesn't have to be recognized diplomatically to be recognized as part of a conflict.See Somaliland which is not recognized diplomatically but the page lists it as location of the conflict.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A state can be unrecognized de jure but recognized de facto according to international law - See WP:OR. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Volunteer Marek   19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See Podmiotowość prawa międzynarodowego współczesnego uniwersalizmu w złożonym modelu klasyfikacyjnym Chapter 3 by Maciej Perkowski. Posting links to Wiki policies without any arguments doesn't read convincing. As somebody who actually passed an exam about this subject I welcome any questions regarding this topic. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And posting titles to inaccesible works which may or may not support what looks like original research fails verifiability. The Wikipedia policies WP:OR and WP:OTHERSTUFF are obviously relevant. What you need here is a source which explicitly states that *this* particular non-entity, Novorossia, is "de facto recognized according to international law". Otherwise, it's original research, it goes.  Volunteer Marek   22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "And posting titles to inaccesible works" I am pretty sure the book is accessible for purchase or in library."What you need here is a source which explicitly states that *this* particular non-entity, Novorossia, is "de facto recognized according to international law""-I don't. It is irrelevant if it is recognized or not, nor am I claiming it is. Neither ISIL or Somaliland are recognized but listed here. International recognition has nothing to do with de facto existence of an entity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And those two should be removed (Somaliland at least has the fact that it was once a British protectorate going for it). International recognition does have something to do with it. The description states: "Only states with ongoing military activity are listed, past states and states where conflicts are no longer active are omitted.". This ain't a state. Keep in mind that we're not talking about whether or not the conflict itself should be listed.  Volunteer Marek   22:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An unrecognized state is still a state.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been described here (one should read it), and consensus was reached that DNR and LNR should not be included as "states with limited recognition". Current page unrecognized states is a redirect to List of states with limited recognition, where DNR and LNR should not be included. If one could develop unrecognized states as a separate subject (different from "states with limited recognition") that would be something debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are getting confused here. This is not the discussion page of recognized or unrecognised states pages. The fact that a state is party to the conflict doesn't depend on its diplomatic recognition. It can be unrecognized and still be a party to the conflict which this page is about.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) @MMA - So if I declare the Federal People's Republic of Volunteer Marek, appoint myself as President and my dog as Prime Minister, get my stuffed animals together and convene a parliament, spend some time drawing up a pretty flag and coat of arms, and declare war on Fiji, then I'm a state and the FPRVM needs to be listed in this article? Come on, there obviously got to be some kind of threshold for inclusion. And this thing doesn't pass it.  Volunteer Marek   23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the relevant column is "Location" not "State". And the location is very clearly Ukraine and just Ukraine.  Volunteer Marek   23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "So if I declare the Federal People's Republic of Volunteer Marek, appoint myself as President and my dog as Prime Minister, get my stuffed animals together and convene a parliament, spend some time drawing up a pretty flag and coat of arms, and declare war on Fiji"

Just to make it clear state is: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government" which the entity in question fully fulfils. Its diplomatic recognition is irrelevant to the fact that it indeed exists.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But here is the problem: this "state" has no territory. The boundaries are defined by ceasefire lines, which are not recognized by the "government" of the "state". The "government" vows to occupy a much bigger territory and fights every day to accomplish this. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That the territory(parts of which the entity in question does hold in certain areas quite firmly and uncontested by force) changes with the conflict is part of every conflict, no surprise here. The same argument applies to any other entity listed on this page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The "confederation" has no constitution and no government (unlike DNR and LNR). My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
1) Should Palestine be italicized as a disputed state? It is not a de facto state, doesn't enjoy full UN membership and is not recognized by several UN members. 2) Are casualties per year calculated as an average, or based on the last year? This conflict would be categorized differently in each case. Valleyofdawn (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Israel too. Also China and some other countries - see List of states with limited recognition. My very best wishes (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Itilicized state name should only apply to UN non-members. It does apply to Palestine (which is an observer state in the UN), but it does not apply to China and Israel, who are full members.GreyShark (dibra) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing ranges to "+"
Dylan, please note that this page has been using a range of casualties for many years. Changing it to minimal "+" is reducing much information and should be discussed before changes all over the table.GreyShark (dibra) 21:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Kashmir
The Kashmir insurgency (since 1989) should be referred to rather than the Kashmir conflict (since 1947). This is because the Kashmir conflict is an umbrella term referring to the three wars/conflicts between India and Pakistan, the Uyghur insurgency in China and the Jammu/Kashmir insurgency of 1989 to present. DylanLacey (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dylan, i'm politely asking you to refrain from first changing the content and then going to the talk page. If you want to change something disputed or something you don't agree with, you should first post here, seeking a consensus (or no opposition) and if you have a majority for a new version (or no opposition), then you are welcome to apply your version. The change from Kashmir conflict (1947-present) to insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (1989-present) is not acceptable to me, because Indian and Pakistani Army often exchange fire on the border (like last month ), so it is far wider than just "insurgency", and is part of the 1947-present Indian-Pakistani conflict in the region.GreyShark (dibra) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These are two separate conflicts: the Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and the 2014 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. The Kashmir conflict is too vague, as it effectively describes a cold war (that sometimes heats up) between India and Pakistan. It would make more sense to include these separately in the article. DylanLacey (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, but it is fine that you have a differing opinion. I would like to have more input from other users and if you have a significant support for your opinion that Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and the 2014 India–Pakistan border skirmishes are entirely unrelated, then let's list them separately (actually only the insurgency, as the other has too few casualties). I still think both are integrative to the Kashmir conflict from 1947 to present.GreyShark (dibra) 11:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan
The Afghan Civil War is a very broad term spanning the Saur Revolution, Soviet war, three civil wars, and the US war. It is better to refer to the 2001-present war specifically. DylanLacey (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All conflicts in Afghanistan can be considered as fighting among different factions in Afghanistan with varying foreign support. The US and Soviet Union have been among the dominant foreign forces intervening in the country, but most of the conflict has always remained local and had a strong Jihadist element in it.GreyShark (dibra) 11:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the combatants today are entirely different from those at the start of the start of this extended 'conflict'. Communist government v. Mujahideen is different completely to US-backed government v. Taliban. Also, the death toll since 1978 is flawed because there is a lack of information in the years the Taliban ruled, and it's a questionable compilation of death tolls. DylanLacey (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a very bad faith practice to revert me during the conversation - you basically withdraw from WP:BRD.GreyShark (dibra) 12:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Operation Inherent Resolve
A continuation of Operation Enduring Freedom which included both Afghanistan and Iraq. Operation Inherent Resolve should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.89.3 (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those casualties are covered in both the syria and iraq casualties. - SantiLak  (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Katanga Insurgency
I don't have vert good estimates for Katanga Insurgency, but I know casualties for it in 2014 were in the hundreds does anyone know where I could get a source for that? I also need help with updating the Katanga insurgency page as it is lacking info. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A List for Ongoing Civil Unrest? (Egyptian Crisis, Tibet Unrest, Hong Kong, Eric Garner Protests,etc.)
There is already a page for ongoing protests that has not been updated in a while. I think it would be beneficial for us to move some of the conflicts we removed from here (Egyptian Crisis, Bahrain Protests) and move them there. I'll be trying to update that page and sort by amounts of deaths. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. The unarmed protests do not belong here, especially when the number of casualties is low (under 100 total).User:Greyshark09 08:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts to remove
There are two conflicts, which seem to have been terminated in 2014 in terms of casualties - the Korean dispute and the Conflict in the Niger Delta, so we should remove them upon updating the table. The rest are unfortunately ongoing or are in various peace effort stages.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Conflict in the Niger Delta while has mostly subsided has not ended completely http://www.tribune.com.ng/news/news-headlines/item/25394-gunmen-kill-3-jtf-soldiers-in-bayelsa. I think we should wait for some time before removing it, there have been some deaths in 2014 so perhaps move it down to 0-100 casualty area? AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, it looks like those guys in Niger Delta are really determined to stay on the list. You are correct!

What about Tunisia? Hardly anything has happened there. Some minor incidents, but not unlike other countries that sometimes cope with sporadic dangers. I don't feel like it belongs on this list. Looskuh (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tunisia is not on the list, except in regard to Insurgency in the Maghreb (mainly in Algeriam with spillovers).GreyShark (dibra) 08:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts which might be added
There are few conflicts, which are still too low-level to be included, but we should follow - including the Dissident Irish Republican campaign, the Paraguayan People's Army insurgency and other.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also note that despite not producing any casualties this year, in the korean conflict there were two firefights along the DMZ and one at sea near the northern limit line, so it is possible it may meet the criteria again sometime next year. Other conflicts that still have active combatants but have not produced deaths are the Cabinda Conflict, and the insurgency in corsica.XavierGreen (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree on Korean conflict (removing for now, but keeping track if new casualties arise). I'm not familiar with Cabinda conflict and insurgency in Corsica.GreyShark (dibra) 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The FNLC has waged a pro corsican independence insurgency against France for several decades, the main faction of the FNLC recently declared a unilateral ceasefire, but there are small splinter factions that still wage war against the state, and such ceasefires had been declared in the past but the group would splinter and reform. []XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I recall someone raising this in the past, but failing to provide casualty count: any idea how many deaths we are talking about in this conflict?GreyShark (dibra) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As for Cabinda, FLEC has waged an insurgency against Angola ever since Angola invaded Cabinda after it declared its independence from portugal. The insurgency their is heavily splintered and the Angolan government keeps a tight lid on insurgent attacks that occur in the country.XavierGreen (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any recent incidents? I can only find 2011 . University of Central Arkansas say the last incident was 2010 . Anyway let's keep track on this.GreyShark (dibra) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia shows possible signs of resurgence - let's watch it.GreyShark (dibra) 22:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yemeni conflict
A lot of media sources refer to the Yemeni conflict as a single conflict (like Financial Times, Newsweek, USAnews) with three arenas (Ansar al-Sharia, Houthis and Southern separatists), however we still list here 3 separate conflicts. This also creates a dilemma with coloring of Yemen (intensive conflict if all combined, but each conflict by itself is below 1000 casualties) and with assigning the deaths, as sometimes it is not entirely clear where the sub-conflicts are separate (for example when Houthis fight with Ansar al-Sharia). Maybe we should list Yemeni conflict with its subconflicts in a single cell and count the casualties together?GreyShark (dibra) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I think the articles should be combined into one article called Yemeni Conflict or Yemeni Civil War. I can help with merging the articles if we agree to that. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While the AQAP and Houthi conflicts are merging now, previously they were entirely separate conflicts. The houthi insurgency has a very long history, i would be wary of merging that page into any others. Creating a new one for the current / overal situation is a good idea though.XavierGreen (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging the articles is not the question, but merging the casualties in this table. I agree with you, that the only solution in terms of articles is creating another "umbrella" article - perhaps named Yemeni conflict (2011–present) (i'm not sure civil war is yet a proper naming).GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already created the Timeline of the Yemeni conflict (2011–present) to include the unified timelines of the conflict, which apparently merged into a single conflict around 2011 (?). I guess an overview article Yemeni conflict (2011–present) is also needed.GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on it on the upcoming few days after I finish up katanga insurgency, I'm kind of drunk now so I probably shouldnt do it right now AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mashrwb hadha 7aram!GreyShark (dibra)
 * I don't know arabic lol, I'm guessing 7aram is haram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsolutelyHaram (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, i'm studying Arabizi scripting.GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Map
BullShark seems to have attempted an update to the map, but Colombia was incorrectly greyed and Libya was incorrectly downgraded to yellow; Mexico and Egypt need to be downgraded to red and yellow respectively, Korea needs to be downgraded to grey. 75.131.42.151 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Yemen needs to become red, since if you total together all the casualties from south yemen, Houthi and AQAP you get over a thousand deaths in 2014.AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And Taiwan needs to be greyed; it is not presently part of any conflict. 75.131.42.151 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated the coloring and fixed the alignment issues. Bullshark44 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria must become dark red due to over 10000 deaths AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And now that Afghanistan's total for last year has been revised, it needs to be dark red too. Also Taiwan has been yellowed again, despite no conflict in that country, it needs to be reverted to grey. 209.92.200.98 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DRC needs to be made red and Burundi needs to be made yellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsolutelyHaram (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinks to casualties articles
I think it would be useful to link the articles about Casualties of the Syrian civil war and Casualties of Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) in the related cells of the cumulative fatalities column, so as to provide more detailed information. I made a test and controlled this does not impair the sorting function of the table. Alternatively, I would link the articles in the “see also” section. Nykterinos (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - i'm pretty neutral on this. Though i've reverted this and other addition attempts of more wikilinking in the table over the past year, i assume if there is no problem with the "sortable" feature and there is no objection of other editors, we can implement Nykterinos' suggestion. It might however add some "over-complexity" to this table, but maybe it is reasonable.GreyShark (dibra) 18:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ,,,,,,,, - calling for important article contributors over the past year to give their opinion (others also welcome).GreyShark (dibra) 19:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ambiguous about Nykterinos' proposal, although both conflicts share several circumstances in common, they still are two different conflicts, unless the community wanted to merge both articles to form a "War in the Levant" or "Third Gulf War" page. So technically an article about "Casualties of the Syrian civil war and Iraqi insurgency" points to info of two different topics, in my opinion. Helliko (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? You may be misinterpreting the proposal. DylanLacey (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't affect sorting, then it should be fine. It seems like a good idea. DylanLacey (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it, I'm relatively new though so I don't know how valid my opinion is. AbsolutelyHaram (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral- I do not perceive this as something important.--Catlemur (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this.XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - seems like a consensus, - you are welcome to implement.GreyShark (dibra) 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - user:Skycycle, i reverted your edit regarding Sinai insurgency casualties on WP:GF grounds, as it seems to violate the guidelines that "Wikipedia is not a source". It the discussion above - we decided to link numbers to the casualties article (or section), but we shouldn't rely on wikipedia article as a source. I hope you understand me and thank you for your good work.GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand, but the casualty count was correct and all the incidents mentioned under Sinai insurgency 2015 are sourced, so why not just replace the See _______ with a list of all those links? Cause with th 4 sources we have right now + the ones from the Sinai article the count is well over 100, it's a significant difference so let's use what we've already sourced in a different article anyway, right? Just my thoughts :) Skycycle (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Insurgency in Ogaden
Although Wikipedia states that the insurgency in Ogaden ended in 2008, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) claims to still be fighting against Ethiopia. According to the ONLF website, they allegedly attacked Ethiopian soldiers in 2014, reporting 14 casualties. ( http://onlf.org/?p=705 ) With far over 100 casualties between 1995 and 2008 and the recent casualties, this reaches the criteria to be listed as an ongoing armed conflict.--YDN8 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you're right: both CSP and UCDP list the Ogaden insurgency as ongoing. It also seems that the ONLF insurgency isn't the only insurgency waged in Ethiopia: there is also a minor one, waged by the Oromo Liberation Front. ACLED counts 172 fatalities in clashes involving ONLF in 2014 and 46 involving OLF. I'll add both to the table. Nykterinos (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work!GreyShark (dibra) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to improve the method of presentation
Due to the fact that each sub-title is by the numbers of casualties in each year, it makes sense to arrange the tables default according to the higher number of deaths by the last year, not by the start date of a conflict. Or simply to change the shape of the overall display without dividing it by the number of injuries each year. But only by one sub-Title that would include all of the conflicts under him, and that table would be sorted by the start date of the conflict. (03.02.2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.217.158 (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose eliminating the sub-sections, which make the article clearer (also because the map is based on them). A problem of ordering the conflicts by number of fatalities in 2014 is that in each sub-section are listed conflicts with a certain number of fatalities in past or current year. Once the sub-totals for 2015 will have risen, you'll have to order some conflicts by the number of fatalities in 2015 and some by the number of fatalities in 2014. I actually find a bit confusing the subtitles "X deaths per year", perhaps it would be better to write ""X deaths in current or past year". Finally, a minor practical problem of ordering the conflicts by number of fatalities is that, everytime you change the number of fatalities, you'll have to change the position of the conflict in the table. Nykterinos (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem I was talking about already exists fot the last table, which you haven't re-ordered yet: for example, Ituri conflict (48 fatalities in 2015) should be listed above OLF insurgency (46 fatalities in 2014). Nykterinos (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Map update
I uploaded an updated map, colouring red South Sudan (per lower estimate) and Cameroon (from ACLED I calculated 1,317 Boko Haram-related fatalities in 2014), orange Ethiopia (two new conflicts added), grey Uganda (no conflict listed). I gave a new colour, gold, to countries with fewer than 100 deaths: Peru, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Eritrea, Mozambique, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijian, Iran, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines. Nykterinos (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Angola now needs to be colored gold due to renewed violence in CabindaAbsolutelyHalal (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Great job @Nykterinos this looks much better. Angola needs to be added as gold, the rest looks fine at a glance :) Skycycle (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!GreyShark (dibra) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Angola still needs to go yellow, and Thailand needs to be bumped up to orange. I just added a source and changed it up, always suspected the 26 casualties were way too few for 2014 anyway, the insurgency is still going on and figures have probably not dropped that much from previous years, if at all. Will look for more precise sources and compile something up in the coming days, but Thailand should go orange anyway. Skycycle (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. I also coloured Philippines orange (more than 100 deaths NPA and Moro insurgencies combined). Nykterinos (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cabinda Conflict has been added
With a total of 30,000 deaths historically and 5 deaths this past december http://www.janes.com/article/47834/attacks-on-cargo-and-military-in-angola-s-cabinda-exclave-more-likely-but-low-risk-to-energy-assets, I have added it to the list. AbsolutelyHalal (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another example of conflict re-emerging despite removing it from here by haste editors in a hurry.GreyShark (dibra) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

End of Houthi insurgency
The Houthi insurgency in Yemen has ended two days ago so should we still keep it there? Jackninja5 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As a convention we keep all conflicts with at least 1 death in current or past year, so the Houthi insurgency should be kept till the end of 2016. Anyway it doesn't seem to me that the insurgency has ended with the Houthis' takeover of power: it has just entered a new phase, with the Houthis in power. Alternatively, as user:Greyshark09 proposed some time ago, we can list only one Yemeni conflict, encompassing the three insurgencies which were till now distinct (Houthis, al-Qaeda and southern separatists) and which are now merging with the fight of al-Qaeda and southern separatists against Houthis. Nykterinos (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed time to list the Yemeni insurgencies altogether - it is a joined conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

MILHIST integration
In case others are also interested we can create an ongoing conflicts task force within the MILHIST Wikiproject.The idea is to increase quality standards, coordination e.t.c.--Catlemur (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain more?GreyShark (dibra) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cold War task force in one such example, you gather all the articles, useful sources and editors in one place in order to achieve efficiency. Furthermore MILHIST has an assessment process which leads to the creation of high quality content.--Catlemur (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in, sounds interesting.GreyShark (dibra) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, , You can find the task force here. Feel free to add tasks and resources.--Catlemur (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help when I'm free, I somehow managed to lose my password to AbsolutelyHaram so I'm stuck with this account :( Absoluteharamvodka (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also ,,,,,.GreyShark (dibra) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we put some notice on the top of the talk page?GreyShark (dibra) 19:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ,,,,. Most definitely.--Catlemur (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ,,,,,--Catlemur (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a complex ask at the moment. There's a lot to be done around recent events in Ukraine (i.e., a lot of duplications, POV forks and RECENTISM articles are being merged, DRN-ed, etc.), so the flurry of activity is full on. I'll try to make some time for it, but don't know when that will be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Far-left extremism in Bangladesh
Added by Kristi recently, please explain which groups are involved - it is too ambiguous right now.GreyShark (dibra) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Burundi
I just found this Human Rights Watch report, does anyone have an idea what conflict this is a part of? How should we add it? Skycycle (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably Kivu conflict.--Catlemur (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed responsibility for that particular invasion of burundi, though it possibly could have been the FNL which is an anti-burundian group based in the congo. As of right now if i recall correctly we have casualties resulting from the incident listed in Kivu conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Likely Kivu conflict as mentioned above.GreyShark (dibra) 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any deaths in Burundi should be considered a spillover of the Kivu Conflict since only FLN-Nzambapena is currently fighting the Burundian government and to the best of my knowledge they are entirely based in the Congo unlike FNL/Palipehutu (not fighting currently).

Including Excess Deaths for Total Death Counts When Available
Our current guidelines indicate that we should not add excess deaths into the total death counts of wars. While I agree this may make sense when dealing with conflicts that are relatively small and it is obviously impossible to account for this on a yearly basis, I feel that this does not paint an accurate picture of the reality of the Conflicts in certain regions. During certain periods of the Somali civil war, the famine could be directly attributed to the fighting and similarly the case with conflicts in Sudan. The issue becomes apparent when the Second Congo War (and the following Kivu Conflict) is examined, if excess deaths are removed there are a few hundred thousand casualties combined. But when excess deaths are included the conflict has well over 2.5 million deaths total which frames the conflict in a completely different context.

As it is already, wars in the DRC tend to have highly inaccurate casualty counts due to the lack of reporting in the area. Including excess deaths in the total deaths category would be a good way of accurately representing the human cost of wars. Other alternatives would be to include excess deaths in a separate column and rename "total deaths" to "violent deaths"

A map should ideally be created as well to represent total deaths for ongoing conflicts (I can assist with this). I'd recommend the following categories: >Million Deaths >100,000 Deaths >10,000 Deaths and >1,000 deaths. That way the total impact of wars can be illustrated. Absoluteharamvodka (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, although the categories might have to be tweaked a bit. Perhaps something like 100+ cumulative / 1,000+ / 10,000+ / 100,000+ / 250,000+ (?) / 1,000,000+ (maybe we don't need it if we do 250k or 500k). Skycycle (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How practically can we present the cumulative deaths (the country color is reserved for current deaths)?GreyShark (dibra) 19:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Having 2 maps would work, one for yearly deaths and one for total deaths. Absoluteharamvodka (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian unrest again
Dylan tried to reinsert the unrest, but Nykterinos opposed on the grounds that we don't list unrests here. There are two problems of not listing violent unrests (with deaths) - first one side in fatal unrests usually uses weapons (typically police, making it an armed conflict) and second there have been violent opposition acts as well in Egypt outside of Sinai recently, like September 2014 blast in Cairo (2 killed), January 2014 blast in Alexandria (1 killed), February 2015 blast in Cairo (1 killed), February 2015 blast in Giza (1 killed). It is clearly an armed conflict, including both terrorism, anti-government armed violence and also unrests.GreyShark (dibra) 20:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I initially voted in favour of listing one Egyptian conflict comprising both Sinai insurgency and post-coup unrest, but was persuaded by DylanLacey himself that the second is not an armed conflict, because we need two organized armed groups fighting each other to make an armed conflict, whereas one-sided violence by security forces against protesters (such as in Rabaa massacre) isn't an armed conflict. As far as I know, the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be considered an organized armed group fighting the government. Now, I see there is at least one organized armed group not based in Sinai fighting the government, the Soldiers of Egypt, which has claimed the bombings you cited. So, we can list the Post-coup unrest, but should indicate as fatalities only the ones provoked by anti-government armed groups or by the government in its fight against them, not all the fatalities provoked by the government in its crackdown on protesters who are not members of any armed group, for these belong to the List of ongoing protests. Ideally, we should have two distinct articles, one about the protests, the other about the armed conflicts. Nykterinos (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my position slightly; I think the Post-coup unrest would be better suited to this article than the List of ongoing protests as there are armed clashes and bombings involving gov't vs Muslim Brotherhood and affiliates (and well over 100 deaths). They are separate conflicts, the Sinai insurgency started in 2011 and the Post-coup unrest in 2013. DylanLacey (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So can we restore it now?GreyShark (dibra) 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, we can't. Being initially a supporter of its inclusion, I have now changed my position completely. Greyshark argued once that once there is a significant armed element it becomes an "armed conflict". This is what convinced me in the beginning, but I now disagree with the notion because I don't see sources referring to Egypt's unrest as an armed conflict, therefore I refuse to describe it as such. I've also managed to find an article from International Business Times which clearly says that Egypt's "period political tumult, marked by economic decline, social unrest and a flirtation with popular democracy" (an obvious reference to the Egyptian Crisis article) has "effectively ended" with Sisi's ascent to power. Yes, there have been terrorist attacks in many parts of Egypt, not just North Sinai. But in my opinion Terrorism in Egypt would be a better candidate, or we can create an article similar to 2011–14 terrorist attacks in Kenya for that purpose. I propose Terrorism in Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi or anything of the same order. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrorism in Egypt indeed overviews Mulsim Brotherhood insurgency since the 1970s. Should we refer to it as a continuous conflict since?GreyShark (dibra) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've initiated a discussion here regarding the date brackets in the title of Egyptian Crisis (2011–present), if anyone is interested to join. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a sustained armed conflict between Muslim Brotherhood sympathisers and the government. Most of the conflicts in this article are not referred to as 'armed conflict' in the media, anyway. DylanLacey (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring that an armed conflict in mainland Egypt (bomb attacks, etc) is taking place, but it certainly isn't this. Other than the jailbreaks of 28 January 2011, it appears that there is nothing "armed" about the Egyptian Crisis, which is mostly a political conflict. Also, the Sinai insurgency is merely an impact of the political turmoil, and according to the Wall Street Journal it started well before the 2011 revolution. Egypt’s jihadist troubles in the Sinai date to at least 2010—before the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood and before the Arab Spring. This is probably the same case as the Second Sino-Japanese War which was already a full-scale war in 1937 but later became part of World War II. Now I know,, that Terrorism in Egypt is a very broad topic, but it seems to be all we've got right now. I did say that I support the creation of a new article for that purpose though, and I might help update/expand it with other contributors. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

North Caucasus
Can the Insurgency in North Caucasus be broken down into subsections? The subsections would break down the conflict into the War in Ingushetia, Chechen-Russian conflict, and Dagestani conflict. Insurgency in the Caucasus can be broken down in a fashion similar to the Yemeni Crisis. Here are the links to the three separate conflicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan#Dagestani_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen%E2%80%93Russian_conflict#Ongoing_Chechen_insurgency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Ingushetia YDN8 (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am against a brake down per Occam's razor, despite the fact that the insurgents have different ethnic backgrounds (some of them are even ethnic Ukrainians), the goal is the same, the imposition of Sharia law.--Catlemur (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

FRUD
Conflict between the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy(FRUD) and the Djiboutian army can be considered a ongoing armed conflict since it has had an estimated 100 casualties(during the civil war) and 8 casualties in 2014 according to ACLED.YDN8 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please add this conflict since I do not know how to do so? Here is a link to ACLED's data and the Wikipedia page about the Djiboutian civil war if needed for citing. http://www.acleddata.com/data/realtime-data-2015/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djiboutian_Civil_War YDN8 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the FRUD conflict can be merged with the Second Afar insurgency, since all the rebel groups in the conflict are also Afars (some wish independence, while others only seek to overthrow the government).--Catlemur (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kenya information
I just saw this article on Al Jazeera that has exact casualties from attacks in Kenya since 2012 - 312 killed in total since January 1, 2012; 174 of them last year. I propose that we rename and restructure the 2011–14 terrorist attacks in Kenya article since it is a separate conflict, resulting as a minor 'extension' of the ongoing war in neighboring Somalia. Skycycle (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ADF/Kivu merger
A short glance at the Allied Democratic Forces insurgency article, reveals that the majority of ADF's activity is conducted in the Kivu province (with occasional attacks in Uganda). Should we merge it with the Kivu conflict of which ADF is also a participant?--Catlemur (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is nothing about ADF in the Kivu conflict article. I don't think we should merge them just due to "location". The question is - do sources refer to ADF as part of the Kivu conflict?GreyShark (dibra) 18:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kivu Conflict is generally recognized as the conflict that was a continuation or the aftermath of the 2nd Congo War. The situation with the ADF must be considered a separate conflict as they have been fighting prior to the existence of the Kivu Conflict and even the 2nd Congo war. Furthermore, ADF has radically different goals from the majority of participants in the Kivu Conflict making it very hard to justify its inclusion. Absoluteharamvodka (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)