Talk:List of wars: 1945–1989

removed
I removed the Flag of Tibet because it was a military flag instead of a national one. At the same time I added PRC flag for the uprising in 1959 when the Tibetan country had been formally part of PRC (with Dalai Lama's ratification) for almost a decade.219.79.27.241 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That was more than two years ago. Frankly, do we really need the flags? 114.72.189.94 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

???
Why is the 1979 Iranian Revolution not here? Klonk (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Beacuse it wasn't done by the means of a millitary and a war. It was done trough a rebellion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.60.143 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Civil War
No listing for this. should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bks2008 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be added. 114.72.189.94 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of this merge proposal was not to merge the articles. A consensus was established amongst the editors that the articles should not me merged together, as, of the 15 editors that participated in this discussion, 11 opposed the merge while 4 supported it. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge
This article should be merged with List of wars 1900-1944 because they're 20th century wars and it could look neat like List of wars 1800-1899. The wars in the 1990s (1990-1999) should also be added. The article would be called List of wars 1900-1999. B-Machine (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not entirely convinced by this argument, that it would be neater to combine them. The split between the two periods is well demarcated, there is no especial need that the lists be organised in 100 year periods, and having a number of smaller lists for the period makes it easier to navigate and comprehend per WP:SPLIT. Unless a better argument than one person's perception of what could look neat is presented, I would lean oppose. Benea (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also oppose here. I understand the urge to merge and make neater, but size is also a consideration - such a large list would be unweildy, and has to be split somwhere. The current split seems to be at useful point, due to the change in war itelf during WW2. Yob  Mod  14:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I will watch over the articles. List of wars 1800-1899 is a success. Why can't this be a success? B-Machine (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's bad idea since the United Nations was formed in 1944-1945 so this way everyone can easily compare the amount of wars and see how ineffective it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.60.143 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just came to look at wars and I noticed the 1900s were split up. It hink B-Machine is right in merging them. It would make a lot of sense if they're together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.200.165.92 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support the merge. It would be better in the short and long run. 65.200.165.90 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

B-Machine, the consensus expressed here is NOT to merge. Do not arbitrarily merging against the consensus as you just did but bring this up for more discussion. I have reverted for now, pending debate to see if this consensus has changed. Benea (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please B-Machine, do not canvass other users as you have been doing. And please see WP:SOCKPUPPET, the two ip addresses that have shown up in support differ only by a single digit, making it highly likely that they are the same person. Benea (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In my opinion, if all three of these already-lengthy articles would be combined, the resulting condensed article would be much too large and cumbersome to easily navigate and find information, as per WP:SPLIT. I feel that the status quo is the best possible solution, as the lists are split into well-defined periods. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - B-Machine i also disagree because during the 1800's there weren't nearly as many wars as there were in the 1900's because so many goverments have gone through civil wars . Just take for instance Russia. They became the Soviet Union then the Russian Republic in that 100 yearsBarcaFan09 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2010 (CST)


 * I support your plan. I think it will be practical and more organized. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I just find it odd that four editors, each with less than 50 edits, including three IP's (two of which differ only by a single digit), have appeared out of the blue to support B-Machine's proposal. To me, it appears that B-Machine is both canvassing other users and using sockpuppets in order to achieve consensus on this issue. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations are ridiculous. B-Machine (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ridiculous", huh? I'm trying to merge lists of wars 1900-1944 with lists of wars 1945-1989 and add 1990-1999 wars and conflicts to create list of wars 1900-1999. Please leave a comment at Talk:List of wars 1945–1989 in support of the merge. 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Machine (talk • contribs)  You have left the above message on numerous users' talk pages, including Mikrobølgeovn's and my own. This message is blatantly biased by telling editors to support your proposal, which is called inappropriate canvassing. As I have stated on your talk page, this is greatly frowned upon and considered quite disruptive. Second, I'm not accusing you of anything, just saying that it is odd that four editors, each with less than 50 edits, including three IP's (two of which differ only by a single digit), have appeared out of the blue to support your proposal. These four editors have made no other edits to this article or its talk page, just the single edit in which they support your proposal. Also, all four editors give little specific rationale for their beliefs, just a short, general statement, simply stating that it's better, but giving no reason as to why it is. To me, that is suspicious. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion. The list has two kinds of splits. The first one is to split at major events (end of WWII, end of the cold war), and the second one is to split at round years (1900, 2000). Currently, there are splits after both major events and round years, and it seems unnatural to have both. If the length is the issue, how about splitting at 1950? – Fuzzy – 16:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The status quo places each article into an extremely well-defined period of warfare (1900-1945; 1945-1989; 1989-1999). Combining these articles into two articles at the century's halfway mark takes away that definition, at least in my opinion. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the reason for the split at 2002? – Fuzzy – 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea why the split is at 2002/2003; that's simply the way it's been for a good four or five years now. Personally, I prefer splitting the list of wars into separate articles based on the seven or eight well-defined periods of warfare throughout the ages (Before 476; 476-1452 (or split that into two separate articles, 476-814 and 814-1452); 1452-1815; 1815-1914; 1914-1945; 1945-1989; and 1989-present). Maybe we should bring this up at here? My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The status quo is better. A combined article would be too long, and the current dates are well-defined by the subject matter, and not at all arbitrary.John Z (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, why there is an arbitrary split at 2002? – Fuzzy – 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am quite against the merge. John Z is right, a combined article (i.e. an article organized in a 100 year period) would be just too long, and I feel ALL of the lists of wars - not just the last three or four - should be split at major events, NOT round years. I propose - and bear in mind that I have NEVER posted an edit on *any* of the articles you mention - that the lists of wars be split even further than they are now, and I do mean *all* of them!!! Laurinavicius has the right idea - split all the lists of wars into separate articles based on the seven or eight well-defined periods of warfare throughout the ages (see post above). Laurina, you're spot on and I want all other Wikipedia users to accept this as a more appropriate structure for Wikipedia's lists of wars.

I also think ALL flags should be removed and maps for the various wars should be included in the list where appropriate. 114.72.189.94 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. As this merge proposal has been on the table for more than five months now and the consensus is, at least from my perspective, not to merge the articles, should we now close and archive this discussion? My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you delete the discussion, I'll undo your edit. My proposal, which is full of common sense, will come to fruition. Count on it. As for the IP, you're an idiot. B-Machine (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * B-Machine, the discussion we have here will not be deleted, it will be archived. Further to this it is clear that after a very long period of time that the merge has been under discussion, no consensus to merge has appeared. Maybe one day this proposal will find support, and they will be merged. But this is not the case at the moment. Nor will personal attacks on contributors help your case. This has been open long enough, and lacking further input, should be closed. Benea (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

don't change anything The last thing we need is another lengthy list of something (see that ridiculously impossible list of line of succession to the British crown) that is hard to manage, harder to navigate, and impossible to understand. Why break the wheel if it is turning. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I think that the list is just fine how it is. Just because I may look neater, it doesn't make sense to add other wars or split up wars on a Cold War list. Also, as for the 2002-2003 split on the other article, it might be because of the start of the Iraq War marking a new change in world order, IDK. Casual T .30-06 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Twenty days have passed since I first suggested that this discussion be closed and archived, and now I suggest again. Since I made that suggestion, only two more editors have weighed in on B-Machine's proposal, both of whom opposed it. From my perspective, this is only more proof that there is a very strong consensus against the merge. Of the 15 editors that have participated in this discussion, 11 have opposed the merge while 4 have supported it. Of the 4 supporters, 2 of them appear to be sockpuppets of one another, considering the facts that they: have nearly identical IP addresses (the only difference is a single digit), supported the merge only two days from one another, and commented around the same time of day, making highly likely that it was the same person. In addition, this merge proposal has been on the table for exactly 6 months now. Therefore, I feel that this merge discussion should be closed and archived. What do you guys think? Laurinavicius (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Close it man. Casual T .30-06 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! B-Machine (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've closed this merge discussion. However, if you still wish to bring it up, you can do so in the distant future, where the consensus may be different. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Israel's wars
I blanked a couple of the victorious / defeated boxes for wars involving Israel, and will change a couple more. (e.g. Israel is so amazing that it beat Hezbollah in 1982, before Hezbollah existed!, even better than its victories over Cuba and North Korea in 1973) They were recently changed, sometimes reversing the winner / loser, sometimes wildly at odds with reality. This seems to be part of an effort to always say "Israel won" across many wikipedia articles. It seems to be based only on a biased view of battlefield performance, completely ignoring political and strategic concerns and "who ultimately won". I met this effort halfway by blanking rather than reverting, in these sometimes complicated wars, what we should say about who won and lost should be carefully considered in talk.John Z (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah was founded officially in 1982 in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Look at the Hezbollah article. Also, please vote in the merge section. B-Machine (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so Israel could not have beaten Hezbollah in 1982, which as the article notes, had shadowy origins, scholars using dates between 1982 and 1985 for its foundation.


 * Again, the Yom Kippur War and even more the crazy Suez crisis victory / defeated are unacceptable. Yes, Israel, the UK and France together could (obviously) and did "beat" Egypt for a very short time.  But the US and the USSR and the rest of the world together could and did beat Israel + UK + France, without firing a shot. So the upshot of the crisis, agreed on by  everyone, because it was extremely obvious, was that Egypt won big, Israel won some of its operational but not strategic objectives, France lost but not much, but the UK lost big. So if we are to have a box, it should be Egypt + Israel won and UK + France lost.  This looks crazy too, as it combines military opponents, so nothing is the best choice.


 * The short story of the Yom Kippur was Arab military success followed by Israeli military success (saying "victory" is subject to scholarly debate) but overall strategic/political Arab victory (no scholarly debate about this). Again, I am meeting these recent and nonconsensus changes halfway by blanking, rather than returning to the previous Egypt won versions.John Z (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. It does not matter who had the upper hand in the beginning of the conflict. Israel were the ultimate victor, penetrating deep into arab territory in the Yom Kippur War. Same about the Suez Crisis - Israel succesfully invaded parts of Egypt, and occupied it until the spring of 1957. A clear Israeli victory. Please bring this nonsense to an end. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course Israel penetrated deep into Arab territory in Yom Kippur - it was deep in Arab territory before the war! I said nothing about the beginning of the YK war. I am not minimizing Israel's accomplishment by gaining territory on the west bank of the Suez, but Egypt penetrated and held previously Israeli-held territory  on the east bank at the end of the war.  That is one reason why saying it was an Israeli victory is problematic, and disputed by many scholars and sources.  See the debate with several editors on each side on the Yom Kippur war talk page. Ultimately of course, and largely as an effect of this war, Egypt got back every inch of the Sinai in the Camp David accords (after Israel gave up territory in the disengagement agreements immediately after the war).


 * Israel was forced to leave every inch of Egyptian / Gazan territory in 1957. I agreed that israel won something, but zero territory then. If you read what I wrote, I am not objecting to putting Israel as a winner of Suez, but all sources agree that Egypt effectively won more - and Egypt withdrew from the Sinai, not running from Israel, but running toward two even stronger enemies threatening its heartland, not an empty desert. What is truly preposterous is putting the UK and France as victors of the Suez crisis.  Name one remotely neutral, reliable source that says anything like this.  They don't exist.  It's like saying Germany won WWII.  If you want, as strange as it looks, I would accept Egypt & Israel as victors of Suez and UK and France as losers, many sources, like Dupuy's Elusive Victory would do.


 * You are trying support a recent change; I am not trying to restore the earlier version, but meet you halfway - say nothing. Please address my arguments, which are not nonsense, but are just trying to encapsulate the spectrum of scholarly views of both wars.John Z (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Outside input would be very welcome. The definition of "victory" here would be useful.  It is very problematic to call wars "victories" when they lead to zero territorial gains after attempting to gain territory (Suez) or territorial losses after trying to hold on to previous gains (YK war).John Z (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, Israel was not forced to leave in the way you say it. They left after occupying Gaza and Sinai for almost half a year. Speaking of that, it does not matter what happened after the war. This is a military article, not a diplomatic/political one. Mentioning the anglo-french victory, they succeeded in invading two thirds of the Suez Canal. Doing so, they military defeated Egypt. But Egypt got the internationa support, that's why we say that this was an Egyptian political victory. Egypt was the losing party, as they lost controll of Sinai.


 * There is no good reason to say nothing.


 * Of course we are talking about the "military victory". Who earned most out of the war, or who recieved most international support, is another issue. Israel pushed back the invasion in the YK war, and defeated the arabs on the battlefield. The Camp David-accords has nothing to do with a military defeat who never took place. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mikrobølgeovn here. This article discusses military victories and defeats, the winners and losers of wars themselves, rather than diplomatic victories and defeats that come as a results from wars, the winners and losers of the peace. Therefore, the winners and losers in the belligerents columns are those that won and lost the war, not the diplomacy following the war. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)This is an article about wars that happened in the real world. Not what woulda-coulda-shoulda happened if the antagonists were alone in the world. The UK, France and Israel were forced out of Egypt and Gaza by politics backed up by military might.  Suppose Saddam Hussein had gotten out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War before the coalition forces fought him.  Should one say that Iraq won and Kuwait lost the first Gulf War then?


 * Of course on wikipedia it all boils down to the sources. Somebody please - Name ONE source that says the UK and France "won" the Suez crisis.  "Abject defeat" is the usual assessment.
 * Even speaking of only military results, there are many sources that say the military result of the Yom Kippur war was a draw, a stalemate. Maybe Israel "winning" a bit more militarily at the end, but there simply was no decisive Arab defeat. "Israel pushed back the invasion in the YK war" is simply false - look at a map of the territory at the end. Israel gained some territory, but so did Egypt.  Egypt basically met its prewar objectives, while Israel clearly failed  them.


 * In both of these cases, diplomacy was part and parcel of the war from the beginning. Suez was very short, and it was diplomacy and serious military and economic  threats that stopped the UK-France invasion in progress and forced them to retreat immediately.


 * It is much better to say nothing than to make these extremely misleading, in the case of Suez, ludicrous and unique-to-wikipedia claims of utterly worthless "victory".John Z (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a military article. No more. Period. Diplomacy and further consequenses has does not belong in this artice. You cannot compare the Gulf War with the Sinai War. First, in the GW, Iraq seeked to annex Kuwait. Israel did not plan to annex Sinai, but rather to end the fedayeen-attacks from Egypt, and re-open the Tiran-strait. They succeeded in both tasks. Further down the road, Israel was not kicked out of Sinai by an UN military force. They withdrew without any shots being fired. UN was a bufferzone between Egypt and Israel. Speaking of Britain and France, however, is a different story. They defeated Egypt on the battlefield and occupied 3/4 of the Suez canal. They withdrew after heavy international pressure, and a serious threat from the Soviet Union. Conclusion: The Suez Crisis was a military Israeli victory, a limited Anglo-French military victory, and a political Egyptian victory.


 * What do you mean saying "won the war"? If you mean politicaly, they lost. If you mean military, they won. I have a book confirming this. Slagmark by Jon Andersen (norwegian).


 * Are you seriously meaning that wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, should shut up and say nothing? The only thing that is important, is to sepparate the political victory from the military victory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the very most basic facts about the Suez war was that Israel intended to annex (much of) the Sinai and Gaza, exactly like Saddam Hussein & Kuwait. Ben-Gurion, e.g. in his November 7 victory speech explicitly proclaimed the annexation of the Island of Tiran and indicated that the whole Sinai, or at least Sharm-al-Sheikh and and a land link would be annexed.  Israel was making annexationist statements about Gaza as late as February. See Shlaim's Iron Wall p.179-185, Love's Twice-fought War and  many other sources.
 * It is better to say nothing than say something ridiculous. I do not think there is any source whatsoever that says "The UK and France won the Suez crisis" as the article currently states. In essence Israel, the UK and France were forced out by superior force so overwhelming that it did not have to fire a shot, or hardly any. A bloodless surrender in the face of overwhelming force is still a surrender.John Z (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wars are fought and won on the battlefield. The ultimate political situation, months or years after the fighting is over, might not be what the victors sought, but that does not change the military reality. I have added a source that explicitly says Egypt lost. Los Admiralos (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This war was halted in its tracks, while still ongoing, in a matter of days and hours - not months or years - by very serious threats, leaving some of the UK and French forces in very vulnerable positions. The Egyptian army was not destroyed. This was like a prizefight stopped by the referee while it was still going on.
 * There are far, far more sources that state that the Egypt was the victor  and the UK and France the losers - the UK / French "military victory" is held to be so unimportant by historians, even military historians, that finding sources that attach the word "victory" to the UK and France should not be easy. "For Britain and France, their operations were military and political failures ... For Egypt, the war was not a military success, on the other hand it was not a military failure." (Dupuy, Elusive Victory, p.218)  Again, a bloodless surrender in the face of overwhelming force is still a surrender. John Z (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source who confirm your statement about a planned annexation of Sinai? However, it does not matter. Israel succesfully invaded and occupied Sinai, and left after almost a half year, without being forced out. How can Egypt be the victor in the same time as they lost big parts of their country to foreign invaders? How can they be seen as a victor, when their armies in Sinai was either destroyed or pulled out? Egypt got military defeated, but won political. Britain and France took part on the Israeli side, and scored a limited military victory by invading 3/4 of the Suez Canal. They did not got kicked out by the egyptians, but forced to retreat by the UN. Of course, this victory did not give the victors all that they were seeking, but that was no result of losing on the battlefield. The war was a military coalition victory, and a political Egyptian victory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave two sources above on the Israeli annexation plans.  Any book on the war as a whole which does not mention this fact is hardly a trustworthy, neutral source on it. Very probably Israel would have soundly beaten Egypt's armies if they had stayed in the Sinai, but Egypt left the Sinai more to meet the other two, stronger and more threatening invaders than to retreat from Israel, which was later forced out of the Sinai by the US and the UN.


 * One could equally ask how can Kuwait be counted as one of the winners of the Gulf War in List of wars 1990–2002 when they lost ALL of their country to an invader?, or how can France and many other victims of German occupation be counted as one of the victors of the second world war? - when most or all of the liberation was done by outside forces. Why one rule for Kuwait and France, another for Egypt?


 * I gave a source that disputes military coalition "victory" - unlike Israel, France and the UK did not achieve their military objectives, partly because of greater than anticipated Egyptian resistance, and the Egyptian armed forces were still in the field and to be reckoned with.


 * It is not a case where "this victory did not give the victors all that they were seeking" - France and the UK got absolutely nothing that they had been seeking, and lost much. Egypt got almost all it wanted, Israel got some but very far from all.  It was clear within a few days of its start who was winning and losing; basically the opposite of what this article says.John Z (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Israeli annexation plan is irrelevant. The fact is that the coalition easily beated Egypt on the battlefield, and therefore achieved amilitary victory. You got to learn the difference between a military victory and a political victory.


 * Mentioning Kuwait; They were certainly the losing party when Iraq invaded them, but in the Gulf war, they fought alongside the victorious coalisation. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf war is not the same war.


 * The Egyptian forces on Sinai got either chrushed, or withdrew. Egypt lost controll over Sinai, and when the UN-ceasefire was signed, Israel controlled the entire Sinai peninsula, and Britain and France controlled two thirds of the Suez Canal. They did not withdraw their forces until March 1957, almost half a year after the fighting was over. Egypt lost land to foreign invaders, who withdrawed after beating the Egyptian army. How could this be a Egyptian military victory?


 * What do you mean by saying " It was clear within a few days of its start who was winning and losing; basically the opposite of what this article says"? Egypt did not won the war, but they won in the aftermath of the war. Am I talking to a wall, or what? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are writing as if the military "results" of the very short war had much to do with the outcome. They did not.  What you are calling "politics" stopped the war in its tracks, not anything to do with the military results, which as I source above, arguably do not constitute an Egyptian failure, though of course one can source Egyptian military defeat. Especially regarding the UK and France, there was no discrete "war" phase with a clear victory and then "politics" phase where the 'victors' lost everything they "gained."  The war was going on, and then the great powers stopped it.    It was like a prizefight stopped during round one by the referee.  Calling a fighter that the referee disqualified for cheating the "victor" because he gave the other fighter a bloody nose is a ridiculous definition of "victory".
 * Once it was clear how angry the referee - Eisenhower, was, it was clear who would win and lose, if not by how much. Although Israel was very tough about withdrawing later, Israel early on said it would give up all the territory, what wasn't clear was how much it could convert the temporary territorial gains into real political gains: "On 9 November, a weary and dejected prime minister [Ben-Gurion] announced the decision to withdraw ... the decision to withdraw the Israeli forces from all occupied territory upon conclusion of satisfactory arrangements with the UN..."(Shlaim, Iron Wall, p.182)
 * Israel did not withdraw (completely) until March 1957. The UK and France withdrew much earlier.  Again, I am trying to meet you more than half way.  Egypt & Israel as winners would be OK, with the UK and France as losers.  Would you accept this outcome sourced to Dupuy, as above?  What is not OK is the totally unsourced UK and France as winners.  What reliable source says anything like "the UK and France won the Suez crisis"?  Without one, I will soon remove this  statement, arguably not even supported by the military facts of the war.
 * I never said that it was an Egyptian military victory. This is a list of wars that happened in the real world.  Since there is no explanation of the definition of "victory" in the article, we must use it as it is normally used in English.  (And if we change the normal English usage, we should change the title of the article.)  Who says the Suez crisis was a UK/French victory? Nobody.John Z (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe Egypt were the ones who got most out of the war, but on the battlefield, they got clearly defeated. The fact that the coalition withdrawed their forces had nothing to do with Egyptian ressistance. Take the recent Russian-Georgian war. Russia easily invaded parts of Georgia, and withdrawed after the war was over. This was a clear Russian victory. If the coalition had withdrawn their forces because of Egyptian ressistance, it would have been an Egyptian military victory. But that did not happen. The only "victory" Egypt scored, were the political one, because of the international reaction on the crisis. Losing land and winning a war in the same time just doesn't make sense.


 * The fact is that Britain and France defeated Egypt military. If you want to know more than that, read the article. The history itself is a reliable source.


 * It goes without saying that the victor in a war is the part who defeats the other part on the battlefield. What happens thereafter, is irrelevant in this issue. The Suez Crisis-article has already separated the military and the political victory. This is a military list, and therefore it should only take the military victory into account. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have demonstrated above that I am not entirely unfamiliar with the history of the Suez crisis. It goes without saying that the victor in a war is usually, but not always, the party who defeats the other party on the battlefield. It goes without saying that a war which ends with the "victors" surrendering to the "defeated"'s demands is a contradiction in terms.
 * The UK & France won a few battles. So what. They lost the war, by a bloodless surrender. So says every RS on the Suez crisis as a whole. Wikipedia articles do not count as reliable sources, and Suez crisis does not support a contrary view. Nasser could have easily lost the war, simply by surrendering to the invaders' demands.  Many nations have been led by leaders who would have surrendered.  But Nasser had a backbone and read the international situation correctly, and Ben-Gurion, Eden and Mollet did not.  Again, it boils down to RS's.  In my opinion, the best solution now would be to state Egypt and Israel as victors, UK and France as defeated, with a sourced footnote explaining the remarkable outcome.John Z (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing "ultimate politcal outcome" with "who won the war". The tri-partite coalition (Israel, Farnce, UK) clearly won the war on the battlefield. This did not get them the political gains they desired, but as Mikro states, the fact is that Britain and France defeated Egypt militarily. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, there is a big difference between a political and a military victory.


 * Britain and France did not surrender to Egypt, but rather withdrew their forces because of international pressure. They won the war, but had to retreat because of the consequenses. I agree that the anglo-french victory is limited, but they defeated the Egyptians in their limited actions, and that's what is important.


 * Stating Egypt as a victor and Britain and France as losers will be totally wrong. The fact that Egypt got military defeated is already sourced. If Britain and France are losers and Israel the victor, it will look like Israel fought against Britain and France. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All reliable sources say Britain and France lost the war. How can we differ?  "I agree that the anglo-french victory is limited, but they defeated the Egyptians in their limited actions, and that's what is important."  - RS's unanimously feel that it is utterly unimportant. There is nothing said about "military" vs. "political" victory in the article,  so we must go by the ordinary definitions of winner and loser and how these words are used in reliable sources outside wikipedia.  "The tri-partite coalition (Israel, France, UK) clearly won the war on the battlefield." is just plain false. It surely would have had the war continued with no outside military interference, but it did not.  We aren't doing alternate history here. I removed Britain and France as winners, since no reliable source says they were, and added a  tag for Israel won, Egypt lost.  We should adhere to what sources say, to wikipedia practices and policies, what they think is important / unimportant, not what some here think they should say.John Z (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Added a footnote at the colonne "Victorious party". Winning a war is winning a war in military terms, and not in political/propaganda terms. UK and France captured two thirds of the Suez Canal and crushed the Egyptian army. They withdrawed because of UN pressure, and not because of Egyptian resistance.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For this war, NO reliable source agrees, nobody thinks that "Winning a war is winning a war in military terms" here (and so this is not necessarily true elsewhere). So I removed the footnote.  Also, the UK and France and Israel did not crush the Egyptian forces; the fact that Egypt did not surrender is important.  This is not what "victorious party" means in ordinary English usage.  Victory does not mean who won if we only look at battles and score it as if it were a game, and don't look at what happened in the real world, at whose army finally held the field, and who finally fled. From memory, Westmoreland famously  told Giap after their war that the Vietnamese never defeated the Americans in any battle.  Giap said, yes, but so what?John Z (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Vietnam war cannot be compared with the Suez Crisis. The Suez Crisis was a brief war, which resulted in Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, and Anglo-French occupation of two thirds of the canal with subsequent withdrawal. The British and the French did not withdraw because of Egyptian resistance, but because of international pressure (Egyptian policical victory). This is a military article, and the winner of a war is the one who defeats their enemy militarily, and not politically. But however, even if the British and the French lost the war, Israel is still the victorious country, as they occupied Sinai for several months after the war ended. They also scored a strategic victory, as the UN peacekeeping mission cleared the area for fedayeens and secured Israel's right of passage through the Straits of Tiran.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several articles on Wikipedia proving that the Vietnamese defeated the Americans on the battlefield several times.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanation: During the Suez Crisis, the Israeli-Anglo-French coalition obtained the military victory, although maybe the UK and France suffered a political defeat. But this article is about the military aspects of the wars and armed conflicts.--190.16.232.216 (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, read what I have written above. The UK and France cannot be added as victors, because no reliable source says so; no "maybe" in any RS about their defeat (abject and humiliating are common words used for their defeat). This should indicate that people who think they "won" are using a very strange definition of victory. Again, I and many sources do not agree that Israel, UK, France won a (decisive) military victory.  The fact of Egyptian resistance was a major cause of the withdrawals; saying Egypt lost is strange and unusual. This article is a list of wars, we should use the terms the way reliable sources do. Nothing about "military aspects". Wikipedia military history practice is if anything to weigh strategic victory over tactical.  (confer Template:Infobox military conflict under results)).  Israel did not succeed in its major strategic goals - foremost being to annex Egyptian territory, while Egypt did - the whole world saw Nasser as the winner, far more than Ben-Gurion; as e.g. Avi Shlaim comments in his Iron Wall, the idea that Israel somehow won and got what it wanted out of the war was something created by postwar spin-doctors.John Z (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What you agree with has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we write here. The Israeli army routed the Egyptians in 8 days, capturing the entire Sinai peninusla (save for a 10mi strip next to the canal, per prior agreement with UK and France), opening up the gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, while losing less than 250 soldiers. It is a feat comparable to their clear cut victory in the six day war - as the references in the article clearly say. They subsequently withdrew, only after securing an international guarantee to freedom of shipping through the straights of Tiran - which was the stated aim of the war, not your fantasy of "annexing Egyptian territory". Please stop your revisionism. Momma&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not indulging in revisionism, but giving the version of all or nearly all reliable sources on the war. If one doesn't know that one of Israel's major stated aims of the war was annexation of Egyptian territory, some of which it explicitly announced the annexation of - cf the Protocol of Sevres, Ben-Gurion's speeches to the Knesset, etc, then how can a person claim to know much about or be able to judge the outcome of the war? I gave references above, including ones which counter claims of Israeli victory, Egyptian defeat. The strong consensus view has always been that Egypt was the big winner. The unanimous view is that the UK and France were big losers. For the umpteenth time, NO RELIABLE SOURCES WHATSOEVER SAY THE UK AND FRANCE WON. There was no international guarantee of freedom of shipping.  The closest thing was an equivocal US statement.  If people persist in making edits against policy and sometimes ALL reliable sources, I will bring this to one of the various noticeboards e.g. WP:NPOVN, or Milhist project to get some knowledgeable and neutral views.John Z (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are indulging in revisionism, and edit warring against numerous editors and against references in the article which explicitly state what is claimed. Again: Israel goal was to ensure free shipping - it got that. In military terms, it achieved a decisive victory, comparable to its achievement in 1967. Egypt was forced to retreat, lost not just territory but much more personnel and war materiel. To get the Israelis to leave, they not only had to agree to remove their blockade of the straights, but to the presence of UN forces on their territory. In military terms- this is as clear cut a victory for Israel as one can get. Momma&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a question: If Israel won, it doesn't supposes that the Anglo-French coalition which fought on its side during the campaign obtained a military victory too?--190.16.232.216 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The strong consensus view has always been that Egypt was the big winner"... No, the strong consensus view is that Nasser disguised the military defeated into a political victory, showing that Egypt could "resist" to worldwide powers like France and the UK. In any way, this doesn't mean that isn't true the simple fact that, just in a week, the Egyptian military suffered a terrible beating (the Egyptian officers were the first who run away) and Israel conquered the entire Sinai peninsula without heavy losses. The 1957 withdrawal is a different thing: a political issue (and Israel, despite all Soviet and US pressure, didn't withdraw without demands... a UN force was established in the border and the Red Sea was open to Israeli navigation, so we should also discuss if it really was a "political victory" for Egypt).--190.16.232.216 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This text extracted from the Suez Crisis article seems to be pretty accurate:

--190.16.232.216 (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing the cited material that the UK and France lost the Suez Crisis, on which all sources agree, and replacing it with the bizarre and uncitable statement that they "won." If wikipedia editors have the idea that the definitions of "war" and "victory" should be changed from their normal English ones, it does not matter.  Everything must be sourced, if challenged. All sources say the UK and France lost. As I said above, they bloodlessly surrendered to overwhelming force - the entire rest of the world at the UN, led by the USA. The governments of both nations fell because it was such a disaster for them!  That's a victory?John Z (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Israeli-Anglo-French coalition defeated the Egyptian Army and conquered the Sinai peninsula in eight days. THIS is a military victory. The UK and France didn't lose the war, but it was a political disaster for them (at home and abroad). But in military terms, they won. Besides, how could you include France and the UK on the Egyptian side of the article's table? THEY WERE ENEMIES IN THAT WAR! I didn't read the books you cited as "all sources", but let me explain you which were the facts and how is written in the Suez Crisis article: France, Israel and the UK fought on the same side (and they won); while the Egyptian army suffered an humiliating defeat that Nasser disguised into a "political victory", because Egypt "resisted" the attack of two superpowers and Israel withdrew from the Sinai... of course, after the pressure of president Eisenhower and the Soviet Union's threat to enter in the war. Does it means that France and the UK lost in the battlefield... I don't think so (and honestly I don't think any reliable history book would say something like that).--190.16.232.216 (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 190.16.232.216, you are the one who is trying to introduce something into the article, and properly should have consensus for your changes. Quoting your edit summary - "It's so difficult to understand?" Before this May 8 edit the article did not make the bizarre, uncited and uncitable statement that the UK and France "won" the Suez crisis. I had removed it on April 4 with this edit, after I had put a fact tag on it which stood for months. This is excellent evidence for my statement that no reference exists that say the UK and France "won" the Suez Crisis.


 * I also draw your attention to MILMOS : "A war is a conflict bounded by periods (however brief) during which the combatants are formally at peace with one another; it generally consists of multiple distinct component operations such as battles or campaigns." So Wikipedia, like the rest of planet Earth, understands the Suez Crisis to be the period from the relatively stable situation before the initiation of hostilities to the final resolution and relatively stable situation following Israeli withdrawal in March 1957.  I repeat, all historians consider this period to be an abject and humiliating defeat for the UK and France. Incidentally the fiasco was engaged in over the most vehement and accurate objections from the highest British military commander, Mountbatten).


 * You are not correct about the outcome, Nasser had very little to "disguise": It was obvious to all then and the overwhelming consensus of RS's that Nasser's Egypt was the big winner, and he had played his cards correctly. Israel, which did get a little out of the conflict (probably not enough for it to have gone to war for it) did do some "disguising", as Avi Shlaim notes in his Iron Wall - & as several editors' ignorance here attests - they did not even know that Israel largely went to war for a completely unsuccessful land grab!  As I said above, long ago, I would be perfectly happy with the accurate, but odd-looking Egypt & Israel "won" / UK & France "lost" citing Dupuy, probably the most highly regarded military history of the Arab-Israeli wars. The essential, that absolutely all sources agree on, is that the UK and France lost.


 * You are also now at 4 reverts. Your edits violate several wikipedia content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and I urge you to revert yourself, before you imperil your ability to edit.John Z (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The war ended on November 6 1956, when the ceasefire began. On March 1957, Israel withdrew from the Sinai, but the war had ended much earlier. Neither we say that the Yom Kippur War ended in 1982 because Israel withdrew from the Sinai on that year. On one hand, despite France and the UK failed in their political and strategic objectives of avoiding the Suez Canal nationalization, they won the war because could achieved their military objectives and defeated the Egyptian army in the battlefield. Israel, on the other hand, not only smashed the Nasser's armies in eight days (without significant losses), but also achieved a strategic and political victory: UN troops in the border (to avoid infiltrations and fedayeen attacks) and the opening of the Tiran straits to Israeli navigation (the main objectives of Operation Kadesh), despite Israel had to withdraw from the Sinai peninsula as a consequence of the tremendous international pressure. So, I seriously doubt "all sources agree that Egypt was the big winner"... be careful with that statement, the Arabs are used to proclaim "victories" every time, when most of these "victories" are only crushing defeats for them.--190.16.232.216 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, give me some reliable sources. Again, if you are right, cite some wikipedia policies. There are no sources that say that the UK and France won. All sources say they lost. Your view is incomprehensible: The UK and France failed in their political and strategic objectives but won the war? FAILURE /= WINNING. FAILURE = DEFEAT. The fighting ended because the UN, led by the US, led by Eisenhower, said: Stop Fighting Now! Go Home! At the time, the Egyptian army was still in the field, still fighting, it ran away from Israel, the minor foe,  which coveted the minor objective of the Sinai, to run towards the major foes of the UK and France and the major objective of the Canal. Yeah, it woulda lost against the UK, France, and Israel - but in the real world it didn't.  In the real world, Israel, the UK and France would have been crushed by the USA + the USSR + the rest of the world.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  The article is about the real world. In the real world the UK & France lost.  They accepted it.  It's not like losing London or Paris.  All reliable sources accept it. Why can't (some?) wikipedia editors?  There's room for rational argument on Israel and Egypt. On the UK and France, the proposed new edit that calls them winners is completely irrational, and supportable by no reliable sources, unlike mine, which is supported by ALL reliable sources.  Take any source at random anywhere - it will say the UK and France lost.John Z (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "minor foe"?? Israel was the main attacking force during Operation Kadesh (Britain and France limited their participation to aerial and naval sporadic attacks). Besides, how can possible be included France and the UK in the same side than Egypt?? (I mean, in the table). It would look like if they all were allies instead of enemies. It doesn't suppose that when a country wins a war all the rest of the nations which fought on his side win too? For example, following your concept, in the Yemen Civil War of the 60s, Israel gave material support for the royalists who lost in the end, but Israel won, because achieved his objective: to distract Egypt forces with an attrition war far away ("an Egyptian Vietnam") in order to weaken Nasser's armies (this could be seen widely in the Six-Day War). However, Israel appears in the "defeated" side of the table in this confrontation. The same concept applies for every war of the article, but you want to make an exception with the Suez Crisis.--190.16.232.216 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John, the current state of the article mis-represents the ultimate outcome of the conflict. The superpowers and the UN stopped the fighting while it was still going on. The universally accepted view is that the major winner of the conflict was Egypt, while Israel also had some successes but not as much as Egypt. Also, regarding the Yom Kippur War, I'm concerned that various editors, specifically Mikrobølgeovn, keeps putting Israel in the victor's column. I agree, many sources award Israel victory in this conflict, but there are others that do not. Thus, it is disputed. My attempts to reflect this in the article resulted in an edit war, even though my edits abided by Wiki policy. ElUmmah (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Egypt had no military successes in this war whatsoever. To suggest anything else is counterfactual. Momma&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The war itself ended when Britain and France withdrew. Israel still occupied Sinai, and did so until the spring of 1957. The outcome of the war was Israeli occupation of Sinai, not an Israeli withdrawal. Egypt had, as User talk:Momma& states, absolutely no military success during the war. Israel achieved it's goal, namely, to reopen the Straits of Tiran.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Following to User:Mikrobølgeovn's defination of "victory", USSR/ANA should also be put as a victor in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen forces were successfully repressed by the USSR and ANA forces as long as the Soviet forces were still in the country (and the Soviet war is set to end in 1989). Also, the Afghan government kept power as long as the Soviets were in the country - and even 3 years after. I could not see any kind of victory for the Mujahideen in that war military, but they are still listed as victors. I'm pretty sure that the Afghan government forces would have won that war without Soviet military involvment (if it had ever ended), if the Russians didn't stop aiding Afghanistan in 1991. ANA forces won close to all the battles in the 1989-1992 war before the dissolution of the USSR.


 * Soviet/Afghan military forces were a lot more successfull military in the Soviet War in Afghanistan than Israel was successfull in the Suez Crisis. Yet, USSR and the Afghan government forces are listened as "losers" in their war and Israel as the "victor" in the Suez Crisis. I would have said that would be wrong. I don't wanna argument for my view on the Suez Crisis because there are tens of posts with many good arguments.


 * But another Israeli war here who hasn't been discussed: the First Intifada. This is also listed as an Israeli victory. Why? The result was the Oslo Accords... who made Palestine partly independent! Palestine won, not Israel.


 * And as for the Gaza War - where Israel is also listed as victor - I can't see any reason for listing it as this. What are the expections the Palestinians have had to meet to be called victorious? Gaza witnessed three weeks of brutal Jewish bombing/genocide, but why should the Israel be victorious? A 3-week genocidal bombing campaign could be hard to say wheather it gave any result. It would have been hard to put any border between "failure" and "success" here. Though you right-extremists would call it a victory, you must admit that the Israelites never defeated Gaza in any way. Though you may say it is a victory for the Israelites, because they made some results, the success of the Gaza War is a matter of dispute. How can you be victorious without defeating the counterpart?! --188.113.91.110 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

List of wars 1500-1799
Can we split this article up into three separate articles. I'm trying to reformat the list, but it's too long. B-Machine (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about: >before AD 500, >501-1000, >1001-1500, >1501-1640, >1641-1815, >1816-1918, >1919-1944, >1945-1989, >1990 - present Nine sections of war pages...more spread out, so more infromation is allowed. 122.110.53.35 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Omission of the Cold War
Surprised that the Cold War is not mentioned here. Yes, no actual fighting took place over the decades of a stand-off between the NATO and WP forces, but the resources spent in Europe, and the effect of the stand-off of global strategic military deployments surely warrants this inclusion. Also, the forces facing each other sustained over the decades literally thousands of casualties through training for the conflict that never came. This conflict was also a major contributor to the advancement in military technology and science that ultimately influenced outcomes in many other shooting wars around the globe.120.22.151.202 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cold War is omitted from this list as it was not a war in its own right. By definition, a war is "a certain state of organized violent conflict that is engaged in between two or more separate social entities". However, the Cold War consisted of a continuing state of conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition between the Soviet Union and its satellite states, and the powers of the Western world, particularly the United States. The direct, organized, violent conflict that makes a war a war did not exist between the belligerents of the Cold War. As such, it is not a war and should not be included in this list, regardless of its enormous effect and influence on the world. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that definition? 120.18.164.135 (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clausewitz begins On War with an instrumental definition: 'War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will'. NATO compelled WP not to attack Western Europe. Its defensive doctrine, though changed over time, was effective. So much so that no actual fighting took place in the Theater of War. 120.18.164.135 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you need to learn two things:
 * 1. When you quote, quote fully and in context
 * War is a behaviour pattern exhibited by many primate species[1] including humans, and also found in many ant species.[2][3][4] The primary feature of this behaviour pattern is a certain state of organized violent conflict that is engaged in between two or more separate social entities.
 * However, no one can attribute 'behaviour pattern' to an activity that spanned decades and multiple societies on levels other than violence, e.g. economic planning, socio-political integration, societal adaptation, environmental awareness, and even spiritual growth in realisation of the ultimate awfulness of the possible worst outcome.
 * 2. When you quote, don't quote unreferenced definitions. This is particularly true in Wikipedia, but only because it will, as you will find out in a few years, become even more true in academic writing. This is because definitions are the foundation pillars of ideas. When your pillars sink into sand, your ideas tend to crumble under the unsustainable weight of unfounded words.120.18.164.135 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, please do not lecture me or instruct me on what I "need to learn". Second, Clausewitz's On War, despite the fact that it is one of the most important works on war and military strategy, it is not the definitive book on war and military strategy. In fact, there is no such definitive work! Rather, On War is a compilation of Clausewitz's observations and opinions, based primarily on his understandings of European history and his personal insights and observations from his many years in combat as a professional soldier. As this is one of my main points, I shall say it again: On War consists of Clausewitz's opinions and arguments. As such, his definition of "war" is his personal opinion, not fact. Third, Clausewitz's definitions is: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will". As you said, NATO compelled the Warsaw Pact not to attack. However, there was no direct act of force involved. There was never any direct military conflict or violence between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Fourth, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "war" is "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air; a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations; a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns; armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict; active hostility or contention; a struggle". Fifth, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "war" is "a state of open, armed, often prolonged, conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties". In conclusion, as there was never any direct military conflict or violence between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the Cold War does not fit any of these three definitions. Thus, it should not be included in the list. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Korean War end
The distinction between a de facto and a de jure end (or beginning) of the KW is meaningless. Few if any wars have such distinctions -- and none are listed in this article. The fact that South Korea did not sign off on the Armistice is a red herring. Legally they did not have the authority to sign off because the United Nations was the authority under which the defense of SK was conducted.

Saying that "technically" the war continues is not saying anything about the fighting that actually stopped or subsequent events. If a war does not have one side surrendering to the other, does the war technically continue? No. For the most part, the wars listed here simply stop.

Here is another example to illustrate how the distinction in meaningless. The Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina had a definite ending date -- the Argentine forces on the islands were beat. But did the war continue on "technically" or de jure? No. In fact, the countries exchanged diplomatic visits some years later. If those visits signaled that the war was over, then similar diplomatic visits between SK & NK certainly signal that the Korean War was over.

Finally, no historical work regarding the KW discusses it in terms of the war "continuing" in a de jure or technical fashion. --S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that the Armistice in Korea which ended the fighting was signed by the United Nations Command commander. In the article for UNC, you will note that the ROK relinquished command of its military forces to UNC early in the war. (This statement is unreferenced.) Thus, the military of SK (ROKA) was bound by the armistice. The armistice itself asked or projected that the governments of the parties would begin peace talks in the near future, but this did not occur. In any event, the fighting was stopped by means of a document (e.g., legal document) that was binding to the parties. The war had ended.--S. Rich (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

While I admire your deep knowledge about Korean War, and your insightful example of 'Falklands War,' I believe this comes down to whether the 'Korean' people believe that the war is over or not. As of 2019, South Koreans are educated to this day that the war is 'on-going,' and it can happen any time because it was a "ceasefire" agreement. Furthermore, under your logic, North Koreans attacking the South (which the article states "violating the armistice over 200 times) should have been reprimanded and retaliated by International Organizations. Yet, only a small criticism has occurred over the years because most countries do think Korean War is still on-going. Additionally, there would not have been a news in early 2019 about signing a peace treaty among North Korea, South Korea, and the U.S, if the Was has ended.

Why is the Indochina War of 1954 (France's defeat at Dien Bien Phu) not here?
?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermink (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is. Dien Bien Phu was almost the last act of the First Indochina War, which began in 1946, and as such is included in the 1945–1949 section. Benea (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Victory/Defeat - clear definition needed
The article needs to clearly define what is meant by "victorious party" and "defeated party". It is clearly absurd to consider Suez a victory for the British or the French except in a very narrow military sense. Politically it was a catastrophe from which neither country has even now fully recovered from. If the article means "victorious" in a narrow sense of what happened on the battlefield then it should say so because to many general readers "victorious party" means the party which derived the most benefit - or the least loss - from a war. 80.6.63.220 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about military victories only. If you'll notice, the British militarily defeated the Mau Mau in Kenya, but Kenya eventually became independent. Oh, and no one's touching the table. B-Machine (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs to clearly explain in a couple of sentences what is meant by "victorious party" and "defeated party" rather than burying it in the discussion page. 80.6.63.220 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Victorious party means someone who won a war militarily. Defeated party means someone who lost a war militarily. Is that clear enoguh for you? B-Machine (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
Is there a list of where how many casualties these wars have had? Beyond495 (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found it. Beyond495 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Next question: Can we remove 1945 from the graph of Casualties, or show it separately? The relative scale of the whole period will be more clear without this one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:5562:F400:694C:B831:B181:9C27 (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ex-Nazis in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War?
I wondering about the appropriateness of listing ex-Nazis and Yugoslavs under the belligerents of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. First of all, there is no mention of ex-Nazis in the primary article on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. If, there were ex-Nazis involved in the war, then this should be described and documented in the primary article. However, even if they were involved in the war, I would argue that they should not be listed so specifically in this list. If those ex-Nazis were nationals of one of the states or members of one of the organizations involved in the war, then they are already accounted for. If they were nationals of other states that were not belligerents in the war, then they should be listed as Foreign Volunteers, as in other wars on the list. It seems to me that this part of the list is only included to demonize the Arab combatants in an article that should be providing a basic overview of the military engagement.

DruidODurham (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was added in this edit by User:AndresHerutJaim. They were subsequently topic banned from all content related to WP:ARBPIA, indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and topic ban violations and have been using sockpuppetry both via accounts and IPs ever since (see Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive). A quick look at the history of the article from May 2012 shows that ~25% of the edits are by AndresHerutJaim socks or reverts of their edits. So, good luck.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Palmach.jpg
File:Palmach.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Palmach.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Pantani.jpg
File:Pantani.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Pantani.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:IPFG.jpg
File:IPFG.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:IPFG.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  09:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Cod war" - seriously?
A fishery dispute with zero casualties doesn't belong on a page about wars such as the Vietnam War... I would change this myself, but since my edits would just be reverted, I'll let some other person do the depressing job of bickering back and forth about this and maybe some day be allowed to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.186.162 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition of war
Well, some people apparently would add here anything ans everything, but not every conflict or something called "war" is a war per definition. For instance 2 people dead in Iraqi-Kuwaiti clash in 1973 is not a war. Water War is not a war either. Removing redundant.GreyShark (dibra) 13:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of wars 1945–89
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 wars 1945–89'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 "Abu Sayyaf leader swears oath of loyalty to ISIL": From Abu Sayyaf:  From Civil conflict in the Philippines: http://www.rappler.com/nation/65199-abu-sayyaf-leader-oath-isis 

Reference named "ISIL gains supporters": From List of wars 2003–10:  From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant:  From Civil conflict in the Philippines:  

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 ⚡ 15:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of wars 1945–89. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924042732/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/41288/milf-says-mnlf-joins-fray-on-side-of-bifm to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/41288/milf-says-mnlf-joins-fray-on-side-of-bifm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of FULRO.svg

Orphaned references in List of wars: 1945–1989
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 wars: 1945–1989'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 "Potter 2013":<ul> <li>From Turkistan Islamic Party: </li> <li>From Xinjiang conflict: </li> </ul>

Reference named "sf1":<ul> <li>From Turkistan Islamic Party: </li> <li>From Xinjiang conflict: </li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 21:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Air batlle?
Air battle of Merklín isnt a war but part of Cold War.Thats absolutely nonsense please remove this.

Air batlle?
Air battle of Merklín isnt a war but part of Cold War.Thats absolutely nonsense please remove this. 2A00:1028:83B2:106A:DD3B:23D2:C0E2:AD19 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Gombe War?
I'm not sure if this is intentionally trolling or not, but the Gombe Chimpanzee War is completely trivial and out of place in this article and I am requesting that someone remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.214.182 (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Arab Federation.svg

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of wars: 2003–present which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Arab Federation.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Logo no oficial de Carabineros de Chile.jpg

Korean conflict
I don't believe this item (listed as beginning in 1945) belongs on this page. There are already separate entries for the pre-war communist insurgency, the Korean War itself, the Korean DMZ conflict. The overall "Korean conflict" is more of an abstract situation that cannot be called a "war". I would propose to instead add entries for inter-Korean border clashes before 1950, and possibly for the naval clashes of the 1990s-2000s.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Kokbayraq flag.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of Afghanistan (1978–1980).svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Al-badr flag.png