This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
What about an uprising in the united states? I mean the occupy movement, and the tea party movement, i heard recently that the occupy movement is using the 2nd admendment to have guns at the protests. Now that at least 94 people have died in the last 6 months in the united states, would you call that a major issue?
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
It is now Official, Ukraine and Iraq are at Civil War. Ukrainian President ended the ceasefire, and is now commanding his Military to fight the Rebels. As for Iraq, ISIS is now pushing for an Islamic State, Sunni Militants are fighting against the Iraqi Government, and the Kurdistan Region want to become it's own nation
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think the whole classification of belligerents as either victorious or defeated in the table should be discouraged. Many conflicts end without any clear defeat of any belligerent, and in such cases the classification impedes the inclusion of the belligerents in the table. Besides, the whole concept of "victory" can be questioned, as both parts usually suffer terrible humanitarian losses. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think it might be time to add the NTC as winning. Ghaddafi controls one city, possibly some desert and a half of a city. we also put the US as victors in the Iraq war and it isnt over yet. I myself wont edit it if im the only one who feels this way, but if anyone agrees with me i suggest we put Ghaddafi as the losing party, and the NTC as victorious--Lv171998 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of wars 2011–present. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why are these seperate articles? We can’t split every decade into a seperate article. I propose merging the two into a “List of wars 2003-Present”. Cupofteaguy (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
The definition of war is typically 1000+ fatalities in between defined war parties who are either states of paramilitaries. Crime and civilian violence is not generally included (unless well organized). Many of listed events here are not standing up to the definition, some with no fatalities at all, others with minor only.GreyShark (dibra) 09:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Greyshark09: I recall reading one list that defined war as having 400+ fatalities, although i can't seem to find it any more. Many dictionaries don't use fatality numbers at all in their definition. In any case, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so i think we can give ourself the liberty to use a broader definition of war than other war list projects, as that will allow us to be more comprehensive. Koopinator (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, maybe consider what would happen if we uniformly applied your definition of war across Wikipedia's entire multi-part war list. Jebel Sahaba and Talheim Death Pit would have to be removed, erasing the entire "Prehistoric warfare" section in List of wars: before 1000. The oldest known evidence of warfare would be excluded from our list of wars. Furthermore, a ton of obscure uprisings listed at List of wars: 1900–1944 without known fatality numbers would have to be removed, too. What do readers stand to gain from your strict definition from Uppsala as opposed to the broader definition from Lexico? We would be removing a ton of information from public view for no real good reason. Koopinator (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Good day, intressting topic. It's WP:OR to describe whether it is a war or not even though there are sources saying the definition of war is at 400 or even 1,000 deads. However it's also WP:OR to call a conflict not a war if a significant number of sources say there is a war going on. A couple of example of conflicts getting called wars while they never reached 1,000 deads are:
Pool War: even though the name got translated from French but some English speaking sources like The New Humanitarian and The Citizen call the conflict a "war" in general, while only Reuters doesn't call it a war. The conflict only had 115 deads.
Anglo-Zanzibar War: Probably the most famous war in the list with 500 killed or wounded.
They are considered wars because the majority of sources say so. We should follow them. However it is true that most wars are above 1,000 deads, but so do long during but low-scale conflicts. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's a good question you ask. I'd first ask do sources call the conflict a war? Technically all conflicts in the "List of Wars" series which haven't sources calling them "war" shouldn't be here. So technically we have to remove them but because a lot of those smaller conflicts are important and make important changes in world I don't think we should delete them and never let them show them on a list which shows the word war in it. As far as I know there are three options.
Option 1: Change all the lists' titles from "List of wars" to "List of wars and conflicts" or vice versa.
Option 2: Replace all the conflicts which do not mention the word "war" in them and put them in a new list called "List of conflicts".
Option 3. This will take the least amount of effort while retaining all info. Option 1 achieves the same result, but seems kind of awkward. Koopinator (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dumping a bunch of events into another article and trimming this one sounds like a content change to me. Your proposed『List of conflicts (2003–present)』article is essentially identical to what this article already is in terms of entries. Wouldn't it be easier to move the page to avoid calling these smaller conflicts "wars", instead of creating a whole new separate article? Also, splitting the list between "wars" and "conflicts" would decentralize the list creating effort: an editor wishing to remove alleged belligerents on『List of wars: 2003–present』might forget to do the same on『List of conflicts (2003–present)』Koopinator (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think we better can use option 3. I believe if we'd split the lists into two: one about wars and the other one about minor armed conflicts then it doesn't make sense to have a "List of ongoing armed conflicts". Which wars are included while this list cannot have minor conflicts. I also don't believe you think you want to make a new list called "List of ongoing wars". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many of the conflicts on these lists may not qualify as "wars". They may not be explicitly described as wars by reliable sources, or they may fail a particular definition of war, such as a certain threshold of causalities. In a previous discussion, all three participants agreed that it would be useful to have a list that included both major conflicts and minor conflicts, even if they are not necessarily "wars". One editor believed there should be a separate list that would only include major conflicts qualifying as wars, although the others disagreed. Whatever the end decision might be on the creation of a separate list, in the meantime, i believe it is a good idea to move these pages to avoid the term war. Koopinator (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.BD2412T02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Comment I'd better prefer "List of armed conflicts". Since all the conflicts in the lists uses organised violance. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: "conflict", armed or not, may be technically correct, but is (IMO) likely to be unhelpful to a typical Wikipedia reader; who is probably expecting to find a war, or several. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Gog the Mild: The problem here sadly is that not all armed conflicts are called "wars" in reliable sources; this would become WP:OR to call them wars. And maybe yes a typical Wikipedia reader would indeed expect to find wars. We hardly can break the rule of Wikipedia itself. Unless we remove the minor conflicts and move them to separate lists? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
CPA-5, by all means move articles which it is agreed are not wars out of lists of wars. If there is some other appropriate place to move them to, then all the better.
@Gog the Mild: So you're saying that there should be another page called "List of armed conflicts" with only mentioning minor conflicts?
No. I am not saying that at all. I am indifferent as whether there is a place or places for articles which are not wars to be deposited. I am pointing out what may be obvious, that articles which are not about wars, for whatever reason and however agreed, should not be in a "List of wars"; and if they are not, then the "problem" goes away. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Compromise is when editors agree on something; the idea to move this article to another title (and scope) is yours. Doesn't seem to be any kind of compromise according to votes.GreyShark (dibra) 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I know, that's why i said it was "supposed" to be a compromise. But, events have unfolded in a different way than i hoped. Also, i'm not trying to change the scope of the article - i'm pro-status quo in regards to that. It was you who tried to introduce criteria and trim the list. Koopinator (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
In the list of white birds, one should not list black birds. If there are black birds in the list of white birds we either change the article to list of white and black birds or remove the black ones. If there is no consensus, black birds should go.GreyShark (dibra) 20:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Suppose that we actually were to have a list of white birds. There might be a few clear-cut cases of black birds that don't belong, but there are still many shades of gray. At what point does a bird become "white"? Are gray birds "white"? Are light gray birds "white?" Where does "white" begin and end? There are many different definitions of "white", making a list of white birds completely unfeasible. The only "good" way forward would be to abandon colours and just make a list of birds.
Anyway, if you do succeed at implementing Uppsala's 1000+ fatality criteria, then by all means you're free to trim this entire multi-part list of all conflicts with unknown or less than 1000+ fatalities, including Talheim Death Pit, 1804 Mtiuleti rebellion, 1900–1903 uprising in southwest Madagascar (no article, only a sourced entry), 2007 Lebanon conflict, and hundreds of other conflicts, making this list vastly less useful than it currently is. Hell, in List of wars: before 1000, information is so hard to find, and the world population was so much lower, that you'll probably have to trim that part by over 90%. Of course, why stop there? If you wanted to, you could also restrict this list to declared wars only. Whatever you do, i'll move all content to a seperate "List of armed conflicts" - whether by page move (my idea) or page creation (your idea) - and continue working there. Koopinator (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Strong Oppose Not again! I see no reason to change War to the less hostile sounding Conflict. Maybe its time to remove whatever rule your quoting? I have experienced such moves first hand... They say it will be good for the page, Wrong. Soon after the page vanishes due to delete proposal. People will have a very hard time finding it. Also why change it now? This is one of the oldest articles in Wikipedia. My vote is Strong Opposition. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Support "armed conflicts": these lists include insurgencies, uprisings, unrest, and other armed conflict which may not be described as "wars" in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Per WP:SPADE. There is no point making this distinction on this level. The word war is often used to refer to both wars and armed conflicts outside of cases where there needs to be a meaningful distinction between the two. blindlynx (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Comment Someone mentioned to me that they are afraid of "Other" parties taking liberty and unilaterally changing the name anyway. I suggest we might want to consider a Protection status for this series of excellent articles until this discussion ends. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Restate Stance on Proposed Name Change I still Strongly Oppose ANY name change to an series of articles that is almost as old as Wikipedia itsself. If it needed changing why didn't someone do so long ago. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Comment - once including armed conflicts, one should note that also for armed conflicts there is a threshold (inList of ongoing armed conflicts it is 100+ fatalities). Even with inclusion threshold of 100+ fatalities it is probably hundreds of entries for 2003-present period. Without any threshold to armed conflicts, any event with arms could be added with or without fatalities - inflating the list to tens of thousands of entries. This could be challenging to manage encyclopedically.GreyShark (dibra) 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
What works for a list of ongoing armed conflicts might not necessarily work for a complete list of historical armed conflicts. First of all, such criteria would disadvantage very old conflicts such as Jebel Sahaba or the Talheim Death Pit, with less than 100 fatalities, which took place when the world population was much lower. Second, with obscurer conflicts where the historical record is incomplete, such as Hor-Aha's Nubia Campaign or the Portuguese conquest of the Angoche Sultanate, which don't have any known causality numbers at all, it is impossible to know if they have 100+ fatalities. Third, you earlier said that we should dump the smaller conflicts on a new page titled "List of conflicts (2003–present)". I see this as more or less fulfilling your proposal, we're just moving content to a title of something resembling "List of conflicts (2003–present)", instead of creating a whole new page. My understanding was that you simply wanted to avoid the term "war". Finally, you say that the list could be inflated to tens of thousands of entries, yet i don't see tens of thousands of entries. This list has existed for nine and a half years, but it has remained at a manageable size. Koopinator (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I maintain my position that most of these are wars. Uppsala might define war as 1000 fatalities in a calendar year, but Lexico defines it as "A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country". If you want to implement criteria, i believe we should proceed with an RFC. Also, here's 2 questions i've asked multiple times now without getting an answer: Do you think we should remove Talheim Death Pit (34 deaths) and conflicts with unknown fatalities such as Narmer's campaign against Wash?Koopinator (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Specifically on your question - Talheim Death Pit is defined as "organized violence" event, no one is naming this a "war"; Narmer's campaign against Wash is highly dubious - there is no agreement that Wash ever existed and the scale of the campaign (if occurred) is unknown, so no. Anyway those two events are not relevant to this page of post-2003 wars, when we have sufficient data to define wars. Do you insist that Kondovo Crisis (zero casualties) and Western Togoland Rebellion (6-7 killed) are wars? Do you have a number of how many similar-scale events worldwide with 0-10 casualties can be listed? (i can guess thousands of separate minor violent events every year).GreyShark (dibra) 06:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Anyway those two events are not relevant to this page of post-2003 wars, when we have sufficient data to define wars."
Well, you had edited 1990-2002 to remove 2000–2006 Shebaa Farms conflict, so i presumed you were trying to enforce your criteria across the entire multi-part list.
Well, going by the definition of "A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country" - i would say "no" for the first (bloodless stand-off, no actual armed conflict occurred) and "yes" for the second.
"Do you have a number of how many similar-scale events worldwide with 0-10 casualties can be listed? (i can guess thousands of separate minor violent events every year)"
A very interesting number - 6 per year. How many violent events of 0-10 casualties do you think took place in 2020 by now and how many described in Wiki-articles? Do you think 6?GreyShark (dibra) 16:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Let's backtrack a bit here, there's a difference between a violent event and a violent conflict (AKA war). A violent conflict can be long-spanning, and encompass many violent events. For the year 2020 we just have to list 3 new conflicts that began. 2020 China–India skirmishes, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and Western Togoland Rebellion. They include many different violent events, which do not have to be individually listed for the sake of avoiding clutter. We're making a list of beaches, not a list of grains of sand. Koopinator (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think there is a point in having this List, even though I dont think the name is entirely appropriate. I think a separate list (List of major wars maybe?) that only features conflicts between sovereign states and some kind of duration/fatality threshold to exclude the border skirmishes might also be useful, maybe on a 1945-present timeframe. As an example from the 2003 list I would only include the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war, Russo-Georgian War, Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, Russo-Ukrainian War, and 'possibly' the Yemeni Civil War (2014–present) (and 2020 Western Saharan clashes if they escalate further). A too extensive list can become less helpful, and I think most people understand war in the Merriam-Webster definition, and I dont know why the Lexico one is featured in the article. jonas (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Pages tend to be more accurate than lists, as pages themselves always receive more attention than their entries in lists. It's probably due time to remove 2019–2022 Persian Gulf crisis from the list. Cheers. Koopinator (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply