Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

October 2015

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I have a strange observation that every single casualty is listed in that conflict, resulting in about one half of the updates on this page being on this basis, even though this is one of the least active conflicts today in the world. We have a total estimate from some sources on this conflict, while some other conflicts indeed require a more frequent updating.GreyShark (dibra) 09:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

m8 that's our problem, B'tselem havent updated their casualties list since 31 August and since then there were some 40 casualties in different incidents --Bolter21 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't do it myself, please investigate on 4 attacks that occured today in Israel Jerusalem, as far as I know, 3 Jews were killed but I am not sure about how many Arabs. One man died yesterday in Pisgat Ze'ev, Jerusalem in a knife incident, another one died in gun stealing attmempt in Jerusalem, on man died in Hadasa ein Karem hospital after being involved in one of the attacks. So to sum up, since yesterday I know that at least 6 people should be added, if you can, search for sources. --Bolter21 11:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly my point - most of your edits deal with 3 people killed, while in other conflicts thousands die in one day. There is a serious emphasis problem here. Perhaps an obsession.GreyShark (dibra) 17:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not an obsession, I contribute wikipedia with what I know and I read the news everyday, my news are in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no reason to critisize me if you have a lack of editors with knowlege on other conflicts. I reduced the number of source with another source I found today from yesterday. --Bolter21 15:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And although you asked me in such an impolite way, I"ve decided to edit other things too, so don't whine on a legitimate contribution because you think I can do more. All the casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be listed here and I will guarantee it. --Bolter21 15:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh i will whine! I'm afraid however, the Israelis and Palestinians are not going to provide you with much news, unlike their more violent neighbours in the Mid-East, so you might get bored at some point and begin a table of flustrated Israelis and Palestinians in this low-level conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So indeed you are critisizing me for contributing what I know? You are the one with two barnstars for the Syrian Civil war, not me. And I have yet to fully understand how to use this ACLED source --Bolter21 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bolter, the initial comment of mine was not intended for you alone. I think you are taking it too personally. I sincerely hope you would contribute as good as you have already done and not only in one conflict. Thumbs up.GreyShark (dibra) 11:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I just couldn't stand a any sort of critic to this spesific edits. Maybe the words "Perhaps an obsession" made me feel that way. Anyway I started taking intrest in the other conflicts too, I wasn't aware to the update problem. --Bolter21 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The principle of Wikipedia is that each person can contribute in its own domain of expertise, there are some very specific pages which are constantly updated and up-to-date in fields that matter to a very few so I don't see the point to be up-to-date. Moreover the information seems more accurate on Israel-Palestine because a lot of media are covering this conflict contrary to Afghanistan (conflict #2) for example. Wykx (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Katanga insurgency

I'm afraid we are missing the death toll there. Anyone can take a responsibility to update it?GreyShark (dibra) 19:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

According to ACLED, there is no death this year in Katanga. It can be explained indeed because on 6 January 2015 the leader of the FDLR rebels had been arrested. Moreover the situation with the Mai-Mai has improved a lot. The conflict is only still active in the South Kivu province which is listed here separately even if some of the actors are the same. Wykx (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightened answer. Let's hope to remove at least one or two conflicts at the end of the year.GreyShark (dibra) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Chiapas conflict

As it seems, the conflict is not ongoing. The last three incidents happened in 2014, 2011 and 2008. see Chiapas conflict. I"ve searched in the web to see if there is any source who say or implying this is ongoing but I couldn't find one. --Bolter21 07:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering there was one person killed in 2014, it is still eligible for the list, but next year hopefully, we should be able to remove it. Wykx (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We shall remove it at the end of December in accordance with the policy of this list article.GreyShark (dibra) 11:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Iraq conflict casualties

@Nykterinos: I'm not sure about this 1,000,000 figure for the Iraq conflict - i think it is a rough estimate of casualties in some survey study, not really relying on actual fatality numbers.GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I cited the most updated study (March 2015) by the IPPNW, which takes into account all previous studies also detailed in the Casualties of the Iraq War article. 224,000 is the lowest figure by IBC including only documented direct deaths, whereas the higher figure (1,000,000) also includes excess deaths, which need to be assessed through mortality surveys. Nykterinos (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that those surveys are something we should use on this page. There is very little reliability in the "do you know someone who died?" quiz and the statistical error is huge. We should rely on expert estimates and Iraqi body count only.GreyShark (dibra) 16:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the IBC figure is certainly an underestimate since it doesn't include undocumented violent deaths and indirect deaths, and includes only reported violent deaths. Therefore, using only IBC without higher estimates would be misleading in my opinion. Estimates of total excess deaths based on summary estimates or mortality surveys are already used in the article in conformity with the guidelines ("excess deaths indirectly resulting from famine, disease and disruption of services are included along with violent deaths only in the cumulative fatalities count, when available"), for example for Afghanistan and the Kivu conflict, where direct deaths are much lower than the figures we report. The List of wars by death toll article reports the total deaths of the Iraq war (2003-2011) as "176,913–1,120,000". Nykterinos (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts map

WHAT ABOUT CREATING A MAP OF THE CONTROLLED TERRITORY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, MERGING THE DETAILED MAPS OF THE CONFLICTS IN LYBIA, SYRIA, LEBANON, IRAQ, EGYPT AND YEMEN? IT WOULD BE INTERESTING AND IS THE CHALLANGE I LUNCH TO WIKIPEDIA MAP CREATORS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.202.93 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a prototype of such map : Template:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies detailed map.GreyShark (dibra) 05:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting date of Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Moved to Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Starting_date_of_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

I don't think that is a good idea to move this discussion there - i'm concerned it would become rather political than technical. Furthermore, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict already states the conflict runs from 1948 to present with the main phase being the PLO insurgency from 1964 (established) to 1993 (Oslo peace accords). The main question is when and how to count casualties - the only good source we have is counting from 1965.GreyShark (dibra) 05:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand this move, but i don't object it either.

Now, if you mean the article, then the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" DO NOT STATE the conflict runs from 1948, on the contrary, its rightfully vague and says but that it began in mid 20th century. As I already mentioned This is quite accurate, as there is no consensus when to point it's definite separation from the larger Arab conflict. I hope people actually read each others arguments here. Anyway I found some questions on that point but no objection. Furthermore there were no objections on 1964 being the most stable date, and also you yourself stated it was edited to 1948 without discussions. You actually positively agreed with me on 1964 being the best cutting point from the arab israeli conflict. That's why i now changed that date back to 1964, in hopes it would stay that way.Mateo (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I certainly object the 1964 date but I'm open to more insights. I will not revert the date because there is no consensus so I would find it ridiculous to change again and again ;)

Also I find more appropriate to discuss the starting point of a conflict on its dedicated page when the discussion is too long. Or maybe should we put 'Mid 20th century' as in the conflict page? Mateo, what is the conflict from your point of view which happened from 1949 to 1964?

And I add that on the infobox of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict it is mentioned : Establishment and dissolution of Palestinian administration (1948–1959) in Gaza, Jordanian occupation of the West Bank (1948–1967), All-Palestine (1948–1959) and all these elements clearly include dates from 1948. Wykx 08:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think your answer lies inside your question. There were attempts to establish a Palestinian administration that will represent local Arab population since the beginning of the British mandate. As you well know, it was the British who appointed the young Amin al-Husseini to the mufti of Jerusalem. The did it in 1922 although he was 25 years old and there were four more prominent Muslim figures a head of him for that role. But the locals have proven for the first time in many of these attempts that wont be fooled, and they eventually rejected the leadership appointed by foreign rule. As i mentioned before, during the 1948 war the mufti was on exile and had but a few thousands of soldiers supporting him. When the Arab countries took upon them to represent the Palestinian region (but actually pushed on their own Arabist or local agenda) many locals protested as well. This period lasted since 1939, Got to it's peak in 1945 with the establishment of the arab league, and started to diminish only with the establishment of the PLO and later with Fatah's taking over. Thus, in 1953, when a local Palestinian refugee is going for attack on Israel, he is doing it from Egypt, with support or without prevention of that country, while there is no Palestinian authority, when Arab countries still control the Palestinian fate, and this (among other things) eventully leads to clashes between two sovereign countries (Israel and Egypt/Israel and Syria/Israel and Jordan) - it is clearly part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mateo (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Many conflicts are part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, so could you please give a reference to the specific conflict between 1949 and 1964? I don't see any other than the Israeli–Palestinian_conflict. If we were in 1953 or 1970 for example, how would label the conflict in the List of ongoing armed conflicts table without counting casualties twice? Wykx 17:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no one specific conflict between 1949 till 1964, regarding the Israeli entity and the Palestinian people. In those dates Israel's War was with Sovereign Arab states while Palestinians either tried to settle or renounce Arab influence over their decision-making process, through many small factions such as communist parties, Arabist parties, Muslim brotherhood parties, Conservative parties, Municipal Parties and so on. So it's impossible and a blunt mistake to separate this phase from the Arab-Israeli conflict.Mateo (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Between 3000 and more than 7000 people have died during this period and there was no specific conflict? I don't understand. I agree that Israel considered Arab countries as responsible for infiltrations even if they were not directly conducted by them. Attacks were carried by Palestinians and relatation from Israel was against Palestinian fedayeens (even if far from not only them). We have many examples of other conflicts where rebel movements are used and supported by other states to achieve their goals. Moreover Palestinian fedayeen had the purpose to reclaim Palestine since the beginning of their actions. Wykx 19:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying there was no conflict at all. I'm not saying attacks were not carried by Palestinians against Israel. What I AM SAYING is that your opinion totally ignores the relation between Palestinians and the Arab nations. I agree with you we can to other conflicts for better understanding of this one: Armenian fedayi were part of the Sharzum; Algerian guerilla were part of the FLN that you can trace back to the ENA in the mid 20's; All attacks made by Irish rebels were under the responsibility of the IRA. I ask you who was responsible to the Palestinian fadayeen attacks? Israel can say it's the Arab states but this question is unclear to this day. So the argument they "had the purpose to reclaim Palestine since the beginning of their actions." is just an assumption, and it's even less clear weather they wished to reclaim it to make an autonomous Palestinian state, an Arab state as part of a coalition, A communist state with the support of the soviet union or maybe a Muslim state supported by the growing movement of the muslim brotherhood. The fact they were Palestinians with guns pointed to newly founded Israel does not let you assume you know everything about them. This is a mistake Israel had made, and Arab states have made as well. Moreover we do not know supported them with guns, information, access across borders or a sense of purpose. Do you know what organizations are mentioned in the article related to the fadayeen? al-Jabhah al-Sha`biyyah, Al-Jabha al-Dimuqratiya and of course the the PLO. All of these were founded after 1964, And this is basically what we are talking about.

I'm getting the feeling it's important we should arrange some facts: We both know there are two conflicts that all historians agree upon: Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian (you can reverse the order of the sides as you like). We both know that the Israeli side mentioned in both of the conflict regard to those Zionists who immigrated to the region since the late 19th century. This is why it's called an "Israeli" conflict rather than a "Zionist" one. On the Israeli side, the conflict deals with the wish to form an autonomous state in parts of the "land of Israel". It was those Zionists who implemented an action and formed organizations that got recognized by locals as a threat. That's why they are one side of both of these conflicts.

What about the other part of the equation? If in the term Palestinians we speak of those locals of the region (their time of immigration is a matter of dispute) that got into a conflict with those Israelis, we can begin the conflict in 1920, or just keep it as one Arab-Israeli conflict with phases, just like the Arab and Hebrew Wikipedia did. I believe it's a mistake to put a similar starting point because clearly today Palestinians are a specific people with clear demands and therefore their conflict with Israelis differ from the larger one. If we refer to the Palestinisns that rebelled against foreign rule, then why should we begin with the Fadayeen? Palestinisns wished to "reclaim Palestine" from the british too.

The question is when did we have two clear sides in this conflict? As you well know Arabs and Israelis had conflict long before the state of Israel was founded. You can put the starting date at 1881,1897,1919,1920,1929. Back then you had one side wishing the land would make a Jewish state and one that wished it would be an Arab state. You had well recognized groups that issued that claim towards the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate. You had well known figures operating for their side's purpose. One should ask when did the Palestinian form a clear wish for an independent state? Check your resources. There were many Palestinian claims in 1948. Some wished for an Arab confederation, supporting Nasser, some wished to join the communist struggle, some supported a Muslim alliance, and many just wished to protect their family. But the organization in charge of all these claims was the Arab league, which had Arab interests and represented the claim for an Arabic state. Therefore all the number of casualties you mentioned (which you should definitely check) are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, at least until the PLO got disconnected from it. This process began in 1964.22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Mateo (talk)

O and BTW, even the current resource for the number of casualties in the conflicts puts it's starting date at 1965. This supports the fact that NO HISTORIAN will claim this conflict began in 1948, and i guess "systemicpeace.org" knows why. I hope all that information satisfy you, but if not we can continue conversing by all means.Mateo (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

When you doubt that reclaiming Palestine was a goal, do you know that Fatah (founded in 1959) means "Palestinian National Liberation Movement"? I agree that Palestinian wanted to reclaim Palestine from the British but the British were ruling before 1948 so the conflict couldn't be with Israel. If the Arab League was the entity defending Palestinians views before 1964, what does it change to the fact that a conflict was ongoing between Palestinians factions supported by other Arabs and Israel? So if I have well understood your view, the conflict that happened between 1949 and 1964 (and still ongoing) was the Arab-Israeli conflict and this conflict is impossible to sub-divise into smaller conflicts (Lebanon-Israel, Syria-Israel, Egypt-Israel, Palestinian-Israel, etc)? It seems very strange to me. Wykx 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

First, i don't doubt reclaiming Palestine was a goal. Im sure it was A goal. But i doubt if it was the goal in the sense it was ultimate or even a Primary goal. As i said, the Palestinians are a very diverse people, and each time some leader tried to put a mark on their wished, he was proven wrong. So even if conquering Israel was a goal, even if it was the goal, it is unclear what ultimate purpose would it serve. That's an historic fact, and it's important when we talk about aspirations of a nations, and a conflict between people.

Second, Fatah has no "national" in it's name. the meaning of "Harka Tahrir Falestin" (Fatah backwards) is basiclly "Movement of Freedom for Palestine". The lack of "national" is also important is vague on purpose.

Third I'll repeat just for you what i already wrote, that Fatah and it's control over the PLO (after the Arabic defeat in 1967 war or it's naksa) is exactly were we should start speaking about a specific conflict between Israelis (and thier state) and Pleastinians (and their aspirations).

Forth, and that's the conclusion, that the Israeli-Arabic conflict CAN be and in fact SHOULD be divisible, but not sooner than 1964, and probably not later than 1977. Im always in favor of setting starting points the earliest the scientific consensus let's you. So it should be 1964. 02:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

So you don't deny some Palestinians factions had the goal to reclaim and have a free Palestine, among others, before 1964. But I don't see why these combatting factions can't be considered as one independent force fighting against Israel (other forces being mainly state armies during other sub-conflicts like the Suez Crisis) when we have belligerents (Palestinians factions and Israel) clearly identified.Wykx 01:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me say it clearly: I know what im saying regarding the relations between Jews and Arabs in this region. First rule about this conflict is that you have got to be very careful about the facts you wish choose to focus on. These are two extremely sensitive people that can take offense even by the very basic of facts. Either side is willing to bravely admit the truth of the matter, but some misconceptions became facts the some true facts are undeniable. For example, the Israeli narrative will not acknowledge that the idea of a national Palestinian state already existed in the hearts of Arabs during the first part of the 20th century. But in the same breath, the Palestinian narrative wont ever admit that their national aspiration for Independence, the one which is the base for their right for self-determination, matured and became the their ultimate goal long after that, deep in the second part of that century.

I hope this answer the question on unity in the Palestinian struggle during the 1950's. There was no unity whatsoever. And clearly there was no independence as well. That's why it's factually wrong to consider "these combatting factions" as you say, "as one independent force fighting against Israel". Perhaps you specifically wanted to consider it, but hopfully know you understand it's more complicated. By the way, i didn't mention any independent Palestinian "faction" that supported an independent Palestinian state until 1964. What "factions" do refer to?01:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

(I don't get why im signing the edit page with four ~ and my name wont appear)Mateo (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me be very clear : no matter why they were fighting, the Palestinians factions were in conflict with Israelis.

And to answer your questions, Palestinian fedayeen and later on Fatah were nationalists looking at 'liberation' for Palestinians even if I recognize it wasn't clear what form of recognition they were looking for.

But again that is not the central question to recognize a conflict was ongoing since a conflict was indeed ongoing between Palestinian factions and Israelis. Wykx 05:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe for you it does not matter why they are fighting in the middle east, but to them that's the most important thing! I really can't see why we are having this discussion if it does not matter to you from the first place. Ill say it for the last time. There are two conflicts in the region, and it's important to understand when to separate the wider Arab conflict from the specific Palestinian one. The casualty resource is doing just that in 1965, and as someone pointed out earlier this was the original date for it until somebody changed it without a notice. Now I did put up a notice and after a few days of conversation corrected it to 1964. In that conversation you said you would not change it again but i just saw you did. Without any notification. That's not a way to behave! Now i have been very patient in this conversation, answered all your questions, and got no factual disagreement by you. Yet it seems you haven't read anything written in this conversation. Even basic things, like the fadayeen being a "faction". They actually can't be a faction. Just look at the term in any dictionary. I also commented quite extensively on Fatah as well. Now if you wish to continue our discussion i suggest you read it through, otherwise it's just a waste of time. If you wish to continue changing back the date, perhaps the best way to move forward is to call a moderator.Mateo (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly I'm not looking at why they are fighting! By the way even today I doubt all Palestinians groups and all Israelis groups have common ideas! And that's the same thing in many conflicts. It is your opinion that why they are fighting matters for the starting date and then you wish to include all casualties in a wider conflict which is very generic and with dozens of belligerents and sub-conflicts, still ongoing and overlapping the one we are talking about. As you wrote primarily the consensus for starting date is 'mid 20th century' and mentions elements from 1948 in the infobox. And yes I agree the term 'factions' is not the best one: 'groups' would surely best fit and be more generic. And yes I already replied to you on my page I should have waited longer for your answer before changing date. Wykx 12:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Groups? Name me one group of fadayeen that had even partial independence from it's hosting country and had a clear demand to establish a national home for Palestinians. Please see that when addressing a this issue, unlike other conflicts, the ISR-PLS should be separated from the ISR-ARB one. This is something we actually agree upon. Or do you claim there is only one conflict? Thats legitimate, but i think there is a wide one and a spesific one. That's why unlike other conflicts, it's very important to understand what is the reason for fighting. Do you understand that now? So you shouldn't wait "longer" and then do whatever you feel like. This discussion should include all facts related to this issue and we should set the date according to facts, and not your set of mind.

As for now, the resource in the article dates the starting point to 1965 and i know no historian that would say the conflict started with the foundation of Israel. 1949 is also false, as it has no importance to Palestinians. In 1949 Palestinian were already got scattered in the region and had no representation in the truce agreements. So why 1949? You do understnad that the starting date should be set upon an action that occurred, and that relates to both sides, right? Please understand you can't set the date according to your feelings.

As for concensus, it's known THERE IS NO CONCEUNSUS when did the conflict start, but THERE IS ONE regrading when it did not start. Many historians say it should be in the first part of the century (1917, 1920, 1922, 1936) and many say it should be in the second part (1964,1967,1977,1982,1987,1993). Your view still completely ignores the relations between Palestinians and Arab countries. So before you consider placing a wrong date as a starting point you should A. Give good reasons for 1949 as the best place to differ the Palestinian conflict from the Arab conflict. B. Find at least one source that supports this claim. C. Change the current source of casualties that is here for years an currently supports the more reasonable claim, that the specific conflict can only start when you have two clear sides, with clear demands.Mateo (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we won't agree. Indeed Arab-Israeli conflict is too large for me even before 1964 as I already wrote and it includes several sub-conflicts including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Since you don't recognize that, I almost don't see any more room for discussion between us. Maybe we can talk again when other contributors bring their views on it. I just can try (probably in two weeks) to post a graphical timeline of conflicts inside Arab-Israeli conflict so that you understand better my perspective.Wykx 04:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ill tell you the truth, i have no idea how come we don't agree. I assumed my position on the table, and i don't think you did the same. While i answered all of you questions, and i can back anything up with resources (Palestinian and Israeli), you didn't even bothered with my first question. I actually don't understand your standing point. First you said "factions" then you said "groups" and now it's unclear. Let me also remind you that you entered this discussion midway as we already had other users in it, before it moved to another article. So for now the truth is not that we don't agree, but that i explained the importance of having a clear date that is coherent with the resource in the article, the rest of wikipedia and history, and you disagree without explaining why. Indeed in this atmosphere we better stop now. 18:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

I had now enough time to provide a timeline as I see it, and in coherence with all the current Wikipedia pages I have checked:

You can see that many conflicts are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What I have understood of where we disagree: you see Arab-Israeli conflict happening at least from 1948 to 1964 (and until when?) with an Israeli-Palestinian conflict starting in 1964 and which doesn't seem to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. -Wykx 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not what im saying. Israeli-Arab conflict probably started with the first Zionist immigration to the middle east. With all the words i wrote in this conversation I could write a whole essay on the subject by now, but it almost seems like you have not read a single word. Now the first thing i said is that ITS NOT A SIMPLE MATTER to just put a date on a conflict, especially on a sub-conflict, since the a country had been officially formed. This is a patronizing approach that says to both people "line starts here" without any explanation or source. But from 1948 (and long before that, if you have not noticed) and at least until 1964, Palestinians were in deep difference of opinions with the Arab states, trying to get their independent voice to be heard by their leaders and afterwords in the Arab league. You are still totally ignoring this delicate relationship between the Palestinians and the Arab countries, and see it as simple as "When Israel was formed the Palestinian conflict differed from the Arab one" and that completely opposite to reality. You still have not answered even the most basic question. Why 1949? Why March 1949? Israel was already a state but without defined borders and Palestinians where scattered and without leadership. As i said, this is a patronizing approach saying to both people "line starts here", without addressing the most important question in determine this issue: When does a conflict begins.Mateo (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Israeli-Arab conflict has one of its roots in the first Zionist immigration to the middle east but could not start as such before Independance of Israel. The Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine covers period before May 1948 anyway. One consequence of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War is that at least 600.000 Palestinian Arabs fled. Also end of 1948 at the Jericho Conference it was stated that Palestine Arabs express gratitude to Arab states for their efforts in behalf of liberation of Palestine. Those elements can be considered as a starting point. I admit I don't know to which extent Arabs supported Palestinians because the Arab League condemned the Jericho Conference. But until March 1949 a war between Arabs and Israel was ongoing and Palestinians were part of it (at least as casualties) so there was already one conflict. After March 1949, I have never denied that some Arab countries were supporting Palestinians and using them as a cover. Thus Palestinians were in first line with Israel from 1949 as fighters and casualties, on a slow pace until 1964 when PLO was founded. Wykx 19:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Arab-Israeli conflict has roots in Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism in the Middle East. The gradual growth of the Old Yishuv in 15-19th centuries and essentially the rise of the new Yishuv in early 20th century took place in parallel with the rise of Arab nationalism, but it was not the cause for it or its effect. The first violent incidents between Jews and Arabs on purely nationalist grounds took place as a spillover of the Franco-Syrian War in March 1920 and only in 1921 there were first ever strictly local motivated sectarian riots in Jaffa. Stating that "first Zionist immigration to the Middle East" in 1882 caused some kind of conflict is a pure anachronism, which is a useful political propaganda of Palestinian Arab nationalists and Ba'athists but should be titled as such.GreyShark (dibra) 21:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Turkey-PKK conflict

Shouldn't it be red on the map since the death toll is now 1,000+? 41.47.217.53 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The conflict happens in Iraq (currently in brown on the map) and Turkey (currently orange). We don't know precisely the breakdown between both countries but to my knowledge we don't have sources claiming more than 1000 casualties in Turkey alone. Wykx 12:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

According to this source, there were 550 fatalities in south-east Turkey between July and December 2015. Nykterinos (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

France

I'm dubious about adding an ongoing "armed conflict" in France between the French government and jihadist groups. No actual fighting is taking place in France, but only a series of terrorist attacks. The French government is indeed fighting jihadist groups, like al-Qaeda and ISIS, but outside its territory, in conflicts already listed in this article (Iraqi and Syrian civil wars, Northern Mali conflict). Besides, it remains to be seen if the latest attacks in France were really directed by ISIS or committed by unaffiliated individuals. The Islamic terrorism crisis in France article considers "isolated individuals who sympathise with the jihadist movement" parties to the alleged conflict, but, according to our guidelines, only organized armed groups can be considered parties to an armed conflict. Fighting individual criminals is normally called law enforcement, not an "armed conflict". I think we need reliable secondary sources calling this an armed conflict before adding it to the list. Nykterinos (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I do agree on your point of view. Wykx 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

France should not be included. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

France should be included.GreyShark (dibra) 05:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think you can find resource for a direct link between the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and the recent attacks, its obvious that France is in an ongoing armed conflict. The difficulty is to nail with whom. If I remember correctly, ISIS didn't take responsibility for Charlie Hebdo, just praised it. So I think it's better to work on this crisis in a sandbox and wait until things will get clearer. If god forbid and another terror attack will hit France or if the country will get more involved in the Syrian war, it should definitely be included.Mateo (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I might reconsider my position because president Hollande and Prime Minister Valls spoke both about War. Military troops are now deployed in Paris. Wykx 09:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the question is continuity of those events. Indeed we do not know for sure whether Charlie is linked or not with current terror events. Sadly, i guess once we have another ISIL-incident in France (hope not) - it would automatically make it a prolonged conflict rather than an isolated incident (as you have mentioned "war" concept is already widely utilized).GreyShark (dibra) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This could be seen as a part of war against ISIS. The whole Middle Eastern situation is so complex that I think the present presentation of the current situation is not showing the whole picture. I don't know on what grounds the wars are listed, but I'd suggest that we lump the whole "Middle Eastern war" under a same umbrella and divade it where appropriate. ISIS has operations in Middle East, Afrika, North Caucasus and Southeast Asia and this could be seen as a continuation of that, an operation in Europe. Tuiverrus (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a one off attack, and not a sustained insurgency within France as such its not an ongoing armed conflict in France. Also note that the Charlie Habdo attack was perpetrated by AQAP, not the Islamic State as this one was.XavierGreen (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

France-ISIS war is ongoing. Similar way there is no day-to-day ongoing conflict in china, russia or india, but still they are coloured as orrange. In fact if usa gun violence claims more than 100 people then it can be included as a civil war inside usa. Trotting cove (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

For China, Russia and India, we have secondary sources saying that an armed conflict is ongoing (more than one conflict in India): see UCDP, CSP, Project Ploughshares (only the case of China is dubious: UCDP says that the identity of ETIM is unclear). Not all armed violence constitutes an armed conflict, which requires two or more organized armed groups (governmental or non-governmental) fighting each other: this is not a List of countries by intentional homicide rate or a List of terrorist attacks, and conflict-related deaths are only a part of violent deaths (see Global burden of armed violence). Therefore, gun violence in the USA or any other country doesn't qualify for inclusion. Nykterinos (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - another shootout in Paris - three killed in a police raid on a suspect Jihadi cell [1].GreyShark (dibra) 06:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Khuzestan conflict

With 2 more casualties in the third incident [2] since the beginning of 2015, i think this is sufficient to readd the Arab separatism in Khuzestan conflict to the list.GreyShark (dibra) 09:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Egypt

The post-coup unrest article refers mainly to the violent street clashes that followed the coup and gradually diminished upon the November 2013 signing of the Egyptian protest law till Sisi's election in 2014. And while the ongoing insurgency began simultaneously with the unrest, it remains a separate subject that probably deserves an article of its own (Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present) maybe?), though we already have Terrorism in Egypt for that purpose. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The impact of unrest in term of casualties is certainly diminishing from around 2100 casualties in 2013 to 434 in 2014 and 272 in 2015 until now. There are less street protests, but with 272 casualties [3] this year it is certainly not over. To my understanding the street protesters of 2013 and 2015 were mainly supporters of Muslim Brotherhood. Wykx 20:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And why exactly are those "street protests" considered an armed conflict? Again, the unrest and the insurgency are two different subjects, and Islamist opposition groups like the Muslim Brotherhood insist that they are not carrying out militant attacks on government targets. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That has been discussed here: Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts/Archive_7#Deaths_by_country:_Egypt Wykx 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So? It was also discussed here. Because we don't have an article about the ongoing insurgency doesn't mean we get to make erroneous decisions, like picking the next article on sight. Also, the three (possibly cherrypicked) sources used by Nykterinos in the discussion you referred to are of questionable reliability. Project Ploughshares makes it sound as if the conflict was of a military nature ("combat deaths", "combatants", etc) while their description of it shows the exact opposite: that it's in fact a mere episode of political conflict that involved street clashes, riots, etc (something that would've been more suitable in List of ongoing protests) and a government crackdown on dissent (mass arrests and death sentences do not constitute an armed conflict either). CSP speaks of a "rebellion" in the south, which is complete bullshit since there never was anything of the sort. The UCDP source is actually about Sinai (plus al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya's campaign in the 1990s) and makes no mention of the "conflict" in mainland Egypt. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, how do you consider those attacks from 2015? On 6 March, three policemen were killed in Mahalla. On 15 April, three military cadets were killed in a bomb attack. On 9 May, four dead in an exchange of fire between police and members of Muslim brotherhood. On 29 June, a top prosecutor was killed by explosives in his car. On 1 July, 9 militants were killed by police in Giza. On 17 July, 6 persons were killed during clashes in Cairo. On 6 August, 5 Muslim brotherhood members were shot dead in Fayoum province. On 24 August, a bus bombing kills 3 policemen and wounds 33 others. On 21 September, police kills 10 militants in Bahariya Oasis and following a mistake attack of 12 people including Mexican tourists. On 25 September, 9 militants were killed following the bombing of the Italian consulate in Cairo. We have a continuity. As street clashes of 2013/2015 were linked with islamists I see strong correlation with the ongoing incidents. It was certainly armed with more than 500 deaths on each side! Wykx 20:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Those incidents are better fit in Terrorism in Egypt or in a new article, not the post-coup unrest article. There was indeed a short-lived "rebellion" which came as a direct response to the Rabaa massacre, and it mainly ended a month later in September 2013 following the government's liberation of Kerdasa from Islamist militants, but this is as far as it gets. 1) Anti-coup street demonstrations continued, but they were considerably contained following the signing of the protest law two months later. 2) Although deadly clashes did take place afterwards on January 25, 2014/2015 (anniversary of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011), they are expected to recur annually and shouldn't be regarded as part of a "continuing" protest movement. 3) Apart from January 25th, weekly protests do take place sometimes, but they're hardly as deadly, as notable or as "armed" as the ones that shortly followed the coup and Rabaa (2 deaths maximum are usually documented these days). But yet again, all those three subjects combined belong to the list of ongoing protests, not here (yes, protests can be violent sometimes). Most of the incidents you mentioned aren't linked to events like Rabaa, unless you can prove otherwise, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Anti-Coup Alliance insist that they are non-violent, despite government accusations. A solution I propose is to create "Terrorism in Egypt (2013–present)" or "Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present)", and to broaden the scope of the post-coup unrest article by renaming it to its original title "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" so that it serves as an umbrella article that covers all the subjects that were mentioned here: the ongoing insurgency, the largely quelled protest movement and the ongoing government crackdown. The only subject we should be discussing here is the insurgency, both in Sinai and the smaller one in mainland Egypt. All you need to do is to not include protest casualties in this list. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually on one side I'm not opposed to a new article Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present). It is true that the form of the conflict is quite different from the street clashes. Then the page would have to be created. On another side we have also to keep in mind we could have new street clashes in January 2016 as in 2015 and 2014. Those street clashes are the 'civilian' part of the conflict with islamist groups. Wykx 06:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Those street clashes are the 'civilian' part of the conflict with islamist groups is original research unless you provide reliable sources backing that statement. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? 5/8/27 July 2013 protests were called by Muslim Brotherhood, while fires/bombs/assassinations were used on the following days/months against policemen and Christians, with people armed in streets from August 2013. Wykx 19:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my arguments one last time. Please make sure to read the points I made above carefully, because you probably didn't and I do not wish to go on about this forever:

5/8/27 July 2013 protests were called by Muslim Brotherhood - Exactly, and (again) protest casualties don't belong here in the list of ongoing armed conflicts.

fires/bombs/assassinations were used on the following days/months against policemen and Christians - I know, but like I said, those belong in a new article about the current insurgency or in Terrorism in Egypt, not in the post-coup unrest article which is about the political conflict and unrest involving the government and Muslim Brotherhood supporters. There was, however, a solution that I proposed above to partially solve this issue. Have you considered it?

with people armed in streets from August 2013 - ...until both the signing of the protest law in November 2013 and Sisi's election in June 2014, two watershed events in the Egyptian Crisis (2011–14) that effectively put a symbolic end to the period of political violence covered in the post-coup unrest article. Some analysts refer to the coup and Sisi's consolidation of power as a "counter-revolution" or by other similar terms. Whatever it's called, it appears to be successful so far. But it's also a badly organized topic on Wikipedia. Minor protests or street clashes that followed don't appear to be notable enough for an article of their own; inclusion in an "aftermath" section sounds like a more suitable option. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There was, however, a solution that I proposed above to partially solve this issue. Have you considered it? I think so because I wrote I'm not opposed to a new article Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present). It is true that the form of the conflict is quite different from the street clashes. Then the page would have to be created. But please don't delete the current information until such a page is created. Wykx 19:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" part. While I prefer having Terrorism in Egypt as the "Egypt article" of choice on this list, I'm not opposed to the idea of creating a new article (at least we agree on that). However, until such a page is created is not a good enough reason to keep crap on Wikipedia, and "no consensus" is not a good enough reason to revert someone's edits. Again, this article that you keep re-adding here is irrelevant and should be removed at once. Street unrest doesn't belong here. Protest casualties do not belong here. Conflicts that are not ongoing do not belong here. Period. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. I have already explained that 1/ there is an ongoing armed conflict with some casualties every single month since 2013 (which is not the case of many conflicts listed here by the way!), 2/ street unrests were part of this conflict but not only and that's why it qualifies to armed conflict 3/ protests casualties can be consequences of a conflict because citizens support one belligerent as it is the case here. Wykx 21:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to get on my nerves. For the last time, the article you keep re-adding is irrelevant and is not about the ongoing conflict. Another reason why the post-coup unrest article doesn't belong here is that it's not ongoing anymore (ended in June 2014 till you moved the title without consensus about two months ago). Your second point is incomprehensible and needs further elaboration. I don't care if you reached a similar agreement concerning Burundi, but (again) street unrest does not amount to armed conflict, in case that's what you meant to say. Your third point is factually incorrect because the protests supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which is hardly considered a "belligerent" to the insurgency till enough reliable sources prove otherwise. The only belligerents we have are Wilayat Sinai and, to a lesser extent, groups like Ajnad Misr and the Popular Resistance Movement (which doesn't appear to be as active as it was last year) among others. I've never seen protesters rallying for those groups, so you are making things up. And for the last fucking time protest casualties do not belong here, capiche? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to remind rules WP:CIV.

Soldiers of Egypt are active since end 2013 against Egyptian security forces. They are representing a small but violent part of the after-coup unrest. Unrest in Egypt is not limited to Muslim brotherhood actions and protests. Many conflicts in the world today are involving salafi jihadists. There were two phases in the post-coup unrest: one with mainly street protests and a second one mainly driven by terrorist actions and conflict with salafists. This second phase could have its own article and be separated from the street protests. Until post-coup unrest article is not divided into two articles: one for the street protests and one for the terror/anti-terror phase, it contains - as today - both phases and is still ongoing and valid. Wykx 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm being too patient here. Currently, the post-coup unrest article is limited to the protests and street clashes (not the insurgency). I've, however, made a proposal above to rename its title to "Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état" to broaden its scope (read this part again and tell me what you think). There were two phases... is both original research and factually incorrect. Both the street protests and the insurgency began almost at the same time (e.g. [4]). Two aspects* instead of two phases (of the overall post-coup violence) is a better interpretation: one aspect (protests) gradually ended between the protest law and Sisi's ascent to power, while the other (insurgency) intensified and persists to this day. So this "until there is article X, article Y will remain here" logic is a rather silly one. Until there is an article about the insurgency (feel free to create one), protest casualties will be kept out of this article and moved to List of ongoing protests, though I don't find it necessary (protest deaths were very minimal this year). You need to provide sources saying that the unrest and insurgency are part of the same conflict. But what you did here is that you included in the table a non-ongoing article about the protests with casualties of a different conflict. Got it? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I now understand better what you mean. If I create a new page, wouldn't the name 'Terrorism in Egypt (2013-present)' be too broad because we have already the Insurgency in Sinai which is ongoing also? What do you think? For information it represents 103 casualties in 2013, 195 in 2014 outside of Sinai. As for the street clashes, I re-checked the facts: casualties were widely caused by live fire from the regime police and not from the protesters side. But we have also - especially during the period of 14-16 August 2013 - more than 50 casualties on the regime side and on the Christian side from armed men (see the Egypt's National Council for Human Rights's investigation). In 2015 we have 16 casualties due to armed Muslim Brotherhood militants. Does it qualify those protests to be an armed conflict? Wykx 18:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would the Sinai insurgency affect our decision concerning the new article? As for the title: "Terrorism in Egypt (2013–present)", "Insurgency in Egypt (2013–present)", "Post-coup insurgency in Egypt (2013–present)", etc are all fine by me. What matters is that we replace the post-coup unrest article with a better target article, for now. Terrorism in Egypt appears to be the most suitable option right now, even if it's too broad. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood continues sporadic protests and insurgency, thus qualifying to be included here. Note, that there is a separate conflict of Egyptian government with the Islamic State in Sinai, which has lately spread into mainland Egypt - this may merge into a tripartite conflict, since ISIL is acting both against Sisi's government and the Muslim Brotherhood, whom they consider apostates.GreyShark (dibra) 12:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• While I do believe the Muslim Brotherhood is itself involved in violence or orchestrating it, I don't see reliable sources (yet) claiming so, unless you've found otherwise. Following certain bombings, Wilayat Sinai (then Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis) declared in some of their post-attack statements that they carried out those bombings in retaliation to the Rabaa massacre, whose main target was the Muslim Brotherhood. But that's not enough "evidence". Groups like Ajnad Misr and the Popular Resistance Movement have carried out some attacks in mainland Egypt, but there is no article yet on their terror campaign. ISIL is acting both against Sisi's government and the Muslim Brotherhood - Wilayat Sinai never attacked the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They may have fought in Libya or Gaza, but never in Egypt. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Jihadism in Nigeria

See discussion about the proper naming for Islamist insurgency in Nigeria (previously also named Nigerian Sharia conflict and Boko Haram insurgency).GreyShark (dibra) 05:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

FRUD and Katanga

I'm pretty sure we are going to "get rid" of Chiapas insurgency in the end of this year, but can anyone check out about casualties in FRUD and Katanga conflicts? Is it indeed zero, or we just haven't been putting attention to violence?GreyShark (dibra) 12:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

According to ACLED, there have been no conflict-related fatalities in Djibouti this year and no fatalities related to separatist groups in Katanga (but only inter-ethnic clashes). So, I would remove them if nothing happens in December. Nykterinos (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Shia Muslims vs Nigerian Army

This conflict [[5]] is raising very rapidly. I think this should be separated from Islamist insurgency in Nigeria because of a different location and different belligerents. We have also another Amnesty International article confirming "only" 61 dead [[6]]. It could be also considered as 'protests'. What do you think? Wykx 09:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is here: 2015 Zaria Shia Massacre. It definitely doesnt't belong to the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria, which involves Boko Haram (by the way, this shows that "Boko Haram insurgency" is a less ambiguous title!). It doesn't belong to Religious violence in Nigeria, either, because that article mainly concerns Christian-Muslim clashes. Perhaps it could belong to Communal conflicts in Nigeria, since it involves the Shia community. But it's unclear if the community was targeted on purpose or by accident, as well as how high the death toll is, so I suggest waiting. Nykterinos (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Israeli strikes in Lebanon

Tonight some casualties are reported from Israeli strikes in Lebanon. Do the Israel strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall under an existing conflict? Wykx 17:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Link?GreyShark (dibra) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There were also few incidents earlier this year, but I think it falls into Syrian Civil War spillover. Number of casualties this year is 11. (7 in Israeli airstrike in January, 2 killed in Hezbollah attack on Mount Dov, Spannish peacekeeper killed in Israel shelling, Hezbollah official killed in Israeli strike). --Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Casualties mentioned in first sources were not confirmed so you can forget my question. Wykx 21:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish rebellion

Just a minor thing, is this source can be put for good use in the article? Also this one. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

East Turkey is in civil war for the past 6 months - it is well over 1000 casualties (maybe 3k already). It is also spilling into north Iraq and north Syria. We need a good comprehensive source on total fatalities.GreyShark (dibra) 10:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

2014 data

It's time to decide what to do with data on fatalities in 2014. Two proposals have been put forward: either we keep them in the talk page archive (creating Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/2014 fatalities), or we create a new article, titled List of armed conflicts in 2014. Alternatively, we can transfer them to List of number of conflicts per year, but I don't think that 4 more tables could be added to that article every year. So, I'm in favour of creating a List of armed conflicts in 2014, copy-pasting the 4 tables with the 2014 column, because such an article could be read by all Wikipedia users, unlike the talk page archive, which is presumably read only by experienced editors. Nykterinos (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a subpage here - List of ongoing armed conflicts/2014 fatalities. It makes more sense to make a subpage, because several new articles for each year may create confusion about what is "ongoing" (i guess some links would direct to different new articles - 2013, 2014, 2015, etc.).GreyShark (dibra) 14:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, List of ongoing armed conflicts/2014 fatalities would not be a subpage of List of ongoing armed conflicts, because "in main namespace ... the subpage feature has been disabled in the English Wikipedia" (WP:SUB). Only talk pages can have subpages, so it would be Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/2014 fatalities. I don't think that List of armed conflicts in 2014 would create confusion with List of ongoing armed conflicts: the title clearly states that it concerns only a particular year. On the other hand, as we have said, 2014 fatalities are of no relevance any more for the List of ongoing armed conflicts, so, in my opinion, they don't belong to the talk page archive. Nykterinos (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nykterinos: That makes sense. Wykx 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense - I did remember something is not right with the mainspace subpages, do thanks for the clarification. I'm still more in favor of a subpage Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts/2014 fatalities, because the sublist is a result of the "ongoing conflicts" listing.GreyShark (dibra) 05:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have created List of armed conflicts in 2014. Wykx 00:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright!GreyShark (dibra) 10:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Revisions at the end of the year

First of all thanks to all project members and editors of this page over the past year - this has become one of the most accurate summaries of current conflicts in the web and thus is very helpful to many people. Remind you that this page is in coordination with the Military History incubator/Ongoing conflicts. Anyway the year is coming to an end and this is a time to downgrade/remove some conflicts, which have become less intense. Here are the nominations:

• FRUD insurgency - to be removed from the main list into watch list (inactive)  Done
• Katanga insurgency - to be removed (inactive)  Done
• Chiapas conflict - to be removed (inactive)  Done
• Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon - might move down to 1-99 section (90+ killed by November 10 already 100+ killed by December)  Not done
• Ituri conflict - might move down to 1-99 section (88+ killed)  Done
• South Thailand insurgency - might move down to 1-99 section (67+ killed)  Done
• Internal conflict in Myanmar - to move up to 1000+ section (837 killed by July 31 870 killed by December)  Not done
• Israeli-Palestinian conflict - to be moved down to 100+ section (163 killed by December)  Done
• Central African Republic conflict - to move down to 100-999 section (449 killed by November 10)  Done
• Communal conflicts in Nigeria - might move down to 100-999 section (839 killed by November 10)  Done

Comments are welcome, but more importantly - double checking and more verifications / updates to the mentioned above conflicts. Please don't implement before the year has ended as some things might still change.GreyShark (dibra) 14:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Internal conflict in Myanmar was already updated (only the accessdate was not updated): it's 874 fatalities till 30 November, so it probably wont't have to be moved up to 1,000+ section. Nykterinos (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright.GreyShark (dibra) 05:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon exceeded 100 fatalities.. 7 killed January and 48+ killed Jaunary and 44 killed November.. Without all of the incidents, that's already 99. and there are some eight other sources in this article... Doublecheck that, if not I"ll do it but only in Thursday--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree - most likely we are well over 100, but casualty updates are not frequent enough. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 08:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In January it was not 48 killed, but 8 killed according to the given source (and some others like [7]), so we are still under 100 if I count well. Wykx 11:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In that attack, at least 9 militants were killed. It was an 'intense fight' so I assume there were casualties on both sides. The Wikipedia article from where I took the source said that 40 militants were killed. Didn't find the source for that, but I found this source that say that 9 militants were killed. This incident should be double checked again, cause the dailystar report, report only Lebanese casualties. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There you have it:

• 3 January - 23-24 source source
• 10 January - 9
• 23 January - 17+ source source
• 7 April - 3 source
• 25 July - 1 source
• 28 July - 2 source
• 17 August - 2 source
• 19 October - 8 source
• 5 November - 6 source
• 12 November - 43
  • Total: 114

--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

From I have understood the 3 January clashes were involving Lebanese fighters but happened inside Syrian territory and thus shouldn't be included. Wykx 23:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arguable. Reuters source say that: "The head of Lebanon's security apparatus told Reuters that militants in the Qalamoun mountains were seeking to gain control of nearby Lebanese villages to support their fighting positions." and later reffered to the spillover. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It says also "were killed when Nusra attacked Flita, a village just inside Syria in the Qalamoun mountain range, Lebanese and Syrian security sources said." Wykx 12:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• OLF insurgency - the figure 99 killed by 18 December could put it one category up. Can anyone check for an update?GreyShark (dibra) 10:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll check once ACLED data are available. Many figures for 2015 are still incomplete and will be updated until at least February. Wykx 18:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Iraq deaths in 2016 no citation

No citation provided for the 171 number of deaths in 2016 under the Iraq civil war. 2607:FB90:1B02:4643:3068:3DB4:685B:3C8C (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Added Wykx 19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of ongoing armed conflicts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141214100440/http://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/newsworld/50000-and-not-counting-south-sudans-war-dead/ar-BBdY9Zs to http://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/newsworld/50000-and-not-counting-south-sudans-war-dead/ar-BBdY9Zs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130203045957/http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/ar0304-Eng.pdf to http://www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/ar0304-Eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130201201101/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6dnx4NTM3B9w2ZubUbVNiHw-0Kg?docId=CNG.52abdac0e7976e9d4a137aa05c36be57.11 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6dnx4NTM3B9w2ZubUbVNiHw-0Kg?docId=CNG.52abdac0e7976e9d4a137aa05c36be57.11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Map

Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't Turkey and the DRC be colored red since they've reached 1000+ casualties in the last year? Turkey has had 1927-3450 casualties, so even going by the lowest estimate of fatalities it should still be red. There were 480 casualties involved in the ADF insurgency and the Ituri conflict, not to mention at least 7 civilian casualties involved in the LRA insurgency (*there may have been more, this was just the number I found on the LRA Crisis Tracker) and the Kivu conflict had 787 casualties, of which I believe only 105 occurred in Burundi (http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/At-least-100-dead-in-Burundi-attack-by-rebel-group-20150104), which would bring the grand total to at least 1169 in the DRC. Any feedback would be much appreciated. YDN8 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• For Turkey: the source we have for the PKK rebellion (2015–present) is 550 people, including 150 civilians, killed in south-east Turkey and we presume the rest of casualties of 2014 2015 were in Iraq fightings. That's why Turkey is still in orange.
• For DRC: You're right, I will correct the map in red now. Wykx 10:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You probably mean 2015 casualties in Iraq.GreyShark (dibra) 09:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nigeria

For that matter, why is Nigeria downgraded to red? The graph at the bottom of the page lists the death toll for 2015 as over 10k for that country. Which is correct, and which needs to be corrected? 209.92.200.98 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, at the start of January 2016, 2015 figures were not final: Nigeria was under 10,000 and had been downgraded to red. But since Nigeria is indeed now over 10,000 and it should be in brown again. I update Nigeria too. Wykx 14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wykx: In the armed conflicts table, I see 8,852 killed in Nigeria due to the Boko Haram insurgency, 846 killed due to communal conflicts and 3 in the Niger Delta, i.e. 9,701 in total. There are some inconsistencies between the armed conflicts tables and the deaths by country table: the latter should report the sum of fatalities in the different conflicts listed in the former, unless better sources for a country-based fatalities estimate are found and specified (like we did for 2013 and 2014). Nykterinos (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Nykterinos:. For Nigeria, we have a challenge. According to ACLED data, if we exclude Riots/protests, which are clearly out of the scope, we have 10,677 fatalities. This figure is used in the total per country. At the same time, we have the conflicts that are eligible for this page (over 100 casualties) that represent 9,701 fatalities as you mentioned. Apart from that we have 976 dead listed on other minor/untagged conflict (including 707 fatalities by "Unidentified Armed Group". I give you an example : [8] for which nobody has claimed responsability so that ACLED has no formal source to put it under Boko Haram even if it is written in the Al Jazeera article the latest attack bears the hallmarks of the armed group Boko Haram. All improvements on considering figures for Nigeria are welcomed as it is a complex situation. Wykx 09:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the explanation. If we follow this method in the "deaths by country" table for African countries in 2015, we should specify it in a note in the 2015 column ("Data for African countries are based on ACLED, excluding riots/protests-related fatalities") and do so consistently for all African countries (checking ACLED with this method I get slightly different totals: 4,087 Somalia; 3,190 Sudan; 3,138 South Sudan; 2,836 Egypt; 2,693 Libya; 1,692 DRC; 1,429 Cameroon; 986 Niger). Nykterinos (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OK fine with me. Have you also considered the data published in the 2016 file regarding 2015 events? Wykx 13:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't. You're right, those should be added, too. Nykterinos (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok so feel free to update the "deaths by country" table source and data once you've added them. Wykx 14:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nykterinos (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Kurdish rebellions in Turkey

Well there is an ongoing dispute how to name the Turkey-PKK conflict (1984-present), which brings me to say that it is a part of the Kurdish rebellions in Turkey ongoing since 1920. There was some pause during the 1940s-1970s in violence, but overall the conflict is ongoing since 1920. So, should we list Kurdish rebellions in Turkey since 1920 as the "umbrella conflict"?GreyShark (dibra) 14:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Crime in Oakland, California

This until 60 years ongoing "war", drug- and streetwar, had more than 3000 poeple dying because of this situation. It is something beween a war and a chronical, permanent crimescene, where different gangs are battling for more than 60 years. It is more a war than a crimescene. In my opinion it depends to that category. --82.192.229.198 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

High levels of homicide in a certain city/region don't constitute an armed conflict unless secondary sources refer to it as such, which normally requires two or more organized armed groups fighting each other, and not just unorganized criminals. Secondary sources are also needed to separate the share of homicides related to a particular conflict from the homicides which normally take place in any society. Nykterinos (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's an armed conflict, honduras is f-ing WWIII. There are gang wars everywhere around the world, but a "gang war" is different then an "armed conflict".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

He friends, keep it simple english please. Im not Dr. Prof. whatever of english, not even my motherlanguage.

@Bolter21 what is for U the differance beween gang war and armed conflict? Both has to do mith differnte stiles of arms, both has to do with differnent stiles of gangs, no?

@Nykterinos What do you mean about ...which normally requires two or more organized armed groups fighting each other, and not just unorganized criminals? There are more than 2 organized armed groups fighting each other. One f.e.g. is Bloods or (old) "friends" of theme and f.e.g. Crips or (old) "friends" of theme. There are many, many gangs involved in this ongoing war. There are clear borders and districts, bases, homedistricts and also battlezones, where there is acute fighting about drogdealing, about who will win the area, the district. Thats something that is in every town about drogdealing more or less the same. But here it is a huga fight going on, a sort of war, i guess. A drug war. The amount of killings every month and the last 60 years tells us something about the type of conflict, that looks like a little bloody war. Criminals are rarly unorganized, expect its an act of spontan actions. This crimes are very organiced, they sell stuff that is forbidden, so they have to organice that and the weapon too.

About the sentence Secondary sources are also needed to separate the share of homicides related to a particular conflict from the homicides which normally take place in any society, its not sure what you mean about that? There are societies without any crime. --82.192.229.198 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In the interesting UCDP definitions for "Conflict, armed" and "Government" we have The UCDP is concerned with who is controlling power in practice (de facto). In the case of gangs we don't have conflict against the government of the USA, unlike as in Mexico. In El Salvador, we were on the verge of a conflict between government and gangs, but without secondary sources proving that the rise of deaths were related to the government of El Salvador's decision to fight gangs. The question is whether we should clearly mention in our definition section that at list one de facto governement should be involved in the conflict. I think that would clarify the scope. Wykx (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there are no “societies without any crime” (see List of countries by intentional homicide rate), and many homicides in Oakland are certainly not gang-related: e.g., in the article on Crime in Oakland, California I read that in 2012 “confirmed gang-related killings were at 10, with 15 gang-related killings in 2011”. So, it’s unclear how you reached the total of 3,000 gang-related deaths since 1960 (you probably included all homicides). The gangs you mention are also not mentioned in the article on Oakland. @Wykx: UCDP lists as armed conflicts also non-state conflicts, which consist in “The use of armed force between two organised armed groups, neither of which is the government of a state”, so I don’t think that only conflicts involving at least one government should be listed. Communal conflicts in Nigeria and in Sudan, e.g., don’t involve the government; ISIS-YPG is a non-state armed conflict included in the Syrian civil war (even if they both control territory, they are not considered governments), etc. UCDP also lists conflicts between drug cartels in Mexico (e.g. Sinaloa-Los Zetas) as non-state conflicts; so, in principle, I think that armed conflicts between organized gangs could be included, as long as secondary sources identify a specific conflict with a beginning and a death toll (El Salvador’s gang war, e.g., could qualify for inclusion – the main problem was that secondary sources don’t give an estimate of gang-related killings but only the overall homicide rate). Nykterinos (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Homicide killed some 80-90 people in Oakland in 2014. Can you relate it to a certain gang war? There are also gands here in Southern Israel, few groups with even an estimate of armed strengh, so what? Over 50,000 were murdered in Brazil and the whole of Brazil has a bigger homicide rate then Oakland, even though Brazil has over 250 million inhabitants. This conversation is useless, there is nothing significant enough in Oakland to be listed as an armed conflict. Clan disputes in Arab community in Israel also killed dozens this year, so what? Jisr az-Zarqa in Israel has little more then 10,000 inhabitants and yet there is a high homicide and crime rate due to clan violance and organized crime, every month someone die there and few people are injured.. so what? There is crime everywhere but only in places like Mexico or Columbia, where crime act as an entity, it is acually significant enough to be an armed conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Laos insurgency

Just saw there has been another explosion near a military camp and a mining site in central Laos, the third one in a month and with 2 people killed. I read of another blast a week ago or so that also killed 1 or 2 people (can't remember), it seems like remnants of the old insurgency? Should this be (re)submitted to the current list? It does seem to fit the criteria, a flare-up of a (technically) active conflict. Thoughts, opinions? Skycycle (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The conflict seems to be quelled since 2006 but could be 'reopened'. Until now we have no claim for these actions so I suggest to wait a bit more and watch it. Wykx (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I wasn't sure if this was Hmong activity or not, but we can wait for more developments I guess, it certainly seems that something is being 'reactivated' in central Laos. Skycycle (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I found another piece on the attacks, via CFR and 'The Diplomat', but it admits that no connection can be uncovered, and it would be surprising if we ever did since reports are so hard to come by. Not sure what that means for possible inclusion, we wait for possible further incidents in general area? This news report suggests violence in the area has risen recently, which in a country with so few opposition figures could arguably be attributed to Hmong remnants, especially since the attacks coincide with John Kerry's recent visit, and a rise in Chinese investment in recent years. Skycycle (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Further attacks in Laos - According to Reuters, one Chinese national was killed and 3 others wounded after a "militant" attack (state media description) in Luang Prabang Province. A separate attack occurred around the same time against a minibus, in which 5 locals were injured. The state media article even said "regional security forces were sent to wipe out the militants", so I would say this all but confirms that both attacks can be attributed to the insurgency. Is this already enough to re-include the conflict, we have had at least 3 confirmed deaths so far this year? Skycycle (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's a step forward. Beside the Reuters quote, the AFP [9] is less affirmative about the perpetrators. If Laos police identifies who is behind those attacks it would help our sourcing. Wykx (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Another attack in Laos, this time against a bus of Chinese people coming from Kunming, leading to six injured out of the 28 passengers. The attack took place north of Vang Vieng, and prompted China to demand Laos take more measures to protect its interest in the country. Interesting if this is the Hmong insurgency flaring up because of Chinese investments in the last decade, essentially since the end of major hostilities around 2007. Skycycle (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: According to this RFA article, a driver in a pickup was also involved in the shooting, and was killed on the spot. They also mention several other attacks in the preceding months, which I've combined with the information we have compiled above, for the following list:

• Late November 2015: exchange of gunfire between elements of Lao resistance and national army leaves three soldiers dead and several others injured in Xaysomboun.
• December 2015 - 1 motorcyclist killed, 1 injured in shooting attack by ~15 armed men. Three days later two people in a truck transporting beer were injured in another shooting, also in Xaysomboun Province.
• January 2016 - 1 civilian injured after unidentified gunmen shot at a bus in Kasy District.
• 24 January 2016 - 2 Chinese nationals killed, one injured after a roadside bombing near a Lao military camp in Xaysomboun Province.
• 3 March 2016 - 1 Chinese national killed, 8 others injured in 3 near-simultaneous shootings in the north-west of Laos.
• 23 March 2016 - 1 civilian killed, 6 Chinese nationals injured in shooting near Vang Vieng, in neighbouring Vientiane Province.

In total, at least 4 killed during 2015 and 4 killed this year, with ~20 injured in total. I think the chips are beginning to add here - we have news sources with confirmed government casualties during 2015, + a spate of attacks more or less in the same mountainous area that was a hotbed of the insurgency, and in a province that is majority Hmong. Might even have to work on the actual Laos insurgency article, cause this seems to be the most activity in the country of the kind in close to a decade. Opinions? Skycycle (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This article [10] summarizes well the situation. Attacks seem all directed to Chinese because of the growing presence of China nationals in the laotian economy ; and not directly against the Lao governement as was the Insurgency in Laos. Wykx (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not all the attacks have been aimed against Chinese nationals, locals have died as well, and in November 3 government soldiers in what is specifically referred to as an 'Lao anti-government' resistance attack. I personally think that is enough to reinclude the conflict on 2015 numbers, even if we for now overlook the 2016 attacks. But also I'm pointing out that since hostilities died downin the mid 2000s, China has invested heavily in the same underdeveloped regions, angering locals who want to see profits from natural resources go to them, and not foreigners. Hence there could be a real clear connection here between remnants of the insurgency, but also newly 'radicalized' locals who want to join. Not sure exactly what we need to re-include the conflict? Skycycle (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)