Talk:List of wars: 2003–present

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Included conflicts[edit]

who's the idiot that inserted Egypt as a war??--78.3.216.0 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising in the united states[edit]

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?

Ukraine/Iraq[edit]

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
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.25.92 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it now, it was not a war, clearly. --Hibernian (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large cleaning job ahead here. The Tunisian revolution, the 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash, the 2010 Mardakert skirmish, the 2010 Eritrea–Ethiopia border skirmish and many more were certainly not wars, and should definitely be removed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you waiting for? Remove them. B-Machine (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious vs. defeated[edit]

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]

Nobody is changing the table. B-Machine (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yemen and syria[edit]

yemen and syria are not listed as wars on the list of ongoing wars. should we delete them from this page or add them to that one?--Lv171998 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Civil War is not over[edit]

I don't think a victorious party should be put up for the Libyan Civil War until it is officially over. Noneofyour (talk) 18:02, 26 August 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]

Turkish border raid[edit]

is this a new cnflcit or just part of the kurdish insurgency?--Lv171998 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the Turkey-PKK conflict, ongoing since 1984.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South sudan - Sudan border conflict[edit]

Sudan has actualy won the conflict because South sudan retreated leaving the oilfields to Sudan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.210.199 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mali is ongoing.[edit]

How are there victors in an "ongoing" war?67.137.68.210 (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of 2011-Present and 2003-2010[edit]

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]

Confusion on support[edit]

The box Defeated party (if applicable) for the Syrian civil war currently looks like this:
Free Syrian Army
Ahrar al-Sham
Tahrir al-Sham
Jaysh al-Islam
Rojava
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Support:
 Turkey
United States (2011–19)
 Saudi Arabia
 Qatar

To me this makes it looks like The US supports ISIL. I would like to know what this box is actually trying to communicate. Tellurium128 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tellurium128: I created a new version which is less confusing, based on the version on List of wars involving Syria. Koopinator (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tellurium128: To me this makes it looks like The US supports ISIL.
That's extensively verifiable in RSs, though. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wars[edit]

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]
Hello friend, I'm participating in the Ongoing Conflict subproject of the Wikipedia Military History project. You are welcome to visit List of ongoing armed conflicts, where a sourced set of rules has been developed. Among them the Uppsala program definition of War. Moreover, Wikipedia requires WP:RS definition of events to be wars to be included here; this is certainly not bound to individual editor interpretation of "What is a war" - we have to use either the definition of War or WP:RS sourced referring to the event as a War.GreyShark (dibra) 10:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, "the" definition of war? I've multiple different definitions. Almost all of the conflicts listed here would probably pass as wars when that's defined as "A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country." Oddly, List of ongoing armed conflicts, which you linked, uses "at least 100 cumulative deaths" as part of its definition of war, which seems to go against your initial requirement of 1000+ deaths. Koopinator (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of ongoing armed conflicts uses 100 fatalities to define a notable armed conflict; a War is 1000 fatalities in a calendar year my friend. Read the notes.GreyShark (dibra) 11:44, 6 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:

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]

Sure, but what about all the conflicts which are much smaller and not named a "war"? Does Kondovo Crisis and similar belong here?GreyShark (dibra) 20:03, 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: Like the "List of ongoing armed conflicts" replace the current titles with the "List of armed conflicts".

I believe these are the three best solutions. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Option 4 - instead of article name and content change, just starting a new article List of conflicts (2003–present) and dump there all the minor events.GreyShark (dibra) 11:44, 6 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]
Note that List of ongoing armed conflicts requires events with at least 100 cumulative fatalities to be included. This is less than wars (1000 fatalities in calendar year), but still exempts minor/non-notable events such as Kondovo Crisis (zero casualties) and 2008 Kufra conflict (11-30 killed).GreyShark (dibra) 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 October 2020[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - no consensus to move. (non-admin closure) --IWI (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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. BD2412 T 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration: There are currently a bunch of entries which some users said weren't wars and which others said were, and the editor who said they weren't wars tried to remove them. Moving these pages to avoid the term "war" is intended to be a compromise to end the conflict. Koopinator (talk) 19:16, 10 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]
  • Comment - Agree with CPA-5. "Conflict" is a little vague, but armed conflicts conveys the idea a bit better. Hog Farm Bacon 18:03, 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.
    How did articles on non-wars ever get included in lists of wars in the first place? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because people disagree on how broad or narrow a "war" is defined. Koopinator (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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]
Your "solution" is the reason this requested move started to begin with. There are a bunch of entries which some users said weren't wars and which others said were, and the editor who said they weren't wars tried to remove them. Moving these pages to avoid the term "war" was supposed to be a compromise to end the conflict, but it appears to have created a conflict all of its own. Relevant xkcd. Koopinator (talk) 19:10, 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]
  • Comment I have changed the suggested targets from "conflicts" to "armed conflicts" in concord with suggestions from User:CPA-5 and User:Hog Farm. Koopinator (talk) 19:07, 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) buidhe 15:28, 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]

Comments[edit]

  • 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]
    • That is not a valid reason according to WP:AT. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - once including armed conflicts, one should note that also for armed conflicts there is a threshold (in List 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.

Removing non-War events[edit]

With no consensus to rename the page, the non-War events should be removed from this page. First of all events which are not called a "war" and do not stand to the definition of war (1000 fatalities in calendar year): Kondovo Crisis, Conflict in the Niger Delta, Paraguayan People's Army insurgency, Bakassi conflict, 2007 Lebanon conflict, 2008 invasion of Anjouan, 2008 conflict in Lebanon, 2008 Kufra conflict, Cambodian–Thai border dispute, Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict, 2009 Peruvian political crisis, Dongo conflict, 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes, 2010 Kingston unrest, Tajikistan insurgency, Shia insurgency in Bahrain, M23 rebellion, Baragoi clashes, Batwa–Luba clashes, Zamboanga City crisis, RENAMO insurgency (2013–2019), 2014 Aswan tribal clashes, ISIL insurgency in Tunisia, 2016 Niger Delta conflict, 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, Kasese clashes, 2017 Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmish, 2017–2020 Qatif unrest, Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018), 2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, 2019 India–Pakistan standoff, Gaza–Israel clashes (May 2019), 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis, Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2019), 2020 China–India skirmishes, Western Togoland Rebellion. Later we can discuss marginal cases such as events called wars with under 1000 fatalities and events with over 1000 but not named "war". Any specific objections to listed events or other thoughts in regard to specified events?GreyShark (dibra) 19:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.
"Do you insist that Kondovo Crisis (zero casualties) and Western Togoland Rebellion (6-7 killed) are wars?"
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)"
I'd say ~6 per year, around what we have now.
Koopinator (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
So, you think that 2020 China–India skirmishes is not a part of the long-spanning Sino-Indian border dispute, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not part of the long-spanning Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Then why don't we include Idlib Governorate clashes (June 2020), which is somewhat related to Syrian civil war, but with this logic - can well be considered a new conflict/sub-conflict? How about 2020 al-Jawf offensive, 2020 Al Bayda offensive, Central Libya offensive (2020), May 2020 Tillabéri attacks, Battle of Talahandak, 2020 Daraa clashes, Operation Gideon (2020), Northern Rakhine State clashes, Operations Claw-Eagle and Tiger?GreyShark (dibra) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 China–India skirmishes are related to the Sino-Indian border dispute, and the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is related to the long-spanning Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But these border disputes are not military conflicts. They are political conflicts that have led to series of military conflicts. The Sino-Indian border dispute started before India was even independent, and they weren't fighting that entire time.
Seeing the Sino-Indian border dispute as a single military conflict seems weird to me. There was a period of 1967-1987 lasting over a decade with no fighting whatsoever. The border dispute exists, of course. In the same vein, i could create an article named Golan Heights dispute and include the Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War and Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War as part of it. Lo and behold, Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War is now part of a military conflict starting in 1967 where there was no fighting for over a decade. Koopinator (talk) 13:58, 30 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[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add operation breaking dawn[edit]

Operation breaking dawn should be added considering that all the other Gaza-Israel conflicts are here 87.68.160.140 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done entry has been added to the list. Koopinator (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Karabakh clashes?[edit]

Shouldn't those be added here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about certain entries[edit]

Are the following entries really accurate?

  • 2019–2022 Persian Gulf crisis - link removed, page was deleted. Is this even a thing to keep here?
  • Afar–Somali clashes - this page claims it ended in 2022, the actual Afar–Somali clashes page says the contrary in the infobox. Which is accurate?
  • Western Saharan clashes (2020-present) - this page claims it ended in 2023, the actual page says the contrary in the infobox. Which is accurate?

-184.56.79.184 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

2023 American-Middle East conflict[edit]

The page was renamed to 2023 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria. Should this entry really be in this list? -2603:6011:7401:351C:35FB:BA25:C2AB:19BB (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ecuador conflict[edit]

Shouldn't it be added to the list at this point? Or does it qualify as part of some other conflict already accounted for? Gorgedweller (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to update the bar chart graphic at the top of the article to include 2023![edit]

. Adraria (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abyei border conflict[edit]

Is it possible to add Abyei border conflict (2022-present) to this page? -184.56.79.184 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_wars:_2003–present&oldid=1208181588"