Talk:Ongoing wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Why have five wars disappeared?

An anonymous IP editor has successively deleted five wars (Srì Lanka, Haiti, Second Congo war, West Papua...), without any obvious reason (see the difference between the versions. Does anybody know why, or should we revert it?--Robin.rueth 20:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low-level wars

Are we sure the Second Congo War is still going at a rate to qualify for its inclusion in this list? According to its entry, the war officially ended in 2002; most conflict in the country since then has been part of the seperate and seperately-listed Ituri conflict. I don't want to make changes without more support, but I would appreciate input.

Yeah, I agree. The Second Congo War, the Ivorian Civil War, the Aceh War, and the Darfur Conflict are all technically at ceasefires. The Casamance conflict is so incredibly low level nowadays that it might very well be written off entirely; the Zapatista rebellion is described in our own article as "armed but non-violent." Since the situations in these conflicts are complex, it may be useful to have a brief paragraph with each one explaining the context and level of violence. Listing them without any explanation may be misleading. Adam Faanes 05:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, no mention of Palestine?

There is the Korean war as well. The war is not technically over there has only been an armistice. The page on the Korean War even says that is is technically not over.

The Community of Sant'Egidio (see #Section on other ongoing conflicts) still has Congo (Kivu), Darfur and Ivory Coast on their list of ongoing conflicts; Aceh is gone.--Robin.rueth 06:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "War" or "belligerence" in Chad?

(From a similar message posted on Talk: Current Events)

There's a conflict between Chad and Sudan resulting from a Chadian rebel attack for which the Chadian president says Sudan is responsible. Different sources say different things, though. The BBC quotes a Chadian statement as saying Chad is in a "state of war," where Reuters, al-Jazeera, and CNN quote it as saying "belligerence." A Google News search for the exact phrase "state of belligerence" and +Chad has a few more results than the exact phrase "state of war." The Sudan Tribune used a Reuters report that said "state of belligerence."

In English, if a head of state says he's declaring war, that's a little different from talking about "belligerence." I'm guessing the difference is in translation, but I think it's a key distinction. You'd think they'd be able to get a direct quote right.

I think it really looks like "belligerence" is the right word. I haven't seen any news reports of troop mobilizations in either country. They're clearly not on good terms, but if they're actually at war, they're not being very active about it yet. --Mr. Billion 02:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The BBC article does actually mention a call for "mobilisation" on the part of Chad... What's not clear is how much connection these "militias" who are causing trouble for Chad on the border, really have with the Sudan government, as Chad alleges... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says: "In a statement, the government calls on Chadians to mobilise themselves against Sudanese aggression." That's not the same thing as the government actually activating its army to fight Sudan. I haven't seen any reports of further violence yet. I hope this doesn't escalate. --Mr. Billion 03:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't escalate too! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the two countries are literally at war is currently based on a single dubious quote. I don't think the article should say that the two countries are at war until it's clear that they actually are. --Mr. Billion 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If they not are at war, why is the state of war-page claming it? If they have declared war, then they must be at war.Jonatanj 11:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The state of war-page claims that the Chadian government declared war for the same reason this one did: This is a wiki and anyone can edit it. It was added by User:TheFEARgod.

My point is that I haven't seen evidence that they actually have declared war. The BBC quotes a statement from the Chadian government as saying "state of war," whereas the Sudan Tribune (which might be expected to know if its own country is at war) quotes the statement as saying "state of belligerence." I haven't seen the Sudan Tribune call Sudan's conflict with Chad a war anywhere. The linked Sudan Tribune article also talks of preventing war, which would indicate that war hasn't yet begun.

If the statement actually said "war," or if the two countries' armies actually attack each other, then it will clearly be a war. But to say they're formally at war based on conflicting reports when Sudanese sources aren't calling it a war is premature. --Mr. Billion 21:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan and Iraq

Isn't fighting still going on in Afghanistan, with U.S. (and other "coalition") troops involved? I hear every once in a great while about soldiers being killed in Afghanistan, and I get the feeling that it happens more often than we (in the U.S.) hear about, or least more than "gets through" the fog of other news about Iraq, Senatorial filibusters, Angelina and Jen, Paris and Nicole, yadda yadda yadda...

As for Iraq, the article describes the "ongoing war" as "Insurgent rebellion." It seems to me that we started a war there in 2003, and I have to ask, has that war really ended? Was there ever actually a stop to the fighting? Have U.S. (and British etc.) troops stopped dying over there? I think the answers to all these questions is "No," and that being the case, isn't that the war that is going on? When did it become transformed from an invasion and occupation by us (whether one believes it to be justified or not) into a "rebellion"? 6SJ7 03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've got a good point about Afghanistan. Fighting continues over there, and the struggle there is too easily forgotten. The conflict in Afghanistan is listed as an ongoing war on the GlobalSecurity link on this article. --Mr. Billion 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I wholely agree. Not listing Afghanistan and Iraq is highly POV.
Note -- The USA passed the 2,000 KIA milestone after about 30 months in Iraq. The USA didn't pass the 2,000 KIA milestone in Vietnam during its first four years of boots on the ground.
Note -- even with heavily escorts civilian truck convoys still face heavy risks.
The USA remains at war in Iraq. And so long as the Iraqi military, such as it is, answers to US Generals at a US HQ, circumventing much or all of the civilian oversight of the Iraqi Minister of Defense and the the Iraqi Cabinet, then Iraq remains under foreign occupation. -- Geo Swan 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good points, Geo. I'm putting Afghanistan in. But, a quibble: The U.S. hasn't passed the 2000 killed-in-action mark yet in Iraq. According to this page, there have only been 1854 killed in combat so far, and 2311 total. The comparison might still stand, though--I haven't seen any other figures for the yearly U.S. deaths in Vietnam. --Mr. Billion 01:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in order to head off any controversy about what is or is not technically a "war", the page should move to "Ongoing military conflicts" ?? Just a thought ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aceh peace deal

Seem like the Aceh rebels are disarming as per the negotiated peace agreement, a possible Indonesian troop movement not withstanding, it seems that this means peace has been achieved. I'm gonna take Aceh off in a couple of days if there are no changes to the GAM's position.

--mexicatl 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a section for armed conflicts under cease-fire

It seems like a good amount of the conflicts on the list are not really active anymore, they are kept on the list merely because there is no permanent cessation of activities or peace treaty/agreement and sometimes militarization in the theater of combat continues. I suggest the creation of a new sub-section titled Ongoing conflicts not formally resolved and militarized I also suggest a conflict gets put on this list only after a substantial amount of time without armed belligerence (say at least a couple of years, maybe even five). Any opposition? --mexicatl 20:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


This is a good idea, but maybe we should put them in a different section but on the same page. Starchy 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I was trying to propose, didn't come through. Putting it in a different page would incite too much issues I think, and in the end, a war doesn't necessarily have to be an active military conflict. --mexicatl 03:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section on other ongoing conflicts

I've added entries from a list of ongoing conflicts as of January 1st, 2006 that was compiled by the Community of Sant'Egidio which is very active in peace negotiations (see [1]); unfortunately, it does not give any further information about these conflicts, but basically, what I've added are all the other armed conflicts still around right now, I hope someone can take a closer look at this.--Robin.rueth 06:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions!
Maybe we should split the list up further into wars that only technically never ceased, military conflicts that continue at a much-reduced level, and more heated wars. If we're going to include all these different armed conflicts that might or might not be recognized as actual wars, maybe we should move this to Ongoing armed conflicts. Comments? --Mr. Billion 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What I added was just a makeshift thing. I never meant my addition to form a second list. Instead, these are just armed conflicts/wars/you name it that I don't know anything about (status and beginning), I just know from a list that I consider reliable that they exist. So I put this article to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/War, hoping that some wise man will know about these conflicts and give more information and a link about them.
I think splitting the list up into "armed conflicts" and "wars" is a bad idea: You never know when a conflict will shift from one category to the other (and how do you judge it?) so it will just create confusion and a lot of work.
Incidentally, there's another list, List of civil wars, which I would like to be integrated into the List of Wars, because IMHO, it's often hard to tell the difference (like what do you do with the war in Congo, which is perhaps a civil war, but then again, Uganda has its hand in it...?).--Robin.rueth 08:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top v bottom

What's the difference between the conflicts at the top of the list and the conflicts in the other conflicts section? I may end up making it one large list. Theshibboleth 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no fundamental difference, except that, when I added these conflicts from a list (from the community of Sant'Egidio), see #Section on other ongoing conflicts, I just had these countries, without dates when they began and without further explanation. In order for these conflicts to be integrated into the top of the list, which is where they should eventually go, the entry must be completed by:
  • the date when a conflict began
  • a link to a wikipedia article about the conflict (or a red link, if need be), so far I've only linked to the country. I think this point is important, because this list is not about "countries where there is war", but about the wars themselvese, so this is where the links should lead us.

--Robin.rueth 11:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wars that are "technically" not over

Now that the list has reached a certain completeness, I wonder if we should (re)include the wars that are considered to be over but are technically going on - the article once ([[2]]) listed WWII, Chinese Civil War and Korean War.

CON: This may be a bit of a trivia point (PRO: even trivia can go into Wikipedia)

PRO: None of them is completely "over": At least in the case of the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War, warfare has prolongued into ongoing major tensions between China and Taiwan, and North and South Korea, respectivel. It is not a mere "technicality" that these wars are not over: a missing peace treaty means a lot of missing security and mutual confidence.

So, I advocate reincluding them.--Robin.rueth 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How about adding them to a separate section in the page to explain why those wars are exceptions? — J3ff 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what I would have wanted to say.--Robin.rueth 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Many countries never signed official treaties and are still technically at war, Israel and Syria/Lebanon/Iraq for example. These should be included somewhere in this list. --NEMT 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-existant wars

Can anyone explain, why Georgia is still in the list of ongoing wars. It's really strange to sit here and suddenly find out that there is a war in the place were I live and it is marked by Red on the map in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no fighting activity here. So please, fix it. Pirveli 10:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as nobody replies to me here, I have to remove the false information about my country myself. Pirveli 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess everybody takes your word for it, and agrees with there being no hostilities.--Peidu 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I can't change the map (remove the red colour from Georgia), so please, somebody that is responsible for the map, do it. Pirveli 13:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and remove the red, I guess. The map isn't one of wars per se, but "ongoing conflicts". I believe the Wikipedia article on the particular conflict in Georgia states that while the fighting has mostly ceased, there are still occasional flare-ups. We need a better definition of what an armed conflict/war is. Theshibboleth 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Spain/ETA

On the map there is a conflict in the north of spain and south of france it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the list of conflicts

  • That's Basque Country. -- Beland 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (ETA) Seems they have declared an end to hsotilities - shouldn't we take their word for it until they bomb something? Celcius 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Just a quick note... Doesn't highlight Colombia, although Colombia appears in the text. - FrancisTyers 23:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the map pending a fix. - FrancisTyers · 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Map of sites of ongoing armed conflicts worldwide.png is also missing Darfur. dab (ᛏ) 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Has been fixed. Readding. -- 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancies

This article or section needs to be updated.
Parts of this article or section have been identified as no longer being up to date.

Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this template when finished.

List of wars 2003–current, Image:Map of sites of ongoing armed conflicts worldwide.png, and Ongoing wars don't show the same info. The following are not listed as ongoing, but no end-date is given:

These should either be supplied with an end-year, or re-listed.

Listed as ongoing but not on the map:

Still on the map, but not listed as ongoing:

-- Beland 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I added Afghanistan back to the active list, given the renewed seriousness of continued fighting there. -- Beland 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chhattisgarh

Should the conflict in Chhattisgarh be added here? -- Beland 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can of worms

I wonder if the phrase "Intifada in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories" is neutral. The phrase implies land occupied by Israel (presumably in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem) is rightly Palestinian and ignores Palestinian attacks in Israel proper. -- Mwalcoff 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to give it a neutral name. Hope that works better. --Mr. Billion 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Better, but I think it's best to simply say "al-Aqsa Intifada in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip." -- Mwalcoff 01:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

Although a broad topic, perhaps one should broaden the list by the war many terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, are waging in the west and in the rest of the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.55.142 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 July 2006.

Nah. That's making the word "war" a little too figurative. --Mr. Billion 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and POV hounds will start fights over listing every semi/para/legitimate military organization in the book. Let's keep this as narrow and well-defined as possible. Angrynight 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image update

Which one is up to date? The list (the table) or the image? There is some small conflicts in Indonesia, but not war, for example. --kandar 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uganda/Lord's Resistance Army

Is there a reason Uganda is not listed in the on-going wars section? There is a link from the Lord's Resistance Army page to this page, in reference to the conflict being one of the longest-running in Africa (since 1986). Just curious.

[edit] Minor Disambig

I placed a note at the top of the page leading to War of Currents since this page redirects from Current Wars. I didn't think a whole disambiguation page was warranted. If you think a disambig page is necessary, then please feel free to create it, I'm on the fence on this one, and just want War of Currents to be easier to find. Angrynight 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/n/g/Talk%7EOngoing_wars_78c7.html"