Talk:List of wars 2003–2010

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Post-Cold War List‑class This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles List This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Post-Cold War task force

It is requested that a global map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

the title is list of wars 2003-current does it mean that all wars here are either still going on or have between 2003 and now? Evilbu 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Though some have stopped without an end-date being listed here. -- Beland 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Nationalist-Loyalist hello in Northern Ireland? --The Lizard Wizard 06:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this list correct? I have from another source (not referenceable unfortunately) that the number of wars currently going on in the world is closer to 30. Sorry I can't provide a proper fix.67.174.53.196 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are the ones that have started since 2003, you may be looking for Ongoing wars. Kmusser 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question : why 2003? If the idea of this list is to list recents conflicts, ongoing or not, it should take in account all conflicts during the last X years, and so the title should be changed every year... Kromsson (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hammas is on the verge of concering gazza come on its tiime to call it a civil war

I've put the list into a table and added location and death toll. What do people think?

Also, there must be more wars occurring in this time period. Can people help with finding the rest of them? --Mark J 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "end date" for the Fatah-Hamas conflict in this table is not consistent with the article on the Fatah-Hamas conflict. Somebody should go through this list and verify the end dates of all conflicts that purportedly have ended. 68.38.126.162 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the tables can't be sorted correctly by date, because the first word of the date column is the day, not the year. They should be arranged by yyyy:mm:dd: to work correctly. The same problem occurs in List of wars 1990-2002 and List of wars 1945-1989. Rayhou (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for this article. -- Beland (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Zimbabwe conflict is not a conflict at all. A poster has put a link indicating that 12 to 20 people are missing after having gone to a Botswana training camp (unproven as well). Many people go missing in Zimbabwe. If the poster wants to do like Kenya and post post-election conflict in Zimbabwe March 2008 - November 2008 and the hundreds that died with proof that they died then go ahead.

The transafrican inititive concerns about anti-terrorism. It lists no operations, or battles, or deaths and rails against the U.S for starting the inititive. We already have the insurgency of the maghred that includes Algeria, Maurtanian and Morrocco. We do not need anti-u.s rhetoric in the list of wars. Find another article.

I have no problem n posting about the Thai-Camobodian conflict that killed an estimated 5 people. However, since the Djoutbi-Eritea border clash has not been posted which killed over 100+ people I do not think this needs to be posted in wars and needs to be in its own list of list of border skirmishes.

Your concern about the Thai-Cambodian conflict is understandable, however it is important to keep an updated list of wars for Wiki users, and I believe that the Thai-Cambodian conflict (and also the Abu Kamal raid) fit into the list. If the number of casualties (in terms of listing) is a concern, remember that the 2008 Anjouan conflict is listed as having only 3 casualties. As for the aforementioned Djibouti-Eritrea conflict, I have added this to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peiping dorknose (talk • contribs) 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is still connected to the Second Intifada not a seperate conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrong. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tough. Your opinion is not the whole of the community and the second intifada is still ongoing so it should be put with the intifada. Not some totally knew bogus conflict when a good reliable old conflict is ongoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be better if the fatalities could be sorted and with notes, minimums and maximums. I was not sure if this is acceptable. Also, I am not sure what {{Ntsh|xxxx}} before some counts means. So I pasted the table here if anyone wants to continue or please advise me. I also don't know if the references can be put in the sortable columes and still work. Also, how to format dates so they will sort too? Perhaps I'm getting in over my editing abilities. Thanks 172.129.99.213 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my long table above, left enough to show if anyone has the ambition to redue the one in the article. 172.129.45.211 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't anyone check the news carefully? This is conflict that continues to produce violent deaths, displacements, rape and everything else associated with an ongoing conflict. As I noted in the "ongoing conflicts" article discussion it should be on that list.

UN - Daily Press Briefing (7 August 2009) "The UN refugee agency (UNHCR), says that an unprecedented 55 rebel attacks by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo have displaced some 12,500 civilians in THE PAST MONTH ALONE. This is a spike from 23 LRA attacks in May and 34 in June.

UNHCR says that the Ugandan rebels have MURDERD 1,273 civilians and abducted 655 children and 1,427 adults. A number of women were also raped and houses were looted and torched. Fleeing civilians have found shelter in public buildings including schools and churches. And the situation is made worse by a lack of basic medical supplies at local hospitals, while aid agencies have so far reached only half of the internally displaced persons. And that’s due to widespread insecurity in the region. You can read more about this upstairs." 172.129.252.149 (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all years to start this timeline from, why 2003? It seems a little random. I am thinking of maybe getting this article moved to "List of Wars 2000-current." Having an article that marks all the wars of a current decade seems less arbitrary than having marked wars starting with a random year. Does anyone object? Bibbly Bob (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:RMtalk|List of Wars 2000-present|2003 seems to be kind of a random year to start a war timeline from. I think it would make more sense to have the timeline start at 2000, since 2000 is the beginning of a new decade, century, and millennium, as opposed to 2003, which seems random and arbitrary. Of course I am aware that if we move the article to List of Wars 2000-present, we will have to expand the list and include conflicts that happened between 2000 and 2003. But if we can expand the list as needed, I request that we make the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibbly Bob (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge and make List of wars 1990-current since the approx. end of the Cold War (or 1991)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other lists of wars (see List of wars 1900-1944) include a belligerents table, with victors on one end, losers on the other. Should this article not have the same format?--Astrofreak92 (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victors/losers is hard for an ongoing conflict, but main parties should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.103.19 (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some conflicts from 1990-2002 that are ongoing, and they simply show the belligerents table as blank. Though I think it would be better to show belligerents for ongoing and indecisive conflicts, bringing this article at least in line with the others seems like a good idea. I will rework the article this weekend.--Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results of this war is disputed, as both sides claim victory. Personally, I favour this to be called an Israeli victory, as the Hezbollah were withdrawn from Southern Lebanon and replaced by UN peacekeeping forces, which in fact was Israels goal. However, the media often refer to this as a defeat to Israel and a decisive victory to Hezbollah. Please keep in mind that the media is not neutral, and remember that wikipedia shall on no account adopt the medias opinions. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think a gang of gun-toting criminals such as Hezballah would be considered the victor of a war with a country that has a sophisticated army with weapons such as tanks and fighter aircraft. According to the Arab media, Israel definitely came out a loser. And according to them, Israel also seemed to have come out a loser in every other war they fought too. But in reality, not a lot of other sources seem to agree with those figures. The placement of Israel in the loser box is definitely a violation of NPOV. Yertuy (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of sick joke? You claim the media are biased and that we are not adopting their opinions, so you include your own opinions instead? I have reverted your edit, and if you revert me this will be going to the appropriate noticeboards. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about my opinion, I just try too explain that the media is not neutral, and the fact that many likes to describe Israel as the looser does not necessarily represent the real situation. Hezbollah lost controll over Souther Lebanon, and Israel destroyed big parts of their rocket stock. Israel never intended to destroy Hezbollah, which Olmert said all the time, they only seeked too weaken them and make life in Northern Israel safe. They succeeded in doing this, and therefore, this was an operative success. With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the conflict was inconclusive and disputed. It's very problematic to claim that either side was victorious. 98.218.229.58 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there was either no winnner, or Israel was victorious. I don't get what Hezbollah won? There were more fatalities in Lebanon and the Israeli objective was complete. How else could Israel win? Were you expecting that they would occupy Lebanon?!!?! I don't know how this works, but we need to make it so that both sides claim victory. Thing is you claim that "no side was victorious" then why does it show that Israel lost? Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides claim victory in this skirmish, so it's not accurate to say who won/lost. I checked the page on the skirmish itself, and apparently the casualties are undetermined, as both sides claim different amounts of people killed/injured. I did figure out though that for Azerbaijan, the deaths averaged 6 and the injured 4.5, and for Armenia, dead average 6 and injured 8.5 (the numbers are averages and some have .5). Also, it was Armenia who fought Azerbaijan not Nagorno-Karabakh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.4.235 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the incident in Kingston, as it was not a war. The title of this article begins "List of wars" and the lead says "list of wars". If any sources have described this incident as an actual war please provide them, but in the absence of several high quality sources saying this was a war this seems to be extreme fringe point-of-view pushing. O Fenian (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the other lists, they have conflicts and expeditions. What about invasions? Wars, conflicts, invasions, expeditions, rebellions belong here. As for the Kingston thing, it was an armed conflict between Jamaica's military and the Shower Posse drug cartel. I'm adding it back. B-Machine (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources that describe it as a war, or I will be removing it again. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian is correct, I have not seen it characterised as a war by any reliable source. And it is not an excuse that other items on the list may be erronously listed as well. It should be removed, and the list gone over for other wrongly placed incidents. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you any of you remove it, I'll add it back. You want sources? Go look for it. It was an armed conflict between the Jamaican military and a Jamaican drug cartel. B-Machine (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. The addition of this conflict is disputed, and since consensus is clearly against you, it is up to you to add the sources to back up your claim. And "If you any of you remove it, I'll add it back." is a self admission of edit warring, I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Edit warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.drugwarrant.com/2010/05/the-drug-war-in-jamaica/, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/292512, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293744, and http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20100526-death-toll-rises-jamaican-drug-war B-Machine (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "drug war" is not necessarily the same as a war. Also please stop reverting while discussion is still taking place, it constitutes edit warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:B-Machine keeps reverting to his preferred version, despite my repeated warnings no to do so while discussion is ongoing, I had no choice but to report him for edit-warring [[here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic: Drug war - "1. drug war - conflict between law enforcement and those who deal in illegal drugs" Link. The term is linked to law enforcement, and does not necessarily have anything to do with actual war. In this case it does not. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was an armed conflict between the Shower Posse and Jamaica's military. That term does not only apply to cops. You're pulling straws now, lol. B-Machine (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unusual thing that the military carry out law enforcement, as was the case here. "Armed conflict" includes a wide variety of conflicts, most of which are not "wars" in any respect. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This event was a war, an internal war, between Jamaica's armed forces and a drug cartel called Shower Posse. B-Machine (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be going in circles. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the participants in the Iraq war been narrowed down to just 4 countries in the coalition of 48? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the events described here are certainly not wars, but rather minor conflicts, or subconflicts of major events. I would like B-Machine explain the revert of my last edit, expaining how conflicts below 1,000 casualties, not named wars by WP:RS, can be included here (!?). I would like to remind that a war is generally defined as an event of two side or more violence restricted by time, with weaponry in use and 1,000+ casualties. I assume WP:GF and WP:NOTYOURS. Thanx.Greyshark09 (talk)

Since when is a war not a war because there are or were casualties below 1,000? And what do you mean by restricted by time? B-Machine (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is titled the "list of wars" (not conflicts or battles), then all events listed here should qualify the definition of war (sometimes wars are part of a bigger conflict or war - like WW, but usually not) or at least be defined as a "war" by WP:RS [1]:

"War" is an armed conflict with at least 1,000 military battle deaths, where at least one of the parties is the government of a state.

The events which do not qualify the definition or are subconflicts or even single battles, and are not named "war" per WP:COMMONNAME:

• 2003 Invasion of Iraq (part of Iraq war per RS, not war by itself)
• Iran–Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan conflict (small conflict, 300 killed)
• Operation Rainbow (part of second Intifada, which is doubtful a war by itself, but "Rainbow", 63 people killed, is certainly not a war)
• Operation Days of Patience (same as above)
• French-Ivorian clashes (part of an Ivorian war, not war by itself)

Apparently, this page includes a WP:SYNTH and it needs to be eventually fixed. If you have objections - pls relate to events i've listed. Thanx.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since i got no response i'm assuming a silent agreement to remove.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no agreement to move. I just think you're wasting time. If you do remove, I'm going to the authorities. B-Machine (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dubious tag was placed next to the USA as the winner, but nobody has really discussed much whether this is dubious or not. It seems clear that the winner could not be anyone other than the USA. It went into Iraq to overthrow Hussein's regime, which was accomplished in short order, and then fought a prolonged counter-insurgency in order to maintain the Iraqi government which it set up. It fought in that conflict against largely Sunni insurgents and the Iraqi Al Qaeda group led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. Most of the sunni insurgents eventually crossed over to the US side and Zarqawi was killed. To some extent there remain holdout Iraqi AQ terrorists and sunni insurgents still attacking the Iraqi government, but they were diminished to a level such that the US was able to successfully turn the fight over to the elected Iraqi government and Iraqi Army which it created. So the US war aims have been achieved, even though some violence continues. Therefore since the binary nature of the winner/loser columns forces us to pick a victor, then that can only be the USA. The fact that the cost for all sides was far higher than anticipated is consistent with many wars, in which victory is often pyrrhic. The fact that the purpose of the war was without need, is also typical of many wars. But every war, even ones which are perhaps pointless or pyrrhic, has a winner and loser. So it isn't really dubious and the tag can be removed. Walterego (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars 2003–10's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IMU joins ISIL":

• From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". khaama.com. 2015-03-31.
• From War in North-West Pakistan: "Uzbek militants in Afghanistan pledge allegiance to ISIS in beheading video". khaama.com. 2015-03-31. Retrieved 6 July 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of wars 2003–10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714024317/http://presstv.com/detail/2014/05/19/363304/iran-ready-to-help-over-nigeria-girls/ to http://presstv.com/detail/2014/05/19/363304/iran-ready-to-help-over-nigeria-girls/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A map was requested. Is this something along the lines of what is needed? Comments please! Hel-hama 17:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of wars 2003–10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001163040/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804542247&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804542247&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513074927/http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/index.html to http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/index.html

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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of wars 2003–10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106084750/http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canada+sends+special+forces+African+Qaida+fight/5804679/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canada+sends+special+forces+African+Qaida+fight/5804679/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224145854/http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=5937 to http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=5937

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) 09:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]