Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of ongoing armed conflicts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article List of ongoing armed conflicts, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a contentious topic.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article List of ongoing armed conflicts, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, File talk:Ongoing conflicts around the world.svg redirects here. |
Wikidata list of ongoing conflicts
[edit]The following automatically generated list shows conflics that have start dates but no end date in wikidata. It is updated every 60 days. It might be useful in keeping this article up to date. The content of the table affects wikidata based infoboxes used in Wikipedia articles about wars on other Wikipedia versions, for example Databox used in Swedish Wikipedia. Please help by fixing any errors in the wikidata objects.
This list is automatically generated from data in Wikidata and is periodically updated by Listeriabot.
Edits made within the list area will be removed on the next update!
_-_AFG_-_UNOCHA.svg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
_townships_map.svg)
.jpg)
.svg)
∑ 62 items.
Inaccurate and tendentious categorisation of Israel-Hamas war
[edit]Grouping all of the wars Israel has been involved in since 1948 as one conflict is self-evidently non-factual, tendentious and deliberately intended to inflate the total casualty count (which itself is highly dubious; hundreds of thousands!? Add up the casualties in the 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and then other conflicts does not come close to 300,000). The total Arab casualties in all of the wars of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Arab-Israeli conflict article is around 90,000. If you're actually saying Israel is a "belligerent in the Yemeni civil war", and then adding all of the deaths from that conflict (given Israel has not struck back at all and is not at war with Yemen or Houthis, and has not caused any deaths in Yemen) is so obviously biased, as is calling Israel a "belligerent" in what are, in fact, unlawful terror attacks by a non-state actor. I don't know how to do a signature here so sorry User:Idontknowhowtodothissorry -- 2 May 2024 2a02:6b6d:1338:0:fd31:8c17:3cf2:3a56
Double Counting of Casualties in Israel Palestine Conflict--Casualty Rate Should Read 165,000 (110,000-210,000)
[edit]The table links to a source that includes in its casualty list deaths from the Israel Palestine conflict, but to get the final number the editors added those to the previous number thus double counting them. What's more, the source itself already double counts casualties because it includes dead from the 1947-1949 war twice.
But, on top of this, the source is confusing but is incorrectly cited. It lists conflicts with parties to them, not the casualties caused by them. Comparing the source to the pages for each of the conflicts in question produces much smaller estimates. For example, read incorrectly, the linked source suggests that some ~58,000 (60,000 across conflicts) people have died in wars between Israel and Lebanon, when even the highest Lebanese estimates are 20,000. Estimates range from 13,000-15,000 at the lower end, and 18,000-34,000 at the higher end (and that's with double counting in civilian and combatant casualties as it is !). This means that EVEN WITH THE SOURCES IN QUESTION, THE CASUALTY RATE OF THE CONFLICT IS AT MINIMUM 24,000 SMALLER, and up to 45,000!.
When we account for the double counting, this results in a reduction of 14,000-27,000--so the numbers are 38,000-72,000 smaller.
Adding up the casualty estimates provided on the wikipedia pages for each conflict, before adding the Israel-Palestine numbers gets us a range of 57-115. The Israel Palestine conflict page lists 53-65. Except, more than half of these are already included in the previous estimate. HOWEVER, even if we do not account for this we get a range of 110-168,000. Now if we add the recent Gaza war-which, again would be double counting in part--we would add 43,000.
This means that even if we triple count Palestinian casualties listed on the wikipedia pages, our total rises to 153,--210,000--and EVEN THAT includes deaths not caused by Israel, double counts many victims, counts missing as dead, and so on.
Even if we add Israelis killed in terrorism and riots (5-15,000 depending on how we count), Palestinians killed in intra-Palestinian violence (2000), The war of the camps between Lebanon and the PLO (4500--6500) and deaths in Black September between Jordan and Palestine (4000 in official estimates, but Arafat claims 15,000 Palestinians killed by Jordan, which would put the total at 16,000) we would get 15-40,000 more deaths and that would put our total at 168-250,000.
While the latter estimate is larger than the one listed on the page, this one includes 25,000 Palestinians killed by Lebanese, Jordanian, and Palestinian forces, it double counts a portion of Israeli terror victims (soldiers who died in terror attacks are listed in both war and civilian casualty estimates, and thus over state the estimates), while taking the higher estimate of those dead--thus increasing the estimate by up to 30,000.
It double counts the dead prior to 1948, it double counts the dead in the 47-49 war, it triple counts Palestinian casualties in wars since the first intifada, it counts all those who have died in Lebanese wars, even those who were not killed by Israel (indeed including even those who died in wars before Israel even got involved!), it takes the higher estimates of dead in every conflict, even where US, & Israel estimates VASTLY lower, UN estimates are much lower, and independent Arab state & Human Rights organization estimates are somewhat lower.
The double and triple counting adds 35,000-80,000 deaths. Taking the highest estimates adds 57,000.
Notably, adding together the total casualties from more reliable sources gets us 122,000 before the recent war, and then 43,000 for the recent war, bringing us to 165,000!
Notice, this brings us a very similar estimate to taking the lower estimate from all the respective wikipedia pages for each of the episodes of the Israel Palestine conflict.
Since independent sourcing leads to a similar estimate to the one produced by using other wikipedia sources at the lower end, this is a good indicator it is of reliability, especially since getting the higher estimates requires that up to 14% (35/250) - 40% (80/193) of the casualties attributed are Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Jordanians killed by other Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians, and it requires taking the higher estimate in every case, which accounts for 23% (57/250) -- 50% (58/115) of the deaths. If 55% of a casualty estimate ((57+80)/250) depends on attributing deaths of people killed by other states, and taking the higher estimate of casualties in every single case, chances are the estimate is off!
Thus, the page here: 1. incorrectly cites a source 2. misrepresents that sources claims 3. cites a source which itself engages in double counting and unclear attribution 4. does not line up with the other wikipedia pages' conflict estimates or those of their sources *EVEN AT THEIR HIGHER END* 5. to be true requires an estimate that requires 14-40% of the deaths be those caused by other states, and 23-50% of the casualty estimates are due to taking the higher range of each estimate, with a combined effect that 55% of casualties are tendentiously attributed 6. does not line up with independent sourcing
Meanwhile, another estimate (165,000), which: 1. Uses independent sources 2. Minimizes double counting 3. Only attributes deaths caused by Israel 4. Lines up with the lower estimates of the relevant wikipedia pages and their sources 5. Is self consistent 6. Strikes a moderate balance between the estimates of US, Israel, UN, Arab League, Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, academics and so on 7. Lines up with the cited source for this wikipedia page *IF* considerations are taken to interpret it correctly (which would give us a base of 114-159,000, to which we would add the 43,000 of the recent war, giving us 157,000--210,000
Thus, the estimate of 165,000 lines up with the: 1. Other wikipedia pages 2. Their sources 3. Independent sources 4. The *VERY SOURCE USED FOR THIS PAGE* if properly interpreted
THUS EVEN BY THE STANDARDS OF THE SOURCES CITED THE ESTIMATE GIVEN ON THE PAGE IS INFLATED BY 50%! A FULL THIRD OF THE CASUALTIES LISTED ARE IMPROPERLY ATTRIBUTED OR COMPLETELY FABRICATED !
This does not require using Israeli or US estimates (which are *lower* than the 165,000 estimate!). In fact, it holds even if we use the estimates of Arab states (the highest ones--which would produce at the highest 210,000 as above), human rights organizations (the second highest), or scholarly academic sources (those in the median range).
US and Israeli sources would give us a total estimate somewhere near 100-120,000
UN, Human Rights organization and Academic sources give us our middle range of 165,000.
The highest estimates give us a total of 210,000.
Notice further that the middle range estimate of 165,000 is roughly the mean of the lower, medium, and high estimates. This is further indication of its validity since it balances opposed viewpoints and expertises.
Thus, the casualty range for the Israel Palestine conflict should--to be charitable to all the different perspectives and viewpoints--read something like:
Deaths:
165,000 (110,000--210,000)
Not the current 230-241,000 which is false even on its own terms!
Source used by article [1]
Other sources: [2]
I made a table of the estimates given in the source linked for this page, and added below it the estimates given by other wikipedia pages:
[10] -- 20:14, 24 September 2024 38.130.70.73
References
- ^ https://www.systemicpeace.org/warlist/warlist.htm
- ^ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-casualties-arab-israeli-conflict
- ^ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_conflict
- ^ https://olive-merralee-23.tiiny.site/
Change the minimum estimate of those killed in the conflict in Ukraine to 120,000+
[edit]At the moment, according to the minimally recorded obituaries on both sides, the number of deaths should exceed 120 thousand people; the information in the article is outdated: 1) 54,000+ dead on the Russian side https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng 2) 46,000+ dead on the Ukrainian side https://ualosses.org/ 3) 10,000+ civilian deaths https://ukraine.un.org/en/253322-civilian-deaths-ukraine-war-top-10000-un-says 4) there is no point in proving the number of deaths before a full-scale war, I think these numbers are already in the public domain: approximately 14,000 people
You have some 100,000 victims listed, it can no longer be such a low estimate, I ask you to remove this
The map and Text doesnt match.
[edit]For example: Mexico , Sahel and Congo are under Major Wars in Text but map shows them under Minor conflicts. Plz update. Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Updating the map
[edit]@President Loki I’m messaging you on behalf of the people who on this talk page including myself having been asking for the map to be updated over the past couple of months. I’d figured that since you are one of the few people who know how to edit the map that you could help give the map a much needed update based on the previous talk page requests. 24.140.204.178 (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done for Mexico. For the other countries, which one is separately above 10,000? Wykx (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2025
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove MQM militancy (conflict ended in 2025), remove 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict (conflict ended in 19 October, add SDF–Syrian transitional government clashes (2025–present) (conflict started 2 August) LtPsyche (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Partly done: Conflicts 1 and 2 have already been removed, conflict 3 cannot be added due to the criteria section. x2step (lets talk 💌) 01:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Afghan Conflict 2,800,000?
[edit]Someone please review the sources if they really say that amount ~2025-33897-12 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Korean conflict numbers don't match
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Korean conflict it says 30 fatalities in 2024 and 1 fatalities in 2025. There is no source that such things happened. This war has been for a while frozen. Wrong information. 0 Fatalities in 2024 and 2025 in South and North Korean war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-36617-28 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Question: Can someone with the appropriate access to ACLED please verify that this is the case? - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- If ACLED is right then List of border incidents involving North and South Korea is out of date, especially since the 2020s section details numerous warning shot incidents but no deaths. I did a quick check for recent (as in 2024/25) news articles detailing any casualties, couldn't find anything. From what I remember of the dashboard or explorer it was never very clear about exactly what any of the data referred to, and I have no idea what variables you are supposed to enter to obtain say the 2024 casualties for the "Civil conflicts in Nigeria". FDW777 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Based on this, I'm going to be bold and have changed the values to 0, and tagged the references for these as needing additional citations. Marking as
Done - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Per #ACLED - how exactly is this reference being used? below, I have discovered where the 30 and 1 figure came from, it's raw data being interpreted by editors. FDW777 (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Based on this, I'm going to be bold and have changed the values to 0, and tagged the references for these as needing additional citations. Marking as
- If ACLED is right then List of border incidents involving North and South Korea is out of date, especially since the 2020s section details numerous warning shot incidents but no deaths. I did a quick check for recent (as in 2024/25) news articles detailing any casualties, couldn't find anything. From what I remember of the dashboard or explorer it was never very clear about exactly what any of the data referred to, and I have no idea what variables you are supposed to enter to obtain say the 2024 casualties for the "Civil conflicts in Nigeria". FDW777 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
ACLED - how exactly is this reference being used?
[edit]Largely following on from #Korean conflict numbers don't match above, I created an ACLED account and checked the ACLED Explorer for both South and North Korea, and it says 0 fatalities for both over the past year. Whether that means just 2025 or from 27 November 2024 to 27 November is largely irrelevant, since if there was the claimed fatality in 2025 it would appear in both anyway. But there appears to be no way of finding any details about the claimed 30 deaths for 2004, so where does this figure come from? As far as I can tell, this data appears to come from the Number of reported fatalities by country-year, which I downloaded but this is a spreadsheet of raw data simply having North Korea in the country column, then 30 deaths for 2024 and 1 death for 2025. But where's the actual evidence these deaths are actually part of the Korean conflict?
Similarly, or possibly not, how is the entry on this article for the "Civil conflicts in Nigeria" referenced by the ACLED Explorer? For both 3,374 deaths in 2024 and 2,740 deaths in 2025 this link is provided as a reference, how is anyone supposed to verify the figures without any further information? FDW777 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- @AHI-3000 per the request at #Korean conflict numbers don't match above, the numbers were changed from 30/1 to 0/0. If you have any input here it would be welcome. FDW777 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- If we open the detailed dataset for Asia-Pacific, and not the country summary, we get for this North Korea event of 29th June 2024 event_type=“violence against civilians”, disorder type=“political violence”
- https://acleddata.com/aggregated/aggregated-data-asia-pacific
- I agree this Violence against civilians was not part of any war between South Korea andNorth Korea.
- Available event types and sub-event types:
- https://acleddata.com/methodology/acled-codebook#acled-events-2 Miguel.lima (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- “how is anyone supposed to verify the figures without any further information”
- I thought the same every time I found this reference. It should be more descriptive.
- Something like
- “Check date = 2025-12-09; URL = https://acleddata.com/aggregated/aggregated-data-africa;Filters: Country=Nigeria + Event_Type=Battles+…; Weeks=2025”
- It will take some effort in the next update, but then we just have to update the date later on. Miguel.lima (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
If the editors who have added this reference refuse to provide information as to exactly how the figures can actually be referenced, then I will have no alternative but to remove it. Please provide the requested information. FDW777 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- ACLED doesn't present casualties that occur only from clashes, in the Korean conflict case, only from border incidents for example, there are six main event types, battles, remote violence, violence against civilians, riots, protests and strategic developments, these are all taken into account when presenting the fatalities in each country, for the Nigeria case, the map shows exactly where these events take place, in which areas Boko Haram and other jihadist groups are active and in areas that bandits are active. In the Korean conflict, even a killed demonstrator against the North Korean regime is considered a casualty linked to the conflict, this is state violence against civilians that are protesting a war. This is why ACLED showed 1 fatality in 2025, I do not understand why this conflict was removed since we could just put a minimum and maximum number of fatalities based on the available sources, 0-1 for example for 2025 and 0-30 for 2024. It is very simple and easy way, instead of just removing the whole conflict. Now, if the conflict is simply frozen and it is not currently active, then it was the right decision to remove it from the list, since a fatality cannot be part of a frozen conflict. There is no original research therefore, this are all numbers from the source, just like the minimum number in some wars which has the UCDP as a source. To conclude, I strongly believe that the original research notification should be removed, and the Korean conflict return to the list, if it is indeed a frozen conflict, then it shouldn't return. Thank you. Whitesin21 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- You are completely misinterpeting ACLED data, and I repeat my request for the specific methods you are using to obtain casualties for conflicts, including but not limited to the conflicts you recently updated. Should you fail to provide a specific method that conforms with WP:NOR, then I will be starting a Rfc on exactly what ALCED data can be used for. There are zero secondary references saying 30 people were killed as part of the Korean conflict in 2024, and for very good reason. The ACLED data for North Korea details the 30 deaths as being part of a single event in July 2024, and you would think that 30 conflict related deaths in a single event would have been mentioned in the news given the coverage given to South Korea even firing warning shots at North Korean troops. There was however the execution of up to 30 North Korean officials for incompetence during devastating flooding. Yet you are classing that as part of an ongoing armed conflict, specifically the Korean conflict? Seriously?? This is precisely why ACLED's data has to be used with extreme caution FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- But I didn't misinterpret any data, these six main event types give us the correct casualties numbers for each country that experiences these conflicts. This isn't original research, this is pure data, straight from the source, ACLED uses reports from the ground, from local journalists and researchers, it's impossible to know if every single casualty is linked to the conflict, automatically, since data are received in real time, you can't possibly have the correct source the exact moment a casualty happens, especially for large conflicts and not conflicts like the Korean conflict which is a frozen one, I wasn't aware of any executions that happened because of the flooding, it's easy to just insert this and have a minimum and maximum number in the list, just like the other conflicts, again, if it's really an ongoing one and not frozen. I don't see where the problem is actually, since we can talk about it, we all want this page to stay updated and active, I've been here for quite a few years, making this page as updated as possible, with as many sources as possible, it's not always easy to have the best sources, every time, for example, the Uppsala source isn't updated regularly like the ACLED one, we can't just wait 1 year to update the page, it's best to update it like I'm doing and then insert another trusty source as well, for a minimum and maximum number of casualties each year, it's the best, most effective and most easy way to keep the page updated weekly. Thank you for your time, I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm totally friendly in my approach. Whitesin21 (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
This isn't original research, this is pure data, straight from the source
That's exactly what original research is. Per WP:PSTS,All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors
. I will be starting an Rfc later, given this clear admission. FDW777 (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)- But there are secondary sources as well, like the Uppsala one, which is published every year, there are not a lot of sources that are able to provide real time or weekly updates on casualties numbers, feel free to add them if you have any, that's why everyone can update it with multiple sources if they are available. It is easier to have multiple sources for the past year or for the total number of casualties. ACLED data does exactly this job, provide real time, weekly updates for the number of casualties for each conflict and in every country. I don't see where the original research is. It's better to not update the page at all? Or update it once every year? This makes no sense, honestly. Whitesin21 (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- ACLED is a secondary/terciary source that takes its data from the following primary and secondary sources:
- https://acleddata.com/methodology/sourcing Miguel.lima (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I read WP:PSTS and I have to correct my previous comment: ACLED is a secondary source that takes data from primary sources. Miguel.lima (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's both. For example reports like this are clearly secondary. But data like this is clearly primary. But it doesn't really matter anyway as per WP:NOR,
This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources
. So it matters little if people want to argue the data is primary or secondary, any analysis (such as allocating country based casualty figures to a particular conflict) is not permitted. I have asked repeatedly for the methods used to obtain the casualty figures, the lack of replies is frustrating and not helping those who wish to continue using the data. If they cannot prove it is policy compliant, it will be removed. FDW777 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)- We should find together the best way of using fatalities datasets.
- We have several type of sources in this page:
- A) Full reports for a given conflict, by reputable secondary source. No one questions this, it should be the gold standard. They can only be used for former years, as they are not created for the ongoing year.
- B) Datasets. Not only from ACLED but also from UCDP, PERI, Center for Systemic Peace, Deep South Watch, SAIS African Studies and Nigeria Security Tracker. We have to determine what filters are compliant with WP:NOR. If taking any dataset and applying any filter is a breach of WP:NOR, then we remove them all.
- C) Press news about specific events. This is partial information. Choosing what events to cite, and how many, is some kind of WP:NOR, as the editor would be arbitrarily choosing whether to set the lower bound as 100 fatalities or 10.000 fatalities, depending on how many events we report. In this respect, I kind of prefer the datasets that cover all events, as long as we find what filters are OK for which scenarios.
- If we decide that B) or C) are not good enough we have to remove the ongoing year and cumulative fatalities columns completely from the table, and keep only confirmed data that is more than one and half year old. Miguel.lima (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Let's continue with the example of our conflict entry Pakistan insurgencies, column 2.025 fatalities.
- The report in your link becomes an input of original research as soon as you have to:
- 1) Download 11 reports
- 2) Find out all references to Pakistan
- 3) Translate the references to airstrikes, attacks, events into assumed fatalities
- 4) Add up to calculate the totals for the year
- 5) Split which ones you will count for our entry "Pakistan insurgencies", which for "Afghan conflict" (due to "Afghan-Pakistani border conflict"), which ones for "Kashmir conflict"
- It is not so different as to open the Excel from UCDP, ACLED, whatever dataset, and apply the filters.
- For country sub-regions where we only have ony conflict, we can simply take the datasets. It should be safe enough.
- For complex cases such as "Pakistan insurgencies" + "Afghan conflict" + "Kashmir conflict" with overlaping conflicts, we have to be careful and decide as a comunity if there is a criteria that is good enough as an approximation. If we don't find it, the only alternative I see is to keep the fatalities figures as empty. Miguel.lima (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOR,
This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources
. - This seems to be the case for most newspaper links we use as sources for fatalities. Take Congo 2025 fatalities: around eigth links reporting events of 20-40 fatalities each, one bigger event, in total probably less than 5% of the total claim of "10.000+" Miguel.lima (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's both. For example reports like this are clearly secondary. But data like this is clearly primary. But it doesn't really matter anyway as per WP:NOR,
- I read WP:PSTS and I have to correct my previous comment: ACLED is a secondary source that takes data from primary sources. Miguel.lima (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- But I didn't misinterpret any data, these six main event types give us the correct casualties numbers for each country that experiences these conflicts. This isn't original research, this is pure data, straight from the source, ACLED uses reports from the ground, from local journalists and researchers, it's impossible to know if every single casualty is linked to the conflict, automatically, since data are received in real time, you can't possibly have the correct source the exact moment a casualty happens, especially for large conflicts and not conflicts like the Korean conflict which is a frozen one, I wasn't aware of any executions that happened because of the flooding, it's easy to just insert this and have a minimum and maximum number in the list, just like the other conflicts, again, if it's really an ongoing one and not frozen. I don't see where the problem is actually, since we can talk about it, we all want this page to stay updated and active, I've been here for quite a few years, making this page as updated as possible, with as many sources as possible, it's not always easy to have the best sources, every time, for example, the Uppsala source isn't updated regularly like the ACLED one, we can't just wait 1 year to update the page, it's best to update it like I'm doing and then insert another trusty source as well, for a minimum and maximum number of casualties each year, it's the best, most effective and most easy way to keep the page updated weekly. Thank you for your time, I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm totally friendly in my approach. Whitesin21 (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- You are completely misinterpeting ACLED data, and I repeat my request for the specific methods you are using to obtain casualties for conflicts, including but not limited to the conflicts you recently updated. Should you fail to provide a specific method that conforms with WP:NOR, then I will be starting a Rfc on exactly what ALCED data can be used for. There are zero secondary references saying 30 people were killed as part of the Korean conflict in 2024, and for very good reason. The ACLED data for North Korea details the 30 deaths as being part of a single event in July 2024, and you would think that 30 conflict related deaths in a single event would have been mentioned in the news given the coverage given to South Korea even firing warning shots at North Korean troops. There was however the execution of up to 30 North Korean officials for incompetence during devastating flooding. Yet you are classing that as part of an ongoing armed conflict, specifically the Korean conflict? Seriously?? This is precisely why ACLED's data has to be used with extreme caution FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2025
[edit]Could the section on the Ecuadorian conflict be fixed? Two of the three links lead to the same article, and the one about the most recent conflict appears in the middle.I propose removing one of the two links. I also propose removing Insurgency in Meghalaya from the list, as it doesn't meet the established parameters (no reported casualties since 2019). LtPsyche (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Rfc: Use of ACLED data
[edit] |
|
Can the ACLED Explorer (cited 77 times), the ACLED Dashboard (cited 12 times) and any other ACLED raw data, be used to reference claimed casualty figures? Note that access to some of the data may require free registration. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- No The issue is not over the reliability of ACLED, which is used by various reliable media outlets. The issue is that ACLED publishes pure data (as admitted here by an editor using it) apparently by country (despite repeated requests I have yet to be given specific instructions as to how any of the claimed totals have been obtained, forcing me to make educated guesses) not by conflict. Attempting to match up countries with conflicts is a clear case of WP:SYN, as I will show. At #Korean conflict numbers don't match it was pointed out by a temporary account that there have been no recent deaths in the Korean conflict, despite our article claiming 30 deaths in 2024 and 1 death in 2025. I speculated that these figures had come from Number of reported fatalities by country-year (registration required, but see directly below). This is a spreadsheet in the following format for the relevant years/country.
| A | B | C |
|---|---|---|
| North Korea | 2024 | 30 |
| North Korea | 2025 | 1 |
- There is no analysis or breakdown of the data by ACLED, it's raw data organised by country and year. I attempted to investigate exactly where these 30 casualties had come from, as there's regular updates in the media about South and North Korea having occasional incicdents at the border with warning shots being fired (see List of border incidents involving North and South Korea#2020s, but I could find nothing about 30 conflict related deaths. I did eventually end up at this ACLED data related page for North Korea, and downloading either "north korea_political_violence_events_and_fatalities" or "north korea_civilian_targeting_events_and_fatalities" shows that the 30 deaths occurred in a single incident in July 2024. Obviously you'd think 30 people killed in a single incident between North and South Korea might have made the news somewhere, but no. What I did find was that up to 30 officials were executed by North Korea for offences in relation to devastating flooding in July 2024. Obviously that's not in any way related to the Korean conflict, and demonstrates clearly the folly of using raw data that's organised by country and not by conflict. If there are no reliable references for current death totals in ongoing conflicts then we can simply exclude the information, we are not obliged to include policy violating content because that's the best we can do. FDW777 (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- UCDP and HIIK update yearly the data of the previous year. We can replace the ACLED data by these sources when they publish their reports.
- For ongoing year, ACLED is the only reliable global source I’m aware of. If we had an equivalent alternative (updates often, recognized) that groups fatalities by conflict instead of by event, it would be easier to use for Wikipedia editors. If anyone knows about it, please share the information. In the meanwhile, ACLED should work for most conflict entries.
- It should be used with caution, as reflected in the North Korea example. Editors should do a sanity check when the update is weird. We should include a more detailed reference.
- As a user I wouldn’t like to go into Wikipedia in June 2026 and find the 2025 and 2026 fatalities columns empty, waiting for the release of the next UCDP report. Miguel.lima (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- ACLED uses six main event types that offer the casualty numbers for each conflict zone, for each country that has an ongoing conflict. There are a lot of other sources that confirm these conflicts as well. These casualties are part of the conflicts and there is no denying that real time updates is a very useful and necessary tool in order to have the page updated. Nobody excluded or removed any source, that is why we have other sources like the Uppsala one as well, which offer the same numbers and provide us with a minimum and maximum casualty number for better clarification. I don't see any point in excluding this source, it will only make the page less updated. Whitesin21 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's a way to rephrase the statement to be clearer about what ACLED says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- The trouble is, at least for the data that's the subject of the Rfc, ACLED don't actually say anything at all. They just present raw data organised by country, that's being interpreted by editors. In the case of say Pakistan how that's achieved is anyone's guess, since this article covers multiple distinct ongoing conflicts in Pakistan that casualties could potentially be part of. FDW777 (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's a way to rephrase the statement to be clearer about what ACLED says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Please check the data sources for Pakistanian insurgencies death counts
[edit]For Pakistanian insurgencies external Fact Check (CRSS): ~896 fatalities (Jan–Nov 2025). Source: The Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) reported that Balochistan accounted for roughly 28% of the country's total 3,187 fatalities in the first 11 months of 2025, which totals approximately 896 deaths.
While ACLED reports more than 2000 deaths in their reports. They combine/collect all the twitter/telegram claims. Data must be verified. Foledman 5 December 2025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foledman (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Edit request 8 December 2025
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to remove the UK from the Haitian conflict location section. To include Turks and Caicos is already pretty tenuous (it seems to be based off Haitian migrants causing an increase in crime in the territory) but to then say that the Haitian conflict is taking place in the UK doesn't make sense.
- Done. FDW777 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
template merge
[edit]Is there a possibility to merge all the "contentious topics" templates into 1 to make it less cluttered while maintaining all the necessary information?
As an unregistered editor (who mainly worked on making edit requests on the 79.191.0.0/16 range), I am probably not allowed to edit that section of this page.
UPDATE: I made an edit request at WP:RFED, effectively closing this conversation.
Thanks. ~2025-39605-41 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- The resolutions for each contentious topic are slightly different, so i dont think it'd be possible. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think I will experiment on merging using the sandbox, if the preview will look good while maintaining the important information, I will just make a proper edit request.
- ~2025-39605-41 (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Update to my reply:
- I found that there are two GS templates so yeah, you are right to some degree because while these are incompatible, we can still merge the CT templates and put GS templates separately, creating less mess.
- ~2025-39605-41 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Edit request to the talk page, 10 December 2025
[edit]On the begining of the talk page, where the "contentious topics" templates are, replace them with:
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|t=a-i|t2=e-e|t3=a-a|t4=sa}} {{Gs/talk notice|scwisil}} {{Gs/talk notice|rusukr}}
This will make that section shorter while maintaining the important information.
Thanks. ~2025-39605-41 (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
(was told to make a request here, so I just pasted the content from my request on RFPP)
Audit of 2025 fatalities - Method to calculate totals vs WP:PSTS and WP:NOR
[edit]Context: Rfc Use of ACLED data
[edit]FDW777 opened a Rfc about the usage of ACLED. Several concerns were reported, including compliance with WP:PSTS and WP:NOR when calculating the total fatalities. While ACLED is the dataset used most often, there are other datasets used in this page. Similar concerns about WP:PSTS and WP:NOR are applicable to other type of sources such as media, when the editor has to take several steps to infer the totals from partial information.
As a support for this discusion, I intend to conduct an audit of how the total 2025 cumulated fatalities have been calculated, in the column Method to calculate fatalities. I would love to get the input of the editors who updated the numbers based on the sources. Otherwise I will try my best to infer their approach based on the available information.
Discuss and decide the best way to apply WP:PSTS while conforming to WP:NOR for total conflict fatalities
[edit]- Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
Let us discuss in this talk page about this. Keep your comments short if you add them to the column Comments about WP:PSTS and WP:NOR
Purpose of the audit
[edit]The intention is not to find failures nor to fingerpoint anyone. I appreciate the effort taken by all editors who spent their time in the complex endevour of figuring out the total fatalities for a given conflict, and keeping these numbers regularly up to date.
The intention is to get more clarity into how this process is done, so that:
- Readers understand better where the total fatalities numbers come from
- Other editors can contribute in the future to keep this page up to date. If we don't know the magic formula, we can't follow the same approach to do future updates consistent with previous ones
- Editors with concerns about how much original research is done to get to the total fatalities' numbers understand the steps taken at each conflict entry
- The sources review requested by the Rfc is taken care of, and we review as a community the nuances for each type of conflict, and we decide which are the best type of sources in each case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel.lima (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Tables for the audit
[edit]Major wars
[edit]- Gaza Health Ministry source is also used for the casualties. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input Whitesin21. I've seen the Gaza Health Ministry referenced in the AFP News/Barron's link. I'm only opening now the sources used to get the 2025 fatalities. I've seen you also used the Gaza Health Ministry in 2024 and probably for the overall totals also.
- Did you update the figure 26,226 for 2025? Miguel.lima (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course I did, basically I'm using the same sources as in the Gaza War wiki page for this conflict, it's better updated than the ACLED source for this one. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your updates, Whitesin21. I hope you don't mind I take some more of your time with a few questions:
- How do you decide when ACLED or other sources are better updated for each conflict?
- Can you update the entry to include the link to the sources you used? When you say "the same as in the Gaza War" it is difficult for me to have a look to them, as we have dozens of links and I don't know which ones you used for the 2025 year to date fatalities.
- The Gaza war is one of the sub-conflicts included in the higher level entry we called "Arab-Israeli conflict", so for the totals we probably take other sources in addition to the "Gaza war". Other than Iran (HRANA), for the other conflicts it is unclear to me the sources.
- Miguel.lima (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your updates, Whitesin21. I hope you don't mind I take some more of your time with a few questions:
- Yes, of course I did, basically I'm using the same sources as in the Gaza War wiki page for this conflict, it's better updated than the ACLED source for this one. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
| Conflict | 2025 fatalities (as of December 11) | Method to calculate fatalities | Comments about WP:PSTS and WP:NOR |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13,752[1] | The only link is from January 3rd 2025 and mentions events in 2024. The editor who wrote 13,725 didn't add the source. ACLED Data Explorer is 13,911 as of December 11th. Maybe the number was taken recently from ACLED.--Miguel.lima (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC) | The main conflict is in Myanmar. The country is not involved in other conflicts. Straightforward data collection without any “original research” step.--Miguel.lima (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC) | |
| 26,226[2][3][4][5] | As sources we have:
There are 9 countries listed in this conflict. Each one of the countries may be listed in several other conflicts. Total appearances in our conflicts lists: Israel: 3 Palestine: 1 Lebanon: 2 Syria: 4 Jordan: 1 Iraq: 1 Iran: 4 Qatar: 1 Yemen: 2 I guess for Iran the editor took the data froom the Human Right Activists News Agency, specific for Iran-Israel war. I assume for all others, ACLED. How do we split the ACLED fatalities in Syria between “Syrian conflict (spillovers)”, ”, “Insurgencies in Turkey”, “Kurdish nacionalist conflicts” and “Arab-Israeli conflict”? Similar question for Lebanon, Yemen, Israel and their respective multiple appearances in several conflicts.--Miguel.lima (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC) |
The total data for 2025 ongoing fatalities for the 9 affected countries (5 of them wiht overlaps with other conflicts) is impossible to get without doing some degree of data selection and agregation steps.--Miguel.lima (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC) | |
| 7,058[3]–10,000+[a] | Sources
Then several events in different media:
And ACLED Countries Democratic Republic of the Congo (in 2 conflicts) Central African Republic (2) Rwanda (1) Burundi (1) Uganda (1) Assumed method I assume the editor added up the available news in the media, and compared with ACLED. Probably the ACLED data was taken as it is complete and up to date. Simmilar question as for other conflicts: filers applied? If I add ACLED data for Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda I get 7,261. If I include Central African Republic, the number goes up to 8,189. If I add the news referenced in the sources, I get >9,293. I didn't double check if there are duplicates. --Miguel.lima (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC) |
If I have to choose between both methods, I see more WP:NOR into collecting newspapers, interpreting the data, and adding up the numbers, when compared with letting the experts (in this case ACLED) do the selection, validation and correction, and then taking the final numbers from them. When the editors have time, doing both and comparing for sanity-check is great. This additional effort is appreciated. | |
| 19,383[3][14] | |||
| 7,952[3]–10,767[15][16] | |||
| 20,010[3][17][18] | |||
| 70,974[3] | |||
| 5,766[3] |
- ^ "Junta's New Year Airstrikes Kill at Least 20 Throughout Myanmar".
- ^ "Health Ministry In Hamas-run Gaza Says 51 Killed In 24 Hours".
- ^ a b c d e f g "ACLED Explorer".
- ^ "47,035 Palestinians killed in Israel's war on Gaza". Al Jazeera. 2025-01-20. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
- ^ "Twelve Days Under Fire. A Comprehensive Report on the Iran-Israel War".
- ^ "DR Congo defies pressure over talks with rebel M23".
- ^ "Au moins 38 personnes tuées par des hommes armés en 5 jours à Rutshuru" [At least 38 people killed by gunmen in 5 days in Rutshuru]. Radio Okapi (in French). 1 June 2025. Retrieved 2 June 2025.
- ^ Mishra, Vibhu (6 August 2025). "Armed militia kill hundreds in eastern DR Congo". News.un.org. Retrieved 8 August 2025.
- ^ "DRC: Türk appalled by attacks against civilians by Rwandan-backed M23 and other armed groups". Ohchr.org/en. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 6 August 2025. Retrieved 8 August 2025.
- ^ Muamba, Clément (7 August 2025). "Est de la RDC: le Haut-Commissaire aux droits de l'homme accuse les rebelles de l'AFC/M23 des tueries des centaines de civils dans le Rutshuru en juillet" [Eastern DRC: High Commissioner for Human Rights accuses AFC/M23 rebels of killing hundreds of civilians in Rutshuru in July]. Actualite.cd (in French). Retrieved 9 August 2025.
- ^ Mesa, Jonathan (5 March 2025). "Activisme de la milice Mobondo: l'armée récupère cinq bastions des miliciens, au moins quinze morts enregistrés" [Mobondo militia activism: army recovers five strongholds from militiamen, at least 15 recorded deaths]. Actualite.cd (in French).
- ^ "Suspected Islamist rebels kill 30 in Congo's North Kivu province". AP News. 2025-08-16. Retrieved 2025-08-17.
- ^ "ADF in DR Congo: IS-linked rebels accused of killing Christian worshippers in Komanda". www.bbc.com. 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-07-31.
- ^ "More than 50 killed in convoy ambush in Mali, sources say".
- ^ "Los homicidios en México disminuyeron 13.4% en los primeros cinco meses de 2025".
- ^ "Mexican police kill 4 gunmen, cross into Guatemala in dramatic border shootout". AP News. 10 June 2025. Retrieved 10 June 2025.
- ^ "Sudan paramilitaries kill hundreds in White Nile villages NGO".
- ^ "Mass killings reported in Sudanese city seized by paramilitary group".
Miguel.lima (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).