Talk:List of non-international armed conflicts

message: "Wars between factions or regions of the same country or province" is the definition I am going with, but I am not married to it. With that I mind,  Chechnya is listed under Russia; Chiapas will be listed under Mexico; should Palestine be listed under Israel? For now it will, but that is up for debate (as is everything).
This is just a beginning, and I hope many of you with the interest will add, edit, and chime in. 
*"past ten years" is arbitrary. But I had to make a cut off somewhere. And I didn't want to limit the list only to "active" civil wars, because even the recent "inactive" civil wars are either still unstable, still have refugee situations, or still have to be resolved politically, socially, or economically.
*Civl war naming convention: As far as I could find in one night's research, many of these civil wars don't have official names. So, I chose a simple convention and repeated it...Colombian Civil War, Angolan Civil War, etc. If you have or know of a better civil war naming convention, please help.
*Articles on these civil wars: among the nations listed, their civil wars are mentioned in spotted areas in wikipedia, but articles dedicated to said civil wars do not exist. I hope to write some. I hope you write some.
Kingturtle 17:50 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
: There should be dates or at least time frames next to each of the entries, so that they can be easily expired once the ten-year period passes. Without them, wars that ended but haven't got their own subpages need to be manually investigated in order to update the page. --Shallot 11:32, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary civil wars

message: I've integrated the list of old wars from the main article and moved the article to the more generic title. --Joy [shallot] 23:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good move. I wonder about the Time Stamp, though, and I hereby suggest that this Talk Page should be Auto-Archived by now. Does anyone object? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: The list of Contemporary civil wars seems far, far too inclusive; I would expect that very few of them will be included as civil wars in next century's history books. For example, in the list of past civil wars, the Cuban insurgency of the 1950s which led to the overthrow of the Batista government is, rightly, not included, although in the later stages there was virtually an army of insurgents. 
This is a technical distinction based on the scale and organisation of the parties, not a political issue (my "terrorist" is your "freedom fighter").
I have added a note implying this at the beginning of the section, but have not deleted any entries. 213.208.107.91 05:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary civil wars: criteria for inclusion 

message: King Alfonso & King Sancho were at war for six centuries?  Really?  Binabik80 14:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Brothers' Civil War, 1067-1670 

message: Should we consider changing the order the wars are listed in so they are in alphabetical order rather than chronological order to make them easier to find?  Or we could have separate lists in both orders though that would be more work to maintain. RJFJR 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: I realise that this may be a hot potato, but how can anyone at present determine that Iraq right now is in a state of civil war?The.valiant.paladin 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq

message: Should the American Civil War be on this list, or should it be on the wars of independence list?  Although it has been named a civil war, it technically was fought over secession, which would make it a war of independence.  In other words, the southern states were not trying to overthrow the government in Washington, they simply did not want to be ruled by it.  Any thoughts?  --J8427 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it definitely should, not least because almost everyone refers to it as a civil war; it's not our job as Wikipedians to invent new terms because we don't like the terminology that the majority uses. See Wikipedia:No original research. -- ChrisO 09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't suggesting we rename the American Civil War to be something else; there's all kinds of crazy things that some southerners call it.  I was questioning what list it should be included in, considering the type of war it was.  J8427 18:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Bleeding Kansas should be on this list.  Far too few people died for this to be a civil war.  Civil conflict, maybe, civil war, by no means. Piff133 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For that matter, if the American Civil war qualifies as a civil war, doesn't the war of independence qualify as well? It was a war of succession between two parts of the British Empire. Had the Tories won in 1776, then this would be a civil war. If the South had won in 1865, then they would be calling the Civil War this War of Independence. Interesting question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmcc (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Civil War should definitely be on this list because it was a war between two different parts of the same country, which is the definition we're working under here. The motivation of the rebels doesn't matter: They could have been fighting over whether lite beer tastes great or is less filling, and it would still qualify as a Civil War. The fact that they were engaged in warfare against the lawful government automatically qualifies it for inclusion in this list. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War on this list? 

message: Someone removed it from the list (one of) and explained it by "removing an insult"?...? --PaxEquilibrium 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslav wars? 

message: Why have I removed that line? Here's the section from the book "Serving My Country" of Hrvoje Kačić  (Cro. original title is "U službi Domovine"), that deals with "civil war" and aggression on other country. 
In this case, comments by English parliamentarists are also useful , as well as of some English university professors  :
"Arbitražna komisija dana 4. srpnja 1992. donosi Interlokutornu odluku kojom se utvrđuje neosnovanost žalbenih navoda i odbijaju se svi podneseni prigovori. Naime, Arbitražna komisija utvrđuje da ingerencije i nadležnost svojeg rada ne temelji na Brijunskom sporazumu, nego na uvjetima kako su određeni zajedničkom deklaracijom prihvaćenoj jednoglasno na ministarskoj konferenciji svih država EZ, održanoj 27. kolovoza 1991, radi postizavanja mira, ali i sa svrhom uspostavljanja arbitraže. U ovoj odluci Arbitražne komisije  utvrđuje se da su uvjeti kako su utvrđeni Deklaracijom o Jugoslaviji bili prihvaćeni od svih šest jugoslavenskih republika, već prilikom otvaranja Konferencije o miru, te da su ti uvjeti stupili na snagu dana 7. rujna 1991".
"U obrazloženju donesene odluke, Arbitražna komisija se također pozivala  i na odluke Međunarodnog suda pravde u Haagu. Datum 7. rujna 1991. ima svoj poseban značaj, jer se svi sukobi nasilja do tog datuma tretiraju kao unutrašnji sukobi ili građanski rat. Međutim, nakon utvrđenog datuma svi sukobi, a osobito oružana suprotstavljanja i ljudske žrtve, te rušenje odnosno nanošenje imovinske štete na teritoriju Hrvatske, spadaju u režim Međunarodnog sukoba.   Činjenica je da su beogradski (velikosrpski) sateliti vožda s Dedinja upotrebljavali oružanu silu i sudjelovali u agresorskim operacijama od postavljanja kninskih balvana (kolovoz 1990.). No moramo prihvatiti da je autorativno tijelo Međunarodne zajednice utvrdilo da Srbija vrši agresiju na Hrvatsku od 7. rujna 1991. na dalje. To najbolje pokazuje i dokazuje primjer žrtava i rušenja Vukovara.".
I owe you the translation, it'll over in few days.
Hrvoje Kačić was a participant on Peace Conferences on former Yugoslavia (Brussels, London...), he's international expert for the maritime law, former President of External Affairs Committee of Croatian Parliament. Also, Hrvoje Kačić was Olympic silver medalist (waterpolo, 1956).Kubura (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Civil war in Croatia" 

message: War of national liberation (NOB-narodnooslobodilačka borba, NOR-narodnooslobodilački rat) in area of Yugoslavia (1941-1945) had also elements of civil war (besides the elements of socialist revoution and war of liberation).
But, there were a lot of smaller civil wars in it:
E.g., in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina:
- combats between forces of NDH and Tito's partisans (for the status of future Croatia)
- combats between forces of Tito's partisans and chetniks (for the status of future Yugoslavia)
- combats between forces of NDH and chetniks: these should be treated as internal rebellion (domestic chetniks) and war against external aggression (chetniks from Serbia that came to Croatia; chetniks didn't want the existence of Croatia at all) 
On the areas of other republics, there were other or similar types of clashes. Kubura (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOB (NOR) 

message: What a shame!!
Who put it as a civil war?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.8.89 (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETA and the Spanish Government 

message: I see that someone has put a cleanup tag on this article and for good reason. Why don't you redo the article following the wikitable style as seen here? 
You would list them by name in one column, date in the next, and notes in the third, simular to my example. Vadac (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Should we add the Korean Civil War? Alinor (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add it as such though most people would say its not because its a cold war proxy war but that does not change the fact that it was two nations fighting over a claim territory, its a civil war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't, as it definately wasn't a civil war by the civil war definitions. It was two seperate countries (North Korea and South Korea) at war (besides all of the other countries). The definition of a civil war is opposing factions within the same country, and these were two distinct countries with two different and distinct legal systems and governments. 136.177.33.218 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the fact that each Korea claimed and still claims the territory of the other, the Korean War was and the Korean conflict is, a conflict between two sovereign countries. If China and Taiwan went to war, would it be considered a civil war? I doubt so, and I disagree with the addition of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War as well. Additions should not be based solely on the contributions of other editors, as those edits themselves may be inappropriate. The correct procedure is to provide a reliable source that explicitly calls the Korean War or Korean conflict a civil war. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://www.history.com/news/korean-war-causes-us-involvement#:~:text=The%20Korean%20War%20was%20a,peace%20treaty%20was%20ever%20signed. Quote: “The Korean War was a civil war,” says Charles Kim, Korea Foundation associate professor, Department of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison.  Also see:  The Korean War was a civil conflict that became a proxy war between superpowers clashing over communism and democracy. Charliestalnaker (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Civil War 

message: We all need to agree to either add Korea to the list or remove Vietnam from that same list.
:To keep Vietnam but to take out Korea was contradicting because both are civil wars being supported by a foreign power.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In both cases they are two separate countries with different legal systems and governments, hence they do not meet the definition of a civil war. A civil war is a conflict betwenn opposing forces within the same country. They cannot be the same country with two completely different governemnts in place before hostilities begin. And, if they 'were' the same country, how could one invade the other, ala the Korean War. Those were internationally recognized as seperate countries for what, 5 or 6 years before large-scale hostilities insued, and they both had their own internaionally recogized borders, again in contradiction to the definition of a civil war. wbfergus  Talk 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Korean War alone does not meet the criteria of a civil war because it was between two sovereign states, the DPRK and ROK. Whilst the Vietnam War in some aspects can be considered a civil war because the South Vietnamese army was fighting the Viet Cong, which was a communist guerrilla political organization in South Vietnam, but the aspect of the Vietnam War that cannot be considered a civil war was North Vietnam fighting South Vietnam. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea and Vietnam 

message: I beleive that Bleeding Kansas should not be on the list because it is a event under the US civil war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.115.234 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleeding Kansas (listed as civil war) 

message: Why are the various English Civil Wars bulleted under the Cypriot Civil War? They had nothing to do with one another. Misterdoe (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cypriot civil war and England? 

message: Should we add syria and yemen... The UN list them as being a state with civil war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danalm000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yemen and Syria 

message: The list neglects to mention the 3 Ancient Egyptian civil wars. At any rate, I could not find them under "Ancient and medieval" in the Article as it stands. They should be mentioned, not only because the Ancient Egyptian absolute monarchy was the longest lasting single political state in all the history of our planetary civilization, but also because the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms are separated by the first 2 civil wars of that longest lasting state, and a third civil war was in progress when the Persians conquered the Egyptians (at the end of the New Kingdom). So, I highly suggest placing them on this list of civil wars. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egyptian civil wars 

message: The list includes The Anarchy and The Wars of the Roses - both essentially wars of succession and hardly civil wars in terms of one side representing the civic society any more than the other.  Not that I am complaining, I too view these under the more general heading of civil wars as being wars fought predominately between the citizens of a single state.
However, under the same criteria the two Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745 would surely also qualify as British Civil Wars or Wars of the Three Kingdoms? In no way were they simply Scotland v England even though they are often represented as such - plenty of Scots fought on the winning side at Culloden. In essence the Jacobite rebellions were repeats of the 3rd English Civil War.
The Irish war/rebellion of 1690 is another of this sequence of largely religious civil wars between the Stuarts and their various opponents.
Of course it could also be argued that only the 1st Civil War is significant enough to appear on this general list of more noteworthy civil wars. 
Newburychap (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English / British Civil Wars 

message: This article needs some serious cleaning up. Much of the content (i.e., lists of civil wars) is explicitly WP:OR. For a start, I've removed the war in Donbass from the post-WWII and the ongoing civil wars sections. Reliable resources would need to be referenced in order to qualify it as such. As it stands, Nato, Amnesty International, the EU, the USA do not call it a civil war (see the relevant section in that article for an expansive list of RS as a rebuttal for calling it a 'civil war').
This is by no means a WP:POV one-off in this article. Suggestion: bring WP:RS supporting 'civil war' for each and every instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having the Ukrainian civil war in this list it is a pure act of Western propaganda. Kmaster (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that there is a civil war in Ukraine is like calling the American War of Independence a civil war because there were Loyalist troops.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.76.210.231 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of civil war with significant foreign involvement, Nazi Germany and Italian involvement in the Spanish Civil War for example. While Russia heavily involved in the War in Donbass, majority of the combatant were local Donbas population. Dauzlee (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[War in Donbass]] not a civil war 

message: Why is there no mention of the Ethiopian Civil War? From 1974-1991 Ethiopia had one of the biggest wars in all of Africa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.66.111 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now added. Thanks for the heads up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ethiopian Civil War]] 

message: No Sierra Leone or Liberia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing Civil Wars 

message: Hello,  I noticed you changed t he date ranges in  the last day. I'm sure you had a good reason, and it would help for you to explain what that is. Please note that:
* changing headings breaks any links to the sections
* changes from one date to another, when arbitrary, are disconcerting to readers who may be in midst of using a page
* with good reason, I would support the change, but with appropriate structure to keep the links working
Dovid (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date changes 

message: I changed this sentence "Only civil wars involving popular or civil forces are listed here. Not covered are wars between clans, warlords or dynasties, wars of succession, etc. Such wars of succession are sometimes also described as "Civil Wars" in modern literature, see e.g. Ottoman Civil War or Islamic Civil War." with "This is a list of interstate armed conflicts that fulfil the definition set by this article: civil." for two reasons: 1. No one really gave a toss about it, and you could find a whole set of wars that this definition excluded. 2. It excluded wars that fall under the definition from Wikipedia's own article on the subject. The new sentence isn't exactly great, but it's more fitting to the content, and Wikipedia as a whole.
Kjetil1992 (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed definition 

message: Hi, I was reading the article lately and noticed that some of the links to the civil wars are in bold. However, no reasoning for the bold texts was given. Please, either define what the bold stands for or remove it entirely. I would suggest the former, as highlighting more important civil wars with greater ramifications would make them stand out to show off their importance. However, not all of the "big" civil wars are highlighted, and some of the "smaller" civil wars are highlighted when they do not need to be. Please clear this up! BlindmanJr (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the bold text? 

message: I disagree with the last sentence of this paragraph "The following is a list of civil wars, fought between organized groups within the same state or country. The terms "intrastate war", "internecine war" and "domestic war" are often used interchangeably with "civil war", but "internecine war" can be used in a wider meaning, referring to any conflict within a single state, regardless of the participation of civil forces. Thus, any war of succession is by definition an internecine war, but not necessarily a civil war."
Civil war dictionary definitions:
* "a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/civil-war
* "a war between political factions or regions within the same country." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civil-war
* "a war which is fought between different groups of people who live in the same country." https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/civil-war
* "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20war
Internecine war dictionary definitions:
* "Internecine war or fighting happens between members of the same group, religion, or country." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/internecine
* "of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/internecine
* "a (Military) war between parties, factions, or inhabitants of different regions within the same nation." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Internecine+war
* "An internecine conflict, war, or quarrel is one which takes place between opposing groups within a country or organization." https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/internecine
Neither set of definitions exclude wars of succession from a state.
The list currently includes conflicts aimed at succession such as:
* Glyndŵr Rising
* American Civil War
* Malayan Emergency
* Nigerian Civil War
* The Troubles (Northern Ireland)
* Indonesia, Papua conflict
* Angola, Cabinda War
* Turkey, Kurdish–Turkish conflict
* Bangladesh Liberation War (Pakistan)
* War in Donbas.
I propose removing the last sentence.
Hysbysu (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a civil war? 

message: I'm not good at determining good sources so someone else would need to find a source but I think Ukraine should be mentioned in ongoing civil wars. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ukraine is not a civil war. 176.0.199.197 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: Why not add that one? 94.74.252.2 (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia Civil War? 

message: Those, for some reason, are included in the list of non-international conflicts. Are we sure that these were non-international? We do have Iraqi civil war of 2006-2008, but calling the 2003-2011 conflict non-international? I'm not sure about that. Gorgedweller (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 2001-2021 and Iraq 2003-2011?