Talk:Civil war

message: " Roughly stated: are conflicts caused by who people are, whether that be defined in terms of ethnicity, religion or other social affiliation, or do conflicts begin because it is in the economic best interests of individuals and groups to start them?"
People who are what? 86.164.202.0 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't make sense 

message: The opening sentence defines "civil wars" as occurring, "less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state."
There are several issues with this statement: 
* The citation only goes to an index page, leaving the reader to find the actual article themselves.
* The cited language, "Two nations [within the U.S.] developed because of slavery," is actually from the book being reviewed, not the linked website. 
* The language is clearly being used figuratively, not literally as implied by the Wikipedia article. 
* This kind of rhetoric is often used by advocates of the Confederacy to argue that what we deem the American Civil War was in fact a war of invasion by the north. Not wishing to re-litigate that particular debate, but suffice to say that it is a distinctly minority view among reputable historians. 
* A war between two states is, by definition, not a "civil war." 
Recommend changing the opening sentence to simply read: "A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology, is a war between organized groups within the same state or country." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.16.14 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil war not between two countries 

message: In the opening summary, the text currently reads "138 intrastate conflicts between the end of II and 2000 saw international intervention", with II linking to the WWII page; please change 'II' to 'World War II' in order to combat ambiguity and confusion. 64.134.224.226 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2017 -- 'II' >> 'World War II' miniscule typo 

message: i request granting me permission for editing a page Cluster86392 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019 

message: Please include more info on civil wars around the world 81.96.147.110 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020 

message: I would like to suggest the following edit:
From:
"A civil war is a high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale."
To:
"A civil war is a high-intensity conflict, often involving regular and irregular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale."
Maybe even some further editing to better detail prevalence and role of irregular troops such as militias, guerrillas, and armed "gangs".
But I wouldn't know how to go about that.
Reasoning: Such groups ARE very often, if not always, integral to the fighting.
I find it surprising that neither of these phrases (except for one occurrence of "paramilitaries" and only in passing) occur in the whole article, despite them being so prevalent in any civil war.  190.100.175.35 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to groups such as the Nicaraguan FSLN and the Kurdish PKK.  190.100.175.35 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The Civil War was a great war between Britain and Russia. Britain took all of Russia's apples and bananas and caused The Civil War. This lasted for around 42 years and Russia never got their apples or bananas. Kawkjfnkanwkf (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , for obvious reasons. Pahunkat (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021 

message: The civil war is about how the north and the south are fighting over land. Due to the lowering of slaves, they needed land to make more money. The civil war was about how slaves use technology. Also, this is not too important and there was this dude john brown all he did was hate slaves and wanted them to die. Tresicity (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021 

message: Original  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.115.144 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021 

message: Per ngram
*"Civil war" is more than 100 times as common as "non-international armed conflict" and "NIAC" (separately)
*"Intrastate war" is about half as common as either "non-international armed conflict" or "NIAC" (separately), or 200 times less common than "civil war"
According to MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, only significant alternate names should be bolded in the lead. NIAC is actually about twice common in RS than "intrastate war", although both of them are far less common than "civil war". "Intrastate war" was reinstated without comment or justification. I do not think that intrastate war is a significant alternate name when looking at RS usage. In addition to the commonality argument, the legal meaning of NIAC (which differs from the law of war applicable in international armed conflict) is probably more significant, if anything. I'm not a big fan of proliferation of bolded names, so I propose only having the main name bolded with the alternate ones in a footnote. (t · c) buidhe 21:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolded names in the lead 

message: I think this is very important to include on this topic. Franklinian! (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true now, but civil wars started during Rome's late Republican period when Roman Generals learned that their legions were just as willing to fight other legions as they were to fight foreigners or rebels.  I don't remember, off hand, where I found that, but if a citation is needed it shouldn't be too hard to find.  JDZeff (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial reason for war = tariffs 

message: Skibitolet (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, if anyone, was "skibi tolet" and do you have reliable, secondary sources to support what you are saying? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  skibi tolet was in the war as well as the camera man 

message: Similarly, the rise of refugees from neighboring countries, will increase the probability of a civil war in the host country.  Robbandsnow (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023