Talk:List of proxy wars

message: I've started the article and listed a few just to get the ball rolling. I've used the formatting from the List of civil wars. The article still needs alot of work. --2ltben 00:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be expanded 

message: Does this belong in this list? The article says that the hostage-takers were considering taking the Soviet embassy but decided against it and doesn't mention any Soviet involvement in the crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.64.207 (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I suggest that you go ahead and delete the Iraq war in May unless there is an objection with a source that supports that it was a proxy war. Since the Iraq War was authorized by the UN it does not meet the definition used. Raggz (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Iran hostage crisis]] 

message: How was the American Revolutionary War a proxy war?  Who were the proxies?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.197.100 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can argue that the color blue is red, but that doesn't make it true... 98.114.252.16 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good example of how wrong the concept is. France was involved, but the American rebels were not proxies of the French!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, China and the US fought each other directly in the Korean War. And Soviet fighter pilots were not directly involved.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[American Revolutionary War]] 

message: It can be convincingly argued that during the Cold War, Cuba's Marxist regime was a Soviet proxy, just as before 1959 Felgencio Batista was an American proxy dictator. But how was the Cuban Revolutionary War a proxy war? The 26th of July Movement (Fidel Castro's rebels) were not backed by any foreign government, nor where they openly communist either. Their membership and leadership contained a coalition of liberal nationalists, reformers, democrats, socialists and communists opposed to the dictatorship of Batista. It was only after a power struggle in the early 1960s that the communists came out on top. 
Can somebody give an explanation, if not I think that the reference should be removed. Batista's forces were an American proxy for awhile, but by 1958 the United States had become unsympathetic to the highly corrupt tyrant, hence the arms embargo enacted against Batista's regime at a time when Castro's than non-communist rebels where gaining momentum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book Red Star Over Cuba (1962?) effectively makes the case that the Cuban Revolution was facilitated by the USSR and that Fidel Castro was a Soviet agent. This book also supports all of your claims, the Cubans did not then know this. It documents that the US was backing Castro and not Batista at that time. Raggz (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is not a proxy war.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please explain the addition of the [[Cuban Revolution]]? 

message: I wonder whether the 2008 South Ossetia War can be added to this list.  NerdyNSK (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia-Russia 

message: The phrase "Western World" in the "Post Cold War" is really not too clear. One would think it means ALL countries in the western world agree with these wars, however, this is not the case. Individual countries should be listed as with other cases. HuGo_87 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Western World]]" 

message: As noted in basically all of the comments above, there are many dubious or unclear additions.  Perhaps by presenting the information in a table that would include the "proxies" and the powers who used proxies we can reduce confusion and generally improve this list.  
As it stands now, there are so many things listed that are almost certainly *not* "proxy wars" that the page would be better deleted than left unaltered. 146.201.16.50 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List way too loose 

message: This "list" is biased in the extreme and reeks of POV pushing. When I am back at my home computer and thus can log in my name, I intend to start some major housecleaning on this "list." 98.114.252.16 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  You've got to be kidding me 

message: cold war era proxy war in namibia and angola namibia gained indepandance soviets won ANC still rules SA as a direct result.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.218.247 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ the bush war ]] 

message: A proxy is someone who acts for someone else. In these wars, outside powers intervened to some extent, but that doesn't mean the war was merely a square on the chess board. But nevertheless the local people were fighting for their own causes.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the common definition of proxy war is so bad. Proxy wars start on their own: they become a proxy war when an outside power intervenes to defend its interest. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Intervention by an outside power does not make a war a proxy war. Proxy has a specific definition, as described above.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: you are right. This list is a total scam. For instance it lists the Spanish Civil war. 2A01:799:9AA:6D00:87A7:7863:9AF0:3ACC (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxy Wars Don't Exist!!! 

message: The page is messy and some conflicts aren't even proxy wars. I propose joining the Middle East conflicts and 2nd Cold War section into one section called "Post-Cold War proxy wars" and improving the Cold War section. FPSTurkey (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a terrible mess. I've probably put 30+ hours into trying to improve it, and it just doesn't sort itself out. I do agree with your suggestion though. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page improvements 

message: Why the Portuguese Colonial War is a proxy war Portugal is a founding member of NATO and the United States support, together with the USSR the uprisings. Braganza (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: HELLO?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braganza (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese Colonial War 

message: And who supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Braganza (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Lanka 

message: The concept of Proxy means that at least one of the Powers is fighting directly with a proxy of the opposite Power. A clear example Vietnam. U.S was a combatant and North Vietnam was a U.R.R.S proxy, this should be indicated in the tables. Mayor Powers in Bold. Whenever they are fighting at the ground or just Supporting a proxy.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of things to do. 

message: Some of these new additions make no sense. --FPSTurkey (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, everything is under control. 174.113.214.250 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The ip address is right some make sense. GoldenRainbow (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened 

message: ...please check to make sure that it is actually a proxy war! The fact that a foreign power intervened does not, in of itself, make a conflict a proxy war. If the intervening country contributed significant numbers of troops to the conflict, it is not a puppeteer, but it has involved itself directly. The American Revolutionary War is not a proxy war because the various intervening powers, such as France, Spain, and the Netherlands, contributed directly to the conflict. Had they resorted to something else, such as supplying arms, embargoing Britain, and even sending advisers, it would be a proxy war. However, all of these countries committed at least their navies, and some sent ground troops as well, making them direct participants, not puppeteers. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note that the fact that a country is listed as a supporter in the war's infobox is not sufficient referencing. These have a tendency to be inaccurate. Please manually read through the history of the conflict and gauge the various countries' involvement manually. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, Compassionate727. As the ip explained, the article is going to be fine. There's no concern whatsoever. In my defense, the statement you said "a country is listed as a supporter in the war's infobox is not sufficient referencing. These have a tendency to be inaccurate". Half of them are accurate. GoldenRainbow (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means half of them aren't. That's not consistent enough to make a good article. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

text: While I'm not 100% sure I would support the description "a random list of wars between 1776 and now", for sure this list is rather lacking according to Wikipedia standards.  For most of the wars, it's a matter of opinions if it is/was a "proxy war" or not, and Wikipedia is hardly the right place for opinions.  Even the list of supporters seems to be based on opinions rather than facts.  As an example, the ongoing war in Ukraine - currently listed as an ongoing conflict since 2014, and with a long list of supporters - but what external parties was supporting the Ukrainian side with direct military aid since 2014?  Most of the supporters of Ukraine started supplying arms to Ukraine only after the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022 (and most of those only after the Ukrainians had shown a capability to halt the attacks).  The lists also seems a bit inflated - currently Turkey and Georgia are listed as supporters of Ukraine - but without references, and I'm not aware that those two countries have been contributing with Military aid.  The other list is also inflated, currently the "Odessa People's Republic" is listed as a participant in the war - while the Wikipedia article states that this "republic" was a rather virtual thing.  There is also a list of backers on the Russian side - but few references.  As far as I know, the only party backing the war was Belorussia (which has backed the war by letting the attackers stage the attack from there). 2001:4651:63EA:0:0:0:0:ED4 (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Russo-Ukrainian War is alleged to be a proxy war only by the Russian side, which claims that Ukraine started it on behalf of the United States and/or NATO. However, it's difficult to call it as a proxy war if only one side considers it one. Maybe in a few years. 2600:6C40:7400:198E:40BD:BB92:7B95:D400 (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before adding a conflict to the list... 

message: How can India be on both the sides of the Korean War? Does not make sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohray (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of Indians.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

text: The Korean War was initiated by a UN Security Council resolution. The entire United Nations was on one side. The Republic of China (1912–1949) was the UN Security Council member representing China until 1971.  The United Nations was opposed by a non-member, the People's Republic of China. For this reason the Korean War does not meet the definition of a proxy war. I will delete this section in May unless there is an objection with a source that any war initiated by the UN can be a proxy war. Raggz (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The USSR, which was on the UN Security Council, opposed the war and gave support to North Korea. You can find plenty of sources saying the war was a proxy war, but in reality it was a civil war with intervention by other powers. The problem is with the concept of proxy war itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Korean War]] 

message: I think this list, although at first glance it has extensive citations, potentially contains a large amount of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The only valid source for labeling something a proxy war would be a consensus among experts (in international relations). Merely finding a citation that other nations supported the belligerents in a war is not adequate for the label "proxy war". Only an expert in the field is qualified to apply the label. This article is so extensive it would take a huge amount of work to review each entry for legitimate expert citations. As a reminder, it is not valid on wikipedia to draw conclusions from sources. —DIY Editor (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any reliable sources that describe the Iran–Iraq War as a proxy war, except perhaps the Iranian conspiracy theorists that describe Iraq as a proxy of the U.S.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the two posts above. This article is a train wreck. From looking through its history, it's been problematic for a long time. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to expand, a proxy war "is a conflict between two states or non-state actors where neither entity directly engages the other". This doesn't mean that wars where the different sides receive - often marginal - support from other countries are proxy wars. Today I've removed listings such as the Falklands War (a territorial conflict fought exclusively between the two claimants) and Northern Ireland Troubles (a civil war in the UK relating entirely to long-standing religious and nationalistic divisions between the combatants) were somehow proxy wars. I think that this article is a good candidate for WP:TNT deletion as its vast content is largely misleading, and it would need to be reworked from scratch. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that lists are as good candidates for TNT, as it ought to be possible to prune element by element. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's telling that for some of these (former) entries, the only identification as a "proxy war" is that of inclusion in a category. eg Malayan Emergency. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

text: WP:TNT may apply here. I hardly know where to begin. The question is what shouldn't be removed. —DIY Editor (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

text: If it would automatically delete them from the category, right away I would remove the articles on this list that are uncited. With it so large and having so much seemingly unsourced or poorly sourced material, putting that amount of effort into the article would still not prune citations that are not reliable or are not explicit. Isn't this almost grounds for AFD? I'm considering a CFD for the cat for being largely uncited and unjustified. This is not a useful collection of factual attributes about articles. —DIY Editor (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I've just removed a large number of listings which, based on my knowledge, are not considered proxy wars by historians and the like (no citations are provided anywhere to support a claim that the wars were "proxy" conflicts, with the references supporting the greatly over-detailed and frequently highly unlikely claims that various countries were involved). I'm sure that much, much more could be done along these lines. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of "proxy war" is problematic. There are, in my opinion, no real proxy wars. For example, the Korean War is called a proxy war, but really it was a civil war, in which outside powers intervened. And since US troops fought, it is impossible to say that South Korea was the USA's proxy. However, the term "proxy war" continues to be thrown around, because it is an easy analysis, and it makes  small wars more explicable and relevant to the audience. Therefore, it is always going to be possible to find a source that says this or that is a proxy war. But I don't think making a list is useful.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of "proxy war" is a matter of perception. From the American point of view, the Korean War was a new foray of Soviet expansion. However, from the point of view of the supporters of Kim Il Sung they were reuniting their country after decades of foreign domination. The mere fact that the USSR supported them didn't change that. Previously the American War of Independence was included here, but naturally people objected to that. From the American point of view, it was a war of independence, and the mere fact that France supported them didn't change that. This then creates a POV issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support by other nations does not necessarily mean proxy war 

message: Years ago a few historians said it was a proxy war over oil.  Recent historians have dropped that theme.  "Historians in recent years have found little evidence for these previous narratives about oil" says  .  The article by Rafael Archondo also rejects the notion: he says (padon the google translation) "The argument that Standard Oil caused The Chaco War in order to make way for its exports of oil through the Paraguay River to the Atlantic is not only lacking in evidence, but it is refutable.  It is also not possible to say that Paraguay was a puppet of  Royal Dutch Shell, because this company never came to exploit the oil." Rjensen (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem: "proxy wars" are a matter of POV. It is some historians' POV that it was a proxy war, but others disagree. Just like every other example.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaco war -- was it a proxy war? 

message: See the first sentence at https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/french-and-indian-war "Also known as the Seven Years’ War, this New World conflict marked another chapter in the long imperial struggle between Britain and France."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.161.110 (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  French and Indian War (1756-1763) 

message: This whole article is recentist. There is literally nothing listed prior to 1839.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: In reviewing this article I've questioned what should be the criteria for a conflict being included in this list. My initial plan was to check to see if the phrase "proxy" is sourced anywhere in the individual individual articles linked here. However, the vast majority of articles do not have sources supporting the "proxy" claim. However, I've noticed that the majority of articles do have the "proxy wars" category, which appears to be how they were curated for this list. In theory this category shouldn't be applied to an article if it's not sourced, but, ultimately, these are faults with the individual articles rather than this one; we can't feasibly remove every unsourced entry without completely gutting this article, leaving perhaps 5-10 entries.
What I've instead done is compiled a list of entries where "proxy" was not sourced, but the "proxy wars category" was also missing. That is, the only reference to them being proxy wars is by being included on this list. These articles are the following:
* Chaco War
* Malayan Emergency
* First Taiwan Strait Crisis
* Suez Crisis
* Second Taiwan Strait Crisis
* Aden Emergency
* Chadian Civil War (1965–1979)
* Bangladesh Liberation War
* Nepalese Civil War
* Xinjiang conflict
* Israeli–Palestinian conflict
* Internal conflict in Peru
* Paraguayan People's Army insurgency
Some of these, particularly the Cold War-era conflicts, could plausibly described as proxy conflicts (for example, Bangladesh Liberation War, where there's one clear side supported by the USA and another supported by the USSR). However, without adequate sourcing this ultimately comes down to editor interpretation, not matter how sure we are of that label. Verifiability, not truth. 
With all this in mind, what should be the criteria for inclusion in this article? Should we blanket remove the above entries, given their parent articles do not mention the work "proxy" at all? Or should we impose a rule that, regardless of what's in the parent article, the "proxy" claim needs to be sourced here, in this article? If so, are other editors willing to put in the effort to hunt down sources for all existing entries? Or does anyone have any better ideas? — Czello 12:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: RS call them a proxy conflict, so we do, if they do not nor do we. So either we source it here, or the parent article says it. If neither is the case, we remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This, therefore, will lead to the article being almost completely gutted and the vast majority of entries being removed. I'm willing to put the leg work in to try to source some of the conflicts - but it would be a big undertaking and would appreciate the help of other editors. — Czello 12:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If that guts it fine, that means this is all a bit ORy. I mean Suez a proxy wart between who? Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, some of these entries are spurious at best and not even meeting the definition of a proxy conflict at worst. I hope most of this article can be preserved, though - so I'm going to see if I can work on sourcing as many of the entries I can find the time for before beginning a cull. — Czello 13:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion / removal of unsourced entries  

message: This article is a bit of a mess.  I'm sure that there are plenty others, but the two errors I can find are:
a. Zaire is listed as a current supporter of FLEC in the ongoing Cabinda War
b. The old green flag of Libya is used in the current civil conflict in Turkey.  If info in the article is correct, Libya is a current supporter, so there doesn't seem to be any justification for that. MangoBenjamin361 (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Errors