This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Post-Cold War task force Lists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Years Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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.

Wikidata object	Conflikt	Place	Placement	Country	Start	No of deaths	No of injured	Instance of	Direct cause	Cause	Follows	Important events	Consists of	Effect	Picture
Q4124982	2011–present Libyan factional fighting		Libya	Libya	2011-11-01			armed conflict
Q61896704	2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes		Kashmir	India Pakistan	2019-02-14			international incident armed conflict
Q106171654	2021 Apure clashes		La Victoria Arauquita	Venezuela Colombia	2021-03-21			armed conflict refugee crisis
Q107461898	2021 Taliban offensive		Afghanistan	Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan	2021-05-01			armed conflict military offensive		withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan			August 2021 Kabul attack Capture of Zaranj Fall of Kabul (2021)	2021 Kabul Airlift
Q110900195	2022 Democratic Republic of the Congo coup d'état allegations			Democratic Republic of the Congo	2022-02-08			armed conflict attempted coup d'état
Q124221028	2024 Ecuadorian conflict			Ecuador	2024-01-09			armed conflict urban warfare		Operation Metastasis
Q1519107	Afghanistan conflict		Afghanistan	Afghanistan	1978-04-27			civil war					Soviet–Afghan War Afghan Civil War Afghan Civil War Afghan Civil War War in Afghanistan War in Afghanistan bombing of the Russian embassy in Kabul
Q4072719	Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes		Durand Line	Afghanistan Pakistan	1949			war skirmish
Q55390549	Anglophone Crisis		Northwest Southwest		2017-09-09			armed conflict political crisis
Q115685604	Apurimac uprising		Apurimac Department	Peru	2022-12-07			armed conflict
Q17512479	Arab Winter		Arab world		2012			war			Arab Spring
Q20635380	Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict		Armenia–Azerbaijan border		1994-05-12			territorial dispute armed conflict
Q113404565	August 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes		Kalbajar District Lachin District Khojaly	Azerbaijan Armenia	2022-08-03			armed conflict
Q16351522	Bullaj (Marec) 21 prill 1999				1999-04-21			armed conflict
Q56312857	Counter-terrorist operation regime		Belgorod Oblast	Russia	2023-05-22			military occupation armed conflict
Q116608868	Dnieper campaign			Ukraine	2022-09-01			armed conflict				liberation of Kherson destruction of the Kakhovka Dam
Q106959326	Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present)			Ethiopia	2018-04-02			armed conflict
Q51139646	Gaza border protests		Israel–Gaza Strip border	State of Palestine	2018-03-30	183	9208	civil disorder armed conflict protest march		Land Day
Q553184	Gaza–Israel conflict		Southern Levant	State of Palestine	2006-06-28	3500	15000	armed conflict		2006 Palestinian legislative election		Israeli disengagement from Gaza	Gaza War of 2008-2009 2014 Gaza War Gaza border protests Operation Guardian of the Walls "First Rain" Operation Israel–Hamas war
Q29242	Georgian–Ossetian conflict		South Ossetia		1989-11-10			war					Georgian–Ossetian conflict of 1918–1920 1991–1992 South Ossetia War Russo-Georgian War
Q65070966	ISIL–Taliban conflict		Afghanistan	Afghanistan	2015-11-11	1547		armed conflict sectarian violence					Battle of Darzab (2018) 2021 Kabul airport attack
Q3119132	Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts				1947-10-22			armed conflict
Q632787	Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–)		Maghreb		2002-04-11			war					Solhan and Tadaryat massacre
Q61126993	Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war		Levant	Iran Israel Syria	2013			armed conflict					February 2018 Israel–Syria incident
Q47015896	Iraqi conflict		Iraq		2003-03-20			war
Q23198510	Islamic State insurgency in Tunisia		Tunisia		2012			armed conflict
Q86831539	Islamist insurgency in the Sahel				2011-02-15			war
Q3241199	Israeli–Lebanese conflict		Levant	Israel Lebanon	20th century			international conflict armed conflict					2006 Lebanon War list of projectile attacks from Lebanon on Israel and the Golan Heights
Q151622	Israeli–Palestinian conflict		Israel State of Palestine Palestine		1948-05-14	140500		armed conflict ethnic conflict			intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine		Gaza–Israel conflict 1948 Palestine War Six-Day War Yom Kippur War Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon First Intifada Second Intifada
Q89035147	Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso			Burkina Faso	2015-08-23			war					Massacres de Komsilga, Nodin et Soroe Combat de Samorogouan Attaque d'Intangom 2016 Ouagadougou attacks 2016 Nassoumbou attack Battle of the Foulsaré Forest Battle of the Serma Forest (2017) 2017 Ouagadougou attack Siege of Djibo battle of Djibo Battle of Koumbri Aoréma attack Attaque de Tin-Akoff Combat d'Ariel 2018 Ouagadougou attack Attaque d'Inata Embuscade de Loroni Yirgou massacre Attaque de Koutougou Arbinda attack May 2019 Burkina Faso hostage rescue Embuscade d'Hallalé Attack in Markoye, Burkina Faso Embuscade de Dounkoun Attack in Boukouma Attaque d'Inata (2021) Opération Laabingol January 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état Attaque de Madjoari Attaque de Bourzanga Attaque de Tin-Ediar
Q2652686	Kachin conflict		Kachin State Shan State	Myanmar	1961-02-05			war
Q1413732	Kashmir conflict	Jammu and Kashmir	Kashmir	India Pakistan	1947-10-22	47000		war					Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes 2016 Kashmir unrest 2014 India–Pakistan border skirmishes Kargil War insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir Siachen conflict Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Q327237	Kivu conflict		Kivu		2004			war environmental conflict
Q619749	Kurdish–Turkish conflict		Eastern Anatolia Region Southeastern Anatolia Region Syria–Turkey border Kurdistan Region		1978-11			ethnic conflict armed conflict conflict
Q18702324	Libyan Crisis			Libya	2011-02-15			political crisis civil war humanitarian crisis					Libyan Civil War Second Libyan Civil War
Q303801	Lord's Resistance Army insurgency				1987			war
Q2946372	Mali War		Mali	Mali	2012-01-16	7000		civil war					2020 Malian coup d'état 2012 Tuareg rebellion
Q110613097	Myanmar civil war			Myanmar	2021-05-05			civil war
Q852088	Myanmar conflict		Myanmar	Myanmar	1948-04-02			civil war
Q16954835	Nagorno-Karabakh conflict		South Caucasus		1988			ethnic conflict armed conflict		Karabakh Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh
Q110665625	Operation Bamenda Clean		Bamenda		2020-09-08			armed conflict
Q85792714	Pemon conflict			Venezuela	2016			armed conflict
Q110999040	Russian invasion of Ukraine		Eastern Europe Ukraine Russia Crimea	Ukraine Luhansk People's Republic Donetsk People's Republic Russia Belarus Kherson State Zaporozhye Oblast (state)	2022-02-24	42295 10000		war military operation military offensive invasion undeclared war international conflict war of aggression	Right of Collective Self-defense	eastward expansion of NATO Neo-Nazism in Ukraine Russian irredentism decommunization in Ukraine Anti-Ukrainian sentiment Президентство Виктора Януковича Putin's Plan	prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine	Siege of Mariupol Bucha massacre Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis Capture of Chernobyl 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion 2022 Russian mobilization destruction of the Kakhovka Dam	Eastern Ukraine Campaign southern Ukraine campaign Northeastern Ukraine offensive 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022 Kherson counteroffensive Belarusian and Russian partisan movement Kyiv offensive Positionen von Religionsgemeinschaften zum Russischen Überfall auf die Ukraine 2022 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive	reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine Ukrainian refugee crisis economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine solidarity concerts for Ukraine 2022 Russian mobilization Call Russia 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine nuclear risk during the Russian invasion of Ukraine Finland–NATO relations Геапалітычныя наступствы ў выніку расейскага ўварваньня ва Ўкраіну attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine international sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine Wagner Group rebellion Wagner Group–Russian Ministry of Defence conflict accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO
Q15860072	Russo-Ukrainian War		Sea of Azov Rostov Oblast Ukraine Crimea	Ukraine Russia Belarus Donetsk People's Republic Luhansk People's Republic	2014-02-20			war		Revolution of Dignity Russian colonialism eastward expansion of NATO dissolution of the Soviet Union	historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine Euromaidan	annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation Minsk agreements	2014 Russian invasion of Crimea War in Donbas Kerch Strait incident prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts Kriegsführung im Russisch-Ukrainischen Krieg	international sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War Russian–Ukrainian church war 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine list of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War
Q243620	Somali Civil War		Somalia	Somalia	1991-01-26			civil war
Q1052332	Somali Civil War 2009-present		Somalia		2009-01-31			civil war			War in Somalia (2006–2009)
Q1094356	South Thailand insurgency		Southern Thailand	Thailand	2004-01-04			armed conflict
Q1795374	Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile		South Kordofan		2011-05-11			armed conflict
Q178810	Syrian Civil War		Syria	Syria	2011-03-15	570000		civil war proxy war communal violence	Arab Spring	human rights in Syria Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war		Siege of Daraa Khan Shaykhun chemical attack Battle of Baghuz Fawqani 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria	foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war Chronik des Bürgerkriegs in Syrien 2022 Chronik des Bürgerkriegs in Syrien 2021 War against the Islamic State	spillover of the Syrian Civil War international reactions to the Syrian civil war
Q121160319	War in Amhara	Amhara Region	Amhara Region	Ethiopia	2023			armed conflict					2023 Fano–ENDF clashes
Q66474138	War in Catatumbo		Catatumbo River	Colombia Venezuela	2018-01			war
Q190758	War in Darfur		Darfur	Sudan	2003-02-26			war						international response to the War in Darfur
Q16335075	War in Donbas		Donbas Donetsk Oblast Luhansk Oblast	Ukraine	2014-04-06	13300 3375		armed conflict civil war combat operations	Revolution of Dignity 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine 18–21 February 2014 clashes in Ukraine Russian irredentism 2014 Euromaidan regional state administration occupations	konfrontace mezi Ruskem a Západem
Q117716414	War in Sudan		Khartoum	Sudan	2023-04-15	413	3000	attempted coup d'état civil war conflict					timeline of the 2023 Sudan conflict Operation Raus aus Khartum
Q115177203	War on Drugs in Ecuador			Ecuador	2018-01-27			armed conflict
Q185729	War on Terror				2001-09-11			war	September 11 attacks Arab–Israeli conflict Second Chechen War				Afghanistan conflict
Q19686631	Yemeni civil war		Yemen Najran Province	Yemen	2014-09-16			civil war	Battle of Aden Airport	The battle of the presidential house in Sanaa			Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war Battle of Al Mukalla Battle of Aden (2015) Battle of Ad Dali' Lahij insurgency Taiz campaign Shabwah campaign Abyan campaign Marib campaign Battle of Ibb Battle of Port Midi Battle of Utmah Battle of Al Jawf Shabwah Governorate offensive Battle of Al Mukalla (2016) December 2015 Taiz missile attack June 2016 Mukalla attacks September 2015 Marib Toshka missile attack Battle of Nihm Battle of Sana'a Al Hudaydah governorate offensive	Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war emigration
Q107568022	clashes at Cota 905		Cota 905	Venezuela	2021-07-08			turf war armed conflict
Q115628162	honduran gang crackdown (2022–present)			Honduras	2022-12-06			armed conflict
Q179275	insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa		Federally Administered Tribal Areas	Pakistan Islamic Emirate of Waziristan	2004-03-16			war
Q6576609	list of projectile attacks from Lebanon on Israel and the Golan Heights	Northern District	Galilee Golan Heights	Israel	1968			aspect of history aerial warfare armed conflict ethnic conflict
Q17272643	spillover of the Syrian Civil War		Israel Jordan Turkey Lebanon Syria Iraq Egypt		2011			war war spillover

∑ 62 items.

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

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]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

^{[6] [7] [8]}

^[9]

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

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Someone please review the sources if they really say that amount ~2025-33897-12 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Question: Can someone with the appropriate access to ACLED please verify that this is the case? - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I have linked the {{Original research}} banner tag to this discussion as it is otherwise too vague and unhelpful, given that the page is so large.

On the detail, it seems that the Korea conflict is so subdued now that it is debatable whether it is still an "ongoing armed conflict". At the low end, there will be cold wars and frozen conflicts. If they are only generating casualties through sporadic incidents such as espionage and repression, then it's not clear that they should be in the list.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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.

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• The discussion in the section below has only added to my concerns regarding the use of ACLED data, not removed them. Could someone please give me a simple, precise answer as to how the 2024 and 2025 casualties for the "Insurgencies in Pakistan" (860 and 985 respectively) and the "Cameroonian conflicts" (2,228 and 1,628 respectively) are obtained from the ACLED Explorer which is the sole reference cited for both conflicts? FDW777 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes ACLED seems to be quite a respectable source. The issue of allocating and analysing its data seems complex but should not prevent us from presenting it with appropriate qualifications. Note that ACLED seems well aware of such issues and is providing additional facilities. For example see Introducing ACLED's new conflict categories,

  Conflicts evolve. Agendas shift. Violence spreads across borders. What one analyst sees as a 30-year war, another might see as dozens of overlapping crises — and both may be right. That’s why ACLED has always tracked political violence at the event level, letting users define what matters most to them. Now, to help organize that complexity, we’re introducing a new layer of structure.

  So, we should explore such new features and improve our presentation accordingly.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not over the respestability of ACLED as I said at the beginning of my first post, and allocating and analysing its data seems complex is not the job of editors per WP:NOR. We've already seen the results of that line of thinking, for over a year this article falsely claimed that the Korean conflict was an ongoing conflict with 30 casualties in 2024 when there were precisely zero. I note that those who continue to advocate for its use cannot answer my simple question from 09:19, 22 December 2025 despite one of them editing the article four times since then. FDW777 (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for the Korean conflict was removed from the table on 27 Nov 2025 and I don't see anyone trying to return it. So, that's a low-end issue that has been dealt with. The ongoing nature of the lists will tend to generate such cases as conflicts subside and fizzle out. "Old soldiers never die, they simply fade away" Andrew🐉(talk) 17:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just using that as just one example of how editors have drawn completely false conclusions from ACLED data. Per WP:NOR, This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. Trying to get a straight answer as to how specific numbers have been obtained from ACLED data is like nailing jelly to a wall, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the failure to provide the required answer is that doing so would prove beyond any doubt it involved interpreting the data from ACLED (which is organised by country, not by conflict). FDW777 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FDW77: do you trust any source in this page? All of them are based in events, not conflicts. If you can find any entry with any source which explains where the 2025 year to date fatalities come from, please share it. I couldn’t find it.

The problem is not specific to ACLED.

the problem os about:

1) how we group events into conflicts

2) how we select the reliable sources

3) how we filter and agregate the fatalities

4) how we explain 1, 2, 3 in the references, so that it is transparent where the figures come from

5) whether 1, 2, 3 and 4 meets WP:NOR or if we have to delete the columns with the number of fatalities frome the table Miguel.lima (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any Rfc becoming a total disaster, I'm choosing to deal with just ACLED data at this time. FDW777 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I see your concerns: it is not transparent how the available event data is used to present overall conflict data. I do not see how restricting the debate to a single source, instead of reviewing the method to put together and present fatalities figures, would avoid a disaster.

Is this your suggestion? To delete around 70% of the conflict figures and leave them empty. For the remaining 30% of entries that would keep some numbers, the same WP:NOR and transparency concerns would remain but the fatalities totals would be presented anyhow.

Please show me an example of a conflict entry in this page, without ACLED, that would meet your WP:NOR view and that will have transparent information about where the 2025 year to date fatalities come from. If you can find an example of your best practice proposal then we can discuss it. Miguel.lima (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to expand the Rfc to include questions about other sources will only confuse the issue completely, and make the job of determining a consensus next to impossible. I am making no sugggestions as to what will happen to the page at the end of the Rfc, it is not the responsibility of those who object to potentially policy violating content to arrange contingency plans should it be removed. FDW777 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy says in WP:NOR:

• 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.

Therefore, we need to discuss how we want to apply WP:NOR to this page.

If you want to impose a ban on ACLED but not on other event-based sources, you need to justify why this distinction is being made, and the community needs to agree with it.

In my view, if we replace ACLED (researchers who verify and analyse fatalities data) with Wikipedians attempting to perform the same tasks, we would end up doing more original research, not less. So if ACLED data must be removed on WP:NOR grounds, then all other entries should be held to the same standard and removed as well.

Basically, the options are:

A) Accept that some level of “original research” is inevitable, and try to handle it as consistently and transparently as possible.

B) Assume that compiling fatality figures without any editorial judgement is impossible, and therefore remove these figures from Wikipedia.

C) Adopt your proposed mixed approach, which allows original research for some conflicts but not for others, based on an arbitrary ban on one source without first discussing the method used to process the data and without reviewing if the other sources should be also banned.

I'm OK with either A) or B) but I think C) takes the worst of both options and it would be very difficult to justify. Therefore, my vote is to reject your Rfc proposal of baning a single source without fixing the same issue with other sources in all other conflict entries. Miguel.lima (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made a proposed mixed approach, which allows original research for some conflicts but not for others. This is not a vote, and unless people can prove that original research is not taking place in the use of ACLED data (specifically analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources) I can only imagine it being closed with one result, especially as those who advocate for the use of ACLED data consistently refuse to demonstrate how the figures for two particular conflicts have been obtained. FDW777 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You rejected to show an example of any entry that meets WP:NOR. Therefore the mixed approach: You ban the usage of ACLED but you don’t ban other sources used by the same editors in entries which also involves analysis and synthesis and implying conclusions not stated by the source. Miguel.lima (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't neglect, every since entry reference by the ACLED Explorer and Dashboard is original research. Once again claiming things like I don’t ban other sources used by the same editors in entries which also involves analysis and synthesis is a strawman argument. I am not dealing with the problems caused by other references in *this* Rfc, those can be dealt with later. You cannot use the existence of policy violating content as an argument to include more policy violating content. FDW777 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

As of WP:NOR, WP:PSTS,

• 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

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)[reply]

Gaza Health Ministry source is also used for the casualties. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From what I'm observing in these wiki pages, for example, in the Gaza War, it is better to use sources linked to the countries at war, in which both parties are revealing their true casualties and there are a lot of independent analysis, for example, for famine deaths there is this source https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/how-many-people-have-died-of-famine-in-gaza-updated/ which is used in the wiki page, or the Lebanese Health Ministry for the casualties in Lebanon. For the casualties in the Israeli side the sources that are used is this https://www.timesofisrael.com/authorities-name-44-soldiers-30-police-officers-killed-in-hamas-attack/ which is also linked to the official government site and multiple sources for civilian casualties. I am not able to find any other source that has this level of analysis, deaths that are confirmed by names, it is almost impossible to find this kind of sources for other type of conflicts, especially for conflicts that have parties that do not reveal their true casualties, in this case, for example in the Russo-Ukrainian War, there are other sources, independent analysis, that also try to confirm deaths by names. For example this https://www.bbc.com/russian/articles/c0588zr73jpo and this is also used in the wiki page, it is clear that in some conflicts, countries at war, do not show their true casualties, this is where ACLED helps, especially in areas which are not easily accessed by journalists and researchers, this is mostly true in conflicts in Africa for example and ACLED provides weekly, I believe, analysis regarding ongoing global conflicts, I am sure this helps editors have a better view of the total number of casualties in conflicts that are expanding in quite a few countries, and not in the traditional structure of war reporting, like the one that is being done in conflicts such as the Russo-Ukrainian War or the Gaza War. I will try to update the entry with as many sources as possible of course. And the same approach will also take place in the next year as well. Whitesin21 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that in some conflicts, we have minimum and maximum number of casualties, if the data is available, this could also be applied to other conflicts as well, this will help to stay as close to the true number of casualties as possible. Whitesin21 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the World Peace Foundation blog post the author estimates a lower bound of 10,000 and an upper bound of more than 100,000, only famine related deaths. But the assumptions for each year are not clarified. What number did you take for 2025?

The Times of Israel link includes names, but not dates. What number did you take for 2025?

While all these additional information might be useful in the External Links section for anyone who wants to dig deeper, they don't explain where the number 26,226 came from, for the column 2025 fatalities of Arab-Israeli conflict. Miguel.lima (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gov.il/en/pages/swords-of-iron-idf-casualties#JANUARY%202025 Here we can see exactly how many casualties the IDF has in 2025 and in the previous years of the war for example, I was adding the numbers in the Gaza War template as well, everytime there was a source available, same thing with civilian casualties, other editors did that as well. Most of the casualties in 2025 are reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, I also include their almost 10.000 missing as dead, I believe ACLED isn't doing the same so far, they give a lower estimate for 2025, and the rest of the casualties come from Iran and Lebanon. There is an absence of data for 2024, especially for famine victims, so it is hard to calculate exactly how many died in 2024 and how many in 2025, but 2025 is almost over, so I believe we will have a better picture next year. For the totals in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, there are available sources here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict#Notable_wars_and_violent_events but I haven't looked into it yet. Whitesin21 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, the 26,226 number you wrote equals to ACLED (17,806 today but maybe lower when you took it) + 10,000 missing by Gaza Health Ministry ==> 27K. Is this what you are saying?

But the links don't include any Gaza Health Ministry report of 10k missing in 2025 Miguel.lima (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of 2025 there were around 45,000-50,000 reported total casualties by the Gaza Health Ministry and now it's around 70,000+, without counting the missing, because this number was lowered a month ago, but I didn't reduce the number for 2025 since the missing could be from other years as well, last year or in 2023, the rest of the casualties are from Iran and Lebanon mostly, and the others in Israel. So, the majority of the casualties for 2025 are in Palestine. Whitesin21 (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts fatalities measerument is a complex research topic.

The inclusion criteria, sourcing and methodology will tell us which data is taken from whom, how is this reviewed and aggregated, etc. This involves research decisions at each of these steps.

This study compares different approaches from different datasets: ACLED - Comparing Conflict Data

The methodology of UCDP is public here: UCDP Methodology

The methodology of ACLED is public here: ACLED methodology

Sourcing ACLED: ACLED sourcing

Specific example of ACLED approach for Gaza: Coding of fatalities in Gaza since 7 October 2023

Besides what methodoloy each organization will follow to count fatalities, each person can follow their own criteria to get their own personal estimates. When you do this for each conflict entry, in my mind you should publish it, together with your methodological decisions, in a site that can be referenced as a secondary source into this Wikipedia article. Otherwise we may be doing original research. Miguel.lima (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks for your efforts. You spent a lot of time trying your best to get to a reasonable number for each conflict.

But when you say in your comment "try to update the entry with as many sources as possible of course", my expectation is not that you devote your life to screen all sources, assess their reliability, review the data, aggregate the numbers, for each conflict entry. This is a full time research position for several researches.

Rather than reviewing all primary sources and doing our own research, I would rather prefer we define and select what secondary sources to use, and how to put together their data.

I would love to understand what the other editors who maintain year to date fatalities figures think. I don't know who they are. Miguel.lima (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel: 3
Palestine: 1
Lebanon: 2
Syria: 4
Jordan: 1
Iraq: 1
Iran: 4
Qatar: 1
Yemen: 2

Democratic Republic of the Congo (in 2 conflicts)
Central African Republic (2)
Rwanda (1)
Burundi (1)
Uganda (1)

Miguel.lima (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Las Anod conflict: conflict ended in 2023 LtPsyche (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge “Piracy in the Sulu and Celebes Seas/Cross border attacks in Sabah” as a derivative of the Civil conflict in the Philippines. LtPsyche (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. ~2025-43167-78 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know if there is a Older conflict that the ones from 1918 ~2026-12681-2 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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).