This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology 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 articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Owenmoore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmthomas16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" 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)Reply[reply]

When the southern states seceded from the Union, war was still not a certainty. Federal forts, barracks, and naval shipyards dotted the southern landscape. Many Regular Army officers clung tenaciously to their posts, rather than surrender their facilities to the growing southern military presence. President Lincoln attempted to resupply these garrisons with food and provisions by sea.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)Reply[reply]

Done the new language suggested isn't perfect either, but it's an obvious improvement. An outcome of a civil war may be one nation splitting into two. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)Reply[reply]

Done Izno (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only historical mention in the present lead is the origin of the term. And then there's quite a bit on the evolution of civil war in the 20th and 21st centuries. But not a whit on the deep history of civil war or mention of any of the momentous civil wars, of which the American Civil War is only one, and still leaning toward recency bias.

Just to name one other, I came here via Toluid Civil War. The lead could mention civil wars of succession as a particularly important case. The American Civil War, on the other hand, was a different animal. — MaxEnt 22:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to add one other comment, FWIW. There's a compelling scene in The Fog of War where McNamara recounts meeting (much later on) one of his opposing counterparts in Vietnam, and that his counterpart became furious over one comment by an American at the formal dinner table, and pounded his fist on the table and said "For us, it was a civil war!" The implication from McNamara is that the Americans failed to understand that their opponent viewed the war as a civil war, whereas they didn't, leading to some problems on both sides in anticipating outcomes. I haven't watched that film for over five years, and I might be a bit murky on the recollection, but the point remains that even a civil war is not always a clean distinction from every side of the war elephant. — MaxEnt 22:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's another quick note.

Since 1945, civil wars have resulted in the deaths of over 25 million people, as well as the forced displacement of millions more.

But then the lead falls short in drawing attention to how a refugee crisis can topple adjacent dominoes (or at least ratchet up the inflammation over a much broader context). Nor does the lead connect this back into the increasingly interventionist policies of foreign states. — MaxEnt 22:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i request granting me permission for editing a page Cluster86392 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please include more info on civil wars around the world 81.96.147.110 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)Reply[reply]

 Not done, for obvious reasons. Pahunkat (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]

Original — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.115.144 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I think this is very important to include on this topic. Franklinian! (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Skibitolet (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Similarly, the rise of refugees from neighboring countries, will increase the probability of a civil war in the host country. ^[1] Robbandsnow (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]