Conflicts between people over wildlife are widespreadand damaging to both the wildlife and peopleinvolved. Such issues are often termed human–wildlifeconflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and mayexacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A reviewof 100 recent articles on human–wildlife conflicts revealsthat 97 were between conservation and other human activities,particularly those associated with livelihoods. We suggestthat we should distinguish between human–wildlifeimpacts and human–human conflicts and be explicitabout the different interests involved in conflict. Thoserepresenting conservation interests should not only seektechnical solutions to deal with the impacts but also considertheir role and objectives, and focus on strategies likelyto deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversityand the people involved.