Talk:World War III

Edit request from 124.187.134.99, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The first line of this following paragraph is page vandalism. 'Adventure time' is a kids cartoon of which 'finn' is a main character.

Suez Crisis—Soviet threat (1956)

Further information: Suez Crisis

World War 3 is expected to happen in 2019, it will be started by finn from adventure time. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin sent a note to British Prime Minister Anthony Eden warning that "if this war is not stopped it carries the danger of turning into a third world war."

124.187.134.99 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Y Done thanks. Marcus Qwertyus 00:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

General suggestion

When I saw that there was a wiki-link to this page, I was very excited. However, that excitement soon faded to disappointment once I saw the actual page. I was hoping for a synopsis of hypothetical WWIII scenarios and conspiracy theories. While I realize simply posting an opinion such as this on a talk page doesn't get things moving, I figured I might as well throw it out there. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

By consensus, that's not what the page is about. If you're so inclined, you could try starting another article on the subject you're interested in ... though it sounds like it would be a problem of original research and/or synthesis.  Xihr  01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. (In particular, item 3: "an article on 'Weapons to be used in World War III' is not [appropriate].")
However if you think there is scope for an appropriate article, I suggest creating a rough outline/draft of that article - including references - as a subpage of your user page, then as others for feedback about whether it is appropriate. Depending on your level of knowledge/experience, Wikipedia:Your first article might help. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't WW3 start on 9/11?

World Wars don't have to always associate with nuclear exchanges, right? Given that the initial attacks started across the world from where we fight now, that's enough of a worldwide war on terror, right? We are fighting around the world against terrorism, so why doesn't anyone else believe that World War 3 already started on September 11, 2001? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the article?

On the July 10 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson interviewed Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and said "some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III."

--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

By the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT) articles here do not exhaustively cover all of the subjects relating to their title. Each article is about its own subject, and does not discuss other subjects in depth, even where they sometimes have the same name. This article defines itself as covering a third world war so terrible that 'the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones'. The global war on terror has its own article, and hyperbolic Fox News claims linking this subject and that one hardly warrant a 'not to be confused with' note. --Wragge (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

To take this to its extreme: even if there is an official "third world war" - a shooting war between Asia & Europe, say, which does not result in the total devastation envisaged in the late '40s, then this article still wouldn't cover the real "third world war" (except maybe in passing) - because it covers a particular subject (what people from 1945 to 1989 thought of under the name 'WWIII'). --Wragge (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

New items listed under close calls

Have these been described in reliable sources as close calls? I think we need that before we add them, and we should avoid WP:RECENTISM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Many "reliable" and "well-known" sources in America will not speak about if for varying reasons, there for finding a reliable source in English or not blocked is tricky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.127.84 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

alas, per WP:RS we must find reliable sources, Dbrodbeck (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BRD. Please find sources for these. Wikipedia is not the news, and we need to find sources that list these as close calls. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an "ongoing crisis" involving Russian nuclear threats, "as serious as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis"... and no-one has noticed? Something seems a bit implausible, here. Removing this until someone explicitly (and seriously) describes it as an event that came close to provoking war is definitely the correct move. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You CAN'T find any "reliable" sources of it, because the only "reliable" sources won't talk about it! It's being covered up! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Well, if there are no reliable sources, we have nothing to add to the article. Assertions about a cover up are moot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pristina

I removed the Pristina incident from the close call list. Honestly I have no idea why anyone would consider including it in the first place, as it is anything but a close encounter with WW3. Pavuvu (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? British troops directly engaging Russian troops in combat would have triggered a diplomatic crisis? Regardless, I don't think either of us is in a better position to make predictions than the guy who was actually giving orders on the ground that day. Serendi^podous 17:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really. British troops engaged in a single skirmish with Russian forces would not by far have triggered WW3. Seriously, a single engagement would typically not even trigger an ordinary war, so exactly why is the Pristina incident included? Is it just because someone mentioned WW3 when it happened? Provide some source that makes it more credible to say that it could have triggered a world war, otherwise it doesn't really fit in. There is quite simply nothing in the BBC source provided that even remotely indicates that the incident had the potential to cause a world war, or even a normal war for that matter. Pavuvu (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You never addressed the second part of my comment. Serendi^podous 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

An off-hand remark made during what the news report calls a "heated exchange" is hardly sufficient as an assesment of consequences. If general Clark is on record describing it as a close call after the Kosovo war, then maybe.09:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right, I did not adress the second part of your comment. I didn't find it very relevant, as the criteria for what goes in the article isn't determined by either one of our predictions, or those of anyone on the ground when it occured. Sources are what is supposed to dictate what goes into an article, and there is no source that actually says that a British attack against the Russian troops would even come close to triggering WW3. Pavuvu (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll remove the incident again after this discussion.Sjö (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)