The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This page is not politically neutral. It groups Marxism and Fascism together, despite these being inappropriate comparisons - as Marxism is a theory of the analysis of capitalism and fascism is a reactionary political movement. A more appropriate but no less biased comparison would be equivocating communism and fascism. The page also includes an insufficient explication of the Marxist critique of war.
RECOMMENDED: Very good information on the idea of war for both humans and animal parallels can be found in the book "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond! I highly recommend that curious persons (especially good, motivated writers) check the book's section(s?) on war out and use it to help this article. Also it is an excellent read cover to cover.
Main definition: The first phrase now says war is not avoidable. Resources and differences in ideology do not cover the totality of motivations to go to war.
Need examples of expansionism and imperialism wars
Warlike behavior in animals, evolutionary biological perspective
Need more info on special interest groups and the use of propaganda and influence techniques to motivate a population to accept/support a war, e.g. funding of thinktanks and controlling the editorial spin of "news". Currently no mention of social psychology, some useful references might be Walter Lippman's The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads, Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, Pratkanis and Aronsons' The Age of Propaganda (The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion), all of which have information about how war might be promoted to the public.
Cleanup in "Types of War"
Persistent tendency to focus primarily on modern (and western) terminology and protocol when discussing elements of warfare. Little distinction between what the modern observer would call an "armed force" and the myraid alternative warrior groups which have waged war throughout the time periods referenced, and the treatment of the topic is hampered by such modernity.
References are lacking, with many stand-alone comments needing evidence
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.
Some editors are persisting in adding a multi-million casualty figure related to the Muslim conquests. And others are persisting in deleting the number. This is now a matter of discussion. Please provide your thoughts here. (No changes to the article should take place until we reach consensus. This is the required WP:BRD process. Thanks.)--S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
every society and religions have some bad people and some good people not just Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raljarf (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Permission requested to delete section List of ongoing wars (1,000+ fatalities per year). LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree but I think the section would be fine with the Uppsala Conflict Data Program's table. To me the other table is just a not very good attempt at making a table to describe all of the current conflict in the world. I don't see why it should stay especially considering that the Uppsala Conflict Data Program table has most of the information that it has just without the problems.
Here are it's problems: It has uncited stats (e.g. for Yemen and Mali) and unlike the other tables which uses a credible source many of its sources are not credible (e.g. "Syrian Revolution Martyr Database. Syrian National Council" or the "Iraqi Body Count"). Also, this table uses massive summary figures, not just for the entire conflicts but also for say the 12,000 figure given for Burma by "RISE's Urgent Call for Intervention: Rohingyas death toll 10000, The Humanitarian Crisis Hub", again clearly a biased sourse as well.
If anything I think this could be allowed to stay just because it has 2013 data which the Uppsala database table doesn't but even then it's pretty basic and has a lot of problems.Wareditor2013 (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Most of my edit is things like punctuation. Here are the changes that need explanation the most:
This edit somehow went unreverted since 2009. It may have been well intended, but it was added between an author's initial and last name. It went into a reference, and the text it references has no particular relevance to this edit. I removed it.
"... World War II, being 60 million plus, surpasses all other war-death-tolls by a factor of two." But the table that immediately follows shows the Mongol conquests with 60 million deaths. I removed "by a factor of two".
"since the United States declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq". The U.S. announced those attacks, but "declare war" has a special meaning in U.S. politics; see Declaration of war by the United States. Thus this article actually says the opposite: "The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by Congress ..." So I bypassed the issue by making it "since the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq". Art LaPella (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)