Talk:War

War and its effects

Voice 2402:8100:3917:2D4D:980F:A123:3F59:2B8D (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

Per WP:ITHAT, should we unitalicize within a hatnote by parameter:

"Conflict zone" redirects here. For the 2001 video game, see Conflict Zone.

193.34.132.126 (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Overview of ethical positions

Hi, the following text was taken out of the ethics section as too random. I do not agree, as it gives a first overview of thd spectrum of positions towards war. So I dont see why it is not something for a general overview article. Quite the contrary it gives an concise overview and it isnt anything that was just written by some student. I am ok, if someone has a more cited categorization, but in principle I dont see the problem, on the contrary it is quite a good overview for a first read into the issue.

>> Martin Ceadel has categorized positions about war and peace in the following categories:

• Militarism (normalized)
• Crusading (interventionism)
• Defencism (prevention)
• Pacificism (prevention and abolition)
• Pacifism (rejection)

<< Nsae Comp (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References

These questions may assist in determining the value of the insertion

- who is Martin Ceadel? How much authority and influence does he hold in this field?

- are the categories generally accepted? Or is this entirely the idea of one individual?

- why did Ceadal categorise in such a manner? What was the context and purpose?

- why did the source mention Ceadal's categorisation? What was the context?

- should the insertion into the article be put into context, or is the statement of the categorisation sufficient?

- why cite this as Ceadel's opinion? If it is just his opinion why include it at all?

- In terms of your description of the categorisation as providing an "overview of the spectrum of positions towards war", can you justify that claim?

I would be leaning towards suggesting that the insertion is not helpful to the article, but could be persuaded otherwise. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as this is one general overview article and not helpful to the article in my view at all. The only way how some can be added as this is a general overview article is to it strictly connected to warfare not to other topics and to many political scientists and historians agree/use it. Nubia86 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Fascism and Pragmatism

How does Fascism “encompass” pragmatism? Seems like nonsense to me. Two separate concepts completely. 2001:56A:FE11:3200:A001:3F0B:9EE3:34DC (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That section was put in by a single editor back in 2011, and that was his only contribution to Wikipedia. The entire section is IMO complete nonsense, and not remotely justified by the citations provided by the editor. I will remove. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoration of odd text

Sjo restored the following text to the History section, citing WP:NOTCENSORED in their edit summary: "William Rubinstein wrote "Pre-literate societies, even those organised in a relatively advanced way, were renowned for their studied cruelty...'archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography [i.e., after the coming of the Europeans].'" I had removed it because the quote implies that it's only non-European prehistoric societies whose studied cruelty was renowned, and the established sources don't back this up. Either Rubinstein is a racist, or he has inadvertently used lazy language that could allow that interpretation, or he has been quoted in a way that allows it. WP:NOTCENSORED says "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view)". I believe this is the part of WP:NOTCENSORED that is relevant here, and this content ought to be removed until the problems associated with it have been dealt with. Stara Marusya (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain how the interpretation of the quote being only non-European prehistoric societies that are included was reached. The wording is clearly "pre-literate societies" which includes all European societies up until the 19thC and some through to the 20th. The mention of Europeans relates to the timing of ethnography, not the timing of the violence. The insertion of "i.e., after the coming of the Europeans" looks like an editor though and should probably be removed. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The editor who inserted this is taking a bit of a liberty. The first part of the quote "Pre-literate societies, even those organised in a relatively advanced way, were renowned for their studied cruelty" is from page 22 in the chapter "Genocide in pre-modern societies". This was part of an argument that stated that although greater numbers of people have been killed by genocide in modern times, as a proportion society has been on the improve.

The second part of the quote is from page 50 in the chapter "Genocide in the Colonial Age, 1492–1914". The full quote is "An escalation in both the scale and intensity of violence certainly followed the coming of the Europeans, who introduced guns, horses and alcohol, and whose conquests forced some native tribes to move into areas where they were compelled to fight other tribes. Nevertheless, such massacres occurred long before the Europeans came. According to Lawrence H. Keeley 'archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography [i.e., after the coming of the Europeans].'. This related specifically to the violence surrounding the colonisation of the US, and the coming of the Europeans does relate to the level of violence.

I would argue that the first part of the quote is valid and should stand, whilst the second part is deceptive and should be removed. I will make that change. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Jameel, I'm happy with your edit. Stara Marusya (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference 12 is poor

This reference is to an article published by an online newspaper, Asia Times Online. The article is essentially an opinion piece. It’s central theme has to do with a surmised popular misconception about the nature of so-called primitive peoples, and has nothing really to do with war per se. The idea seems to be that the author of this article refers to a conclusion of the author of the book (Keeley) referred to directly in the wiki article. Though I expect it is an accurate representation of Keeley’s opinion—-or let’s say scholarly conclusion—-Spengler does not quote Keeley but only refers to his book generally. Since Keeley’s book is central to this section of the wiki article it seems to me that the article should refer directly to, or at best, quote the stated opinion. In any case, the reference is superfluous and because of the editorial, non-scholastic nature of the article it should be deleted. Grandmartin (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That reference seems totally good and valuable for the theme of this article. 178.221.65.14 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

Diff:

−

{{portal|War}} * [[Outline of war]] * [[Grey-zone (international relations)]] {{-}}

+

* [[Outline of war]] * [[Grey-zone (international relations)]] {{-}}

remove a Portal:War was closed is delete. 122.2.122.171 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)