Talk:War

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: Pelayo.omar, Colenyj.

Opinion instead of fact?

Hi. I was wondering if the sentence in the 2nd paragraph that says that the Paraguayan War 'may have been' the most destructive war is an opinion instead of a fact. That seems like an opinion to me because it says it "MAY HAVE BEEN" instead of a solid stated fact. Also, it has no source attached to that statement that I noticed. Colenyj (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Source for debate?

Is this sentence needed as it seems like it opens up the article for debate or arguement? ---->

"While some scholars see war as a universal and ancestral aspect of human nature,[2] others argue it is a result of specific socio-cultural or ecological circumstances.[3]" Colenyj (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Big restructure

I have reverted an attempt to restructure the article. It was clearly made in good faith and each edit summary provides a reason. My main concern is that this is a huge thing to attempt without any discussion. That might be OK on many other articles that need a good restructuring but this is such an important topic that it would be better to discuss it first. Also, the first paragraph was ungrammatical and that made me worry about the rest, which I have not checked all of in detail. It may well be that there are a lot of good things in this edit that we want to keep but it doesn't seem to be all good and certainly not uncontroversial. So lets discuss it here.

• Here is the edit in which I reverted: Diff.
  (Yes. I now see that I mistyped my edit summary quite badly and that maybe I should not be calling other people's writing "ungrammatical". In my defence, it is just an edit summary.)

• You can see all the edit summaries in the history.

So, what do we think? How much of this do we want to include? Which changes are good or bad? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, if people think I was wrong to revert it all then I won't get upset if they just revert my reversion. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to present what I saw to be the general problem so you will all see the general logic behind my changes. Here are the sections only in the TOC as I found it:

   1 Etymology
   2 Types
   3 History
   4 Effects
   5 Aims
   6 Ongoing conflicts
   7 Limiting and stopping
   8 Theories for [sic; should be "of"] motivation
   9 Ethics

Don't you need an account of the history of war as a basic social phenomenon before you present the special historical development of war into types? The criterion of chronology would seem to dictate that.

Since human beings need reasons and purposes for their action, why are the effects of having taken the action of war presented before the aims the combatants hoped to achieve in war? Why are a report about on-going conflicts and a discussion of the possibilities of limiting and stopping war presented before theories of motivation? It would seem that, once the overview of the social phenomenon is given, we should take the next closest phenomenon, the psychological dimension. I would say that motives come before aims since the same motives may underlie commitment to different aims.

Why should a one-line section about on-going conflicts occur in an article about the phenomenon in general? Since it only mentions one conflict, it isn't very informative in general, and even if it mentioned several, it would need to be updated continuously. Shouldn't it be removed? And why should attempts to limit and stop wars come before the ethical principles that govern the turn to war and conduct in war? You can't have a good reason to want to stop a practice until you have a good reason to think it is wrong.

Hence I propose this sequence of sections:

   1 Etymology
   2 History 
   3 Theories of motivation
   4 Aims 
   5 Types
   6 Effects
   7 Ethics
   8 Limiting and stopping
   

This is a sequence in which from history to effects the phenomenon is presented with ever increasing empirical concreteness, with ethics we consider the normative dimension, and then with the last section we consider empirical expressions of normative commitments.

Here are the problems I saw in the sub-sections:

   3 History
       3.1 Largest by death toll

Why is the highly specific ranking of wars by death toll a sub-section in history? Doesn't it belong in the section on effects, the first sub-section of which is about war casualties?

   4 Effects
       4.1 Military and civilian casualties in recent human history
       4.2 On military personnel
       4.3 On civilians
       4.4 On the economy
       4.5 World War Two
       4.6 On the arts

What's so special about the economic effects of WWII that they need their own sub-section?

   8 Theories of motivation
       8.1 Psychoanalytic psychology
       8.2 Evolutionary
       8.3 Economic
       8.4 Marxist
       8.5 Demographic
       8.6 Rationalist
       8.7 Political science

Aside from the fact that "psychoanalytic psychology" is redundant, why should it come first as a theory? The scientific consensus now is that, because its concepts and methods are not falsifiable, psychoanalysis is not empirical, so it is not a science. And since a Marxist theory is either an economic or a political theory, why should it have its own sub-section? If one argues that it deserves its own sub-section because it is a combination of the economic and the political, then there arises the question of why a partisan political ideology, whose economic principles all economists reject, should precede non-partisan theories? I take it as a general principle that in an encyclopedia article the succession of topics in a controversy should proceed from less to more controversial.

I propose this sequence (adding "theories" to titles to correct the unidiomatic use of a modifier alone without a modified noun):

8 Theories of motivation
       8.1 Evolutionary theories
       8.2 Economic theories (Marxist theories treated in a paragraph in this section)
       8.3 Demographic theories
       8.4 Rationalist theories
       8.5 Political science theories
       8.6 Psychoanalytic theories
       8.7 [Marxist theories]

I made some minor structural changes. The fact that the study of war is sometimes called "polemology" has nothing to do with etymology, so I moved the sentence to the intro. In the intro there is a long paragraph about the deadliest wars in history, but isn't it too specific to be of use in giving the reader a general orientation to the subject? Wordwright (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Justification for adding "theories" to sub-section titles under "Theories of Motivation."

In the foregoing justification of the changes I proposed to this article, I pointed out that in the sub-section titles of the section "Theories of Motivation" there occurred several adjectives and attributive nouns or noun phrases without any noun to modify, and that this is not idiomatic English. I had given this justification in my original edit, which Daniel Rigal reverted.

Since more than a week has passed since DR first suggested a discussion of my proposals to re-structure the article, and since I did not know how to revert his reverts, I began this morning to edit again. When it came to editing the section entitled, in the version I found, "Theories for motivation," I edited in several stages. In one stage I pointed out, for the third time, that adjectives, etc., cannot stand alone, and then I added "theories" as the noun those attributive words should modify. After my changes, the TOC looked like this:

7 Theories of motivation

   7.1 Psychoanalytic theories
   7.2 Evolutionary theories
   7.3 Economic theories
   7.4 Marxist theories
   7.5 Demographic theories
   7.6 Rationalist theories
   7.7 Political science theories

I found later that Just Plain Bill reverted that edit, so that the TOC looked like this:

7 Theories of motivation

   7.1 Psychoanalytic
   7.2 Evolutionary
   7.3 Economic
   7.4 Marxist
   7.5 Demographic
   7.6 Rationalist
   7.7 Political science 

On my personal talk page JPB left this message:

Just as headings do not include a repetition of the article title, sub-headings do not repeat words in the parent heading. See MOS:HEAD. If you have a reason for going against Wikipedia guidelines, kindly explain it, preferably on the article's talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked the MOS sub-section and found that there is no statement to the effect that "sub-headings do not repeat works in the parent heading." The closest that comes to it is the statement that a heading should "not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." I have italicized the closing subordinate clause because it does indicate that there are exceptions to the proscription of redundant reference in the title of a sub-section, even though, in fact, my changes do not make the sub-section titles "refer redundantly" to the higher-level section title, but instead make the sub-section titles conform to idiomatic English usage, because, as I will say for a fourth or fifth time, adjectives and attributive nouns and noun phrases cannot stand alone in English; a sub-section title that says nothing but "psychoanalytic" is bizarre. I did not go against Wikipedia guidelines.

If, however, someone can create sub-section titles in which the attributive words do not modify the word "theories" but still modify some noun appropriate to the topic, more power to them. Wordwright (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sub-headings do not stand alone; they inhabit the context of the parent heading. In an article on menu items available in a diner, one might find a heading structure such as the following:

• Eggs
  • Fried
  • Scrambled
  • Poached

and so on. That is perfectly clear understandable idiomatic English.

Mere repetition does not confer validity. It does not matter how many times Wordwright says "adjectives and attributive nouns and noun phrases cannot stand alone in English;" it still carries an aroma of something made up. The burden here is on him to supply credible justification for his notion that sub-headings consisting of modifiers are orphans without something like nouns to modify. His say-so that such usage is "bizarre" is not enough.

For my part, I will go with Strunk's classic "omit needless words." Doing otherwise misses the spirit of the MOS. Just plain Bill (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of SLA Marshall and Dave Grossman (copy-pasted from my talk page)

The reason given was "the claims made have, in order, come from someone who is not reliable or taken seriously in any field (Grossman), have been considered debunked for 30 years (SLA Marshall), quote an encyclopedia for gun collectors that cites no sources stating a piece of data nobody has ever managed to corroborate (the civil war claim) and have very little to do with the article (the strange tangent about fascism)." Grossman in particular is a controversial figure and should never be treated as an unbiased source, you can "according to Dave Grossman" him, but not quote him as fact.

Some sources regarding SLA Marshall:

"SLA Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" by Professor Robert Engen, SSHRC Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Royal Military College of Canada, comparing Marshall's figures to data from the Canadian Army in WW2. Finds that it does not in any way match Marshall's claims.

"SLA Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" (yes, same title) by Professor Roger J. Spiller, Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College, shows that Marshall could not possibly have gathered the evidence he claimed and concludes he almost certainly made it up. Quote:

"Why the subject of fire ratios under combat conditions has not been long and searchingly explored, I don't know," Marshall wrote. "I suspect that it is because in earlier wars there had never existed the opportunity for systematic collection of data."...

By the most generous calculation, Marshall would have finished "approximately" 400 interviews sometime in October or November 1946, or at about the time he was writing Men Against Fire.

This calculation assumes, however, that of all the questions Marshall might ask the soldiers of a rifle company during his interviews, he would unfailingly want to know who had fired his weapon and who had not. Such a question, posed interview after interview, would have signalled that Marshall was on a particular line of inquiry, and that regardless of the other information Marshall might discover, he was devoted to investigating this facet of combat performance. John Westover, usually in attendance during Marshall's sessions with the troops, does not recall Marshall's ever asking this question. Nor does Westover recall Marshall ever talking about ratios of weapons usage in their many private conversations. Marshall's own personal correspondence leaves no hint that he was ever collecting statistics. His surviving field notebooks show no signs of statistical compilations that would have been necessary to deduce a ratio as precise as Marshall reported later in Men Against Fire. The "systematic collection of data" that made Marshall's ratio of fire so authoritative appears to have been an invention.

(Emhasis mine)

"About Face" by Colonel David H. Hackworth, one of the most decorated officers in the history of the United States Army, among other things states that Marshall "never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

"SLA Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New Evidence Regarding Fire Ratios" by Professor John Whiteclay Chambers II, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at Rutgers University, includes a full interview with First Lieutenant Frank Brennan, an officer who witnesses Marshall's interviews. Quote from his conclusion:

"Without further corroboration, the source of Marshall’s contentions about shockingly low fire ratios at least in some US Army divisions in World War II appears to have been based at best on chance rather than scientific sampling, and at worst on sheer speculation.

It seems most probable that Marshall, writing as a journalist rather than as a historian, exaggerated the problem and arbitrarily decided on the one-quarter figure because he believed that he needed a dramatic statistic to give added weight to his argument. The controversial figure was probably a guess."

Moreover, recent editions of Marshall's book Men Against Fire actually debunk his work in the book's own introduction, citing General Bruce Clarke who said they were "Ridiculous and dangerous assertions - absolute nonsense."

You want Wikipedia to hold this up as factual? Bones Jones (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

I have fully protected the article and restored it to the pre edit War version. Please discuss on this talk page and come to a consensus as to whaty should stay and what should go. ~ GB fan 12:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I've already posted my points regarding Grossman not being RS for being quoted as fact, SLA Marshall being debunked and the fascism tangent not making much sense. This led to wolfchild saying he didn't need to discuss it with me on my talk page (erm...) and reverting again rather than engaging the comment I made here. At no point have I seen justification for his reverts other than that the content is "sourced," which is not a defence for a removal for bad sources or irrelevance. Bones Jones (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This article about War is important and sensitive and I think to always should be under full protection and all kind of adding new sources, sections, subsections need to be first discussed at talk page. Especially adding new sections in current time, without proper historical distance and agreement between experts, historians etc.

1. I oppose add of new sub section "long peace" into history of war ( no historical distance, heavy criticism, no relevance, no wider agreement into academic community and it is mostly conected just with some parts of Europe and major direct wars between great powers without numerous proxy conflicts etc) It should stay as it is now.

2. User Bones Jones made some interesting remarks about Grossman and SLA Marshall so it can be changed to that authors argues or claims about their views etc. Indeed I think to note about fascism should stay in a way of importance etc. Duncangorka28 (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Strike comments by confirmed sockpuppet. Sunrise (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, GB fan, for locking the page (I had actually started to write out a RPP request last night, but RL got in the way). There has been a deal of editing lately, especially the mass removal of sourced content. I had restored some of that content, as the reasoning given in the edit summaries did not seem sufficient. Unfortunately, instead of initiating the BRD process, the other editor involved, "Bones Jones", tried to initiate the edit war process. And while posting all sorts of complaints on their user talk page, then on my user talk page, then on your user talk page... it wasn't until well after that they finally posted here on the article talk page (like they should have in the first place), but then they immediately reverted, again, without any kind of discussion. As their main issue stems from a source, rather than other issues like content, lay out, etc., I would suggest the take that up first at WP:RSN first. If indeed the source is determined to be unreliable, then that would help address that singular issue. But there is more here than just that. (There is also more here than the content being debated, and repeatedly reverted by new user Duncangorka28.)

This is such a high profile page, with over 1800 views per day in the last 2 months and there are over 5200 links to this page. 'War' is obviously a very important topic making this an important article. One that not only provides the definition of war, but lays out the part it's played in human history, shaping that history and the world we know. Therefore, I think it's crucial that regular discussion is had here regarding content, especially when we're talking about mass changes with single edits. I haven't gone through the previous five archived talk pages, but I see that on this very page, just above, other editors have tried to initiate proposal-based discussions on the layout and content of this page. Then I see responses from the two editors affected by your protection.

I think we should again attempt to have a discussion on the layout, and more importantly the content of this page. We can use the previous proposals a guides, but post it as proper RfC and place notices on several related Wiki:Project talk pages to get as much community involvement as possible. The very changes attempted here by single editors deserve more than a debate between two people, they should be added (as is or altered) or removed by consensus, just as you indicated in your comment. Thoughts? Thanks - wolf 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Will you stop with the bullshit grandstanding and actually explain what your defence of the content you restored is? All I'm seeing is you trying to hand off the job of making your arguments for your position that this content belongs here to someone else.

Also good job lying about the timeline of events, there. I posted to your talk page and his talk page earlier today. I posted to this page two days ago. It's timestamped, you know. Bones Jones (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the charm just... oozes out of you. Have you taken that charm, and your sourcing challenge to the WP:RSN yet? You do realize that is place where the reliability of sources is determined, right? It is not determined in edit summaries on your say-so. Otherwise, what else can I say? You removed sourced content. I reverted you. No one here has spoken up to defend your edit, nevermind having enough people contribute to form a consensus. I told before, there are processes here. No matter how much you think you are right, no matter how much you rant and rave and needlessly disrupt numerous pages (in whatever order), we still need to follow these processes. So relax already. RSN is that → way. - wolf 18:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this was a Miss America contest, and having seen how you address people in your talk page edit summaries you're a fine one to talk about charm. You're the one who's disputing these edits, you defend the inclusion of this material. Stop demanding I go off and do your work for you: state your defence of this material (why these sources are appropriate, why the section on fascism is relevant), or I'll have to conclude you don't have one. FYI, RSN rulings are not policy, and not a substitute for discussion between editors. They offer a second opinion, you haven't yet presented a first one. And you have no more consensus for your revert than I have for my edit, I don't exactly see other users flocking to defend you.

Also, as someone so very fond of quoting the rulebook, I'd assume you're aware of WP:PROVEIT and WP:ONUS and whose job it is to show these sources are reliable? (hint: yours) Bones Jones (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Were any of those edit summaries directed at you? No? Then wtf are you babbling about? Look, you are trying to remove a asignificant amount of sourced content and the only reason you've provided is that you have issues with the source. Unless otherwise determined, S.L.A.M. is a reliable source. While some his methodology has been challenged, he is still a noted historian and journalist with over 30 published books. He doesn't just suddenly become an unreliable and/or unusable source on your say-so. That is why we have the WP:RSN (could've sworn I just said that... somewhere... ) It's simple; take your complaint there. If he's determined as a source that can't be used, then anything supported by his works in this, and any other article, can be removed. Otherwise, it stays, as you do not have sufficient reason (or consensus) to remove this content. Btw; Marshall has never been challenged at RSN, so yours will be the first. Jsyk... - wolf 19:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Above I pointed to multiple authoritative sources, convenient link (three academic papers, a book by a respected contemporary of his, and the forward to modern editions of his own book) with two specific quotes from the papers stating the research that is cited is based on data that cannot be located and probably does not exist. Marshall has been considered debunked for a good thirty years. Unless you're arguing he's more reliable than Professor Robert Engen, SSHRC Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Royal Military College of Canada, Professor Roger J. Spiller, Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College, and Professor John Whiteclay Chambers II, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at Rutgers University? Please, feel free to scuttle off to RSN and get them to declare three Professors to be unreliable sources, I'll wait right here.

Again, the onus is on you to show he is reliable, not me to show he is not. The default state for wikipedia is non-inclusion: the one seeking inclusion bears the burden of proof. That's you. Sources are certainly not reliable until otherwise determined, that's patent nonsense. Bones Jones (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Above I pointed to..." yadda, yadda, yadda.... Great. Take it all to RSN. Let us know how you make out.

"Again, the onus is..." blah, blah, blobbity-blah, blah, blaahhh.... Says who? You? - wolf 00:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I don't need to do that. We're supposed to discuss it here. It's now very clear you have no argument, and you need to WP:PROVEIT because the WP:ONUS is on you to do so. Do you really think this is how you build consensus, ignoring your opponent and hoping they don't notice that you have no defence other than "go to RSN because I hope they'll be better at this than me?" Bones Jones (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? This isn't a content dispute (or at least, hasn't reached that stage). You attempted to remove sources comtent. You reverted. You're edit warring aside, that is when it goes to the talk page. Now we're here. Right off the bat, there is a dispute over the source of the content. You claim the source is not reliable. Well, that is what RSN is for (have you even been there? Do you even know what it is?). RSN is where sources are reviewed/challenged/debated etc., and ultimately determined as RS or not. If the source you're challenging here is determined as unreliable, then all content supprted by it can be removed without further debate. It's that simple, so why do you try it, like everything else, into some big dramatic conflict? Chill out. Go to RSN. Either way, this issue will quickly be resolved. - wolf 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, I see you have no argument for this source being appropriate. Per WP:PROVEIT and WP:ONUS, this means the material should not be included. Bones Jones (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you actually read PROVEIT or ONUS? The content is cited and, you think the onus is on me to do what? And have you gone to RSN yet? - wolf

It is not cited to the satisfaction of other editors, hence it is not cited. Under your interpretation of policy, I could cite information on contemporary American politics to Alex Jones and you'd have to go to RSN in order to say that wasn't ok. Do you really think that kind of stupid bureaucracy is how Wikipedia is supposed to function?

As for what you're supposed to do, you could provide higher-quality sources that make the same assertions, argue in favour of the existing sources to try to convince me (this is a thing called building consensus, there may be one or two obscure policies about it somewhere), or do literally anything other than expecting RSN to conduct a defence of a source you can't defend yourself. Bones Jones (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't get it. I don't "expect RSN to defend a source for me". That's not what RSN does. They vette sources to determine if they are reliable or not. You're challenging the source, you could've gone there days ago and had this resolved, one way or the other. But you seem hell-bent on having some kind of combative, snarky flame-war type of argument. That's not necessary nor how things are typically done. If you have as strong a case against S.L.A.M. as you claim you do, it should be quite easy for you to have him determined unreliable in short order (far less time compared to how long you've dragged this out). You could then come here and remove any and all content with him attached as a cite. You could do that on any page, and there would be no debate, nor could anyone revert you, as you would have the RSN link to back you up. Problem solved. - wolf 09:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need an RSN link to back me up. Like I said, that's not how this works. You need consensus. And I don't see you going to RSN to declare the three academic papers I cited criticising SLA Marshall as inadmissible. So I can provide three times the number of sources that disagree with the statement as you can provide that agree with it. That means I could immediately add a statement to the article declaring the previous "sourced content" to be false.

Also, I couldn't do that anyway, because that's not what RSN does. An RSN request is typically for asking in a particular source is valid used in a particular context. It doesn't allow for blanket removal of a source in any context: if imaginary author "Bill Smith" is agreed to not be an expert on Paraguayan molluscs, it doesn't follow that he can't be used as a source on Japanese tax law. That's why point 4 of the RSN request outline requires a link to the precise context the source is being used in, and why it ends with the specific statement "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"."

And as I previously noted, RSN rulings are not policy. That's right there on their front page, RSN users are just normal editors and their rulings are not law.

Not to mention that all your points apply to you. If you're so sure SLA Marshall wouldn't fail an RSN check, why do't you go there and get them to rule in favour of it? I mean, if you did that then I'd be forbidden from disagreeing you by some kind of mysterious wiki force, because that's a thing that can happen. Bones Jones (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're the one claiming sourced content should be removed because the source is not reliable. Have you posted that opinion, with whatever supporting info you have, at RSN? Simple question. - wolf 06:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What did I just say? And as noted, I could do this:

"According to research conducted by SLA Marshall[1] which he didn't conduct[2][3][4][5]..."

This tends to be good grounds to remove "sourced content." Bones Jones (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

...aaannd the simple answer to that simple question would be 'no'. You've made 30+ edits to this talk page alone, almost a dozen more edits to the article, and yet another half-dozen related edits on your own talk page... almost 50 edits, all about the reliability of a source, but not a single edit to the "Reliable Source" noticeboard. - wolf 02:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean you'd remove sourced content? This one editor told me that only bad little boys and girls do that! Bones Jones (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if you went to RSN, made your case that SLAM is not a reliable source, and it was determined there that he is indeed was not an RS, then I would remove content with refs attached citing him a source. Give RSN a try. If it goes your way (as you seem to think it would) you and I could end up working together to remove any SLAM-supported content we can find. Imagine that... - wolf 05:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we couldn't, because as I already pointed out, RSN is for ruling if a source is appropriate in a particular context. What I'm asking you is, if I added a statement after the current one stating that SLA Marshall did not conduct his research with three or four citations to scholarly and otherwise reliable sources, would you remove it? If so, based on the arguments thusfar presented, what justification would you have? Bones Jones (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"RSN is for ruling if a source is appropriate in a particular context". Really. Is that stated somewhere? And are you sure they don't review submitted sources, and with additional info, help determine that said sourxe may or may not be reliable? Have you tried? Or do you want to keep playing these weird "what if" scenarios? You know, I've never met anyone here that was so concerned about the reliability of a source that had at the same time, never been to RSN, especially to post the source they are challenging. I know you're still fairly new and inexperienced here, but jeez... You do realize that RSN is a resource that available to you, right? (and you're sure "we couldn't"?) - wolf 08:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(break)

I agree to article about war is important and also to it is sensitive. Article is highly informative and focused on war, aims, efects, warfare, etc etc. Adding claims, theories under heavy challenges, personal views, not widely recognised and potentialy promotional should be avoided. Adding new sections and subsections first at talk page and then to decide why it should be added or no. About "long peace" I am against adding it especially as own subsection and I gave reasons, different ones. So it should stay like it is now. Btw,User Bones Jones for his part made a case for some edits about Grossman and SLA Marshall views so it can be changed to that authors argues or claims about their views etc, indeed not about fascism could stay and it seems to has a sense. Thank you. Duncangorka28 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Strike comments by confirmed sockpuppet. Sunrise (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You again removed an entire of section of sourced content based on nothing other than your personal opinion (and your edit summary here speaks volumes on your understanding of our policies & guidelines, collaboration and the purpose of talk pages). The section, titled, "The Long Peace" discusses the longest period in modern history without a major war involving the world's powwrs. It was partially imported (with attrition) from a long established, well sourced article, and you believe it doesn't belong... why? Because of relevance? Because of sourcing? No. Because there is "no section for WWI or WWII", even though both those wars are linked and discussed in the article. You also mentioned "challenges" but I'm not clear what you mean by that. This is what article talk pages are for, can you please clarify your reasons on why you believe the "Long Peace" must be removed from this page? (and don't forget to WP:INDENT). Thanks - wolf 18:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Again I will write clear. 1. It is article about war, still there is no independent sections of ww1, Vietnam war and many others what infulence war and human history in general in many ways. 2. Long peace is therm what is not widely accepted in schoolar community, consensus is mostly about to it is needed big historical distance to really see what is it about for any conclusion. 3. Long peace article was really personal pov and cherrypicked. 4. If you wanna, put it to talk page and lets see. If people agree to add. 5. War is protected article cos ppl were adding content already so before to add or make subsection bring it to the talk page. 6. Anyway recent studies also shows rise of number of conflicts in the world.7. Pinker book and whole concept has a lot of criticsim from different sides. 8. About big powers conflict, Long peace is mostly conected just with some parts of Europe and major direct wars between great powers without note about numerous proxy conflicts.Duncangorka28 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Also when I said to there is no subsection of ww1,ww2, korea, vietnam and numerous other etc, it is good concept cos it gave history of war in short and clear. So there no need to be "Long Peace" subsection as one highly speculative and really heavy criticised concept what maybe will be/if really proved after some 100 years more. That about historical distance is accepted widely in the academic community. Ohhhh and also Long peace article was totally biased, low quality article, one sided, with avoiding any criticsm until recently. So all stays how it is now. Duncangorka28 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Strike comments by confirmed sockpuppet. Sunrise (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

1. So add the sections you think are missing. You don't build articles by taking away.
2. This is all POV opinion on your part.
3. See #2.
4. Isn't that what we're doing here?
5. It's protected becasue you guys were edit warring instead of following WP:BRD
6. OK. Add them. The more the better. With refs. The more the better.
7. OK.
8. Uh... say what?

Re: "Also..." - see #2.

- wolf 00:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any reason to include a section on "Long Peace" in this article and the version in this diff is egregiously undue detail; Duncangorka28's summarization of it seems accurate. Regarding the material about S.L.A. Marshall's research, I'm not enough of an expert to have an opinion. Regarding content such as Racism holds that violence is good so that a master race can be established, or to purge an inferior race from the earth, or both., I think that without sourcing that makes it clear this is a mainstream opinion (and not just one held by a few citable academics) it can be excluded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The specific issue with quoting SLA Marshall is that we're saying it was research conducted by him, when I've already presented two academic sources that conclude he did not conduct the research he claimed to have at all. For a third source, here's a long article published in American Heritage. The best summary you could actually make of Marshall is "According to data SLA Marshall claimed to have gathered in WW2 which has never been seen by anyone else, some soldiers in some American units had a rate of fire of either 25% or 15%" (the number later got lower, an odd thing to happen with empirical data, wouldn't you say?) Not to mention the illegitimate generalisation that gets us from the two statements "some American soldiers in WW2" and "some American soldiers in the civil war" to "humans" having a natural reluctance to kill in the next sentence, how in the world does that follow? Bones Jones (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• @power-enwiki, thanks for the reply, though your comments are usually more constructive it not detailed. The "Long Peace" does have relevance in regard to this article. While I agree that the length could certainly be trimmed as it comes from it's own article, the only reason given so far for removing, in its entirety, is "I don't like it". As gor for SLA Marshall, if it's the source itself being challenged, and not the content, that should be addressed at RSN. Cheers - wolf 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User wolf or what is his name is trolling, he don't hold any argument and that is it. I don't see any reason to "Long peace" is included into "War" and there is no support for to it be included. power-enwiki explained all. Duncangorka28 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Strike comments by confirmed sockpuppet. Sunrise (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As the partial author of the Long Peace content, I agree that it is undue as it stands relative to the rest of the History section. My reasoning was that the History section itself is vastly under-detailed and that it was probably an appropriate amount of detail for the future article that should eventually be created - I'm comparing to examples in other top-level articles like Western world#Historical divisions (which is perhaps not strictly a history section but serves basically the same purpose). Of course, I won't object if consensus determines that it's too much, especially since I didn't analyze it for all that long, but the arguments in e.g. this diff are rather disingenuous, like the idea that information on the frequency of war is not relevant to the topic of war. I will also note that the references specifically state there is broad agreement among experts that we are in a Long Peace, and any opposing views should be downweighted accordingly.

Looking into the recent developments in the article, I see that Duncangorka (the one who was reverting the content) has now been identified as a sockpuppet so I have struck their comments. It would also be great if people could tone down the aggressiveness and insults... Sunrise (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure striking the comments is necessarily called for, given that no actual sockpuppetry was going on with regards to this article? Bones Jones (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Striking through is correct per TPO. - wolf 16:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sunrise: While I believe that "Long Peace" is worthwhile content for this page, I also agree that it should be trimmed significantly, with a hatnote to the main article. - wolf 16:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Wikipedia contributors.

I was just reading through this article and was considering making a few minor changes with the collaboration of your good selves.

I am studying for my PhD in History under Professor Eoin Devereux in UL.

I just realised that this page was protected and subsequently have read through the talk pages relating to edits etc.

I believe that the reasoning to keep the "Long Peace" is insufficient.

• I would be in favour of removing it completely as it does not fit into the overall Historical consensus of researchers worldwide.
• Many countries are in states of peace but to say there is an ongoing "Long Peace" is quite disingenuous.

To study and love history is to take an unbiased look at historical events. I am getting the feeling here that the personal held beliefs of my fellow editors need to be put aside and a true objective stance taken.

I would like to hear the views of any contributors who have not opined on this topic as of yet.

Regards, Ruth

RuthMargolis (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)