Talk:Just war theory

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Military history: Culture

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blim1711, Arapisar33. Peer reviewers: Bdevalk, Hunter Santana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Just war theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Just war theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509230737/http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.1998/pub_detail.asp to http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.1998/pub_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Just war theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/03/william-james-on-peace-and-war/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416133521/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/people/index.php/njr3.html to https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/people/index.php/njr3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Person box misplaced

Removed {{Thomism}}-Inowen (nlfte) 23:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Globalization does involve just war theory

Even the globalization notes how it involves war. The absence of the words "just war theory" is a poor excuse to corrupt how globalization relates to war and thus the just war theoryJoeScarce (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source what you mentioned does not say about just war, does not mention unjust war, no denouncing, not mentioning official position of church. This is just war theory article. Content is about that. You made a lot of personal conclusion on different articles and many of that isnt mentioned in that pope interview. It is just your personal conclusion. Wikipedia is not about personal conclusions and activism it is about facts. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal conclusion is very ridiculous.JoeScarce (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seems you dont get what theory is and what theory definition take and what content is. Advocacy or pov opinions, you should leave to own blog or twitter or something, not to wikipedia. Pushing own views can take you just to be blocked. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like your opinion is only laughable to me. Others seem to revert the bias deletions you made to some of my other edits on other articles as well. Let's work as team and follow the NPOV policyJoeScarce (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cherrypicked stuff and made own conclusion and you cant make any argument at all.93.86.91.234 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't make an argument at all and are making me laugh. It's the reason why you went to talk to someone with a Che Guevara poster, which also shows bias in me potentially getting blocked.JoeScarce (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but you dont play fair and you use wikipedia as promotional tool. I dont know what your motives are but it is just strange and funny.93.86.91.234 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correlation. So, no need to add that to this article Banovicmiki14 (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeScarce: The page was protected randomly on the version in which I found it at. Please don't cast aspersions. Stick to the material with the aim of demonstrating that your edit does not, in fact, constitute original research or synthesis. Which may well be the case. Avoid personal comments, at any case. Thanks. El_C 21:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt

The paragraph on Egypt doesn't make sense. The point of the just war theory is to establish the absolute limits to availability of war for any politician. The paragraph basically describes that Egyptians were so imperialist (to use the modern terminology) and jingoistic, that basically any conquest of the surrounding nations was justified as “white man’s burden” of the Ancient times, i.e., that there were basically no limits, even theoretical ones, for Egyptian pharao to conduct a war at will. Ceplm (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other branches of Christianity

The part talking about Christian talks about Catholic Christianity and only adds the Russian Orthodox Church as a subsection. The views written in the section are not universal among Christians. The New Testament and pacifism is not linked at all in this page which it should be in the section of Christianity. 93.109.80.5 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian pacifism has its own article, but you should note that pacifist groups like the Anabaptists and the Christadelphians have had a rather minor impact on military history. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Human Security

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheGambler300, FootballDinosaur1, SunriseSunset453, SilentSnickers (article contribs). Peer reviewers: TwohandleS11I, Roxytilly333.

— Assignment last updated by Bestrh (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of links to Robert L. Holmes and Barry L. Gan

Ciao fellow Wikipedia editors: Just a quick note to explain the restoration of links to the professional philosphers Robert L. Holmes and Barry L. Gan within additional text for the section Just War Traditiion which was deleted on several instances by User:2804:7f4:3d80:1554:d701:62fe:29ab:cc2d on March 15, 2024 and March 7, 2024. In both instances User:2804:7f4:3d80:1554:d701:62fe:29ab:cc2d cited the additional text as "undue weight" and "self promotional". These objections seem unjustified in so far as:

1) The proposed text is included within a paragraph which already contains multiple links to several contemporary philosophers and scholars including: Jacques Maritain, Elizabeth Anscombe and John Finnis. each of whom cited the principles contained with the Just War Tradition to render ethical justifications for the Spanish Civil War, World War II and the Cold War. None of these links are considered self-promotional within the context of the narrative. In addition, the texts and publications by Prof. Holmes and Prof. Gan are merely cited as references and are not explicitly mentioned or promoted by name or by title within the text itself.

2) The links to the scholarly works by Robert L. Holmesand Barry L. Gan are actually relevant (and not "over weighted") to the section on Just War Tradition in so far as they demonstrate that in the post Cold War era, some philosophical scholars objected to simply continuing to judge warfare as a "mater of course" by adopting an appeal to classical "Just War Theory" maxims. Instead, these scholars questioned whether the ethical foundations of these ethical maxims retained any relevance within the context of modern forms of waging war. The references also serve to document the philosophical "weight" or importance of the contributions made by each of these professional scholars in so far as they are sourced from professional peer reviewed journals on JSTOR.ORG and are open for all to read from within the reference citations. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

I Hope that this helps to clarify the inclusion of these links into the paragraph. Thanks again for your thoughtful assistance and HAPPY EDITING! Respectfully, 21:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)NHPL {[reflist}} 160.72.80.178 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These observations seem relevant and tend to support the additional content as proposed. I attempted a small rewording of the text to clarify that even as Just War Theory norms were continuously utilized to justify warfare in the modern era, several contemporary scholars such as Holms and Gan endeavored to establish whether the philosophical foundations of the Just War Doctrine remain consistent with established normative ontological ethical standards and therefore remain relevant within the context of modern nuclear warfare. I hope it helps. I also undid the deletion of the proposed text by User:remsense as per Wikipedia:UNRESPONSIVE in so far as he failed to reply to either of the justifications for the new text which were presented by User:160.72.80.178. I hope that this is OK as well. Good luck with the revisions, and thanks again.160.72.81.86 (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)GCL160.72.81.86 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)GCL[reply]

^ Holmes, Robert L. (2015). "The Metaethics of Pacifism and Just War Theory". The Philosophical Forum. 46: 3–15. doi:10.1111/phil.12052.
^ Matthews, Gareth B. (1999). The Augustinian Tradition: "St. Augutine and the Just War Theory". University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-21001-1.
^ Holmes, Robert L.; Gan, Barry L. (2005). Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. Waveland Press. ISBN 978-1-57766-349-2.
^ Meyers, Diana T. (1992). "Reviewed work: On War and Morality, Robert L. Holmes" (PDF). The Philosophical Review. 101 (2): 481–484. doi:10.2307/2185583. JSTOR 2185583.
^ Rock, Stephen R. (1989). "Reviewed work: On War and Morality, Robert L. Holmes; Paths to Peace: Exploring the Feasibility of Sustainable Peace, Richard Smoke, Willis Harman" (PDF). The American Political Science Review. 83 (4): 1447–1448. doi:10.2307/1961738. JSTOR 1961738.

[:0-1] Holmes, Robert L. (2015). "The Metaethics of Pacifism and Just War Theory". The Philosophical Forum. 46: 3–15. doi:10.1111/phil.12052.

[2] Matthews, Gareth B. (1999). The Augustinian Tradition: "St. Augutine and the Just War Theory". University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-21001-1.

[3] Holmes, Robert L.; Gan, Barry L. (2005). Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. Waveland Press. ISBN 978-1-57766-349-2.

[4] Meyers, Diana T. (1992). "Reviewed work: On War and Morality, Robert L. Holmes" (PDF). The Philosophical Review. 101 (2): 481–484. doi:10.2307/2185583. JSTOR 2185583.

[5] Rock, Stephen R. (1989). "Reviewed work: On War and Morality, Robert L. Holmes; Paths to Peace: Exploring the Feasibility of Sustainable Peace, Richard Smoke, Willis Harman" (PDF). The American Political Science Review. 83 (4): 1447–1448. doi:10.2307/1961738. JSTOR 1961738.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]