Talk:War cycles

Questions

I don't understand the graphs. What do the y-values measure? Casualties? Theshibboleth 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shibboleth,
The values on the ordinate are an index of the severity of an armed conflict, estimated using (quite complex) criteria set forth by Quincy Wright in his Study of War.
Best Wishes,
David Cruise 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

The graphs look very interesting, particularly the European one. Is it possible that the integral of each war is the same - i.e. the product of intensity and duration is constant?

Though this is a good article, the language is a bit obtuse. Could someone clarify it for we poor laymen? Wally 09:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wally,
This is one of the series of articles on preventable causes of warfare. As observed throughout millenia, some nations wage wars more than others. It seems likely that differences in their respective moral canons related to warfare may, partially, account for this differential rate of violent deaths of millions of human beings.
Best Wishes,
David Cruise 13:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

David Cruise has said here thatthe graphs do have a y-axis - could he (or someone else) possibly write a section on this? A graph without titled axes is just a wobbly line, after all.

The most intense conflict in the recorded histoey was the WWII and both graphs are plotted relative to that conflict (on the right hand side of both graphs). David Cruise 05:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just wandering into this one.

• Chart axes /need/ labels. One can't even properly tell if the x-axis is time being told linearly or on some sort of logarithmic scale.
• Mr. Cruise, you keep saying the y-axis of the charts is a measure of severity. How is "severity" defined, and how does one compare the severity of global total war (WW2) to regional structured war (the Napoleonics) to relatively-low intensity local disturbances (Northern Ireland)? I'm certain it's complex, but an equation would be nice.--The Centipede 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cycles vs. Causes

The issue of war cycles (do they exist? if so, what causes them?) is distinct from the issue of underlying causes (eg. religious, social, geographical?). However, the article does not make this distinction. It seems to me that most of the article should be moved to eg. Pacifism or maybe a new article on religions and war.CDaMama 18:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Brief comment:

I don't see how most of the information in this article is tied in with the subject of the article. The article goes from giving background info on the theory of war cycles to discussing how China didn't have wars for certain periods of time. If there is a war cycle, then it should have a beginning, middle and ending points. The article briefly alludes to this, but then goes back to being, what I believe to be, off topic or not purposefully brought into the article. S. Randall 10:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article seems to exist entirely to push the opinion of a small number of authors and repeated uses the same reference to make its point.

Chomsky

The Whole last section of this article uses a quote as a smoke-screen for western religion bashing at pushing progressive theology. Liberation Theology, for example, is inherently violent, but the author props it up as a new-agey progressive peace. Seems a little off.

Yes, I certainly agree. The last section should be promptly removed or revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.225.49 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article contains many faults

As pointed above, there is no y-axis on the charts. The charts are uneven, one depicts 400 years in a continent (Europe?) while another depicts 2200 years for a country. It also makes the erroneous claim the Confucianism was "abandoned" during the Six Dynasties. It also neglects the world outside of China and the West. Then there is the general NPOV tone which is exemplified by the conclusion.--Countakeshi (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

nonsense

does the chinese graph omit the devastation of the taiping rebellion and the manchu takeover & subjugation of China? can't see how the y-values are so low... does this only count foreign wars? deaths as a proportion of the population (but in this case i still don't see how europe could be so much more violent)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.15.5 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Terribly Written

This article seems to be written so as to completely obfuscate its meaning from the casual reader. For example:

"However, with advent of computer algorithms minimizing the dampening effect affecting the abstracted oscillations and facilitating the detection of stochastic drifts, the study of cycles is subject to renewed interest."

This poorly constructed sentence introduces the idea of some kind of damping effect that skews one's ability to observe or describe war cycles without the benefit of 'computer algorythms'. The term is linked within wikipedia, but the target is the article on physics explanations of dampened harmonic oscillators. I'm not sure if the article is implying that war physically behaves like dampened harmonic oscillators- so much so that they can be described by the same mathematical models of velocity and force- but the connection is not clear, to say the least. The point of this sentence is made even less clear when we encounter the idea that computer programs can detect stochastic drifts. It seems to be saying that these cycles are determined, regular, and mechanical (as compared to an oscillating spring), but also random.

Moreover, in addition to being superfluously floridly written, I feel like some of it is manipulative or dishonest. For example:

"In the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, war of aggression is the supreme crime, and there is hardly any other issue that is more relevant to the social sciences than the study of the decision-making process when a person or a group of persons decides that another group of people must face death."

First, this sentence seems to be attributing its claim about the social sciences to the authority of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Second, is there hardly a more important subject for the social sciences to study? That is quite a bold claim that is not substantiated nor cited. If we are relying on the authority of the writer, I can think of several other areas of study that are both more legitimate, and more important than trying to divine what is going on in the brains of people who make war- and I'm just some random guy.24.84.217.137 (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously an important topic poorly written and referenced, though the references suggest it's notable enough for an article. One of many that I'd like to clean up if I there were 3 of me working 24 hours a day. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and other issues

Summarizing the issues presented above and adding my own observation:

1. Most of the article seems to consist of original research and puffery.
2. Far too much emphasis is placed on marginal studies that are only tangentially relevant (and are also, in my opinion, pretty methodologically appalling on almost every count - historical, anthropological, and sociological).
3. The charts are not labeled correctly and present dubious information (part of point 2).
4. Broad and unverifiable claims are made in multiple places, which are seemingly designed to manipulate the reader.
5. Excessive emphasis on Europe and East Asia.

-- Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. This seems uncomfortably similar to pseudoscience. 24.182.165.147 (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparative studies

On reconsideration of the above point, could I ask if there might be a consensus to simply delete the "Comparative studies" section as it presently stands? --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that most of that material can be found in the references provided, allowing inline cites. It's just a matter of someone doing it. I think it's definitely interesting and encyclopedic, if done right. Also Dewey is American and his work on this can be discussed more. Plus probably more WP:RS material can be found. Definitely a notable topic. I'm creating two articles promised elsewhere and then will look at it. Give me a few days. CarolMooreDC 17:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no question it's a notable topic, my problem is with the "Comparative studies" section that is largely irrelevant and wrong other than the study by Korotayev et al briefly mentioned at the end --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — More specifically I just mean the information about the extremely dubious study by Krus et al. and the tangential references to Richardson's (antiquated) work which comprises the rest of the section, if that makes it clearer. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a quick search to see if any WP:RS link Richardson to war cycles might be useful, though not necessarily for that much material about his views. If nothing much found, the fact that he commented on them might be good for a sentence or two. Secular Cycles and Millennial Trends might rate a couple sentences. But haven't read any of carefully, so can't say for sure. Section titles probably need a revamping in any case, perhaps one section supporting the idea, another comparing to other theories or criticizing. CarolMooreDC 20:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)