Talk:War/Archive 5

Our current lede image is called "War", which would seem very appropriate, but it shows the aftermath of war, not war itself. I'd prefer something more "active", though it's probably good to still include the horrors of war. I found this one. It has two allied infantrymen running towards a bunker, past two German dead, in the smoke and destruction of the Western Front in WWI. If there are no other suggestions or comments, I'll use this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I would actually be more in favor of a work of art. I can't remember the piece, but I believe Picasso had a work based more-or-less on the Spanish Civil War. The topic is so broad that I'm not sure any particular representation of any particular war would be best. We've been doing this war thing for a long time. TimothyJosephWood 22:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Picasso's painting has some action (though civilians), but it's abstract. I think that'd be moving too far into "art". The article isn't just about the emotions or tragedies of war. I'm okay with a painting of war, but I still think it should have actual non-abstract warfare in it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hm, thinking of "doing war for a long time", maybe a montage of 4 or so images from history? Some ancient warfare (Babylonian soldiers marching over dead enemies), some Napoleonic (retreat from Moscow), WWI (the one above, or maybe some biplanes to show air war), and atomic bomb? --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Example possible images for the montage:

--A D Monroe III (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as art goes, turns out commons has a whole category for that. TimothyJosephWood 19:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Also a couple of good ones: TimothyJosephWood 19:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Would prefer the color nuke personally because it just looks like hell fire in the flesh. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I did it. I was going to give a couple more examples here, but making galleries is so time consuming (at least for me), I thought it best to do the real thing. I added a medieval war and modern war image, and took the more "hellish" version of the bomb above. I imagine there'll be a more commentators now. :) --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I would try everything possible to shorten the caption. I tried to find guidance on whether we could use <small></small>, but came up empty handed. I would also add that the width (~400px) is getting close to what most mobile users can handle, and we may want to see if we can knock any of that off without reducing intelligibility. Probably also want to check how this is displayed on the app. TimothyJosephWood 17:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. I tried to do this but somehow broke it. I would remove the breaks so that it reads: Clockwise from upper left: Stele of the Vultures, c 2500 BC; Battle of Tewkesbury, 1471; British tank and soldiers, 1916; Nuclear weapon test, 1954; US battleship firing a broadside, 1984; Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, 1812" TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that it should show the results of war; the article will be read by school age children, and I think it's important we don't glamourize the topic. I'd vote for the British tank and soldiers, myself. Shows military personnel, but also the devastation of armed conflict. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We currently have six images. Do any glamorize? I'm guessing the battleship might for some people (though I see such massive indiscriminate firepower horrifies rather than glorifies). I'd be fine if someone finds some gruesome-cost-of-war image to replace, but it must also show modern war to balance the rest, and it must be a little wide to fit in that place, and it must be easily recognizable even though very small, and colorfully distinct from the others. (See how all this gets way more time-consuming than I thought it would be when I started this.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally I do not feel that it is Wikipedia's place to dictate how the reader should think of war, and therefore I do not think that it is Wikipedia's place to editorially select images such as to make possible child viewers less enthusiastic about military technology or anything else. Morality is not built by such means.

On a separate issue, currently five out of six images are of Western conflicts or operations, and the other is on the border between Western and Middle East. I wonder if we can broaden this a little. As a possible way of doing so, I am not sure that the 2500BC image is easily understood by untrained eyes. I wonder if one of the images of the Terracotta Army might work better. Although then we have nothing earlier than the first millennium B.C., which is a different problem ... MPS1992 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note to keep in mind: The way the mobile app works (the way most people are probably going to see this), there is still only one lead image, and it is going to be the one in the top left (since tables go from top/left to bottom/right). So right now on mobile the Stele of the Vultures is the lead image that fills up half the screen for mobile users. TimothyJosephWood 22:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's possible to make all six images into a single image; it's just tedious to do, and makes it basically uneditable. The current six-image display is easier to update and debate. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I reformatted the six images into an ad-hoc infobox -- makes them look close to what a single combo-image would be. I've moved the troublesome captions, which are pretty short now, into the hover-text for each image. That means the links in them no longer work (can't click on hover-text), but it lets us focus on the images rather than mechanics for now. I've left them as links just for editing reference. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes since this tag was added have removed some WP:OR sections. Does this address the issue? Pinging Mr. Guye, who added it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I...don't know. A total revamp of this article has been on my to-do list for months. I wouldn't remove it right away. I think we all need to each take some good long copy/edit sessions and see what we can improve. This is an important article, and it looks like it gets a pretty steady 2k page view per day. There seems to be a few people hanging out here. Might be a good opportunity. TimothyJosephWood 22:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that we are pretty close to removing it, but even still specific areas will still need to be fixed. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I started at the bottom and moved my way up. There's still a lot of uncited essay-like filler that's been collected over the years. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Types of war

I'll start with this. This section has been problematic for a while and feels very WP:OR. I hacked it up pretty good a few months ago, and right now I'm inclined to delete the whole thing unless someone wants to try to find an WP:RS that we can go off of to say why these are the definitive types that should be included in the first section. TimothyJosephWood 22:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the trim made this fairly solid. It now has a short description of several types of warfare (from our Outline of war), which are all separate full articles themselves; they're real things. It could still be improved, certainly, but I wouldn't throw it out. (And I don't think the improvements would fit under Tone.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour and conduct

I'm moving this here because I just don't know what to do with it, besides blank and move on. The topic is sufficiently vague so as to be meaningless, and the content follows no discernible pattern. It's just a shotgun blast of whatever the author thought they'd mention. Its tone is tentative, vague and unencyclopedic. It all has a nice coating of WP:OR. Even the quote is flatly sensationalist and sounds more like something out of a video game than any kind of serious commentary on the topic of war of any academic or scholarly value. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The quote is actually somewhat famous, but it doesn't fit here. It's hard to say what might fit here, because of the noted vagueness. The section name sounds like we could have such a section, but this isn't it. I agree on removal. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to the template

I think I'm alright to remove the tone template at this point. The article is still very disappointing for one listed as vital or high importance for so many projects. But there are worse articles that don't warrant such a prominent tag. All in all, about 20% of the article has been excised. I think that should suffice for the time being. TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

After a week with no objections, I've removed the TONE template. There's still a more work to do, of course, but it isn't about tone (slang, informality, etc.). Thanks to all, especially TJW! --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a possible "micro-war" coming to the US and to other entities. With the advanced capabilities of technology it would be quite possible for people with whatever intentions to wage war on a small area. In addition these wars could be waged from people with no connection to the issues with the intention of other people joining their small issues wherever they may be. We could see police forces of whole cities easily wiped out in this way. That is just an example of one easy target for a "micro-war." I don't know where else to go to warn of this possibility.Cwilli82 (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Cwilli82 (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot be used to warn the public of possible events whose likelihood is not discussed by reliable sources. Try social media instead. MPS1992 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdTollinton (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion about a topic. Please limit discussion to issues of article improvement. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

How is it that the first sentence, along with every dictionary I can find, says "war is armed conflict..." but the main Title (whatever that is called) doesn't include the word "armed?"

The word "armed" seems to be universally accepted everywhere but here for War.

Thanks Intelligentguest (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by title? The article is entitled "War" and the statement is in the lead sentence.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on War. 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 https://fas.org/irp/eprint/snyder/infowarfare.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/pc/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/articles/general/worst_massacres.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512224100/http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/versaillestreaty.html to http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/versaillestreaty.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/wc1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/about/timeline-of-stop-the-war-events-2001-2011

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on War. 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/20101121021158/http://brneurosci.org/reviews/war.html to http://brneurosci.org/reviews/war.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707224412/http://www.bepress.com/peps/vol7/iss3/3/ to http://www.bepress.com/peps/vol7/iss3/3/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I read the warning under the external links section and I would like to add a link to a podcast from 2003 which discusses the art of war. It is from the BBC's In Our Time radio broadcast, goes for 45 minutes, and features the British academics Simon Schaffer, Angie Hobbes and Jeremy Black. This program has high academic credibility, is suitable for the well-informed listener, and is highly relevant to the general nature of this article. This is the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00548zm. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iacobus (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"War" is too simple a title for this article. Should this article be called Military engagement or something more complex? AprilShowersBringMayFlowers (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)