Talk:World War IV

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• World War III
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:World War III

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-05. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Untitled

Found the log entry of the deletion: 14:39, 25 Feb 2005 RickK deleted World War IV (content was: 'Fascists.')

Hope my version at least gets put up for a vote before User:RickK deletes it. I'm no fascist and don't know who the author of the previous version was. <>< tbc

Vfd

On 20 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/World War IV for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 02:05, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fictional?

I question the edit by AI (talk · contribs) which moved this from the "War on Terror" category to the "Fictional Wars" category. The reason being that there seems to be enough evidence to support the view of the current war on terror as being World War IV, as in the words of James Woolsey "I have adopted Eliot Cohen’s formulation, distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, that we are in World War IV, World War III having been the Cold War." abfackeln 03:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Revisions needed

This page mostly just lists some view of some political "think-tanks" as if they have some kind of exclusive authority on vernacular. More serious research and balance is needed. While discussing what WWIV means to "right-wing" groups is relevant, the way this is worded and stated is clearly pushing a viewpoint. -- 11:20, 1 January 2006, anonymous author from IP 24.211.135.6

I agree about more research being needed, but it's a stretch to say I'm "pushing a viewpoint." I'm merely reporting on the sources that I found. I admit that all I did was some googling and a little follow-up on some sources Google turned up. Having said that, I think this is an important, albeit unconventional, article. The sources I cited make an important contribution to the debate that continues about the War on Terror. Our readers deserve to have a summary of this term in Wikipedia. Maybe if the Left spent less time pushing the tired old myth that "Bush lied" they'd have more time to talk about the nature of global conflicts in the context of 20th century history. Or maybe my sources aren't worth refuting, so the viewpoint can stand without any complaints. <>< tbc 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment starting with "Maybe if the Left..." is not very helpful. Keep in mind that anything which does not do justice to the opposing viewpoint can be rightly considered to be POV simply because it is presenting something unopposed. This is particularly problematic in the final two paragraphs of the "Usage of WWIV..." section which go on to virtually exclusively quote Cohen and Podhoretz about the American position in the war on terror, even going so far as to sympathetically explain their objectives. abfackeln 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opposing viewpoint seems to be that there is no war, which is difficult to support considering the multi-national nature of the troop deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the thousands of dead in those theaters. NPOV means 'neutral', not 'put forth all points of view', and it should be possible to discuss terminology and jargon in a factual manner without endorsing the ideas the term represents. -- 00:16, 7 July 2006, anonymous author from IP 216.168.62.164

Ready to Remove POV-check yet?

I agree with the latest anonymous contribution above. The "opposing viewpoint" is untenable. I don't know what the process is for getting rid of the POV charge, but I'd like to see the anonymous critic put up or back down. I stand by the justification I have made of the content I wrote. abfackeln: yes, I dared to call out "the Left," but this is a talk page, and I see no need to observe a ban on NPOV here. I don't even understand whether I offended you personally or if you are merely offended by the idea that "the Left" might be offended. To the anonymous critic and abfackeln: it's one thing if you don't have the time or inclination to reword the article to eliminate the POV you see in the article. But haven't we waited long enough for the solicitation for an "opposing viewpoint" to come forward? I move that the POV-check template be removed. <>< tbc 22:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no response here, and having edited one more time to include another opposing view today, I decided to remove the POV check. <>< tbc 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility?

So I'm not exactly clear on what the credentials are for a world war. How do we decide if the War on Terror matches up to these specifications? If you think about it in terms of people involved both World Wars spanned Europe, The Americas and Asia to some extent. By comparison the War on Terror has been dominated by the US, Britain and Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq. Personally, I believe there should be more people involved to be considered a "world war". Once Asia and Russia get involved, I would consider this a canidate for World War status.

--05:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC) JC

(shrug). There have been bombings in London, Madrid, and Bali (multiple), and the Russians have been fighting Islamic militants in Chechnaya for years. What kind of numbers do you have in mind?

A world war is commonly thought of as the clash of two (or more) superpowers that each have a nontrivial ally network that battles actively on a diversified set of fronts concurrently. So far the ever-expanding destabilization of the Middle East and Afganistan does not yet qualify as World War IV because so far no other superpower (such as an alliance between any two or more of European Union, Russia, and China) has challenged the USA-Israel(-Britain) alliance. So far we are at a corresponding point as the mid-to-late 1930s on the WWII timeline. The influential neoconservatives at the Project for New American Century consider the Cold War as World War III, by the way. —optikos 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10

There are some (few) references to a "world war ten" as a hypothetical world war conflict of the futre. The Ten is most probably a round-off number and also accounts that using the term WW10 would imply that many many world wars have been happened, or that the war in question would be far more terrible than any before, on a large factor.

Software engineers are prone to call World War II World War 10 instead. Sorry, I just had to add a little levity to this Talk page. :) <>< tbc 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least there ought to be some mention that WW I and WW II were active struggles between nation states. To suggest "The War on Terror" as such a war seems absurd at best and it is a propaganda that would only be exercised by a think tank of men who have never actually seen conflict.

Collect All World Wars

On Uncyclopedia, articles can be found on World War I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI 1/2, XII, 3D, Revolution and for the fans the World War Collectors Box. Creating an actual World War IV page on Wikipedia in a time World War III isn't reality yet, is the start of such a list on Wikipedia, which I think is not a good thing. Things should be true here, and the existance of such a lemma like World War IV isn't. So good to delete and if the creator wants to continue the World War trilogy, go create World War Vista or something like that on Uncyclopedia!

The idea that the conflict commonly referred to as the 'Cold War' is/was WWIII is implicit in calling the current conflict WWIV. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article as background.

WWIII lasted from the latter half of the 1940s until around 1991. See World War III#Cold War. —optikos 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some nutcase on Uncyclopedia speculating about World War VIII in the year 2592, WWIII as the Cold War and WWIV as the big perpetual pre-emptive total war that the USA-Israel(-Britain) alliance is currently embarking on are terms that are used by current and former leaders of the government of the USA superpower. I consider current and former leaders (and their thinktank Project for a New American Century) as fully qualified to normatively define the terms used to describe major epochs of history. In fact, perhaps they are the only people qualified to do so. I am not so sure that some commonfolk typing on a keyboard into a Wiki are qualified to define or refuse to define such terms. We need to defer such big matters to the big boys. —optikos 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War IV in Ghost in the Shell universe

Greetings. In the Ghost in the Shell universe, World War IV (a.k.a.Second Vietnam War) is a war 2015 - 2024 which starts around Indochina but later becomes a world war . Wikiborg 07:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So?Argias 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical or fictional usage of WWIII or WWIV

Could someone with knowledge of the movie Strange Brew please check this? Looks pretty much like vandalisme to me Gnorn 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of other article

Most of this article seems to be about World War III, but Third World War covers this. The article needs to be chopped down to talk about only iterations of World War IV. 23skidoo 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD I've removed most of the WWIII discussion on the grounds that it just duplicates the WWIII article. 23skidoo 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd

Isn't It odd how World War and four ryme?

This article has little merit.

A. There is not a good solid definition for a "World War." Certainly scale, involvement, and level of conflict and commitment ought to be considered.

B. No official state of war exists at this point. War is a state of affairs between nation states. One cannot have a war that abides by the pattern of the previous "World Wars" without such Nation states.

C. If this kind of redefining is essential (and I have serious questions about the scholarship and motivation behind it) then it ought to be considered as a small sub section to broader articles on the "Cold War" and the "War on Terror" respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfrequed (talk • contribs)

Keep. The article exists to document attempts at defining the scope of a "World War". --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real origin of the concept of the Fourth World War

I added a brief section last year tracing the real genealogy of the term. The Fourth World War is the global conflict following the Cold War (more people died in the Cold War, by far, than WW1 and WW2 - it just wasn't fought in Europe).

Long before neo-cons used it to talk about the so-called 'War on Terror', movements and scholars around the world were writing about it (mostly in Spanish and Portuguese).

Someone erased the section. I'm not sure why.

Do a google search - it's not rocket science - millions of people were talking about La Cuarta Guerra Mundial years before 2001.

This is the an easy place to start - http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/fourth.html - but I've heard of people as early as 1989 using the term in South America.

Right now this is one of the worst Wiki entries. . . If back issues of the NY Times is as deep as you care to look in your research than what's the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.208.73 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Impossible

The fourth world war will never happen, because if there is a world war three, nuclear bombs and radiation will destroy the entire earth. I worry about that! 69.138.14.233 04:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states the views of PNAC and other groups who hold that there was a world war three that ended a decade ago. The nukes used in WWIII were exploded in test sites, not on enemy soil. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. 69.138.14.233 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Totally agree with you on no WW4. Uber555 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge?

If anybody else gets the idea to renominate this article for deletion, consider merging World War IV and World War III to World war instead, as both the WWIII and WWIV articles serve to document various think tanks' positions on just what constitutes a world war. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read Doomsday clock

yeah its on point. people gotta stop knowing it all. if it continues there will be no wiki pages about information trying to be restricted

Einstein's quote

What about Einstein's quote: "I know not what World War Three will be fought with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones." This quote used to be here; why was it removed?Ye Olde Luke 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions lacking citation may be removed at any time by any editor. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL

this article is complete crap; it is almost a textbook example of WP:CRYSTAL. i'm renominating. --Kaini 01:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of another AfD, but since there's been an AfD already, WP:PROD says it's not eligible for PRODing. IMHO, there's a small portion of the article that's sourced and worth keeping. I think the reader would be much better served if the content was recast as something like "There is disagreement over what constitutes a 'world war'. Though there isn't widespread agreement, some prominent figures consider the Cold War and/or the Global War on Terror to be world wars, and they therefore use the term 'World War 4' or 'World War 5' to refer to the next hypothetical world war.", and merge that in with World War III, since I don't really think there's enough encyclopedic information for a separate article. --Interiot 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, World war#Subsequent world wars says exactly that. So why don't we merge this there, since they overlap so much? --Interiot 05:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. --Kaini 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, too. Levapan 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's a consensus. i'll have a go tomorrow if noone does before, --Kaini 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does noone have to do with anything? But seriously, I made a preliminary merge; you can clean it up if you have the time. I'd like to see the external links turned into references. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 05:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]