[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:World War III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateWorld War III is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 27, 2007Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Callieudaimonia (article contribs).

No Hamas invasion?

[edit]

A lot of people on Twitter are describing this current war will escalate into WW3. There should be at least some mention about it. Trakaplex (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, Twitter is not a reliable source. Got anything better? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about this? https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2024/02/12/the-world-war-iii-election-00140938 2603:7000:6500:97B:1115:7958:422C:FE28 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't explicitly connect the Israeli-Hamas war with WW3. It only implicitly connects the wider Middle East conflict with a "massive fight that leads to tens of thousands of deaths and upends the global economy", which is not even near the scale of WW1 and WW2. Gollem (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how about these sources (from various viewpoints):
  1. https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-world-war-3-really-right-around-the-corner
  2. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-17/ty-article/.premium/thomas-friedman-the-gaza-war-is-the-real-world-war-ii/0000018e-4d4f-dfb8-adef-dd7f18060000
  3. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3257349/republican-congressman-suggests-dropping-nuclear-bombs-gaza-and-ending-humanitarian-aid
  4. https://www.barrons.com/articles/israel-hamas-russia-ukraine-world-war-global-politics-b561e47e
Wisenerd (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Quote from source claims the opposit: "while it certainly has all the makings of the first major Middle Eastern modern regional war, it doesn’t yet have enough combustible power to ignite a world war". Gollem (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. One columnist's opinion. Unclear importance due to paywall. Gollem (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No mention of WW3. Gollem (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Link doesn't seem to lead to an article with that title. Gollem (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
World on brink as Putin's next three countries to invade revealed by Russian general 2601:84:8080:98E0:29F5:206E:A938:E219 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source, the Daily Express, is a sensationalist, tabloid outlet. It clearly displays the attributes of such a label by never having more than one sentence in a paragraph. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter claims all events will lead to ww3. Biden could trip over a rock in china and people would say the US should go to war. I know this is a bigger example but more sources are needed. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to add the Israel-Hamas war now that the iranian embassy has been bombed.Givibidou (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you see any signs of escalation beyond a regional conflict that are reported as such by relevant sources? Gollem (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US navy has its fleet in the Mediterranean, Russia has its army in Syria. A war between Israel and Iran-Syria could bring an american intervention and a russian intervention. [1] Givibidou (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The US has troops stationed in over 100 different countries. One could argue that their presence makes WWIII less likely. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unclear whether the statements about WW3 are related to what is happening Ukraine or Gaza. Also it doesn’t explain how the latter could escalate into WW3. Just the fact that Russia is present to support the Syrian regime and the USA is present in the region too, is not enough to add it in this article. Gollem (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely insane that the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't mentioned here. Some of the editors here clearly have an agenda, I'm fully expecting to be banned or whatever but that needed to be said Allthegoodnamesaretakenonhere (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allthegoodnamesaretakenonhere Some of the editors here clearly have an agenda like who and what kind of agenda? Nonspecific issues leads to no resolutions. I struggle to see how being pro-palestine, pro-israel, etc drives one be biased to adding a possibility of Hamas-Israel war leading to WW3. Unless someone can provide non-sensationalistic academic source connecting the war to WW3, no mention can be added. Ca talk to me! 12:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
coming back to this, with the recent events, it seems like we should add something. going to list articles again:
1. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/03/the-west-must-grow-a-backbone-to-prevent-world-war-iii/
2. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/israel-closer-to-world-war-iii-trump-sounds-alarm-in-meeting-with-netanyahu-attacks-harris/vi-BB1qIecg
3. https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/israel-iran-conflict-israel-war-may-enter-new-phase-today-if-iran-hezbollah-strike-explained-124080500210_1.html
4. https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/world-war-iii-fears-skyrocket-33385800
5. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-01/ty-article/.premium/is-israel-deliberately-provoking-escalation-that-might-drag-the-u-s-into-the-conflict/00000191-0e5d-dc54-a7dd-ffdfbb610000 Wisenerd (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bet you that WW3 probably started without anyone knowing. It could be like WW2-ish feels.
So far we have nothing to fear yet. I doubt in this world with global economy, leaders want to start ww3. It will disrupt global business and if nukes gets launched in situation. all of society around the world will suffer.
But we can be wrong about it, like leader of Israel keeps going on with his genocide against Palestinians and putin wants to get Ukraine. fear mongering is not option for making sure if information is right. I want to be clear that I aren't suggesting anything to change, but I suggest for editors on here to actually use their rational brain and see if later news headlines are really important or carry weights to be added on this wikipedia.
I am single person though and anyone here can disagree, but I agree to disagree. Please be healthy and polite with your points. Collectively minds can be good for putting necessary informations.
Have a good day 89.22.199.48 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we won't know if the nuclear taboo breaks until it does. But we do have Russia aggression on Ukraine on here and not Israeli aggression on Palestine and Lebanon. Wisenerd (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alliance between Cuba and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, particularly highlighted by the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, was a significant flashpoint that raised fears of World War III. Following the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro's socialist government sought support from the USSR, directly challenging U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere. The installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba in response to U.S. missile deployments in Turkey brought the superpowers to the brink of nuclear war. Although the crisis was ultimately resolved without conflict, the deep-seated ideological tensions, military buildups, and proxy wars fueled ongoing distrust and volatility, creating a precarious situation where miscalculations could have easily escalated into a global conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.254.58 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Why is the situation in Middle East not mentioned?

[edit]

I would suggest someone who is a good writer and knows good sources to mention the middle east crisis in the current conflicts section.

Here are the reasons why

  1. Hamas attacked 1200+ Israelis on Oct 7th
  2. Till date it is estimated that Israel killed 50000+ Palestinians (Roughly, I don't know how accurate the figure is)
  3. Israel Lebanon conflict.
  4. Iranian Missile and Drone strike on Israel
  5. Hezbollah's attack on Majdal Shams
  6. Israel's revenge which killed a Hezbollah military advisor in Beirut, Lebanon.
  7. The Houthi Involvement - Drone attack on Tel Aviv and Israeli attack on Al Hudeidah Port in Yemen
  8. Ismail Haniyah's assassination carried out by Israel

With so many events I feel this should be covered as this situation will bring the world closer to WW3, more than the current magnitude of the Russia-Ukraine war. 2402:E280:3E19:280:E4C2:B6F1:22A5:C0BF (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, not our own analysis. Are there sources that describe the situation as (a prelude to) World War III? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic even Russia-Ukraine conflict should not be here? Its been 2.5 years since the war broke and there is still no "WW3" which was talked about. By common logic I think we can see that the situation in middle East is far more brutal, lethal, involves more nations, more violence and at a very high risk of erupting into a region wide war.
Please consider my opinions.
Explained: Will Iran vs Israel really spark World War III? | The Herald (heraldscotland.com)
The risk of all-out Middle East war is rising sharply (ft.com)
Can the Israel-Hamas & Russia-Ukraine Wars Lead to World War? (northeastern.edu)
'All-out war is coming', vows Israel as Netanyahu in crunch meeting over 'imminent' strikes on Hezbollah amid WW3 fears | The Sun
World War 3 Fears Rise as Iran Threatens Revenge ‘Special Operations’ on Israel (mycharisma.com)
Could today’s global conflicts bring World War III closer? | Conflict News | Al Jazeera
As you said here are the sources. 2402:E280:3E19:280:D1B3:5A77:B7F9:F5AA (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the situation in the Middle East is at least as dire as it's been since the Yom Kippur War (which was of Cold War vintage, mind you), neither Israeli, Arab, nor Iranian media have bruited WWIII that I've seen, i.e. it's not a matter of brinksmanship. Too, a quick search for "WWIII" on Haaretz yields... A 2021 review of the thriller 2034 by James Stavridis & Elliot Ackerman. Al-Jazeera's references are similiarly dated. Regional conflagration, sure. But "rising tension" is to geopolitics what "momentum" is to political campaigns: a panchreston.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-04/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-has-the-power-to-prevent-a-regional-war-all-it-takes-is-a-deal-with-hamas/00000191-1eb5-d68e-a79b-5fb5ee350000 ::::https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/05/iran-says-it-has-moral-duty-to-punish-israel-law-breaking-and-adventurism kencf0618 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2024 Iran-Israel conflict should be added now after Iranian missile strikes on October 1st. You could also group the Russia-Ukraine war and the 2024 Iran-Israel conflict as a possible "multiple small conflicts" World War. ThisGuyfromDiscord (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources that connect these strikes to WW3? Gollem (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t add stuff per the request of Twitter users which is almost always where this talk originates from (as it did with this). Furthermore, because it doesn’t involve the U.S./NATO China and/or Russia, who are the biggest global superpowers, it does not fall under the scope of a close call. Ukraine does because it was invaded by Russia and Putin himself made several nuclear war threats, and not to mention the November 2022 missile incident which was a real close call. Unless we get explicit sources (and I mean several high quality from senior officials or quotes from the U.S President saying such a thing), it is not being added. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Us is officiallyinvolved now as pentagon declares to support israel in defence against Irani missile Abk2024 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Even if the US launched a full-scale invasion of Iran, we would need very solid sources to add the conflict in this page. The US have attacked and supported many Middle Eastern countries in the past without comming close to starting WW3. Gollem (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this is the first incident where Israel and IRAN have directly exchanged strikes. Additionally now that Israel has assassinated not just leaders but other generals from Lebanon and Hamas makes the situation quite serious. Additionally the houthis, Iraqi resistance units have also attacked Israel from Yemen and Iraq Syria
Also US is also involved as us and Jordan helped Israel stop the Iranian attacks. Israel has now also launched a ground invasion into Lebanon.
What more do you want to call it a middle East war? 2409:4081:1C38:7C54:0:0:20B:CE09 (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, sources, sources: Wikipedia needs sources to call it anything, especially to call it a potential flashpoint for WW3 in this article. Gollem (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it with source of News they removed it Abk2024 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the homepage of CNN is not enough. We need citations of specific news articles in multiple high-quality newspapers and/or news channels that make a clear connection between what is happening in the Middle East and how this can lead to WW3. Gollem (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and Palestine conflict

[edit]

Surely this should be included under 'Current conflicts deemed a risk'. There has been a build up of tension for ages. 2C0F:EF18:1854:0:F8AE:2886:B295:3587 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ir needs a source that says it is a close call. Sjö (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War on terror as WWIV

[edit]

There's been a bit of back and forth on this lately, with TheRevisionary removing it and I restoring it. I'll try to start a discussion about the text.

There are several WP:RS that support that the War on terror is claimed to be WWIV by some, so I believe that they meet both WP:V and WP:DUE. Since World War IV redirects here it makes sense to mention a conflict that is sometimes called WWIV. The removal of the text, as far as I can understand the argument, is based on TheRevisionary's opinion that Podhoretz and others are wrong, which is a textbook WP:OR argument. TheRevisonary also refers to guidelines like WP:ANNOTATION and WP:MOS where I can find nothing that supports removing the text. If there is, I'd appreciate an explanation of exactly what text in the guidelines support it, and why it applies to the text. Sjö (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't recognise neither the September 11 Attacks nor the War on Terror as a Fourth World War based upon your defence, since the profane insincerity in your most previous response as of writing this message is referring to a "bullshit argument" on my behalf, having issued numerous references behind why my edit revocations should be identified under WP:MOS by numerous means, yet were apparently dismissed; Anyone that is in expectation of being regarded as legitimate in their edit restorations - as per WP:LGL - before forgoing any sense of logic or reason, if not both, must reconsider the manner in which they display their argument before others, and if otherwise, should be treated likewise.
Moreover, the sources you issued - which one would interpret as compensating for Podhoretz' meaningless proposition - fail in every way to articulate or even justify the stated claims within the initial source, given that most of what the author outlined was repeated in somewhat of a strawman edition, as opposed to his original perspective, not to mention that the foremost of the most recently provided sources forms several correlations amongst a few separate, distinguished conflicts, in purporting the Cold War as a Third World War, despite being in contradiction with universal acceptance between scholars, historians, etc. that this was deemed a geopolitical conflict largely arising from contemporary tensions.
Furthermore, the speaker within the reference, despite the previous claim having failed the meaning of war by definition, moves on to describe Iraq as a Fourth World War on the hypothesis of his own interpretative viewpoint, a largely similar bearing against the original source, with vague descriptions as to how the combatant is denoted, stemming from the Iranian theological regime, across the unelaborated fascists in Iraq, Syria, towards Al Qaeda, subsequently stating that they have engaged the United States in conflict for years, which they were unaware of, before they were uncoincidentally noticed during the early-2000s, despite the 1979 hostage crisis, Syrian leniencies, Kuwait, as well as intelligence practices.
This largely extends to reiteration of the above, although most of the article discussing other occurred news events at the time, is thus irrelevant. Whilst the last source acknowledges differentiative connotations, this author immediately contradicts himself when he specifically refers to the aforementioned proxy war as a Third World War, as well as furthering such claims through mentions of violent efforts, regardless of "nonviolence" as it was already within that category, as well as international involvement to the point of almost all the world's nations, hence "World War Three". The author speaks of an enemy in this fabricated war as militant Islamism, despite its limitations, a real equivalent of a fictional villain apparently.
Almost the entirety of these claims are a fallacy, whereby there are some limited strengths, however these are not solidified enough to be viewed as significant throughout the issued citations, not to mention the already addressed contradictions that are often repetitive in relevant areas, hence whereas the original along with recent sources fail in many ways to adequately support information for WP:ANNOTATION, the numerous false, erroneous or inaccurate claims promoted by these references that are not correctly aligned with WP:RS, the abundance of perspective as opposed to information detailed within the sources having greatly compromised qualification for WP:VERIFIABILITY, their removal is paramount. TheRevisionary (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please state your arguments clearly and succintly with reference to which part of the relevant guidelines you refer to.I find it very hard to parse your text. Please also explain why your argument is not ”they are wrong” which is WP:OR. Sjö (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IT is always our right to judge if what a source says is nonsense. Plenty are. If the War on terror is WWIV, what is WWIII? HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are there to support the statement that the war on terror "has been claimed by some to be...World War IV (assuming the Cold War was World War III)". They do support that WoT has been called WWIV, and maybe they are wrong but that is beside the point. The view that WoT can be called WWIV is a significant view in the context, well sourced and WP:DUE. Sjö (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what happened to WWIII? HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you consider the Cold War to be WWIII, then the War on Terror would be WWIV.Sjö (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the Cold War to be WWIII. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I have no strong opinion on the matter, but it doesn't matter what you or I think. Like WP:RS says, Wikipedia publishes "the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Many Wikipedia articles would be much shorter if we excluded texts about things where we think the information is wrong, especially in the areas of pseudoscience and politics. WP:OR aside, it would not be an improvement to the Wikipedia project to follow that path. Sjö (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the time to parse your verbose text, including searching for support within the policies or guidelines that you refer to. It seems to me that you repeatedly misunderstand or misrepresent these policies and guidelines and that you refer to them when they do not support your argument: WP:ANNOTATION is irrelevant when the sources all support the same statement. WP:MOS is a style manual and irrelevant, unless you object to how the information is written. WP:LGL is a comprehensive list of guidelines, and using that link can either be interpreted as "somewhere here is a . guideline that supports my case" or "all of these guidelines support my case"; neither alternative is a useful argument in a discussion about including a particular piece of information. The references are all to WP:RS, but you could make the argument that some of them are opinion pieces. However, opinon pieces are reliable sources when it comes to sourcing what someone has said or what their opinion is. This brings me to the key point why your argument falls: these sources are there to support that the WoT "has been claimed by some to be...World War IV (assuming the Cold War was World War III)". We do not say in Wikipedia's voice that the WoT is WWIV, just that it has been called that. It really does not matter if the authors are right or wrong in this case. We aim to describe the world as it is, as reported by reliable sources. You might think or wish that it was different, or you might think that someone is wrong about how they use a term, but that does not mean that we should not report on it. Your argument for removing the text is unsupported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I intend to restore it. Sjö (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several violations as per WP:MOS within the sources that contradict what the original perspective supposedly entails, as mentioned numerous times within the previous paragraph, since they frequently deviate between the Cold War and unrelated conflicts. Furthermore, whilst I'm not certain behind why you have not acknowledged the third reference as a reason for the recent edit reversions, there have been a few reasons citing the aforementioned policy regarding the authenticity of the sources, such being the initial source failing to identify, recognise or even suggest who the specific combatants are in this hypothetical conflict, with very vague connotations. The second source is almost entirely a repetition of this unelaborated narrative, after which mostly discusses contemporary news affairs of the time that are irrelevant to the matter in question, thereby devaluing much of what their said claims are meant to display, if anything.
Should you persist as adamant as already demonstrated, I would request another source for examination that further correlate in WP:RS. TheRevisionary (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are sufficient to show that the war on terror has been called WWIV. Like I said above, it does not matter if the persons calling it WWIV are right or wrong since the references are there to support "called" not "is". And please stop referring to guidelines that do not support your case. You have been told there is no support for your edit in WP:MOS.
I would also like to point out that text about the war on terror being called WWIV has been in this article as well as in War on terror for at least to years, so it should be considered a stable version. Sjö (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check the archived discussion at War on terror for more references and the debate about including the name "WWIV". Anyway, per WP:RFCBEFORE I will ask for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history.Sjö (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's plainly obvious that there are sources to support the assertion that the "war on terror" has been referred to as WWIV. That's really the end of the discussion. That you or I or anyone else disagrees with the characterization of the GoT as WWIV is totally and completely irrelevant, no matter what walls of text, WP:SEALIONing, and misreading of policies anyone provides. Parsecboy (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

[edit]

In the current potential flashpoints section, include Taiwan + china, South Korea + North Korea & the Iran + USA/Israel tensions. 103.139.105.154 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ratekreel (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

[edit]

In this article, there is reference to a Captain James Blunt with a hyperlink. The hyperlink goes to the Wikipedia page for the singer/songwriter James Blunt which I believe is incorrect. 31.48.149.161 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You believe correctly, it was not the singer-songwriter. — Czello (music) 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_III&oldid=1258203257"