Talk:World war

message: When the major powers in that insant resort to Total War policies. It's that simple. This "cold war" and  "terrorism" guff is nothing but bunk.-G
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 01:37, 2006 November 7 (UTC)
:Why isn't the American Revolution listed? Actually, I was linked to this article from there. 69.224.36.26 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy definition of World War 

message: The Cold War and War on Terrorism are not considered World Wars? By whom?? This section needs deleting, many commentators call the CW WW3 and the WoT WW4 (or WW3 if they dont count the CW). They have a far better claim to world war then the "League of Aubsburg"- CJWilly
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.160.195 (talk) 10:26, 2004 December 6 (UTC)
:Have you read the definition of "World War" used in this article?  I'd hardly call a war with casualties in the low thousands a "World War". --Carnildo 10:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cold War was global, and had deaths in the millions.  Two of the nations involved didn't directly fire at each other- so?  It's certainly better qualified than some of the other wars listed.  The War on Terror isn't "A World War" or "Not a World War."  It hasn't concluded, and can't be defined yet. Alakhriveion 22:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold war

message: What happened to my article on Global Wars... I didn't say anything about merging the topics...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.58.146 (talk) 19:03, 2004 December 6 (UTC)
:The article on "Global Wars" and the article on "World Wars" covered the same ground, so I merged the two.  "World War" became the introduction of the combined article, while "Global War" became the body.  I felt "World War" was the better article title, so I put the article under that title, and made "Global War" a redirect. --Carnildo 21:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My article on Global Wars

message: guess you got know clue what you are talking. The cold war was a war of knowledge and upgrade between Russia and USA. Even thinking about describing it as a World War infamizes millions of human beings, who died in the 2 World Wars. and who - except some patriotic american clowns - describe the war on terror as a world war - not even finished? it isn't no premier if some warlords follow their own targets .. might it coz of religious, racist or inhuman reasons. so the specs and claims should be placed in a special chapter, no juggling with words to profile themselve without knowin anything bout the issue. big up myself for instructin u clowns
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.211.153.16 (talk) 13:19, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
::Is this supposed to be serious?
::I'll skip the badly written post above, and propose we should at least discuss the old war as being a world war or not. There was certainly worldwide conflict and casualties. Vietnam certainly had to do with it, for example. (Maybe we can call it a cold World War?) - Redmess 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW3/WW4 .. cold war?! war on terrorism?!!? 

message: The way I see it is that this article should be, at least when listing the wars, a summary and overview for each conflict.  I've created Participants in World War I and Participants in World War II which contain the info I've just taken out of this article - I don't see the need to have the entire participant list here.  I've also reordered the wars to most-recent first. violet/riga (t) 23:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should primarily discuss the elements that constitute a world war, wich wars have been declared world wars, wich wars could have been declared so but were not, and wih wars are nominated for the title world war. - Redmess 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article should be 

message: was the first ever war that wasnt started in europe
good job to whoever wrote that--JinFX HuangDi 1698 02:51, 2005 March 8 (UTC)
That is absolute bullshit.
Cameron Nedland 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Years War 

message: I have just pilfered the introductions from the WWI and WWII pages for brif introductions to these two wars. I guess they are a bit long for this page but can be shortened later...
Anyway, some things I think this page needs:
#Reference (page number, volume) of the Churchill quote, and I guess that the fact this is in his history of the English speaking peoples should be in the 7 years war section not the intro (but the quote itself could stay in the intro).
#Other historians views of what counts as a World War? With refs.
#Contrast with Total war - some world wars are total wars but the two are not the same thing.
#The Cold War / War on Terror info may be better in the Classification as a world war section.
What do you think? Andreww 01:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the article going? 

message: That conflict involved Russia, Great Britan, France, The Ottoman, Sardina and even the CSA.  
That conflict within itself takes up about over 80% of the world.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdRedRain (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2005 July 4 (UTC)
*But as "The majority of the conflict took place on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea." (according to the Crimean war article) so it fails the "Happened on more than one continent" test. Andreww 5 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
How could the CSA have been involved in the Crimean War, it wasn't around yet!?
Cameron Nedland 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Crimean war? 

message: I'm suggesting more candidates for consideration as World Wars simply to make it clear that if a World War can happen on one continent (As World War I did in fact) and only require participation from nation-states on other continents, but not an actual theatre of fighting, then other wars that included three continents and high civilian and military casualties but did not take place in Europe and/or with modern war equipment should definately be considered. I'm always a bit pained by the Euro-Centrism or West-Centrism in Wikipedia. Here's some suggestions:
*Hunnic Expansion
*Roman Wars
*Alexandrian Wars
*The Mongolian Expansion
*The Partition of Africa
*All of the New Imperialism conflicts together
*The Latin American Revolutions
*The Expansion of Islam
All of these in fact do involve European powers in some way anyway, because I, being a Westerner, have been completely denied any real education about any conflicts that don't somehow involve a white person. I'm guessing there are Chinese, Japanese, Arab, Indian, and African wars that I don't even know about that might also qualify as World Wars.Billy P 15:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those are not a single war but a series of Conflicts with a unified factor. In the case of Alexander, Rome, the Huns and the Mongolians it is one aggressive force against a variety of enemies in a variety of locations. To consider that a world war would be to consider any violent imperialism a world war. IN order to qualify there needs to be at least two strong aggressive parties with trans-continental territory which does not occur in history untill the modern era. Furthermore the only non-white/European powers to expand through colonies are the Ottoman Empire and the Japanese. Many others did have colonies but not centralised power. Therefore Asian participation as a power to a world war could not start untill the 19th century.--70.29.22.180 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll bite. World War I was of global extent, according to the article: "Some of the very first actions of the war occurred far from Europe, including Africa and the Pacific Ocean." In any case I would argue that for inclusion in our list we just need to find some reputable source who calls it a "World War" because otherwise we are interpreting history and thus approaching original research. -- Andreww 09:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even more candidates for World War? 

message: Theres should be a article/information on World War V since theres one on World War IV.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.59.62 (talk) 00:52, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
:World War IV is occasionally used as a term, World War V has never been used. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only World War IV I'm aware of is the hypothetical one that will be fought with stones and clubs.  I've never heard of a World War V. --Carnildo 04:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War V? 

message: It should be cited the the num,ber of holcaust victims includes the sint and Roma. As the term generally refers to jewish victins only. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisu (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2005 October 11 (UTC)
: By definition, the Holocaust refers only to the Jews that were killed by the nazis: which number was 6 million. The 11 million non-Jews that were killed by the nazis during the same period are not classified as 'Holocaust victims'; they are Holocaust-era Nazi victims, but aren't called Holocaust victims because Holocaust by definition is not applied to non-Jews. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims of holocaust  

message: The area conversion between imperial and metric is wrong in the "Both World Wars in comparison" table; the conversion factor between sq. miles and km² is ~2.59 (area), not ~1.6093 (distance). Which value is the correct one? Sarke 15:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect battefield area 

message: Then how can it be allied with Austria or Germany?
-G
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.143.110 (talk) 03:17, 2006 July 22 (UTC)
By the end of '43, they surrendered and de facto switched sides.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maraud (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2006 August 12 (UTC)
:Assuming the reference is to the First World War, Italy signed the 1882 Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary, but the alliance was formally a defensive agreement to aid each other in the event of being attacked by another power. Italy had little enthusiasm for it and secured opt-outs so it wouldn't be dragged to war with particular powers such as the UK, as well as making secret negotiations with other powers. When war broke out in 1914 Italy refused to join Germany and Austria-Hungary, as they had taken the offensive, and instead negotiated for territorial gains at the expense of Austria-Hungary, eventually entering the war on the Entente powers' side in 1915. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought Italy fought Austria? 

message: I need to look for information. The information I'm looking for is in the Headline. I need it urgently. Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.10 (talk) 00:35, 2006 September 27 (UTC)
:We are not going to do your homework/research/whatever for you. Try a history book on Singapore. Surely that will mention what happened. - Redmess 14:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone knows : During the World War 2, what had happened to Singapore? 

message: From the text of the article under "Characteristics of the World Wars":
: The proximate cause of the European aspect of the two wars was very similar—Germany invading its neighbours....
I don't like the wording of this statement. Quite frankly, it doesn't make sense because they did not at all begin World War I any more than Britain started World War II. If you can say Germany invaded its neighbors in World War I, you can say Britain invaded its neighbors in World War II, because Germany was just fighting a war that Austria, Serbia, and Russia had already started. The main thing here, to my knowledge, is that Germany's was the shoulders that the war was rested on because there's no way Austria was going to be able to handle what it (or Serbia or Russia) started. D. F. Schmidt 02:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I somewhat agree, but I note that regarding the Western front of World War I, this statement is somewhat accurate - tensions were ignited between Germany and France by the events involving Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Russia, but what followed in the West had nothing to do with the events in the East, aside from all of Europe being entangled together in the two great alliances. And from the narrow world-view of many British and Americans, the western front WAS world war i. (Especially Americans, being unaligned at that time, and entering the war exclusively to fight against Germany). Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany invading its neighbors 

message: The case can be made that the two world wars in the 20th century are a single conflict since you cannot tell the story or WWII without at least a very brief discussion about WWI.  Whether or not WWII "may not have started were it not for the rise of Hitler" the fact remains that it DID happen.  woulda, shoulda, coulda may have stopped any of the other wars as well.  That "oversimplification" statement should at least have the other side of the argument or just be removed.  160.230.249.144 18:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1914 - 1945 oversimplification? 

message: Somebody's put LANDON IS GAY!!!! at the beginning of the article, but I can't seem to remove it. Could somebody get that? 129.237.90.54 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bombings took place at that time. However, how do we know that those bombings constituted the end of the war? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't. The war ended when China signed an Armistice with Japan, the day after the UK and US did. Ofcourse, when WWII began is a bigger question, since the seemingly racist answer is when Germany invaded Poland. Or whether Finland's Winter War is part of WWII ... Or if the European War and Pacific War are two separate wars that is wrongly conflated as WWII... 74.15.105.205 (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: World War II began with the declaration of war by the Allies against Germany. After Pearl Harbour the Sino-Japanese War folded into World War II. The Winter War and Spanish Civil War ended before the declaration of war between Germany and Russia making them seperate. Any other conflict in the world such as the colonial conflicts in Asia and the British Middle-East folded into the same war. Even previously conluded conflicts like the Italian invasion of Ethipoia were connected. To say that declaring WW2 begining in 1939 is racist shows a lack of knowledge, especially in history. It is normal for wars to merge such as the Fur wars merging with Franco-English wars or Tecumseh's War folding into the War of 1812. The fact is the Asian and European wars were seperate until Pearl-harbour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.22.180 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Winter War was a direct consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which by itself had cleared the last hurdle for Hitler and Stalin to attack Poland, ergo for WW2 to break out. While the connection between Finland's conflict with Russia and the double invasion of Poland (where Stalin moved in a few weeks after Hitler) was a bit submerged at the time (the Soviet Union had essentially been given a free ride on Finland and the Baltic republics in the M-Rp pact, but this was still secret) it was well understood by politicians and many ordinary people at the time that the Russians had got the time window they wanted to attack Finland because of the pledge of no war with Germany. Actually, Britain and France had some plans for intervention across northern Scandinavia - plans that would no doubt have failed if they had been attempted. No other country joined the Finns openly and directly - through declaring war on the USSR - but in strategic terms it was certainly part of the European arena of WW2.83.254.151.33 (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I deleted the paragraph about the "war of neoliberalism against humanity"...if no one has ever heard of this "war," then it doesn't deserve to be in a Wikipedia article. It appeared to be absurd spam that diluted the seriousness and relevance of the article as a whole. Thus I deleted it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.186.184 (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "War of Neoliberalism against humanity" is spam 

message: Shouldn't mention of WWIV being in the famous quote (to paraphrase...) I don't know what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones (or something to that effect) be mentioned in the WW4 section? 74.15.105.205 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Norman Podhoretz used WWIV as the moniker of the violent struggle (a future affair, but inevitable, according to him) against islamo-f**cism, in an eponymous book a few years back.83.254.151.33 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: WW4

message: The article states: 
"Other wars in earlier periods that saw conflict across the world have been considered world wars by some:
the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1713) 
Seven Years' War (1756–1763); Winston Churchill called it "the first world war" in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples 
the French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1802) and the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). 
These, however, were confined to the European powers and their colonial empires and offshoots. The Asian powers were not involved (counting in this instance the Ottoman Empire as a European power)."
The parentheses statement is misleading as The Ottoman Empire was indeed involved in the French Revolutionary Wars.  See Siege of Acre (1799) and in the larger sense the French Invasion of Egypt (1798).  Moreover, the Ottoman Empire was involved in military actions that were part of the larger geopolitical/diplomatic struggle of the era.  See Dardanelles Operation and Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812).  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These, however, were confined to the European powers and their colonial empires and offshoots. The Asian powers were not involved (counting in this instance the Ottoman Empire as a European power).
I will remove this statement completly since it creates an Idea that non-European involvement as a super-power is mandatory which is not true of any war in history except the Second World War.--70.29.22.180 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottoman Empire and French Revolutionary/Napleonic Wars

message: Considering that The American Revolutionary War took place on almost every Continent shouldn't it also be considered a "World War"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.88 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: American Revolutionary War

message: Why is USA colored green along with France on the map of the Napoleonic Wars.  USA was not a participant in that conflict.  It fought a separate war (War of 1812) with Britain.  I know of no historian or history book that has ever said the two conflicts are the same.  USA needs to be taken off that map.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA and Napoleonic Wars 

message: Personally, I think (and I know I'm going to get complaints and opinions on this) that the War on Terror is itself WWIII. My reasoning for this (and I don't plan to change anybody's minds) is that a World War is a World War not because of body count, since the previous two had comparatively rather primitive technology than today and that we're fighting an enemy that uses guerilla tactics, but because of the scope of the battlefield. If this campaign was only focused in the middle east then this wouldn't even be a candidate for WWIII, but the war is spreading to other parts of the world; the Mahgreb, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines (which are in Africa and Indonesia respectively), that and the unsuccessful attempt by North Korea to use a nuclear missile against the U.S., which I personally think fits the criteria of use of nuclear weapons for those that declare that the war can't be without nuclear weapons (I personally don't think they're necessary). Nothing against anybody that thinks the Cold War is WWIII, but I just don't see it. To me, that war was more like some sort of extreme chess game (as cool as it was) for the fate of the world. Despite that, I don't think that it is necessary for it to be Total war, but still a pretty large scale war (at least territorywise). Still, like I said earlier, between more highly advanced tech and enemies using guerilla tactics, world wars may not be total war anymore. Sirius85 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing

message: --79.111.122.137 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this article knows that there will be no new World war? 

message: I realized something; if you look at this from the perspective of the entire human race, the concepts of a World war and a Civil war are almost one and the same. 74.78.77.122 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coincidence

message: According to Wikipedia itself, "War is a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality". Considering the definition of war given, and that of 'world war' discussed here, it's my personal opinion that the Cold War or the War on Terrorism are not world wars in its absolute essence as they are not conflicts between two (or more, obviously) parties with the presence of real military clash. Let's see, there was no direct confict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, only their contributions to indirect, localized armed conflicts. In the War on Terrorism, who exactly were the belligerent forces? The USA and allies versus the terrorists/Talibans/Saddam Hussein ? We shouldn't even consider it a war. This is my opinion.
Dexty (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution to the 'World War' classification 

message: For whatever reason the definition had included, "last for multiple years". The hypothetical WW III was envisioned as the planet being turned uninhabitable over the course of about one week. So then there'd be some historian in a mineshaft writing the assertion that it was not a bona fide world war because the duration was far less than multiple years? That does not float. I've removed that unnecessary criteria. What makes a war a world war is its extended geographical impact around the globe. Just because past examples have lasted several years each does not mean that extended temporal impact is a necessary attribute.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration criteria removed 

message: Per Wikipedia pages:
World War I had 10+ countries fighting or backing armed conflict and 4+ on the other side
World War II had 17+ countries fighting or backing armed conflict on one side and 13+ on the other side
The War on Terror has 44+ countries fighting or backing armed conflict on one side and 18+ terrorist groups located all over the planet on the other side
the way I see it more countries are fighting the War on Terror then both WW1 & WW2 combined unless the sidebars on WW1 & WW2 are wrong 156.33.195.254 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You will have to find reliable sources that refer to it as such.  It is mentioned in the article BTW, that some refer to it that way.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be worthy to note that there are no countries on the other side, its just terrorist groups. I think one of the criteria for a world war is that there are countries on both sides of the conflict.Anders1985 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II is called a World War but The War on Terror is not, WHY?

message: The article says about the term "World War II" that The first use for the actual war came in its issue of September 11, 1939.
But one week earlier, on 4 September 1939, the Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad ran a headline reading "Den anden Verdenskrig udbrød i Gaar Middags Kl. 11", that is, "The second World War broke out yesterday at 11 a.m.".
Should this go into the article?--Oz1cz (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First use of term WWII

message: The German WP article quotes first use of "First World War" much earlier than this English article: 1920. German literature: 1921.
Die Verwendung der Ordnungszahl („Erster“ Weltkrieg) fand als erstes durch den Offizier und Journalisten Charles à Court Repington (1858-1925) statt. Sein Werk „The First World War 1914-1918. Personal Experiences“ (London: Constable 1920) wurde in der 9. Auflage in einer französischen Übersetzung 1922 zugänglich gemacht. In der Weimarer Republik ist die Ordnungszahl als erstes durch den der Lyriker Stefan George im Gedicht „Einem jungen Führer im Ersten Weltkrieg“ (Bondi Verlag, Berlin Dezember 1921) aufgetaucht.
--Panda17 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of "First World War" 

message: This is my opinion and I would like to hear your opinion in relation to it as a peer review of the lead in the article and how well written and balanced it is.
The lead says: "The term is usually applied to the two conflicts of unprecedented scale that occurred during the 20th century: World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). However, it is also sometimes applied to earlier wars and to a hypothetical future war."
I don't think its wrong to say that its unprecedented conflicts during the 20th century. But it opens up the misinterpretation that the scale was unprecedented or significant in human history. There are other conflicts that had a much greater impact on humanity. I just don't want it to appear like WW1 and WW2 are the most significant conflicts in human history.
Slightly updated data from original paper in French: (a) Jean-Noël Biraben, 1980, "An Essay Concerning Mankind's Evolution", Population, Selected Papers, Vol. 4, pp. 1–13. Original paper in French: (b) Jean-Noël Biraben, 1979, "Essai sur l'évolution du nombre des hommes", Population, Vol. 34 (no. 1), pp. 13–25. 
And as an example of a conflict that had a higher death toll than WW2 and WW1 combined in relation to world population of the time.
The Cambridge History of China: Alien regimes and border states, 907–1368, 1994, p.622
I don't think the lead of the article should have the possibility to mislead people to understand  WW1 and WW2 as being on a unprecedented scale and significance in relation to human history.Anders1985 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do these sources directly say that these conflicts were world wars?  Do these sources say that these conflicts are on a larger scale than the two world wars?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Why do these sources have to directly say that these conflicts were world wars? In human history these conflicts do say that they are more significant and on a larger scale in relation to human population of the time. Anders1985 (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't and don't make direct comparisons to the world wars we are doing WP:OR.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: They make comparisons in that they are conflicts. Anders1985 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, then making the leap to comparing them to the two world wars is WP:SYN.  We can't do that.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: This is the talk page WP:CONACHIEVE. So we can do that.Anders1985 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware that this is a talk page, but you want to mention other wars being world wars in the article.  We need sources to do that.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: NO, I DO NOT WANT TO MENTION OTHER WARS BEING WORLD WARS IN THE ARTICLEAnders1985 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am missing something, if so, I am sorry.  Below you wrote "The term is usually applied to the two conflicts that occurred during the 20th century: World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). However, it is also sometimes applied to earlier wars and to a hypothetical future war." (italics mine) Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm so sorry for your "condition". Try reading again please. This is what the header is already saying in the article. Your disputing what someone else already wrote in the article. I am also disputing what someone else wrote in the same article. Welcome aboard, in that manner.Anders1985 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any condition, at least none that I have told you about.  They are not called world wars in the article.  Indeed it is mentioned that the term was coined in the early 20th century.  I see that what you want is to say these other conflicts are on the same scale as the world wars.  I wonder if this is an accepted opion, or, if it is a minority viewpoint.  I actually don't think the 'and other conflicts' stuff should be in there at all, but I may be in a minority here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I have placed no emphasis about what a world war is or is not. This have been an continuous error on your part. I'm not calling anything a world war, apart from what most would agree was the first and the second world war. Again an error on your part. I said this more than enough. Now please not how I use the term conflict. I refer to wars as conflicts, since you clearly have not been reading what I have written. I'm not saying that these are wars on the same scale. I refer to the significance the different wars have had on world population at the time, preferably in percentages (See earlier reference to another wiki article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll"). Either way your opinions are going against what are already stated in articles on wiki in regards to the term world wars and conflicts scale in history. You have more and more given evidence that you have not understood what I'm talking about, and that you don't understand the wiki policies you referenced to earlier because there is a difference between policies in talk pages and articles. 
I want wars to be valued on a neutral, scientific and anthropologic basis. And I present an opinion about relevant significance. Namely the death toll a conflict or series of connected conflicts have had on the world population at the time (This is not the same as blunt scale). Rather than the current way to value these two wars on wikipedia. Remember this is the TALK PAGE and I do not have to give sources for all my opinions or to give evidence for my opinions. So from previous experience with you I say this now, rather than to take it for granted.Anders1985 (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am aware this is a talk page and most policies don't apply here, except, well those that apply to talk pages.  That said, you want to make a change, I want to be sure the change is sensible, that is all.  Wikipedia articles are not references.  I see those other wars listed in the article.  They are mentioned in the lead.  You don't like the part about them being unprecedented in scale correct?  Show me a source that supports your opinion.  It cannot be one that just lists death tolls, it has to actually say what you want.  Then, voila, I would wholeheartedly support a change, assuming of course it is not a fringe view. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Look at the death toll list and click on percentage of world population, arrange it so that you make the wars that have an higher impact on world population aka had a deeper impact on humanity as a whole, relatively significant if you ask me, and compare to WW1 and WW2. Your trying to make me give sources for abstracts here. AGAIN THIS IS ONLY TO SUPPORT MY REASONING TO MAKE THE CHANGE IN THE HEADER, THE CHANGE YOU ALREADY ACCEPTED. I DONT WANT TO WRITE THE REASONING IN THE ACTUALLY ARTICLE. The wars are of unprecedented scale, because world population then was that much higher than it was in previous history. I still just think the emphasis is lacking neutrality. Because its not taking death toll vs population into account when emphasizing on the importance of the two wars. And as I hope you can agree, emphasizing on values in these articles, is not a necessity. Wiki policy preferred neutrality.Anders1985 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: That is ok by me.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Good, that's all I wanted.Anders1985 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Well that is another matter, and I think it affected Asia pretty deeply, what with the end of colonialism, the rise of the PRC etc.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Its not another matter at all, I'm talking about death rate in relation to world population, and the values and neutrality related to that is not displayed in the wiki article, that is all. To clarify about Asia, there have been wars that have affected the regional population more than WW2 did, in percentage of the current population in the region at the start of the conflict. This is an abstract from the other wikipage again and I'm not planning on writing this in the article. I'm not talking about socio political changes at all, and if you like to talk about it I suggest you bring it up in a more suitable talk page.Anders1985 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War lead is not well written 

message: Per , this edit established the page's usage as  and . Kindly establish a consensus prior to reinserting the Es. Also, as a matter of style, there is no need whatsoever to list  or  beside every date. Once the transition from  is established, they can simply be omitted. — LlywelynII 09:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ERA]]

message: It does seem noxious to use Greek geographical terms to justify calling Ramses's conquests a world war but not Qin Shihuang's. Maybe limiting that list to conflicts that span four or more continents would bring this page to something more approaching rationality.
Regardless, editors need to be more careful with the way they toss around the idea of "every continent" in the talk section and in the article here. Neither war involved shoot-outs at the South Pole and South American involvement was minimal. — LlywelynII 10:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do sources call Ramses conquests a world war?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Every continent?

message: Couldn't there be square miles for the "Battlefield size" row of the chart in this article? TheGGoose (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart measurements 

message: I added the 30 Years War to the list of major conflicts, but someone removed it saying that it wasn't exactly a world war, it was more of a "world war" than most of the conflicts on the list.Ericl (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again 

message: Regarding the tables with the extensive list of "Large-scale wars throughout history (in chronological order)" - what source links them to World Wars, and therefore qualifies them to be mentioned in this article?
The same goes for the section "Wars matching World War I by casualty count" (Hohum @) 19:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research linking many wars with "World War" 

message: Simple examination of the citation given for "highest estimate" of deaths in the European colonization of the Americas as listed on this page reveals the number is being given as an estimate of total continental population prior to colonization, not as an estimate of the fatalities that resulted. --68.109.249.130 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrectly used citation

message: I have tried to sort the "Duration" column on the table, but it sorts the entries incorrectly. Apparently it reads them by leading digit instead of by final digit. It also sorts the From and To columns incorrectly in the same fashion. Is there a way to fix this? 66.44.41.91 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table duration column does not sort properly 

message: What does the "Log. mean calculated using simple power law" in the table headings mean?  (Also, why are the casualties presented in "000,000,000" format, and why are BC dates given as negative numbers?) Iapetus (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Without understanding its applicability here, power laws are explained in Scaling law.  One quantity varies as another to some power.  The area of a square is proportional to the length of a side to the power two.  The diameter of an animal's legs is proportional to the animal's diameter to the 3/2 power.  Also, see Zipf's law.  You can fit data to a power law, find the exponent, then use that exponent for other data. Gah4 (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimated death tolls. Log. mean calculated using simple power law 

message: How is it possible that a conflict (series of conflicts), that featured major battles and large-scale troop deployments between two nations in Europe and colonies in the Western Hemisphere, with events and incidents in the South American continent, in Central America, in the North American continent (Mexico, Florida), in the Caribbean, and even coastal skirmishes in California, Asia, and Africa (with a couple of Argentine flagged vessels bombing, raiding, and even occupying Spanish forts in those areas between 1818 and 1824), have gone thus far completely unmentioned and unlisted in the appropriate section? I find it appalling to be honest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.3.243.106 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of South American and Mexican wars of independence 

message: I thought about asking somewhere in WT:MOS, but I thought this might be better.  It seems that WWI and WW1 are both used in articles, as are WW II and WW2. Should there be a preferred form for use in articles?  Often I see different forms in the same article, or even in the same paragraph. Gah4 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation 

message: As there was no source listed for the 20 - 30 million death-toll figure, I have temporarily deleted this.  I do not deny that the Cold War death toll probably reaches into the millions, but I haven't been able to find any "unbiased" data supporting the 20 - 30 million figure.  Probably relatively unbiased sources can be found for the proxy wars in Vietnam, and Korea, which my guess is, might add up to somewhere between 2 - 10 million.  My guess is that the death-tolls for other proxy wars in Latin America and Africa during the Cold War years were probably never properly and accurately documented.
While it is a pity that no reliable upper limit of the death-toll for the Cold War will probably ever be known, it is our job to only include "reliable data" here, and then to accurately explain what we found.  E.g.  2 million minimum (footnoted as merely the totals of Korea and Vietnam) Unknown maximum (footnoted as simply "data unavailable").  Sure, there may have been 30 million killed in te Cold War, but both sides have unfortunately avoided keeping any reliable track of this number, and it is not for us to merely speculate, or to report on the mere speculations of other apparently biased sources here. Scott P. (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that unless you can say who was fighting in the cold war, you can't say who was killed.  If you count all the workers in the defense industry as fighters, any that died at work, or on the way to work, could count.  (That is, they wouldn't have been doing that job, without a cold war needing that service.)  So, yes, I agree that there should not be a number, though with a wide enough range I suppose one could be supplied ... with a reliable source.  Gah4 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's absurd. They may not have been doing THOSE jobs, but they still would have been doing SOME kind of job. I'm sure the number of people killed in auto accidents on their way to work would be relatively the same. You cannot count defence industry workers who fall asleep on their way to work the Monday after daylight saving time begins and drive off a bridge as being part of the death toll of whatever war happens to be going on at the time. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced death toll from "Cold War" entry in table of wars 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on World 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/20130430155253/http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/HMCHART_2.pdf to http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/HMCHART_2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201144355/http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88 to http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219212651/http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/Revised%20Casulaty%20Data%20-%20Press%20release.doc to http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/Revised%20Casulaty%20Data%20-%20Press%20release.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on World 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/20150501122844/http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/spiegel.htm to https://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/spiegel.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Teh word 'war' is used at least 190 times.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.22.243 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeatative Word Usage 

message: I feel the opening section is misleading and needs to be more substantial. The first problem is that it states that a world war is 'a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world'. While this is indeed a common definition it is not the only one as there is no single agreed one. A simple quick search of online dictionaries will demonstrate this as different ones define it in different ways.90.198.187.9 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've done this search, can you simply present these online dictionaries here?  --A D Monroe III(talk)  01:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening section 

message: I propose to merge World War III into World war#Third World War. I think that the content in the World War III can easily be explained in this article, and since World War III is a hypothetical war rather than a real one such a World War IV(Which currently serves as a redirect to this article) and that this article has enough coverage of World War III already (and if anyone doesn't feel like so, this article can be expanded to have ebough coverage fir World War III), the two articles should be merged. the ultraUsurper (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose..even though World War III is only a hypothetical war, it is a hypothetical war that has been frequently referenced ever since the second War ended: for  of a century, 75 years. It is a concept that is, imho, notable enough in its own right to deserve its own article. World War IV is not, and should be redirected to the section in this article. (Theres also the reason to avoid making this article overly bulky if it doesn't have to be). Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I've removed the Cold War from the two tables in the Other global conflicts section, because the death toll estimates were not only unsourced, but a very bad case of WP:SYNTH. It's ridiculous to just add up the casualties from all wars fought between 1947 and 1991, add to that all "people killed in Asia and Europe by the Communist governments", and call the number you get the total casualties of the Cold War. This is contentious stuff and needs very thorough reliable sourcing, i.e. multiple reliable sources that seriously attempt to define the scope of the Cold War and assign to that an estimated death toll. Lennart97 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cold War has since been re-added, with the death toll estimates sourced to a seemingly unreliable source, basically a blog which also seems to just add up casualties from conflicts in the Cold War period.  I see you just trimmed a good number of conflicts from the list (which I agree with); maybe you have some thoughts on this issue as well? Lennart97 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove the Cold War until we can get better sourcing on "world war" and casualties. (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War 

message: it was fought over North & South America, Europe, Africa, Asia. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it was, and as such it is already listed in the "Other global conflicts" section. Lennart97 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Years War was a global conflict. 

message: Was this really a global conflict? Although attacks occurred in North America and Europe, most of the actual army-on-army fighting occured in the Middle East. 47.33.186.77 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Terror 

message: Sadly, after taking a giant geopolitical bucket of ice water in the face, the prospective view is no longer passe. I really think the lead should have covered this anyway. According to policy, the lead should summarize the main points of the article. My edit was a bit hasty, but well cited. Many times I'm not trying to fix an article in a single step, but to set things up so that the next editor can take a swipe at a fat volleyball. I'm broadly informed, but this isn't my dog, so it's really not possible for me to assess whether I'm getting the phrasing or emphasis exactly right. I can often, however, move things along to 50% or 80% of a good first draft. Revise or revert at will, I'm off to other pastures. — MaxEnt 17:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW III in lead 

message: Do the mongol campaigns count as a world war because it was fought in arabia, europe and asia? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so, unless you can find reliable sources that describe them as such. There have been countless wars and conflicts throughout history that spanned parts of both Europe and Asia, even if the Mongol conquests did span a particularly large area. I also disagree with the notion (implied by your section heading) that "more conflicts are needed". Lennart97 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More conflicts needed 

message: There was an earlier version of this article that listed the amount of casualties during the Cold War. Is there a way to restore it?  Rager7 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing cold war casualties