Talk:World War III/Archive 1

message: Hello. World War III is an interesting article. I wonder how long it was after the end of WWII that the term "WWIII" started getting kicked around. It could even have been before 1945, since "WWII" was used before the end of the war if I'm not mistaken. -- I remember reading back issues of "Popular Science" from the late 40's as a kid (in the 70's) and the threat of nuclear annihilation was already a theme in popular culture. I'd like to see this article trace the history of the term "WWIII" itself but unfortunately I don't know enough to add something on that topic. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 00:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert F. Welch is said to have referred to John Birch as "the first casualty of World War III". I don't know if it's true, wish I had time to look it up... Ellsworth 23:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original use of the term "WWIII" ? 

message: Discuss: many of the examples in the film, television, literature etc sections do not actually deal with a Third World War. Specifically, 'Colossus: The Forbin Project', 'Dr Strangelove' and 'Blast from the Past' belong more in a page about the Cold War; whilst 'The Matrix' and 'The Terminator' involve an apocalypse, but not a 'war' as such. The entry for 'The City of Ember' needs work, but I am not familiar with the book; it links to a page which also needs work, a lot of work. - Ashley Pomeroy 14:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlong media section 

message: I just wandered past and noticed that most of the objections from the failed featured article nomination (see ) haven't really been addressed. If you want to work on this article with a view to eventually renominate it, here's the discussion:
* Object. This is a tremendously important concept in recent history, politics, and military technology, which is fast fading from common knowledge. (I recently went to a party where a 22 year old refused to believe that all us thirty somethings had once believed the world was in imminent danger of nuclear annihilation!)
*# A featured article on World War III needs to give adequate coverage to the political, historical and technical/theoretical aspects. Aspects it should cover the SALT treaties, the START treaties, the ABM treaties, the peace movement, domestic fallout shelters in various countries, "Drop, Duck, and cover", the impact (if any) of SDI, actual capabilities, the nuclear winter controversy, and much, much more. As it stands, this article is completely dominated by references to popular culture, including even apocalyptic science fiction scenarios which are unrelated to World War III per se.
*# Two of the "near miss" scenarios are somewhat exaggerated in comparison to their supporting references, and one isn't in the free references at all. It is also undesirable to use subscriber-only references. On the other hand, the Cuban missile crisis gets just one sentence.
*# Some sections show the "editing by committee" problem, e.g. the bit on US highways as expedient runways first says there is no evidence for it, then states it as fact. Securiger 02:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Featured article nomination 

message: Article :
"October 24, 1973 — As the Yom Kippur War was winding down, a Soviet threat to intervene on Egypt's behalf caused the United States to go to DEFCON 3. If the Soviets intervened, the Americans would as well. The Soviets then backed down from their threat and Egypt withdrew its request for assistance."
Well not so close encounter IMO... Most people had noticed that Sadat had fired all USSR advisors before launching his invasion. And DEFCON 3 is a very mild "increased force readiness" we were very far from world war... Ericd 21:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical close-encounters 

message: Several of the items on the Film and Television list are more properly "post-apocolyptic" than "WWW3" examples. The two genres are NOT the same. CFLeon 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-apocolyptic Examples 

message: :The term World War III is used in certain spheres of influence in the USA to describe the Cold War of the 20th century; under this naming system the current War on Terror may be referred to as the beginning of World War IV. Others have used the term World War III to describe the War on Terror itself.
There has been zero mainstream usage of the term "World War III" to refer to the Cold War. They are clearly distinct from each other. If someone insists on re-adding this to the article then there must be a citation. Tempshill 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph removed 

message: I realize this article is already rather long, but I have suggested mergine World War III (Star Trek) with it because I think, if anything, we should spin off a separate article about fictional accounts of the war. For the purposes of the way the article is now, I think a subsection about the Star Trek version (with less detail than is currently on the Trek page) would suffice. The analysis and such of the Trek version would be better suited for an all-encompassing article about fictional accounts and how they are so often a sign of the times in which they're produced. --Vedek Dukat  Talk 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with most of the things you say, I do not agree with the merge proposal. The Star Trek section is big enough to support a separate article for its purposes, even though a summary would be sufficient for a discussion of WWIII as a recurring fictional subject (which is a subject that needs some more examination here). --Rindis 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge -- Petri Krohn 13:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose merging this article with the Star Trek article.  --24.19.33.171 03:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: The opening paragraphs of this article seem to suggest that WWWIII was a non-event because it is merely an outdated term used during the Cold War. The term is still widely used today to describe any sort of future global conflict involving nukes, and the article should explain in the opener that the term simply describes a hypothetical event which could happen at any time in the future. I was just going to go ahead and add a sentence or two to the end of the second paragraph, but I figured that I should get some consensus before changing a page that was once frontpage-nominated in a way that would slightly change the provided definition of the term. Rodeosmurf 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WWIII" After the Cold War 

message: Just out of necessity: Operation Dropshot --195.210.220.31 12:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted 

message: Why was a future tag added to this page? WWIII certainly is a 'future' event, but it's of such a hypothetical nature that is seems completely inappropriate to label the page with the phrase "This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events." Besides, the article throughoughly explains early on that this is a war only in concept, what that concept entails, and where the concept came from. It's not like an upcoming film where we can only guess as to many of the details, it's an entirely theoretical concept and it doesn't need the future tag on top of that.Rodeosmurf 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking this tag down. It's farcical here. mgekelly 08:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future tag? 

message: Perhaps a division could be made between "fictional" books and "factual/predictive" books - the terms being self-evident in the context. Are there any post-Cold War books on the subject?
A note could be added to Failed history on this topic. Jackiespeel 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books on WWIII 

message: I don't know why, but this page should be moved to World War III (hypotesis).
:If you don't know why, then why should it be moved? Skinnyweed 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be moved... 

message: 'Artistic treatments' takes up two-thirds of the article. It's simply a massive list of miscellany. Skinnyweed 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ill balance towards 'trivia' 

message: Tensions between India and Pakistan are growing. There might even be a war! North Korea in the far east seems to be a threat that Japan and South Korea would want to take care. Let's not forget about the situation with Persia (Iran) and the United States. There is still an insurgency problem in Iraq. Oh and I almost forgot, THERE IS ALREADY WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND LEBANON! Terrorist groups like Hezballah seem to make things even worse.
Are we headed toward WW3? Zachorious 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say we are... only time will tell. anyways, wikipedia isn't nosterdamus, we relay on facts. do you have any reliable source to call it WW3? --65.96.79.16 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War III?? 

message: crazy, huh? --andrew 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gingrich says this article describes a current event 

message: There are many prophecies outlying today's current events which are as follows.  One of many sources like Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine state a new state of Israel would lead to a World War III.  Israel is also depicted as a jewish state whom has destroyed its previous planet, is now being punished, and will destroy this planet.  Other signs included in its text are Japan being the first civilization to end at the apocalypse.  With the ignorant concepts of a second holocaust cast upon millions of Chinese and experiments of the North Koreans launching Warheads over Japanese waters it is no suprise that such concepts are created.  To me a media venture, to them very real.---69.255.16.162 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecies 

message: It is clear that the war against islamic facism (war on terror) is being branded WWIII in the media and in other places as well.  When people mention WWIII now they mean the WOT and not a hypothetical war.  I think this page needs to be moved to World War III (hypothetical) and War on Terrorism take it's place.  Jwissick(t)(c) 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the case; when people mention WWIII they still generally mean a worldwide war among major powers.  Some people do use WWIII to refer to the War on Terrorism, but they are not in the majority and they are doing so to push an agenda.  The War on Terrorism is plainly not on the scale of a World War and describing it as such is hyperbole. TomTheHand 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. When the media mentions WWIII they mean the current conflicts.  Perhaps the majority still mean the hypothetical, but the tide is turning toward calling the current wars WWIII Jwissick(t)(c) 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly the news media is a poor source of history, and is instead pretty focused on creating as much drama as possible this week.  When they say WWIII they're generally saying it in reference to claims by Bush or Gingrich.  It's ridiculous to call the current conflicts a world war. TomTheHand 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to World War III (hypothetical) 

message: As the article itself says, World War III "is a term used to describe a hypothetical future conflict on the scale of World War II or larger". Since the Cold War indeed happened, and is now over, it obviously can't be a "hypothetical future conflict". Furthermore, as it didn't reach "the scale of World War II or larger", it can't even be said it was World War III. Therefore, I will remove the Cold War template. Esaborio 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cold War template is not on the article because it was World War III, but rather because World War III was a very important Cold War topic.  There was constant fear that the Cold War would turn "hot" and become World War III; it is difficult to discuss the Cold War without discussing this.  The Cold War is the largest single topic of this article.  Therefore, I will replace the Cold War template and ask that you stop removing it.  Your reasons for doing so show a misunderstanding of both the topic of World War III and the reasons why the template is there. TomTheHand 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding the Cold War template in no way limits the content of the article.  It is, indeed, the most important topic related to World War III, but in spite of this, other, less common usages of the term receive coverage on the page. I'm unsure of how you demonstrated that I misunderstand the article.  World War III does not necessarily have to refer to hypothetical future conflicts; it can refer to hypothetical past ones as well, such as a scenario in which the Korean War or Cuban Missile Crisis escalate.  There is therefore no contradiction in stating that WWIII is a topic related to the Cold War which merits a Cold War template. TomTheHand 18:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is simply a hypothetical conflict; it can be a hypothetical past conflict just as easily as a hypothetical future one.  Of course none of the events I listed were World War III.  That's what hypothetical means: it didn't happen, but it could have. TomTheHand 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's right.  That's why it's hypothetical. TomTheHand 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's apparent that you don't understand what hypothetical means.  Please quit adding "future" to the article. TomTheHand 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, I got hit with a "NO U!!1".  Listen, hypothetical means that it's based on a hypothesis that may not be true.  For example, "the Cuban missile crisis escalates into World War III" is a hypothetical scenario.  It did not happen; that's implied in "hypothetical."  It's also in the past, which means that the term "World War III" can describe a hypothetical PAST scenario just as well as a hypothetical FUTURE one. TomTheHand 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated, good example. --Rindis 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say that a past event was World War III.  I said that had things gone differently, World War III could have occurred; I don't see how you can disagree with this.  Hypothetically, one of the historical close calls could have erupted into full nuclear war, which would have resulted in World War III in the past. TomTheHand 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It didn't occur, but could have; that's what hypothetical means.  World War III was a constant fear during the Cold War.  It's a critically important topic when discussing the Cold War, and the Cold War is the largest single subject in this article.  I've been over this before.  Your argument hinges on not understanding what "hypothetical" means: WWIII didn't happen, therefore it has nothing to do with the Cold War.  That's silly; WWIII and the Cold War are important and related topics. TomTheHand 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Cold War template 

message: Glenn Beck has pushed on his show (Wednesday 9) for a potential start of WW3 with a strike from Iran on Israel, particularly on Jerusalem. His basis is an article by Bernard Lewis and a shared view by schollars that the 22nd is significant date due to Muhammad's travel to heaven with the sky over Jerusalem being illuminated. Also, it's believed that the coming of the next Massiah will only occur after a 'period of persecution' and 'lights are seen over Baghdad' Beck also believes this because the president of Iran has named the 22nd as the date Iran will answer to the nuclear issues.
--Pdurland 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 22 

message: WWII effectively ended with two nuclear level attacks, thus a WWIII would begin with at least 1 nuclear level attack, but may be limited to conventional non-nuclear warfare.
I'm surprised this article fails to mention this very simple fact.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.245.34 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, how is this a "fact"? Are you saying that a war that includes most of the world but doesn't include nukes, would not be WWIII? The two don't add up! 90.213.102.176 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all original research and inappropriate for the project.  Xihr  20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Revision - 1st Nuclear Attack Constitutes WWIII 

message: There was something written of a German civil war between 1930 and 1933. While that time was certainly very eventful and not without violence, under no circumstance can we talk about a German civil war.  I have changed the sentence.
The same is the case for World War II, as previous serious conflicts in the world were occurring from 1931 to 1939 such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and later China, the Spanish Civil War, civil war in Germany from 1930 until 1933, anschluss (annexation of Austria), and the occupation of Czechoslovakia, but these events are not considered part of World War II, but only a prelude, despite the severe political instability.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.202.50 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Civil War? 

message: Criteria for a "World War" may be worth mentioning, as well as linking the artical back to World war. This whole page is getting rather lengthy and it may be worthwhile to transfer some of the prophecy and artistic definitions to new homes elsewhere.
Motorfix 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for a World War 

message: "During a press conference soon after the start of the 1991 Gulf War, King Hussein of Jordan and King Olav V of Norway directly referred to the conflict between the United States and its coalition of allies against Iraq as "the Third World War" but there was no indication of any other world leaders accepting the definition."
King Olav V of Norway died on January 17th, 1991, the day the Gulf war started. I can't believe no-one has noticed this very bad-taste joke. Removed!
13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead king talking? 

message: Under historical close calls, Suez Crisis, mention is made of the Soviet threat of intervention on the side of the Egyptians and subsequent persuasion by Lester Pearson as reasons the conflict was resolved. John Lewis Gaddis, author of many books on the Cold War, has cited back channel efforts by President Eisenhower as a reason the crisis did not escalate. Should this be added? - Missiletest - 17:26, September 13, 2006
Changed (December 27, 2006) some references to Canada (Canadian) and changed "Secretary of State" to "Minister"
:I changed "Minister" back to "Secretary of State".  The position was not called "Minister" until 1993. TomTheHand 13:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suez Crisis missing something? 

message: Perhaps the entry on the Cuban Missile Crisis should reference Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, as well?? -- Steved424 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close calls: Cuban Missile Crisis 

message: I am not saying that this is a must on this page but it would be a good addition. If you search the web there are many countries 'For Tibet' and countries 'For China' for various reasons. The leaders to "Free Tibet:" and anti-Chinese acts that may lead to the next world war are Kingdom of Japan, Republic of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Check out this link for refrence to a World War that could and probably would include freeing Tibet from Chinese opression ≤www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD6yWsxlglo≥ and there are links to parts two and three. (I apologise that my source rambles on a bit). {[User:Free the kingdom of tibet]}  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.62.56 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  People's Republic of China vs. Kingdom of Tibet 

message: Should there be a section for this?
*Please see World War III in popular culture. Motorfix 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW3 in fiction 

message: Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of doomsday scenarios]] 

message: Should "The Road to World War Three" on the Colbert Report be mentioned in this article Kc4 19:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert's "Road to World War Three" 

message: Or, perhaps World War III will start once WWII stops. -- Wriggleybum 04:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean, once WWII stops? - Redmess 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is now WWIII, the War is with Eurasia 

message: I've taken the liberty and removed the link to this site:
Both Biblical prophecy and the Illuminati plan state that Israel is the key. [...] We are in the last stages of the preparation to so globalize the world that the Masonic New Age Christ (Antichrist) can appear to receive all the political and economic power of the world's rulers. This is the Illuminati plan and Biblical prophecy (Revelation 17:12-17).
I think we can agree that any article involving the Illuminati, the rapture and the Masonic New Age Christ (MaNAC?) is pretty much rubbish. Then again, maybe I'm just an agent of the Illuminati, trying to hide the truth from the rest of you. --Agitpop 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removed 

message: I no this is just vandalism but I don't know how to remove it--172.189.223.254 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War III started in 2001 

message: Could the anti globalization movement and subsequent riots (seattle,prague,genoa,miami, zapatistas, washington DC, gleneagles etc) be classed as a world war.  It is a global movement and many see it as a [class war] or battle against the ruling, capitalist elite.  What are your thoughts on this classifying as a world war?222.154.55.65 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's nothing like a world war.  See World War I and World War II. TomTheHand 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anti-Globalization Movement]] 

message: A seperate page for World War IV, or World War V or any subsequent theorectical world conflicts produced by incrementing World War III by any amount doesn't seem to be justified. I suggets we merge the article with this one, under a subheading of "Beyond World War III" or similar. Artw 02:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be justified if you made it out of the assumption that if a World War 2 happened, a world war 3, 4, 5, etc would happen in the future. But because a significant group of people are referring to things as WW4, with the beleif that WW3 has happened, its notable. No such significant group holds the beleif that WW5 is going on at this point. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree - World War 3 and World War 4 are both hypothetical conflicts that may or may not happen.  Unless we've radically changed the definition of the word war, which experience in Iraq proves we haven't, the "Cold War" was a diplomatic and propaganda rivalry, not a bona-fide war.  FireWeed 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging World War IV into World War III 

message: World War IV, by definition, is a war that could occur after a WW3.  They are two (hypothetical) wars (even if we are in one of them).  That's like combining the next two deadly hurricanes into one article.  This makes no sense.  Just because some people consider the Cold War, WW3, I don't care.  The major powers USSR and USA didn't go to WAR WAR.  So it wasnt a WORLD WAR. It was like Europe's competition for colonial power in the 1800s and 1900s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.28.143.218 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Not Combine w/WW4 

message: Deleting 90% of the content of this page is NOT vandalism.  None of this info is sourced - the point of the article is how these examples might relate to "World War III."  Thus we need sources in which each of these incidents is referred to as a "potential WWIII."  Currently the page just presents the existence of the India/Pakistan conflict, or the existence of the Yom Kippur War, as self-evidently relating to World War III.  This is WP:Original Research and should be either sourced or deleted. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "vandalism" 

message: This article is way too long, so I have added the template.  Every example of a large war in fiction does not need to be in this article.  A lot of this needs to be cut out, especially anything with red links.  Reywas92Talk 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I came to this page looking for examples of WW3 in books, movies, etc.  So please don't get rid of that information (although it might indeed be a good idea to move into subtopics, etc.). - Horizon Star 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: This appears to be a popular topic of Christian Zionists, such as John Hagee.  I'm pretty sure I remember hearing John Hagee say, "World War Three has begun."  This should be included in some way.  --Kalmia 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article says all that needs to be said about fringe opinions that World War III has already occurred or is in progress. TomTheHand 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah?  Got a verifiable reference for that?  --Iknowyourider (t c) 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Christian Zionism]] 

message: The Cold War was WW3. Is this guy retarted. Stick to the facts mate. 86.149.209.189 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement makes no sense.  An opinion of WWIII from a guy who is head of the CIA is clearly verifiable and important, as long as it is kept in context. -- abfackeln (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former CIA Director James Woolsey 

message: In Dan Gutman's novel The Kid Who Became President, protagonist President Judson Moon plays a video game called World War IV aginst the crazed dictator of Cantatania, Supreme Ruler Trujilo.  The storyline is based on the world after a so called World War III. Will someone please find a way to fit this into teh article and add it?
:Add it as a source, reference, see also, or external link. Pyrospirit Shiny! 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kid Who Became President 

message: Hey guys, I must say that some of our inclusion criteria seems to be quite loose on these. Simply because someone uttered the words "World War III" for a given circumstance does not mean it was a "close call". I have a problem with four in particular:
# For example, Yeltsin mentioned that a war might happen if NATO put its troops in Yugoslavia during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; and in fact, NATO did just that, but no war came close to happening. It was just (failed) rhetoric designed to try to get the West to knock it off. 
# The Berlin Blockade was never close to creating a third world war (the overall situation was tense, but the blockade did little to create more tensions of the cold war).
# Both of the mentions of a Sino-Russian war. A World war, by necessity, involves fighting a war all over the world. But this would have been a war simply between two powers next to each other; it never would have left the locality of their borders. This is like saying that the Franco-Prussian War was a world war simply because it involved two superpowers. But not even the Napoleanic Wars reached this term.
# The India-Pakistan thing. No one else would have gotten involved in that fight- it would have been (another) Pakistani-Indian war, but certainly not a world war (even if nuclear weapons were involved). 
As such, I've been bold and removed these - minor skermishes, especially the Yugoslavia business, have no need to be here: just because people call something world war III or threaten it does not make it so, any more than Newt Gingrich calling the middle-eastern conflicts as WWIII make it so: . The Evil Spartan 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical close calls 

message: is this page really needed. its a hypotetical event, that hasnt happend. this is liikke me making a page about myself and saying im future king of the world.
:No, it's not really like that at all, because you've never almost become king of the world, there's never been a period where the whole world was expecting or fearing that you would become king of the world, and nobody's ever made a movie or written a book about you being king of the world. TomTheHand 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for this page? 

message: A mention of this book has been repeatedly added to this article.  I don't see any evidence of notability for the book, and have reverted the edit.  Iknowyourider (t c) 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of [[Assassin's Mace]] 

message: The King Hussein comment is legitimate as it was made during a press conference in response to the start of the first Gulf War. I had added this to the article more than a year ago, but it was deleted because a vandal had added nonsense to the paragraph and it appears no one bothered to check this out before deleting it. 23skidoo 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Hussein comment 

message: I'm not much of a Bush supporter, but I have to ask is it proper to call the War on Terrorism as Bush administration's War on Terrorism in Wikipedia? I have to ask what do we call War on Terrorism once we get a new president? McCain/Obama/Clinton's War on Terrorism? I don't recall any wars being preceded by the administration/presidency that was present at the time (i.e: Nixon's Vietnam War? Bush's Persian Gulf War? The 2nd Continental Congress' Revolutionary War?)--BirdKr (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Administration's War on Terror? 

message: I'd like to suggest the structure is changed to include
Intro and a longer and clearer definition
--Discussion of the two ways of thinking about it-- (replace the "difficulty in identifying" section)
:a. "globalist POV" that the 3rd WW was a global conflict and need not have been a combat between major protagonists, or even in Europe
:b. "localist POV" that minor proxy conflicts elsewhere did not really qualify for the term since the conflict was not fought between major protagonists in Europe or between USA and USSR, i.e. it was not really "World" encompasing
--the Cold War--
trying to support the "globalist POV"
--avoiding "hot" war--
trying to support the "localist POV"
--War on Terror--
threat of terror is global, therefore its a World War that followed Second WW, but begun in the 70s!
Unlike the 1st, 2nd and Cold wars which were predominantly about economics, the motivation in WOT is not about economics
--Conclusions---
--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia is not the place for your original research. Xihr (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs help 

message: He actually said:
:I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!
Not:
:I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. (or some other rephrasing). Rocks, not sticks and stones. See the Albert Einstein article. Uthanc (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then by all means, fix it, and include a citation. Xihr (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did - actually I introduced the "New quotable Einstein" citation to this page while correcting what was then a "sticks and stones" version to the one from the Einstein page (where the citation comes from). It bugged me that "sticks and stones" made it back in, with the old citation wrongly used to support it. Uthanc (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I move that we remove this quote entirely.  There is obviously confusion as to what he really said -- there are already two cited references on this page with differing versions of the quote!  (New Quotable and Waging Peace.)  Furthermore, this quote doesn't really have anything substantial to do with World War III except that it was spoken by someone famous. If we do decide to keep it, can we decide on a citation that doesn't contradict itself? -- abfackeln (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, nevermind.  Xihr already removed one of the two sources so it doesn't contradict itself anymore. I don't actually own the book that is now the only source, so I will have to trust that it is correct. -- abfackeln (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't write the original reference, but the way I read it, it wasn't a contradiction, it was a clarification.  Think of it as, "Here's the reference for the right way, but sometimes it's written this way, which is wrong."  However, it was phrased in such a way that it was extremely confusing and I certainly sympathize with those who have been thrown for a loop by it -- it was far more confusing than it needed to be.  Removing the (unnecessary) clarification and adding a comment about the exact phrasing seemed like the right thing to do, as there have been sporadic reversions over this quote.  Xihr  05:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're trying to be helpful, you're going to have to use complete sentences.  And not use ambiguous acronyms.  Thx.  -- abfackeln (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein quote: "Rocks" 

message: This one should not be listed until events dictate that it should. To list it as an historical close call violates WP:CRYSTAL. 23skidoo (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia vs. Georgia 

message: We really need to establish a standard for what actually constitutes a "historical close call", here are some suggestions:
* It has to be above and beyond the normal foreign policy speech or diplomatic dispute that happens on a day to day basis.  While I understand that sometimes a big crisis can come from a seemingly unimportant statement or dispute, there are so many that we need to limit which ones are important enough and which ones need to be ignored when concerning this article.  Also I don't think that just because it happens between the United States and Russia classifies it as something important enough to be a potential starter for WWIII.  Our history shows us that even minor nations can cause major wars (see World War I).
* Whatever the dispute might be it needs to be resolved before it can be considered a "historical close call".  This just makes sense logically.  Something that needs to be historical needs to be over or be in the past, which something that is happening right now is not.  Also how can something that has not been resolved be a "close call"?  Potentially it can explode into WWIII (no matter how implausible that may be) which would mean it is no longer a close call because it actually was the cause.  On the same note creating a section on "future close calls" is a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL for being nothing more than speculation.
* Finally we need sources to back it up.  We need some reputable person or organization to say "Wow, that was a close call." Simply to use our own judgment on whether to call something a close call violates WP:OR.
Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criteria are pretty clear.  We mention it as an example of a close call if a reliable, verifiable source of noteworthiness relevant to the event has claimed that it was a close call, or words to that effect.  And yes, it has to be something historical -- i.e., not ongoing.  Xihr  06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you agree then that the "Polish Missile Crisis" can't be an historical close call because it is still ongoing? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's borderline on its own merits, regardless of whether it's ongoing.  One general making a belligerent remark doesn't strike me as noteworthy in the long run, which is really what the section of the article is about.  Xihr  08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, it seems he is saying that Poland would be a target if there is a nuclear war, but the agreement with the US itself is not enough to start one. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines needed for "Historical close calls" 

message: Section states "The English term "World War" has only seen widespread use during one conflict — World War II. A German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel wrote this shortly after the start of the war:" however the following statement is dated 1914. Hence "the" war obviously refers to the first, rather than the implied second, however does the first statement still state the second war or is that too meant to be first?- J.Logan`t: 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on determining 

message: A few months before the November 9, 1979 incident there was another one. A computer malfunction that played down the "Wrong tape" event of November 9.  -- 88.194.200.169 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to see how this comes anywhere close to qualifying as a reliable source. P.S. Two incidents "in November 9, 1979"?  Xihr  09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two incidents in November 9, 1979 

message: The scenario here sounds identical to the one in the movie "War Games". And there are no sources or citations for this entry. Suggesting removal until it is verified. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the previous section.  Someone keeps adding it against consensus.  Xihr  10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 1979 incident? 

message: "In a 2006 interview, US President George W. Bush labeled the ongoing War on Terror as "World War III"."
This is just a political slogan and it has no place here. Any objections if I remove it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxasmirl (talk • contribs) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  george W Bush 

message: Please share your concerns with my edits so that we may reach consensus. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the edit comments on my reversions and the discussions on this very talk page.  What you are trying to add is clearly original research and/or news reporting, both of which are utterly inappropriate.  And don't throw around crass accusations of vandalism, particularly when the editor you're accusing of vandalism explained his actions in terms of Wikipedia policy.  Xihr  05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out on your talk page, there have been no discussions of this incident on this talk page. And as I also pointed out on your talk page, it is a former US ambassador comparing the current situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis, not me, so it is not OR. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xihr 

message: Searching the Internet, I found this very interesting prophecy:
I believe that the "City of God" aswell as "big city" could refer to Jerusalem, as it hold it's status as a religious city in all three Abrahamic religions in addition to being both the capital and largest city in the country of Isreal. And also, as we all know, there's an ongoing war there. And in fact, many leaders does, in on way of it's defintion, succumbing brom the war, including Barack Obama, the President of the United States, also the most powerful man in the world, and according to many, a great leader of the country. I don't see why they wouldn't attack the capital, and due to it's religious status, just that could lead to a third world war. A thunder? A nuclear bomb or the xecond coming of Jesus Christ or another Messiah, starting Armageddon? Heck, idk... Von Mario (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if this comes off on rude, but just because this talk page is full pointless, incohenrent nonsense doesn't mean it should be. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notewothy? 

message: I removed a recently added link to the article for the album, Lines, Vines and Trying Times.  The album contains a song titled "World War III", but that's not relevant enough to be one of several "see also" links for the page.  Maybe it belongs on World War III in popular culture instead? FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lines, Vines and Trying Times 

message: This section links to a supposed standoff at an airport in Kosovo between NATO and Russian troops; the link, however, just goes to the page for the airport itself, which has no mention of the standoff. Anyone with any knowledge want to start that page?Hamiltondaniel (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo airport 

message: This is my World War 3 Simulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamika2000 (talk) 2009-09-26T09:44:13
: Hello Adamika2000.  The article associated with this talk page is meant to be about a hypothetical World War Three, and notable references to it.  One individual's YouTube video is probably not noteworthy enough to be included.  Unless you have citations to show the place of your video in current or 20th century culture or media?  Thanks!  FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simulation 

message: One thing. Korean War.. Truman and McDouglas' argument over the usage of atomic devices on China, or overflowing past the North Korean border, and fighting China. Truman stated that he did not want World War III. I do believe it is worth mentioning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.216.230 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth mentioning? 

message: The cites next to the quotes are really small. This made it hard to select them.(I'm only 1024 x 768 resolution) I ended up acccidentally going to the Albert Einstein page. I have added a little spac between them (Yes, I know this is against the 'manual of style but' they ARE hard to read & select)
Can they be made larger or is this size fixed? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation Cites - Text Too Small? 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: Many popular sources in media, etc. depict WWIII (or a war on the scale of a WWIII) to be fought between the US/NATO and Russia, or the US/NATO and China. Perhaps a paragraph on the combatants in WWIII should be added considering there seems to be much belief that it will involve the US, Russia, or China.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.70.132 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible combatants in WWIII 

message: I removed:
"April 5, 2063 is supposedly about ten years after WW3 and when the light barrier is broken by the first warp capable starship, the Phoenix."
Because it dose not pertain to World War III. This isn't a Star Trek article.--Champion1701 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture: Star Trek 

message: Unfortunately, the page protection has left the page stuck in the bad state.  In "Greatest threats," the problem is with this entry:
: CIA original operative, Miles Copeland, wrote in 1989 that in the future, World War Three will kick off when "Soviet Russia" dupes the United States and Israel into waging a self-destructive war with the Muslim/Arab world[5].
I think it's very clear this is utterly non-notable and inappropriate for the article.  Not only is the phrase "CIA original operative" suspicious (what is that even supposed to mean?), but this predicted is clearly dated and obviously really poor (it was made in 1989, just two years before the dissolution of the Soviet Union -- so obviously the prediction of the threat was impressively wrong).
I think the example above it (the "standoff" in Kosovo) is also marginal, since it's hardly considered historically to be a close call or a "greatest threat" of imminent war.  It's just an offhanded comment by one particular general.  (For example, it didn't even make much news in the States, to my knowledge.)  However, I think it's clear the Copeland assertion is completely valueless and inappropriate for inclusion.
Not to mention the other point of contention which is that extremely devastating is rather redundantly redundant.  Xihr  19:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No reply from the edit-warring party.  What a shock.  Xihr  20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest threats 

message: If World war 3 happenned in the future, why would they still use Nuclear weapons?
If they used Matter-antimatter weapons, it would harness a thousands joules of more power as all the matter would be lost and converted into energy inistead of just a small fraction of power. Bladepker80 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CRYSTAL That's just speculation, and wikipedia is not for that.  "Weapons to be used in World War III" is specifically given as an example of what to not include, on that page. :-)  Try finding some reliable sources that support your statement, and if you can find some then it could be okay to put it in the article. HarmoniousMembrane (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible weapons 

message: According to the article on Vasili, it was some archivist in 2002 that made the "saved the world" quote.  I don't see what source is supposed to support either interpretation, so I have left it alone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.30.41 (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  McNamara quote. 

message: Hey, it's just me or Albert Einstein's quotation just been cut shorter?115.74.116.33 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: >> Former British solider turned singer-songwriter James Blunt revealed in 2010 he refused an order from General Clark to seize the airport from Russians. A decision which Blunt, like General Jackson, believed could of triggered of World War 3, hence his refusal to seize the airport from the Russians.<<
There is no such thing as could of ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.203.95 (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Xihr  23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Could of" vs. "Could have" 

message: It's my opinion that this incident is really quite marginal, and isn't appropriate as the list of greatest threats of World War III; it's just a general making reference to it, something which has surely happen many, many times throughout the Cold War.  Certainly the length of the reference seems like inappropriate emphasis compared to, say, the section on the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I suggest it be deleted, or at least pared down.  Xihr  23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreeing with the 'could of' vs 'could have' statement and suggesting, 'triggered off' rather than, 'triggered of'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fropilog (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue isn't just the bad copy editing, it's the irrelevance of the topic to the article.  Xihr  07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I think this is a notable event, as it is, to my knowledge, the closest NATO and Russian forces have come to actually facing each other on the battlefield. Serendipodous 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World War III#Pristina International Airport—NATO and Russian standoff (1999)]] 

message: Could someone please add that Michael Moore (maybe some others too) call the Cold War WWIII because of conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.77.151 (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  cold war as wwiii 

message: There has been a TON of talk, The most in decades, about the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and the subsequent drills on December the 20th leading to World War III. Shall we go ahead and add this?  Sub!  04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you can find a source that explicitly states that the recent events are an eminent threat to World War III. Still a minor event if you ask me. Marcus Qwertyus  05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Crisis in the Korean Penninsula? 

message: The first line of this following paragraph is page vandalism. 'Adventure time' is a kids cartoon of which 'finn' is a main character.
===Suez Crisis—Soviet threat (1956)===
During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin sent a note to British Prime Minister Anthony Eden warning that "if this war is not stopped it carries the danger of turning into a third world war."
124.187.134.99 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 124.187.134.99, 11 January 2011 

message: During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin sent a note to British Prime Minister Anthony Eden warning that "if this war is not stopped it carries the danger of turning into a third world war."
124.187.134.99 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suez Crisis—Soviet threat (1956)