This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Historiography / World War I / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military historiography task force World War I task force World War II task force Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Just checked, Turkey did declare war on Germany in February of 1945 so the image is technically correct in listing in light green for 'those in light green entered after the Attack on Pearl Harbor' however is a bit misleading in that Turkey was neutral for almost the entire war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.20.50 (talk) 20:24, 2006 November 2 (UTC)

The map of the participants involved in World War 2 shows Turkey as involved after Pearl Harbor but didn't Turkey stay neutral throughout the WW2??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.20.50 (talk) 04:27, 2006 November 2 (UTC)

A great many countries joined the Allies when it became obvious which side would win. --Carnildo 07:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those who say WW2 began in 1937 or earlier need to pick up a few WW2 books. 99.9999% of them will state the war began on the 3rd of September 1939 so what's with all this revisionist history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.50.197 (talk) 00:26, 2005 October 22 (UTC)

This is because this is the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War, which basically was WWII in East Asia anyways. Cameron Nedland 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World War - A war involving many important nations - Oxford English Dictionary Online — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.50.197 (talk) 23:52, 2005 October 21 (UTC)

A world war never meant a majority of the world's nations, a war fought over the world, etc. It was always a war with the major nations involve. A war between the USA, GB, China, Russia and India fought on a tennis court would still be a world war. A war between Poland, New Zealand, Argentina and Singapore fought all over the world would not be a world war. This wikipedia article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.50.197 (talk) 00:16, 2005 October 22 (UTC)

Tennis court, lol.

-G

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.143.110 (talk) 03:21, 2006 July 22 (UTC)

Why did you revert to the last edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.89.212 (talk) 05:33, 2003 November 2 (UTC)

Because it's your own personal interpretation. RickK 05:35, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What's my personal interpretation? There is an article on World War IV. I just want it to be easier to find.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.89.212 (talk) 05:37, 2003 November 2 (UTC)

OK, it's somebody else's personal interpretation. Well, I'll revert it, but it needs some changes. RickK 05:44, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Since the conclusion of World War II, known as "the war to end all wars", the world has generally been united by a common desire never again to have another world war. "

Uh.... huh. And which world is this?--cuiusquemodi 20:56, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

This section isn't neutral or informative. It states opinions about the Cold War (That it wasn't a World War) as fact, and groundlessly judges the War on Terrorism- it can't be called a World War or not a World War until it's over. Unless someone can see in to the future, I think that's pretty slanted. Alakhriveion 18:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the text. I see what you're saying but think that rewording it would be better - links to those two wars would naturally fit into this page. I'll let you reword as you see fit or, if you don't in the near future, will give it a go myself. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 19:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite the contrary Alakhriveion, the "War on Terrorism" and the "Cold War" can easily be seen to be non-wars. Not only are they not world wars, they are not even regular wars. The War on Terrorism has no well-defined beginning and I would be interested to see what you would consider "the end" of this supposed war. While a third world war may be the end result of what we Americans are currently calling the "War on Terror", no actual war has yet taken place. That human interest in war-making has led to these collections of events being termed wars has no bearing on their actual status as non-wars. Dwee 25 Feb 2005

This is one opinion. It's disputed. As for the War on Terror, the Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly wars. Whether or not these combat terrorism is an issue, but whether or not they're part of the war currently being refered to as the 'War on Terror' cannot be. It's beginning date could be disputed, but World War Two's could be as well.-Alakhriveion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.174.109 (talk) 01:49, 2005 April 18 (UTC)

I'm interested in the history of the term. When was "world war" first applied to either WWI or WWII? I think it was in the 50s, but I need some reference... dab (ᛏ) 12:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No much earlier. According to this page, the term "world war" was first used in 1909. The term "World War II" was first used in 1919 so the term First World War must have already been in occasional use for the Great War. The wars were called the First and Second World Wars already in 1938 in Time magazine. Rmhermen 16:18, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

thanks! see also the following replies and follow-up question that turned up on WP:RD dab (ᛏ) 18:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have access to a good dictionary - I'll have a glance at our multi-volume OED in the reference department tomorrow if I remember - try looking them up and seeing if there's a citation; I think "World War Two" was in use as early as the 1940s, possibly even during the war, but I don't know when it became the "proper name". Shimgray 16:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Being a little more helpful... "the world war" is used in The World War and What was Behind It (1918); it's uncapitalised, but the meaning is clear and it's definitely used as a specific term.

In January '43, FDR commented "In the years between the end of the first World War and the beginning of the second World War..." [1]; again, the meaning is fairly explicit.

The terms were still ambiguous by the early 1950s, though; my 1952 Revised Edition of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable feels the need to note that ...in all references to the two Great Wars of this century, World War I indicates that of 1914-18, World War II that of 1939-45. (it's interesting they say -18 not -19, but I digress) Shimgray 17:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is it "interesting they say -18, not -19"? Last time I checked, World War I was generally agreed to last until 1918. Please enlighten me. Nightstallion 19:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aha, but here's the rub - fighting lasted from 1914 to 1918, but the Treaty of Versailles was only signed in 1919. As such, the war was often referred to as lasting until 1919 at the time, even though there was no fighting that year; you often see war memorials referring to the "1914-1919 War", contemporary medals were often marked "1914-1919", and the like. This fell out of use over the years, and now 1918 is far more common. If you look at Google, for example, "1914-18" gets about ten times as many hits as "1914-19". (partly due to the emphasis in many countries on the Armstice celebrations, but I suspect it also had a lot to do with the growing emphasis on "social history" rather than "diplomatic history", and the reduced role of people Learning Dates Of Treaties. I haven't ever studied that, though...)

I wasn't sure when the general transition of "the correct dates" shifted, but for some reason I'd expected it to be later than 1950. Another one for research... Shimgray 20:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it's any help, I am currently working with a huge collection of Archives at the New York State Archives on World War I, specifically newspapers, local histories, letters, photos, etc... of New Yorkers involved in World War I. I've found that the term "World War" was firmly in place by 1917 when the US entered the war. Many of the welcome back parties, thrown in 1919 for returning troops thank "our boys who participated in the World War" (Capitalized). Another point. 1919 was viewed by many as the end of the war in the 1920s not because of the treaty as much as that was when the Allies finally started to see their sons and husbands and fathers and brothers come home (so it's actually the social and diplomatic history that matter). Remember, there was an occupying army in Germany until the treaty was signed. Many of the service cards and service abstracts will include "Member of German Occupation Army" in the list of battles or actions participated in by the person who the card or abstract describes.Billy P 15:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image from The Standard Dictionary of Facts published in 1922 referring to the recent "World War", and justifying that name based on its magnitude: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1z_XUOUUAEicRF?format=jpg&name=large

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)[reply]

Seems unlikely to me, there were people living all over the world long before the Seven Years War. And surely there were civilizations otside Europe before that date. And surely there would have been wars between tribes ever since they started picking up rocks and throwing them at each other. - Redmess 14:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

try reading up on native historys. there were many wars between native tribes all over the world, and japan and china fought back and forth a couple times. not to mention anchient Egypt, incas, aztecs, ect. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC) so not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.62.74 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. 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).
2. Other historians views of what counts as a World War? With refs.
3. Contrast with Total war - some world wars are total wars but the two are not the same thing.
4. 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)

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)[reply]

Confederate army in Crimea-- more insight--Mole Man 09:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the Crimean War was in the 1850's and the CSA wasn't around until 1860. Cameron Nedland 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think your confused, even if the confedarats were around yet theres no way they would have sent troops, they were having enogh trouble in america. not to mention it woulda been very dfficult for any decent number of troops to get past the union blockade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesolo13 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should the Eighty Years' War not be included in this article? It was after all a worldwide colonial war. -- Deathmare 14:56, 14 September 2011 (CET)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If The Cold War was a World War, it can be World War Three, so the next one (or current one if you're of that thinking) is World War IV. Since this is all up in the air having articles all the way up to five is unneeded. Alakhriveion 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ww 3 is pretty much all you need. the only mention of ww4 are some quotes about it being fought with sticks, or similar, and ww 5 is only menton in some video games, and the occasional guy who thinks other wars were world wars. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Spanish-American War would technicaly be WW because it was fought on two continents. Cameron Nedland 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, really? The article says that it was fought between the US with the aid of Cuban rebel forces and Spain. WWs contain many more countries, as the map on the article shows. As you can see, both WWs contain countries from every continent, unlike the Spanish-American War map would.

Personally, I can't see why people keep trying to add lesser wars to the page. World War One and World War Two are the only true world wars, and the cold war and the war on terror are not WW3 and WW4. User:The Halo (talk) 16:2 , 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason people are trying to add lesser wars is because the page is a merge from two pages: World War and Global War. WW1 and WW2 are arguably not the only global wars, so others should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.48.243 (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2006

Maybe thats an argument to, ehr, unmerge the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redmess (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) Juan[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, what joker wants a citation for "Since the Second World War was ended in August 1945 by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Pretty funny! 129.174.176.3 06:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

the atomic bombs did effectivly end ww2, as almost immediatlly after the second bomb there emporer made a truce with the allies. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, there are many people who view the present conflict in Iraq as part of a larger conflict- defined as narrowly as the "War on Terror," and most broadly as including the Cold War, every conflict in which the United Nations has ever engaged, both of the commonly accepted World Wars, and really the entire process of globalization as well- which constitutes the (effort towards the) absorption of the entire human race in to the neoliberal system of representative republican federalism, wherein human rights and individual liberties are guaranteed by the total monopolization of violence by liberal-democratic nation-states, whose legitimacy is drawn from the use of a political system where localities elect representatives to the national government, who in turn appoint representatives to a worldwide federal government (The United Nations), whose power is checked by its reliance upon the individual member states to enforce its resolutions. Such a case is made in one of the External Links listed for this article, http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/spiegel.htm, which is I imagine the origin of the "war against humanity" line itself, where Jean Baudrillard says in an interview with Der Spiegel: "Is it not a paradox that the West uses as a weapon against dissenters the following motto: Either you share our values or…? A democracy asserted with threats and blackmail only sabotages itself. It no longer represents the autonomous decision for freedom, but rather becomes a global imperative... There is no longer a front, no demarcation line, the enemy sits in the heart of the culture that fights it. That is, if you like, the fourth world war: no longer between peoples, states, systems and ideologies, but, rather, of the human species against itself." Another well-known one is made in Hardt & Nagri's Multitude, where they argue that "War... is becoming the primary organizing principle of society" [p.12]. I could keep listing these, but my point is that while such a declarative judgment doesn't really have a place here, a section on these analyses of global conflict is, I think, necessary. Certified: the above written by S. Martin at 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do we really have to have it twice in the same article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.71.107 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

its there because we fought britan over other issuses and this indirectlly helped napolean *rolls eyes* Joesolo13 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the US opposed the French in the undeclared naval Quasi-War fought from 1798-1800.--74.167.7.205 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

--79.111.122.137 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

only if the whole world was one country. a civil war is between groups within one country, sometimes with exxternal involvement. eg, spanish civil war. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit to the descriptions of the World Wars (I and II) that suggest the wars took place on every populated continent. The First World war did not directly affect the Americas and the Second World war only Reached North America with sporadic submarine attacks on the coasts of the USA, Canada and Caribbean colonies and Japanese Troops capturing Islands of Alaska and German Soldiers setting up equipment in Labrador. In Neither war was South America directly attacked. The contribution of Soldiers by some South American Nations can be considered involvement but did not mean the war occurred there.--70.29.22.180 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First World War Took place on the following continents Europe, Asia (Middle-East and China), Australasia (New Guinea), Africa (German Colonies and technically Sinai)

Second World War took place on the Following Europe, Asia, Australasia, Africa, North America (Sub attacks, Alaska)

Based on the above a World War should involve at least four continents This Means the Seven Years War (All except Australasia) and the Napoleonic Wars (Again Except Australia) should qualify.

Note: Caribbean and Central America are regions of North America--70.29.22.180 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jjust because its minor events dosnt discount it. and there was quite a bit of sub-warfare of north american coast. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading somewhere that the Seven Years War was actually referred to as the World War in some 19th century books of history. Would be very interesting if one could find some cites for that. Later still, of course, Churchill dubbed it a World War, but that was post-1918, maybe post-1945.

The War of the Spanish Succession also has a good claim to being seen as a global war, especially if viewed together with the Great Northern War, which broke out the same year, outlasted the Spanish war and interacted with it in several ways. The Ottoman empire was involved in the Great Northern War, though there was no actual fighting in Asia. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't like this sentence: "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)."

1st and 2nd world war was in unprecedented scale. That's not true because of "scale" in ratio to world population at the time. The fact that its the largest amount of people in history involved in a conflict (or two) is because there have never been a higher amount of world population than in the 20th and 21st century. Before 19th century there have never been a billion people on the planet alive at one time.

There have in fact been larger wars in history when the numbers of people are taken into account of world population at the time. Like the mongol conquest. 17.1% of world population died! World War 2, 1.7% - 3.1%! World War 1, 0,8% - 3,6%! Do you need a link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

World War 2 is rated as nr.6 and World War 1 is rated as nr.9. The rest of the 10 most deadly wars in relation to world population is in or came from Asia. Most of all in China.

My conclusion is that the sentence is badly written, is very open to misinterpretation and is plainly misleading (where the level of ignorance is on the border to racism, like World War history lessons in our western schools).--Anders1985 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We go by sources, not by original research. Find sources and then they can be discussed rather than accusing people of racism and such crap. Wikipedia is not a source, as an aside. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page I linked have loads of references. I accuse the sentence as being based on ignorance and being on the border to racism. Where is the sentence's sources? Please stop smearing.Anders1985 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is from the lead, the lead summarizes the article, the lead does not need sources, the article does.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest something like this: "The term in western tradition, is usually applied to the two conflicts of unprecedented scale in Europe that occurred during the 20th century: World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). But it must be pointed out that much larger conflicts have occurred in Asia and particularly in China. The largest of witch was the Mongol invasion. Why the Mongol conquest is not referred to as a world war in western history is not known."--Anders1985 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR you are doing original research. We don't get to comment like that (your aside about 'western history' and the Mongols and such). And please, new stuff goes at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page and wiki states (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages). I'm not writing an Wikipedia article. Therefore I'm not conducting original research. The lead also states that the term is used of earlier wars as well, like I said. I'm saying that the lead is badly written. And I don't support the claim that 2WW and 1WW where conflicts of unprecedented scale.

I'm trying to start a discussion that hopefully can lead to a change in the lead. Witch I think is centered around western tradition, rather than a balanced anthropogenic view.--Anders1985 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you propose in original research. Find citations, find articles, read WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already did and I stand by what I have already written. Thank you for all your help. Now don't comment again please (right back at you).--Anders1985 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you don't want me to comment, and I have no idea what 'right back at you' refers to, but that is neither here nor there. You will need proper sources to include what you want. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to stop commenting like you do, in order to keep what I want with what I have written, clear. Right back at you is because, you don't want me to express my opinion and therefore I don't want you to express yours. And I don't want you to comment on my own opinions as illegit because they are supposedly original research. Its not relevant to the opinion I wish to express in relation to this article. I don't need to present more links to articles with sources than the one I already have. And this is not an article, I'm trying to conduct a Peer review witch is not based on sources but opinions. I guess that is to difficult for you to compare and comprehend.--Anders1985 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here for a very short period. Talk pages are for discussion, so I have been discussing with you. I think you expressing your opinion is fine, I am trying to explain policy to you. We don't do peer review really around here really, we operate by WP:CONSENSUS. We base our articles on sources, not opinions, basing it on our opinions is original research. I have no idea what witches have to do with this whole discussion..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the spelling correction would not accept "which". But it does not matter. The policy your trying to explain is for articles on Wikipedia. This is the talk page. Please read WP:CONACHIEVE. Maybe I have been here for a very short period. But I am not wrong.Anders1985 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^[1]

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. ^[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They make comparisons in that they are conflicts. Anders1985 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is the talk page WP:CONACHIEVE. So we can do that.Anders1985 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

NO, I DO NOT WANT TO MENTION OTHER WARS BEING WORLD WARS IN THE ARTICLEAnders1985 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To try and add something to the article, the header reads: "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 suggest just writing: "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."Anders1985 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Also I would like to add that when it comes the two wars being of unprecedented scale, like the header states I personally only agree on this on a European and an American basis, but not on an Asian basis. Again it is written that its of unprecedented scale in the 20th century, which isn't wrong, I just don't like the way the article emphasizes on the significance of the two wars. Because they are not that significant to human history (where a neutral point would be death rate in relation to world population at the time), as it is to western history. Therefore my personal claim that the current emphasis on the significance of WW1 and WW2 is partly based on culture and not relevant significance.Anders1985 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Do sources call Ramses conquests a world war? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 3⁄4 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)[reply]

Hello A D Monroe III, you restored Second Cold War what was removed by me from a list consisting of actual wars. [2] May I recall that the "second cold war" is term adopted for tensions and diplomatic engagements recent times rather than battles and it's as of now it's just a new neologist term with no clear definitions? Unless we have reliable sources about prevalence of term, it's clear definitions and concensus about it, it's best it is avoided here. I suggest you to rollback. Regards Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for starting this discussion; I've seen far too many editors that are quick to resort to edit warring rather than follow WP:BRD.

Your argument for removal seems to be largely based on Second Cold War not being such a real thing. It has its own article with sources, so is considered a notable subject by WP standards. If you somehow disagree, the place to discuss that is on that article, not here.

Also, as I noted in my summary, this is in a "see also" list for the section "Other global conflicts". The Second Cold War is global, and a conflict, so seems a good fit. It may differ in some respects from the others on the list, but nothing requires -- or even suggests -- that all such items be somehow equal.

I see zero benefit in it's removal, and some detriment. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. @Buidhe: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

it was fought over North & South America, Europe, Africa, Asia. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was, and as such it is already listed in the "Other global conflicts" section. Lennart97 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why is Czechoslovakia indicated as an Axis power in light blue? This is just silly. Czechoslovakia got annexed before the onset of the war because it was betrayed by her allies. ONLY the puppet state of Slovakia was an Axis power, if anything Czechoslovakia should be green with a light blue diamond, same as France. Or alternatively color in Slovakia in light blue and leave Czechia green. 86.49.244.188 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]