Talk:Eternal war

Not verified tag
Is this article original research? If not, it needs some sources/cites to back up these theories. Wikipedia isn't the place for personal essays. —Cleared as filed. 14:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're very kind to call it an essay. :-) It's just a stub, an invitation to other people.

The current text is a 110 word summary of the term as described by Orwell, which I believe to be consistent with the way a lot of other people have used and described it.


 * "In George Orwell's 1984, Oceania –– in which Britain is "Airstrip One" –– is engaged in eternal war with Eastasia. Victories are constantly announced  by the British government. Our battle with Eastasia, over the years, has  become routine. In George Bush's 2001, the West is engaged in eternal war  with Iraq." http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/fiskiraq.htm


 * "For all the revelations of previous presidential duplicity and stupidity, most Americans seem ready to believe their president during even the most artificial crises. That offers irresistible opportunities for incompetent or unscrupulous incumbents to regain public support, and vastly improves the chances for armed conflict at every diplomatic hurdle." http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1128


 * "Orwell published the canonical modern myth of eternal war in 1948. Events have proved him prescient and timeless." http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/publications/editorials/12dec03.html


 * "The implication or latent threat of terror was sufficient to insure that the people would comply.... The stigma of his having stolen the 2000 presidential election was replaced, thanks to the horror of 11 September, with the popular war of revenge in Afghanistan, and as a result, Bush’s standings in the polls nearly doubled. In the absence of opposition from the anthrax-challenged Democratic Party leadership, his rationale for eternal war on terror evolved over the next year, and on 20 September 2002 it was set in stone with the promulgation of "The National Security Strategy of the United States," through which Bush conferred upon himself the divine right to launch deadly preemptive attacks on any nation he characterizes as a terrorist threat. "   http://www.douglasvalentine.com/article_security.html

Wikipedia:Verifiability: says
 * The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Rereading the stub, I agree that softeners like "may be" and "probably" are reminiscent of the language of original research. I was trying to avoid an accusation of POV. Perhaps I erred in the other direction.

I think that the stub is sound. If you feel that a word or a line here or there is unjustified, please, fix or remove it.

If you take issue with the stub as a whole, what about it do you feel is 'untested' or 'novel'?

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My problem was that none of the cites you just pointed out are linked in the article; as far as a reader can tell, it's something made up by Wikipedia editors. I think the origins of the term in Orwell should be pointed out at the beginning of the article; that is, rather than Wikipedia telling people what eternal war is, we're telling people what other people say it is, if that makes sense.  Also, to make sure it stays NPOV, we should include arguments by people who think that Orwell's and the other above-quoted folks' ideas are bogus.  —Cleared as filed. 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My problem is that the more external references I put in, the more it sounds like I'm trying to prove a point. Maybe:
 * Populations are historically less questioning of authority when faced with an external threat. In his novel 1984, George Orwell presented a government which had created a state of Eternal war, the better to maintain compliance in the populace by instilling fear and hate of an enemy, the actual existance of which is never made completely certain.
 * Then continue with "common accusation...."
 * I'm not finding it easy to cite someone who thinks Orwell is wrong - nobody seems to. Not in the general case.  For any specific case, no problem; you'll always find someone to say that the risk is potentially real, we can't take the chance, this isn't just for the sake of consolidating power my goodness me no.  But they never disagree with the concept, just that this isn't a case of it.
 * I'll try it. Your feedback welcome.
 * Regards, Ben Aveling 05:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Better
I liked your new version better. I've made some changes to it this morning as well and I still have some thoughts:


 * I removed this reference: http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/publications/editorials/12dec03.html. It does mention 1984, and mentions how the ancient Greeks used to do it, but I didn't really follow it when it started talking about modern times (which is more what this article is about) — it didn't seem to really claim that modern governments are tricking the people back into wars, just that we always seem to be getting back into them.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, but the professor who wrote it is a professor of classics, so maybe he was only trying to explain it as it applied to the Greeks.


 * Come to think of it, maybe we should talk about the Greeks? This article doesn't have an adequate worldwide view, it's mostly only about United States/Western eternal wars.  Certainly Israel/Palestine, Iraq/Iran, China/Japan, Korea, Eastern Europe, etc. has had their share of wars that could be called "eternal wars."


 * I added the examples talked about in two of the other references (which were placed after the Cold War example but didn't have anything to do with the Cold War). One of them, the Valentine article, is extreme POV, and that brings me onto my last concern.


 * We need to include some examples of people who disagree. It's true that probably most people don't disagree with the concept of eternal war as a concept, but finding articles that attempt to dispel each example of eternal war will present both sides of the issue.  Some people think that these wars are eternal wars to control the populace through made-up or overblown issues, and some people (probably most people?) think that they are legitimate exercises in warfare.  I've taken off the original research tag, but we really need some opposing viewpoints in here.  I'll try to find some good references for that as well. —Cleared as filed. 15:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've chopped this
 * later tired of wars that they perceive to not involve an ongoing threat at home, or little sign of a quick victory abroad

Down to
 * this lift in support has never been 'eternal'

I decided that the first was too strong a claim. It's not that it can't be justified, but it asks to be justified, and I thought better to go with a broader statement that is both shorter and more clearly true.

We could put the sentance back if the article were to have a section looking at when support drops and when it doesn't.

Also, I'm tempted to turn the list of accusations from bullet points into paragraphs.

What do people think?

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Plurals

 * In Western democracies, the general population has historically rallied behind its leaders

Not sure about this, because it's multiple populations, one per democracy, each with its own set of leaders.

And why do you prefer permanant over eternal? I agree eternal is slightly unusual phrasing, but given the context, I thought it the best word.

Anyway, I'm off. I'll have another think about it all in the morning.

Regards, Ben Aveling 09:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's okay to use it as a singular; like, "in kitchens, the microwave is often the last thing one cleans." It's multiple microwaves in multiple kitchens, but we're only talking about them one at a time, right?  I think.  Heh.  About "eternal," it is unusual phrasing, so it kind of sounds like we're trying to make a slick word trick instead of use the best word for the sentence, but the reader doesn't really gain anything from it.  IMO. —Cleared as filed. 13:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposed
This should be merged with perpetual war. Can someone with knowlege of the mergeto or mergwith tag place such in these articles? - Leonard G. 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and have placed the mergewith tag in both articles accordingly. Until someone can explain the difference between an eternal war and a perpetual war (and even then, the differences might be so small that they can be explained in a single article), the articles should be merged. Mistamagic28 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)