Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of peaceful wars

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 17:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

List of peaceful wars
This list seems to have been created simply to include a reference to the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War, an anomalous diplomatic situation between the Isles of Scilly and the Netherlands. This 'war' seems only to be known by that name on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and to fail more or less every criterion for being a war. As the article on the war notes, Guinness Superlatives have not recognised it as such. I think the '335 years war' article is on very shaky footing (Scilly and the Netherlands were united in a personal union during the reign of William III, which makes it unlikely they were at war, to put it mildly.) Creating a list to hold a reference to this scarcely-notable non-event is pointless. 'Peaceful war' seems oxymoronic. I'd like to suggest that the 335 years' war article be deleted too, but that may be a bit too Bold. AlexTiefling 15:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The title in itself causes potential POV problems. It's also very vague. Would the Cold War count?(overall, not the ancillary wars such as Korea or Vietnam) Does that include non-military "wars" or rivalries? How about War Games? I could go on. Alex is right, this article just seems to be a way to get notability for a barely notable situation. Karmafist 16:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for many reasons. First, what Karmafist says, especially regarding vagueness (is this only declared wars, for one thing? Do deaths from non-military action such as blockades and embargos count? Are there enough non-violent declared wars to make a list worthwhile?) and hard-to-escape POV issues. Plus, even if such a list were worth keeping, it's hard to picture what useful, brief annotation one could put beside each peaceful war, and it would thus probably be better served by a category. List of peaceful wars, huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Lord Bob 18:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe Soviet invasion of Japan was part of WW2.Dudtz 9/14/05 4:49 PM EST
 * Delete, oxymoron. Also, list fails to include the ongoing good-natured war between Guatemala and Uzbekistan, or that nasty-but-bloodless conflict between Namibia and East Timor. -- BD2412 talk 22:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN Deserves deletion - but the siliness of the concept of "peaceful wars" - as there are none - make me want to keep it somewhere. Unsigned by User:V. Molotov
 * BJAODN should be deleted, but it's BJAODN material. Bart133 (t) 22:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep because Wikipedia has multiple wars that fit this description. Gazpacho 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - no BJAODN, I didn't laugh (which is my only criterion for a BJAODN) --Doc (?) 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, I guess, because it's far too brilliant an idea to just delete it. Better still would be to give it a less oxymoronic name (List of bloodless wars?), include criteria for inclusion, expand, restructure and keep it. I've added a link to Berwick-upon-Tweed at war with Russia, and I can see this growing into something wonderful if given a chance. TheMadBaron 01:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do with this. First off, the whole concept of a peaceful war is difficult.  This leads me to think that renaming to something like "Bloodless Wars" might be a workable idea, but that doesn't really cover the fact that some of these were part of wars that were far from bloodless (Civil War, Crimean War, WW2) and the others were mostly minor border conflicts.  I guess that leaves me with no option but to go with a Delete. --Apyule 05:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral The idea of a peaceful war isn;t so strange. For example, during the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden declared war on Britain to keep Napoleon happy but told the British privately not to worry about it, they weren't serious about it.  However, I'm not certain whether or not a category is  better than a list in this case.  A list potentially could include a brief one line explanation of why the war was peaceful. Caerwine 11:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't know that any brief one-line explanation could do the reason justice. It would obviously be explored in the article, but the reasons are likely to be somewhat complicated. Although I admit that the Swedish-Napoleonic-Wars thing could probably be briefly explained in a line since, well, you just did. Lord Bob 16:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or BJAODN I have no problem with the concept of peacefull war primarily because war is a diplomatic condition that must be declared by one or both of the warring parties, therefore as in Berwick-upon-tweed the two parties can be technicaly at war while not actually undertaking hostilities. I agree with the comments by MadBaron above. not logged in, usual username ttifrap 80.0.168.8 12:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN 131.247.118.128 23:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.