Talk:Perpetual war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War Wiki Project Perpetual war is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. 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/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start


Contents

[edit] alledged bias

The In the media section especially seems to be highly biased. Not to say it isn't true, but presenting it as commonly accepted fact is not NPOV. Orborde 04:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ref. to ongoing example

Without editing the existing text, I've added territorial disputes as a cause in the main definition and referred to the Ind-Pak and Indo-China disputes as ongoing examples in the "In Recent History" sub-section. Would it be better with an independent sub-heading.VivekM 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell Section

We need a citation for the reference to Thailand's history being a state secret. If it can't be provided, the statement should be removed until it can be, as that's a pretty extraordinary claim. --Impaciente 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be possible to substitute the US and UK's use of "sealing files" until dates in the far-flung future and/or denying FOIA/etc. requests for information about various controversial events (esp. the assassinations of JFK, MLK, et al in the US, IRA counterinsurgency in the UK), the sealing of presidential records in the US (recently under Bush Jr.), and covert actions throughout the Western World (e.g. Gladio) for Thai history being a state secret. It's relatively easy to verify that the US and UK are refusing to divulge historical records (JFK/MLK/presidential records etc.) and/or the truth behind historical events (Gladio, covert actions exposed after the fact esp. Operation Condor files uncovered in Central America, SAVAK files seized in the Iranian revolution, etc.) in these instances, in the latter case despite independent verification (e.g. Ganser, multiple European PM's, Europarliament resolutions, seized records, etc.). --wli

[edit] Merge proposed

This should be merged with eternal 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)

I merged eternal war here and did some cleanup, including on the section cited for NPOV problems. Mistamagic28 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyborg 009 importance?

Is cyborg 009 important enough to mention in this article? I doubt it.

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs citations and sources

For an article that's been around since 2004, I'm surprised (somewhat) that it's still so poorly referenced. As it stands, it reads more like original research with a slight bias; more importantly it fails to demonstrate its academic and/or policy origins. Be careful of sloganeering. Alcarillo (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)