Talk:World civil war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The text in the following section was removed from the article, because I am unable to verify it.

A May, 2003, opinion released on the web-site Muslim-lawyers.net concluded a permanent state-of-emergency affected by Western governments comprises provocation of a world civil war. Like Joshi's, Giorgio Agamben opinion cited battles between police and anti-globalization rioters in Genoa, Switzerland as evidence of an expanding world civil war. Agamben cited evidence European government's only strategy for maintaining control in the early 21st Century is based on maintaining an atmosphere of disorder and conflict. Agamben is a professor of philosophy at University of Verona, Italy.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the widely read alternative news site Indymedia released an editorial asked "could a civil war be a good thing", specifically referring to civil conflict in Lebanon and in Iraq. The article cited cases in which earlier World Wars had provided impetus for improved systems of governance.

Buckminster Fuller discussed the concept of world civil war in Ideas & Integrities. Oswald Spengler cited the demise of the Roman Empire as an example of world civil war.

Author Bertil Häggman states in an article for the publication Contra:

A civil war between revolution and counter revolution has raged since 1789. The civil war celebrated its bicentennial in 1989 and is still continuing. Already the year after the start of the war in Paris the first resistance emerged in England. But the war goes on.

Salvatore Cannavò states in an article for International Viewpoint that nationalism might be a motivating factor in a "climate" of civil war against globalization, which he describes as a new form of imperialism.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962), implies that a world civil war was underway in 1960.

Feral Tribune, published in Split, Croatia, stated that a world civil war started with the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

In a discussion hosted by Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford, in which experts explored the changing nature of war, Adam Roberts stated definitively that a world civil war was underway in February, 2004.

If anybody cares to verify the content, feel free to add it back in as you verify, although I would recommend using some judgment as to what's encyclopedic. I'm not sure this article should list every time anyone was ever used the phrase "world civil war" in print. --Michael Snow 04:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That edit explanation seems a bit disingenuous, since I found each of the articles cited in this article by searching the authors name along with the terms "world Civil War" in Google. When an Oxford University discussion describes current world events as world civil war, a claim to the contrary might seem to be based on nothing other than the fact that the term is not used by popular Western media sources.
The edit included an innaccurate claim that one author had "picked up" the term, but Mr. Snow provided no evidence of his knowledge that the author had picked up the term from a previous source, rather than employeing it as the apt description of current circumstances based on standard academic definitions. And since Mr. Snow admits he was unable to find the sources used to create the article, there is little reason to believe he knows how the term progressed from usage by one scholar to use by another.
Guidelines for this wiki encourage people to submit information that is not encyclopedic in its original form, trusting that other writers will come along and contribute or organize the information. In an encyclopedia that contains trivia about movies, small-time music bands and stubs about virtually any other topic under the sun, claims that a comprehensive article about current (but primarily Western) views about an ongoing world civil war is not encyclopedic ring very hollow. The edit seems more intended to push aside an uncomfortable subject than to reach an understanding of a civil war that is obviously actively underway in the United States, Spain, Afghanistan, Uzbehikistan, Somalia, Iraq, Isreal, Lebanon, Britian, Switzerland, and other nations.

If Mr. Snow cares to contribute, perhaps he could add to the article encyclopedic prose that contradicts the assertions of the scholars named in the article. For his convenience, I will list the sources he refused or was unable to locate in a simple Google search below, so perhaps his next edit will be constructive rather than destructive. JohnSalvador 04:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Mr. Snow will also discover, if he conducts an honest search of even a low-level source such as Google, that this article does not mention every time the term has been used in print. There are common references to the term that have been omitted because they do not reflect a general summation of a scholarly viewpoint, but are rather personal opinions of individuals whose opinions have not been published and/or discussed in literature typical of major political, social or academic groups.

since the term and the topic of world civil war often appears in discussions, this unrefined but encyclopedic article can provide a useful study tool for those concerned with learning who has used the term and how. JohnSalvador 04:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for improperly inserting the phrase "picked up". I conducted a search based on "world civil war", rather than trying to locate each author individually. Thank you for providing the links. However, they are not all on point.

The exact use in Oxford document is "Moreover, in today's world civil war is the principal type of war -i.e., traditionally, a type of war that has been underestimated in the IR literature." You might understand that better if I inserted the comma; it's saying that in today's world, civil war is the principal type of war. It's not talking about "world civil war".

Same goes for, "Often prior or during a third world civil war the great powers intervene, this didn’t happen in the early European states and means that grievances that would have been solved by civil war are allowed to persist." That's the Indymedia quote, referring to a civil war of the generic type in a Third World country. --Michael Snow 05:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

fair enough. It appears a couple uses of the term world civil war cited here were in fact references to civil war in the world. The indymedia article is unique in that it does describe the value of civil war, and explores the idea that civil war can be a productive process for todays world. Likewise, The oxford discussion discussed civil war as a primary form of war in todays world, but the speaker cited did not assemble world and civil as modifiers of the term war. This appears to be a typical Wikipedia process of live drafting, in which source material is assembled on a page then refined, checked and interpreted. JohnSalvador 05:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia appears to discourage original research, so this emerging topic is somewhat stilted in this context. However, it does present a rich delima that warrants exploration. The Oxford discussion concluded, (in that section) that attempts to define civil war that crosses national boundaries as mere irrational terrorism are flawed. Refusal to recognize the emergence of a world civil war was a fatal error on Sept. 10, 2001, and a similar failure of those developing an encyclopedic document in 2004 would be simliarly flawed:
"He (Andy Hurrell) concluded by pointing to a danger in the assessment of the new security environment: namely to underestimate the rationality of new forms of violence, while at the same time overestimating the rationality of using military force in dealing with new threats."
I would be interested in your careful read of the other sources cited as well. JohnSalvador 05:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at them when I have a little more time. Some of the themes can certainly be explored a little more, like the significance of 9/11 in this context. Right now the content is still very disjointed, with no relationship drawn between the term as used in the various sources. I would like this to be an article about "world civil war" as a concept, but it still feels like a random collection of citations found in a Google search. --Michael Snow 16:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aside

You gotta love the Feral Tribune of Split! Bandiera 03:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)