Talk:Philosophy of war

Military history: Historiography / Technology C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Philosophy Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bwrite New Mind.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Rosicrucian book added to referrences section

There's nothing wrong with discussing Rosicrucian philosophy of war in this article, but right now there is no such discussion in the article itself. I don't think we should be including books under the "referrences" section which are not used as referrence in the article.

If the Rosicrucian philosophy of war is worth including in the article, then we should include a section in the article which discusses topics from the Max Heindel book and refers back to it. If it's not worth including a section on it, we should remove the book from the referrence section and either leave it out of the article entirely or possibly include it under the "external links" section. Wje 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my mistake, as I took it as section of reference literature, and not as references to the text in the article. As there are various publications, from ancient times till today, in the issue of Philosophy of War do you agree to create a "Reference literature" section in order to include this one and others that may be found, instead of just erasing it? Thank you. --Viriathus 02:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Honest mistake. The best bet would be a "For Further Reading" or "Additional Resources" section. Generally, a "Referrences" section lists the books that were actually used in the article, and any additional books or materials on the subject can be listed separately in a way that shows that they were not used in the article. Also, in order to avoid confusion or misrepresentation, since the book addresses specifically Rosicrucian philosophy, it should include a note saying that it is not a general article on the philosophy of war, but instead about a specific Rosicrucian philosophy of war. Wje 02:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate, thanks! I will do as you suggest, adding it to "For Further Reading" section. As soon I am able, and it may take a while, I would like to develop a section into it, as there are more philosophical issues brought by this author that must be taken into consideration and it will involve a much deeper study. Regards, --Viriathus 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: You have already added it; thank you once more. --Viriathus 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

I've added the essay tag to this article. It reads like an essay about "On War" right now. It could use a more encyclopedic approach to the topic along with verifiable sources. ComputerGeezer (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]