Talk:The Gulf War Did Not Take Place

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Military history: Historiography / Middle East Start‑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 articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Why Do You Hate Freedom?[edit]

This article looks more like a book review than an encyclopedic article. 85.64.15.133 18:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it's no longer a stub, but this thing just rambles now. Plus I took all of my information from reviews and synopses (sp?), so I can't verify it first hand. Also, just to top it off, I can't remember if "class A threat" is the actual terminology that was used.
- Lifefeed 20:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this rambles, i actually think its quite good. but one thing is that i think there could still be more information on this subject, like, what does the author think or call all the killings that took place if you don't call it a war. i don't think this question is answered in this article.
- Leo Collin 01:15, 14 December 2005 (LVC)

Perhaps it's best to have more entries by users who specialize on Baudrillard, seeing that his name is known because of political debates, instead of philosophical debates (which is his actual expertise). E.g. to answer the comment above mine, Baudrillard thinks that the killings were horrible and therefore the way the war was televised is even more barbaric/disturbing, as it makes the war seem to have been a big media spectacle, instead of actually a war.Sanushikuto (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author male or female?[edit]

His/her sex changes from male to female halfway through the article. Drew3D 16:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He's male. Article fixed Deadlock 16:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the title a reference to "The_Trojan_war_will_not_take_place" by Jean Giraudoux? Vnaughtdeltat 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC) - Indeed it is. A subtlety that has generally been lost on Anglo-Saxon readers, who have been keen to criticise the title - though maybe M.Baudrillard has himself to blame for that.--Lopakhin 15:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Contrary to the provocative title, the author does believe that the events and violence of the 'Gulf War' actually took place." is dull, this seems quite obvious, don't you think ? Arronax50 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that doesn't seem obvius. There are people who insist that the halocast (WWII) literally did NOT happen. I think it is important to be explicit in what the author meant. 208.53.104.68 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000[reply]

Clean up desperately needed![edit]

This article is poorly written. It does indeed ramble, because the author seems not to have had any structure in mind when writing it. The last two paragraphs meander pointlessly and are difficult to understand. For instance: "This point also works in with another of Baudrillard claims that the war was so heavily edited when it was shown on television that what Americans saw wasn't even close to the real war." What in the world did the English language ever do to become the recipient of a massacre like that? Also, the phrase "to absolutely believe" is a split infinitive. I have corrected it where it once appeared in the second to last paragraph.

72.78.159.161 01:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just deleted the terrible third paragraph as it was a total misrepresentation. I dont have the book in front of me to cite, but the important theme is how the "war" is not a "war" because it represents no meta-narratives, but rather a media event that exists to mask the collapse of the very meta-narratives that "war" is a part of. The whole semantic argument is based on seeing war not just as hand-to-hand combat as the article suggests, but as a consequence of historical meta-narratives- which have collapsed. Also, Baudrillard is clear in his characterization of Saddam as totally complicit in the simulation, sacrificing his own people- this is an important part of the event not being a "war", because neither side was waging war, if it was solely American aggression, it would still be a war from the viewpoint of the Iraqis. -Chris Moser

The argument[edit]

The argument here is that because the Americans barely suffered casualties, it was not a real war? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I also interpreted this article this way, contrary to what I interpret the texts by Boudrillard to be about: media alienating audiences from the events, i.e. televising the war as if it was a film, when it is actually real bombs, real violence and real people dying. Sanushikuto (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wag the dog[edit]

should be mentioned in the article. 95.31.177.9 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]