Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Civil War (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see enough of a consensus now to feel comfortable closing this discussion as "Delete". Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second American Civil War[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Second American Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I noticed this article due to it being discussed on WP:FTN. This article may have originally had some merit, but regardless it has been shaped by SPAs and IP users into a frankly terrible article that presents a fringe perspective as fact by selectively cherry picking sources. I don't really see any way to resolve this other than to apply a heavy dose of WP:TNT. As mentioned at WP:FTN, I think the "In popular culture" section could be moved to a separate "Second American civil war in fiction" article, but the rest of the article is imo irredeemable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I’d concur with the separation of an “in-fiction” section, but the article as a whole seems a bit redundant and fear-mongery. PeacockShah (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oh no. 964kB, most of it some form of WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:REFBOMB... but it seems to me that before TNT is invoked we might attempt to cut out the most unfixable sections? The entire "remarks" section should probably be tossed, to start... -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete, but note: If any part of this is kept and moved, the edit history must be retained per the WP:GFDL. I don't think the entirety of the article should or can be deleted, but there is certainly a great deal of problematic content that should be cleared out. BD2412 T 02:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOT - First of all, we already have Second American Revolution. The one linked above seems more like an on-going saga of current events as they crop up. But what we have now is television spoon feeding it to us everyday. The separate events have their own articles if they're worthy of writing about. As attention-getting as the individual news outlets pull the audience one direction or another, I counter that much of the 1960's - if not the entire decade - was much more violent, with assassinations of political leaders in the United States. There were the Weather Underground and other groups bombing buildings and institutions. Second American Civil War is excess of what Wikipedia is already covering in individual articles. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to my own concerns about how something like this could be subject to input from factions who want to manipulate the public. This article looks like it's crafted that way. When I see the evening news on any TV station, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, any of them - they pounce on anything related to this subject matter, any event that happened that day, is the sole topic of the day-week-month spoon fed to their viewers. They just twist and reword the day's events to their specific audiences. Which whips the public into a furor of their particular political stance. Anybody can vote here, anybody - or IP - can say they are anybody. The big networks are paid to keep things whipped up like that. Let's keep Wikipedia neutral ... and this article really isn't that. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A serious offence against WP:CRYSTAL and really, the thing reads like a rather bad version of the kind of speculative analysis published in the likes of The Atlantic. Mangoe (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the idea of a Second American Civil War is notable, almost all of its article's content is a violation of our policies regarding fringe theories and news-related content. It needs to be completely destroyed so that it can be rebuilt. Considering the nature of the topic, this problem needs to be resolved quickly. Of course, the fictional depictions of the event should have their own article, as it is a reoccurring motif in fiction. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, as while there are some parts of the article that have merit (i.e. attempts to overturn the 2020 election or voter suppression, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and political polarization), but they have their own thorough articles. I'm not as familiar with violent far-right movements (i.e. the Groypers, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or some far-right individuals) but they're lone wolf actors in my opinion.
    The article has lost relevance after the 2022 midterms (including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization) and Trump's indictments not setting off mass riots or violence in the U.S. even comparable to the 2020 racial justice protests. The 2024 election and Trump's indictments have their own pages. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like SYNTH, trying to link many items together to push a certain narrative. Events in the post 1865 era aren't connected to Donald Trump... Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the April Fool's deletion was actually on the mark, not CRYSTAL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept is coherent and there is significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. How can there possibly be reliably sourced content about an event that hasn’t happened and might never happen? Quite easily: the prospects, fears, potential causes, avoidance mechanisms and impact are all discussed in multiple mainstream sources. CRYSTAL is about editors’ own speculations. If sources and the media at large are speculating, that speculation can be notable. Compare to World War III or Kessler syndrome. The article in its current state does have NPOV issues. There’s a lot of wishful thinking(?). It needs a good prune. Many parts could be merged into Political polarization in the United States. But that’s all cleanup. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do feel that a substantial effort to remake this article is more worth it than starting all the way back from square one. Even with the egregious policy violations in mind, I highly—yet just as respectfully—disagree that this article is nearly or completely irredeemable and that it should thusly be completely destroyed, even if to rebuild it later. I have many points, but for brevity's sake I will list out only a few; even if this article does get demolished, I would at the very least like to mention the following points if it'll help to improve and enhance the existing article or for its next "life." For one, the very presence of a political science research section ("Research regarding a second civil war") in this article as it pertains to the topic at hand is a good mainstay. In my opinion, only citing mainstream news articles about this topic would leave the article half-cooked, as many of such news articles oftentimes don't go very in-depth, sometimes even those involving interviews with experts in democracy, civil war, and/or in-general political violence. As relatively rare and hard-to-find as such research on this topic still is—understandably so—I think the sourcing and in-general structure of these sections can be improved. It also doesn't help that this very topic is largely still—and could just as well indefinitely remain —in its speculative phase, but I digress.
Another point that I wanted to mention and expand upon was the article's references of right-wing radicalization within the U.S. Military, as it pertains to this topic. The section(s) about the January 6 United States Capitol attack and how it interplays with the previous point and the topic itself, should also remain. I do agree with putting at least some of those polarization-related aspects into the Political polarization in the United States article that aren't already there.
And finally, I also agree with the suggestions of a meaningful shapeup of this article as, among various other reasons: the flow is off-putting; the excessive back-and-forth of "X said '___', but then Y said '___'"; and the continuous adding of recent political events, with their various degrees of relevance, has become a bit excessive. 68.134.238.132 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much speculation (i.e., predatory publishing) and original research. There are also a lot of forced analogies, like that with the Years of Lead in Italy. As usual, it is an incomprehensible article for a general public, moreover, right-wing libertarians (and related realities: sovereign citizens, the Tenther movement, and anarcho-capitalists) always come out clean. One cannot seriously talk about the militia movement without mentioning these ideologies and positions.--93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The whole article is mostly speculations and gossip. Obviously, Wiki is WP:NOTGOSSIP and not WP:FUTURE. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there are really, functionally, three articles here. 1) There's the "reinterpretations" section, which details the use of the term "Second American Civil War" to describe or re-frame historical conflicts. Then 2) there's the speculative section, which covers speculation about either a potentially impending civil war, or an already-happening "cold civil war." Finally, there's 3) fictional depictions of America undergoing a second civil war. I think sections 1 and 3 might have some value, but 2- by some distance the largest- is worthless, as it's a big compilation of predictions and analyses from a million different angles, synthesized with more or less related information, and falls afoul of WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, etc. If an actual generally-recognized civil war breaks out, maybe parts of it would be useful for a "Background to the Second American Civil War" article, but right now, it's junk. The solution I'd favor would be to purge the speculation/synthesis stuff, and then split this into two articles: one on the historical and contemporary use of the term/idea "Second American Civil War," covering the historic use of the term, and the idea and term as used by contemporary historians to reinterpret past events (the Coal Wars and Business Plot sections need better sources, though); and the other on notable fiction depicting imaginary Second American Civil Wars. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH - seems to consist of an unending raft of speculation with disparate sources tied together to push a (dystopian) narrative. WP:TNT---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article gets deleted, some of its content could be moved to other articles as there is still a lot of useful info in the article that could be moved elsewhere. X-Editor (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't recommend it. Wouldn't that just transfer WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH and other issues listed above, to other articles? There's too much questionable with content and sources, and we don't need to copy and paste it to other articles. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Anyone who thinks a Second American Civil War is less likely than the Potential breakup of the United Kingdom or Hypothetical dissolution of the Russian Federation hasn't spent very much time here since Trump was elected 7 years ago. Every morning as I commute to my office I drive past a sign in front of a veterinary hospital announcing "Eighty-one million votes, my a$$." People can tell themselves the election was stolen for only so long before they decide it is their duty to kill everyone who voted for the "wrong" candidate because those people outnumber people like them.Amyzex (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article for World War III, another hypothetical future conflict is well-established. The concept of a second civil war is well-established in pop culture, in recent journalism coverage, in political polling, etc.
I would suggest parts of the article being edited down (it seems excessively large and detailed for a hypothetical situation) to be more in line with World War III, but full-scale deletion is unnecessary and risks occluding the frequent coverage of the scenario in media. Generalissima (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet, this might be closed as No consensus but first I'd like to give the discussion a bit more time. Other closers, feel free to take action as you see fit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll chime in for a strong delete. Despite the care many editors have put in, this article has grown into something that does not belong in Wikipedia. It may be possible to write an article with this title or a similar one after WP:TNT. But the current state is a nightmare of WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, and so on. To build upon what other editors have said, I think there are at least 5 distinct articles here. I'm not sure which of them would be worth including in the encyclopedia.
    1. A "fictional depictions" one - those have no place in this article, as they're not depictions of "this" hypothetical event.
    2. A "historical events that have been considered a second civil war". There may already be a good article on this but can't find it, but this section in this article adds a level of WP:SYNTH.
    3. A "Documented attempts at igniting a civil war" one. This may be WP:SYNTH depending on how it's been covered in reputable sources and scholarly research.
    4. A "2023 American political climate" one that might include the "cold civil war" or "Troubles-like-era" topics. This seems to be promising as there's a decent amount of sourcing for it because it can focus on secondary sources' descriptions and analysis of actual events.
    5. A "How a war might start and happen" one. Runs into WP:CRYSTAL problems but there may be reliable sources to pull from.
To reiterate, I'm not actually advocating for any specific article to be included here, just pointing out how many different topics have been squeezed into this article. —siroχo 07:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good summary of the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with your summary; there might be talk of such an event, but I don't think it's ever been serious enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An excellent post indeed, @Siroxo
In my opinion, perhaps the best path forward is a mix of subjects 3, 4, and 5 - of course, without yet again running afoul of said rules mentioned throughout this dicussion.
The topic as a hypothetical scenario is indeed notable enough to primarily feature those 3 subjects in its (next?) article. Some background information (this time with a not-too-lengthy discussion of only the most relevant current events (such as the 1/6/2021 insurrectionist self-coup)) as well as political science research on the United States' contemporary polarization crisis (I.E.: to help the reader to understand the "whats" and "whys" of such an article) would make for a much-improved article framework, as this topic--again, as a hypothetical future scenario--is no longer of the groundless, reality-defying variety often disseminated from the fringes of the internet. ...Depressingly enough.
I am still stumped on the potential placement of the historical claims aspect of this article; framing it as both a historical "in-hindsight" past event AND as a hypothetical future one at the same time and in the same article was/is...a bit much in my opinion.
(For the admins: my "keep" holds steady, if you were curious.) 68.134.238.132 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second_American_Civil_War_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1163445392"