Talk:How Civil Wars Start

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Aye1399 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - As an example, the sentences After the attack, the Congress, talk of a twenty-first-century civil war in the United States intensified. and Walter's use of data and adaptive slant should promote a serious discussion. are both sourced to the book's page at Penguin Books' website, which obviously isn't a WP:Reliable source for either statement (especially since both fail verification).
  • Neutral: No - As a pretty egregious example, the book is called "rather important" in WP:WikiVoice.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - WP:Close paraphrasing abounds.
  • Other problems: No - Quite a bit of what isn't closely paraphrased instead fails WP:Verification.

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - There is no mention of an increasing probability of a second civil war in the United states anywhere in the article.
  • Interesting: No - The proposed hook is phrased in a way that makes Walter's worries sound unfounded, which makes it not particularly interesting. This particular issue could probably be fixed by rephrasing.
  • Other problems: No - The article is neither linked nor bolded in the proposed hook. The grammar is lacking.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The tone of the article is far from encyclopedic. The capitalization is at times seemingly random. Walter is called "he" at one point. Some sentences are borderline incomprehensible (But today, signs indicate that more countries, including the United States, see their most in this position). In short, this is far from being in a state where it could be linked from the WP:Main page. I have little hope that it will reach such a state within the time frame that it is eligible for DYK, and I note that User:CapnJackSp suggested WP:AfD on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TompaDompa: No question, this is in pretty bad shape, but I'd recommend waiting to see if the nominator is willing to play ball before asking for a close. Also, no promises because I've got less than no time on my hands these days, but i wouldn't mind adopting this nomination. The article's notability itself looks pretty solid, with reviews in WaPo and the NYT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, reviewing anew:
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I don't think Walter argues that the United States is in danger of a second civil war, although she states that it would not be as entrenched as the American Civil War. is entirely verified by the cited source, which says Barbara Walter does not expect to see a civil war in the US of the order of the conflict that tore the nation apart in the 1860s, but that's chiefly because civil wars are fought differently these days. Likewise, her viewpoint was not entertained by colleagues or the public at the time specifies groups not specified by the source's the few people who heard that it was "about a possible second civil war in America" thought [...]. The phrase "polity zone" should be "polity index" since that's what the source says. Saying that social media polarizes moderates is a more specific claim that that made by the cited source, which speaks of tearing people apart (should be fixable by rephrasing).

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ALT1 fails verification inasmuch as it frames what is not a direct quote as one (the direct quote is The U.S. government shouldn’t indulge extremists). Both ALT1 and ALT2 make a somewhat stronger statements than the cited source or the article itself by connecting Walter's advice to preventing/thwarting a second American civil war.
  • Interesting: Yes

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: The title at the top of the infobox does not match the one in the WP:LEAD (comma or colon?). The stuff about the polity index should be clarified somewhat—it should explain what the numbers represent, and the positive figures should have the format "+10" rather than "10" or "ten". I would also probably explain what "anocracy" means in a few words. With ALT2, I'm not a great fan of "was considered" for a single person's opinion. ALT2 is however far more interesting than ALT1, so I recommend working on that one. Earwig doesn't pick up any copyvio and I didn't spot any obvious close paraphrasing either. I'm a bit unsure how QPQ is supposed to work here; since the article was rewritten entirely by Theleekycauldron, I'm inclined to view this as a new nomination altogether rather than as a continuation of initial nomination. Is there an established way of handling situations like this? TompaDompa (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, TompaDompa! I've added some ALT suggestions that match up better, and I think I've fixed most of the article's issues. As for a QPQ, this is technically the same nomination, but I've got like 36 QPQs lying around and I don't need to be stingy; I'll offer up Crime in Latvia. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My sourcing objections have been resolved (Walter argues that the United States is in danger of becoming an autocracy is, I suppose, a fair way to summarize This compelling history delineates the path from democracy to autocracy – and warns that the US is heading the wrong way even if it is kind of a borderline case) except I don't think we can say "as entrenched as" where the source says "of the order of"—I'd just say "like" (and perhaps expand a little). ALT1a and ALT1b are pretty dull. ALT2a is better but lacks something of a punch. It might be difficult to write a sufficiently interesting hook with only the sources that are now on the article; I'd recommend expanding the article with additional sources such as this one (which says stuff like the worst-case scenario isn't civil war in the 1860s sense [...] Instead, they predict a conflict more like the Troubles in Northern Ireland or the guerrilla war in Colombia — a normalization of political violence that endangers basic security.) to be able to make a stronger statement. Template:Did you know nominations/Crime in Latvia seems to already have been used at Template:Did you know nominations/Humbertium covidum. TompaDompa (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the delay, TompaDompa! I've added an ALT3, if you want to take a look; and I've made the correction in the article. As for the QPQ mix-up, here's Engine No. 1. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • ALT3 ready. TompaDompa (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added an ALT4 and I think I've addressed the majority of the article's issues, Please have a look at it.aye1399
  • @TompaDompa: you might actually need to look at the changes made? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. While this version was up to snuff and ALT3 is fine (hence my assessment that this was ready above), the current version again has rather pronounced WP:Close paraphrasing issues. This is consequently no longer ready. TompaDompa (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TompaDompa: you usually want to use {{subst:DYK?}} () or {{subst:DYK?no}} () if the article has fixable issues. is for when the issues are unfixable and the nomination needs to be closed.
        that said, i'm hesitant to revert. This wasn't my nomination, but I walked in here and turned the article upside down. I don't want to be even more BITEy by making another reversion. So- I don't know what to do. Maybe I can try and make the material work, but... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • thanks dear theleekycauldron and TompaDompa for your attentions. I try make it better.aye1399
      • @TompaDompa: I've made the correction in the article.(talk)

AFD[edit]

@Aye1399: This article may not survive an AFD in its current form..... Include reviews in this article by WP:RS. Washington post article is an opinion piece.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Jack Sparrow: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The book has quite a bit of coverage in the opinion, review, and interview sections of many major news outlets—no way would it get deleted at AfD. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was simply pointing out that in its current state, the article has issues which could get it deleted (This reads more like an Ad than a wiki entry). The comment on RS was less about GNG and more about article quality. Being written without RS, in promotional style, stating opinions in wikivoice, etc. I do believe it can be an article if suitable contributions are made, which is why I didnt push it to AFD and just put a notice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnJackSp (talk • contribs) 06:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

saved text[edit]

According to "How Civil Wars Start," research have discovered three criteria that determine which countries are most likely to enter civil war.[1]country is in the process of transitioning to democracy or away from it, anocracy and factionalism are present, a dominating group's position is eroded [1] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:How_Civil_Wars_Start&oldid=1207652689"