Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregular warfare

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 keep. There are no delete votes, a cleanup discussion can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular warfare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This word seems to be a neologism with no actual difference from "asymmetric warfare" - I considered proposing a merger, but looking over the article there is not much salvagable content here due to the articles over-reliance on primary sources. This Routlede source [1] explcitly states that "irregular warfare" "asymmetric warfare" and "non-conventional warfare" are all different phrases that mean the same thing, so this title should redirect to the main article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: Right now we seem to have at least four articles on the same subject including:

Even if there is a justification for a standalone article about the American military doctrine, we surely do not need three separate articles devoted to it (all with citations to the blog irregularwarrior.com)... Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and this is not a neologism (which if at all asymmetric warfare is) - use of this term dates back decades at least. Thre might be merit for a merge - maybe - but it is a complex decision here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I confess to being puzzled by Nom's assertion that there is "no actual difference" between Irregular warfare and asymmetric warfare. Nom is perhaps unfamiliar with literature on these two types of warfare. But the should be a WP:SNOW keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why E.M.Gregory is puzzled because I posted WP:RS supporting it here [2] - he should post secondary WP:RS instead of making vague statements about uncited "literature"?Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The irregular war definitions are so broad as to both internally contradict each other, as well as both overlap and contrast with asymmetric warfare. If one definition was so clearly the accepted one, then picking that and working with it would be fine, but given the frequent usage of each, we seem to have an article that rests on a very shaky/changeable base. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many useful scholarly and political terms in have variant and/or competing definitions, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Here' a JSTOR search on this topic: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that irregular warfare encompasses any or most warfare not between regular armies engaged in a formal war. This encompasses Unconventional warfare, and in most cases also encompasses Asymmetric warfare (but not always - a very strong nation against a very weak one could be asymmetric with regular forces on both sides). In any case - this is a widely used term.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact same article as Unconventional Warfare and Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine) - it is cited to the same primary sources, including the same blog. There isn't anything worth merging from this article.
variant and/or competing definitions should be dealt with in one article, not by creating POVFORKs - according to WP:RS which I posted from Routledge there is no difference between the terms, with some scholars preferring one to the other in describing the same topic...These arguments sound like they are pushing editor's WP:OR Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Routledge source you posted says nothing of the sort. It does say "Irregular warfare of this sort is sometimes referred to as" - treating a subform and not the entire concept.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a subform of irregular warfare. To take the example you described, a conventional army facing one of overwhelmingly superior strength (as in Iraq) will splinter and engage with unconventional tactics. They are different terms describing the same thing. The definitions in these articles trying to classify one as a subform of other are inconsistent, and they are either unsourced or sourced to the same non-RS blog - please don't just repeat what you read in the article here as an argument against deletion.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeated what the source you provided said - which is not that they are the same. Some, but not all (e.g. irregular forces on both sides), forms of irregular warfare are asymetric. The terms are not equivelant.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the book does not provide the best definition. It does say "irregular warfare of this sort" and then goes on to say 4GW, OOTW and irregular warfare overlap. Even if you were able to show sources to justify a clear conceptual distinction between asymmetric warfare and irregular warfare in WP:RS, it is even more unlikely to distinguish irregular warfare from unconventional warfare. How many POVFORKs do we need for one topicSeraphim System ^(talk) 15:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The academic consensus is that non-conventional warfare is asymmetric warfare. What makes the conflict non-conventional is the asymmetric power between state and non-state actors. Some sources yse the word irregular warfare as a form of asymmetric warfare, others say asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare - but the majority of WP:RS make no distinction. They use one term or the other -this latter category of sources pose the largest problem to editors. For example: [4] - Why would we include this content in one article but not the other? This is not a good way to write articles. These views should all be represented in separate sections of one-well written article about non-conventional warfare. Sections that grew too long could be spun out. Once again we have a case where four or five articles have been written on the same topic, and they are all of poor quality and sourced to primary sources or blogs. The best approach here is deletion of the POVFORKs and redirecting - can someone please say what content of this article they feel is worth salvaging by merger? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that academic consensus is nothing of the sort. The latest source you brought says asymetric is usually irregular. So it usually a subform. Not always. And some irregular is not asymetric.Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone posting on this discussion without bothering to post any WP:RS backing their opinions should at least be aware of the widely accepted basic facts about this topic - this is not even something that is controversial or disputed. The only WP:RS for splitting these is the US military doctrine which this article is based on [5] that says asymmetric warfare is a component of irregular warfare, which also includes "terrorism" - but the majority of academic sources consider terrorism to be a form of asymmetric warfare. More sources:

Asymmetric warfare of all forms share the same similarities - [6] [7]
irregular (asymmetric) warfare [8]

This entire history should be discussed in one article. It's a neologism. I think editors should consult some of the literature before commenting per WP:FORUM. Icewhiz You said And some irregular is not asymmetric - what is the WP:RS for this? Think about it - if it was conventional warfare between two militaries it would not be irregular warfare. These are all different ways of saying the same thing - Wikipedia articles are not written from the POV of U.S. government primary sources and the arbitrary and poorly explained distinctions they have chosen to make. If this distinction is supported by secondary sources you need to post those sources to explain why you are voting keep.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would, however, withdraw this nomination and agree to move this to a merger discussion if an editor who supports keeping this article could indicate which part of this article and its sourcing would be worth salvaging by merging? I didn't see anything when I nominated but if someone who claims more familiarity with the literature can explain which part of this article has value, then I am open to a merger discussion. What is the point of a merger discussion if there is nothing in the article to merge?Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far every source you have brought to this discussion has actually supported irregular warfare as distinct from asymetric. As an example, two non state actors - e.g. Kurds vs. the former Islamic state would be an example of irregular warfare that is not asymetric (as would be a few other sides in the Syrian civil war). So would be several African conflicts. We have an abundance of sources that discuss irregular warfare.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think that - the source literally says asymmeteric warfare in the sense of such armed conflicts being entirely unconventional warfare in nature or sharing the same ingredients or characteristics of irregularity. You will have to post the direct quotes that support your argument here (or on the article talk page later), because I don't see that in the sources at all...
The example of the Kurds and ISIS is an interesting point, and personally I agree that it would be an example of irregular warfare that is not asymmetric - but do you have any sources on point for this? It would require a major rewrite of the article in any case, but if there is sourcing for this it might establish notability for an independent topic.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the POV of the US irregular is often assymetric (with the exception of the US using irregular proxies, e.g. Bay of Pigs and many others). IS /Nusra/ Kurds is a bit too modern of an example for academic writing, but there are plenty of sources on irregular warfare in various African conflicts.Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well studied form of warfare with its own voluminous literature. As the Routledge source linked to in the Nom suggests, IW can sometimes overlap with Asymmetric Warfare (AW). But this does make IW = AW anymore than phenomena like Formula One means Driving = Racing. We often have IW involving "irregular elements fighting against other irregular elements" - when they are of about the same strength, as has been the case for example in some of recent factional skirmishes in Syria, then it's not AW. Similarly, in the admittedly fairly rare case where two grossly mismatched regular forces fight, its Asymmetric but not IW. I hope this helps clear up any confusion.FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've recently returned from a long wiki break, welcome back. An article in this condition should properly be TNT'd. There is nothing salvageable in the article and it will have to be rewritten entirely based on secondary sources. Posting forum like comments without WP:RS supporting them does not clear up any confusion. If we go by the sources and not your WP:OR these terms all mean the same thing - non conventional warfare. There is no widely accepted working definition more specific than that (neologism).

There is no widely accepted, working definition for this term in WP:RS - that is a neologism. No editor has been able to post a reliable source for how to define this. Every source we have looked at defines it differently, and none of those definitions is distinguishable from similar definitions given for asymmetric warfare and non-conventional warfare. No one can really say what the accepted definition of irregular warfare is, only that it is in use. That is a neologism. Until editors can produce sources to support their personal theories about how these words should be defined, this article should at least be moved back to userspace/draftspace. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cursory search shows that multiple books and journal papers have been written on IW in the past few decades. This is not a neologism. I disagree that definitions conflict - for the most part they are quite aligned - but even if they did this would not be grounds for deletion. This is a 10 year old article that is not great, but not bad either (the def according to US doctrine in the lead should probably go, as should some refs). This is far from TNT.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can say I disagree but the fact is that the definitions in the sources do contradict each other. A term can be in use and still be a neologism. In fact, most neologisms are compound terms that are artificial constructs, much like this one. Most of the article is sourced to the blog irregularwarrior.com and to primary sources. The fact that this has been in mainspace for 10 years is embarrassing - the length of time only means that significant improvement is unlikely. It shouldn't just stay in main space like this forever with an empty hope that a competent editor, knowledgeable about the subject, will come along and do the work to rewrite the entire article based on secondary sources - it should be draftified unless someone is actually planning to work on it.
If all the primary sources were removed than it would basically be stubified - that might be better than a redlink, but the encyclopedia loses nothing by redirecting this to Unconventional warfare...I guess this could be discussed further in a merger proposal - but you have declined to indicate what part of this article you think should be kept by merging.
The arguments here have focused a lot of asymmetric warfare but have not addressed the possibility of redirecting/merging to unconventional warfare - Even if there are WP:RS to support the one case editors have proposed of irregular warfare that is not asymmetric (between two irregular forces, instead of one irregular force and a conventional military) why couldn't that just be added to the unconventional warfare article?Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to merge to Unconventional warfare has even less merit than asymmetric - which is why I at least did not address this. While UW is IW (usually), this does not mean UW=IW. Unconventional warfare refers to the very narrow use of irregular warfare (using on the ground resistance movements and/or some other proxy force connected to counter regime forces) by a state actor to overthrow the regime of another state actor. IW is much wider than that - e.g. guerrilla forces that are not supported by foreign governments (and of course the example above of Kurds / Nusra / Islamic-State against each other).Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome back Seraphim, most kind of you. From my less than complete knowledge of the sources here, I think you might have a stronger case with UW. Still, Icewhiz may be correct, they obviously know what they're talking about in this topic class. Certainly some scholars do like to differentiate IW & UW, for example good professor Stathis Kalyvas (now at All Souls Oxford) has been doing so in various books and papers since at least 2005. As EM Gregory says, "definition conflict" issues exist with a great many useful scholarly terms. It's been said that "All other trades are contained in that of war." , while in contrast no less an authoritative source than von Clausewitz defined war as merely a subset of Politics. Yet obviously the vast majority of sources make a distinction(at least implicitly), and we best serve our readers by having separate articles for war & politics. With IW & UW I agree consolidation was worth considering, but on balance keeping separate articles seems the encyclopaedic thing to do, per WP:CONSPLIT and the fact there is sometimes distinction in the sources.FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Icewhiz is correct is not what matters here, whether or not WP:RS support his proposed defnitions does. various books and papers - usually a reference given in a discussion should be enough for an editor to verify. (Page numbers and quotes should be provided when an editor requests them) - as I have done here. This is not really a good use of time because this will all have to be discussed again during a merger proposal where contributing editors will be expected to post supporting WP:RS, which they have declined to do here despite several requests. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and While I honor the raising of the redundant article issue, deleting is not the solution. Starting a dialogue on the various pages, on starting with a single merge of two of them is. Sethie (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable subject; meets GNG, for example: Ethics Education for Irregular Warfare, War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A single book published by Praeger Security does not show WP:GNG, it shows that this is a POVFORK - with the hundreds of books available no one has been able to point to one that explains the difference between unconventional warfare and irregular warfare. Only sources that use one term or the other.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:34, 11 April 2018 (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.