Talk:Doctrine of necessity

Prologue
This page ignores the use of the term to describe the motives of terrorist organizations dating back to the anarchist wave of the 1800s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.231 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Second Use in the article should be Cyprus (1964)
It is widely accepted that the doctrine was invoked in the 1963-64 Cypriot conflict, and that the foundation of the post-1964 Republic of Cyprus is based upon it. This might be the most extensive use of the doctrine in terms of duration and should be included in the article. There are tons of academic articles on Cyprus' conflict, legal interpretations etc. --Tco03displays (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill - notable example?
Surely, per WP:OR and WP:DUE, for this to be considered a 'notable' example we need to see it described as such in reliable sources dealing specifically with the subject of the 'doctrine of necessity'. It is not for us to cherry-pick it as 'notable' ourselves, especially as it hasn't even been enacted yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussing the principles invoked, without looking at this particular case:


 * requires that, not that it is.
 * . Again, that's not relevant (I'm not arguing that this case is, or is not, notable, just that non-enactment is not necessarily relevant. The doctrine was, indeed, explicitly invoked). It can be argued that a case of unsuccessful invocation is in some cases significant and notable.
 * - the text as it stands is sourced almost sentence-by-sentence, no way is it original research.
 * I'm not arguing that the section should, or should not, be included, just that the reasons so far given for exclusion are not valid. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The original research is saying that it is a notable example. To say that you need RS support saying specifically that is is a notable example, and probably in a discussion about the subject of this article and also giving other examples. Otherwise it is just cherry-picking to make our own point, and what is there to stop us adding all known examples? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This BBC rticle refers to the doctrine of necessity. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , but that is an article about the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, and so it is bound too. That doesn't make it a notable example here.
 * What we actually need is a reliable article (BBC or otherwise) that is mostly about the same subject as this article (the ' doctrine of necessity ') that cites the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a prime example of its use, probably along with a few other examples. That's what WP:OR/WP:SYNTH expects to make it a verifiably notable example.
 * Otherwise it's just a Wiki editor trying to push personal POV by deciding for themselves that it is a notable example. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong opinion about article, but if we apply the criterion for inclusion of examples in an article about a principle to be the citing of a source which is  we will have to delete, I think, all the examples in this article except Pakistan, and in most Wikipedia articles about general principles which include examples. In this particular case we would need additional sources which are  the "doctrine of necessity" and  as examples Nigeria and Grenada. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pol098, yes, and I think we know that the 'but other stuff exists' argument never holds much value in Wiki content discussions. I think that here, we need to concentrate on just this article.
 * Can we legitimately say that, per the requirements of WP:SYNTH, readers are able to check for themselves that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is a "notable example" of the use of the doctorine of necessity, and that was not just made up by a Wiki editor, and that that assertion is attributable to reliable, published sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 05:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again trying to look at the situation, without the intention of pushing for this example to be included, the doctrine of necessity (DON) has been widely discussed in the context of the NI Protocol (NIP) Bill - a discussion of rights and wrongs, legal opinions, not just statements that it has been invoked. There are plenty of sources about the NIP discussing the DON, though not (yet?) about DON mentioning NIP. And the NIP dispute is a major dispute between major players, arguably more important than the other examples given in the article, a disputed legal issue between global powers, not just an internal dispute. The important aspect is that the principle has been seriously invoked; that the issue has not yet been decided does not make it irrelevant, and indeed even if the invocation ultimately fails, I think it both notable and relevant. Maybe it could be omitted for now as the situation is fluid, but ultimately it is notable whatever the outcome. I remain open to be convinced of the contrary. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not for us to declare any of that though, that's what OR/SYNTH, and WP:V, rules against. The time to add it in our DON article is when DON sources do mention the NIP as a notable example. And until it has been enacted, and subsequently implemented and challenged in the courts, we will not know if DOM is proffered, or accepted, anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the Northern Ireland section, and even if the law journal-standard references never come along, I think it's worth keeping: it's very rare for this doctrine to be invoked by national governments, and the doctrine is pretty much the UK government's sole argument for the Northern Ireland Bill being allowed. With the good amount of references we have for everything that's written, I think that's a good enough start on notability to at least hold stay.
 * Worth noting that when I added the section, it wasn't a subsection of 'Notable examples'. I think a large chunk of the problem here could be taken out by just calling the section 'Examples of invocation' - there are few enough examples with enough references, so wouldn't that fix the whole thing?
 * Also, probably worth looking out for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearing next week that will likely have several experts on international law talking about it all. Best, Gazamp (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of OR template
, in your edit summary in this revert, you shout "DEMONSTRABLY not original research..." Have you now found some reliable sources discussing the 'doctorine of necessity', which itemise the "Northern Ireland Protocol Bill" as a notable example, or even as a notable instance of its invocation? Without those, to include it as such is OR. That is, the article reaches or implies a conclusion (that it is such an example) not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
 * Now that the section name has been changed, I don't think the article does imply a conclusion that is not stated by the sources. We have here several national and international news sites covering an event where the doctrine's invokation is an important part; the article implies nothing other than what is said in those sources. The type of reference you want, while very useful for the section, is unlikely to come about until potentially years after the event, setting an effectively impossible standard. There's plenty enough here to show it isn't original research, so I'm finding it hard to see what is wrong with it? Best, Gazamp (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is context. That many sources covering it say the Bill relies on the doctrine does not imply that it is a notable example of an application of the doctrine. I could find multiple reliable sources to support an article about a sportsperson saying they had received a parking ticket, that wouldn't mean that we had sufficient weight to add that person to the article about parking tickets as a notable example of their use. On the other hand, if several academic sources on the subject of parking tickets cited our sportsperson's case as a notable example, then we could have a good case to add it. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)