Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity


 * 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   no consensus. There would appear to be a case to be made for (a) a renaming of the article, (b) a clear definition of scope, and possibly (c) merging of the information elsewhere Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

An essentially trivial list that will always attract original research and military history cruft. The fundamental premise of the list is triviality as all of these conflicts were long-dead prior to ceremonially being ended through low-level diplomacy. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem with the article is that not all of the conflicts listed appear to meet the applicable criteria. Examples: In the Third Punic War, Rome completely destroyed the city-state of Carthage, so a peace treaty would have been irrelevant at the conclusion of the war. The article itself claims that Berwick upon Tweed's supposed extension of the Crimean War was spurious. Even if Town Line, New York purported to secede from the United States during the American Civil War, that wouldn't have necessarily put it at war with the United States. And the failure to sign the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany until 1990 was not due to mere "diplomatic irregularity" but due to real-world problems of international relations which remained ongoing throughout the Cold War. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination so misuses the link to WP:TRIVIA that it appears that it has not been read or understood. That guideline advises against having sections of miscellania in an article which lack a clear theme or relationship but this has nothing to do with this present case.  The topic is notable as such curiosities naturally attract attention - see Loose Cannons, for example. Warden (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They may attract attention, but not necessarily because the stories are accurate. The Loose Cannons book linked here says that the role of Berwick-upon-Tweed in the Crimean War was a myth, and also calls into question the stories of the Isles of Scilly vs. the Dutch Republic and Andorra vs. the German Empire, both of which are on the list now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Metropolitan90: the basic concept which underpins this article is dubious, and it has no clear grounds for inclusion or exclusion. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The extension of wars by diplomatic irregularity is far from trivial, as war is by very definition an a priori diplomatic state of affairs; the ONLY difference between a war and any other conflict is that a war, being declared by a party, changes their diplomatic stance. A war extended by the lack of a peace treaty is more accurately a war than an undeclared conflict which continues for years, since this fulfils the semantic requirements for a declared war. The concern for original research, while of course significant, is not necessary - there is a difference between a priori knowledge and original research. These wars have not been identified as extended through anything but the simple factual information found in their respected articles (namely, that the wars were declared, never officially ended and thus officially continued by legal reasoning.) To respond to individual problems raised:
 * I agree with the problem raised concerning the Third Punic War - since a war by definition MUST end when the other nation is destroyed - but I also have consideration that, assuming the war was declared between two still-extant cities, they may still fulfill the requirements.
 * Berwick upon Tweed, being mentioned as a warring party in the declaration (as per its Wikipedia article), can be tentatively considered a belligerent in the war. Even in such an ambiguous subject as "wars extended by diplomatic irregularity", it is even more dubious due to the apocryphal nature of the original information.
 * The "real-world problems" of international relations which continued the Second World War officially is, by its very nature, a prime example of "diplomatic irregularity" - the significance of a period without a clear belligerent to sign a peace treaty is precisely the type of phenomenon this term (diplomatic irregularity) refers to.
 * Town Line would NOT be included as, despite a claim of secession, did not declare war (in neither de jure nor de facto manner), and thus would not be legible for this list. This list is purely about wars extended by diplomatic irregularity, not the irregularity itself. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, Berwick's Wikipedia article says that Berwick did not have a status as a warring party of its own in the Crimean War -- since it had been legally integrated into England by the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, it wasn't mentioned in the declaration of war as it was simply a town in England rather than a separate sovereignty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Nick-D. Seems to be another vague list defined only by Wikipedia. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss the inclusion criteria. This is not OR, but firmly based on sources. The title needs to be modified to Wars reported as .... or some such phrase,andPerhaps we can find something clearer than "diplomatic irregularity" . (Although this is really best on the article talk p., Carthage-Rome should not be included; Berwick should, because it was so reported, though erroneously; Germany vs Allies is a borderline example. Town Line I'm not sure about.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response How can you say that there need to be firm criteria but then have no idea if several of them fit or say that they're borderline? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems to me to be WP:SYNTHESIS Maratrean (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.