Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Northern Ireland Revolt


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Northern Ireland Revolt

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a recreation of a speedily deleted page. It's a flagrant breach of WP:OR and especially WP:SYN, and I feel there are serious NPOV problems, too. No reliable news source is reporting these attacks as part of a 'second revolt'. The word 'revolt' is especially loaded, but the general implication of the article is that a state of conflict and revolt exists between the various parties named, when no reliable source is saying so. User:Jersay has a long track record of not engaging in discussion and carrying out highly tendentious edits to the various pages about current wars and conflicts; the general thrust of these edits being to claim that a discrete conflict exists every time there's a riot, or any other form of civil disturbance. I try to assume good faith, but this really is stretching it. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alex's assessment that this is original research. Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Salt as title is inherently disruptive and it would not be possible to create a NPOV article with this title.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and synthesis as listed by nom. Nuttah (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and speculation Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt: Synthesis speculation. Ryan 4314   (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - A new Terrorist group has made threats and has followed through on two of them leaving at least three people dead. Need I remind you the U.N definition of a conflict is 25 deaths a year. This should be monitored for an uptake in violence in Northern Ireland as there is tension in the region as of the deaths. ( Jersay (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) )
 * Comment - This is Wikipedia, not the United Nations. We'll settle on our own definitions, within reason. Three people are dead; you don't need to be very good at maths to realise that three is less than twenty-five. There's no need to take a hectoring tone and say 'need I remind you...'; what you are proposing goes against the intent of WP:CRYSTAL. The Real IRA is not a new terrorist group, and the other group mentioned is not attested by reliable, independent sources. There is no reasonable claim being made that the two attacks are directly linked to each other, or to the anonymous phone call. That's why I flagged this as a violation of WP:SYN. Claiming that a state of open conflict exists when one doesn't, or doesn't appear to, is needlessly inflammatory, inherently biased, and entirely inappropriate. This is Wikipedia, not the Daily Mail (or some even more partisan publication). Oh, and please format and sign your comments properly. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have changed the name to Republican Violence in Northern Ireland. The Drug dealer killed on February 11 is believed to be killed in a paramilitary attack, after drug pushers and dealers were targetted in a republican group's message. Therefore, a start of a new conflict. Then on March 7th, 2009 foreigners (as considered by Republican militants) were targetted in an attack. Therefore changing it to Republican Violence in Northern Ireland should suit, especially if more violent incidents continue in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Moving an article during a deletion debate is highly unhelpful. The title is only part of the problem; the article still breaches WP:SYN all over the place. Your comments about 'foreigners', even couched in terms of alleged Republican terminology, are unhelpful and misleading. The subject of violence in Northern Ireland perpetrated by or on behalf of those regarding themselves as Republicans in much broader than this latest outbreak, so your new title title is highly inappropriate. And please sign your posts by putting four tildes (~) at the end; and format them properly. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Look at the links provided. These are Northern Ireland sources of what has been stated by what appears to be Republican dissidents, as attributed to Real IRA admitting to attacking British military base in County Antrim (March 7th, 2009). ( Jersay (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentSo from my understanding getting a source that states Northern Ireland is at risk, by a police personnel would cover the requirements under WP:SYN. Therefore I will post that Sir Hugh Orde states the risk of Republicans —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( Jersay (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) )Jersay (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's not a question of getting any one killer source (pardon the expression) which will save this article from deletion. The article itself represents a claim that a state of military conflict exists, with the British armed forces and the PSNI on one side, and the Real IRA and these other people, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (known only through an anonymous phone call) on the other. This claim is simply your point of view: it doesn't meet your own preferred UN definition of a conflict, and the way you've lined up the two 'sides' seriously misrepresents the real state of affairs. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Then most of the conflicts in the list of wars can be deleted as a state of war has not been issued in a majority of the conflicts. The Real IRA have targetted the British Military. They are in conflict with the military of the United Kingdom since at least March 7 2009. Also, a drug dealer was directly targetted by a republican group possibly the IRB or by the Real IRA as promised in a February 6th 2009 declaration of violence against drug dealers and foreign forces (British Forces). Both a drug dealer and the United Kingdom military have been targetted, and British forces and Northern Ireland police service are looking to target "republican forces" therefore a state of war exist(Jersay (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Reply - Is every outbreak of violence between (say) two gangs a war? Any unilateral terror campaign? (Such as the one culminating in the Admiral Duncan bombing, say.) But your problem is right there with the word 'therefore'. that's what WP:SYN is all about. The PSNI are carrying out criminal investigations, not planning armed retaliation. This is only a military matter in that soldiers are among the victims (along with pizza-delivery guys), and because of the longer history of the Province, separate from this outbreak. And seriously - how is an anonymous phone call a reliable source? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply To your first question yes, Mexican Drug War (cartel vs cartel mostly). As of March, 9th 2009 a Police Service of Northern Ireland Constable was shot and killed in County Armagh Craigavon and a second wounded. Please look at Times Guardian or Sky news or "Northern Ireland Police Officer Killed March 9, 2009" This is proceeding to a new war with four deaths, since February 11, and three security personnel in 48 hours. (Jersay (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Response - Yes, I saw the news. It's a terrible series of events; but I feel you're exploiting it to make your point. Your latest edit to the article under discussion implies that the original Irish Republican Brotherhood, defunct these several decades, is among the 'belligerents'. You really don't seem to have taken my point about WP:SYN. Can you find me a reliable source that actually suggests, as you are suggesting, that the entire UK military is in a state of open armed conflict with the two terrorist groups you name? AlexTiefling (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - To be honest I didn't know what the Irish Republican Brotherhood was until I began to research the issue. I have updated it to United Kingdom Military; Northern Ireland as the United Kingdom forces in Northern Ireland have been attacked along with the Police Service by either the Real IRA or the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Therefore 5,000 military personnel and 9,200 Police officers are up against Republican dissidents. This will be updated if Loyalist organizations begin to target Catholics or Republican dissidents. (Jersay (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC))
 * OR+SYN=trouble. I'm beginning to lean toward a recommendation of salting this one. Majoreditor (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should put your "salt" recommendation in bold so the closer can see it better. Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and saltOriginal research / synthesis Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (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.