This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I want to Keep this paga. User:Noitall put in a cfd on the page, when I think he meant a vfd. This is just the rough draft, and the contents will be changing. There are plenty of news reports (eg., verifiable sources) that talk about this and the topic is coming up more and more as notion that the multinational forces are withdrawing. Sincerely, JDR 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone please note the article was expanded by the original author and I myself have given this article a severe beating with the NPOV hammer, please take a look at it again to see if you wish to reconsider your vote. =) Xaa 02:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This page was created by Reddi yesterday to conform with his POV idea of civil war. It is not appropriate for many reasons: 1. no civil war has happened and no sources are provided that state that civil war has happened, 2. Reddi provides no sources at all except mentioning of a worry about a civil war, 3. the page Iraqi insurgency fully covers the post-Invasion and worry over any potential civil war (along with many other worries), 4. this page was intended to promote Reddi's POV on these issues, 5. if starting a new page to promote a POV because the POV edits are not reasonable for the main page is the way to go, pages are going to proliferate. --Noitall 19:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • That should be taken as a Delete vote, I presume. JDR 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Iraqi insurgency was more aimed @ the occupation and the immediate period afterward. As the transition to the new government is complete and reconstruction is given to the new government, the insurgency will be will be a older topic. The brewing civil war is a different topic (internal factions of the state against one another; NOT Iraqis against an occupying force). This isn't my POV, there are others citing this as an outcome for the condition of Iraq. If you think that there are no sources at all except mentioning of a worry about a civil war? There is this: Jaber, Hala, "Allawi: this is the start of civil war". The Sunday Times - World, July 10, 2005. See Iraqi_civil_war#External_articles for others. JDR 19:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - sources have mentioned the worry of civil war and intent of the insurgents to create civil war from the beginning. These are no different. The difference is that the term "insurgency" makes less sense as the transition to Iraqi democratically elected government occurs, the U.S. states is intends to withdraw (without a timetable), and the Iraqis take on more security functions. Thus the term "civil war" may be used more because the other term makes less sense, but there is no real difference in activity or people involved, except as the possiblity of the occupation ending becomes realized. All this is appropriate for discussion on the main article, not a new subject. --Noitall 19:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Sources have mentioned specific acts in the civil war. Read the Allawi reference for example. 30+ dead in one of the ethnic tit-for-tat battles is more than a worry, it's happening. There is a real difference in activity or people involved (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd). JDR 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I read (is it JDR or Reddi?)'s response, I believe we actually are very close in our analysis. The difference is that I think that nothing new is actually occuring except a shift in terminology, which is not notable enough for a new article. --Noitall 19:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

JDR or Reddi is ok. There is something new. The insurgent article was about the fight against the occupation (and the occupations associate institutions). A civil war is about the factions of the population against each other (not an outside force). It's more than a shift in terminology. The difference is in activity and people involved in those activities. The sunni groups are killing shia groups (and vice-versa). The people involved in a civil war will also include the kurds (they are not part of the insurgency). The Kurds are not mentioned in detail in the insurgent article. They are fighting the Sunni guerrila attacking them, not sure if the shia have attack them. JDR 19:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To summ this up:

Insurgency article "comprises various guerrilla and insurgent groups who are engaged in a struggle ... against the multinational forces and the new Iraqi Army."

The Civil war article is "conflicts between sectarian segments of Iraqi in the unresolved political struggle for national control of state power.". JDR 20:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw my comments as to this being a POV article or your intent to insert a POV. We agree on all the words and facts, its just that I think that the same conflicts and killings between various groups have been there from the beginning and that this is simply represents a simple terminology change. --Noitall 20:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I am trying to be NPOV. We may though agree to disagree. The conflict has changed. The killings between various groups was not there from the beginning (I was an early editor of the insurgent article; this violence within the population was not there, to the extent that it is now, early on). It represents a terminology change, yes, but to address the different on-the-ground facts and circumstances ("iraqi vs. coalition" [then] contrasted to "iraqi vs iraqi" [now]). JDR 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete crystal ball. Where's the opposing government? Gazpacho 19:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "prophecy" is verifiable (see refs/links). JDR 19:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    As well-placed as Allawi is, he can still be wrong. Until a faction controls territory and runs affairs in that territory, we won't know. Gazpacho 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factions do control definable areas. The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia all controll portions of the state. AND, don't think that each divsion doesn't have control in thier respective enclaves ... the Kurds are semi-autonomous in the north, the Shia control most of the south IIRC, and the Sunnis control the western/middle parts of the country (Heard of the "triangle of death"?). Allawi knowns better than most and, if the facts are presented in a NPOV fashion, the truth of the matter will become clear. JDR 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crystal-ball, civil war hasn't happened yet, and there's no guarantee it will. The current iraqi-on-iraqi killings are still a part of the insurgency, not a civil war, as there is no definable single political party/social group (or combination of parties/social groups) backing the iraqi-on-iraqi violence - it is, rather, part of semi-random and anarchistic destabilization efforts backed by several hundred militant islamic terrorist organizations. Xaa 23:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the change in the article and the addition of an "Opposing Views" section I think changes the overall tenor and encyclopedic nature of the article to one worth keeping. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The civil war is occuring now (eg., already in progress). To some it is just beginning. Others have stated that it been under way for some time. Some do deny that it is going on, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. See the reference and external articles links in the article. Any speculation is also well documented. Wikipedia should have articles about notable credible research that embody predictions and this is referenced and is in the external article links. There is definable political party/social groups. The Shia, the sunni, and the Kurds are 3 major components; Iran-shia and the arab-sunni factions are paring off in this iraqi-on-iraqi violence. JDR 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good statement from Xaa. I would propose, if this article is deleted, that a paragraph be added to the main article with JDR and Xaa's discussion. --Noitall 23:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, just like World War III. Kappa 23:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Respectfully disagree with Kappa, apples-to-oranges comparison. =) The article on World War III primarily discusses the nuclear armageddon that was believed to be a possibility in the latter half of the 20th century, but never happened. It is not a "crystal ball" situation, it's a review of history. And, it's rather critical history - World War III was believed to be a possibility for over forty years and drastically shaped domestic and foreign policies for three major superpowers (The US, China and Russia). It also dramatically affected the lives of everyone around the entire planet and literally changed the course of history. Who over 40 in the US *doesn't* remember "duck and cover" drills when they were a kid in school? Or growing up knowing that the whole world could suddenly end in a flash of fire and there wasn't anything you could do to stop it? Other people from other nations have similar stories. And then, in the end... It never happened. Poof. Done, the Soviet Union went away. By comparison, the potential of an Iraqi Civil War is a prediction of a possible future event, not a recap of a historical belief. Even if it happened, it would not be as far-reaching because it would not cause the world to instantly come to an end. It is crystal-ballery at it's finest - yes, it's believed to be a possibility by a lot of important politicians. But only a possibility. =) Xaa 00:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is of scale, not of type. If it had been around then, Wikipedia wouln't have waited for WW3 to "not happen" before creating the article. Kappa 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I agree that it's a difference of scale. Read my reply again - this is part of why I disagreed with you. WW3, had it happened, would have meant the instantaneous end of all life on planet earth. The Iraqi Civil War, if it ever happens (and that's still a big 'if'), will not. =) Xaa 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Concerns about this possible war may not be on the same scale as those about WW3, but they are still significant enough to merit coverage in the world's largest encyclopedia. If we are going by signficance, another comparison is with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Prior Speculation). Kappa 00:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • • This isn't a possible conflict. The sectarian violence is occuring. Is it civil war? Many commentators say yes (with more affirming this position in the last few months; Allawi is but one that has stated that there is a civil war going on). Others say no (the facts on the ground do weaken thier case though). JDR 01:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I agree again - in fact, I don't really see the point to any of the speculative articles on Harry Potter that have appeared on Wikipedia. They all were entirely worthless and insignificant, and every time have proven completely wrong. If it had been up to me, I'd have deleted the lot - of course, with the number of rabid "Harry Potter" fans, that likely would have been impossble. Hmmm... Somehow I think we're talking at cross purposes? ;-) Xaa 01:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If an Iraqi civil war actually takes place, we can write about it then. --Carnildo 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The civil war is occuring now (eg., already in progress). Read the external articles and references. JDR 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC) PS., the same wiki is not section states that Wikipedia should have articles about notable credible research that embody predictions. This type of inclusion in the article is referenced and is in the external article links.[reply]

• Delete, this is essentially an original interpretation of current events, so is either POV or OR or both. If it is neither of those, it demands a crystal ball. -Splash 01:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in light of the reasonable re-working. -Splash 02:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. This is citing well known opinions and facts. It's not POV, it's just facts and references. As stated above, the "wikipedia is not a crystal ball " section states that notable credible research that embody predictions should be included in wikipedia. JDR 01:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept a move to Ethnic conflict in Iraq? (cf. Ethnic conflict in India, Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka) Gazpacho 03:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casting the news reports into the mould of a civil war is an original interpretation of events not in the you-are-the-first sense, but in the sense that it might be, or it might not be. The term is not yet widely used in the media. We do not hear "and today in the Iraqi civil war, another xxxx was blown up". In WP:NOR Jimbo says that "...An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events." As to the crystal-ball question, well, I do not think the phrase you cite applies here. That phrase is intended to allow for the discussion of things that will (with reasonable certainty) happen but have not yet. That is not the case here. I will grant that it may not be POV in the usual sense of the Wikipedian phrase, but I meant it more in the sense I just described: that you reckon this can be called a civil war. Moving to Ethnic conflice in Iraq is altogether more tasteful, but if and only if the article is recast into that mould before doing so. -Splash 04:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear on the news programs (Such as the Mclaughlin Group and the PBS News Hour) the question of a Iraqi civil war. I see it in the press. This is not original research.

A renamed article begs the original question though: is it ethnic conflict, religious conflict, social conflict, Bathaist political conflict, geographic conflict or simple anarchy? --Noitall 04:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The iraqi-on-iraqi conflict is a civil war on ethnic-religious lines. JDR

Comment If the article was re-written to explain those lines of conflict in detail and had citations to back up the conclusion that it is an ongoing civil war between multiple ethic and religious factions, I would change my vote and strongly endorse it. As the article stands, however, it does not. =) Xaa 20:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Crystal ball. Megapixie 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it crystal ball? This isn't a possible conflict. The sectarian violence is occuring. JDR 18:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but it does not technically comprise a civil war at this point. Even the article itself propounds a *possible* civil war in the *future*, not one that is currently transpiring (see comment above) =) Xaa 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Megapixie. Nandesuka 16:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Less crystal ball than this pile of turd.  Grue  19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respectfully disagree. =) In the case of the movie, the source for the prediction was the movie maker himself - thus, we knew it was going to be done because he said he was going to do it (or, at least, it can be reasonably assumed he will do it). Under this basis, we should delete this article on the prediction of an Iraqi Civil War until the government of Iraq comes out and says "We intend to hold a civil war." Currently, what the government is saying is (paraphrasing) "We intend to make every effort to prevent any civil war from ever happening." =) If Michael Moore had said "I intend to never make Faranheight 9/11½," then there would not have been an article. =) (Note: Please do not mis-construe this comment as support for Michael Moore or any of his movies, thank you!) Xaa 20:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Recent article changes make it worth keeping, in my opinion, I have changed my vote. Xaa 21:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still do not agree. The interpretations of the events described is still original. It is an interpretation, and that is the key of the problem. We are not interested in publishing what someone thinks, until what they think has passed into fact. -Splash 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree it's an interpretation - I've felt that all along. However, the author acknowledges this both in the article and in his citations, and the citations do cite people *other* than the author who are making this interpretation. Mainstream sources, including Allawi and major news outlets. I feel with the addition of an "Opposing Views" section, the encyclopedic nature of this article is properly carried forth. I've added a citation to the "Opposing Views" section that helps support the contrary view. Give the article a read again, you may find it's now a much better article than it was before. =) Xaa 21:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It asserts its opinion as fact to be opposed rather than as a discussion of what's happening in Iraq. The introductions says "The ongoing Iraqi insurgency during the Iraqi reconstruction serve as a sign for the existance of the sectarian civil war in the country." That is pure assertion — it takes a series of events and concludes that, in the author's opinion, it is civil war. It goes on to talk about "the existence of the civil war". This is not so much a consideration of whether there is civil war as an argument of the case that there is. We already have a non-interpreted Iraqi insurgency (which is at least a term used everywhere), Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 and a couple others. This article recounts the newsworthy content from those articles and puts a spin on it. And now I've persuded myself that, apart from being OR it is also POV — it barely mentions the other POV. The content from this article should, at best, be added to one of the others that must surely have sections discussing the political impact of the insurgency without needing to unilaterally conclude that it is civil war. -Splash 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Good point. Let's go over that with a fine-toothed comb and see what can be done with it. Check back in a bit. =) Xaa 01:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Okay, I have given it a severe beating with the NPOV hammer. Now how does it look? =) Xaa 01:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • A lot better. There is clearly a WP article to be had here, and now that it no longer theorizes quite so openly, I'll change to a keep. -Splash 02:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my vote to weak keep with the note that it should be made clear that this is a disputed term/article. Good work on the cleanup. Megapixie 03:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, but still not there and I don't think you can get there, without it truly developing into civil war. Anything with "civil war" in its title must define the civil war. There are no workers verses the elite, north verses south, slaveholders versus industrialists, communists verses the dictator, etc. Many have stated that there are no sides here. It currently is the most extreme form of anarchy, but I do not see "civil war." Yes, they all oppose the foreign occupiers, but they seem to oppose everything, which means simple anarchy. You still have multiple sides (ethnic conflict, religious conflict, social conflict, Bathaist political conflict, geographic conflict) with no objectives at all, or at least no objective other than fighting as an objective. --Noitall

• Keep, but I would really rather have it at Ethnic conflict in Iraq. That name covers religion-based ethnicity, as the India counterpart shows. Gazpacho 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article establishes validity of the subject and it's written well. CanadianCaesar 11:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge This idea has gained little ground at the moment, much of the information is just a reiteration of data that is contained in other articles. Pending on a change of events in Iraq this article could be useful, but I find no evidence to support it currently. Arm 05:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep (this modifies my original request -- I nominated for vfd -- but it is conditional. The editors have done a lot of work and I do not think the article has POV. But it can not state that a civil war has happened, it must discuss the potential for civil war. No real source is provided that discusses that civil war has begun, only the worry that civil war could begin. So my condition: the article describe the potential for civil war and its potential effects without implying that civil war has begun. --Noitall 15:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge The content is useful, but it shouldn't be under Iraqi civil war right now, as whether current conflicts qualify as such is pretty nebulous at this time. Perhaps this may change in the future, but until then this content should be elsewhere. --Bletch 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Iraqi insurgency. Some of the content looks useful, but I see absolutely no reason to have it on a separate page. If you must, add "Potential for Civil War" section in Iraqi insurgency. ObsidianOrder 12:04, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.