998:
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
611:- 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?
872:. 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.
407:- 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.
1028:- 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
913:
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
825:- 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.
889:
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
723:
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
761:
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
912:
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
737:
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
705:
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 - Knowledge (XXG) articles are not written from the POV of U.S. government primary sources and the arbitrary and poorly explained
599:
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
997:
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
532:
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
976:
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
781:
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
977:
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).
954:
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
533:
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.
319:. 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.
480:
231:
171:
546:
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.
724:
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?
657:
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:
493:
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
450:
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
843:
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
209:
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.
624:
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.
237:
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
1056:
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.
206:" - 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
510:
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.
650:
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
124:
756:
asymmeteric warfare in the sense of such armed conflicts being entirely unconventional warfare in nature or sharing the same ingredients or characteristics of irregularity.
165:
564:, 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
297:
277:
257:
455:(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.
890:
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.
821:
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
758:
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...
430:
689:
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
131:
97:
92:
101:
84:
17:
426:
817:
A well studied form of warfare with its own voluminous literature. As the
Routledge source linked to in the Nom suggests, IW can
186:
1115:
that explains the difference between unconventional warfare and irregular warfare. Only sources that use one term or the other.
153:
738:
the Syrian civil war). So would be several African conflicts. We have an abundance of sources that discuss irregular warfare.
560:
I agree the book does not provide the best definition. It does say "irregular warfare of this sort" and then goes on to say
483:- it is cited to the same primary sources, including the same blog. There isn't anything worth merging from this article.
920:
If all the primary sources were removed than it would basically be stubified - that might be better than a redlink, but
1142:
40:
608:. They use one term or the other -this latter category of sources pose the largest problem to editors. For example:
147:
822:
561:
285:
265:
1123:
1098:
1065:
1040:
1011:
986:
963:
917:
article based on secondary sources - it should be draftified unless someone is actually planning to work on it.
899:
880:
834:
791:
770:
747:
732:
718:
633:
619:
584:
555:
541:
519:
505:
464:
441:
416:
393:
359:
328:
308:
289:
269:
249:
217:
66:
143:
935:
proposal - but you have declined to indicate what part of this article you think should be kept by merging.
1111:, it shows that this is a POVFORK - with the hundreds of books available no one has been able to point to
1007:
973:
943:
927:
830:
573:
476:
226:
88:
193:
1138:
1094:
437:
412:
355:
36:
999:
1116:
1033:
956:
873:
763:
725:
711:
612:
577:
534:
498:
386:
301:
281:
261:
242:
210:
179:
939:
452:
346:. Nom is perhaps unfamiliar with literature on these two types of warfare. But the should be a
342:
203:
690:
159:
1003:
982:
895:
826:
787:
743:
679:
629:
609:
569:
551:
515:
460:
324:
80:
72:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1137:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
672:
670:
655:
347:
54:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1090:
1061:
433:
425:
Many useful scholarly and political terms in have variant and/or competing definitions, but
408:
379:
371:
351:
207:
1108:
336:
I confess to being puzzled by Nom's assertion that there is "no actual difference" between
62:
1029:
1021:
951:
864:
852:
848:
702:
651:
647:
603:
565:
495:
490:
382:
375:
859:. There is no widely accepted working definition more specific than that (neologism).
851:
supporting them does not clear up any confusion. If we go by the sources and not your
222:
ADD: Right now we seem to have at least four articles on the same subject including:
978:
891:
783:
739:
694:
625:
547:
511:
456:
320:
118:
1084:
1078:
52:. There are no delete votes, a cleanup discussion can continue on the talk page.
1057:
654:
for splitting these is the US military doctrine which this article is based on
58:
489:
should be dealt with in one article, not by creating POVFORKs - according to
706:
distinctions they have chosen to make. If this distinction is supported by
646:
I think anyone posting on this discussion without bothering to post any
481:
Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)
232:
Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)
710:
you need to post those sources to explain why you are voting keep.
202:
This word seems to be a neologism with no actual difference from "
942:
but have not addressed the possibility of redirecting/merging to
863:
There is no widely accepted, working definition for this term in
1032:, which they have declined to do here despite several requests.
847:
based on secondary sources. Posting forum like comments without
1133:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1074:
823:"irregular elements fighting against other irregular elements"
385:
instead of making vague statements about uncited "literature"?
754:
I don't know why you think that - the source literally says
1002:
and the fact there is sometimes distinction in the sources.
667:
Asymmetric warfare of all forms share the same similarities
1107:
A single book published by Praeger Security does not show
114:
110:
106:
178:
762:
might establish notability for an independent topic.
192:
1086:War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1145:). No further edits should be made to this page.
931:...I guess this could be discussed further in a
296:Note: This discussion has been included in the
276:Note: This discussion has been included in the
256:Note: This discussion has been included in the
298:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
278:list of Military-related deletion discussions
258:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
576:. How many POVFORKs do we need for one topic
568:, it is even more unlikely to distinguish
295:
275:
255:
1020:is not what matters here, whether or not
938:The arguments here have focused a lot of
429:. Here' a JSTOR search on this topic:
1080:Ethics Education for Irregular Warfare
1025:
1024:support his proposed defnitions does.
909:
855:these terms all mean the same thing -
755:
698:
676:
666:
486:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
699:And some irregular is not asymmetric
487:variant and/or competing definitions
24:
475:It is the exact same article as
677:irregular (asymmetric) warfare
1:
1073:: a notable subject; meets
374:is puzzled because I posted
381:- he should post secondary
1162:
1124:04:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
1099:02:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
1066:23:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
1016:Whether or not Icewhiz is
67:07:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
1041:12:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
1012:10:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
987:07:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
972:The proposal to merge to
964:22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
900:18:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
881:16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
835:14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
792:20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
771:20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
748:20:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
733:19:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
719:19:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
634:17:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
620:16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
585:15:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
556:15:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
542:15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
520:15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
506:15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
465:20:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
442:18:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
417:15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
394:15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
360:11:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
329:11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
309:08:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
290:07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
270:07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
250:07:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
218:06:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
1135:Please do not modify it.
1026:various books and papers
857:non conventional warfare
32:Please do not modify it.
926:by redirecting this to
922:the encyclopedia loses
427:WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP
974:Unconventional warfare
944:unconventional warfare
928:Unconventional warfare
574:unconventional warfare
477:Unconventional Warfare
227:Unconventional warfare
602:but the majority of
600:irregular warfare -
239:irregularwarrior.com
606:make no distinction
378:supporting it here
55:(non-admin closure)
940:asymmetric warfare
453:Asymmetric warfare
343:asymmetric warfare
204:asymmetric warfare
708:secondary sources
570:irregular warfare
370:I'm not sure why
338:Irregular warfare
311:
292:
272:
81:Irregular warfare
73:Irregular warfare
57:
1153:
1121:
1038:
961:
878:
768:
730:
716:
617:
582:
539:
503:
391:
306:
247:
215:
197:
196:
182:
134:
122:
104:
53:
34:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1143:deletion review
1119:Seraphim System
1117:
1077:, for example:
1036:Seraphim System
1034:
959:Seraphim System
957:
876:Seraphim System
874:
766:Seraphim System
764:
728:Seraphim System
726:
714:Seraphim System
712:
615:Seraphim System
613:
580:Seraphim System
578:
537:Seraphim System
535:
501:Seraphim System
499:
389:Seraphim System
387:
304:Seraphim System
302:
282:The Mighty Glen
262:The Mighty Glen
245:Seraphim System
243:
213:Seraphim System
211:
139:
130:
95:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1159:
1157:
1148:
1147:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1102:
1101:
1068:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
967:
966:
936:
918:
903:
902:
884:
883:
838:
837:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
774:
773:
759:
701:- what is the
682:
681:
674:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
639:
638:
637:
636:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
525:
524:
523:
522:
484:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
445:
444:
420:
419:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
363:
362:
331:
313:
312:
293:
273:
235:
234:
229:
200:
199:
136:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1158:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
996:
988:
984:
980:
975:
971:
970:
969:
968:
965:
962:
960:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
934:
930:
929:
925:
919:
916:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
897:
893:
888:
887:
886:
885:
882:
879:
877:
871:
867:
866:
861:
860:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
812:
793:
789:
785:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
772:
769:
767:
760:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
736:
735:
734:
731:
729:
722:
721:
720:
717:
715:
709:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
671:
668:
665:
664:
656:
653:
649:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
618:
616:
610:
607:
605:
598:
597:
586:
583:
581:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
540:
538:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
504:
502:
497:
492:
488:
485:
482:
478:
474:
473:
466:
462:
458:
454:
449:
448:
447:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
402:
395:
392:
390:
384:
380:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
339:
335:
332:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
314:
310:
307:
305:
299:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
246:
240:
233:
230:
228:
225:
224:
223:
220:
219:
216:
214:
208:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
133:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1134:
1132:
1118:
1112:
1085:
1079:
1070:
1053:
1035:
1017:
1004:FeydHuxtable
958:
947:
932:
923:
921:
914:
908:You can say
875:
869:
868:- that is a
862:
856:
844:
827:FeydHuxtable
818:
814:
765:
727:
713:
707:
614:
601:
579:
536:
500:
404:
388:
341:
337:
333:
316:
303:
244:
238:
236:
221:
212:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
127:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1091:K.e.coffman
1000:WP:CONSPLIT
434:E.M.Gregory
409:Nosebagbear
372:E.M.Gregory
352:E.M.Gregory
166:free images
950:there are
910:I disagree
782:conflicts.
1139:talk page
870:neologism
819:sometimes
697:You said
37:talk page
1141:or in a
955:article?
845:entirely
691:WP:FORUM
125:View log
39:or in a
1089:. Etc.
1018:correct
979:Icewhiz
948:Even if
924:nothing
892:Icewhiz
784:Icewhiz
740:Icewhiz
695:Icewhiz
626:Icewhiz
548:Icewhiz
512:Icewhiz
457:Icewhiz
405:Comment
348:WP:SNOW
321:Icewhiz
172:WP refs
160:scholar
98:protect
93:history
1109:WP:GNG
1058:Sethie
933:merger
915:entire
144:Google
102:delete
1030:WP:RS
1022:WP:RS
952:WP:RS
865:WP:RS
853:WP:OR
849:WP:RS
703:WP:RS
652:WP:RS
648:WP:RS
604:WP:RS
572:from
566:WP:RS
496:WP:OR
491:WP:RS
383:WP:RS
376:WP:RS
350:keep.
241:)...
187:JSTOR
148:books
132:Stats
119:views
111:watch
107:links
59:Szzuk
16:<
1095:talk
1071:Keep
1062:talk
1054:Keep
1008:talk
983:talk
896:talk
831:talk
815:Keep
788:talk
744:talk
630:talk
552:talk
516:talk
479:and
461:talk
438:talk
413:talk
356:talk
340:and
334:Keep
325:talk
317:Keep
286:talk
266:talk
180:FENS
154:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
63:talk
50:keep
1113:one
1075:GNG
562:4GW
194:TWL
123:– (
1097:)
1083:,
1064:)
1010:)
985:)
946:-
898:)
833:)
790:)
746:)
693:.
669:-
632:)
554:)
518:)
463:)
440:)
415:)
358:)
327:)
300:.
288:)
280:.
268:)
260:.
174:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
65:)
1093:(
1060:(
1006:(
981:(
894:(
829:(
786:(
742:(
628:(
550:(
514:(
459:(
436:(
432:.
411:(
354:(
323:(
284:(
264:(
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
128:·
121:)
83:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.