Talk:State collapse

Failed state

Previosly this topic redirected to Failed state which is not the same thing. Collapse is an event; failed state is a condition. Will add subgeadings on; State collapse and war, state collapse and nuclear weapons, leadership in collapsing states, asap

The difference is still not clear. The Soviet Union is frequently called a failed state and in the article we have "the USSR and white-ruled South Africa, collapsed." So why are two articles needed? Clarification, especially in the lede is badly needed.Rwood128 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I agree on that. The USSR always had a fully-functioning civil service, justice system, armed forces, police, schools, hospitals. Not a failed state IMHO

What I meant was that the Soviet Union failed in the end as a viable economic state and this led to its collapse. That is the words "failed" and "collapsed" tend to be used interchangeably in this context. Rwood128 (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Problems with various sections

There appears to be many problems with this article. In particular many comments are off-topic. See, for example. "Loss of territory"; "Ethnic cleansing and genocide"; "Collapse and nuclear weapons". A sentence like the following is not appropriate in an encyclopaedia: "Are the men who take states into collapse incompetent, evil, or merely the unlucky victims of historical forces not yet understood? Commentators disagree". The section "States at risk of collapse" is highly speculative and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Much further copy editing and deleting is required. Rwood128 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Speculative, yes, but speculation is a fact of much human behaviour.

The predictions of possible collapse are all sourced from respected publications. But I agree, 'at risk of collapse' does not logically follow.

The heading should read, 'Predictions of state collapse' or similar. Crawiki (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Doh, Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Will seek sources as to whether Hitler etc were evil, unlucky or incompetent Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Likewise ethnic cleansing, territory loss, nuclear weapons Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

'highly speculative and has no place in an encyclopedia' is IMHO, nonsense.

Thanks for the detailed comment. I should perhaps have been clearer. Speculation has no place in an article like this. Most of the content reads like tabloid headlines. Sorry if this is insulting but this section contains lots of nonsense–I'm afraid that I cannot say anything else.Rwood128 (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

YEs, that is insulting. More politically experienced editors than yourself have vetted this article without making such a comment. If you disapprove of speculation, do you intend to delete End times, Nostradamus, Eschatology, Twelfth Imam, etc? Generalised comments like this are not helpful.

My apologies. But there were major problems, especially the fact that there was no real discussion of actual states. I overreacted. Rwood128 (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The material in the section "Collapse and nuclear weapons" should be included in discussion of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the South African government, and Gadefy's regime in Libya. It is strange that there is no detailed discussion of such state collapses here, but a great deal of irrelevant (off-topic) stuff.Rwood128 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC) This also applies to the section "Ethnic cleansing and genocide in collapsing states". Rwood128 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that you agree below. Rwood128 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Rwood128, apology accepted. However, I'm concerned at the rather impulsive way you set about things. Eg, your earlier comment, 'neither of these states (India or Pakistan) collapsed. I'm aware of that. the relevance of the comment was that British India DID collapse. Also your deletion of Iranian general's comments as 'propaganda'. 'Being Iranian' is not a crime, nor is it evidence of dishonesty. the fact that his views were published by an Israeli publisher might have alerted you to possible plausibility here?

Please, just think things through a little more? Crawiki (talk)

Should war and conquest really be included here?

Should military defeat or conquest really be included here? Or at least it should be more clearly distinguished from other things that lead to a change in how a country is governed.

A detailed discussion of some major events, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the earlier Russian Empire is needed. Shouldn't the collapse British Empire–including the American War of Independence–and the collapse other Empires, such as the Roman be thoroughly discussed? Rwood128 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Germany and Japan in 1945 were defeated countries rather than failed states. Their system of government may have been a contributing factor but that would be speculative. Superior economic and technological factors and better leadership among the allies–as well as various other possibilities–may have been the cause.Rwood128 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You refer to Germany and Japan as failed states, I think you mean collapsed states. Regardless of the causes, it's indisputable that these countries did collapse. They were not failed states, because the victorious allies then set up transitional governments of military occupation. Will give some thought to the other idea. Decline of British empire really consists of multiple overlapping episodes of state decline and collapse - loss of America, Indian mutiny, loss of India, loss of Palestine, Suez crisis, loss of Sfrican colonies, loss of Hong kong But would it be OR to say so? Crawiki (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A 'detailed discussion of the collapse of Imperial Russia and the USSR would have to include mention of ethnic cleansing, loss of territory, and nuclear weapons.

But you've said elsewhere that these subjects are 'off topic'. Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The lede defines state collapse as "failure of a mode of governance within a state", so I think it might be better to leave out countries defeated in war. Poor decisions by Hitler, such as attacking the Soviet Soviet Union instead of finishing Britain off may have caused Germany to lose the war or any number of other causes (to speculate). I indicated this in revising the lede. Japan seems to have been defeated by superior military might rather than its "mode of governance.

I must admit that I struggle with the distinguishing between "failed state" and collapsed state. A failed state will surely eventually collapse. The problems with this article can be solved by concentrating on discussing concrete examples. The collapse of the Soviet Union is the best recent example, along with the end of apartheid. For earlier examples the English Civil War might well be a good place to start. Leave out war because there are too many examples and it will distract from the main focus of the article.Rwood128 (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought that it had been agreed that war would not be included? You deleted:

The phenomenon of state collapse includes failure due to internal struggle within a state, as in the English Civil War, but not failure due to military defeat by external forces, as in the two World Wars.

This was an attempt to clarify. And to narrow the scope of the article. There seems to be more than enough states to discuss, excluding war related change of regime. There is are obviously articles on war as well as the aftermath of war, but I don't know how well they deal with this political aspect?.

Perhaps you didn't see the explanation here. Check out the references section, where there is an explanatory quote from a History Today article.

Re your comment, 'a failed state will surely eventually collapse'. NO. a failed state is one that has collapsed, and then remains without an organized government, and lacks basic amenities like education, defence, police, civil service, legal system. Why must I spell these things out to you? It's explained in the article, and to be frank, I'm not here to provide free coaching in politics.

Thanks for clarifying. This is what Wikipedia is about. I will try and add this clarification to the lede. Rwood128 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Leaders

The relationship of this section, "Leaders", to the topic is not clear. The topic is supposed to be: "the complete failure of a mode of governance", not the failure of leadership. Rwood128 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Some simple analogies. Car crash; the police look for driver error. Train crash; ditto. Plane crash; they look for pilot error. In politics, the man in charge at the time of collapse holds the reins and is responsible. restoring this section. Crawiki (talk)

Reply: Surely a separate section is not needed, as discussion of actual countries now exist, Crawiki? Rwood128 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Hitler, the two are inseparable. The fuhrer was the state, and the state was the fuhrer. His word was law. He devised the 'mode of governance. See, eg Sebastian Haffner, The meaning of Hitler.

To some extent, same reasoning applies to Saddam, Musso and Milo

Perhaps I should add this explanation to the text. Crawiki (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making this clearer. Hitler, however, wasn't "the mode of governance". As stated elsewhere I think that it would be better to concentrate on states that collapsed on there own rather than countries defeated in war. If you disagree this can be dealt with in the article by clearly distinguishing different kinds of state collapse and revising the definition given in the lede. I favour a more narrow definition simply because there have been so many wars. The Czar Nicholas II might be a good example of poor leadership, when discussing the Russian Revolution of November 1917. There should not, however, be a separate section on leaders. This kind of section suggests a avoidance of the main topic–discussion of actual states that have collapsed. Rwood128 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Who decides on the mode of governance, if not the leaders, past or present? Crawiki (talk)

Examples section

The examples section seems problematic in two ways, firstly the format would be better in text rather than the present 'categories', which look ominously like WP:OR, secondly, whatever format is employed, claims need to be reffed. I cannot personally see how a " Negotiated surrender of power" such as RSA, constitutes 'state collapse', if it does, I would like to know how. Pincrete (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have quickly added some examples of significant state collapse to illustrate what was missing from the article. Obviously all the examples now mentioned in the article cannot be developed to this extent and it would probably be helpful to reduce the number even mentioned–this is just an encyclopaedia article not a history book. Rwood128 (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Psychological aspects

Crawiki–or anyone–can you think of a new heading that better sums up the section "Psychological aspects". Rwood128 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Rwood128 am unable to spend time on this until tomorrow morning, GMT Crawiki (talk)

Crawiki I merged the section with "Potential for instability". Hope that's acceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Current unstable governments

Some of the better examples, such as the European Union should be developed fully to give a fuller context.Rwood128 (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Regeneration

It is not entirely clear what some of the comments here have to do with collapsed states, or the prevention of collapse by regeneration. Clarification is needed–that is a fuller discussion. In Romania, for example, did the military coup try and regenerate communist ideology? Isn't Romania now in the E.U., and therefore another example of a collapsed state? Rwood128 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, communism died with Ceausescu. Yes, Romania joined the EU. No, Romania is not collapsing noew, nor is the EU. Crawiki (talk)

So there was regime change, state collapse that is, rather than regeneration? Can, you–Crawiki–clarify, because you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Romania is an example where regeneration was present for a very short time only. The military soon handed over power to a civilian government. This -frequient changes of government- happens a lot when states collapse. Eg French revolution, the monarchy collapsed vand was replaced by the Girondins, then Robespierre, then the Directory, then Napoleon. Crawiki (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Societal collapse

Is there any real difference between "Societal collapse", which is defined as "the fall or disintegration of complex human societies", and a "collapsed society"? Why shouldn't the fall of the Roman Empire be included here, if the fall of the Soviet Union is? On the other hand a "failed society" is clearly defined– at least within the Wikipedia article–as one that has not yet "collapsed", "fallen", or "disintegrated". Shouldn't the articles be merged? Rwood128 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

To answer my own question: the "Societal collapse" article differs from this one in that it does include foreign invasions and furthermore focusses on the distant past. The term. however, is highly ambiguous. Rwood128 (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

However, this still needs working on–the lede needs to be clearer and perhaps indicate that there can be overlapping here. But I don't have a background in political science, social science, or anthropology! Rwood128 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Common factors that may contribute to societal collapse are economical, environmental, social and cultural, and disruptions in one domain sometimes cascade into others. In some cases a natural disaster (e.g. tsunami, earthquake, massive fire or climate change) may precipitate a collapse. Other factors such as a Malthusian catastrophe, overpopulation or resource depletion might be the proximate cause of collapse. Significant inequity may combine with lack of loyalty to established political institutions and result in an oppressed lower class rising up and seizing power from a smaller wealthy elite in a revolution. The diversity of forms that societies evolve corresponds to diversity in their failures.

Jared Diamond suggests that societies have also collapsed through deforestation, loss of soil fertility, restrictions of trade and/or rising endemic violence." From the article.

References

Rwood128 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC) [This section is not important but as it is discussed below, I will not delete. Rwood128 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)]

Emphasis added. Rwood128 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying merge Societal collapse with State collapse? If so, absolutely not. The difference is made clear at the start of the article. If you're not a social scientist, please refrain from edits on anything you don't clearly understand. Instead, please comment on the talk page. jared Diamond's book is not relevant to state collapse, except possibly the chapter on Rwanda.Crawiki (talk)

The discussion here has to do with ambiguous terms, Crawiki, and possible overlap between them. If you are a social or political scientist, I hope that you will help clarify the difference between the two terms. The article does not as yet do this. This is an encyclopaedia article which should be clear to a non-specialist. This is what I have been working on–your participation, I would add, has been valuable in helping me better understand what was really intended.

I hope the new sections that look at actual states and provide the kind of concrete detail that the article lacked have been helpful.

Rwood128 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I realise now that there are places where I should have explained better. Amending article as requested. Crawiki (talk)

The following comment is found in the lede: "but [state collapse] differs from societal collapse, which is a more prolonged process". The lede to the "Societal collapse" article, however, states: "Societal collapse broadly includes abrupt societal failures such as that of the Maya Civilization, as well as more extended gradual declines of cultures, institutions, or a civilization like the fall of the Western Roman Empire" [my emphasis]. Doesn't this need to be clarified? Rwood128 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

British India

Rwood128, is your claim that 'British India became a failed state' supported by evidence? When Nehru took over from the British, was there's failure to provide education, healthcare, defence, transportation, taxation, etc? Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have created a new section on the partition of India and asked for help in developing it fully. Yugoslavia also requires attention, or is it really needed"– if we aren't careful there are going to be too many examples. This is just an encyclopaedia article. Rwood128 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

But should partition be included in the article: was there any collapse of the state, beyond a major break down of law and order? I may not be a political scientist, but this needs to be clarified. Rwood128 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jared Diaqmond? is not really relevant here, he talks about Easter Island and other tribal societies. –––[You are presumably referring to the discussion in the section above "Societal collapse", but you seem confused because my point related to the section in bold and particularly the use of the word revolution, and not Jared Diaqmond.Rwood128 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)]––discussion here fall of British Raj was certainly the end of this 'mode of government' as imperialist rule was replaced by independence and democracy. Crawiki (talk) Agreed.Rwood128 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

New Sub-headings

The proliferation of headings like "Crisis Point" and "Post-collapse" doesn't help improve the article. I have tried to reduce them. It would be be much better to add new ideas to the discussion of specific states, as has been done with the "Nuclear" and "Genocide" sections. Multiple vague headings only confuse readers. I'm sure that Wikipedia most have comments somewhere on this very matter. And I see that there are even more. Is there anyone out there who can add to this conversation? Nihil novi, as you have edited here recently, what do you think? Rwood128 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As we were beginning to go round in circles, I have also placed a request with the Guild of Copy Editors at [1]. I think an outside opinion would be helpful here. I hadn't realized that you had created the article and perhaps should have been more sensitive to that fact. Rwood128 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Rwood128, thanks for your cogent, constructive critiques and edits to this article.

Its subject matter seems especially topical, given the ongoing pandemic of state collapses and failures. Crawiki has brought in a good deal of information and sources.

I think the article's effect could be improved by adding more detailed information on illustrative cases, summarized from the relevant articles, e.g., on the collapses of the Roman and Maya Empires.

Other editors with interest in history might also be willing to add appropriate content.

Wikipunctuation specialists might help Crawiki with the intricacies of that realm.

I would gladly help implement these suggestions but, for the present, am under time constraints.

While an encyclopedia is not a crystal ball, I think that serious, well argued predictions could be considered. The article on "Predictions of the dissolution of the Soviet Union" was started only in 2006—15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Somehow seems a shame!

Nihil novi (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nihil novi and User:Rwood128 for your interest in this as you say, topical topic. As you may have seen, complaints about OR and Synth are rife and it may be deleted. this is a bit Catch-22 because the absence of a source textbook a) makes the article necessary but b) also makes it deletable. I have put out enquires and hope a suitable source can be located. My former Uni tutor may know something useful Crawiki (talk)

Copyright violations

See WP:copying within Wikipedia There is text in this article that is a cut and past from others but no copyright attribution has been given as required by the WP:copyright policy and the WP:copying within Wikipedia guideline.

See this earwig diff between the article English Civil War and Revision 16:07, 7 November 2017 of this article. As an example.

The editors responsible for such copies must add copyright attribution for such copies. This copy infringement was added in Revision as of 13:11, 6 November 2017 by user:Rwood128.

Reply: An attribution was in fact given in the edit summary. Rwood128 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

How did I find this? I used Wikiblame. I recognised this one because I wrote the original sentence including "machinations" with Revision as of 12:55, 1 January 2005 (found the edit in less than a minute using wikiblame).

If there are more cut and pasts then they need attribution. The simplest way to do this is cut the derived text out of the article, save it and then undo the edit replacing the undo edit line with an edit comment "copied content from English Civil War; see that page's history for attribution" Do that for the text from each article copied copied. -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted most of this and will rewrite the remainder. Crawiki (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

PBS attributions were in fact provided. To give just one example––– "14:28, 7 November 2017‎ Rwood128 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,161 bytes) (+737)‎ . . (→‎Crisis Point: Material added from the "Occupation of Japan'" article)".

I have used this method to indicate copied material in the past, and it has always been accepted by other editors. See this discussion on my talk page [2]. The matter was also raised earlier with regard to this article [3]. I set out to try and quickly improve a poorly written article. Obviously I was wasting my time–fortunately this is a rare experience. Rwood128 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rwood128 See the example I gave above "Revision as of 13:11, 6 November 2017". The edit comment added to the history "English Civil War edited with edited material from the article on that topic" does not meet the requirements, which are for explicit attribution with a link to the article in the edit history.. There are lots of articles on the English Civil War and it is not at all obvious which one is meant now let alone in the future is the article is moved. "edited material" is not explicitly stating that it is copied from the article -- the it could be a summary and not copy of the original text. I suggest that in future you use the wording provided as an example in the guideline WP:copying within Wikipedia. "copied content from English Civil War; see that page's history for attribution" you can always append to it something like "modified to fit into this article" if you have tweaked it. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful advice. The example that you use is indeed very clumsily worded, though "from the article on that topic" isn't as ambiguous as you suggest. I was guilty of sloppiness rather than violating copyright–and working too fast! Thanks for helping me reconsider my approach. Rwood128 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR and specifially WP:SYNTHESIS

I am of a mind to put this artilce up for an AfD and will need to be convinced here by the principle authors why I should not do this.

WP:NOR states on the nutshell at the top:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources.

I shall use that summary to explain my concerns about this article.

The lead as it 12:17, 8 November 2017‎ (with numbers on the paragraphs for ease of refernece)

1. State collapse, breakdown, or downfall is the complete failure of a mode of governance within a state, and an immediate process of transition to a new administration; basic services such as tax collection, defence, police, civil service and courts are either maintained throughout, or else quickly restored. Examples include the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the collapse of South Africa's white supremacist government in 1993. 2. State collapse may coincide with economic collapse but differs from societal collapse, which is a wider, supranational event. For example, the decline and fall of the British Empire was a societal collapse that included several state-collapse events - the American war of independence, the Indian mutiny, the Boer war, the loss of the Palestine mandate, British India and several African colonies. 3. State collapse differs from a failed state, which may be disrupted by violence and crime, and is unable to provide coherent governance or basic amenities like education, defence, police, civil service, legal system. 4. Not all attempts at regime change bring about state collapse: the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the Decembrist revolt in Russia and the Babington plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England, were ineffective. 5. Political scientists often have difficulty understanding the process of state collapse. Few credibly predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union or agreed on its causes.. No one predicted the Arab spring. Though many writings study particular cases of state collapse in isolation, there appears to be no one notable text which compares these events on a global historical basis and identifies their common features. References

1. "and an immediate process of transition to a new administration" Really? what about the fall of the Roman Empire (No Gibbon in this analysis then)? This means this is a very specific example of a definition of "State collapse" which needs to be a common one and that means commonly used to mean this definition. If not this would seem to be (Original Research) OR.

2. Where is the source to back up that wide sweeping summary. It is certainly not a summary of what appears in the sections "Before 1901", "After 1900" "After 1950" with sources. As such is seems to be OR.

3. By the definition given in the first paragraph yes,

• 3.1 but failed state is a relatively new phenomenon. It did not happen before the United Nations, in the age of empires because failed states would be annexed by another. Have a look at the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna to get an idea of how people and lands were treated by sates in a similar way to the modern purchase of a commercial farm see General Treaty ART. XXIII.
• 3.2 States are not initially recognised as failed states they may become one but to become one the recognised government must collapse (ie meet common meaning of the collapse of the government of an internationally recognised state).

4. Well of course not. In many many cases illegitimate regime change fails (probably more often than not coups/putschs fail). As for plots they are two a penny the most famous of all in English history is probably the Gun Powder Plot which as very child in the Commonwealth knows failed.

5. Seems to me to be the justification for this being anything but a dictionary definition and I think it breaches OR "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources."

So please explain why this article should not be put up for AFD. -- PBS (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to 1; What is relevance of Roman Empire here? That was a societal, not a state, collapse. Crawiki (talk)

  The Western Roman Empire was a state it is no more it collapsed. What followed were the dark ages, specifically in Roman Britain, and in may other places as well. There was not "an immediate process of transition...". This refutes what is being stated in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to 2, this deleted. Never keen on it but another editor wanted to see an explanation Crawiki (talk)
• Reply to 3; Good point User:PBS Not covered by existing articles. Crawiki (talk)
• Reply to 4; I included this para only to pre-empt other editors from suggesting the two articles be combined. Crawiki (talk)

  See WP:LEAD(4) does not belong in the lead unless it is mentioned elsewhere. -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to 5; The best general text on this topic is Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. I will search for others Crawiki (talk)

  There is a very big difference between the fall of Great Powers and state collapse, they are not one and the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Crawiki I have reformatted you replies
@User:Crawiki I have reformatted you replies. I think it would be a good idea if you were to read help:talk and WP:TALK. -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC) NB use colons (":") at the start of lines to indent you replies and use four tildes ~~~~ so sign all you posts so that you signature has "link to user", "link to user talk page" and a time stamp.

@User:Crawiki please read WP:NOR and explain to me why you do not think that this whole article is anything but original research based on some sources that breach "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (WP:SYNTHESIS) -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

'This whole article' is a sweeping comment isn't it? just like the one you criticised me for?

I said I'd find a better source, and did. See revised lead with reference. Crawiki (talk)

Apologies for the punctuation and formatting blunders Crawiki (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You comment "This whole ..." misses the point I am not publishing anything to advance a point of view, it is you that have to show that this article "Do[es] not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Crawiki Please look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy and also some of the articles in the See also section of that policy an this essays meta:Deletionism and meta:Inclusionism. Then look at the process WP:AfD. To see a fairly typical day's entries look at a week ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 2). To look at an entry that is similar to this one see Philippine economic miracle. The problem with AfDs is that it is very easy for passing editors to make comments (at at least one of them did in that example "No such thing's happened. I was there myself for two weeks last December."), which have nothing to do with the merits of the reliable sources used to support the article. AfD can become a lottery between "deletionists" and "inclusionists".

At the moment I am leaning towards putting this article up for AfD. But I have not done so to give you a chance to explain why I should not. You have made several changes to the text since my first comment here but, there is no use doing that, because if the article is a valid topic then the article will have sources to support it.

• The lead is not a summary of the body of the article the lead needs to be a summary of the article see WP:LEAD.

In the last 24 hours you have also added "Collapsed states often fragment into smaller nation-states." giving the example of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, However to you have a source that explicitly states that or are you extrapolating from you own research?

In the lead you have recently added a citation "Marina Ottaway, 'Rebuilding State Institutions in Collapsed States, Development and Change, 33(5) , 2002 ", what is the page number you are citing and what does it say, is it talking about a specific period in history or does it make a claim over all historic periods?

In the lead you have recently added "State collapse may coincide with economic collapse, but differs from societal collapse, which is a wider, supranational event". It is not clear what that sentence means or what part of the body of the article it is supposed to summarise. Please explain?

I could continue this but you really need to explain to me what reliable Sources you are basing your overall analysis on. Without that this becomes OR based on Synthesis and I will put the article up for deletion. Perhaps I can help you understand what I am trying to find out by pointing you to English Civil War#Historiography and explanations. It includes 4 different types of historical analysis for one war. The differ, but the are three different schools and view by Hobbs (which needs cutting down). -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

State collapse may coincide with Economic collapse.

State collapse may occur repeatedly during Societal collapse. For example, during the societal collapse of the British empire , state collapse of the East India Company rule in India, of The British Raj, of Mandate Palestine and of African colonies, also occurred.

Three different processes requiring three separate articles IMHO Crawiki (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your sources for the analysis? -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to source comments on the talk page? Surely this is just common sense? Why must I spell out the differences between basic terms I e economics, politics, state and society?Crawiki (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Crawiki. You are missing my point. You have written an article about "State collapse". You are now saying that there are different types of State collapse. I have explained several times that the policy WP:NOR sates "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources". Let me give you a concrete examples.

1. Genocidal massacre is a term used by some experts in genocide studies. Notice it has the name of the person who introduced it and some criticism of the term along with its usage.
2. Violent non-state actor, basically an American military academic term (no its not a tautology), but it side-steps emotional terms like terrorist, and again it is a definition produced and used by reliable secondary sources.
3. Annexation concentrates on the modern meaning of the term. It does not try to be comprehensive because prior the Fourth Geneva Convention what was acceptable under international law is no longer.
4. Ethnic cleansing has a whole section on definitions.
5. Military occupation has a whole section on Military occupation and the laws of war

My point is that article have to be based on reliable secondary sources. I have listed those article to show you the difference between couple that are academic terms and aome more general ones. In each case they have sources that define the scope of the articles. In the case of Annexation the scope is deliberately confined to post World War II and the introduction of Geneva Convertions IV (GCIV). The reason for this is explained in the commentary on GCIV, that what was acceptable prior to GCIV was not longer acceptable. Hence the article either had to be focused or it was going to turn for an article on annexation into a historical list of annexations which would not have explained to a reader what annexation is in the 21st century. It is similar with the article military occupation.

If this article is not going to be deleted, you are going to have to show that there are reliable secondary sources that have used the term and what they mean by it. Or you need to find international definitions of what it means today and junk the history. A general article like it is at the moment is OR and not Encyclopaedic. P.S. have you read the WP:NOR policy and What Wikipedia is not? -- PBS (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of saying anywhere that there are different types of state collapse. Do you mean those arising from civil war are a different type from those arising from invasion, from negotiation, and from coup d'état? Yet all would fall within the definition in the lead. Genocide, ethnic cleansing are generic symptoms rather than types. Please explain what you mean by 'types' as I'm not following you.

Yes I've read WP:NOR 

I have revised the lead and rejigged a section on 'history of the concept' which please read as it shows the 'reliable secondary sources' you require on this topic; and highlights the woeful fact that a fourteenth century Islamic scholar seemed to know more about it than any modern one. Hence the gap in knowledge which this article attempts to plug. Obviously he never used the exact phrase 'state collapse' per se - he spoke no English one presumes - but equally obvious is that the regimes he studied, Almohads, Almoravids etc were states and did collapse.

I'm sure your 'concrete examples are useful. But wouldn't it save time all round if you would simply specify where in MY article there is OR and SYNTH? That way, I can fix them much quicker.Crawiki (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Still awaiting your reply User:PBS Crawiki (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald Przebowski

His 2009 book, The rise and fall of the United States, 2009, argues by analogy with past experience (Greece, Rome, China, Islamic caliphate, modern Europe, Ottomans) that collapse of the US is inevitable. Looks like being the best source of info here. I've ordered a copy Crawiki (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Diacritics and subscripts

Re the comment of 'no excuse' for omitting a subscript from 'Ceausescu'. Researching the matter, I find there is no consensus and a WP discussion was closed. The source I quoted from says 'Ceausescu' Crawiki (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia: use diacritics and Wikipedia: usage of diacritics. Crawiki (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Crawiki (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Italics

It is customary to place the titles of books and periodicals in italics. And the titles of articles, in quotation marks, thus: "__________".

Regards,

Nihil novi (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to do this. Clicked on favourites, then on 'compatibility view settings', then clicked 'OK'. a toolbar appears with an italic key. But it doesn't work. All it does is to add additional quotation marks thus. Crawiki (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If you switch to the page "edit" mode for typing text into an article, in order to obtain italics you need to type two apostrophe marks at both ends of the text that is to be italicized. Thus: italics.

Give this a try—open this note of mine in "edit" mode—and let me know of any further problem!

(In my experience, the best way to learn Wikipedia typography is to switch some article into "edit" mode and imitate its typography.)

Nihil novi (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Crawiki: two single quotation marks each side of the title or word. But I'm not using Beta and am working from a desk top.

By the way you should also check on some basic rules, like– p. 5, and pp. 3–7, and where to place a citation. Hope this is helpful.

Rwood128 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Crawiki I don't know if you are aware of "Google Ngram Viewer" [4]. If you aren't. it's a useful tool to check on concepts and for sources of information. Rwood128 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Immortal

The following sentence from the lede implies that Nazi Germany was 'immortal': "as Martin Wight points out, 'states are immortal'. ... Nazi Germany, 'crushed' in 1945, was, as West Germany, 'rapidly rearmed against Russia' ". It also ignores that Germany was divided into two separate countries. A minor quibble is that it should be the Soviet Union (USSR) rather than Russia.

The idea of state immortality, in the context of state collapse (death?), needs to be clarified. There are many examples of states were not immortal. And if the USSR 'collapsed and fragmented in 1991,' how is the USSR, or strictly speaking Imperial Russia, immortal? Rwood128 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea that a state is immortal is not discussed in the body of the article, so it should be removed from the lede, see [5].

Also given Nihil novi's faith in your ideas, Crawiki, I'm presuming that the problem here is that the idea is not expressed in sufficient detail or with enough clarity. Please expand the discussion in the body of the article. Rwood128 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the monarchy ended in Russia in 1917 that mode of governance ended, unless one sees Stalin etc. as czars in disguise. Isn't there a contradiction between the definition of "state collapse"–"the complete failure of a mode of governance–and the idea that the mode of governance in Russia before 1917 is immortal? Likewise the Nazi mode of totalitarian governance died, though the German state, has survived (at least in a resurrected version after 1989).

Is there possibly some confusion (ambiguity) here in how the words "governance" and "state" are used? Rwood128 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Block quotes

Re your misuse of block quotes, User talk:Crawiki, please see [6]. You might also fix various errors in citations, especially the absence of italics to the titles of books [7]. Hope that this is helpful. Rwood128 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Paragraphs

While Wikipedia is a work in progress, the sections in this article tend to consist of short, unconnected paragraphs. See [8]. The Copyedit banner should be restored, unless this problem is resolved (there was no explanation given for its removal). Rwood128 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I put in a request to the GOCE for this article, which should help resolve some of the issues. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Enlighten me please; what is GOCE? Crawiki (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

OK got it; guild of copy editorsCrawiki (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Somalia & Chad

Both Somalia (see [9] and Chad are only mentioned in the lede. Shouldn't there be some discussion in the body of the article to prove the statements? Rwood128 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Governance

Doesn't the difference between governance and politics need to be more clearly defined? See "Public governance" [10]: "There is a distinction between the concepts of governance and politics." Rwood128 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The following is also worth noting:

Speakers of American English often use the terms state and government as synonyms, with both words referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory (lede of "State (polity)" article). Rwood128 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A further question. Does "state" in the lede refer to State (polity) or to a Sovereign state? That is should the link be changed? I presume that a sovereign state is synonymous with a nation?

I changed governance to government, less ambiguous. May be popular to elide government withe state, but its not right. Politics: everyone can participate. Government: is limited to those in power/office at a given time State: an entity run by a government. Hope this is clear.

Crawiki (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Then we have nation which may or not be synonymous with sovereign state. Also "nation state" and country to add to the possible confusion/ambiguity. Rwood128 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

As there are also federated states, I presume that the Canadian provinces and Swiss cantons are states, though English counties are not. But are Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland states (though obviously not sovereign states)? Rwood128 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

German Empire

"The German Empire (German: Deutsches Kaiserreich, officially Deutsches Reich) was the German nation state that existed from the Unification of Germany in 1871 until the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918." Rwood128 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH/WP:OR

An encyclopedic article is not a long list of quotes by seemingly unconnected authors. In the long version, prior to your cuts, quotes were only 15% of the total text Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Kleuske This doesn't explain why you cut 80% of the lead. For example, the difference between State collapse and Failed state. Absent this, editors will say, let's merge these articles.

If you dislike the quotes, why the necessity to cut all related text as well?Crawiki (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Kleuske please answer the above points. Where is the SYNTH in the lead? Crawiki (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

See also section "Paragraphs" above. Rwood128 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Kleuske does not in my humble opinion have a clear view of what SYNTH is. Last week he cut 90% of this article claiming 'SYNTH and OR', without providing any evidence. He did so again earlier this week. This is not how Wikipedia works; see WP: What SYNTH is not. In particular;

WP: SYNTH is not explanation

'SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis.'

WP: SYNTH is not presumed

'If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.'

WP: SYNTH is not a catch-all

'If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim.'

WP: SYNTH is not important per se

WP: SYNTH is not a policy

'It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research.'

It's clear from this that the burden of proof is on Kleuske to explain why he deleted each and all of the following subsections;

part of the lead

History of the concept

Examples

Sequence of events

States allegedly at risk of collapse

Role of the leader

These all appear to me to be explanation rather than SYNTH.Crawiki (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like synth / OR to me. Perhaps someone should nominate the article for deletion to initiate a proper discussion. 92.28.128.7 (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Synth is not presumed. You can't glibly claim 'it looks like Synth' without goid reasons. Crawiki (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE

This article is little more than a series of quotations and in its present state is unsuitable for a copy edit.Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Twofingered Typist Does that mean I can reinstate the text deleted last week (which amounted to almost 90% of the article), as long as I leave out the quotations? In any event, the quotations don't amount to more than 15% of the total text. I counted them Crawiki (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

US 'at risk of collapse'

To the anonymous editor who deleted text on 4/1; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, impartial, and non-racist. If you wish to claim that Emanuel Todd, a respected published author, writes 'propaganda'; or that the writings of a general published in an Israeli newspaper cannot be trusted, merely on the grounds that he is 'Iranian', fine. I am sure there is a forum for your views somewhere.

Just not in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki (talk • contribs) 12:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

False source used within the article

Hello. I wanted to point out that this sentence is incorrect: "A secret CIA report sees the end of Israel by 2022.[111]"

I googled the source, which is "Ryan Jones, Israel today, 'CIA sees end of Israel by 2022', 1st July 2012"

The source revealed the following:

A Syrian journalist interviewed on Palestinian Authority TV last month claimed that years ago he had been privy to a CIA memo that informed former US President Bill Clinton that Israel would not exist beyond the year 2022.

...

As the veracity of Al-Bujayrami's claims is very much in question, perhaps most telling was the reaction of the television host, who, again, was representing an official media outlet of the same Palestinian Authority that is ostensibly Israel's peace partner.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23278/Default.aspx?article=related_stories

I would edit this but I don't want to deal with an edit war and I have strongly held opinions, so I'd like to leave it to the pros.

Loknar (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

References

The {{request edit}} template is for use in scenarios where the requesting editor has a conflict of interest. To have a COI, the subject's role as a Wikipedia editor must come into conflict with another quasi-official role which the editor holds. "Strongly-held opinions", while affecting an editor's editing choices, do not rise to the level of COI unless the editor has been or continues to be paid by one of the foreign governments or parties directed to act on the interests of the foreign governments mentioned in these edits (e.g., Israel or the PA). If this is the case, please advise.  Spintendo  05:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess I don't have a COI then. I thought it was just if I felt really passionate about a topic. My apologies.

Loknar (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Allegedly...

@Crawiki: The section you reinstated is not reliably sourced, and not opinions by experts. It is, however, highly speculative.

• Case in point: Nigel Lawson is not an expert on the EU, he's a Tory politician with a definite horse in the political race (Brexit). Pretty much the same goes for Andrzej Duda. Stephen Pollard is a journalist and nothing in his bio qualifies him as an expert. As to the sourcing of the "leaked German Government contingency plan", it details a worst case scenario, not a prediction, the source reveals. Government make contingency plans all the time (if they're any good).
• The "Islamic fundamentalist revolutionary wave" is not a state.
• Mohammad Reza Naqdi is a senior officer in the Revolutionary Guards. Not an expert.
• etc. Kleuske (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with speculation in discussion of the future. If there were, Wikipedia would have to delete any reference to Christ's second coming, the book of revelation, apocalypse, the hidden imam, in fact everthing eschatological.

Quibbling about two or three examples in no way justifies deletion of the entire section. It's just stupid. You have a past history of such tactics.

Your discussion of who is and is not an expert is just personal opinion amounting to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Crawiki (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Being a politician /journalist does not disqualify anyone from being an expert. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

No one is claining the Islamic revolutionary wave is a state. But Iran, mentioned in the same sentence, certainly is. Crawiki (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are claiming Pierce Morgan is an expert on the EU, on what grounds? Because you think he is? Did he write a dissertation, study the subject at some university? The same goes for the other examples mentioned. WP:CRYSTAL, specifically mentions "the ultimate fate of the universe" as an allowable example, because it is discussed by accepted experts in the field: astronomers, cosmologists, physicists. Where are the credentials of your so-called experts?

And please, do not re-add that section, knowing there are valid objections to it, as you did last time. Kleuske (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: The article is full of pseudo-experts. Another case in point is ""Donald Przebowski" "Rise and fall of the United States". Not a single reference to this book is to be found, outside of this article. Not one. Not even a review (or even a rating) on Goodreads.com. If this is a reliable source, where are the citations, the reviews, the recommendations of various literary and scientific critics? Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Deleted section reinstated as per talk page comments which Kleuske has elected to ignore. This doesn't make them any the less valid. Kleuske's preferred version of the article represents state collapse as a thing of the past. Since human nature and the structure of politics remain unchanged, this is extremely unlikely. States will continue to collapse, and the article should reflect this. The best way to do so is to draw from the informed opinions of those with experience..." (copied from edit summary).

I responded above, asking for a valid reason to view Piers Morgan as an expert on the EU. You have not responded. Whether or not states will collapse in future is not the question. The question is wether the claim "these are experts" suffices to ignore WP:CHRYSTAL. SO far, User:Crawiki has not responded to that. So please, why are the people mentioned above "experts" instead of politicians, authors and journalists with an opinion? Kleuske (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wp crystal is very clear. The opinions of recognised experts in a particular field may be included. Crawiki (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Piers Morgan may or may not be a good journalist. I do not accept that dragging his name into the debate is a valid way of arguing that no journalists can have valid opinions about the future. One should not generalise from one particular article. That's a red herring. Crawiki (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

My point exactly. None of the people mentioned are recognized experts in this particular field. You have provided zero evidence of them being recognized experts in the field. Kleuske (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So you don't like Prezebowski. In what way does this justify removing a mass of information, unmentioned by Prezebowski, about China, Israel, Iran, the EU, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc? Crawiki (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We appear to disagree about who are the experts on politics. If not Lawson etc, then who? Only professors? Only politics graduates? What about professors who also do a bit of journalism? Frankly, if a hands on politician like Lawson is not an expert, no one is. Crawiki (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Then there's this from the World in 2040' report from the CIA... '"This mismatch between governments' abilities and publics' expectations is likely to expand and lead to more political volatility, including growing polarisation and populism within political systems, waves of activism and protest movements, and, in the most extreme cases, violence, internal conflict, or even state collapse." Still not 'expert' enough? The world can go to hell, and Kleuske is insistent that Wikipedia must not mention the possibilities. You couldn't make it up. Crawiki (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Once more, WP:CRYSTAL says this isn't allowed. We are writing an encyclopedia, here, not a work of fiction, not a prediction, an encyclopedia, "a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either from all branches or from a particular field or discipline." None of the people mentioned are "recognized experts" in the field of "state collapse", since there aren't any experts in that field. No politicians, no journalists, no authors. Opinions abound, but they're just that, opinions. If that opinion is on some future event, which might or might not happen, WP:CRYSTAL prohibits it.

We can predict the ultimate fate of the universe, since we have a coherent theory on how the universe works. We have no equivalent heory on statehood, how it thrives and how it fails. Kleuske (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Speculation that a specific state is going to collapse in the near future or on a specific date falls under the requirement of WP:CRYSTAL that "expected future events" be "almost certain to take place". It's hard to argue that the predicted collapses are even more likely than not to happen, much less "almost certain". A handful of commentators can be documented having that opinion, but expert or not, most of their peers would not predict collapse. And there's no reliable, well-understood social mechanism they can point to justify such an opinion; the history of nations is turbulent and very hard to predict. Some of the predictions in the section have already failed to come to pass, such as the collapses of North Korea, Lebanon, and Jordan. What would be more encyclopedic is to document sources of potential instability, and not predict that this will lead to collapse. This is actually useful to readers, as it gives them ways to potentially increase the stability of a given country and avoid or postpone a state collapse. I'll take a whack at revising the section. -- Beland (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with Kleuske's assertions. State collapse is a phenomenon within the field of politics. Any expert in politics is an expert in state collapse. WP crystal says, 'It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.' Crawiki (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Beland, you're quoting out of context. The stipulation about events being 'almost certain to take place' refers to future scheduled events only: for example, US elections or the Olympic games. Crawiki (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that policy refers to "scheduled or expected future events" not "scheduled future events". It does use elections and the Olympics of examples of scheduled events that are almost certain to happen. If anything, unscheduled events are even less likely to happen than scheduled events, and so are less likely to be included in Wikipedia. Giving due weight to opinions on the prospect of state collapse means that if, for example, an expert is cited predicting the collapse of the United States, a larger number of experts should be cited predicting that the United States will not collapse. That seems like it would largely be a waste of text, as someone has predicted the collapse of apparently even the most stable country. It would help if we limited citations to only people who had conducted scientific sociological studies across countries, and written a book or published a theory as to why countries collapse and thus have some method of ranking which are the least stable. That would be closer to the requirement of "reliable, expert sources" than one-off opinions about the future of specific countries. I didn't see any such sources in the section in question. For now, I have rewritten it as a list of potential sources of instability, with some examples, past and present. It could probably use expansion, better sourcing, and merging with the section "Potential for instability" which is mostly focused on the personality of the person in charge (which is one of many potential sources of instability). -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Again it's necessary to point out, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.'

  Kleuske asserts unilaterally that there are ' no experts' on this subject. Think about that for a moment.  If it were the case, the whole article would have to be scrapped, since no reliable expert sources would be available.  
The new section contains a great many unsourced points. Are you planning to put that right?  Crawiki (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You're onto it: The whole article should be scrapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion at Failed state

There's a merger discussion on the Failed state[11] where it's proposed that any salvageable content from State collapse be merged with Failed state. Thenightaway (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"Recent speculative predictions of state collapse"

I have removed the section on "Recent speculative predictions of state collapse." Major problems here:

1. The most important one: it is very clear synthesis. As I said in my edit summary, this summary was a random grab bag of unrelated news articles, op-eds, and analyses predicting the collapse of the various states. Most of the articles didn't even use the phrase "state collapse" or discuss the concept of state collapse in political science, international relations, etc.
2. It's speculation and undue weight. The problem with a grab bag of unrelated sources cobbled together by a wiki editor is that there is no way for a reader to understand why these particular examples, and not others, were chosen. If there were some academic article or retrospective on state collapse generally, that might be different.
3. Most of the "speculation" is not particularly "recent" - sources are as far back as 2006 and 2015, if not earlier. So again, undue weight and not encyclopedic for that reason.
4. Some of the cites dealt with predictions of a government collapsing (i.e., change in regime type) rather than "state collapse" as such.

--Neutrality^talk 23:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was unencyclopedic and did not belong. Thanks for deleting. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you've both been overhasty. Firstly, synth is not presumed. The onus is on the editor deleting to prove that the content takes a deductive form, ie 'A is true, B is true, therefore C is also true'. that has simply not been done. If you wish to allege that the content does contain such connections, you cannot also contradict yourself by alleging that it's a 'random grab-bag of UNRELATED sources'. Before crying 'unencyclopedic' please consult WP:CRYSTAL especially 'It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.' Articles containing/about rational predictions do occur in Wikipedia; check out Thucydides Trap, World War III, Second American Civil War, Projections of population growth, Climate change scenario, etc. The question therefore is not 'should there be a section about prediction?', but 'how much detail should it contain?' I'll be polite and wait for your further comments before proceeding. Crawiki (talk)

None of what you said is really responsive to anything I wrote. And synthesis doesn’t need to be “deductive”; synthesis occurs whenever an article takes material from multiple sources “to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.” Neutrality^talk 03:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

1, What part of 'it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced' are you failing to understand? 2, you have provided NO evidence of SYNTH and the onus is on you to do so. What is the 'conclusion not explicitly stated by any source' that you appear to see in the text? Crawiki (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Reminder: 'If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.' Crawiki (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

‚Order Final Solution‘

„Hitler ordered the killing of invalids, Gypsies, Russians and Jews in the Final solution.“ The ‚smoking gun‘ that Hitler gave the order to the ‚Final Solution‘ (German: Endlösung) has never been discovered, nor does any proof exists that Hitler himself had come up with a concrete vision of such unprecedented, industrialized mass murder. Rather, historians, sociologists, and psychologists are struggling to explain how such atrocities could be commenced by large swaths of administrative actions with the absence of such direct order. So called ‚Schreibtischmörder‘ (desk murderers) planned and gave written orders for mass executions in mass shootings, forced labor resulting in death, and later in the killings in gas chambers. To this day, it is not clear how this unique mass murder scheme could develop without a direct order from the head of state, dictator Hitler himself. The Final Solution is in deed the accumulation and streamlined result of the ‘Wannsee Conference’, in which high ranking officers, namely under the helm of Reinhard Heydrich, and not Hitler himself. However, the genocide was already being committed since the outbreak of WWII with the ‚Blitzkrieg’ into Poland. It has been argued that the concept of group think led to the creation of an absolute inhuman, never before and afterwards executed genocide. Hence, the absence of a direct order by Hitler has to be found within the Nazi administration itself, supported morally, logistically, and executed by the German people in military and civilian life alike. The so-called ’Erbschuld’ (inherited guilt) sums up the upset of the missing direct order by Hitler for mass executions. The awareness that the genocide, most notably the Holocaust (Shoa), has many planners and even more known and still many unknown executioners spreads the burden of commencement of the Final solution on many shoulders. Although the Nuremberg Trials attempted to solve the issue of responsibility of the atrocities, it never amounted to a single individual being found singularly responsible. Israel tried and found Adolf Eichmann guilty of being a ‘Schreibtischmörder‘, as the integral force to organize the transports via train to the Death Camps, while Eichmann insisted to have only written orders on paper, rather than participating in the massacres. The idea to blame Hitler for the Final Solution absolves the many criminal people within Nazi Germany. The concept Erbschuld tries to account for the collective guilt, but fails to explain it. PedroZwackel (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)