Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There is an important distinction to be made here between the book and the possible seccessionist movements themselves, in that nothing has been advanced here to show that the former is notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America

Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a book review for a book which was briefly published by American Eagle Publications, which is hardly what one would call a mainstream publishing house, and is now an ebook. No evidence of any scholarly discussion of this book that I can see, the closest we get to a claim of notability is this: In about 2001 there was a made-for-TV-movie about a Civil War II that started in 2020 with a Chicano revolt in the Southwest that appeared on a cable channel with a scenario very similar to but not based directly on Chittum's book. Er, right, so it was not made into a film then. The Wikipedia article is obviously written from personal knowledge, not a distillation of the cited sources (because there aren't any). Guy (Help!) 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails notability. Also WP:ATT, WP:RS and probably WP:COI. --Folantin 14:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete American Eagle Publications is an organization that exists primarily so its founder can publish books about computer virus writing that (presumably) nobody else would publish due to the obvious legal risks in doing so. Its books, with one or two exceptions, are not notable. This is not an exception. Also, the article The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution may need attention, as it seems to contain a reference to this book. JulesH 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are a lot of secessionist groups listed in the "see also" list that want to secede from the United States. Even though these groups are small as of 2007, secessionist sentiment is an important political issue that may need to be addressed in the near future, especially since there is a possibility that the Peak Oil situation which may develop in within the next five years or so may make sentiments favoring secessionist movements more prevalent. In addition, the science fiction book by Geordi LaForge and the 2001 TV movie shows that others are thinking along these lines (the TV movie and the science fiction book even showed the United States breaking up into White, Black, and Hispanic republics, just like Chittum's book). There are no cited sources because nobody wants to address an unpopular viewpoint that is so pessimistic, but it is a viewpoint that should be heard and that people should be aware of. Keraunos 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That the topic of the book is an important subject is no reason to have an article on the book. Where are the reliable secondary sources we can use to verify commentary on the subject? JulesH 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep [Editor has five edits, all to this page] The book Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America is a major landmark on the American Right. As such, it is simply too important to lack Wikipedia coverage. It boldly picked up where certain other works left off such as "The Fallacy of the Multiethnic State: The Case of Yugoslavia," by Tomislav Sunic that appeared in a 1990 edition of the Conservative Review, and ""Militant Musings: From Nightmare 1995 to My Utopian 2050" by William S. Lind that appeared in the April 30, 1995 Sunday Washington Post. I was so impressed with this work that in the summer of 2006 I went out of my way to meet the author. Later that fall I spent over a week of my time personally crafting the new ebook version for America First Books. I also explained in the Preface that I wrote for this new edition why I view it as very timely and relevant even though it is now over a decade since its first publication in 1996. Please note the very positive reviews for the out-of-print soft cover version at amazon.com. It has five reviews with the maximum five-star ratings each, and one review with four stars. Also, on right wing talk shows I have heard listeners spontaneously bring up Mr. Chittum's work to talk show hosts many times. This happened four different times in the spring and summer of 2006 on Michael Collins Piper's talk show on Republic Broadcasting Network, which helped inspire Mike Piper to have Tom Chittum on his show twice in the fall. In fact, illegal immigration control activist Frosty Wooldridge, who now has his own talk show on the Republic Broadcasting Network, wrote a two-part feature article series about Civil War Two posted online in December 2006 at freedomsphoenix.com (see Part Oneand Part Two). Earlier, when Mr. Wooldridge was being interviewed by John Stadtmiller on his National Intel Report show, a person called in and stimulated a lengthy discussion about this book. Between Mike Piper, John Stadtmiller, and Frosty Wooldridge, the tone was fairly similar to my own in the Preface that I wrote for the ebook, namely that the issues that Tom Chittum has addressed burn even hotter today than ten years ago. Therefore, one might fear that any efforts to delete Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America from Wikipedia could be construed as a form of thought police suppression. After all, "secessionism" and "seperatism" are both regarded by many Americans as the ultimate "thought crime." All of this is actually a strong argument to not only keep the Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America article, but to also expand it out with more discussion. We need to confront our worst fears, not hide from them. Wikipedia also needs to avoid a taint of partisan censorship. As soon as I get through submitting this input, I am sending emails to Frosty Wooldridge and Mike Piper. I think the mere idea that folks involved with Wikipedia might entertain booting out the Civil War Two article would make a good topic for an open public forum discussion on their talk shows. And finally, in regard to comments that this work may be "pessimistic" or "depressing," although I dislike violence as opposed to peaceful means for achieving political objectives, I personally find the highly centralized, de facto bankrupt, arrogant, restrictive, and over-taxing Federal government that we have today more depressing than the possibility that North America might some day return back towards decentralized political structures closer to what the anti-Federalists contemplated in the 1780's, when they represented the majority opinion in America. User:William B. Fox
  • Comment note that the above contributor has a conflict of interest as the publisher of the current edition of this book. Furthermore, there is nothing here that argues within established wikipedia policy for keeping the article: the suggestion that the book is a "major landmark" is merely Mr. Fox's opinion; the two published articles whose themes it continues are irrelevant; Amazon reviews (other than editorial reviews, of which there are none for this book) are not reliable sources, so cannot be used to determine notability; callers to phone-in radio shows are not reliable sources; freedomsphoenix.com is a questionable source per the definition at WP:ATT.
  • Rebuttal Comment I have worked in brokerage businesses in real estate and Wall Street where it is perfectly legal and ethical to have potential conflicts of interests (which are in fact unavoidable as a broker) as long as they are openly disclosed. I have openly disclosed my background, purpose, and potential conflicts of interests. Often people who are closest to a topic and who can provide some of the most insightful inputs also suffer potential conflicts of interest, therefore if everyone is screened out who might have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia could lose some very valuable input. I think that evidence of popular grass roots support can be a form of "free market place of ideas" citation for Mr. Chittum's works, even if his self-taught background and blunt style may not be particularly stylish for many academic journals supported by government-funded institutions. I can point to nationally prominent authors and academics who have given talks and published papers that have strong similarities to many points that Mr. Chittum makes, even though they might not openly cite him specifically. For example, the prominent maverick liberal Gore Vidal gave his Nov 4, 1994 talk to the National Press Club titled "Confederacy of States" which described desirable aspects of future fragmentation of the U.S. and devolution of the U.S. Government. The prominent anarcho-libertarian scholar Dr. Murray Rothbard defended secessionism and separatism in his archived lectures at Mises.org. See "Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation State" (PDF file) by Dr. Murray Rothbard. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Fall 1994. See also: "Secession Reconsidered" (PDF file), Robert W. McGee, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Fall 1994. User:William B. Fox
  • Furthermore, "Wikipedia also needs to avoid a taint of partisan censorship" is not a valid reason not to delete the article. Wikipedia has clear rules, most importantly WP:NOT and its subsidiary guideline WP:N that require evidence be presented (usually in the form of secondary sources in reliable publications, by which we mean those that have strict editorial controls and no blatant extremist political bias) that the subject of its articles is generally considered important. This evidence is lacking in the case of this book. JulesH 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal Comment Who are the real extremists? In his book The Age of Uncertainty, the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith observed that most Americans are stunned when they first read the Communist Manifesto and see how many items on Marx's platform have become a reality in America today. Similarly in a late 1980's Forbes magazine interview, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman observed that virtually every item on the 1928 Socialist plank has become a reality in America today. Conservative columnist Joseph Sobran has observed that today "modern liberalism" is almost the exact opposite on key issues compared to "classical liberalism" of the early 19th century. Therefore, if one believes that history is cyclical, from a very long term historical perspective it is current U.S. Government policy, the bias of America's national media, and the leftism of our government-funded educational institutions that is "extreme," and not the views of traditional American conservatives such as Thomas Chittum who were driven underground in the pre-Internet late 20th century. Mr. Chittum is largely self-taught and has described himself as a "hillbilly." I think it shows discrimination against innately intelligent working class Americans to delete an article about one of his works because his style and socioeconomic background may not appeal to leftist extremist Establishment institutions. Dr. Murray Rothbard observed in his lectures that in the 1780's the anti-Federalists reflected majority opinion in America, which was much more in line with Mr. Chittum's views than what libertarians such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts refer to today as the modern liberal philosophy of "the Neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global superstate that wages perpetual war for perpetual peace." User:William B. Fox
  • And: "in regard to comments that this work may be "pessimistic" or "depressing," [...]" -- I see no such comments in this debate. This is some kind of strawman argument. JulesH 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a reference to Samuel P. Huntington's magazine article in Foreign Policy called "The Hispanic Challenge to America". Keraunos 06:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I added three references to books and articles by people who have predicted that the United States will break up--one of the world's leading military historians and military theorists, Martin van Creveld, as well as commentators Gore Vidal and Charles Krauthammer to help improve the article. Keraunos 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As important as the subject might be, the book is not notable. --FateClub 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. [Anon IP, pretending to be logged-in editor] The planned break up of America either by invasion of millions of illegal immigrants, some of which have dedicated themselves to the destruction of white people (La Raza), or by the use of the Hegelian didactic to create enough enemies who eventually attack America; or by financial destruction by involving America in foreign wars endlessly for this entire century is a real issue. Mik 22:26, 21 March 2007 PDT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.73.14 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 March 2007.
• Keep. [Anon IP (from which first edit was 23 March 2007)] It has some truth, such as New Afrika and New Vermont, but it's alarmist tone must be reduced. --86.29.250.83 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Minor book of no notability; the article's existence is PoV in itself... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The references added to the article substantiate that secessionism and Secessionism in the United States are notable topics. They do not, however, establish the notability of this book. I generally like reading through articles on books, but until secondary sources about the book are added, it fails the notability guideline. -- Black Falcon 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.