Internal enemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:DICTDEF of a very commonly used epithet. I can see a merge to political repression but simply padding the article with more examples where the attack has been made is not actual improvement. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited show it's a consistent concept with the potential for expansion into a non-stub article, not a "dictdef" or "epithet" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although, to be fair, this source suggests that a merge to fifth column could be considered, that's not a matter for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: not sure why every other editor in this discussion is ignoring the sources that are already cited in the article. I hope the closing admin takes that into account. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very first source devotes a whopping two sentences to the fact that the ancient Greeks categorized internal and external enemies by a different word as an example of the relationship between politics and warfare, namedropping the Republic. Note however that the article does not bother to cite the Republic itself.

Every other source is just describing a fifth column. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column. I don’t see how this article could ever go beyond a definition stub unless it gets overloaded with random examples. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding delete/merge with Fifth Column as suggested by RakdosWitch. Sinclairian (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Can't be Merged to Fifth Column as this page is a redirect, not an article. Please check links before you suggest a page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column for reasons provided by RakdosWitch. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am confused by the relister's statement that this page is a redirect, not an article. The nominated version certainly isn't a redirect, and I'm not seeing any point in the page history at which it was. Fifth Column is a redirect to Fifth column, but surely any !vote to merge/redirect to the former is really talking about the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pedantry sells… but who’s buying? Obviously meant Fifth column RakdosWitch (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pedantry. Closers work with statements made in a discussion by the participants. If you really meant Fifth column, then check the damn link and make sure you are suggesting the right target article. It's not the closer's job to make sure your comments are accurate or search for the right target. It's forbidden that we impose our own opinion or investigate, we work with what is suggested here by participants. Is it too complicated to check the links you suggest? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was as obvious as the sky being blue and the grass being green what page I meant, you are being a pedant and allowing a false sense of bureaucratic “rightness” to interfere with a simple AfD. Chill. RakdosWitch (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RakdosWitch, and what should we call editors with 45 edits that try to school users who have been editing for years? Are you evading a block? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edit very sporadically because I am more concerned with page construction and meta discussions. I am more of a “lurker” and usually only jump in when it’s something I feel strongly about that I see mentioned elsewhere or that I stumble upon. I don’t see how my edit count is particularly relevant to whether or not it’s pedantic to go into a frothing rage over a bit of capitalization, and I don’t get why a random accusation of block evasion is going to make me think you’re not being a bit overzealous. Not relevant to the deletion discussion though! RakdosWitch (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't usually step into AfD discussions, but I just want to try and ask everyone to remain civil here.

To Liz, RakdosWitch's edit count has no relevance to the quality of their current points. On one hand I do believe RakdosWitch could have brought it up in a better way without hostility, 'check the damn link' feels like it also comes off too strong as a reply, especially accompanied with 'Is it too complicated to check the links you suggest?' Both of these come across as needlessly rude. And accusing someone of block evasion without evidence reads to me a bit like you're casting aspersions.

And to RakdosWitch, calling people pedants and describing their behavior as a 'frothing rage' for attempting to explain policy, even if done in a less than ideal way, is also impolite. If something like this comes up again, I might just recommend something simple for your initial response. Something like 'Yes, I meant Fifth column, and I agree that it should have been clear that is what I meant.' may work. It gets the same point across without insulting someone. Flavor to taste, no need to be quite so formal as I made mine, just trying to communicate the same point a bit more politely.

Everyone here needs to take a step back, I think. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I feel like both parties here are attacking each other rather than focusing on the article at hand. ShyAndroid (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons already given (primarily DICTDEF). I'm not sure a redirect is even needed. I highly doubt people are searching the term "internal enemy" on Wikipedia. That said, I won't strongly oppose a redirect to Fifth column (there, did I use the right link?) if others think it's warranted rather than it being a redlink. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are substantive sources being offered with which the delete opinions are not engaging: at the moment this looks like a no consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Fifth Column. Guys please, be reasonable, these are colloquial expressions which evolved with time. They literally refer to the same concept. A separate page is not needed; a few paragraphs in Fifth Column would suffice. Silvymaro (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don’t know why it’s claimed there was no engagement with the sourcing. I had to go to my library to find a digital copy of that source I discussed earlier to demonstrate how weak it was! RakdosWitch (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - firstly, there are a lot of sources that refer to internal enemies (as opposed to external ones). I mean loads, lots of academic papers, books, newspaper and magazine articles. Second, other than assertions above, I don't think we are forced to accept that it is the same thing as a Fifth column and it seems to me to be perfectly plausible it isn't. What I mean is this; a fifth column is the accusation of a group of people within a country who are cooperating with an enemy. An internal enemy can be that, but can also be an individual or group working against the government or the establishment even when that country isn't at war with anyone. It can even be an idea or inanimate object. There are papers talking about countries struggling against the "internal enemy" of climate change, for example. I accept the page isn't good at the moment, but it seems to me it is possible to construct a page which explains the concept as being a distinct one. JMWt (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fifth column. Discounting the !votes because people linked a capitalisation redirect is pedantic and goes against NOTBURO. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]