Talk:George Alexander (US Army soldier)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force

Contents 1 Race 2 AFD debate link 3 Another Revert 4 No consensus to merge 5 RFC 6 Reasons not to merge 7 Reasons to merge

[edit] Race

I'm removing mention of his race, not needed Sherurcij 19:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

His race not being needed is a matter of opinion, and if you are blind or browsing with images turned off you would not know otherwise, so it is being restored. Yamaguchi先生 19:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we're going to need some other people to weigh in then, since in my mind, his race is not an important part of the story and merely alienates african-americans as varelse. Note that a biographical article on Joe Carter for example, doesn't see it fit to explain his racial background. Sherurcij 22:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I just dont see why his race is relevant at all. We aren't putting in his height, weight, eye color, or any other physical characteristics. Of course, this just goes back to the old arguement about whether it is better to have a color-blind society where skin color and eye color are given equal weight, or whether it is better to celebrate our differences, thus keeping an artificial separation between human beings. --CastAStone 04:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's relevant or not. It's information; thus, it is appropriate for inclusion. Kurt Weber 23:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as an African-American, it's relevant, because African-Americans often debate the socioeconomic targeting of the recruiting policies of the Army. His symbolic value for this purpose has not escaped notice. Because of this controversy, racial information with respect to the Armed Forces is almost always notable in some scholarly or political context, and such information thus belongs here (in a NPOV way, of course.) Xoloz 06:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

For a few days, this article was merged to media coverage. I object and have reverted the merge, as this individual is notable enough for an article, and the AfD finding supports that. Xoloz 06:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The VFD supports keeping the information, which I have done by putting it in 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage, as the only thing he is "notable" for is the media coverage. --SPUI (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It's true a merge is a species of keep, but to merge so soon after a debate with default keep is something I consider sneaky, impolite to consensus, and Sgt Alexander. Until one comes up with a more explanation than a basic "merge because I want to", I will continue to revert to maintain the article, and I'm sure I'm find some friends who can watch the article with me. This needs to stay for a while, barring a better rationale. Xoloz 19:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha, impolite to him? He's dead! He didn't even do anything besides having those pretty zeros. --SPUI (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Revert

I don't know who keeps trying to merge the article (actually I do, page history is handy that way), but stop taking jobs like that upon yourself without discussion on the talk page. Such a merge comes as the result of consensus of an AFD, which this article passed through (weakly) with a Keep, not Merge. Sherurcij 09:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus to merge

There does not appear to be a community consensus to merge. Until one is established, please do not redirect this article. —RaD Man (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not needed to do something that makes sense. --SPUI (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You have vandalized this page 11 times, despite messages on your talk page, on this discussion page, and an AfD. Please stop immediately, I have added this page to my watched page. Sherurcij 01:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I have listed this on WP:RFC. Maybe we'll get some more people here. --SPUI (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you take a vote on this page as to whether it should be merged or not. I notice that reverting is the order of the day, and so draw your attention to WP:3RR. Even if you think you're doing the 'right thing', if anyone reverts more than three times in a 24h peiod, they will be blocked. --Gareth Hughes 13:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I know about the 3RR; I have stopped reverting for now. My basic argument is that this person is only "notable" for having those nice zeros, and is thus symbolic coverage. Someone equivalent but without the zeros was deleted unanimously. --SPUI (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have been too many casualties in this war to consider one notable purely on the grounds of being a casualty. Soldiers who are awarded notable medals may warrant a separate article (e.g. describing events for which the medal was awarded), but casualties are more useful being referred to in a larger article. Average Earthman 14:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's grounds for an AfD then, except this article has already been through one. We could put it through a second, but I imagine the end-result would be the same. Sherurcij 15:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's grounds for a merge. --SPUI (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A Merge is decided by vote, not by talk page. If you want to hold a formal vote, by all means go ahead and do so, but be forewarned that it's already passed one AfD. Sherurcij 16:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually a merge is decided by talking; voting is only to be used if everything else has failed. --SPUI (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether the topic of the individual soldier is worthy of inclusion (e.g. notable) is settled by the AFD. I understand the reason for wishing to delete, but that issue is over. The remaining question, is if there is enough unique material (current and readily available) to warrant a separate article, and there appears to be. --Rob 18:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Added: There's an interesting contradiction by anybody who wishes this article deleted for non-notability, but wants to merge it to a higher level article. If somebody isn't worth mentioning here (their own article) their definately not worth mentioning in a higher level article. The higher level an article the *higher* standard there is for inclusion in the article (not lower). A number of other people are more suited to being mentioned in 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage than this individual is (like high ranking officials who frequently appear in the media). Even if those others also have their own article (not redirected) its still better to mention them in the higher level article, than this individual. This article will be seen by just those interested in this one person, but 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage will be seen by many who have no interest in this one individual. --Rob 20:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not wish it deleted; I "voted" merge in the VFD. Merging typically involves keeping the content. --SPUI (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am planning to list this article on deletion review. That should give a clear decision on whether or not to start a fresh AfD process. --Gareth Hughes 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons not to merge

1. There is enough unique and verifiable material here to warrant a seperate article.
2. Merging results in either a loss of information from George Alexander (US Army soldier) or a loss of balance to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage.
3. Categories such as Category:1971 births, Category:2005 deaths, Category:People from Texas, Category:U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq, and Category:African Americans would be lost.

Please stop redirecting this to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage for the reasons included above. Hall Monitor 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to merge

"Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not 4. Memorials." George Alexander is no more and no less notable than the 1999th, 2001st, or 13823rd soldier to make the supreme sacrifice in the Iraq war. He is primarily notable because of the press coverage he received due to what is basically a numerical coincidence. Therefore, a merge-and-redirect to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage seems perfectly appropriate. There are two paragraphs there covering the essential facts, and his picture. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Counter - Nick Berg, Kim Sun-il, Kenneth Bigley and Shosei Koda were just random examples of the more than 200 contractors killed by Iraqi insurgents...but they get their own pages. Why? Because there was media attention surrounding their deaths Sherurcij 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't countered my comment at all. Pointing out that some pages are probably not in accord with policy does not lead to the conclusion that this page is in accord with policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the anti-memorial wording "It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.". Now clearly, the vast majority of people who would read this article would *not* be his family or his friends who knew him. The vast majority of people interested in this person (and hence this article), are people who never knew him while he was alive, but are well aware of him after his death. The anti-memorial policy of Wikipedia is (in part) designed to prevent pages of narrow interest, so people can't use us for free web server space, for their own personal benefit. This is not a problem here. Now, you may wish to argue that the widespread interest in this person is misplaced: probably so. You may argue that it won't last: maybe so (I can't see the future). But, there is no issue of this just being used for family/friends doing a memorial. I'm not suggesting merge/redirect arguement is without merit, but the anti-memorial rules of wikipedia can not be a basis for a merge in this case. For me, a bigger issue with the merge is the target, as putting the information there means displacing more notable persons in the target (who should be added instead, without making the target to big). --Rob 00:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)