Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Way Forward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Way Forward

The New Way Forward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Propaganda term, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, speculation. User:Zoe

  • Comment -- this deletion discussion has been targeted by a school group using a shared account and discussing strategy off-wiki. [1]Umpteenages 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Conditional keep, see below - per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, it sounds a little too communist for something that Bush would say. (oh noes!) PTO 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Propaganda or not, it is the term the press is using for the speech Bush himself promised December 6 that the press has reported extensively on in the last 24 hours. And when I say press, I mean CBS News. marketwatch freemarketnews wall street journal USA Today press briefing from whiehouse.gov Time magazine This is a slam dunk Keep This speech and the context of Iraq War political initiatives and head rolling needs to be documented somewhere in Wikipedia. If not here, where? MPS 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    Bush can say whatever he wants in the speech, but everything before the speech will be speculation. It's like saying that USC is going to win the Rose Bowl because the experts say they have a good team. It's speculation. Wikipedia is a place for facts, and not just what people will think will happen. I reconsidered my vote, and I still will vote Delete. PTO 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation. It's an undeniable, sourceable fact that five high level posts related to the Iraq war are being changed, that the press is reporting on a "surge" and that in the many NOTABLE sources cited above ALL sources use the words "new way forward" to describe this series of initiatives. Whether or not a speech happens, it is clear that the Bush administration is leading the press to use the words "New Way Forward" or "The New Way Forward" with respect to these changes. Please reread the article and reconsider. MPS 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the second time that you have asked me to reconsider, and for a second time, I will say Delete. So, it is confirmed that this is going to be the title for Bush's speech. But the contents of the speech are only speculation, as I said above. Wait until Bush does his speech, and THEN write the article. You said above "I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation.", when it's the speculation that we are trying to avoid. Wait until Bush makes his speech, and THEN make the article. PTO 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
but what about the contents of the stragegy change? It is abundantly clear (to the media-- i.e., independent citeable sources) that these changes are already taking place... the series of initiatives listed in the article. If you are suggeesting a name changes that is one thing, but to delete the article is to delete perfectly good (and sourced)content. What are you trying to hide? MPS 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a bad faith comment, MPS, and I expect you to retract it. This has nothing to do with "trying to hide" anything, and completely with trying to keep propaganda and speculation out of an encyclopedia. If you want to write your or other people's speculations on a blog somewhere, that is certainly your right, but we expect encyclopedia articles, not somebody's expectations. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad faith comment; just frustration coming out, and for acting on this frustration I do apologize. Re: the topic, I have two responses....(1) These opinions aren't just opinions (the annouced personnel changes aren't opinions... the term "new way forward" is not some opinion I made up or the media made up -- it was introduced used by Bush to describe his coming changes, and reinforced by his subsequent press secretary statements at whitehouse.gov) the media is reporting on this set of changes with more than speculations, more than just opinions. (2) The WSJ, Time magazine, reuters, USA Today, and CBS News are not just "some people" as you suggest. This is a significant chunk of the mainstream news establishment reporting on "NWF" I'm not citing bloggers, I am citing The media MPS 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its not simply a speech so much as it is a policy change. You dont like the name? You think its a propaganda term? Doesnt matter one bit, take one look at the Great Leap Forward article and you will see that even when a program is named to make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread we can still have articles on it. There are reliable sources talking about it, waiting for the speech to happen before making an article is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • All of the comments on the speech talk about what the commentators expect to happen. These are not reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The sources cited are most certainly reliable sources. Let me put this into terms similar to the earlier football analogy. Lets say experts predict that Eagles will win. We cannot state that the Eagles will win as a matter of fact, but we can state that experts predict the Eagles will win the Superbowl in the Super Bowl XLI. Thats what is being done in regards to the commentary. But not all of the information is speculation, neither in this article or in Super Bowl XLI. For instance, the date has been officially announced, the logo has been officially announced, the location has been officially announced. The fact that Super Bowl XLI has not yet happened does not keep us from having an article on it, does not keep us from stating the information we know, and does not keep us from stating information that is being speculated in reliable sources. The situation for the New Way Forward, or any other subject matter, is no different. Again, the entire premise behind this deletion appears to be a misunderstanding of guidelines and rules. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • (to Rangeley): This doesn't have anything to do with the name. My comment was drawing a similarity between The New Way Forward and the Great Leap Forward. PTO 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to the argument that because this was a propaganda term, it could not have an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Never mind. PTO 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as of right now, it is only an informal term. It would be different if it were something like the New Deal or the Great Society where it is used often enough that it actually becomes a proper term. Currently, it's just a short phrase that the media has fixated on just as a way to give it a name (despite the supposed speech not even taken place). Axem Titanium 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Axem... this is what I don't understand... we all recognize that there is something here... we all recognize that the news media and the Bush administration is "informally" calling this whatever, this foo, this topic, is called "NWF" ... but it could just as well be called Bush Administration's reaction to the Iraq study group report and all the crap they are taking over bungling the Iraq war. Why should we delete it if we can't think of a clever title for it? The media and the Bush administration have a clever title. Finish the thought for me here, please. MPS 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective, the problem with this article is that it's just people's opinions, and we won't know if they're right or not till the speech is given. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well Zoe, your stance has moved from thing to thing and reached a point where its merely your perspective and not actually an argument meant to change peoples minds. The simple fact is that a lot of people are talking about it, its a speech thats going to happen, its a policy thats going to be implemented. We can only create articles for future events when we are quite certain that this said event will occur - and we are quite certain this event will occur. Please read the guideline again where it clarifies this. As for what will be said, what changes will occur, all we have are breif statements and things that the media expects. We can, and most certainly should represent these things as they are, expected announcements. We wont know if they are right or wrong till it happens, so we wont say they are right or wrong, we will just say that these are what the experts are expecting, or what the government has said thus far. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge relevant info into the proper Iraq War article.--KrossTalk 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The Iraq War article is pretty big already, all I would really want to see there is a breif overview. The more in depth info deserves a place to be at, and in this case that warrants a new article. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I find 1,020,000 Ghits for Bush "Way Forward" compared to 1,060,000 for Roosevelt "New Deal" 417,000 for Johnson "Great Society" 217,000 for Kennedy "New Frontier" and 210,000 for Mao "Great leap forward" . The term has been repeatedly used as a coined term for a new Iraq strategy by White House spokesmen and the President [2] and has been widely discussed in the press. It is not crystal ball that he and his spokesmen have already been using the term.Edison 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub (for now) that links to an article at Wikinews. --JWSchmidt 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep useful article. Too much content to merge into any other article proposed so far as they are already lengthy. Johntex\talk 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: The name of the article is a term documented as used by President Bush to refer to the article's content. It is the most correct title to use, compare to 'New Deal', 'Great Society' etc. --Joffeloff 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Neutral I'm going to have to agree with the nominator here. No matter how notable the term is, I just don't see how we could write an article about what news organizations think the content of a future speech might be. Lets wait until after the speech before we create this article. Since the speech in question has now actually occured my concerns are null.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please see latest additions here that show the (heretofore not understood by me) links to the Heritage Foundation's "New Way Forward" conference November 9 as well as the American Enterprise Institute's December 14 "Choosing Victory" document. It is clear from media references that media is looking to and critiquing Bush's "New Way Forward" policies by examining the content of these other think tank reports. This is a significant revelation for this AFD Discussion in that it points to the fact that the media isn't just speculating willy nilly (crystal ball predictions), but they are critiquing actual published proposed policies. MPS 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment - The research I've done on google and other sites reveals precious little about this "New Way Forward": see the search results for "The New Way Forward" (CNN) and FOX News, MSNBC, and the New York Times, and Google. Note that two of the first four sites that come up are blogs. There are only a few relevant articles within these searches, and the few that are relevant refer to Bush's upcoming speech. If this article is becoming a definition of the term "New Way Forward" based on the way the media uses the phrase, then this fails most of WP:NEO and possibly (?) WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. If this article is becoming a summary of Bush's speech, then you would have to rely on media speculation which I have mentioned before as not being a good idea. <wink>Unless, of couse, you wait for Bush to make his speech before re-making the article.</wink> That way, you can use some genuine facts to build this article. PTO 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your method is wrong. First, you should search on "new way forward"... second... CNN website search comes up with blogs, but that seems to be a failure of the way news websites do searches. When I do a "google news search" of CNN, this turns up many articles, as seen here. Ok, now I will do the same for MSNBC, NYT, Fox News. It seems that there are plenty of articles about NWF by each of these news organzations. It's not a neologism (WP:NEO) article in the sense that the topic of the article article isn't intended to be the words "New Way Forward"... but rather the topic is the political reponse/initiative. In the same way, six party talks and Road map for peace and Quartet on the Middle East are neologisms, but their articles are not about words but are coherent references to th complex of political initiatives associated with those words. The speech is the capstone, but the article is about the Bush initiative that has been going on for at least a month in response to public rejection of the way the war is going. MPS 00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
My bad. But in all seriousness, I'd like to end this debate in a way that makes everybody happy. To do that, I think there are a couple things that need to be said: what you want in the article, what I want in the article (along with anybody else), and a way that we can incorporate those two (or more) things in the article. The only problem I have with this article is the abundance of media crap, to put it bluntly. Even the better links you provided above are plauged with speculation (to quote one, "...House has refused to talk publicly about any of the decisions that Mr. Bush has made about his plan, which is tentatively entitled “A New Way Forward"..."). I would support not doing anything with this article until the speech is done, and then write the article, as I have said a couple times before above. Comments? Concerns? Let's work together here, not against each other. PTO 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
PTO... let me first start my comment with a degree of wikilove...by saying that I have absolutely no ill will towards you or anyone else leaning towards a delete vote. My wiki-stress level is now set to copacetic, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. The reason we call these Article for Deletion instead of Vote For Deletion is because this is not just a vote but a discussion... among equals. Viva Wikipedia!!! Group Hug!!! Secondly I want to respond to the content of your post by saying that the subject of discussion is whether there is notable content here. The discussion over how to frame and present the notable content is better left to Talk:the New Way Forward, a page that is at present red-linked. If you agree that there is subject matter here worth writing about, then change your opinion to Keep IMHO, we can mercilessly edit the media links as better ones emerge. If you think there is grounds for deletion, you need to be clear about why... I think I have shown that the article documents the verifiable political machinations and intimations that have occurred prior to the speech, and the natural starting point for this narrative is the Nov 2006 Democratic Takeover, followed by the progressively higher profile meetings that the president has held leading up to his often-promised speech. The section on "the Speech" was deliberately left empty because we don't know what he is going to say, only that many of his actual recent speeches have alluded to an upcoming "new way forward" plan to change the situation in Iraq. In short, believe I have made the case for preservation of the article, and I agree that the links and references should be mercilessly edited (per WP:OWN) as further information emerges. WikiPeace, MPS 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed my vote to conditional keep. Doing some homework and reading the links you posted has revealed to me that the term is more of a blanket term than I thought...originally, I believed that the article was only going to be on the speech. Therefore, I've found that the article does have redeeming value, and I am willing to keep it if we don't use any media sources to speculate on what Bush's speech will be on. Cheers, PTO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PTO and MPS – Thank you both for your most recent posts. I think they’re certainly moving this discussion in the right direction. I wanted to return to a question raised earlier by JWSchmidt that seems to me to be a threshold issue in the deletion debate. That is, does this topic merit a stub? Would you two (or anyone else reading this page) be willing to agree that the New Way Forward is a media title for potential changes to Bush’s Iraq strategy? If the answer is no, then there should not be a stub, let alone an article. Only if the answer is yes should we shift the discussion to the content of the article – and, as MPS suggests, that discussion might be better conducted in the Talk forum. Thoughts? Sean Kass 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians are omniscient :D. We have had a few threads on you all at WP:ANI. Back on topic, though, after thinking this one through and doing a little homework, I've found that this warrants at least a stub discribing Bush's opposition about his Iraq policy and his promise to deliver a new plan. However, I still feel that the media garbage about Bush's speech should be left out until they can produce something that isn't just an educated guess. PTO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
We can state it as mass media speculation, we just cant pass it out as truth. There is wide speculation that there will be surge, for instance, in troop numbers. This warrants noting. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sean, it's a wikipedia:stub only because the content is partially there, not because the article is only partially merited. I think the many (NYT, Fox NEws, CNN, Time magazine) google citations I gave to PTO above establish that the media lumps Bush's strategy change under the rubric of "New Way Forward." In short, yes, I believe the content is there to merit an article. IMHO It's a stub for now because we all recognize there's still more research to be done. MPS 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Do others agree with MPS’ claim that there is enough consensus to merit an article? Keep in mind that stubs are supposed to be limited to three to ten sentences. If we cannot agree on any more than that, a stub may be all that is merited until we learn more about the New Way Forward (i.e. until the speech or some other announcement of policy).Sean Kass 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment - What is this encyclopedia article supposed to be about? A speech that hasn't been written that might be written and if it does then must be at least partly in response to Democratic actions in Congress that haven't even taken place? A newly coined phrase spinning that the President actually has a plan that is new and will be in a forward direction but with no clear specific meaning except to try to spin public opinion in the face of the public rejection and military failure of "stay the course"? (Now that's an idea. Move this to Stay the course?) Or about various and sundry recent unencyclopedic pundit reports filling commercial infotainment media containing teasing vague conjectures about what happens next between the between the commercials that the teases exist to provide eyeballs for? WAS 4.250 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Your comment seems to be phrased as if you don't expect a clear topic to be identified. This article is about the very public Bush response to the Iraq Study Group that he has repeatedly referred to as a "new way forward in iraq". Bush has consulted several conservative think tanks and high level officials and promised a speech that most of the mainstream press reports indicate will propose a troop "surge." I mean we could call it proposed troop surge of 2007 but that's a matter for talk:The New Way Forward to sort out, not AFD. MPS 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep
    • Even though it is a speculation, the speculation has congealed as a thing of its own. Don't we want wikipedia to include famous media speculations (e.g. predictions of who will run for president)? In other words, a significant speculation can be viewed as a news event in itself. If it turns out to be wrong, that update should also be added to the page.
    • This page is useful for people who hear the term on the news and don't know what it is. Is there any rule about including pages that are useful?Bobrudin 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – Even if there is currently uncertainty about the scope of this topic, there does seem to be a foundation of cited material and factual developments to justify the stub. More importantly, if Bush delivers this speech soon there may be many more people looking to read and edit this article. Abgb23 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. I think it's silly to have an article about what some people think a not-yet happened speech will be about, but it does not seem to violate the crystal ball rule because it is sufficiently documented in the press and it seems that the speech will happen in some form or another. As more details become clearer the article can be updated accordingly (but perhaps some of the sections, such as the personnel changes that may or may not be attributable to the New Way Forward speech/doctrine, are still to speculative for inclusion even if the article as a whole is sufficiently nonspeculative). I don't find any glaring neutrality issues, at least none that can't be cleaned up. And the bottom line to me is that by the time this debate settles on whether or not to delete the article the speech will have happened and then there will definitely be enough material for an article. But if, on the other hand, a couple weeks go by and it becomes clear that the New Way Forward speech will in fact not go forward, then there is certainly a strong argument to delete the article (as opposed to keeping it, and having the article be about the media speculation of a speech that never was). Bsiatadshmia 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to keep, since it's used on the president's website. Axem Titanium 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Compromise

Reading the comments above, it sounds to me like the arguments for deletion are two fold:

  • 1) Neutrality: The positive phrase "The New Way Forward" seems to endorse the Bush Administrations policies and is therefore not neutral.
  • 2) Speculation: The speech "The New Way Forward" is in the future and not certain to happen.

What do you all think about trying to address these concerns by making some changes to the article? To make the article more neutral, perhaps the article could include a small section describing--but not endorsing--criticism (by opposition politicians, people in the media, etc.) of the new strategy and/or the phrase itself? To make the article less speculative, perhaps the focus of the article could be on "The New Way Forward" as a policy or strategy rather than a speech. As others have pointed out, parts of the strategy associated with "The New Way Forward" have already been implemented, and are therefore no longer speculative. The article could still mention that the President is expected to lay out the details of this new policy in a speech. --3L Senioritis 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... How do I say this... I appreciate your proposal, 3L. But ... there is already an expectation at wikipedia that this article is going to improve over time (become more WP:NPOV) as editors weigh in with new sourced content. Any wikipedia article becomes more neutral over time. The AFD page is a discussion of whether the article should exist at all. This article stub is less than 72 hours old. If you want to suggest neutrality improvements and title changess, I will start this discussion at Talk:The New Way Forward. In the mean time, be bold and feel free to update the content as you see fit. As for the discussion on wikipedia:speculation and the merits of this article even existing (IOW, this AFD), I really believe that the article currently documents quality information on Bush's publicly advertised Iraq strategy change (nicknamed "new way forward" ). IMHO, it's solidly referenced content about actually occurring historical events ... and for that reason I think it's not WP:CRYSTAL. We shouldn't delete an article stub that covers a legitimate topic that has been documented by the mainstream press for over a month. MPS 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The White house just announced to day that a "way forward" speech will occur Wednesday with details to follow Thursday at Fort Benning. [3] I have added this to the article. Are there any major objections left to ending this AFD? MPS 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - After hearing and reading the speech and reading and hearing comments about the speech, I find the article to be an unfocused mess that misinforms and is unencyclopedic. WAS 4.250 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • IMHO, It is absurd that we have not closed this vote yet. There very obviously was a speech last night, and it did lay out Bush's new strategy in iraq based on criticisms made by the Iraq Study Group. As evidenced by press reports many refer to this as Bush's "New Way Forward" speech. The name is immaterial. If the article is unfocused, then edit it to make it better. As far as content, most everyone would acknowledge that this was a hugely notable speech about a hugely notable policy change, so why are we talking about deleting the article? If you want to page move this to Bush's speech announcing his new Iraq strategy January 2007 then talk about that on Talk:The New Way Forward. MPS 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The title of the article is inappropriate for the title of an article about the speech and the article has very little to do with the speech (being written before the speech might have something to do with that) so that a speech was given means nothing as the speech and the article have little in common. WAS 4.250 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The speech and the strategy change were both formulated prior to January 10. The article cites sources to trace the development of the strategy change as it developed. If you don't like the title, then please participate in the discussion at Talk:The New Way Forward to think of a better title. How about New Way Forward (Iraq policy change speech). We don't delete articles that have bad titles.... Also the Gettysburg Address has a background section, and Chocolate City speech has a context section so why not this speech having some lead-in content in it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPS (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep for now - At this present time, this is a really hot topic, and seems to be talked about widly in American media right now. I suggest that more time be given to see whether it really survives the test of long tern notability. Avador 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that per the essay ...WP:RECENT... that we can reevaluate this in a few months. I am starting to wonder if the AFD may last that long? ; ) MPS 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but why not rename it? If it sounds like Wikipedia would be endorsing Bush policy by using the White House's name for his policy change, try to think of a more neutral article title. But don't delete it while there's a link to it on the Current Events page. But surely we have articles on anti-Bush (or Democratic Party initiatives) which have similar titles. We need a policy for describing government initiatives whose offical titles have a positive spin. --Uncle Ed 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree; I personally don't have a strong preference about what the name of the article should be -- but whatever we decide, we should seek to be NPOV. Let's talk about this at Talk:The New Way Forward. MPS 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I personally hate GWB and everything he says or does, but this is a good article on a valid subject. yalbik 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- For the reasons stated by user edison LCpl 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The White House explains the new strategy with "Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq " [4]. That argues for keeping the article, and referring to it from Iraq War. Edison 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment 15 keep, two delete... I call the question. Will somebody please call the admins? MPS 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep It sounds like Newspeak, but even though Bush is doubleplusungood, imho, the article was enclopaedic from the beginning. Agree with rename to The New Way Forward in Iraq as per White House usage and above. Also, it would seem that this article should have had a breaking news template and that it still should.--Hjal 15:52, 12 January 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.