Talk:Iraq crisis of 2003/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article was removed because the user who sumbitted it was banned, for reasons which are on the mailing list. Given the reason for the ban, it is surprising that this user is taking an anti-war position here!

The conclusion on the mailing list was that they should be banned, and therfore they don't get to play here. Period.

If you want to restore their article, please write your own article here. The Anome 22:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

By this logic, any article with any kind of POV slant that was written by a now-defunct user, such as User:Lir or User:Isis is up for removal based only on heresay in another forum. I will restore it and prune it, because it looks for one, like its the best titled of all of the Iraq articles, and two; Its probably better organized. -

&#12469&#12481&#12505&#12481&#12468

Isis was not banned, she left on her own. The criteria do not apply. -- Zoe
Isis and Jimbo worked out some agreement privately. Since we aren't privy to that agreement, we don't know if her being banned was a part of it or not.
p.s. At least three users I know of are smart enought to know what anonymous IP's are and have reincarnated here with more moderated behaviour... Judge the merit, not the glitter, Anome.

Hi Stevertigo -- as I understand it, this is one of the few people ever permanently banned from Wikipedia, by Jimbo, with the consensus of the mailing list.

Please see the list for the reasons why.

If you feel that they should be allowed back, please take it to the mailing list. If the list and Jimbo unban this user, they are welcome to come back: otherwise, not. -- The Anome 23:08 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

The very argument you make against the article is a subjective one- which is ironically the same problem you have with its content. - Just thought I should point that out. -

&#12469&#12481&#12505&#12481&#12468

There is no content in this "article", it is nothing more than a collection of links to other articles and stubs.

If you want to defend "Iraq crisis, 2003" as an article, you should at least be able to say what the crisis is. There is no definition in this page. Nor is there any guidance as to what wikipedia topics should be on this page, since it appears to be a list of every conceivable thing that any wikipedia editor can use their own POV to link to.

That the use of violence is a commonplace thing is only as aspect of the fact that youre accustomed to it. - or something like that... parahrasing... 128.193.88.104 - get a name... I dont respond to anons (Wikipedia:accountability) - and Im busy with other things... ---&#12469&#12481&#12505&#12481&#12468

Cool. Since you are busy with other things I guess you won't be intefering with the work that others do on this article. Oh, and regarding the Wikipedia:accountability - you authored it so it really isn't anything more than an editorial of your opinions.

Well this is a new low point even for the IP Death Squad. Censoring articles that it is generally agreed have merit strictly because of who wrong them. But it reveals the fundamental faults in the logic of Wales, Sanger, and their friends - no process, no acknowledgement of their own biases, etc., etc..

This project is doomed to fail. It is going to become yet another clique hobby like so many open source code projects. Until Wales, Sanger, and those who listen to them are gone, there will be absolutely no saving the Wikipedia. Those who believe in the project should work on organizing an alternative.

Obviously, this ban is simply an excuse to remove material from meta that is causing discomfort to a clique. That's all it is, regardless of other excuses.

Then just leave and take all the other trolls that are already banned with you. --dan

For what it's worth, I happened across this article by accident and it didn't strike me as deletion-worthy. It could use a better writeup (more prose, fewer bullet lists) but the current state is no worse than any half-dozen other stub-ish articles currently in Wikipedia. The Iraq crisis may be the single largest issue in international politics from mid-2002 to the present; doesn't this deserve an article? k.lee

I'll be the first to admit that the structure of this article leaves much to be desired. Others have seen this, and have expressed a willingness to work on improvements. That's as it should be!

When people start removing articles because of who wrote them rather than because of their content, that's scary. It's another form of ad hominem argument. For Anome to say in a "trust me" tone that it's all on the mailing list does nothing to build confidence; it is a McCarthyite tactic that should be resisted. If someone was banned for good reasons, so be it. If, after the fact, you want to whine about the banned person playing in your sandbox, the participants in this article deserve a more forthright explanation that risks re-opening the same ban to a whole new round debate. In the absence of the issue of who wrote the article, I'm sure that it would have found its own place without this unnecessary argument. Eclecticology 08:18 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

It's not about the article content, it's about enforcing the ban.

I agree, banning is an extreme measure. The user in question was banned for extraordinary reasons, after lengthy attempts at constructive engagement failed. If you want this user un-banned, please get the mailing list to agree to un-ban them.

However, if, as you propose, we allow banned users to return when they feel like it, what does "banned" mean? Does it mean "you are banned from Wikipedia, except feel free to write articles whenever you like, and we won't ever delete your content, because it's sacred"? As far as I can tell, this means that no-one -- or their content -- can ever be banned from Wikipedia.

But, in any case, it was a very poor article.

The issues I have with this article are:

  • original material by user who has been banned from Wikipedia -- under any and all names and IP addresses
  • original contribution just a link farm of bullet points and lists, with repetition and redundant links
  • poor quality text
  • POV problems

The solution: a rewrite!

The Anome 09:24 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

A little more on topic here, the next new moon isn't on 23 March, it's on 1 April. This article definitely needs some work.


Does someone have a good lunar calendar? The Anome
This one looks pretty good. On 23 March, the moon will be in the third-quarter phase, meaning it won't rise until after midnight, and it'll only be half-full, so there will be many hours of moonless nighttime.

This article should probably be merged with U.S. plan to invade Iraq, which currently has a much fuller treatment of the top-level issues, but lacks some of the background. The Anome 09:43 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

There is some disagreement about the title of the US plans to... article. Its not NPOV, I dont see it as such - It implies that the plan is the issue- its not - its America's designs versus the disagreement in other parts of the world that is the central issue at this point. Sure, the Blockheaded any-war-is-good types want to just gloss over it, and get to the US mops up Iraquis article; and the bubbleheaded anti-any-war types want to phrase it in terms that are POV in the other direction; excluding this, and mentioning that.. (uncomfortable subject). It needs to be resolved - now. Is this title NPOV or not? Isnt what we are in now a diplomatic crisis? ---&#35918&#30505

By definition, aren't all wars a "diplomatic crisis"?

Here is what I see as the biggest POV issue with this article - What exactly is the crisis?

  • Is the crisis the fact that Iraq hasn't disarmed?
  • Is the crisis the fact that the US is mobilizing to attack?
  • Is the crisis the fact that the US is ignoring the opinion of other countries?
  • Is the crisis the fact that other countries won't convert to the US view?
  • Is the crisis the fact that France is blocking US efforts?

The article doesn't come straight out and say what the "crisis" is, but it seems to assume some POV (that world opinion matters and the US shouldn't attack) and then it flows from there.

If this article is going to be called Iraq crisis of 2003, then it good wikipedia style it should start with...

The Iraq crisis of 2003 is {something specific so we know what the crisis is}.

Instead, somehow we have an article about a so-called crisis where the word "crisis" isn't used anywhere except in the title and one heading. If there is a crisis, why can't someone tell me what the crisis is and what would be considered acceptible resolutions?

Why dont you sign a name so that you have some kind of face to talk to. -&#35918&#30505
Signing a name would preclude me from being an anonymous user, as it would imply accepting an identity.
"Oh, and regarding the Wikipedia:accountability - you authored it so it really isn't anything more than an editorial of your opinions."

This kind of spatter violates the rule of 'dont make a pain in the ass of yourself. The "opinion" has been around for months, and is generally accepted. I wrote in response to people like you. Anon editors are welcome. They dont comment much, they just do good work, and be on their way. It is considered rude by most Wikipedians to make talk entries unsigned. And getting a username doesnt violate the principle of remaining anonymous. A number of users will not respond to anon comments, cause they are a pain in the ass to keep track of. I am now one of them. Capice? -&#35918&#30505

Well, since you said yesterday you wouldn't be responding to me, I guess you have just reiterated your point today. Your assertion that your statement on accountability is anything more than your opinion is just that, your opinion. I know some "brand-name" wikipedians would disagree that anonymous users are to be as low in the hierachy as you would have them.
I wanted to point out that you're only a smidgen more anonymous now then if you signed in under a fictitious username. You've edited several talk pages and you have an identity in my mind, at least, after reading your last few comments. They show your viewpoints and ideas and modes of thinking -- not as much as the users that have been around for awhile, but they do illustrate your personality and overall paradigm. (I have no problem with you editing under an IP address, though it would be polite if you at least sign (with the numbers) so it's easier to tell which comments come from who) Tuf-Kat
I'm perusing your past contributions and I have come to the conclusion that you are either Canadian or USian (most likely US, probably West-Coast, if you edit primarily at peak hours, then you are about three time zones from me), you are in support of the War on Iraq but are also committed to the NPOV, you're well-educated and English is your first language and I'd guess you're white and middle-class. You use Windows (you recognized a character that I think Windows users would have seen as a question mark and not an apostrophe, and apparently clicked on edit this page solely to fix it). Some or all of these conclusions may be false (and I only examined your contributions closely because of your claim), but I do have an identity in my mind that is only a bit less informed than my perception of Ed Poor or Stevertigo or the newly-signed in guy who I've been talking with at Talk:Ebonics. Tuf-Kat
Thank you for your opinion. I will confirm that your statement that "some or all of these conclusions may be false"' is correct.