Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq occupation mistakes

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus thus keep. --SPUI (talk) 14:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraq occupation mistakes (now renamed Criticism of the Iraq War)

Highly POV content and title, issues should be mentioned in the main article. Gazpacho 22:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I wrote the article as it is. 1. If the issue is change, why then place it immediately for deletion? Here, that kind of reflexive reaction is called deletionism, and its treated as a kind of wiki-social disease. 2. The issue of POV merits an {{npov}} sticker, not a {{delete}} sticker. 3. On particular issues that need to be changed, are you claiming that there is not enough factual material related to criticisms and claims of the Iraq War and its execution? Certainly there's an argument for inclusion in the "main article", but LIC, there is no "main article," and whatever articles there are, are in need of organization. -==SV 23:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Of course there's a main article, Steve. You linked to it yourself. When the title of the article itself is POV, and the article presents POV about another article's subject as fact, that's a POV fork and should be considered for deletion. Gazpacho

Your claiming its a "pov fork" - I think others will see it as simply focusing on a very valid aspect of the war, even if it was a mistake to use "mistake" in the title. :) Comensa la vota! -==SV 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, inherently POV. RickK 23:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. The topic is worthy of discussion, but the place is at 2003 Invasion of Iraq and/or Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. And indeed that has already happened to a certain extent. --bainer 23:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork; noteworthy criticisms of the Iraq war/occupation should be included in the relevant articles instead. Firebug 01:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Inherently flawed title. Noteworthy public discussion of the war's merits or lack thereof belongs in more general articles which already exist. Delete. Fire Star 02:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Dave the Red (talk) 04:17, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Plenty of valid criticisms of both the motives and the conduct of the war, but those belong on the already-existing pages covering it. -- 8^D ^gab 04:47, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 06:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all is discussed in articles elsewhere. The title is too POV for a redirect. Sjakkalle 07:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is? Where? - ==SV 20:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Try 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Sjakkalle 08:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too early to discuss deletion. It was put up for deletion on the same day it was created. Let's give the article time to be born, so we can see what we're talking about first.

Kevin Baas^talk 19:57, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

• It would also seem that the normal editing of merging articles and moving them to less pov titles is also impaired. Nevertheless I have moved it (having not noticed the notice) and it stands where it does, because I have neither the inclination nor the will to move it back to what it was before, which was a substantially different article. -==SV 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is a comment regarding inappropriate listing: According to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy if an "Article is biased or has lots of POV," it falls under "Problems that dont require deletion" (see the table). The remedy listed is "List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention," and the proper tags to use are {{npov}} or {{POV check}} Since the Deletion listing was misapplied (and since VFD has always been a hangout for delete-freaks anyway) I will take upon myself the laborious effort of removing the inappropriate tag and replacing it with a proper one. It turn out that I was corrent. As I wrote above: "Here, that kind of reflexive reaction is called deletionism, and its treated as a kind of wiki-social disease. 2. The issue of POV merits an {{npov}} sticker, not a {{delete}} sticker." Apologies ladies and gents, for 1. being so late to check the actual policy, (I had made the mistake of assuming that you people actually knew what you were talking about) and 2. for bursting your bubbles -==SV 21:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "VFD has always been a hangout for delete-freaks" is in my view rubbish. Most of the people regularly patrolling the VfD-page make their vote based on the articles merit; also those who label themselves "deletionist". Sjakkalle 08:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that VfD is equally if not more vigilantly patrolled by self-declared inclusionists and "keep-freaks". -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey! Don't call me a freak! :-) Sjakkalle 11:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article's current title, "Criticism of the Iraq War", is not inherently POV as the original title "Iraq occupation mistakes" was. However, whether Stevertigo can see it or not, whether he will admit it or not, it was created as a POV fork. "Article is biased or has lots of POV" may not be a reason to delete but "Article is a POV fork" is. Add to this Stevertigo's idea that he is unilaterally entitled to declare the VfD against his article "misapplied" and revert it, and it adds up to a Strong delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might agree with this if someone (anyone) could qualitatively define (and substantiate) for me any practical differences between POV as no reason for vfd (use npov sticker) and a POV fork as reason for "strong delete" of whole article. The term "fork" implies that this material is treated elsewhere in a similiarly complied way. Where? It cant be that hard to provide a link! Does this mean that Wives of Henry VIII should be deleted because it contains redundant info, that can be found accross the related and attached articles? LOL. -==SV 22:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it your opinion then that "compiling" information from two or more articles together entitles the compiler to create as POV an article as they like, and then that article is actively protected from deletion, because "POV is not a reason to delete" and somehow covering the same ground as more than one article makes it less a duplicate article? "LOL." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No sir: It is my view that using the vfd as a means to express a criticism of an article's premise is the cheapest of cop-outs. In case you hadnt noticed, this is a wiki: If the issue is the title - MOVE IT. POV content? - Edit it, FFS! ==SV 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a complementary page? Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

• keep edit and expand as currently retitled (Criticism of the Iraq War); the war and subsequent peace was one which triggered massive criticism and debate. Some of it valid, some not, definitely much of which could be interestingly analysed beyond the level which the general article can afford to. If there are non NPOV statements, move them to the talk page rewrite them for balance or make the needed additions.. Mozzerati 17:00, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
• Keep but revise. This article seems to be highly biased at this point, and facts are weak. How about adding statistics, initial goals and current results, and possibly comments by people involved? The title does not cover potential information that can be added, including other POV's on the Iraq occupation. --Sango123 19:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or revise This is too biased. --Dr. Ingel 02:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• keep --Yonghokim 06:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep so long as verifiable and revise. For example the criticism of not guarding the main Museum is questionable considering it was used as a base of operations for Saddam loyalists; and most items were safely recovered after an initial lack of cooperation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Critique only does not allow relevant counter-points to be brought up in each section. If 2003 Invasion of Iraq is getting too cluttered then you can split that into smaller sections such as Motivations for 2003 invasion of Iraq and how it was carried out. The answer is not making an inherently one-sided article. gren 05:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a bit of a non-sequitur. Whilst the article currently has pretty much only criticism, you can easily and simply add criticism of criticism, which is the whole point. The level of criticism was strong enough to make it interesting in and of its own. E.g. the article claims that the WMD claim is provenly falsifiable (presumably just because the American weapons inspectors after the war claimed it was false). On the other hand George Bush has recently criticised that by claiming that there were WMD in Iraq and that they had been found, which is a different point of view. Both should be stated along with the case for each. Claiming that an article about criticism is non-NPOV is like claiming that an article about "Motivations for 2003 invasion of Iraq" is non-NPOV. Both can be made NPOV or not. Mozzerati 06:58, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Gren:"Motivations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq" (LOL) might be an "alternate" way of looking at it, but I think that "motiviations" is MUCH more POV than "criticism," which like Mozzerati says, can still be a well-enough written article. But while "motivations" can include criticism, its basic framework is much more limited in scope. Snide comment: Considering also the inconsistenty and shifts in "motivation" (in rhetoric, anyway) from 2002-2005 maybe the title "ever-changing motivations" would be more accurate. ;) -SV|t|add 19:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not non-sequitir I don't think. I prefer motivations because the motivations are US policy and US policy is worth reporting. Criticisms stem from US policy, not the reverse. Yes, I know both can contain POV but I think we must keep in mind what is the news and what is in reaction to that. I think the "criticism of the criticism" argument is taking the whole issue backwards. and Stevertigo, your comment might have been snide but it amused me... I do think there is plenty to question about the Bush administrations actions... I am not a staunch Republican trying to keep Wikipedia free of dissent... in fact I dislike most political parties... I just don't like what I see as the implications of such a title. If you want to change my vote to an Apathetic really not going to argue if it's not deleted delete then you may do so. Just know my argument is with the title not with the content so much. (do balance it though...) gren 19:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. JYolkowski // talk 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into 2003 Invasion of Iraq. - Pioneer-12 00:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.