Content deleted Content added
David O. Johnson (talk | contribs) removed word from my comment |
DocumentError (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
::::The article is an almost word-for-word duplicate of an article that already exists and was created with the intention of implementing edits that could bypass protection on the main article and push the POV of a trio of editors whose edits were part of the reason protection was initially imposed. That's the reason for the AfD. In the above note I was only addressing Spirit's more limited question regarding whether consensus was given for the article. [[User:DocumentError|DocumentError]] ([[User talk:DocumentError|talk]]) 06:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
::::The article is an almost word-for-word duplicate of an article that already exists and was created with the intention of implementing edits that could bypass protection on the main article and push the POV of a trio of editors whose edits were part of the reason protection was initially imposed. That's the reason for the AfD. In the above note I was only addressing Spirit's more limited question regarding whether consensus was given for the article. [[User:DocumentError|DocumentError]] ([[User talk:DocumentError|talk]]) 06:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::Stop promoting your own narrative. It is not true that the article was created to bypass protection, since (as I have previously pointed out here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=627631496&oldid=627631320] the protection was put into place after we discussed creating the article. If it was true that the article was created "with the intention of ... pushing POV" the discussion would have started following the protection of the page. However, it did not and your claim is demonstrably false. In addition, the page protection of the [[2014 military intervention against ISIS]] article is a distinct issue from what we are discussing; as [[User:Empire of War|Empire of War]] has correctly pointed out here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS&diff=prev&oldid=627392678], the page protection was done in reaction to the actions of various IP editors. There is no need to resort to false accusations. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 07:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
:::::Stop promoting your own narrative. It is not true that the article was created to bypass protection, since (as I have previously pointed out here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=627631496&oldid=627631320] the protection was put into place after we discussed creating the article. If it was true that the article was created "with the intention of ... pushing POV" the discussion would have started following the protection of the page. However, it did not and your claim is demonstrably false. In addition, the page protection of the [[2014 military intervention against ISIS]] article is a distinct issue from what we are discussing; as [[User:Empire of War|Empire of War]] has correctly pointed out here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS&diff=prev&oldid=627392678], the page protection was done in reaction to the actions of various IP editors. There is no need to resort to false accusations. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 07:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::As the person who requested the page be protected, I think I know why it was put in place. So don't tell me why I requested it. I know why I requested it. And it was because of POV-pushers who were trying to insert a US-centric bend into the article. [[User:DocumentError|DocumentError]] ([[User talk:DocumentError|talk]]) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:44, 30 September 2014
American-led intervention in Iraq
AfDs for this article:
- American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a mirror of the intro of 2014 military intervention against ISIS; created by 3 editors attempting to evade active temporary semi-protection on that site and to inject contentious material. DocumentError (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Deletearticle is non-GF mirror DocumentError (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Striking delete vote. Nominating an article for deletion implies a deletion vote, so that delete vote would essentially be a duplicate vote. You essentially "voted" for deletion when you nominated the article. Safiel (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, of course, Safiel. Thanks for catching this error of mine. DocumentError (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Article was proposed before temporary semi-protection was instated on 2014 military intervention against ISIS. Article does not meet WP:POVFORK definition, but is rather clearly a WP:SPINOFF. Consensus clearly existed for an article focusing on the Iraqi theater of this notable, significant, and complex conflict, as evidenced on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS in this thread and Talk:American-led intervention in Syria in this thread. Nominator's objections are rooted in a discussion that has little to nothing to do with the manner of the article's creation and is being addressed through more appropriate channels already, via Talk:American-led intervention in Iraq#Systemic_Bias. Nominator has hereto failed to raise objections, whether policy-based or entirely subjective, to the content that exists on American-led intervention in Iraq and made clear his belief that a new article title would be a "good compromise" in his eyes. In conclusion, the evidence does not support nominator's contention that this article was created improperly, and other avenues exist to resolve nominator's objections to the article title and scope. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – This is forum shopping at its finest. First, DocumentError starts an RfC on the talk page at Talk:American-led intervention in Iraq. That hasn't gone his way, so a couple hours later, he starts a frivolous [[WP:ANI#Semi-Protection Evasion [Active Community Sanctions measures - Syrian Civil War]]] thread. That didn't go his way either, so he has now started an AfD. Utterly absurd. I request that an administrator speedily close this discussion and sanction DocumentError for tendentious editing under the Syrian Civil War arbcom sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is not a mirror but reflects a consensus of users expressing a desire that there be an iraq specific page just like there is one for the Syria intervention. There are other ways to resolve the issues that the nominator has brought up which other users have agreed are relevant involving the scope of the article. Deletion is unnecessary and this article was not created to evade protection on a page that was protected due to users disputing where Britain should be in the infobox not due to contentious editing. I also believe Rgloucester is right that the user is forum shopping because the discussions are not going their way. Definitive keep. SantiLak (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Can a proposed article merger also be a candidate for deletion? It seems illogical that such a case would be allowed. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think RGloucester is quite right in calling this forum shopping. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge to 2014 military intervention against ISIS. Why are we keeping this? What makes America so special as opposed to the other countries involved for example? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is a specific American-led intervention going on, that's why. It is notable in its own right. It is called "American-led" because "America" started the initiative, and has carried out most of stuff. Regardless, the title can be iterated on. You've missed the mark here. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Knowledgekid87. It's a small group of editors trying to evade protection on the merge-to article. For full disclosure, I've also raised this at ANI here - [1] but have also nominated here as the ANI deals specifically with the article creator's intent. (FYI - I recommend you avoid the ANI unless you want to be called a bunch of names and be the subject of a variety of wild accusations from this tightly canvassed group.) DocumentError (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Being honest Im not focused on the editor dispute the only reason you provided for deleting this was that it duplicated an existing article. I do think the AfD should run it's course and would be interested in seeing more opinions on the content matter. Anyways its late so im going to get some rest, I will look into this again tomorrow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- For one, it's a distinct operation; for another, Iraq is a discrete theater in a campaign that also has a Syrian component, as reflected in American-led intervention in Syria. If the article title is an issue, by all means, you or nominator can start a movereq, instead of distorting the record to claim the article wasn't created in good faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Im sure the article was created in good faith I just don't see a reason for a spinout here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- FYI there was more than one American led intervention into Iraq. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- By all means, start a movereq and change the title. I'll probably even support it. As far as I'm concerned, all three of the anti-Islamic State intervention articles are problematically named. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I might consider it, and also have an open mind here. Do you think the article can be expanded upon and put into it's own wording to not look like it is a mirror article? Im just not seeing how this article is working out on it's own for some reason. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I do think it can, yes. Basically, remove some of the granular details from 2014 military intervention against ISIS on the Iraqi theater specifically to the spinout page; use the spinout to focus on the details of the operations in Iraq. The parent article should focus more broadly on all efforts in both Iraq and Syria to combat the Islamic State and support groups that oppose them on the ground. It should direct readers to the daughter articles for Iraq and Syria for details. That relieves pressure to keep up with events that could cause bloat of the parent page, which would be a WP:SIZE concern, and allow the parent article to focus on aspects of the coalition-building that involves, for instance, Kurdish groups on both sides of the border, Turkey's efforts to control the flow of Islamic State militants across its borders, and the relationship between the U.S.-led coalition, Iran, Syria, and Iraq. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I might consider it, and also have an open mind here. Do you think the article can be expanded upon and put into it's own wording to not look like it is a mirror article? Im just not seeing how this article is working out on it's own for some reason. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- By all means, start a movereq and change the title. I'll probably even support it. As far as I'm concerned, all three of the anti-Islamic State intervention articles are problematically named. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- For one, it's a distinct operation; for another, Iraq is a discrete theater in a campaign that also has a Syrian component, as reflected in American-led intervention in Syria. If the article title is an issue, by all means, you or nominator can start a movereq, instead of distorting the record to claim the article wasn't created in good faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete obviously needless duplication BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It appears that the split occurred due to consensus regarding article content, not as an attempt to get around editing restrictions. The American intervention is heavily sourced independent of the wider intervention, so notability requirements have been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Spirit of Eagle, note that the consensus - and I was one of those who formed part of that consensus - was to create an Iraq-theater specific article not a "Team America" article, which was the source of the major disruption that created the need for protection originally. When I opined in support of a branch article, it was specifically NOT this; many other editors were in the same boat. This was a clear case of WP:GAMING. The consensus myself and others previously gave was NOT for this. DocumentError (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @DocumentError: So propose that the article be renamed. That is not a valid argument for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- The article is an almost word-for-word duplicate of an article that already exists and was created with the intention of implementing edits that could bypass protection on the main article and push the POV of a trio of editors whose edits were part of the reason protection was initially imposed. That's the reason for the AfD. In the above note I was only addressing Spirit's more limited question regarding whether consensus was given for the article. DocumentError (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Stop promoting your own narrative. It is not true that the article was created to bypass protection, since (as I have previously pointed out here [2] the protection was put into place after we discussed creating the article. If it was true that the article was created "with the intention of ... pushing POV" the discussion would have started following the protection of the page. However, it did not and your claim is demonstrably false. In addition, the page protection of the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article is a distinct issue from what we are discussing; as Empire of War has correctly pointed out here [3], the page protection was done in reaction to the actions of various IP editors. There is no need to resort to false accusations. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- As the person who requested the page be protected, I think I know why it was put in place. So don't tell me why I requested it. I know why I requested it. And it was because of POV-pushers who were trying to insert a US-centric bend into the article. DocumentError (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Stop promoting your own narrative. It is not true that the article was created to bypass protection, since (as I have previously pointed out here [2] the protection was put into place after we discussed creating the article. If it was true that the article was created "with the intention of ... pushing POV" the discussion would have started following the protection of the page. However, it did not and your claim is demonstrably false. In addition, the page protection of the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article is a distinct issue from what we are discussing; as Empire of War has correctly pointed out here [3], the page protection was done in reaction to the actions of various IP editors. There is no need to resort to false accusations. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- The article is an almost word-for-word duplicate of an article that already exists and was created with the intention of implementing edits that could bypass protection on the main article and push the POV of a trio of editors whose edits were part of the reason protection was initially imposed. That's the reason for the AfD. In the above note I was only addressing Spirit's more limited question regarding whether consensus was given for the article. DocumentError (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- @DocumentError: So propose that the article be renamed. That is not a valid argument for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Spirit of Eagle, note that the consensus - and I was one of those who formed part of that consensus - was to create an Iraq-theater specific article not a "Team America" article, which was the source of the major disruption that created the need for protection originally. When I opined in support of a branch article, it was specifically NOT this; many other editors were in the same boat. This was a clear case of WP:GAMING. The consensus myself and others previously gave was NOT for this. DocumentError (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)