See my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/ We_believe_in_human_dignity&action=edit§ion=1
Jongarrettuk, David Remahl, Benc, Neutrality, and Mikkalai have "voted" to delete this short article (which I wrote) because it's "Non-notable political propaganda".
I beg to differ. It's one of the 3 most significant speeches of George W. Bush's career, and if it's propaganda then we SHOULD have an article in which some political expert SAYS it's propaganda.
I suspect the motive to "delete" is really censorship, i.e., the desire to make it harder for Wikipedians to find out what Bush is saying about world affairs. Part of this dovetails with the Kerry campaign's POV, the constant refrain that Bush has nothing of substance to say about Iraq or anything else for that matter.
A major service Wikipedia provides is to bring hidden facts to light. If one politician says "My opponent A has NEVER spoken about X", then it can make a big difference to our readers whether a quick Wikipedia search turns up:
* nothing by A about X, or * an obscure reference by A about X, or * a public speech by A to a major world body about X
Maybe the article should be moved to a more bland title. Instead of "We believe in human dignity", call it [[George Bush speech at the United Nations on September 21, 2004]]
... Or whatever our naming convention is for speeches.
Ed Poor
The title in and of itself is political advocacy, and the article is, as well. It has nothing to do with "the desire to make it harder for Wikipedians to find out what Bush is saying about world affairs and all to do with whether the people who have listed it believe this is in fact an encyclopedia article. But all of this should be discussed on the VfD page or the article's Talk page, and not here.
RickK
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote: See my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/ We_believe_in_human_dignity&action=edit�ion=1
Jongarrettuk, David Remahl, Benc, Neutrality, and Mikkalai have "voted" to delete this short article (which I wrote) because it's "Non-notable political propaganda".
I beg to differ. It's one of the 3 most significant speeches of George W. Bush's career, and if it's propaganda then we SHOULD have an article in which some political expert SAYS it's propaganda.
I suspect the motive to "delete" is really censorship, i.e., the desire to make it harder for Wikipedians to find out what Bush is saying about world affairs. Part of this dovetails with the Kerry campaign's POV, the constant refrain that Bush has nothing of substance to say about Iraq or anything else for that matter.
A major service Wikipedia provides is to bring hidden facts to light. If one politician says "My opponent A has NEVER spoken about X", then it can make a big difference to our readers whether a quick Wikipedia search turns up:
* nothing by A about X, or * an obscure reference by A about X, or * a public speech by A to a major world body about X
Maybe the article should be moved to a more bland title. Instead of "We believe in human dignity", call it [[George Bush speech at the United Nations on September 21, 2004]]
... Or whatever our naming convention is for speeches.
Ed Poor
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Ed Poor wrote
I beg to differ. It's one of the 3 most significant speeches of George
W. Bush's career, and if it's propaganda then we SHOULD have an article in which some political expert SAYS it's propaganda.
I suspect the motive to "delete" is really censorship, i.e., the desire
to make it harder for Wikipedians to find out what Bush is saying about world affairs. Part of this dovetails with the Kerry campaign's POV, the constant refrain that Bush has nothing of substance to say about Iraq or anything else for that matter.
A major service Wikipedia provides is to bring hidden facts to light. If
one politician says "My opponent A has NEVER spoken about X", then it can make a big difference to our readers whether a quick Wikipedia search turns up:
- nothing by A about X, or
* an obscure reference by A about X, or * a public speech by A to a major world body about X
Not my country, not my politics. There is a prima facie case that anything a President of the USA says or does might be significant.
BUT - Ed, your argument is really that WP should be in a state so that it can be used as a rebuttal machine, by party-political Americans. I see no reason that it should be. I don't think that that is the project I'm working on; and it looks to me that it would just make matters worse, from the point of view of partisan people trying to get 'their' points in.
I would have thought that major speeches on foreign policy find their natural home in narratives of international events.
Charles