Duuude007
|
The Commons Ambassador Barnstar | |
| For great work in obtaining permission on an interesting, and historic, image. We always need people with this kind of skill at negotiating with photographers. Keep it up! Kelly hi! 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
December 2008 edit
- You know, when you say the discussion is outdated it implies you've actually discussed something. I don't want seven unclear citations as if volume makes up for reliability or clarity. Iraq war is in the wrong place; look at the military section and you will notice all other examples are blunders by the military, not political blunders involving the military.
- None of the citations you added to the other section clearly state that the memo in question is regarded as a major blunder; an oversight by a major government figure, certainly, but that's removing it from the context of all the other 9/11 related intel blunders, many of which were far more severe.
- Also, could you please realise we're discussing two seperate entries here. You constantly reply to queries as if both are the same thing; I didn't ask for additional citations for Iraq, I asked for it to be put in the right part of the article. I don't oppose it being included described as a political blunder, because it is one. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the seven citations:
[1] is only proof the brief existed and not needed at all since it's replicated in the other articles.
[2] lacks assertion of a major blunder by Bush, instead citing it as a large group of blunders by various people.
[3] notes specifically that the intel did not warn specifically of a threat of using hijacked planes as weapons, and so asserting this is proof that the source regards it as a major blunder is misleading.
[4] notes that 'no one, from the White House on down, wanted to hear it.' This is not an allegation directed solely at Bush, but at more or less the entire intelligence community. Again, this is talking about a series of blunders, not one isolated example.
[5] Includes Bush actually stating specifically that 'It was not a hijacking of an airplane to fly into a building, it was hijacking of airplanes in order to free somebody that was being held as a prisoner in the United States.' Rather obviously, he doesn't admit it was a blunder, let alone a major one.
[6] is proof against the claim that Bush's PDB was in some way a major event, since it's a list of ten things he did wrong. It also includes this, regard the 9/11 commission: 'Incredibly, these words have received far less media than, for example, the recollections of Swift boat crewmen who never sailed under John Kerry's command.' In other words, this source concludes it isn't a memorable blunder but should be, not that it is one.
[7] Blames Bush's entire national security team, mentioning the memo as symptomatic of their blunders, not as a great blunder in itself.
Now bear in mind, I don't oppose the inclusion of the pre-9/11 intel blunders, but to simply focus on one and ignore the systematic failures below is disingenuous. I have some thoughts about re-ordering the whole article to be a bit clearer, where this would fit under a 'crime' heading rather better than 'politics' [as it would be both bungled crimes and bungled policing]. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Very well, I await your action on implementing the re-ordering of the article, to implement the aforementioned blunder. Still, Bush as Commander-in-Chief is clearly involved in the process of military preparation, his inaction will have still been a notable factor. Please be sure not to omit that. Duuude007 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay, been a bit busy what with Christmas and all. Should get that rewrite done soon, though, in case you think I've forgotten or fallen off the face of the planet.
Just to ask for your input, this is what I'm considering:
Main sections as Military (removing the pointless Naval subheading) with the description 'mistakes by military officers or commanders that resulted in serious loss or disadvantage.' This would have the subheadings 'military actions' (for tactical blunders) and 'military technology' (for weapons and equipment that failed for various reasons, not necessarily limited to design; examples of the latter would include the 'self-cleaning' M16, the Soviet SVT40, Hitler's V3 gun, the cancellation of the TSR2, and suchlike).
Next heading as 'politics' with the description 'mistakes or errors by politicians with serious repercussions to themselves, their parties, or their nation.' Iraq goes here, as we've agreed, as would anything else where the fallout was largely political such as Thatcher's rather embarassing public dressing down over the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War.
Next 'Crime' with description 'errors by criminals or police of any type.' 9/11's blunder list goes here, as would things like this or this.
Next 'Disasters' with description 'natural or unnatural disasters caused or made worse by human action or inaction' (too many 'ors' I know). This would include things like the sinking of the Titanic (ie, EJ Smith's decision to accelerate into a known ice field, lack of lifeboats, poor crew training in their use, bulkhead design, and lookouts with no binoculars, along with the apparently compulsory reference to the Californian), Chernobyl, the FEMA example currently under politics, this, this, and so on.
Business would be next, largely unchanged, though there could be subheadings for products versus mistakes of policy or foolish statements. After that, Science (removing 'and technology' since most of those are covered by business), with a few more examples added, and Sport. Can't say sport interests me that much, though I might subheading it with individual sports and remove any obviously spurious examples.
Other than that, rewording the start to remove the statement that most of the listed blunders are military (they're not) and adding qualification that the consequences of the blunder are the categorising factor, not the people who made it; for example, Iraq (military action with entirely political consequences), or the TSR2 cancellation (decision by politicians with entirely military consequences). Herr Gruber (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I like what you have so far, but your use of "entirely" is a bit too absolute of a word. Take Iraq for example. The soldiers were badly disadvantaged in numbers early on in the resurgence, with the death toll out of control. This turned what potentially could have been a short campaign into the quagmire we know today. That wouldn't make it exclusively a political consequence. Perhaps "primary" would be more appropriate? Duuude007 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 | A request for comment has been added to the talk page of the Command & Conquer Task Force. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to this discussion. Thank you. |
File:Official seal of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.jpg listed for deletion edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Official seal of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Gaia & Terra (Final Fantasy IX) listed at Redirects for discussion edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaia & Terra (Final Fantasy IX). Since you had some involvement with the Gaia & Terra (Final Fantasy IX) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)