Template talk:2003 Iraq pre-war intelligence infobox

Right, first off the Cindy Sheehan story(ies) should go from this infobox. That means removing the category from them. Second, the external links needs cleaned up for two reasons. First, we shouldn't be linking to non Wiki if we can help it, and things like the Christian Science Monitor story are editorials. Big no-no. What goes there should ideally be links to Wikipedia or WikiSource stuff. The only external link I can think of offhand that would fit is the fact that the BBC has (somewhere) a transcript of a Bush speech that is central to building a case for deception.

Hopefully these are comments to work towards a constructive revision that won't come up for a deletion request in a week or two's time. Brian McNeil / talk 20:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I disagree that the category should go from the infobox, as this will make it very dificult to maintain it. My guess is that there will be more articles in this category coming, as "phase two" of the investigation of the senate intelligence committee, that is the one that is supposed to look into mishandling of intelligence information, is supposed to begin soon. Thus I suggest to clean up the corresponding category. People were probably not aware that adding the category to articles that are only marginally relevant (if at all), will pop up in the infobox. Thus I would like to remove the category from the sheehan and the bolton articles. They are locked now, but an administrator should be able to do this, right? As this is a clearcut decision, I don't think it requires any further discussion.


 * I will start working on the links section. --vonbergm 21:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed all external links (with the exception of the Wikipedia article, which is where all the links should go anyways). Reason being, they are unnecessary for a category box - including transcripts, etc.  The WP article should include all items needed to know about the ordeal - and if the article doesn't include it, add it in yourself or ask someone else to.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean remove the category from the infobox, I meant from articles where the link to the category wasn't strong. If there are protected articles this needs to come off of, try WN:ALERT once you've built a list as this can only be done by an admin, I don't think you're going to get any objections to listing things that need the category taken off them. Brian McNeil / talk 21:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your (MrM) reasoning. Keeping the official documents in the infobox provides a solid base that can be used to check articles against. This helps keeping articles in this inherently contrivercial category NPOV. As these are only the very basic sources on this topic, most articles will not link to the official documents but only link to articles and documents that look at certain sub-issues. Then the official documents help to keep things in perspective. I would like to hear more opinions on this.


 * I do not mind removing the original link to the DSM as it is also linked in the wikipedia article. Also, the Knight-Ridder special report can go, but it provides a very good summary of the developments that I have not seen on any other site. --vonbergm 22:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki sources
Having had a second look at all the source items the infobox used to link to, I think the biggest problem was the completely different look on all of them. That's what makes links to Wikipedia good. There is a wikisource project, but I don't know what issues you'd have to address there to get the previously linked to material up. I went through the articles with the category a bit and even saw one with "Wackynews" on it. Perhaps the infobox would be better managed without a category and manually maintained with a list of articles that are indisputably on the topic and well written. For future articles any other story that merited the infobox and an article not in the infobox could have that added under a "Recent news" section. Brian McNeil / talk 23:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. First of all, the look is not so different. All at links to pdf files that are official reports. Since different organizations were doing these, the layout is slightly different, but certainly not completely different and not even to the degree where an asthetic argument would outweigh others. Cleaning up the category is a good idea, removing the category is not as it defies the purpose of having an infobox. For manually managed links we could just use the "related links" section as usual.


 * Removing all external links as done by MrM seems also pointless. From MrM's statement it is not clear what the logic is. Is MrM saying that infoboxes should only link to Wikipedia articles and not other documents? Phrased categorically like this the statement seems silly. Preferring Wikipedia links in general is a good idea, but in this case many of the relevant Wikipedia articles are flaged NPOV or designated for cleanup. Thus I feel that linking to the original source is more useful for Wiknews.


 * I feel that the overall strategy put forward by some is not to clean up the infobox and find meaningful contend for it but to reduce it ad absurdum. If you have voted to get rid of the infobox and failed, don't edit all content out to make it fail that way. If you don't want to participate constructively in developing the infobox, just post your concerns and give some indication how they could be met on the talk page. For reference, the old version --vonbergm 03:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. To be perfectly Frank, since it is perfectly obvious that there is no legitimate reason to delete this template, those who voted to delete this template, by so doing, made it perfectly clear that they do not intend to "provide access to users", "make it easier to find things", or in any way work towards making information on this topic more available, accessible, etc.  They have made it clear that they intend rather to obstruct access and availability, which is the exact opposite of the purpose of wikinews.    No such edit to this page moves it in the direction of wikinew's goals, and therefore none should be made.  Said users should abstain.  They have demonstrated that they cannot keep their emotions under control and make changes dictated by critical thinking. Kevin Baastalk 21:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And Brian, if you could go back and return the category inclusion to the pages that you removed it from, that would be very helpful. If you want to take part in the wiki-process, you can discuss removals on this discussion page.  I'm sure I don't need to tell you that your removals were very excessive. Thank you. Kevin Baastalk 21:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for issues.
On Wikipedia, were I to create the category/infobox "Christian invasions" or "Pogroms of Russia" these would both be deleted as NPOV, because they are. By collecting only articles about negative aspects of a given entity you create a false impression of culpability which is a point of view, and which may be at odds with the mass of articles about the entity itself. Similarly, creating a class of documents based on a not-news category and ignoring all other stories which might be relevant to a judgement is in violation of the NPOV policies.

Further, the category in question was deleted in accordance with the deletion policies, and has not undergone an undeletion request. -  Amgine | talk 22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

see http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Deletion_requests/Archives/Passed_Archive_4#Template:2003_Iraq_pre-war_intelligence_infobox_.28Undeletion_request.29

Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bawolff, sorry to disappoint you. After the initial deletion of the infobox, the category was listed for deletion which passed with a 'wide concensus' of one (1) vote. Now, I guess it was forgotten to be listed for undeletion alongside with the infobox. But in the end it does not matter, since the very same people that voted for the deletion of the infobox are now suddenly very interested in it and insist that it should contain only -- lets see what is left -- a link to the downing street memo on wikinews. If you want to go for endless discussion to get a useful infobox out of this, good luck. But starting with listing the category for undeletion is a good start. I am too frustrated with the way this goes (see above), but if you feel that this is going anywhere, let me know and I will help out again. --vonbergm 01:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Amgine, alright but presumably any infobox deletion ought to usually differ to a larger category which an infobox could be created for, like "religious invasions" for example. Here I expect pre-war stories could just be put into an old Iraq war info box, no?


 * Nyarlathotep: Yes, the Iraq War is a news event which both does have a category and should. -  Amgine | talk 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to bring the category up for undeletion but I do not think I did it correctly. Neutralizer 15:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)