Talk:Bush Failed On Terrorism

From dKosopedia

--Centerfielder 22:09, 6 Jul 2005 (PDT) Look, I agree with a lot of what you're saying -- really, I do -- but I'm worried about practicalities. Perhaps this is all well travelled ground but you're adding taxonomy where I don't think it belongs, namely namespace. More recent versions of the software allow categorization. This might work better. Your scheme requires that article authors know of a structure I don't think they should be required to know.

--Centerfielder 14:15, 6 Jul 2005 (PDT) Anonymous Troll, I get what you're trying to do here, but I'm not sure creating a fake namespace is the way to go about doing it.

There's nothing "fake" about putting statements about what "should" be done or seen in a different space than statements about what "is". Back to David Hume at least, philosophers have agreed strongly that they are not the same thing.

sorry, no, non-NPOV pages are fine but non-NPOV page NAMES are dangerous and degrade the whole namespace - keep 'em in a subspace

Let's leave the page as is and let it evolve. We're not entirely NPOV, though we do want to avoid looney-land; if the page is in looney-land it should naturally evolve away from it.

No, sorry, this is well travelled ground and you are making a mistake here.

If you want to avoid looney-land, then, let the looneys have their space. To force Republicans to respond on a page with this name isn't going to work, and it isn't at all "natural" for people to be unable to state a position without interruption or answering to rhetoric. See what a term:is and what a position:is, and if you have some valid argument against issue/position/argument structures to keep multiple point of view straight, state it there.

Beyond that look at Canada and Canada (Republican view)). Obviously those two pages must be separated. Ultimately a finer grained way of saying the things in there must be provided, e.g. position:Canada freeloads on U.S. protection or position:Canadians schizophrenically envy but hate the U.S..

No intelligent person is going to put all that crap on a single page on Canada. That is only possible if you stick to a strict NPOV policy.

The second you depart from that policy, you must have a structure in place to manage multiple points of view and constrasing positions. "Bulk of support" is not a valid way to approach that in a Democratic-leaning wiki like this one. So having separate pages is the only way. And political position taking is clearly so different from news reporting that you have to have a namespace for it, or else watch every page degrade to a negative campaign ad.

Read what Fred Bauder has to say about Wikipedia and look at how Wikinfo works before you try to impose a slanted view on the page namespace. This is doomed to fail. Making it fail fast in favour of something that is known to work very well, the issue/position/argument structure, is the right move.

So the pages go back as they were, and if you don't like that after reading the links above, you should recruit third and fourth parties to wade into this.

- the trolls

Above and beyond that the page name you used does not conserve capitals but uses Victorian Capitalization which is also a well known mistake in wikis.

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../b/u/s/Talk%7EBush_Failed_On_Terrorism_afa2.html"

This page was last modified 05:09, 7 July 2005 by dKosopedia user Centerfielder. Based on work by dKosopedia user(s) Anonymous troll. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.