Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination)


 * Comment Factually incorrect: The material in this article is currently not found in any other article. There is some merge debate going on, and I think most of it should be placed back into a section in the Allegations article, but you are wrong when you say the material here is covered in other articles. Flat out false. Also, I'll point out that even if we assume your false statement is true, it does not logically follow that we must delete this article; even if its agreed to merge, merge=delete is a faulty line of reasoning, per policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject is covered in a number of articles. Since this is a spin out article, how is that not correct?  It's a fringe view and covering in such a non-neutral way with undue weight is not allowed.  Why do you find it necessary to comment on everything I post especially when it's clear you don't have the ability to comprehend it and your only goal is confrontation?  Just go away.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, its not covered at all anywhere else. Wrong, its not fringe, since the many top experts in the field hold this view, as I listed. Therefore its quite notable and that claim of yours is effectively refuted. However, it is a very minority view within the debate about the Bomb, hence this material not being appropriate in the main article per WP:Undue. As far as the rest of your comments, they are equally false but do not deserve to be dignified with a response since they violate WP:AGF, WP:Civil, and WP:NPA. I have no interest in such infantile tactics. Stick to the issue/argument, not the editor.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now kids -- don't make me pull this car over! To put G33's point somwhat more politely, DH, I still don't think you've internalized how WP:PRESERVE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SS, WP:YESPOV and WP:CFORK hang together here. We're supposed to fork out minority POVs to their own articles when the amount of material would be undue in another article -- WP:Wikipedia is not paper. There's this culture of very vocal editors who think somehow, if we bend the rules just right, it should be possible to ignore the WP:PRESERVE policy and eliminate views we personally don't like from article space, but it's not what being an encyclopedia is about, and, IMHO, you may have fallen in with a bad crowd. -- Kendrick7talk 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "spin out", not "fork out". :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It illustrates that he doesn't understand the difference. --DHeyward (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncalled for. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the tone, title and content confirm that this is a fringe view, a sub-article is fine. This one doesn't do that and needs to be deleted.  Just because the article describes a fringe view, doesn't mean it's written from that point of view.  This isn't debate class where this POV get's to be expounded on as part of a point/counterpoint of articles.  The first sentence should clearly say this is a fringe view and the rest of the article should support that neutral assessment. But as it's written it's an unsalvageable POV fork designed to expound a point-of-view.    --DHeyward (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if your claims of POV are true, editing it is the solution, not deletion. You do not present an argument why its "unsalavgeable." In fact you seem to contradict yourself when you say "as it's written it's...unsalvageable." When you say, "as written" you basically confess that its a matter of editing. Hence, it's not a matter for deletion, and your claim that it can't be fixed is irrational. Also, I think you are wrong about it being written from the fringe point of view. That is not true. It puts it in perspective, and relates it to the mainstream view indicative of the historical literature on the topic. Also, within the literature of State Terrorism this is not a fringe view. Almost any account of US State Terrorism does mention these Atomic Attacks as prime examples. Within the debate over the use of the bomb, it is an extremely minority view, but the article makes this rather clear in a NPOV manner.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article, with this title and with it's tone and content, is unsalvageable. The topic isn't.  It needs to written as the fringe minority view that it is.  It cannot be edited in a way that will salvage it.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you're not making sense. If the title is a problem, the title can be changed. There is discussion on other possible titles going on in the talk page now. If its the tone and content, this can also be fixed through the consensus/editing process. Its therefore irrational to simply proclaim it "unsalvageable" due to these alleged defects. They do not logically follow (or at least you have failed to provide a reason connecting it). You also contract yourself again: You say 1. "It needs to be written as..the...minority view that it is," and then you say, 2. "it can not be editing in a way that will salvage it." However, you fail to explain why. Also, since others, and the sources disagree with your personal view here, you do need a good source to support your claims, or else they are irrelevant.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a source that says it's a fringe POV, bring it forth. Otherwise this is just your opinion. It's a mistake, imo, to apply WP:FRINGE to the social sciences and humanities, because a lot of the discussion is untestable opinion regarding social constructs. It's not like aliens or bigfoot, whether killing a quarter million people based on a desire to terrorize their fellow countrymen is, er, "terrorism" is a valid question. Didn't the U.S. recently invade a country to preemptively prevent just such use of WMDs, while declaring it part of the war on terrorism? If Iraq had gotten the bomb, declared war on Israel and nuked Jerusalem to rubble, would you be running around saying calling that state terrorism was some wingnut idea? -- Kendrick7talk 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Dheyward's statement about it already being covered elsewhere is false -- and his argument rests on the claim that the material in this article is already found in other articles, and is repeated here to push a POV. This is totally false. I happen to think that most of it should be placed back into a section in the Allegations article, where it was spun-out of, but to claim that the material is already there is incorrect. Moreover it's even more false because since that time the section has grown even more as it's own article, and done so in an even more nuetral NPOV manner. So claims of a POV fork are invented out of whole cloth: its unsubstantiated and false. Lastly, it does not logically follow that we must delete this article even if his premise were correct, i.e. even if it's better to merge, merge is never a valid reason to delete an article per WP policies; so this is simply faulty reasoning or indicative of a failure to properly understand policy (in addition to getting the basic facts of the situation wrong).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are still mistaken. See Talk.  Your vote of speedy keep underscores your lack of knowledge about policy and process where article keep/deletion debates occur.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before you throw around accusations of lack of knowledge of policy/guidelines, you should probably actually read Speedy keep 2) iii) "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected" -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you read? You quoted a section as illustrating an example of unquestionable vandalism or disruption.  Are you claiming that this nomination is unquestionable vandalism or disruption?  Secondly, even if your severely lacking good-faith accusation is taken as true, "No Consensus" is hardly a statement of "Strong Rejection" especially when the delete/merge opinions outnumbered the keep opinions by almost 2 to 1.  But thank you for your opinion as it illustrates again the lack of understanding of NPOV and deletion policy.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see: the article was nominated for deletion 27 minutes after it was created, and when that failed it was taken to DRV, and when DRV endorsed the close, it was renominated for deletion with the exact same argument just four days later. It surely gets disruptive at some point, especially as there's a merge discussion going on besides; I think TheRedPenOfDoom is free to voice an opinion, without putting too fine a point on it, that these attempts to remove the article from the encyclopedia have reached that point. -- Kendrick7talk 01:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His opinion seems to have less to do with the AfD and more to do with trying to accuse me of not being able to understand policy.  Anyone who has read (and understood) the policy would know that this does not qualify for "Speedy" anything.   That's a simple fact.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote the Reverend George Herbert, "Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another." -- Kendrick7talk 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)