Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flewis (talk | contribs) at 06:38, 16 September 2008 (→September 2008: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

As far as a first WP article goes, Sequence theory is a pleasure to read. Keep up the good work! --Fire Star 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine

Is it possible to get the Bush doctrine article opening line fixed? "The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

This opening sentence is problematic

1) Because it attempts to explain this particular doctrine(s) by saying it's a doctrine. I suggest using the words "position or policy" since these synonyms can help readers who might now know what a doctrine is to better understand the term. It's fairly basic not to explain a term by repeating the term itself. It's redundant.

2) According to the definition I find for doctrine, it is a single principle, policy or position. So I don't see how there is a "Bush Doctrine" let alone a single foreign policy doctrine for the USA. It should really read Bush Doctrines, and I believe that's at the core of the confusion. I defy anyone to substantiate an argument that there is a single doctrine dealing with Bush's foregin policy approaches and methodology. But I guess rectifying this confusion by making the article title plural is way above my paygrade. At the very least the opening line should be corrected to say the Bush Doctrine refers to US Foregin policy DOCTRINES not doctrine.

I suggest revising the opening line to: The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy positions and approaches of United States during the George W. Bush presidential administration.

Then perhaps something along the lines of: These positions have been enunciated in various speeches and papers and have been analysed extensively in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.

I included similar information on the Bush Doctrine discussion page. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The Bush Doctrine is a doctrine that reflects a collection of decisions and strategies from the foundation of a belief system such as an ideology. It is therefore NOT correct to state it as a principle. Furthermore, there were revisions to the Bush Doctrine, and the September 11, 2001 attacks were part of forming these decisions and strategies - in practical political terms. A doctrine is something stronger than a mere policy, a single position or a principle. Therefore I disagree on your interpretation, but I think that merely or singularly attributing the attacks is not representative of the actual Bush Doctrine. Therefore I agree it can be improved. We can discuss this further on Talk:Bush Doctrine. Open a section, or discuss it further, on the Talk page and I will support a change. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alex Gourevitch

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alex Gourevitch, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dmwiki (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

The recent edit you made to Bush Doctrine constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Superflewis (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it vandalism to include a full sentence when it was being misrepresented as different - i.e a misquoting...? See the paper in effect, where the full sentence is fully viewable on page 98. Scierguy (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi ScierGuy, after more in depth investigation, you're absolutely right. I apologize for falsely accusing you of vandalising the article. I reverted the edits whilst using HUGGLE - which only shows the last 2 revisions. The new content looked dubiously anti-semitic, and I simply inferred that it was 'vandalism'. I now see the mistake I've made.

Also, I'm not sure that this can be used as a reliable source as it looks alot more like a fringe theory. - I support removing the entire phrase in question

Not only is this an egregrious generalization, I agree it is to an extent Anti-Semitic.

I've also found that this article makes outlandish statement such as that that 'Zionism supported Hitler' (pg 39) as well as stating to an extent that "Aliyah is illegal"

Once again, I fully acknowledge my error, and will attempt to edit with more caution in the future --Superflewis (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)