Talk:Rumsfeld explains renaming of war

Sources

All articles must cite sources. I've added the {{source}} template to the bottom of the article - if the AP has reported something then that report must be linked from the Sources section. - Borofkin 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

fixed, I think I take a look at this story. International 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Every factual statement must be sourced. I've restored the {{source}} tag, as per discussion below. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Newspeak?

Regarding the last sentance in the article, who is comparing this to newspeak? This wasn't mentioned in either of the sources cited. Is this original content?

One of the elements of the unsourced tag, I'm sure. I'm also sure someone is doing so, and we merely need to find a source indicating whom. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also seems a bit of a POV issue. Almost deeming a complete rewrite, or at least a lot more info to put the comments into contents. Also, any and all comparisons to Newspeak that I have seen have been limited to bloggerss and columnists. Are those considered citation-worthy? MattM 04:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

expand

Instead of focusing on newspeak, how about expanding the article by documenting other instances where the Bush administration has pushed changes of language. In the social security debate last year, there was the shift from "private accounts" to "personal accounts". And I seem to remember other instances of namechanges. If people are interested in expanding this and remember other instances, I suggest we divide up the topics, so a little research and expand the article to give a longer list of "renamings". I have not been in North America long enough to see what the longer history of the rebranding of political topics is, but this might be an interesting addition. --vonbergm 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While that is not a bad idea, I don't think it would exactly fair to focus on the Administration's communication issues. What Bush's writing team has done is quite similar to what businesses (and indeed other politicians) do when their policies or programs are not effectively communicated with their target audience. That's why you never heard LBJ refer to Vietnam as a quagmire or a formal war, and why Neville Chamberlain never called the Munich Conference "an act of appeasement". Perhaps weak examples, even fallacious, but I think the point is still clear. Articulation is everything in the world of people like George Bush, not to mention the old cliche "if at first you don't succeed..."

Frankly, as it stands now, this doesn't seem newsworthy. The only way it would be is if we followed your suggestion (which actually would be interesting). But still, it seems a bit editorial to me. MattM 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000152.shtml
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26054-2004Dec25.html? (note the date)
• http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/the_clipboard/010157.php
• http://www.uruknet.info/?p=19836&hd=0&size=1&l=x
• http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0047&fontsize=down Bill Moyers says it well.

- Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

fix & publish

Looks like this is not going anywhere. Fixing it up and publishing as is. --vonbergm 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

News?

In all seriousness, I'm not seeing a newsworthy issue here. Someone, point me wrong and expand this article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on CNN with the head of the USArmy about this very issue yesterday; the changing chategorization/view of the war in Iraq. Apparently in the beginning the idea was to get rid of Saddam and quickly leave; then there was a lot of discussion about an "exit strategy", and now the acceptance of a long term committment. Neutralizer 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the transcript with General Kimmitt[1]; I'll try to beef up the article. Neutralizer 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also question the validity of this as news, it requires reading a lot into the waffle that comes out of Rumsfeld and the alleged affiliation with the ideology of Leo Strauss. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

comment; What's the reference to Strauss all about? Neutralizer 00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is just as newsworthy as a rerun of the confrontation with a potentially dangerous mid-east evildoer. The axis of evil I guess is a trilogy with Iraq's WMD as book 1 and Iran's "nuclear ambitions" as book 2; but they both seem to have the same general script. So, although the repackaging of the war (mission accomplished->desperate last gasps->long war) is quite expected; so is the confrontation with Iran; so I think either both events are news or neither is. Neutralizer 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

just another window dressing

When Bush referred to the "long war" on Tuesday, he was talking about the global war on terror, not just the Iraq conflict. Interestingly, I seem to remember the administration referring to the GWOT as the "global struggle against extremism" in the summer of '04, but the name never took. Paul Bremer cites GEN John Abizaid as referring to the Iraq conflict as the "long war" in either late '03 or early '04. Don't know if that was the original source of the moniker the president "debuted" on Tuesday.--klandtroop 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

On significance and making a worthy article

The significance of the alteration of the official name for this war is multifaceted. One particular is that described in the second point of the article located here, which references the Goldwater Nichols Act in statements on this revision of the framing of the character of the actions undertaken by the US; effectively that problems from the more indeterminate term of action would increase discussion on a second such act. Perhaps the article should focus instead on some particular alterations of the US military policy and command structures during the periods of the earlier names, in a concise manner of course so as to avoid encyclopedic character, and focus on specific statements made by officials regarding the significance of the recent renaming to the Long war. This would make a story that I believe would be worthy of publishing. Opalus 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it ok to remove the tag and publish?

Although it's hard for me to tell, it seems that most of this discussion seems to accept that the article qualifies as "news",if only barely, simply because Rumsfeld did talk about this recently; and his talking about anything at a press conference is,by definition,"news". The other thing is that our open invitation to write articles for wikinews[2] is extremely broad in terms of topics stating;

What we want from YOU! "We want you to write articles for Wikinews on topics that: You find interesting: If it's of interest to you, it will be interesting to many other people! You feel aren't getting adequate coverage: Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten or isn't getting enough attention in the rest of the press? Here's your chance to tell the world! Are important to you: The news you write can be about a global event or what's happening in your local town — we don't mind!" If there are still actionable objections that require the tag, please advise. Neutralizer 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since there seem to be no objections and the tagger has not been actively engaged on this story for quite awhile; I will remove the tag. If there are still issues that require a tag,please put one back; but I do not think "notnews" qualifies. Neutralizer 17:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This feels like an allusion to Orwell

  We could just as well call it the perminent war. But Perhapps I'm just trolling.