Talk:190,000 guns

OK, this is cute and concise - but what is its reason for being an RW article? human be in 02:06, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * You could move it to "how the government manages its weapons", or merge it into the Iraq War article. -- H [[Image:Vista-epiphany.png|9px]] ji machong  02:07, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Shows incompetence by the "organising Geniuses" of the warmongering ... etc ... etc ... Don't know where it should be catted though. New cat : right wing warmongerers & their actions? Keep me informed 03:29, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Is there an Iraq War article - where? Keep me in the  DARK 06:33, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Apparently, there is no Iraq War article. But that cat you proposed would be good. -- H [[Image:Vista-epiphany.png|9px]] ji machong  10:56, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * We do have an article on chickenhawk, maybe they could be tied to each other? human be in 12:35, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually it should be linked to gun control. As many people claim that a well armed populace is necessary in a democracy, it obviously follows that it is US policy to distribute guns in Iraq. Only when every Iraqi has a weapon  can they say that the democratic process has worked and the country is safe. Isn't this obvious?--Bob_M (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Amusingly, I seem to recall reading somewhere that J. Random Iraqi was pretty well-armed even BEFORE the Liberation, as well. Yet somehow, that armed populace failed to act as a check on governmental excess the way the US's Second-Amendment boosters insist it will.  --Gulik@Work 67.102.192.7 14:26, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Iraq War article has now been created, link if you deem necessary. Please be aware though, that an older Iraq War page exists (bears a capital 'W'), perhaps this older page should either be deleted or merged with the newer article (lower case 'w'). --Graham 20:28, 16 September 2007 (EDT)


 * I wrote that about an hour ago. Keep in mind that are two modern "iraq wars" when writing your article.  war should probably be lower case, yes.  Can you merge my junk into your article, then we'll redirect or delete? Although, I note that in your article, "War" is capped.  We need to decide if it's (or, they are) the "Iraq War" or "Iraq war" first, I think. human be in 20:36, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the linking and corrections that you have made to the Iraq war article, Human. My technical know how is more than likely inferior compared to yours, I therefore invite you or some other experienced member to modify or delete.--Graham 05:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Pointless quibble
I prefer 'fully' - it's an adverb modifying a verb. Keep me in the  DARK 14:53, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe Human's been influenced by his time on the other side of the pond. :-) But I must say that, having checked in a few online dictionaries, both seem to be acceptable.--Bob_M (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Haha... human be in 17:02, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! Keep me in the  DARK 15:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Relocate
I motion to relocate this "article" to the essayspace. 19:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

This article's entire basis for existence is nothing more than a personal observation. Furthermore, the only fact it contains is that the Pentagon lost 190,000 guns in the Iraq War. Are we going to make an article for every factoid that strikes our fancy now? 19:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Please use, you know, logical reasoning for keeping this here. "I 'feel' it belongs here" should not pass muster, especially on a wiki that has rational in its name. 19:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow, talk about an anticipatory ad hom attack!  ħ uman  19:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The essay space should be for articles written by one author. If we make the essay space available for articles written by multiple authors - what will be the difference between an article and an essay? We could stretch the essay definition to a collaboration between a specific partnership or group, but an essay that can be edited by anybody is an article.
 * We all know what our mission statements are, but the mission statement says "includes" not "not exclusive to", and over time the community has generally accepted articles of this type. It's not the most fantastic article, but if we're going to move it or delete it then let's let the community have a fair say first.--Bobbing up 03:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I apologize. As on Talk:50.0001 percent of Florida, the first thing that occurred to me was relocation, rather than anything else.   17:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * My primary objections are as follows: (1) the title is more snark than a description of the material it contains.  Snark within an article is fine, but a title that is itself snarky means that it will be hard to remember, doomed to obscurity, and HIGHLY unpolished.  We already have standards for titles—for what other reason did we relocate Scientology to Church of Scientology—we just have to apply them to this article.  Furthermore, (2) it's title defines the subject so narrowly that this article is about as big as it will ever get, making the article too limited to be of any use to anyone.

The purpose of this wiki is to aggregate and distill information within the bounds of our mission. That's aggregate, not isolate. The question we should ask ourselves is, "In what context does this factoid ('The Pentagon lost 190,000 guns during the Iraq War') exist, and how can we present it in a way that maximizes its effectiveness?" 17:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Noble as the sentiment is, can we please stop saying "let the community decide"? Unless there is a large outpouring of editors onto this page expressing their opinions on the matter, we cannot claim any decision reached on this page is the "community's decision". There is only a handful of us who care enough to debate these things regularly. 17:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)