Talk:Chickenhawk/NHG/Where's Clinton?

We are talking about the man who bombed Iraq (repeatedly), continued the first Bush regime's sanctions against Iraq, very nearly invaded Haiti, bombed Serbia, sent troops to Somolia, said he would have done the exact same thing as daddy Bush in iraq the first time around, and who I have seen no evidence to suggest that he opposes the current Bush regime's wars even if he isn't running them. This essay is ridiculous - the 1990s are not "ancient history". Secret Squirrel 17:04, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Delete?

Yes

• Secret Squirrel 21:20, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

No

• This is an archive of a hard-to-find resource, clearly marked as such, and not in the main space ħuman 22:36, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
  • You should not have removed the proposed deletion tag until this vote has run its course. I'm all for keeping the other NHG essays, but this one is ridiculous and brings discredit on the others and on the "chickenhawk" argument as a whole. When NHG gave permission to reprint them here, did they impose a condition that all the essays including the Clinton-apologist one be included? Secret Squirrel 05:36, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I guess I'm not clear on why we should delete it. What's the harm in keeping it here? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:41, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

• It was cited in the edit history of the William Jefferson Clinton article as the reason why Category:Chickenhawks does not apply to him, for one thing. For another, it's a transparently propagandistic work that frankly makes the "chickenhawk" accusations look like a partisan Democratic Party thing (Democrats are only antiwar when the other party is in power), instead of a legitimate antiwar thing that applies across the board to hawkish politicians in both parties. Secret Squirrel 05:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

(sorry, I hate the bulletpoint indentation thing) So shouldn't the argument really be about whether or not we agree with the article rather than whether or not we should delete it? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe if it and all the other NHG articles were in the Essay: space it would be okay, but this right now, contrary to Human's assertion, is indeed in the mainspace, it's a subpage of a mainspace article, and in fact comes up in the search results on a search for "clinton chickenhawk". Move to Essay (so it won't turn up in mainspeace searches) with the usual disclaimer that this is an original work representing someone's opinion and not that of everyone on RW? Personally I think it belongs in the Fun: space. Secret Squirrel 06:02, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I have a better idea... instead of wasting all this energy here tilting at your windmill, why not add a section to the WJC article called "chickenhawk or not", where we can address the issue? With, you know, footnotes to prove (or disprove) his hawkish mien, and the number of people he got killed via military adventures? ħuman 16:30, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Why? It'll just be reverted. Secret Squirrel 09:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I find this very interesting. Secret Squirrel 11:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

What windmill? This issue would seem (to me, anyhow) to be central to whether the "chickenhawk" argument is (a) a legitimate and consistent criticism of warmongering politicians, or (b) merely hypocritical partisanship on behalf of the Democratic Party. Either some Democrats should go on the list (and, I would argue, Bill Clinton qualifies with flying colors as does every single Democrat with no military experience who voted for the goddam Iraq War resolution in 2002), or the list has no meaning at all beyond partisan hypocrisy. Secret Squirrel 11:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

So let's add all the Reps and Sens who voted for the Iraq War but avoided service when they could have served to our list... ħuman 16:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Every time I try to add a few, somebody reverts it. Secret Squirrel 16:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

• Keep per Human. However, barring the creation of a Sources namespace, I guess it could be put under the Essay space. EVDebs 16:17, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Undecided

• I'm not sure why we have this at all. If we keep it, shouldn't we analyze it (decide who qualifies) for ourselves? I think Clinton qualifies, myself -- and my favourite goblin has proposed a couple of others who might be appropriate additions. What is the point of having several articles that just directly quote an original work that we don't all agree with? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 05:48, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
• I don't care what happens to this really. Even though I was the one who removed the Chickenhawk category from Clinton at first, I'm fine if it's readded. --S 12:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
• From what I understand the criteria used for the "is XYZ a chickenhawk?" thing is whether the NHG article considers him/her so. If that's the case then this must be made clear at the Chickenhawk category page (if it isn't already). Either way I think we should add to the Clinton's page our reasons for why he may or may not qualify for NHG's definition of Chickenhawk. Anyhow I don't see what we gain from deleting it so...
  • We have our own chickenhawk article, and there, we can decide who we want to list or not list. I repeat this is an archive of a difficult to find resource that we host. If you guys want, I'll move it all intact to my user space. I see no reason why can't refer to and critique the NHG info in our article on CH - which is the only one actually in the mainspace anyway. ħuman 16:24, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Sourcewatch says the term was coined by Ralph Nader, although my own guess ahd been Al Franken, so why should we defer to NHG for who qualifies? If NHG won't include Clinton or any other prominent pro-war Dem then to my thinking that disqualifies them from having any credibility on the matter. Secret Squirrel 09:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

essay

As the whole NHG stuff is not editable (rigorously patrolled by Human), none of it should be in mainspace - it essentially qualifies as an individual's essay - No?   ^Contribs_Talk 07:27, 20 August 2008 (EDT) or even in H's User space?

I was gonna suggest that! ^_^

But I didn't, because I like my skin uncharred, thank you very much. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 07:33, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

If people don't want in in the mainspace (and I don't really see a consensus on that), I can move it to my user space, or, as suggested, the essay space. ħuman 16:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I, personally, feel that it should stay in main. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 23:54, 20 August 2008 (EDT)