Talk:Dean Scream
untitled section
[edit]- Heading added by czar · · 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Not one word of discussion with various sockpuppets redirecting and deleting the article. It is a very noteworthy speech which had a big effect on the Democratic 2004 primary. Worth keeping. Ollieplatt 06:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This image cannot stay here so long as it has that POV title. RickK 06:35, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
This speech is already covered rather extensively, in a more complete and NPOV manner at Howard Dean. Does anyone, preferably other than Ollieplatt and socks, have any reasonable argument for why it needs a separate article? RadicalSubversiv E 07:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- To redirecting, or keeping this article? RadicalSubversiv E 07:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is OK to redirect it, but it should be given a heading in the new article. The event has been so unfairly used to attack Dean that its inaccurate negative implications should be clearly and comprehensively explained. ((User:Zulitz/Zulitz)), 02:11, January 18, 2005 (UTC)
redirect
[edit]address in npov manner @ Howard Dean — Davenbelle 07:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. It was not, as another editor contends, a noteworthy speech. It was a holler at the end of a non-notable speech. The coverage inthe existing Dean article is sufficient. -Willmcw 08:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arguments in favour of retention
- It was probably the most noticed political speech of 2004 I can think of no other speech that was turned into music!
- If Governor Dean continues to be a prominent player, the speech will be referred to frequently, by the media and opponents.
- I disagree with the contention that it was not a notable speech, just a holler, it was an important speech just after a disappointing election result to his supporters where Governor Dean illustrated his capacity to maintain the morale of supporters.
- The speech and the circumstances in which it was given are an important part of American political history. It marked the end of Dean's bid for the Presidency.
Ollieplatt 08:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No one is disputing that this speech should be covered. The question is whether there's any value in covering it in a separate article, rather than at Howard Dean, where it's already been discussed extensively. So far, three users are in favor of redirecting, one says he has no objection, and another has no problem with it provided information is merged. From where I'm standing, that looks like a consensus to merge. RadicalSubversiv E 08:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But they are your sockpuppets so I think it's 1 to 1. There is no consensus to delete this article in my opinion. Ollieplatt 09:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Davenbelle is acting outside of Wikipedia policy by redirecting the page in the middle of a two day old process of discussing the redirection. If this pattern persists I believe dispute resolution may be necessary. Ollieplatt 21:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ollie, did you just call Zulitz, RickK, and me "sockpuppets" of Radicalsubversiv? Please do not assume bad faith on the part of editors. -Willmcw 21:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Ollieplatt on this one. I don't think merging this article with that of Howard Dean is necessary. However, Ollieplatt, please heed Willmcw's advice and don't assume bad faith on the part of editors. If you automatically assume bad faith, then you're just asking for trouble. Please see the appropriate Wikipedia semi-policy. Aoi 21:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How was this settled months ago? Everyking 16:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The only reason this article even exists is begin Libertas/Ollieplatt/etc. was trying to troll me. Outside of that banned user (who has now returned with another army of sockpuppets), there's been a pretty clear consensus that it doesn't need a separate article, since the material in question is already covered in much greater detail and in an NPOV fashion at Howard Dean. Please don't reward trolls, however many sockpuppets they can come up with. RadicalSubversiv E 16:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that it's a notable incident, and Dean's article is long, so it should have an article of its own. I mean, I liked Dean and I'd have happily voted for him if he'd gotten the nomination, so it's not a political question at all, at least not to me, I just think the incident is notable. So, I mean, what's the tally for and against having this as its own article? There's me, and one person who you say is a troll, who think it should have one, and you who says it shouldn't. So it seems like some more people should weigh in on the issue, or maybe it could go to VfD to get a consensus one way or the other (although it wouldn't technically be voting for deletion). Everyking 18:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If Howard Dean needs splitting, I'm not sure that the part about this speech should be the first to go. Even if it were, both this article's title and its pre-redirect contents are hopelessly POV ("screeching"?). —Korath (Talk) 18:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that it's a notable incident, and Dean's article is long, so it should have an article of its own. I mean, I liked Dean and I'd have happily voted for him if he'd gotten the nomination, so it's not a political question at all, at least not to me, I just think the incident is notable. So, I mean, what's the tally for and against having this as its own article? There's me, and one person who you say is a troll, who think it should have one, and you who says it shouldn't. So it seems like some more people should weigh in on the issue, or maybe it could go to VfD to get a consensus one way or the other (although it wouldn't technically be voting for deletion). Everyking 18:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
move?
[edit]to I Have a Scream? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannibalicious! (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)