Talk:Views on military action against Iran

message: This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but the nominator failed to present any speedy deletion criteria.  Editors who feel this article should be deleted should nominated it through the AfD process.  Rklawton 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of article

message: can we create a new section for that?
"Thousands of friends are far too few, an enemi is too much"
Thank you.
69.116.234.208 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, here:  Opposition to war against Iran Rklawton 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean a new section for your youtube video, you could of course form a new page, but my guess would be that it would qualify and quickly succumb to speedy deletion, a move which I would wholeheartedly support.  Rudy Breteler 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran: Another Perspective. A Photo Tour

message: The war on Iran is a product that is being marketed in the same way as the Iraq war was. Like with any new product, you create the necessity, and then offer the solution. The title of this article should reflect that. I suggest it to be changed to marketing the war on Iran. --tequendamia 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would be a good idea.  Support reflects the grievances needed to market the war.--Southern Texas 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support or marketing the war on Iran? 

message: The administrator that closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for war against Iran suggested this article be merged with Opposition to military action against Iran--Victor falk 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and perhaps the article's name could be changed to, Opinions toward potential military action against Iran. --Southern Texas 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hm.. why not just "Opposition and support for military support against Iran"?--Victor falk 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the title "Opposition and support for military action against Iran" as it is the clearest possible title for the article. Jayran 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed "opinions" because there are many who have views that are not support nor oppose. I think it is too broad an issue to put such a one dimensional title, which expresses that people are only either supporters or opposers. There is a middle road and I would like the new article to express this. --Southern Texas 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it should, that argument makes the most sense. I am strongly opposed to edit warring and any little thing that we can do to prevent that should be done.--Southern Texas 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever name we agree upon, I firmly believe that these two articles should be merged.  Rudy Breteler 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge|Opposition to military action against Iran

message: The quote in the article is not correct. McCain said: "You know that Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bo--uh, anyway..." and then continued with his speech. Any objections to changing it? BTW, here's the video where you can watch him saying it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I&feature=related Graymornings (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small quote correction 

message: Seriously, what? Its all just talking points by some current and former politicians. Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this US right centric nonsense 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The two articles (Support for military action against Iran and Opposition to military action against Iran) completely overlap and would be better suited under an article titled Views on military action against Iran (Views on appears to be the settled on prefix in other articles like this). Though I'm honestly not sure how to deal with this as the whole Support for military action against Iran looks like it hasn't been touched since 2008 ( hahaha). :3 F4U (they/it) 02:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that you have succeeded in fixing the POV article wide, so I removed that issue. Thanks. 12.116.83.42 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: It's common sense that expert views in general on this specific subject, in fact, meet wiki's guideline. 12.116.83.42 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. So I've removed this issue. 12.116.83.42 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Y’all are correct that the notability issue should be removed. I removed it again for y’all because a bad actor went against the talk page consensus & put it back. 144.178.6.38 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability issue should be removed. There is no reasonable question of whether the primary matters that are explained in this article are notable according to Wikipedia’s notability guideline. 8.48.255.15 (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the notability issue 

message: I updated this article by adding a very recent Netanyahu quote. 76.108.18.10 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the update issue. 144.178.6.38 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree third the motion that this article has been updated & that the update issue be deleted. 8.48.255.15 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, remove the update issue 

message: The lead section has been through a rewrite. 8.48.255.15 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I helped with the lead section. It’s been rewritten, so I’ve removed that issue. 2A01:B747:26:344:5474:BB3A:A95F:99A1 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the lead section issue 

message: The first paragraph of this article says, “This article presents views both for & against military action as well as a third option of remaining neutral with regard to any military action.” The See also section says, “Views on military action against Israel”. What can editors possibly do to more neutrally report the relevant quotes from the news. I think that the editor who keeps improperly adding the POV issue doesn’t understand that when editors add that some person says he wants military action, that doesn’t mean that either wiki or the editors want military action. They’re merely informing readers of the quotes, not going the extra step of advocating military action. 8.48.255.15 (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality issue deleted. 2A01:B747:26:344:5474:BB3A:A95F:99A1 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the POV issue 

message: The (only) poll in the Latest Polls section is sufficient to replace the 2 paragraphs that start with "In 2009" & "In March 2012". 65.192.28.154 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Those paragraphs weren’t useful enough. I deleted them. 2A01:B747:26:344:8FA:8FCF:6A60:9C0C (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 2 paragraphs from the Historic polls section