Talk:You forgot Poland

message: I dispute that "many Americans believed that Poland was really not part of the invasion and that it was another laughable mistake by Bush" and would like to see some basis provided for this assertion.  I can't speak for all Democrats but the ones I know that watched that debate knew full well that there were countries other than the US and the UK, simply that the contributions of the other countries (such as Poland) were insignificant (a handful of troops or a small amount of resources).  The quote is not funny for the reason stated on the page.  —Kelly Martin 21:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Many Americans thought and continue to think there are WMDs in Iraq.  I think that's proof enough to assert the fact that nobody had any idea Poland was participating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.39.79  (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 September 2005
::I have never seen any evidence, whatsoever, to substantiate that Poland was actually part of the March 20th invasion force. This is why my prior edits reflected that Poland *was* part of the March invasion, but wasn't neccessarily part of the March 20th invasion. The timeline (IIRC) is as follows: March 17th, Poland announces that they will be sending troops. March 23rd, Polish troops report combat. So, in that period of days, (the invasion of the 20th, to 23rd) either Polish troops were (a) part of an invasion force that saw no combat, or (b) the polish forces didn't arrive until the 23rd, which is when they saw combat, but they weren't part of the March 20th invasion. 
::Does anybody have references to show that on the 20th, there were Polish troops on Iraqi soil? Ronabop 08:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's this (found in edit history, and still on the page) http://www.polandembassy.org/News/Biuletyny_news/p2003-03-20.htm which notes that troops hadn't even left poland yet on the 20th, and were due to leave on the 21st. Thus, they weren't part of the March 20th invasion forces, but were part of the March invasion forces. Ronabop 08:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed factual accuracy.

message: Since this article was poorly sourced (which is to say, not at all), I put in some links and dates which should also help explain some of the social attraction to this meme. Specifically, that Poland was *not* part of the countries which had officially committed troops in the build-up to the war lasting several months, they were *not* part of the troops that began the invasion on March 20th, but they *were*, indeed, part of the March invasion, seeing combat action within 4 days after the invasion's beginning.
Hm. I suppose, in the interest of getting Kerry's words right, his statement should be corrected, as well.  Ronabop 20:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See higher up on this page, we're sorting this out. Ronabop 08:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining my edits

message: "George Bush is known for his witty remarks" -- personally, I think GW is "known" for a lot of things, but I'm not sure "witty remarks" is one of them. This line sounds like an opinion to me and not very neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.196.137.218  (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 April 2005
: Agreed. It would seem to me that he's much more well known for putting his foot in his mouth. More a matter of being perceived as witless rather than witty. — NRen2k5 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Witty? Not necessarily NPOV

message: I don't know how many people interpreted this an an insult to Poland, but that's not why most people considered it funny.  I don't know how many people here were actually watching Unites States tv shows and such making fun of it at the time, but the point of the joke is "Haha, Bush falsly claimed that he put together a Grand Coalition of over 40 nations" when most are in fact countries like Costa Rica or Micronesia or Mongolia, who sent an insignificant number of troops (given that the USA has over 100,000 troops on the ground, lets' say anything below 1,000-500 is "not significant", comparatively speaking).  ---->No one's making fun of Poland.  I mean, it would have been more or less the same effect if he had said "well, you forgot Italy".  Italy even had about 1,500 troops there.  The point is, Kerry said "we don't have "40 nations", you've got just three nations INCLUDING the USA that have strong militaries that are actually lending support, most of the other 37 are Mongolia or AFGHANISTAN" and Bush's reply was "Nooo, I've got FOUR, FOUR nations out of Forty that have large troop numbers there!".  EITHER WAY, Bush made his own statement that he had a "large 40 nation plus coalition" appear farcically wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.153.182  (talk • contribs) 130.64.153.182
What does this statement have to do with "you forgot Poland" Drew1369 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "A 'Grand Coalition' is a farcical statement", not "Poland's military is laughable"

message: I agree that this should be deleted.  It really doesn't matter where you stand politically to realize that this is not that important of a statement.  The rest are of some significance to history, while this is better suited in the internet meme section.
Minidoxigirli 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'll just remove it from the 'Political slogans' category.Minidoxigirli 06:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Somehow I doubt this ranks up with "All men are created equal"

message: how is the world is this worthy of an encyclopedia article? 71.62.10.130 10:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: how?

message: These have nothing to do with this article.  I'm deleting the links.--Quincybuddha 02:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Saw Poland Betrayed and Western betrayal

message: After thinking about it for two days, I still think this would be better served in one paragraph at Bushism. Agree? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see your remark before, for some reason.  "You forgot Poland" isn't really a Bushism, which is necessarily a gaffe.  It's just something funny that Bush said.  Its notability stems from its being an Internet meme.  This article has survived one AFD. I'm reverting your redirect merge. Robert K S 08:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right after I did this too. Anyways, if this not a Bushism, then I will need to see what it could into. I am trying to go for a merge, because of the last AFD, but I am wondering if you could suggest where it could go. Having an AFD round 2 is something I wish to avoid unless that is my only option. I just don't feel like we should have an article on an internet meme/gaffe that had it's shelf-life in 2004 for about a few weeks. We already got rid of articles of even the newest memes, like over 9000. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a very well known and popular phrase. Certainly if there is no "as clear as boston harbor" or "well, there you go again" phrase, this doesn't belong in wikipedia as an article of its own.  But there is a list of political catchphrases and this would fit in perfectly there. 76.250.168.149Anonymous Coward  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a section of the Polish involvement...article that has a paragraph of this article. Can I redirect there, assuming I merge the cites and stuff? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am happy with the compromise. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion of the accuracy of the statement isn't in the article you mentioned. It isn't just an internet meme. It was a significant event during the election that was interpreted differently by both sides and it deserves discussion and the information about the incident should be preserved. Previous nomination for deletion was defeated. Nominate it again if you like, but don't just delete it please. Gripdamage (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was a flash in the pan meme that only lasted for a few weeks. Honestly, as I said before, the article that it links to already covers this enough. We don't have any articles on the current memes now and it is hard to have an article on memes. The information isn't deleted and AFD's are not required for merges. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You haven't merged anything. You just replaced this article with a redirect after AFD failed. Then instead of discussing it further you just did it again. I don't feel it covers it enough. I came looking for this article because I could remember the entire context of the issue and I remembered reading this before, and I was surprised to find it gone. One sentence does not properly replace the two paragraphs. You seem to be deleting the article and trying to call it a merge without actually merging anything. Do you dispute that you haven't actually merged anything? Facts like "Poland's level of involvement in the Iraq war at the time of Bush's statement later became a subject of debate." are not represented at all. That detractors felt the comment was petty, also not represented. In fact I might as well just paste the whole article here minus the phrase "internet meme" since none of it seems to have made the transition what you are calling a "merge". Gripdamage (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFD occurred in Sept of 2006, what I have done was in October and December of 2007, so it wasn't right after an MFD. I can try and put more text in the target article, but I have no clue if it is going to stay or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It does. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd vote 'no merge', as I think it is a relatively important meme / catch phrase (35k non-Wikipedia Google hits). PS. Also, a former AfD was keep. I'd suggest that we try another one and see if the consensus is merge this time.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should be merged. It looks below the threshold for notability. It's almost entirely uncited; you'd think that if it had any significant notability there would at least be some sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Merge Means something besides delete this page and leave the other page exactly the same right? I have no trouble with a merge if it's actually merged. I'm fine with keeping it right here too if no one wants to do the work of an actual merge at this time. Gripdamage (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge means that some information from here is placed at the target article. I got some information from the second paragraph already at the article, and pretty much over half of the first paragraph there. I went ahead and did the merge, but waiting to perform the redirect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The second section actually strikes me as covering up something. The date that Polish troops hit the ground is not the day that the invasion began. It says they participated in the invasion, but Wikipedia seems to call March 1 the invasion, and anything after part of the Iraq War. Even letting that go, Kerry explicitly says "when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States.". This is true. According to Wikipedia, Poland didn't announce they would participate until more than two weeks later. He didn't forget Poland. We didn't "go in" with Poland. Why is this left vague to paraphrase: oh there was some controversy about dates. I don't see any controversy. It looks pretty straightforward. What Kerry said is true, which makes what Bush said appear to be incorrect. Am I missing something? 159.140.254.10 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not know of the war timelime, but I knew other countries began to pour troops in weeks after the main landing force hit Iraq. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked again. I misread somehow: March 20th to May 1st is the invasion. They announced on March 17th they'd join us, so even if they weren't on the ground March 20th they were already committed to being there. I highly doubt that effected our start time though. We were in it with them or without them. Still they were committed when we actually invaded, so there is an argument he forgot Poland. How important it is is up to the reader. I think that exact unfolding of events is missing though, which would have kept me from being confused. I'll look the references available and add something to the other article more specific about the time line unless someone beats me to it. i.e. Poland committed a few days before the invasion and did not have troops on the ground on the first day of the invasion. I'm not apologetic for Kerry, but we should say exactly what he forgot. Gripdamage (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want to close it, go right ahead. The information is already merged, so just place a redirect and we are done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging idea

message: I am responding to a request for a third opinion.
As there is an active discussion here about a proposed merger (see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers), I added the  template to the top of the article: it's purpose is to direct editors to the discussion in the Talk:You forgot Poland#Merging idea section above.
I hope this helps.  — Athaenara  ✉  06:24 & 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd vote 'no merge', as I think it is a relatively important meme / catch phrase (35k non-Wikipedia Google hits). PS. Also, a former AfD was keep. I'd suggest that we try another one and see if the consensus is merge this time.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should be merged. It looks below the threshold for notability. It's almost entirely uncited; you'd think that if it had any significant notability there would at least be some sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Merge Means something besides delete this page and leave the other page exactly the same right? I have no trouble with a merge if it's actually merged. I'm fine with keeping it right here too if no one wants to do the work of an actual merge at this time. Gripdamage (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge means that some information from here is placed at the target article. I got some information from the second paragraph already at the article, and pretty much over half of the first paragraph there. I went ahead and did the merge, but waiting to perform the redirect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The second section actually strikes me as covering up something. The date that Polish troops hit the ground is not the day that the invasion began. It says they participated in the invasion, but Wikipedia seems to call March 1 the invasion, and anything after part of the Iraq War. Even letting that go, Kerry explicitly says "when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States.". This is true. According to Wikipedia, Poland didn't announce they would participate until more than two weeks later. He didn't forget Poland. We didn't "go in" with Poland. Why is this left vague to paraphrase: oh there was some controversy about dates. I don't see any controversy. It looks pretty straightforward. What Kerry said is true, which makes what Bush said appear to be incorrect. Am I missing something? 159.140.254.10 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not know of the war timelime, but I knew other countries began to pour troops in weeks after the main landing force hit Iraq. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked again. I misread somehow: March 20th to May 1st is the invasion. They announced on March 17th they'd join us, so even if they weren't on the ground March 20th they were already committed to being there. I highly doubt that effected our start time though. We were in it with them or without them. Still they were committed when we actually invaded, so there is an argument he forgot Poland. How important it is is up to the reader. I think that exact unfolding of events is missing though, which would have kept me from being confused. I'll look the references available and add something to the other article more specific about the time line unless someone beats me to it. i.e. Poland committed a few days before the invasion and did not have troops on the ground on the first day of the invasion. I'm not apologetic for Kerry, but we should say exactly what he forgot. Gripdamage (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want to close it, go right ahead. The information is already merged, so just place a redirect and we are done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion