Talk:Mission Accomplished

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mission Accomplished article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp

I altered the account of the Jet vs Helicopter issue, (though I still don't think it reflects well on the administration)Ace-o-aces 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the "very long war" line at the bottom of the article. While I suppose some people thought we'd be done by now, there's really no basis for calling the Iraq war "very long," especially compared to other wars, and especially considering how many nations US troops are still deployed in.

Contents 1 Move? 2 Origin of banner 3 This Article - Necessary? 4 Rummy's statement 5 Where is it now? 6 POV

[edit] Move?

there have been other uses of the phrase "Mission Accomplished". Should this be moved to Mission Accomplished (Iraq war) -- Astrokey44|talk 05:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of any specific ones with historical significance? Ace-o-aces 13:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but the phrase was certainly widely used before May 1, 2003. This site [1] refers to it for the US WW2 campaign against Germany. Searching google for "mission accomplished" leaving out the terms -iraq -bush -george -abraham -lincoln -2003 still gets 500,000 hits [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would need a little more about the significance, history and origin of the phrase before it could be its own page. Right now, the Bush speach is what most people think of when they hear "mission accomplished". Ace-o-aces 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No move. Disambiguate the others if you want. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of banner

I thought that at one point the White House claimed that the banner was the idea of the troops on the aircraft carrier, etc. Is there any information on who's idea it was, how it was made, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the administration got it custom made at Bullshit 'R' Us. Yes, for sixty years, Bullshit 'R' Us have provided custom signs, banners and things for PR stunts. Remember, when you need to shovel the shit on your people, its Bullshit 'R' Us.

(sorry, couldn't resist :P)--Kross^Talk 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Article - Necessary?

Why does this page exist? Couldn't this all be under the Iraq War article or under George W. Bush's article? This is not substantive enough to be a stand-alone article. Dubc0724 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a significant historical event in its own right. I've seen wiki articles on far more obscure subjects Ace-o-aces 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is some level of significance. It appears that its significance to some on WP comes from the potential embarrassment it caused the Administration. No argument it was a stunt done without foresight and was another embarrassment to the White House, but do we need an entire article for it? Do we have an article about Gerald Ford falling down all the time, or Jimmy Carter getting attacked by a rabbit and killing it with a boat paddle? Do we have an article solely devoted to Clinton poking the help? I agree that there are plenty of articles on here that have little or no relevance. I was only proposing that this article be merged into either the GWB article or the Iraq War article or even the Impeach GWB article. Thank you. Dubc0724 13:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit or Ford falling down had something to do with falsely caliming major combat in a war was completed, those incidents would have their own article. "Mission Accomplished" was not like the 'pretzel choking' incident, it wasn't merely embarrassing to a public figure, it was a president saying the mission was accomplished in Iraq years 3 YEARS AGO.

Well there sure as shit is an article about Clinton "poking the help". In any case, this article, while not huge, contains too much detail on this one incdient to fit quite right into another article. A similar thing happened with the article on Babe Ruth's Called Shot. It grew to big for the main article on Ruth and got spun off on its own. Ace-o-aces 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That one was just about Lewinsky, but you're right. Thank you for the discussion. I take back my original argument. Dubc0724 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

hey this was an historical event, on a lesser scale, but still should be mentioned nasrmg 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rummy's statement

Is Rumsfield's statement about the end of major combat relevent to this article? I'm sure all WH staff where reading off the same talking points that day. Ace-o-aces 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because it was a similar announcement with a similar outcome (the violence in Afghanistan is even worse now than it was during the invasion). PBP 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is it now?

Anybody have any information about the where-abouts of the infamous banner now? Did the White House have it destroyed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.254.11.208 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] POV

Perhaps this information does deserve it's own page, but maybe under a title like "Controversy Surrounding End of Major Combat Operations in Iraq" As it is now, the article is definitely POV. I would expect this article to mainly be about the phrase, in the english language (somewhat like the OK article), and it's history and evolution; with just a mention of its relevance to the aircraft carrier speech.

This article appears to just be highly political one, and it shouldnt be. it should be an article about the phrase it's self, not just an politicized discussion about one thing that happened to use that established phrase on a banner.

in summary: this should not be a politically focused article, and it is. therefore neutrality tag should definitely stay, because I am heavily disputing the neutrality.

thank you.

-- Joetheguy 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've often thought the article could be changed to Mission Accomplished Speech, since it does focus mostly on the Bush speech and not the phrase. I Would have no problem with that. Other than that, I think the article maitains NPOV. You can't hide the fact that the speech was an embarasment for the Bush admin, but that doesn't make it POV Ace-o-aces 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I agree that an article on the "Mission Accomplished" the phrase, history, etc. is relevant and should be captured on wikipedia. In light of that, and Ace's comment above, maybe we should change the title of the article.

I also agree that it is a politically focused article, but that is because the speech was a political event. I contest your point that the article is POV. If you are "heavily" disputing the neutrality, please provide some sentences, phrases or other examples of where you feel the article is POV.146.23.212.21 11:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to sign in. The above paragraph and removal of POV tag was by...Thedukeofno 11:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do we go about changing the name? If we do I think it should either be Mission Accomplished Speech or Declaration of Mission Accomplished Ace-o-aces 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace, actually I think we have to create a new article named "Mission Accomplished Speech" or some such, and then move this info there. Then revise this article to reflect "Mission Accomplished" the phrase. I honestly don't have enough "passion" around either to do it myself. However, I don't feel the existing article is POV.Thedukeofno 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)