h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Iraq and North Korea - spot the difference. - A2261891
Author: amusedO - U561984

Why was war made against Iraq when North Korea appears to be the greater threat?

Because we know N.Korea has WMDs, and we know Iraq was only pretending and was no danger

This is a bit strange - it's more a collection of links than an analysis.

If you want to express a point of view then this should not go into the EG. If you want to produce an analysis then fair enough, but it needs a bit more to it, and more structure.

sprout

Hello Sprout,

I appreciate your view on this however the ‘collection of links’ as you put it are actual news articles which relay the story rather well, in a good chronological manner, which is easily digested and can be referred to at any time. It also ensures this article does not run into thousands of words which possibly would be too long for a web user as books on the web may well end up promoting eye strain.

If you read the news articles, they show how the war with Iraq measure against the threats from North Korea.

This article is written for open discussion upon this subject – which most articles, printed or web-based, would hope to achieve.

My main purpose is to bring attention to something and discuss it, not to put forward any real bias of my own. I wish to produce an article which might provoke opinions and views which may lead to broadening the main frame of the article in question.

As for giving an analysis – how does one analyse anything without acknowledging that somewhere there may have been a fair amount of misrepresentation, in regards to the war with Iraq especially? I do not have all the facts at my disposal and it would be wrong to suggest that I do.

The article subscribes to the idea that promoting public awareness without initiating any hard felt opinion would best serve all aspects of reaching a better understanding – it does not need to draw conclusions, merely to highlight some questions in the hope it raises enough public interest to generate more questions and searching for answers, by the public.

Also, as with any article, the matter should be as concise as possible however, what is usually not available or offered in news or printed articles are sources, this board allows users to do that and offers sources to other materials which might reflect alternate news coverage – news is news, and as such, this article does merit being on the Review panel – promoting open discussion.

Hello AmusedO

If you put this bit of your last post into the actual entry, it might help explain your approach. It's different from most entries and will therefore, by default, attract comment... Just a suggestion, which will hopefully reduce the brickbats

'The article subscribes to the idea that promoting public awareness without initiating any hard felt opinion would best serve all aspects of reaching a better understanding – it does not need to draw conclusions, merely to highlight some questions in the hope it raises enough public interest to generate more questions and searching for answers, by the public.

Also, as with any article, the matter should be as concise as possible however, what is usually not available or offered in news or printed articles are sources, this board allows users to do that and offers sources to other materials which might reflect alternate news coverage – news is news, and as such, this article does merit being on the Review panel – promoting open discussion.'



F/b

Where the heebie jebies do those links go? It might be nice to clarify this!

I know that lots of news sites do change their content quite quickly and links don't always last forever, so whilst the links are useful at the moment they may outlive the life of the entry..

Don't you mean that the other why round, Z? That the entry may well outlive the links?


Geggs

Hmm, interesting...

Firstly, my comments are aimed at addressing the point of 'What is this entry doing in Peer Review', I am in no way trying to denegrate its contents, in fact I agree with most of what you say in the entry and am in total accord that it's an excellent piece when aimed at launching "open discussion upon this subject". However, I can see several problems with its inclusion in the edited guide, which after all, is what Peer Review is all about....

Firstly, it's going to date very quickly - in one years time this entry is going to be lacking an enormous amount of information, the grammar is going to be incorrect and it is going to raise more questions along the lines of "what the heck are you talking about" rather than starting a frank discussion on the subject... The edited guide is a fairly static piece of work, so this might not sit in it that well.

Plus, Peer Review threads are not necessarily the best place for a political discussion... however, there are a whole group of people in the Open Debating Society (A1052146) who would just love to get their claws into this (for both camps)... Why not try over there?


Whisky

Hello French Bean,

You certainly make a valid point and a great suggestion. I think I shall keep this article slightly open ended to incorporate those aspects I spoke of and which you have incorporated into your response – copy and past job it shall be.

Thanks for that – great idea.



Hi Shadow,

Well the concept is to allow those readers, who wish to do so, to follow on through the paragraph. It is an understated way to offer more information and the sources of the information in the article.

The key to where they go are the words themselves.

Those interested in knowing the basis for the article have the option to follow those paragraphs through – of course those who do follow through would find out where the links go.

The links form part of the article, in the way they are written, as well as allowing the reader the option to understand more, if they so wish.



Hello Z,

Very good point which led me to edit the article and include the main points I felt were important from the sources.

Now if the links do ‘die’ the article remains intact and the words which are tied into the links will remain just that – words uniting a paragraph.

Thanks for the good warning.





For everyone who drop’s in to read,

I have to admit that I do tend to want to offer articles which are open to all views, especially since I have gleaned the information from news sources, in the same or similar ways as other H2G contributors and research the facts to the best of my ability.

This is why I opt to offer open ended discussions as much as I can. I want to generate discussion and hope that something of my articles creates a need for reflection and possibly action, in my reader. I hope this comes across.

Regards to all who have commented and thank you for reading.

Amused0

Glad to help

Frenchbean

Hello Whisky,

Yes I do see how the original article may have left itself wide open to that criticism of becoming outdated – the edited version which has just been posted (seems we cross-posted) should take care of that as dates have been added and should off set the confusion.

As to political topics not being acceptable material for this forum – I would suggest the opposite be true. There are hundreds of articles to be found, from how to make jam to sexual content and amidst these are articles which express political values and opinions – thus I do not feel this article would serve any real purpose to be exposed only to those of a political bent, rather, as the purpose is for general public discussion, this forum surely is its rightful home?

Thank you for letting me know how you feel on the matter though, in regards to the article, I hope I have created a clear voice, enough to be heard at least.

Amused 0

Sorry, probably didn't make myself clear on that particular point...

I was just more worried about this particular thread turning into a political discussion - what happens in conversations under the entry itself is a completely different matter .

The question I ask is whether this would make a good edited guide entry as it stands with so many unanswered questions at this particular moment in time... Personally, I'd have said it would be better to write an entry for the edited guide once the enquiry is complete and we know the results... However, that would probably nullify the impact of the entry itself in its attempt to generate discussion...

What's more important to you? The discussion, or the completeness of the entry? If the answer is the discussion then maybe this can get better publicity elsewhere than in PR... (still trying to think where though )...

Now I'm off to read the new version


Whisky

Perhaps The Post? That would have the advantage of being linked to a specific point in time?

Nice to see you return Whisky,

Ahh I understand now. Yes, I accept that the discussion, to some extent is more of value to me, however I think the discussion I wish to generate is more along the lines of something like this;

Open to Rainy Day, somewhere in the UK.

‘Hey Fred, read something on HG2 today.’
‘Yeah? That’s nice. Tea ready?’
puts soaking jacket over radiator in hall and moves to lounge to switch on television to the BBC News.

‘Here you are’
passes tea over, and then listens while a shot of Tony Blair comes on speaking about the inquiry and why he is not going to be persuaded by the Lib Dems.

‘Fred, that’s what this article was about – did you know that no weapons were found and North Korea has not only got weapons but also chemicals and stuff like that. Why hasn’t Tony done something about that?’

End

If this remains in peer review and is found by an Ace or Editor who wishes to accept it for the ‘paper’ then this article has a real chance to fulfil its aims.

I was also thinking about the dated aspects – I have to say that there are many articles out of date on all news archives etc yet offer fascinating information. I used some scientific documents and papers for my other article about Low Carb Diets, created in the 90’s, yet all offering a true concept which, due to being part of the process of carbohydrates etc, were incorporated into the article.

Without a past, there is no present and certainly no future – this article could well remain a fairly good reflection in the future. Or is this mere wishful thinking….

I hope you like the update - it reads more complete to my eye - does it to yours?

Amused0

Hello again Z,

Nice of you to drop in again. I don't feel the Post would be the best place for this. After all, having just come back from reading an article on restaurants in South Korea, I managed to take this quote from one of the responses found there:

"There are also other parts of the Guide, such as the UnderGuide and The Post, which provide places for publishing fiction, personal opinions and other articles unsuitable for the Edited Guide."

As I am not reflecting a personal opinion other than asking questions of why two countries which are meant to be a threat are treated differently, and most certainly am not writing fiction, then this does appear to be the best place for this piece.

In a paid news article I would not have had to post the end explanation of why this article should remain as a fairly well written and factual piece - surely the remit is similar for BBCI's own H2G contributors - its a case of what one considers to be of value - my case is this article is of value to everyone as it offers another side to the long ongoing stories of both Iraq and North Korea - surely this makes it an article worth preserving in this forum?

I write about things which interest me, look for evidence then look to provide the public with my findings without making any claims or accusations – unless I felt the piece warranted it. Then I would be offering my opinion, not offering news – this piece is news, not an opinion.

If you were a front page editor of a newspaper, would you wish to see (and keep archived in the long run) news or opinions from your writers/reporters?

Regards,

Amused0

Just a brief comment... then I'll probably leave the conversation to mature a little before posting again... (In other words I'll be completely honest and say I haven't a clue how this entry should be treated )

You refer to the edited guide as a newspaper... the problem I have is I see it more as an encyclopaedia - Hence my pre-occupation with what this'll look like six months down the line...

Now I'll let everyone else comment a little - but don't worry, I'm still here lurking


Whisky

Hello again Whisky,

You going for maturing to ripe amber colour? (Don’t drink whiskey but admire some of the richness in hues I see in bottles.)

I like encyclopaedias but printed ones seem to get out of date very fast – the nature of the printed page. I respect your opinion, and am pleased to hear you will still be around.

I looked through the pages of Recent Peer Review and noticed there are several current political themes about Tibet/China and World War stats – reader’s views are all for promoting the pieces offered, so I suspect my piece should remain if others do also.

The saga of Iraq is old and will continue, without a doubt, long after the present climate has changed. However the same can not be said for South Korea, thus I would expect within the decade news following a war there – my own personal prediction – thus I think the article could remain as an open issue for discussion for a long while, or at least until someone pushes the button.

Amused0

ooops - not South Korea - NORTH Korea is the place I meant to say - brain fuzzy, flu on board and has been for last several days so am kinda stuck in-between true thinking and doing something which comes fairly easy - writing and reading or my brain will remain in the soup of infection aka boredom.

Amused not making any sense at all at this moment...

It's funny, there's nothing about your article that doesn't go against what the Writing-Guidelines recommend. Yet somehow - to me - it just doesn't feel like the kind of thing for the Edited Guide. Maybe because it's much more current affairs rather than established history, and I have the same feeling as Whisky about the potential for it to date. Mind you, I'm only one Scout, and not an absolute authority or anything