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

The other thing worth mentioning is that just because the Tibet/China entries have been put into Peer Review reasonably recently, it doesn't *necessarily* follow that they're the all kind of thing for the Edited Guide.

Hello No 6,

Good to see you though not sure what you mean by your comments?

The aim of H2G is to promote participation and discussion about anything and everything in this Universe, in the Edited Guide facts rather than fiction – surely this article fits into this niche admirably.

As with anything in the Universe, things do ‘date’ from one moment to the next, they generally become older so I need you to quantify your remarks about how this aspect of articles becoming ‘dated’ should devalue the article. You observed the link between topical news coverage and established history – the war in Iraq is established and the problems with North Korea also remain an established piece of history – both subjects converge into one question – why are these regimes treated so differently, a question to reflect upon historically and one that will be used to quantify any number of wars in any number of premises in the future.

I think any concept of decrying a subject due to not having established history is rather silly when the presentation of historical facts have been included in the piece.

Then the article is put down for being dated – so not having an established history should defame the current affair – very confusing.

There are many edited reports/articles which remain in the archives of the Edited Guide which offer a ‘dated’ aspect to those stories contributed – there are also some of political biases – therefore I fail to see any constructive criticism being offered as opposed to an edict which is not reflected in those guidelines you have kindly linked to.

If others are of the view that the Guidelines need changing to ensure articles such as mine do not appear, then all well and good however, as a volunteer contributor who believes a public forum paid for by the public could do with participation from as many members as possible across the spectrum of variety and interests, let the article stand.

To be honest, I see diligence in searching for materials whilst showing willingness to share sources in this article. I also see hard work and learning how to create HTML codes while not using one of the settings which has these buttons. I see displayed in the article a strong perception of using language to evoke a clear image of an existing difference between two nations.

I would suggest it should be made an edict with any publication to ensure source material be given alongside the report if only to quantify the reports made, notwithstanding paid reporters for obvious reasons, otherwise it all remains just another personal point of view which possibly belongs in a diary, not offered for consumption on a public forum expressing a different purpose.

I repeat, news is news and view points may originate from the news given, hence discussion is generated – this is the foundation of good reporting, everything else forms the structure and I believe this structure to be fairly good.

I am off to bed – was watching Channel 4 about how America and UK got the war so wrong – its all about the intelligence reports amongst other items of interest. Be interested in any views from those readers who managed to see the news report and how it reflects my own piece?

Amused0

night all.

I would disagree with it being classed as out dated,perhaps that could be tempered in the editing to find links to "gov" papers relateing to "points" maybe reference or section covering "peace in our time" another big blunder, Aden Suez canel being "other conflicts" on "intellegence" or perhaps it to much for the reader with all the "side issues" Several docs leading up to Korea should be released soon.

Hello...

I like the article. However, I don't think the Edited Guide is the right place for it. We don't have enough historical distance to this problem. It reads more like a newspaper article rather than an enciclopaedia Entry. Whisky has pointed that out already. It is a different thing when you discuss a 'closed' political incident that has happened a longer time ago. With the appropriate distance the most important points crystallise and are easier to follow. For example, what was the debate around the *first* gulf war, or the discussion around the participation of the US in the Chile putsch.

Phrases like 'Tony Blair - our loved leader' (I am not quoting, just paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact words) might have an ironic connotation these days. In ten years this will sound strange.

Just my 2p,

HELL

Hello Logicus,

Thanks for liking the article. I should explain that other comments didn’t say it was outdated just that it would be and my response is that so is everything else on H2g once it gets into the Guide – just like anything which is ‘published’.

I hope you like the update because your suggestions are fine and I have assimilated some of what you mention into the new edit.




Hello Hell,

Hmmm, well you know earlier on I did a little digging into the Guide as well as what is acceptable for submission and you know politics are in flavour as well as writing about interesting items as long as they reflect reality.

I have not found anything in the Guide or the Guidelines which suggest an article has to fit the remit for an encyclopaedia entry so we shall have to disagree.

The discussion is about the difference between the way Blair and Bush have acted towards Iraq and North Korea – as it states in the title – can you spot the difference?

I hope the updated version help bring those points I feel are important to draw public attention and create a clearer format albeit a longer one.

Thank you both for reading.

Amused0

No problem at all. The GUide is 'kind of' like an enciclopaedia, that doesn't mean it is strictly one. Also Guidelines are guidelines not ultimate laws. Your article reflects reality and it's factual, OK.

Even so, I don't think the article reflects the entire reality and cannot thus be entirely balanced, as the issue is not over yet (suppose they suddenly find the weapons). Try to read the Entry from a five year perspective. It will most probably sound outdated, and - to me - not living in the UK, most comments will have lost their bite. Additionally most background information will not be in most people's memory. Imagine reading an ironic rant against Margaret Thatcher in the context of the Falkland conflict. Better, imagine reading a rant about General Salazar's war in Angola, before the revolution. What revolution? What were they doing in Angola? Who the f*ck is Leopoldo Galtieri? What was that story with the Vulcan Bomber?

Well... but then again this is just my 2p.

HELL

True Hell, hence I edited it to read less like a news article and more as information - like many other entries one finds upon the pages history publications as much as H2g.

I am not sure about the bias though. The piece reflects the different ways the UK and the US treat Iraq and North Korea and asks why.

The points of views expressed are those quoted from those sources mentioned such as Tony Blair, President Bush etc.

My own point of view is merely posed as the question which simply remains - why the difference which I also tendered an answer - taken from sources mentioned already.

Establishing facts is not the remit on reporting, however reporting the facts as they stand is - this I sincerely believe the entry does.

As for waiting for the outcome to see if WMD will be found - I would have to direct you into the directions of Mr Bush and Mr Blair as they pose the same question in their respective inquiries despite the fact they both used the premise of there being WMD in Iraq as the basis for war in the first place.

If these two gentlemen who ran the war cannot answer you, I suspect it would be difficult for anyone else to attempt to even try.

Amused0

Hmmmmmm....

Well, one way around would be to include a first subsection giving a briefing on the entire background. I.e. that there was a military intervention (when) led by the US (and with strong participation of the UK) in Iraq for any reason and that this intervention was justified publicly based on the assumption that Iraq had WMDs... Maybe the small intro should mention that there was a huge public controversy, and that most people didn't swallow Bush's and Blair's story. Also that some people questioned whether other 'evil'-countries shouldn't be punished in the same way, and finally that this Entry is written from that perspective and that it will highlight the open questions.

Also, I am afraid you would have to change the Entry's title. The difference between Iraq and North Korea is certainly not just the way Bush, Blair, the American and the British public see them. (One could also expect an Entry comparing the cultural differences, or how both dictatorships are different.)

Well. I still don't think this is (yet) material for the Edited Guide, but then again it's just me.

HELL

looking at the major players so to speak
Chritianity=Comunism=dictatorship in a religous country
elements of this are present in all three and both "intervinences,includeing nato,russian " ect--World view at time

Lol Hell, I sometimes wonder at the capacity of human understanding.

PK – let’s take your points one by one and see if you and I can breach, what is actually, a divide of your own making due as it is to your own interpretation of the article.

The Title: ‘Iraq and North Korea - spot the difference.’ is a good title summing up the article in a simple way as it asks the reader to identify differences between the two. What differences being discussed is gleaned by reading the entry. A title is mean to draw the eye and give some indication as to what the item is about. The title can not go into detail otherwise it would become a paragraph.

The entry, using H2g”’s preferred method of sub-headers to align each newly presented information, has been utilised throughout.

This presentation has been edited from a newspaper type article to proffering an entry filled with information showing how Iraq and North Korea have received different treatments despite having the same premise.

The entry shows quotes from Blair and Bush – as reported in global press including televised programmes such as Parliament meetings and Congress.

The entry remains fixed upon the central point of why North Korea is treated differently to Iraq – the whole purpose of the entry.

The discussions about Iraq is still continuing however the crisis talks about what to do about North Korea are also continuing – however one war has ended and the other as yet to begin – a personal prediction and not offered in the entry itself.

The dictatorships etc have been discussed to some degree hence the question why one country merited war and the other has not despite both being under the judicious eye of intelligence such as MI6 etc.

It reads informative and offers a good depth of understanding the issues at large which is all about the different approaches used for North Korea and Iraq – it really is as simple as that.

Hope this helps clarify things.



Hello Logicus,

Yes indeed they do, however that would be making an interpretation of why these differences of handling two regimes have come about – something I am not willing to pursue in the presentation of a factual entry.


The fact of the matter is North Korea and Iraq were both been deemed dangerous entities. We declared war on Iraq but have not done so on North Korea.

One of the reasons given for making war on Iraq is (as presented in the entry)

Ann Clwyd, Blair's special envoy to Iraq, told Sky News in 2003, in her defence of Blair's decision to go to war with Iraq:

"Do you just allow a country to carry on killing its own people, to use chemical weapons against its own people, to have mass disappearances of people?'


This is what is happening in North Korea. They have declared openly they do possess WMD – is this why there is such a difference between the way the US and UK have treated this regime and not declared war as they did with Iraq?

Amused0

PS When I write from my own bias, it is a strong opinion - I wrote a piece about the Royal family which offers my own views. This was a rather succinct piece of reporting facts as well as integrating my viewpoint and reads rather differently to the entries I have offered here.

I’m still waiting to hear about my OBE as well as for the offer of a BBC post – governor seems to be on the cards.

Sorry – just in case another interpretation comes about this one statement:

Meant to write: This presentation has been edited from the original newspaper type article I wrote initially to proffer an entry filled with information showing how Iraq and North Korea have received different treatments despite having the same premise.


(blush for typing too quickly)

How's this going?

It appears to have stalled, as the author has elvised.

I propose moving it to the Flea Market.


Geggs

Don't forget get writeing, ww2, might be worth researching archives for entries on or linking to

Flea market sounds like a good idea to me

Yah, but who is going to pick that up in FM? Not even the title is a rounded off subject...

Move to Entry IMO would be better.

HELL's 2p

Given the debate about the EG-suitability of the current-affairs-type subject matter, my says back to entry.