Talk:Main Page

From TruthAboutIraq

Contents 1 Eventual Main Page Revision 2 A few suggestions 3 Oh, And How About These . . . 4 Let Chris Redo The Main Page 5 Taking over the main page 6 Created a TruthAboutIraq logo 7 Random Thoughts 8 Our ultimate logo 9 We need a 'Bush Lied About WMDs' page somewhere 10 An article on war profiteering needed

[edit] Eventual Main Page Revision

This is probably a given, but when we get a few dozen articles under our belts, we'll need a rewrite of the Main Page and a new page specifically designated for requests. Chris 21:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I guess maybe it's not prudent to wait that long. :-) I've begun the Community Portal page to act as a clearinghouse for "Things to do", and other project information. Chris 00:33, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

FYI, I'm working on it. Tables are such a PITA. - Chris 08:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, Volume I, Number I is on the newsstand. - Chris 02:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Needless to say, I'd love to hear comments. There are a few things I'm already looking to tweak. - Chris 02:40, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh my frickin' God, what a massive improvement. The only thing I notice is that the "Anyone who creates an account can log in" link doesn't work. I don't know how to fix it or I would. Amazingly great job, Chris.Dean Esmay 07:59, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Dean. The link is fixed - apparently the constructed URL can't be wikified. If anyone can make it be, lemme know. - Chris 08:33, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Y'know, now that we've got it on the front page itself, I'm thinking Michael's photo needs to be removed from the corner and replaced with Ken's logo. Disagree if you think otherwise, but I love the photo too much to abuse it, and seeing it on every page is overexposing it, imho. - Chris 08:41, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I could live with that.Dean Esmay 13:33, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry Dean, when I said "Ken's logo" I was referring to his first try, not the one you dubbed "our ultimate logo". Like Martin, I'm uncomfortable using Michael's photo too much, which is why I made this suggestion. Obviously, if we're replacing Michael's photo with Michael's photo with the Iraq flag on top, it's not going to reduce the exposure all that much. - Chris 21:48, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Content on the front page is now fully template-driven, so unless there's a change in format (e.g. I need to find a better color scheme for CP/CE), all changes are filled in from the respective templates. - Chris 11:00, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I notice that the listing of "most popular articles" don't actually link to anything. I can't figure out how to fix it or I would.Dean Esmay 13:37, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Fixed. The title for "Article Classification" leads to the Special page list of Categories. Most Popular Articles leades to the one for Popular Pages. - Chris 16:02, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd also like to suggest that we have a category specifically for debunking articles. "Common misperceptions" might be a nicer way of putting it. I think that's the category I'd most like to ride herd on myself. But in any case, right now none of those articles is even accessible from the front page.Dean Esmay 15:51, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Currently, none of the categories leads to anything, because no one has tagged anything with a category tag. All the ones listed I made up off the top of my head, most of them back when I created Community Portal. You can add whatever classification you want to an article, and even put it in several different categories, or use a category tag for a category that doesn't yet exist, and you can even have categories of categories. But editors have got to tag the pages, and collect them in a category page for it all to work. - Chris 16:02, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] A few suggestions

There should be a page for the nation of Iraq itself.

There should also be a page devoted to the first Gulf War.

Also, not directly related to this war, but there should be pages debunking the ideas that the U.S. armed Saddam Hussein, and that the CIA put him in power. Ken McCracken 22:31, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Here's a handy link of the summary of saddams actions during the 1990's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1990-1996

[edit] Oh, And How About These . . .

That the Iraq invasion was an imperialist war of blood for oil . . .

Bush lied about WMDs.

Bush claimed Iraq was an 'imminent threat'.

Ken McCracken 22:48, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Let Chris Redo The Main Page

I'm just sayin' . . .
Ken McCracken 03:28, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Ken. These are for you, lol. - Chris 12:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Awww! Ken McCracken 13:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Taking over the main page

Kristian and I were just discussing in email what to do on the front page. Kristian may want to redo the front page himself, but if he doesn't I'd love to have Chris be in charge of the front page as he obviously understands the tech and understands what's needed better than I do. Dean Esmay 12:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

One of the things we need most from a Main Page revision is a simple explanation of the purpose of our article titles, and the intended resulting taxonomy. I know this first-hand, because I'm not sure where we're going with all that. - Chris 10:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Well you're now officially the front page editor so your input is needed. I don't know where we're going either. The initial purpose of the wiki was to give standing responses to the repeated falsehoods, or at least questionable assertions, about how we got to Iraq. But there's no reason whatsoever it can't run in new directions. I assumed a community would develop and that to an extent the community would make these important choices, with a board of directors and a BDFL to stop the community from going wild. That make sense? Anyway I'm pretty cool with everything suggested so far.Dean Esmay 12:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Created a TruthAboutIraq logo

Take a look . . .

Ken McCracken 21:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey that's pretty cool. On the other hand I really love the Michael Yon photo. I'm not sure what I think... Dean Esmay 12:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking we could use both . . . or, use the logo to promote the Wiki outside of the site. In any event, use it as you see fit, or not! Ken McCracken 12:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's see what the front page editor thinks. Dean Esmay 12:45, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Is that the extent of my introduction, Dean? heh

I like Yon's photo where it is, but I like the idea of using a different image offsite, Ken. Michael's picture is great, but it doesn't exactly get our point across without a narrative. Can we see some different color schemes of what you've got there? For comparison, if nothing else. - Chris 16:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Ooo... Brainstorm... Instead of the block-icon, can you do a banner? Or two? Developed with the following slogans (regards to Colonel Jessup from A Few Good Men):

• Can you HANDLE the TRUTHaboutiraq.org?
• You can't HANDLE the TRUTHaboutiraq.org! (funny as that is, on reflection it could definitely be taken badly and backfire - this is why I'm not in marketing) :-)

Eh, not as bad as I'd imagined. It's a keeper. - Chris 11:17, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes, a little marketing can go a long way. - Chris 17:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, let me see if I can cook up some different logos, banners, etc. Ken McCracken 19:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I like Ken's as is, because it seems to evoke some of that old 60's protest feel. Nothing like coopting!

As for Michael's photo: unless he explicitly grants permission, I don't believe we can or should use it as a logo off of this site itself. He has worked hard to protect that image from dilution, so that it can speak for the brave men he knew. So I would definitely prefer a different logo for marketing.--Martin L. Shoemaker 20:26, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I should admit I've got no sense of aesthetics, and I just found the mustard color of the logo unappealing. If everyone else likes it, you should listen to everyone else before me.

I understood from Dean that Michael Yon had granted his expressed permission for use of the image here. If that's not actually the case, maybe Martin has a point, and in any case I don't think it should be used for promoting the site elsewhere. - 22:06, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

We have permission to use the picture on this site. I have no knowledge whether we have permission to use it elsewhere to promote this site. Given that Michael has taken great pains to restrict its use on sites and in magazines that he feels do dishonor to the men and their mission, I would have to assume that offering it up as a logo for posting on other sites would be bad. He can certainly allow it if he likes, and we should feel honored if he does.

As for Ken's logo: I don't no nothin' 'bout no aesthetics! I wasn't thinking about the color. But the font and the block arrangement just reminded me of the old 60's protest signs, and I liked that.--Martin L. Shoemaker 22:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Er, you might want to give Michael Yon a link! Ken McCracken 12:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Well we do give him credit, and I figure eventually we'll have an article about him.Dean Esmay 12:45, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

---

Two more logos!

(this one is for you, Chris).
I confess that I am quite partial to the Iraq flag logo. Ken McCracken 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, just the lower part isn't too bad by itself -

Ken McCracken 00:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, now I have to say that my comment about "comparison" was right on the mark - doing the Jessup banner in the same colors as the first logo make me appreciate the original a lot more. And the addition of Jack's face to the banner is priceless... We can slide on that under the parody rule, can't we?

That all said, the Iraqi flag IS cool, Ken. As well as the straight-up black banner. Very nice work, all around. Now stop, before we run out of things to do with them all. - Chris 00:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well I am not uptight about crits, so keep the suggestions coming. Ken McCracken 00:31, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Your wish is my request: can you post another version of that flag (or just redo this one) that adds "Welcome To" in the red bar? - Chris 23:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Let me know what you want for sizes if you like these. Ken McCracken 02:00, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I really, really like that last one with the flag and the Yon photo a lot lot lot.Dean Esmay 12:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Random Thoughts

Heh, I've been made a bureaucrat! I promise to make you guys regret this. Does this mean I get to sit on my ass all day, make people miserable, and still get paid?

On a more serious note, can we enlist some Iraqis to get in on this? Can we contact some Iraqi bloggers to see what they think of this? I know this is started by Americans, but surely it isn't just for Americans . . .

Your commisar, Ken McCracken 02:11, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Oddly enough, I would say it's mostly for Americans, if "mostly" means "a plurality". The Iraqis are seeing more truth every day than most Americans are. And the people who most need their blinders lifted may well be the Americans whose opinions are being courted to try to undercut the effort.

That said, I absolutely hope we can get some Iraqis involved here! Again, the Iraqi people see a lot more of the truth-on-the-ground than most of us do. Of course, we need to apply the same rules to their work as to anyone else's: evidence, evidence, evidence! And no, their own eyewitness testimony is not by itself evidence. That way lies Jamil Hussein... Their eyewitness reports should be welcomed, but with a strong effort to report when independent verification is available and when it isn't.

It maybe wouldn't hurt to find an Iraqi for the board, and maybe also a milblogger; but I fear the site becoming too much of a board-edited site and not enough of a community site. For example, at Dean's World, I think the commenters add something to the site that the contributors don't: outsider perspectives and concommitant challenges to the contributors' views. I just kinda wonder whether the board including too large a subset of the contributors might also lose that outside challenge and perspective.

Truth is, Ken, I got the impression Dean was closing the door after you, and I was applauding that for the reason I just stated. Now you've got me thinking that an Iraqi and a milblogger would be worth adding. And for that matter, maybe a good, honest critic. Do we know any? I'm starting to lose faith in the critics at Dean's World. In recent months, all the ones I thought were honest -- Michael Demmons, Aziz, a few others -- have pulled some variant of "Well, I can't prove it, but you know it has to be true." That's not a standard of evidence we should accept, from ourselves or from anyone else.--Martin L. Shoemaker 02:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

A good, honest critic or two would be worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, I guess all we can do is let whomever walk through the door and prove themselves to be one of those honest critics. I think such people will turn up. I will be quite honest - I intend to put everything I write in the best possible light for the coalition effort while still being true to the facts. But, I am not going to undo/redo/memory hole good faith efforts on the articles I work on that depict a more awkward view of things. I see this as a place that isn't driven by editorializing, but more a repository of data that doesn't come with the package of assumptions other places have about Iraq (that it is a failure, a quagmire, blood for oil etc.)

The Iraq story is a complex one - I expect this place to reflect that complexity. Ken McCracken 03:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I want Iraqi involvement too. And honest critic involvement. Although we're also going to have to be on lookout for our first trolls/vandals, as they'll be along eventually too. But if we keep our heads on straight we'll be fine.Dean Esmay 19:14, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Our ultimate logo

In fact I think this is it:

I think that's it. I think that's our front page. Tell me if you think I'm wrong.Dean Esmay 21:26, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

And by the way I pretty much cry like a baby every time I see it. FWIW. Dean Esmay 21:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

We need it uploaded to the server, so we're not using Ken's bandwidth. Lemme know when that's done and I'll change the link on the front page. - Chris 02:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Kristian or Dave Hagood have to do that. Shoot them a note or just post a request to the boardmembers list. But I agree it's what should be done.Dean Esmay 13:34, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

---

I changed the size of the TAI Yon logo to make it a bit smaller. We should figure out the right size to use for this image to put up in the left hand corner. Are we going to have it both up there, and on the main page? It looks redundant. Ken McCracken 02:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

I love the flag/Yon composite for the Main Page, but I don't think it should be shrunk so small to fit into the corner. Better to use a completely unique logo of our own for the corner (like Ken's first one), so it can also be used for promotion offsite. - Chris 09:00, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Right now in the upper left, I'm seeing a small snippet from the middle of the composite: "TruthAboutIra" plus head and shoulders of soldier and child. Not good, methinks.--Martin L. Shoemaker 18:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes please, could someone fix that posthaste? I want to start promoting the site, but that makes it unpresentable. Ken McCracken 22:36, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I've been waiting for someone to fix it... and it just occurred to me I can just email the rest of the board. - Chris 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Chris, any response yet? Is our editorial board here unresponsive? Do they need to be replaced? Ken McCracken 18:31, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Not unresponsive to my mail, but slow to actually do something about it. I wouldn't suggest a coup just yet. ;-) - Chris 14:48, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

And . . . using my bandwidth is not really a problem, the traffic isn't overwhelming (yet!) and my server is rather stable. In the interim it is fine, if anyone needs hosting of something let me know. Ken McCracken 02:38, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

I know it's probably not a big problem, Ken. But it's an etiquette thing. - Chris 09:00, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] We need a 'Bush Lied About WMDs' page somewhere

With some kind of link on the front page I suppose . . . is this a good idea? Ken McCracken 01:34, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] An article on war profiteering needed

A common charge against war in Iraq is that it was and is fought for money. The charge seems to follow popular Marxist thought looking for economical reasons behind everything. One way to argue against the charge is to compare the cost of Iraq war against the value of Iraq oil for starters. This old article suggest that KBR at least was hurting Halliburton rather than doing any money: <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_40/b3902053_mz011.htm>. The occupation still goes on, why?