Talk:Iraq War

	Pending tasks for Iraq War:	align="right"
	Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done: remove POV in media section Cite all sources in media section Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to [[Talk:Iraq War/Archive 08}}}]]. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

Proper descriptive word for Saddam

At beginning of article "Coalition forces overthrew Iraqi _____ Saddam Hussein." What word should be used? We could use "leader", "president", or "dictator"?

Combatant Section

---

Sorry to butt in, but the casualties section is a mess. The amounts are far below what could possibly be accurate on the insurgent side, and are insanely huge on the behalf of the total Iraqis; tabulate everything and the counts don't make sense. I think you should change the "Iraq war" page and distinguish it from "Occupation" or "Post-Invasion" Iraq; give them different pages and make "Iraq war" point to a disambiguation, giving them the option of Iraq the country, Iraq the Invasion, or Occupation of Iraq, because trying to keep invasion and post invasion figures together is confusing to the layman. If, say, an 8 year old came on here, unaware of recent events, they would be confused as to what groups are still around and what groups are gone, and what casualties were suffered where.

So if you can find it in your hearts, please, divide the info, and if possible, the pages.

Possible page for iraq strategies

In addition to the history of the Iraq war, there is also a history of views about the Iraq war, in particular there has been extensive debate about the range of strategies for moving forward in Iraq. If everyone thinks it is a good idea, I am interested in starting a page describing all the strategies (go big, go long, etc) that have been ever proposed, who proposed them and why, and analysis of the various options. This is a topic of great interest at present and I think it could be a valuable addition to the Iraq war page for years to come.

Contractor casualties

I think that the number of contractors killed or wounded should be removed from the count in the main box because that should only include the military coalition casualties, not civilian also. Top Gun 03:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The contractors who are killed/wounded are playing an important role in the Iraq War. Without the 30-50,000 security contractors (not cooks, etc-but people who carry a gun) the coalition would have to field troops to replace those numbers. Also, the way in which the contractors are being used--security details, bodyguards, convoy protection--fit into the category of military conflict. Per other wars regardless of whether a particular group wears a uniform they are counted as combatants(for example the wars in Congo, Somalia, etc don't have uniformed armies in many cases).Publicus 17:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Military contractors" are hardly civilians. They are .... military. Gzuckier 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is that it is hard to get deaths stats where the security people are separated from the cooks, etc.. And in the end is an Army cook really different from a military contractor cook who is cooking for security people? Here is the relevant info:

647 total deaths of various nationalities as of September 30, 2006. "...from highly-trained former special forces soldiers to drivers, cooks, mechanics, plumbers, translators, electricians and laundry workers and other support personnel." Employees of U.S. government contractors and subcontractors.

"In Iraq, contractor deaths near 650, legal fog thickens". By Bernd Debusmann, Reuters, Oct. 10, 2006.

iCasualties - "Iraq Coalition Casualties: Contractor Deaths". - Incomplete list. --Timeshifter 04:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I agree that the security contractors (mercenaries)should be included but the drivers, cooks, mechanics, plumbers, translators, electricians and laundry workers should be excluded, I agree that the security contractors are in most part former military but these other guys are actualy just ordinary civilians. First not all of them work for the military and also if we should include them then we should include the Iraqi drivers, cooks, mechanics, plumbers, translators, electricians and laundry workers working for the military and thats a preaty big number. My point, the security personal should stay in the count, while the other should be excluded. --Top Gun 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I added an *asterisk to the total number of contractor deaths. I also added the quote to the notes section of the infobox. This way people can decide for themselves. Many of those other workers are also armed. Not just the security people. --Timeshifter 02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

POV in infobox

Reporting contractors as part of the Allied forces, based on a reference which only describes their total number, and does not separate out security contractors from other contractors, is highly unbalanced POV. Especially since the asterisk noting who the contractors are is not shown at "contractors" in the infobox. I've returned the asterisk, but a reliable source for the number of security contractors should be found, and that number used. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement

This edit war needs to stop, admins need to step in here and make some sort of ruling. UnfairlyImbalanced 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can easilly stop it by presenting counter arguments to those already made which would justify a removal rather than continually removing it with no basis. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The arguments have been made. George W. Bush and the White House are not neutral sources of information on this article, nor are they particularly reliable sources. This violates Wikipedia's standards on POV in that it is pushing only the administration's POV in the infobox and representing something that is clearly an opinion as a fact. What's most interesting to me is that you have no presented arguments for putting it in either. Why should the default be that it is put in rather than taken out, particularly if it has caused this much uproar? I'll be interested to hear back if you can answer this question. UnfairlyImbalanced 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you even taken a quick look at discussion? Like here: [1], or here [2]. Because Im pretty sure I see an argument. Dont want to look? Alright, heres the basic argument. The "War on Terrorism" is a campaign, ie a super op. Much like operations can contain subops, operations themselves can be contained within a larger grouping, known either as a super op or a campaign. The "WoT" is one such campaign, under which the US involvement in Afghanistan, Philippines, Horn of Africa, and Iraq has been begun under. In the authorization of war by the US congress, the language specifically authorized the war to "prosecute the War on Terror." It is therefore a verifiable fact that the Iraq War began as a part of this campaign, and is therefore a part of this campaign. Got a response? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are super operations and that they can contain these. However, I dispute the War on Terrorism is such a conflict. Why? Most of the world does not view the War on Terror this way. Most of the American people do not view WoT this way, infact I'd venture to say only George W. Bush and his 30% or so remaining loyalists see it this way. This a fact does not make. The authorization for the war does not specifically state that the Iraq war is being waged under WoT. It only cites Saddam's alleged ties to terrorism and potentially him giving WMD to these terrorists. I would argue that something this significant (Iraq being a continuation or subset of WoT) would have been expressly stated in the document. To me the word 'furtherance' merely means they viewed the Iraq war as something that would aid WoT. If anything this word actually shows how the two are separate, because for something to further a goal it is usually not part of it. The quote prosecuting the war on terrorism does indeed appear in the text of the joint authorization, but it never states that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. You might argue that it implies it, but clearly I disagree as do many others. I think a reasonable compromise would be to keep the tag 'part of U.S. "War on Terrorism"' and cite the authorization rather than Bush. Citing the White House seems to be sort of a "call out" (conservative pundits often cite WH or Bush) to the anti-war crowd such as myself. If this is acceptable please respond. UnfairlyImbalanced 21:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with changing the citation. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An admin commented on a similar problem with the infobox on this page: Al-Aqsa Intifada

See the discussion here: Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada in the section titled: "terrorist" in combatant sections of infobox

The combatants from both sides call the other side terrorist. So at one point in the combatant sections of the infobox there was this:

"Palestinian Authority: Several Palestinian terrorist/militant groups."

and

"Israel: Israeli Defense Forces, and several Israeli terrorist/militant settler groups."

The admin pointed out this: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism

So I removed the word terrorist from both combatant descriptions. I had initially added the word to the Israeli side after it was added to the Palestinian side. But I think the wikipedia policy makes more sense, and is more NPOV. It is better to let it be in the NPOV way of X says Y is terrorist. And Y says such and such. So Wikipedia does not take sides. --Timeshifter 00:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed "war on terror" from the infobox. I discussed more reasons in the talk sections higher up. --Timeshifter 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of discussion in the article concerning the "war on terrorism" in the "Terrorism" section here:

• Iraq War#Terrorism

Also there is the "war on terrorism" template at the bottom of the article. --Timeshifter 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is also some discussion of the "war on terrorism" controversy in the first paragraph of the article. Here is a revision difference with it:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=100341183&oldid=100339760

It can be further edited. --Timeshifter 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of the ridiculous nature of this discussion. Not only have we already discussed this earlier up, but I discussed it with you specifically, Timeshifter. Yet you come in here and proclaim that we cant choose sides as if thats what we were doing, and we cant call people terrorists as if thats what we were doing. But we are not, we are not justifying the Iraq war by calling this a part of the campaign, we are not even saying its a war against terrorists. All we are saying is that it is a part of the campaign for which it began under. I used the example of the name being "Campaign A" so we could all get passed the name for a second and just look at it in this sense. Apperantly you dont want to look at it in this way, or you fail to see the difference between labeling people terrorists and recognizing this as a part of the campaign began by the USA.

Further, your edit comment highlights the total lack of reasoning behind your actions - when all you have to defend your side is repeating already discredited arguments and citing a beleived majority, you really dont have much going for you. You need to either re-evaluate what you are doing here, which would require you reading rebuttals, and reading reasoning, or you need to stop. There arent really other options, continuing what you are doing now by removing it with no reason can be said be be disruptive. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you not happy with it being discussed in the first paragraph of the Iraq War article, and also in a section of the Iraq War article called "Terrorism"? Why is it so important to have it in the infobox?--Timeshifter 04:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason I would adamantly reject the idea that we dont show a picture of a round earth on the Earth page's infobox because some people dont think the Earth is round. Its information that is simply factual, it can be verified by going in to space, among other things, and taking a picture. This can be verified as well, with the authorization of war. Just as the planet infoboxes are meant to display pertinent information, War infoboxes are made for this purpose as well - we use proper sections to state proper information. The part of section is made for this information, there is no legitimate argument for not showing this. We can cite it, we can link to the ajoining article, we can put it in quotes. These are things that can make its meaning clearer. They do not take the information out of its proper place, and I therefore find these compromises to be good compromises. Wikipedia needs to show verifiable information, and this is verfiable. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "These are things that can make its meaning clearer." It is easier to make it clear in the text of the article. There is just not enough room in the infobox to make the controversy clear. We had a similar type of discussion concerning how many casualty estimates to put in the infobox, and how detailed their descriptions should be. We had to leave many casualty estimates out. --Timeshifter 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this is a failed analogy because we did not leave the entire casualty section blank. The problem with that was an excess of information, how much detail do you go into? In this case a compromise was reached where more of the basic things were shown whereas the article itself discussed it in more depth. I realize my last response could be taken as opposing discussing this in depth within the article, but this isnt what I meant to say. The article should discuss it with more depth, but just as this did not keep us from stating it in the infobox before, it should not now. We cant go into full depth, so we just state the basic fact that it is a part of the campaign, we link to the article itself, we provide a citation, we even throw quotes on there to show its a proper noun. The stuff that cant fit there goes elsewhere, just like the stuff that doesnt fit in the casualties goes elsewhere. But this bogus argument you are trying to sell here that because we cant say it all we cant say anything isnt going to fool anyone, most certainly yourself as you know that we did not remove it all with the example you presented. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "In this case a compromise was reached where more of the basic things were shown whereas the article itself discussed it in more depth." We did not include many of the casualty estimates in the infobox. We ended up still with a paragraph in the infobox. Plus another box for casualty notes. We would similarly have to have at least a paragraph discussing the campaign name of "war on terrorism". The infobox is not required in wikipedia. It is not a wikipedia guideline or policy. There are many different templates and infoboxes. It is up to us whether to use all parts of this particular infobox template. All parts of this template are optional. --Timeshifter 06:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is more or less what I just said. We did not include some of the casualty info in the infobox, and instead cover it later on. This is precisely what we should do in this case. Not being able to fit it all in is not a reason to instead show nothing, its a reason to show some, the main points, and then show the rest later on in the article. Which is again what we should do here, state what is verifiable - it being a part of the campaign - with things provided for further understanding. As you seem to have turned this into a debate over whether we should say it rather than whether it is infact part (a point you appear to have conceded), this brings us to exactly where we were in the last consensus. There are two trains of thought. One, its factual and thus must be said. Two, its potentially misleading, and needs to be explained. Rather than going totally with one or totally with the other, the middle of the road approach is to state it as fact, but provide information that can clear up anything that is misleading about it. If you, or anyone, reads the opening section of the War on Terrorism, they would see exactly what it is. We cant assume that everyone knows what every term means, even something as simple as stating a planet to be part of the Solar System could be taken misleadingly. Thats why we do what I just did, and link to the page which described and informs the reader about the topic at hand. When we say its part of the US War on Terrorism, it can be taken misleadingly. We dont assume that everyone knows exactly how its defined, we accomodate for those who do not by providing a link to the page which clarifies what it is. This is the standard template used at Wikipedia. The use of quotes, and the use of a citation, in addition to the adding of "US" to the start are all extra steps I, and others were willing to concede in order to give the reader even more help.

A lot of the problem this time around seems to have been using the Whitehouse as a source. By switching to the authorization of war, it should help prevent that. These are the types of solutions people need to be looking at to solve this, not a total removal. Its a fact, maybe you dont like that fact, but its a fact nonetheless. Rather than edit warring against people who are making a legitimate edit in placing the correct information back, constructive discussion about some of the helpful little things such as a citation are so much more useful. I wish that there was some sort of page which everyone would read that would get them to this point, but unfortunately it needs to go through this lengthy process which takes many days of discussion before people are even on the same page.

Now that we have gotten more or less past the "campaign" phase, do you have any suggestion about how to deal with the infobox? The absolute options are not options for compromise, going with a pure link, or going with nothing at all will make the least amount of people happy possible. It needs to be a middle of the road approach. I like the suggestion by UnfairlyImbalanced which would be a simple change of sourcing to help prevent the feel of this being a "call out" to anti-war people. We can find sources not even on a US government site which have the language from the resolution authorizing war. Its not a perfect solution, but its a good solution that I think acheives both ends relatively well. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not in agreement with the campaign name. I think it became a campaign later. I think Bush comes up with more and more campaign names. War on Terror. War on weapons of mass destruction. War on Iraq's flaunting of UN resolutions. Crusade to spread democracy in the Middle East. The war resolution throws everything and the kitchen sink in it. Most of it shown to be a fabrication later. Congress only voted on the resolution. Bush made up various campaigns later. The whole idea of campaign names based on Bush's latest whims is ridiculous. I absolutely oppose it in the infobox because it would take several paragraphs to explain all this. Also, it has been shown in captured Al Qaeda literature that it was their campaign all along to draw Bush into the Middle East in order to mire the U.S. in war. So you say that Bush started the campaign. The fact is that Al Qaeda started the campaign. You give Bush too much credit.

Logically, it could be said that this campaign goes back to the 1993 bombing on the World Trade Center. I don't know what their campaign name was then. But in 1998 the newly-formed alliance campaign was called the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin). Would you object to that being in the infobox as the campaign name? I am only telling you what I am reading. I am being satirical in my question because I don't really want that in the infobox either. Not after reading Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. --Timeshifter 09:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, Rangeley, you wrote: "War infoboxes are made for this purpose as well - we use proper sections to state proper information." Well, I explained that all sections of the infobox are optional. But my main point is that after I recently read Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism I now see that the proper location to have proper information is in the text of the article, and that specific wikipedia guideline makes this very clear. I had to change info in an infobox on another wikipedia page after reading that guideline. --Timeshifter 09:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet another straw man, Timeshifter. I dont think you really care what you are saying anymore, its totally different reasoning every time and it keeps getting more and more ridiculous. You dont think that its a campaign? You think its just a phrase Bush uses? Sorry, check out here: [3]. Has there ever been a campaign called those other things? Give me one damn source, or shut up. Seriously. I am not talking about pie in the sky, I am talking about reality. You just made some totally baseless claims, find a source before you make them again.

For your second point, really, we talked about this atleast twice before. Lets say a Mafia group launches attack on a police station. Key word being launches. They do this under their "Death to the Police" campaign. We would state it under their "Death to the Police" campaign. Lets say the Police launch a seige of the Mafia Don's house. Key word being launch. They do this under their "War on the Mafia" campaign. Whose campaign is this? Its in retaliation to the police bombing, does this mean that its still part of the "Death to the Police" campaign? Sorry! Its not, its part of the police's campaign because they launched it. Who launched the Iraq War? The USA and allies. Are there two Iraq Wars? Not here at Wikipedia, if you think its two wars thats fine, but we dont. Read the article and check out what it is. Thats something you refuse to do, you decide yourself what terms mean and build arguments off that. You cant do that here, maybe I think the Iraq War should be 3 wars, but here its only 1, it began March 20th 2003, end of story. Maybe you want the War on Terrorism to be seen as World War Three. But it isnt here. End of story.

Al Qaeda did not launch the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein did not launch the Iraq War. Unless you can prove to me that the Iraq War as defined here was not launched by the Coalition, your argument is done.

As to the dont call people terrorists rule which you claim to have recently read, please read it again because you seem to have missed what its talking about. Dont call people terrorists, say "x says Y is a terrorist." Dont say this group is a terrorist group, say "x says Y is a terrorist group." This is irrelevent to this issue, where we are not calling anyone terrorist. Read the rule again, and take a look at this situation again, and get back to me. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied farther down in another section. The only thing I would add is that the phrase "War on Terrorism" does violate the wikipedia guideline when it is not put in context. Because it calls some of the enemies of the USA "terrorists." So if it is in the infobox then we are allowing one side to call the other side terrorist. But without putting it in context. Context requires explanation. There is just not room in an infobox to do that. I really don't understand why you insist on it being in the infobox. No one is censoring sourced info you want to put in the text of the article. --Timeshifter 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not violate the guideline because it does not call a side terrorist. Nor does the article War on Terrorism call a side terrorist, it states it to be a campaign against those the USA calls terrorist. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My replies farther down address this. --Timeshifter 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I’m new to wiki and have never edited nor participated in any discussion concerning any articles but after having read through all the talk pages concerning the Iraq War, the War on Terrorism and a few other related articles, I couldn’t refrain from adding my two cents. I would like to more specifically address Rangeley’s repeated statement that the War on Terrorism is a military campaign. I believe this to be erroneous. To prove my point, I will cite from the wiki article « military campaign ». I know I shouldn’t do this because wiki articles are not valid sources for wiki, but since Rangeley redirected a few times to the WoT wiki page to prove his point, I take the liberty to do the same. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_campaign, a military campaign is :

a) « Military campaigns are usually a connected series of battles (or instances of combat in warfare between two or more parties wherein each group seeks to defeat the others) and the maneuvers that is conducted by a military force (regular or irregular) seeking victory in a war. »

b) « A military campaign, technically, is a series of related individual military operations. A military campaign here is used predominantly to refer to what one side does, and is useful for distinguishing between "the war" as a whole, and "the parties" to the war. »

Based on these definitions, I would like to ask Rangeley of which war is the War on Terror campaign a part of ? You may claim that the Iraq War is a campaign which is part of the WoT but not that the WoT is itself a campaign. As to the effect of this clarification to the greater debate (whether or not the infobox should state that the Iraq War is a part of the WoT), perhaps I’ll pitch in my two cents some other time. Justpassing 15:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats the problem with calling it a military campaign, which I have done at times but is indeed incorrect. It is a campaign, or a program, which does include military aspects, but is not limited to it. Within the campaign there have been military things, such as going to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, as well as domestic things, such as freezing monetary assets, making arrests of militant leaders, and things to this effect. This is in the same light as the War on Drugs, its a government program under which a vast array of things have been done.

While as a general campaign such as the War on Drugs it does not need to be part of a war, per se, one could argue that its part of a wider ideological struggle, a la cold war, between western cultures and radical Islam. But we havent come to a consensus on the existence of such a struggle, at this point, nor have we given a name to it. A great many people call the struggle itself the "WoT," but regardless of the existence of the struggle, the US led campaign is called the "WoT," and does include such things as Iraq. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair as a Commander?

Tony Blair is listed as one of the Commanders. However, unlike the USA, the head of the executive branch of the government has no direct connection to the Armed Forces. I might be wrong, and he may indeed be a Commander. However if this is not the case then someone should go ahead and remove him from the list. 202.155.210.86 07:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair is not a commander. He is head of HM Government. HM The Queen would be the counterpart of George Bush as she declared war on Iraq and is ultimate commander-in-chief of all Armed Services in the UK. In real terms it is HM Government who controls the forces and no any one minister, although the Minister for Defence has obvious direct input, as does the Prime Minister; but HM The Queen has ultimate power.

As Tony Blair is a civillian and not a commander, and no-one ahs objected to 202.155.210.86's suggestion, I'm removing him.FrstFrs 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add HM Queen Elizabeth II as a commander, because legally she is the British commander-in-chief, and seeing as George W Bush is on the list, and he has similarly little input into military strategy - they both belong there. Also, shouldn't there be at least one Australian commander. matthewcollins1989 19:57, 6 February 2007

I guess it depends on how you define "commander" in this instance. The Monarch is the Head of State, but the actual decisions are made by the Prime Minister who is the Head of Government in this case Tony Blair. The British generals on the ground report to him in pretty much the same way that US commanders report to President Bush. So are we talking about the individual who has the power and makes the actual decisions and policy or are we talking about the constitutional but symbolic leader? Doc Meroe 10:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

2 different wars in Iraq

The first war in Iraq could be claimed (in a short-term view) to be started by the USA. In the USA Congress passed the 2001 and 2002 resolutions to allow the use of force:

• 2001: Authorization for Use of Military Force
• 2002: Iraq Resolution

"War on Terror" is just one campaign name. One of many. From Operation Enduring Freedom:

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is the official name used by the U.S. government for its military response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It was previously planned to have been called "Operation Infinite Justice," but this phrase had previously been restricted to the description of God (among followers of several faiths), and it is believed to have been changed to avoid offense to Muslims.[1] On October 5, 2006 NATO officially took over control of US forces in Afghanistan.

So we would have to have multiple campaign names in infoboxes. From all the combatants. The Iraq War by the USA technically ended after Saddam was overthrown.

It was the various insurgents who started the current war in Iraq. Therefore their various campaign names should also be in the infobox and/or text. --Timeshifter 10:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, you cannot build arguments based on what you think the Iraq War to be, they must be built around what we have here at Wikipedia. The Iraq War is one war here, it began March 20th, 2003. It was launched by the USA and coalition. This is all covered above. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

One can't cite wikipedia as a source. That is a wikipedia guideline. I need to find the exact location for that guideline. One has to cite verifiable sources that meet wikipedia guidelines. There are verifiable sources for the various campaigns by the USA, Al Qaeda, Sunnis worldwide, Shiites worldwide, etc.. The latter have subsumed the Iraq War in their longterm campaigns. The War in Afghanistan against the Taliban was not started by the USA. It was started by other Afghanis. But the USA joined in as part of their campaign. Just because a particular nation starts a particular war does not mean only their campaign name should go in the infobox. For the Vietnam War one sees "Cold War" as the overall name of the campaign by both sides. That is a neutral name. One could make the case that the US campaign names at the time could be used. Such as the campaign against communism, or the campaign to prevent the dominoes from falling. But the Cold War is better. Since it does not favor either side. It is simply the commonly accepted overall name of the longterm conflict. I think many years later historians will describe this period as part of the longer period of nationalist ejecting of occupiers from many nations that accelerated after World War 2. Something like "Mideast nationalist and religious wars". --Timeshifter 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cold War was not a campaign, it was more on the lines of an ideological struggle which took the form of proxy wars, arms races, and other things typically associated with a "cold war," as opposed to a "hot war" where the two countries join open combat. The "War on Terrorism" is not classified as an ideological struggle here, its merely a campaign. The Afghan War as it has become known began on October 7th, much like the War in Somalia began on December 20th, despite in both cases the existence of a conflict which predated them. In both cases, a new dynamic - the US launching an operation, and Ethiopia launching an operation - prompted the media and most people to see it as a new conflict. There has been no such change in dynamic in the Iraq War which has prompted people to consider the Iraq War over and a new one began. And again, you seem to lack understanding about what a campaign is. Its not the casus belli, ie not the reason a nation goes to war. Its a literal campaign, under which operations have been designated. I asked you for a source, give me one that says there ever existed a literal campaign named any of those ludacrous names you provided. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Al Qaeda campaign name was sourced. Read up higher. The Cold War varied between hot and cold war. Mostly Cold. Thus the name. Vietnam being a hot war. There is no rule that a campaign name or any overall name has to be in an infobox. But there is a rule against inappropriate uses of the word "terrorism". --Timeshifter 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt talking about the Al Qaeda name, but the other ones you suggested existed. The Cold War was never a hot war between the US and Soviet, though obviously the proxy wars were hot wars in and of themselves. And yes, we cannot state x as being terrorist, thats a rule. But we arent doing that. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is worse. "War on Terrorism" makes it sound like all the enemies of the USA are terrorists. The infobox is just not the place to explain these subtleties. Those subtleties are explained in the text of the article. --Timeshifter 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. That is the name of a campaign, it is not calling anyone anything. Please read the article where it states exactly what the campaign is - its against those the USA calls terrorists. Again, we cannot expect everyone to know everything about every term here, that is why we provide links for people to find out more information. The name of the campaign does not keep us from stating that it is a part of the campaign, any more than attacks carried out under Al Qaeda's jihad are unable to be stated as such due to its name. Maybe we decide via consensus to call the campaign something less "inflamatory" as you put it, but until this happens, the article is where the article is. What the campaign is called doesnt matter, this was begun under it regardless. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "its against those the USA calls terrorists." I did not say to change the name. I said that the wikipedia guideline requires it to be discussed in context. As in who is calling who a terrorist. And their rebuttal. Can't do that in an infobox. No problem though in the text of the Iraq War article. --Timeshifter 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On a humorous note, I found this at MichaelMoore.com in a January 10, 2007 letter of his:

"Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!"

C'mon, you gotta laugh. What else can we do? --Timeshifter 05:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that the name is not problematic, even though the name in itself doesnt provide context, yet linking is problematic as it does not provide context? ~Rangeley (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The name and the link are both fine in wikipedia articles. As long as the word "terrorism" is put in context on the page that it is used in. Sufficient context, not just quotes. --Timeshifter 06:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And we cant do this here because? ~Rangeley (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is already being done here. In the first paragraph, and in the section titled "Terrorism." The first paragraph discusses the "War on Terrorism". As does the section. --Timeshifter 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So there goes your reasoning. We can link to it in the infobox, just like it can be displayed as a title of an article, so long as its discussed within the article itself. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

An article title has text immediately following it that puts it in context. No room for that context in the infobox. It would take a few sentences. --Timeshifter 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a bit of an issue here - you have two definitions of immediate. In the case of the article name, immediate means someplace in the article. In the case of this, immediate means literally right after it. Its either one or the other.

In any case, your entire stance is baseless and thrown together to justify your actions, its not the reason you dont want it there. I guess by this point you figure if you keep coming up with arguments you will win - but unfortunately they have to be good arguments. For one thing, the rule says we cant call groups terrorists. Your idea that mentioning the name does this is wrong to begin with, and your contradiction over what "immediate" means shows that its not an argument meant to be taken seriously. We can link to the article, and sure, we can explain it within this article just like we explain it within the article "WoT" itself. I dont oppose this, its reasonable, its what you should always do. We do not have to have an "immediate" explanation in the infobox, any more then we do in the title. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do. Wikipedia does not allow POV forks. --Timeshifter 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just like with the not calling people terrorist guideline, I dont really see an application of that guideline here. Mind explaining? ~Rangeley (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Already explained the wikipedia terrorism guideline. About POV forks; it is a POV fork to put one viewpoint (POV) on one page, and another viewpoint on another page. Use of the word terrorism requires context. On the same page as the use of the word. Not just on the same page, but in the same area of the page. --Timeshifter 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as I thought, there isnt an application. Noone has suggested making a POV fork. It is not a POV that it is part of the campaign, it is verifiable and can be determined from reliable sources. We are not calling anyone terrorists by placing it there. We cant say that someone is a terrorist, but we arent doing that here. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All of your points have already been addressed in various talk sections. --Timeshifter 08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have done your best in explaining the rather contrived idea you have put forward, I beleive we can consider this settled. I would be interested to see whether neutral observers would agree with you that not calling someone a terrorist and not making POV forks has any application here. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Executed

The problem with stating that Saddam was captured and executed in the infobox is that we do not state everyones ultimate fate who commanded in a war, we only state what happened to them within the war itself. Zarqawi was killed in an airstrike, Saddam was put on trial through the Iraqi legal system. As this was not in the war, we cant say any more than that he was captured - which was by US troops. For example, Rommel committed suicide eventually, but we do not list him as dead in battles, as he didnt die in battle. Saddam did not die in a battle, he didnt die in an airstrike, he didnt die in an operation. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point Rangeley. I think the whole thing should be summarized into something like "overthrow of Baathist government and Hussein dictatorship" or something. Publicus 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In the results section of the infobox someone put "Overthrow of Ba'athist government and execution of Saddam Hussein." And there is a wikilink there to "execution": Execution of Saddam Hussein

I think his execution could be said to be part of the war itself. Because I don't think he would have been executed without permission of the US. Any execution during times of war and occupation (during any war) could be considered part of the war in many people's eyes. The infobox should not be the place to put everything, though. So it doesn't matter to me if it says "captured, executed" after his name. But it isn't making the infobox longer since there are fewer people listed on the left side. --Timeshifter 13:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say anything about the results of the war, where I infact see it as appropriate. My issue is not the amount of information in the infobox, but instead going against protocol, which is that you only note their death if they died within the war itself. Someone can make an argument for anything, and you have shown this time and again, but inevitably we only go with logical reasoning. Saddam was not killed in an act of war, he was killed as ordered by Iraqi courts in a rather controversial manner, but it was nonetheless carried out in a venue other than that of the battlefield. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq civilians

"U.N. says 34,452 Iraq civilians killed last year." [4] --Alienlifeformz 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there an issue with this or are you just telling us? ~Rangeley (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia's bit

Australian troops have also don quite a bit. They mostly partook in the opening stages, but are still holding in there along with the Poles and Danes. I think that mentioning the Australians as a 'major combatant' is valid due to there relitvly heavy military and political contribution compared to there actual size on the world stage.

--Lilidor 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

UN discussions before the invasion

Given the importance of the UN discussion before the invasion and the conflictual debate which took place at the UN, the introduction section to war must at least mention this episode. I added some key elements on this question from the Wikipedia article on the UN discussion.Gpeilon 18:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war images

I would like to discuss the images beaing deleted that are in use in this article and articles linked to it. On January 21 2007 more than a dozen images about the Iraq war, primaraly that were not made bu the US DoD were deleted. Even images of Abu Musab al Zarkawi and that of Sadr were deleted. There are no images of those two now. Also the image of insurgents celebrating the victory in Fallujah and other insurgent images have also been deleted. The images of US soldiers which were primaraly made by them and a few other images have been left. They say that is because the other images were taken from news sources. Well first of all these images should be allowed in this article because this is an ongoing conflict and there will be no library images of this conflict for at least 10 more years that can be used under the free use policie of Wikipedia. News images are actualy the only images of the Iraqi insurgents that CAN be found. It's not like that the insurgents have their own military photographers that can distribute their images like the DoD under a free use policie. The news people are the only ones that can take a shot of the conflict, not just of the insurgents but also of other people and other events that some Administrators and Wikipedia editors say are not under the fair use policie. For example the image of insurgents celebrating their victory in Fallujah was deleted. The image was there for more than two years and now they delete it just because some user nominated it for deletion beacuse he didn't have anything better to do. Some specific news images should be allowed to be put in the Iraq war and linked articles. What are the opinions of other editors? Top Gun 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Information and context

Please do not insert information that is out of context. Point of view of MILITARY OFFICIALS will also be helpful. The military has a different point of view than politicans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.109.11.130 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

War on Terrorism

I think that enough time has passed from the last round of discussion to have given people a cooling off period for everyone. I re-inserted the information into the infobox to see if it would stick, and received a threat stating that if I did not revert it an individual would attempt to ban me from ever editing again. Needless to say, I agreed to revert the edit. I want people to actually participate in discussion and hopefully we can carry things out to their ends the way it was done in the summer time, where there actually was a conclusion of discussion, as opposed to here, where people who opposed its inclusion merely ceased discussion.

This leads us to the discussion itself. There are a few key facts that are important to understand before discussion can hope to get anywhere. The first is that there is a US-Led campaign, or program, which goes by the name "War on Terrorism." As one could determine from the article at its namespace, the War on Terrorism includes military and domestic initiatives meant to combat those designated by the USA "terrorists" or "state sponsors of terror," ie nations which aid terrorists. Iraq was listed as a state sponsor of terror by the United States since 1990 [5], and therefore it was "eligible" to become a target of this campaign. And in October 2002, in a joint congressional resolution which was later signed into law, the use of force was authorized in order to "prosecute the War on Terrorism." [6] The document I have linked to is the actual authorization, with the very sentence stated in that exact language.

Where does that leave us? Now that it has been shown that the Iraq War was begun under the campaign, it is therefore factual to state that it is a part of the campaign. But here's where the confusion comes in, some people believe that there is a "war" or "conflict" going on, which some have named the "Terror War," and unfortunately for us, even more simply call it the "War on Terrorism." This war is highly disputed, both a dispute over its existence, and a dispute over what is included within it are raging in capitals worldwide, forums worldwide, and coffee shops worldwide. This really presents us with a problem as an encyclopedia, as the name most people use for the war happens to also be the name of the US led campaign. There obviously is a solution, as with other things where two or more things have the same name. We have multiple articles, for instance we might have one at War on Terrorism (conflict) or perhaps Terror War, which would cover the different views on the war/conflict. We couldn't really state something as a part of this at this point, as its pretty much opinion based and there is no real consensus anywhere. Parallel to this, we would have an article which is strictly for the US-led campaign. We would have no problem stating things to be a part of this, as we can easily determine when things are and are not a part of the campaign, with handy little documents like authorizations, or military classifications.

I see this as a reasonable solution, because frankly, 80% of the people who take issue with stating it a part of the campaign are doing so under the guise that there is a debate over whether its part of the war, which is totally separate to that of the campaign. It would be useful at this point for others to take a look at this idea and evaluate it. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to resubmit the idea of changing the title to: " Part of the US "War on Terrorism" " This accurately and objectively states the fact that the US government has a phrase "War on Terrorism", of which the joint congressional resolution states the Iraq War is a part.

This is a simple solution that keeps the naming in objective terms--it is a 'fact' that the US government calls the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism. This avoids conflict over the justification of the war and confusion over separate names. KevinPuj 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I support using the quotations, as well as linking to the authorization of the war as a citation. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fastest consensus ever. KevinPuj 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the quoted wordings:

• "Part of the US 'War on Terror'" implies that virtually everyone in the US believes it is part of the War on Terror. In actually, the US is equally divided on this question, so NPOV requires us to reflect both viewpoints.
• "Part of the US Government's 'War on Terror'" similarly would imply virtually everyone in the US government believes it is part of the War on Terror. In actually, a substantial portion of the US Government disagrees (the currently leader of the congress, for example, has said Iraq is not part of the WOT).

I suggest not including anything in the infobox, but discussing it in the text instead. If we really want to include something, it would need to be a wording which clearly reflects that the statement is just one opinion in a two-sided active debate. A wording that would comply with NPOV is "Part of the War on Terrorism according to some sources, while other sources argue that the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terrorism." --Alecmconroy 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is not open to debate. The wording is there, its part of the campaign. You have yet to provide a single source disputing the language of the resolution. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq". In particular the discussion about Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Putting the word "terrorism" in the infobox violates that wikipedia guideline. Please stop bringing this back up again and again, Rangeley. Very few people agree with you about putting it in the infobox. The word "terrorism" must always be explained according to the guideline. There is not room for that in the infobox. You will not wear me out on this. In the end I will support Alecmconroy if he makes an incident report about you continuing to put it in the infobox. --Timeshifter 06:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually WTA says it needs to be accompanied by a citation and explanation of who is saying it. Hence US War on Terrorism, and the citation included. --NuclearZer0 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Iraq war should be acknowledged as Part of the US "War on Terrorism". It doesn't matter if only half of the American population aproves the war. The war was started by the American goverment and so it is a US war. The Vietnam war was disliked by by more than 80 percent of Americans but it was still fought by the US for 8 years. Like World War Two the War on terror is fought on many fronts like the Afghan war, in the Philipines, Waziristan, and even Somalia. The US goverment and not just them but other countrys have stated that Iraq is the central front in the War on terror. Even if it was not part of the war on terror in the begining it is now when Al-Qaida has sent it's troops there to fight the Americans.--Top Gun 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the US "War on Terrorism" is entirely appropriate. I've stated my views on this before. I really don't see what people have a problem with--as is this the proper name for the conflict. Regardless of current poll numbers, the war was started, legitimized, and run under this basis. Personally, I never thought the Iraq war was part of a "war on terrorism" but my personal beliefs don't matter--what does matter is name given to this conflict by the people actually fighting it in the US.Publicus 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

again, it is a fact that the US has put Iraq under War on Terrorism (nota bene that it's not under Enduring Freedom - like Afghanistan, Philippines etc !!!) Most unfortunate that we do not have a neutral name for this part of history as we have Cold War (and not anti-Communist campaign or stuff like that), and still wiki has no right of creating new terms. War on Terrorism remains US-pov and it implies only the US and allies are doing operations. That name neglects the worldwide terror offensive of al-Qaeda that's also winning on one front of the USA+allies-terror conflict: Iraq. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is part and should be included. As per the previous agreement with citation and quotation marks. 24-1 vote in favor I believe it was. --NuclearZer0 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

KevinPuj's phrasing is the most neutral manner of articulating the objective reality. Whether some or even all Americans may be opposed to it does not change that it is an initiative of the US. Moreover, the threats of "reporting" are totally inappropriate and don't contribute to a constructive atmosphere on the Wiki. Tewfik^Talk 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The barrier to re-inserting the disputed text

Please be aware: this list shouldn't be looked at as a comprehensive vote tally. In constructing this list, I just wanted to point out the widespread nature of the opposition to the wording, and the need for a strong and diverse consensus before re-inserting the disputed text. --Alecmconroy 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also should mention that the disputed text has encounted widespread objections and many, many words have been spent on the subject. Here's a partial list of the users who, if I'm not mistaken, have stated their opposition to including "Part of the War on Terror" in the infobox.

• Timeshifter (talk · contribs)
• UnfairlyImbalanced (talk · contribs)
• Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs)
• savidan (talk · contribs)
• Wgbc2032 (talk · contribs)
• MaplePorter (talk · contribs)
• Jersyko (talk · contribs)
• Widefox (talk · contribs)
• Bhuck (talk · contribs)
• Nescio (talk · contribs)
• Kevin Baas (talk · contribs)
• TheronJ (talk · contribs)
• Rkrichbaum (talk · contribs)
• NBGPWS (talk · contribs)
• Jacknicholson (talk · contribs)
• Añoranza (talk · contribs)
• De mortuis... (talk · contribs)
• KimvdLinde (talk · contribs)
• Jsn4 (talk · contribs)

• Hyperbole (talk · contribs)
• Mr. Tibbs (talk · contribs)
• Falphin (talk · contribs)
• Hermitage (talk · contribs)
• Talous (talk · contribs)
• Canderra (talk · contribs)
• Eluchil404 (talk · contribs)
• Skyraider (talk · contribs)
• Bobblehead (talk · contribs)
• Borisknezevic (talk · contribs)
• Peter bergquist (talk · contribs)
• Brian Tvedt (talk · contribs)
• Jsn4 (talk · contribs)
• Czolgolz (talk · contribs)
• Rama (talk · contribs)
• Septentrionalis (talk · contribs)
• Jersey Devil (talk · contribs)
• Redxiv (talk · contribs)
• Alecmconroy (talk · contribs)

The point is-- 40+ users have opposed the disputed text. If you want to say there is a consensus to re-insert the text, we should be looking at roughly 80 users speaking out in favor of the re-insertion. (Give or take. -- there's some flexibility there, of course-- users could change their mind from "Against" to "For". We shouldn't be counting the opinions of users who have gone inactive or found to be socks.) The point I'm making is-- it's not just going to be the two or three or even eight users getting together and calling themselves a consensus. Lots and lots of people have been involved in this debate, so any supposed consensus for re-insertion is going to need to be very, very strong and very obvious, and I dare say, given the contentiousness of this issue, there's going to be a very strong burden of proof needed to convince people that the disputed text really is supported by a consensus. Alternatively, there are ways to reinsert without a consensus-- both the Arbcom and Jimbo Wales could authorize such a re-insertion.

Although I only recently became involved, I see that this edit war has been going on for like a year-- with the same participants repeatedly bringing up the issue every so often, making minute alterations to the disputed text, and then re-inserting it repeatedly. Eventually, someone complains, a major discussion is held, the text gets removed again-- only for the process to start all over as soon as the objectors have stopped watching the page closely. This situatio is unacceptable. This edit war is ending now.

Do not re-insert the disputed text unless you can show that a very strong consensus (>majority) of the users support its re-insertion.

I am saying, once and for all, I will file a case against the first person who re-inserts "War on Terror" into the infobox without first demonstrating a CLEAR consensus. (With an obvious Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies exception for anyone who may not be fully aware of the situation, of course)

(or, as GTBacchus's involvement reminds me, I'd have to have an obvious "editor who shows no sign of tendentious editing" exception too :) )--Alecmconroy 16:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the forceful tone of this post, but I think it's necessary. As I've said before, the political issue itself isn't one I have strong feelings about-- I got involved only to lend a hand when there was an RFC a while back. But I do have strong feelings about Wikipedia and the need to achieve consensus and comply with NPOV. So please understand-- I'm not upset or anything, but if being blunt here will put an end to a year long edit war, then it's worth it. If more is required, then I'll try to take those steps as well. Just editing back and forth for a year is very counter-productive, so, somebody needs to be a little forceful here or willing to take the time to take the extra steps necessary to end the edit war.

--Alecmconroy 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, threats on this issue are hardly appropriate. An agreement on this issue was reached months ago and until recently the text had remained with no problems. Only in the past few months (as the war got worse) has a string of new editors showed up to press the case again. So your threats to "report" someone for editing the text hardly strikes me as an unhelpful position to take, since re-adding the text that was reached on a prior agreement is hardly controversial. Publicus 14:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to be threatening per se in my comment-- let me be clear-- I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having the opinion that the dispute text should be included. Nor am I saying there's anything wrong with soliciting discussion on the subject, or even with re-inserting the text in the face of a very strong, clear, and compelling consensus for its inclusion. So, my threat, if you want to call it that, is a very limited one-- and I hope it isn't actually unhelpful.

It's just that there's been some very egregious edit-warring on this subject, and it needs to stop. We have one editor who has personally re-inserted the text some _seventy-five_ times, for example. It seems clear to me, looking over the history and the talk page, that the disputed text is very, very controversial. Lots and lots and lots of people oppose it. And lots of people support it. But there doesn't seem to be anywhere near even a simple majority on the issue-- and there isn't even a chance that there's a firm consensus supporting its inclusion. Every major RFC, poll, or soliticiation of comments I've have had a majority of users opposing including the disputed text-- to the extent that the text has stayed up, it seems more the result of passionate edit-warring than a strong consensus. The status of the page has been dictate much more by who is willing to devote the most energy to the issue, who loses interest in the continual debate, and who doesn't. That's not the way Wikipedia works. The way the system works is-- if you want a disputed text included, you show a clear consensus for it--- consensus being certainly more than a simple majority, possibly more than 2-to-1 in favor of it. If you can't do that, you DO NOT reinsert it 80 times, you talk until there are way more people who agree than who disagree.

That's just the way it works. I abide by those rules when I have content disputes and I always abide by consensus and work to generate consensuses. As I've told Rangeley-- when I can look over all the talk pages that have discussed this issue and see that for every person who oppposes the text, there's two that support it, I will personally insert the disputed text myself! And while I may try to generate discussion against the text, while I may try to argue against the text, while I might request arbitration over the text, no matter what, I will not just remove the text in the face of a clear consensus for it.

That's just fair, and if you want to be part of Wikipedia, that's the price of admission. You don't have to agree, you don't have to stop trying to convince people, but you do have to agree not to edit-war against consensus.

--Alecmconroy 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your list is wrong, many of those people do not edit wikipedia anymore, some might even be socks judging from the list. I know Mr. Tibbs has since left and Nescio as well and Anoranza for a fact. To state people who do not edit anymore contribute to your concensus is almost the same as me saying we already had a concensus stating its allowed and so we do not need to discuss this anymore. The idea that concensus can change is important for Wikipedia, to be counting those who have moved on doesn't work. The idea is to develop a concensus now. --NuclearZer0 17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to also point out that many of the people in your list also agreed to the concensus that was reached calling for it to be included. By ignoring the past straw poll you are ignoring the middle ground that was reached and creating a two sides debate, which is harmful for Wikipedia. --NuclearZer0 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't take the exact tally of that that list too seriously-- I didn't really intend for anyone to be counting up "77.... 78... 79.. 80! okay, now we have a 2-1 consensus!". As I said, I'm sure there are people who changed their minds at some point, people who are gone from Wikipedia. The point of me showing you that list I'd made, however, was just to give you an idea of how many people have been drawn into this debate, and that any claims of a consensus for inserting the disputed text should reflect that. It's not trying to prove to you the exact threshold of consensus (note, after all, I didn't tally the people who have supported the dispute text in the past-- their opinions count too). My only point in making the list was to try to prevent exactly what occured: you asking four of your buddies for their opinion, getting their agreement, and then proclaiming "Ah-ha! Now that we got those extra 4 endorsesments we have a strong consensus and can go right back to edit warring". --Alecmconroy 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of the notorious June poll, but it dang sure wasn't anything approaching a consensus on this issue. Note:

• It made no mention of the infobox whatsoever.
• An admin found that it suffered from wide-spread vote-stacking. [7]
• Nearly half of those who responded to the poll said it was misguided or otherwise disagreed with the idea that it was achieving consensus.
• It was nearly deleted in MFD.
• A closing admin declared, in no uncertain terms, that any 'consensus' based on the poll was invalid. [8]

Kindly, self-revert. --Alecmconroy 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not srue what you are talking about. Everyone who was editing the article and others through RfC were introduced to the poll. People made arguements and negotiations took place. An agreement was formed at 25 - 2 that it should be included. No the closing admin did not say it was invalid, he said that a poll could not replace normal discussions which took place all over that page and on the talk, where numerous votes against changed to votes for under certain middle ground conditions which were met. And please do not edit historical articles. The status of something going to deletion doesnt negate it. --NuclearZer0 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave you diffs and justifications for why the "25-2" consensus is a complete fabrication-- the admins/arbcom will concur with me on this-- indeed they already have spoken on this, as my diffs show when they complained about votestacking and false consensuss. If you're comfortable with your behavior here, then that's all I guesss I have to say to you. Let me give Rangeley a chance to choose to remove the dispute text you've introduced. If I actually got through to him and his earlier self-revert was a sincere understand about the importance of consensus, I'll be content to not proceed against him. Alternatively, he could choose to leave your re-insertion in, suggesting he didn't really agree with the Wikipedia polices, but just took a moment away from edit-warring to recruit meatpuppets/allies. Let me see which it is. --Alecmconroy 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you ignoring the section above this, showing 6 people or so disagreeing with you and one other person? I do not understand you throwing around threats but you can ask plenty of people on here, I do not get pushed around by "I will take action" etc. There is no concensus to support your edits, its against your edits as highlited below. Its been pointed out to you above why your count does nto make any sense. --NuclearZer0 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not harass me. Do not harass Nuclearumpf. Do not harass anyone. I do not appreciate, nor will I take lightly the snide accusations you have thrown at me. You will not pressure me into silence, and you will not pressure anyone else into silence. Your claim that my edit was against a consensus is ridiculous, there was no consensus reached out of our discussion. I talked to you for several days, and pointed out the clear distinction between the idea of a war - something which is arguably definable by popular view - and a campaign, which is not definable by popular view. Further, I asked you to provide me with a single source which disputed the language of the Iraq Resolution - something which accused them of perhaps editing in the "WoT" language afterwards, or something to this effect. You provided me with none. Instead, you just stop talking to me. You have no right, and it is wholly out of your ability to claim that your dropping out of discussion constituted a consensus in favor of your argument.

Further, you show a severe misunderstanding of the situation here. You appear to purposefully be out to paint the situation as one in which I have been flagrantly going against consensus, stubbornly and in bad faith. But your characterization is false. In April and May of last year, the first round of discussion occured in which I took part. It died down without a consensus being reached, there were a few polls, but as you know polls or a majority, even a super majority, are not how consensuses are reached. In early June, with the start of summer, discussion resumed with the finding of the Iraq Resolution by Nuclearumpf, which changed his mind on this issue. He originally opposed its inclusion, but after finding the exact language of the resolution, he was convinced. This is where a discussion, with people such as Nomen Nescio, Kizzle, GTBachhus, Nuclearumpf, and various other people, occured which eventually agreed that as it was a campaign, and as the authorization used the language, it was verifiable and therefore accurate to state it as a part. Nomen Nescio was a very staunch opponent, but when we agreed to include "US" in the infobox, he agreed to it. Kevinpuj originally objected to its inclusion, but he too accepted the compromise. This compromise was a consensus, it wasnt reached by a super majority, it was reached because everyone involved in the very lengthy discussion came to this conclusion.

For you to list off all of those people who at one time removed it is ridiculous, you are misleading people in doing so because it doesnt paint an accurate picture of the situation, nor is it in any actuality an important figure. Many of those people participated in discussion, like Nescio, and eventually compromised with us. Some others turned out to be sock puppets or sock puppeteers, and were later banned. And many others did not participate in discussion, they just removed it and were reverted. From July to basically December, it was relatively calm without people removing it, except for the rogue editor who did so without even initiating discussion. In a few cases, a discussion did end up occuring which led to the same result as the July consensus. It was not until December and later on this month that you became involved. Early on, you invited people to participate in discussion. I did not invite people from the earlier consensus until now because I didnt see the need, but its clear we need some of that fresh spirit of compromise that was so severely lacking.

You threw in on my talk page that some beleive me to be meatpuppeting. Do not listen to these people, and further, do not restate it yourself. They made a bad faith assessment, and their bad faith assessment doesnt even need to be repeated by you. When you invited people to discussion earlier, I did not accuse you of meatpuppeting, despite the fact that they all had been in previous discussions and been notorious for removing it from the infobox and never accepting a compromise. The people who I invited include people who were either individuals who at one time wanted to remove it but later compromised, or people I met in other articles, such as the Israel-Lebanon Conflict or Somalian War and showed themselves to be clear headed.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, decisions are made through the weight of arguments, as once again you should know Alec as you have been around a while. I have yet to see anything you have said, or anyone has said, which would lead me to beleive that the Iraq Resolution's wording was somehow edited after the fact. Its wording has always been that way, it authorized this under the campaign, and we must therefore state it. Your spreading of bad faith "meatpuppet" accusations, as well as your threats waged against me and others are out of place in this environment and totally uncalled for. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What concensus?

For Inclusion:

• Rangeley
• KevinPuj
• Top Gun
• Publicus
• TheFEARgod
• Tewfik
• NuclearUmpf

Against

• Alecmconroy
• Timeshifter

I think you need to reexamine concensus, its is against you. Please do not revert against concensus. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 20:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The "war on terror" is a nebulous propaganda concept that does not belong in the info box, which should be for the basic facts on the war. The War in Iraq has very little factually to do with terrorism. There is little linking the Wars in Iraq and Afghaniastan other than some of the combatants on one side and the propaganda used to justify invasion. We have had a straw poll on this issue, [9], win which a majority thought the phrase "War on Terror" should not be in the infobox, please do not reinsert the phrase. The Proffesor 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as I told you on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a democracy and straw polls are not the method in which we decide things. The War on Terrorism is a campaign, ie a super operation. Much like operations can contain suboperations, operations themselves can be included within a larger superop/campaign. Thats whats going on here, with the Iraq war having begun under the WoT. This is stated officially in the resolution authorizing the use of force [10] where it was authorized to "prosecute the War on Terrorism." It has always been a part of the campaign, and we are fully able to note this. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Rangely, time to give it up. Alec has listed 40 wikipedia users who oppose this infobox addition. Nuclearumph has cited 8 who support it. csloat 08:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As you know, csloat, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We dont vote here, we hold discussions and weigh arguments. As you would know if you read this one, many of the people he cited later changed their minds and agreed to our consensus compromise. You really havent participated in discussion other then falsely claiming Wikipedia is a democracy, please present an argument and participate in the actual discussion here. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... I don't know if I'm talking in the right place to talk about this, but I think classifying iraq as a war is unfair. Calling it the Occupation or Battle for Iraq, or anything really but a war, because a war implies we are going in and taking territory from someone- and in that case, the war was over in april, 2003.

Note: I was really surprised to see my name included in the list of thirty-eight, above. I proposed taking GWOT out of the infobox as a possible compromise solution, but I never stated that I thought it was unreasonable to keep it in, either, only that I thought it might be a productive compromise.[11] To the contrary, my final word on this subject was that I thought that including "War on Terror" (with the quotes) in the infobox was also a fair compromise.[12] (I appreciate Alec's including my opinion in this, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if anyone who is representing my several-month old comments as representing part of a "consensus" drops a note on my talk page -- I didn't have this on my watchlist, and Alec got my opinion almost 180 degrees wrong, albiet with the best intentions.) Thanks! TheronJ 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies on that. The user list sorta got interpreted as something I wish it hadn't of. I just sorta wanted to show that a LOT of people had been involved in the dispute, so as to forestall any claims of a false consensus. Instead, the list is sort of being interpreted as evidence that a "consensus" exists in the opposite direction-- which I don't think is at all true either, and certainly not what I was trying to do just by listing off the names like that. I didn't, for example, try to tally the number of users who had agreed with Rangeley, for example-- something that definitely would have been necessary before trying to proclaim a consensus in the opposite direction.

The issue with the list was-- I had Nuclear claiming he only knew of 2 people who opposed the text, and I'd hoped that by takign a quick peek through the archives, I could jog his memory that the dispute had been far more extensive. I sincerely apologize to you, Theron, for the mistake-- and to anyone else who otherwise shouldn't have been listed. --Alecmconroy 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- thanks, Alec. TheronJ 03:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanded discussion in text on Iraq as part of War on Terror

One thing that has come up in lots of the discussion is that there are many good reasons to believe Iraq is part of the War on Terror, and many people feel strongly that that is the correct assessment. However, I noticed, unbelievably enough, that these were never actually presented in the article text! So, I wrote a short two-paragraph summary of the whole issue. In the process, I also came across two new really good pieces of evidence for the pieces of evidence in the "Iraq is WOT camp". For one, in 2006 the House passed a very strongly-worded resolution that explicitly called Iraq part of the Global War on Terror.[13] Additionally, right after the war started, there was a time when people who said "Iraq is not part of WOT" were outnumbered 3-to-1 by people who said "Iraq is part of WOT".[14]

--Alecmconroy 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, why can't we use quotes around it, like Part of the "Global War on Terror", of which Iraq's inclusion is incontravertible. I thought that's what our previous concensus had led us to. GWOT is a name given to a set of foreign policy stances i.e. Bush Doctrine, and so by using quotes around the phrase we identify it as such. Whether or not Iraq is connected to actual terrorism is debatable, but whether it is part of the U.S.'s foreign policy set under the title "Global War on Terror" cannot be argued. --kizzle 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to quotes, I believe me and Rangeley were pretty flexible on this last time. Alecmconroy feels that our previous large scale discussion wasnt valid. --NuclearZer0 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion sides with Richard Clarke in that Iraq had nothing to do with going after Al Qaeda, and that the claims that Iraq has any substantial connection to terrorism or that we went to Iraq to fight terrorism is complete bullshit. However, my opinion is not the point. Regardless of my personal belief, I cannot argue against the fact that Iraq is stated as being part of a set of foreign policy principles the Bush administration has adopted under the name "Global War on Terror". By using quotes around the term, we identify it as such and preclude any unproductive discussions/justifications/arguments over the validity and appropriateness of Iraq as linked in any way shape or form to terrorism. Thus, I'm all for including "Part of the 'War on Terrorism'" in the infobox, as long as we identify the term with surrounding quotes to indicate it as a name given to the set of foreign policy principles. --kizzle 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, they were not there before, not in any real ammount to run after, but they sure are now. --NuclearZer0 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism

See: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism

Wikipedia trumps the U.S. government. Wikipedia bows to no one. :)

Putting quotes around the "War on Terrorism" does *not* meet the guideline. What meets the guideline is to put it in the text of the article. It was in the first paragraph, and it has a whole section devoted to it.

If people can find another 40 to 80 editors willing to overrule this Wikipedia guideline then those editors need to learn to set aside their POVs, and relearn WP:NPOV.

I recognize some of the people siding with allowing U.S. propaganda to be placed in a wikipedia page without being put in context according to the Wikipedia guideline. Some of those people have a history of POV-favoring through subtle inclusion and exclusion of sourced info. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. --Timeshifter 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you need to look at the policies you quote before you tell others that they are breaking them. The policy keeps us from using terrorist as a neutral description, in other words, we cannot call groups terrorist, but must instead state it in a format "x calls y terrorist." We arent disagreeing with this, noone is disagreeing with this. The problem for you is that noone is actually calling anyone a terrorist group here. Linking to the US "War on Terrorism" can be done because, for one, its a proper noun, ie a name, which is clearly pointed out by quotations. For another thing, by placing US in the name, we make it clear what country is waging it. Even without these added things, we could state it was part of the War on Terrorism. But with these added things, your argument falls flat on its face as its more than evident that noone is being called terrorist.

Also, I recommend you read the above section before you try and paint the people that support its inclusion as propagandist POV pushers. This is a bad faith assessment. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq". I am only referring to some of the other editors as being POV-favoring in other pages. Wikipedia:Assume good faith says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." --Timeshifter 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing about pointing people to other sections is that this isnt a substitute for addressing things. You have never addressed this point - we are not calling anyone terrorist. And once again, you are not assuming good faith. Disagreeing with people isnt evidence of bad faith. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I already discussed those points. Disagreeing with people was not what I was talking about. I was talking about POV-favoring on other pages. --Timeshifter 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Believing that someone is favoring a POV is not sufficient reason to drop your assumption of good faith, but more to the point, talking about why you are or aren't assuming good faith is at least two steps removed from working on the encyclopedia. I'm entirely confident that everyone in this discussion truly believes that they are working for a better, more accurate Wikipedia. This is an unproductive line of discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated experiences and discussion with certain editors on other pages, and they continue to POV-favor. --Timeshifter 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

None of that matters. You are better off assuming they are misguided than assuming they are trying to damage the encyclopedia. Most people are misguided; it's very easy to assume that. If you're not dealing with a blatant troll or vandal, there is no excuse to drop your assumption of good faith. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The guideline WP:WTA#Terrorist, terrorism states that we shouldn't call anybody a terrorist in the narrative voice, and that any use of that label should be clearly attributed, the model for which is "X said Y". The consensus previously reached is that calling the campaign the US "War on Terrorism", with quotation marks, is sufficient attribution for who is calling whom a terrorist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No there was not consensus. See long list of users higher up who disagreed with putting it in the infobox. --Timeshifter 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was there, thanks. If you disagree that the "US" and quotation marks are sufficient attribution, please explain why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I already explained it. See previous discussion in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq".

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_3#.22Part_of_the_War_on_Terrorism.22_Poll --Timeshifter 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with listing every user who has ever expressed oppinions against including it is the same as citing an ancient poll. In that poll, Publicus opposed its inclusion, but today he is arguing for the consensus agreement. In the list given above, Nescio, Bobblehead, Unfairlyimbalanced and others are listed who, while they did at one time oppose its inclusion, later agreed to the compromise consensus.

And no, you have not addressed it. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have. And just because a few changed their minds does not change the overwhelming opposition to including it in the infobox. And more have come around to being against it also. And many others have not had an opportunity to think about it after reading: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. --Timeshifter 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are turning this into something that isnt useful for us. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so it doesnt matter how many think what, but instead it matters entirely what the what is. Again, a consensus is reached by the strength of arguments. Rather then making incorrect claims that some people have stopped supporting the consensus compromise, you need to articulate your reasons and argument against the consensus. You havent done this, and while you insist you have already, if you truly beleive it it should not be a challenge to say here. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that. --Timeshifter 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He's right; don't get hung up on numbers. No number in any poll, or in any count of editors in a discussion, means anything. It's an unproductive line of discussion. Also, at Wikipedia, if you're not willing to repeat the substance of your argument again and again, you tend to get frustrated a lot more.

I'm inclined to agree that we've got insufficient attribution, despite the previous agreement. The trouble is that it doesn't follow the format, "X said Y". It implies it with punctuation, but is that enough? It might be, in some cases, but we've also got it being displayed prominently at the top of the infobox, practically the first words the reader's eyes are drawn to, and far from any explanation of the problematic name of the campaign. I think, in context, the quotation marks are a bit too subtle. It's not made clear enough that we're just using a proper noun, without agreeing with its implications.

Maybe the campaign information could be located somewhere other than the very top of the infobox? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing it from the point of view of newbies to the article page, or to Wikipedia. There is a whole section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism." --Timeshifter 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention people who don't know what quotation marks mean. Disturbingly many people use them for emphasis, or something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If quotations are seen as inadequate, I would support the suggestion below. I disagree with the premise that there is nothing we can do to indicate whose war it is within an infobox, and I think this is just a cop out to try and remove it. Its just a matter of finding the right way of doing it. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Part of the Bush Administration's "War on Terror"

It's objective, simply put. KevinPuj 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Any short title in the infobox will be inadequate. It is better to have that title such as "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" or "Bush Administration's War on Terror" followed by a whole section explaining it. Then there is no narrative voice in the infobox seeming to endorse the point of view expressed by any particular title. --Timeshifter 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont really like this suggestion, however it is within the realm of things I would be willing to agree with as a compromise. The premise that everything is inadequate isnt one of compromise. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative, what about explicitly using the language "campaign," ie Part of the US "War on Terrorism" campaign? By using this additional word, it is shown to be a campaign as opposed to a war, which gives this information without having to click War on Terrorism and read it there. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All the other fields in the infobox introduce themselves, as "Date", "Location", "Result", etc. The campaign field appears to be the only one that's presented unqualified. Would it be possible to move it from the top of the infobox to another spot, where it could say: "Campaign: US War on Terrorism," or something like that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its possible, it would take a customized version of the template to do though. I can try and put one together I suppose. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what others think first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to give people an idea of what is being talked about, it would look something like this. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the infobox is required. It is just a form of presentation. Everything in the infobox must meet wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, it would take at least a paragraph of more info in the infobox to explain "war on terrorism" there in order to meet the guideline of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. The infobox is already long. We have discussed this several times already. --Timeshifter 06:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We identify it as a campaign, it is no longer presented unqualified as it was before. We identify it as a US-led, and we identify it as a proper noun. It would not be placed at the top, it would not be the first thing people see. What more clarification is needed? ~Rangeley (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Already discussed this many times. --Timeshifter 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to participate in discussion, I really dont see where this can go. Once again, the policy does not state that we cannot place it in the infobox, and it comes down to whether we beleive that it makes it clear enough. There have been broad concessions made so far, as we must remember that the original proposal was merely stating it as: Part of the War on Terrorism. The July consensus compromised in placing quotes, the US, and citations, and now yet another concession is being offered in which it is not placed on top as is traditional for every other conflict which belongs to a campaign - and instead it would be placed lower down and clearly marked as a campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Location does not matter. The addition of one word is not enough. It needs at least a paragraph. --Timeshifter 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the addition of one word is enough. A paragraph to describe an infobox term is ridiculous. Rangeley's compromise by using the "Campaign" classification is more than sufficient to address both sides of this debate. --kizzle 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we stop offering suggestions of middle grounds and realize these two editors are not interested in working toward a middle ground, for them its all or nothing. And what they are asking for is against the concensus agreed then, and presented today on this talk page. --NuclearZer0 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of editors over time do not want it in the infobox. There is no consensus. There is a long section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". Infobox versus long section. The issue is much better covered in a long section.

Almost the only possible purpose left now for putting it in the infobox after a year of discussion, and the latest discussion of the wikipedia guideline on terrorism, is to favor a particular POV by putting the "war on terrorism" in the narrative voice of the article by putting it in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If we identify it by the proper noun of the campaign that it is associated with, then we don't have to worry about favoring one POV, as it is absolutely incontravertible that Iraq is part of the "War on Terrorism" (proper noun) campaign, which is defined by the Bush administration. Now whether or not Iraq had any ties to terrorism is another completely debatable point, but Iraq's inclusion within this campaign, which has been titled "War on Terrorism", is indisputable. --kizzle 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It has all been disputed. See the last year's worth of discussion, and see the section in the article. And you are missing the point of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. --Timeshifter 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have misread something, so let me clarify what WTA requires. It states you have to say who says the person is a terrorist or act was terrorism, which is why it says "US "WAR on Terror"", cause the US says so, and it requires a citation of them saying it, which it does include. That fulfills WTA. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 14:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist." We have the verifiable and cited indication of the joint congressional resolution calling the Iraq War in very strong language part of the WoT. KevinPuj 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was a large part of last year's discussion, do a word search for "kizzle" on the page. The compromise Rangeley, I, and others worked out was to use quotes to identify the term as a proper noun. As for your Wikipedia terrorism guideline, the two previous editors have summarized it quite nicely. --kizzle 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq" and "WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism". --Timeshifter 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Compromises" I could compromise on

I think the content issue is going to be dead in the water until we've addressed some of the behavior issues here, but since were talking, here are the solutions I feel would comply would NPOV:

1. No text whatsoever in the infobox, leaving the issue to the article text. We really lose practically nothing be doing this.
2. Text that presents both points of view equally. "According to some sources, Iraq is part of WOT, while other sources say Iraq is not part of WOT".

Additionally, there is a chance I could be convinced to accept simply saying "According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of WOT". My instinct would be to reject such a wording, since it doesn't explicitly mention both points of view, I might be convinced that my instincts are wrong IF and only IF most of the prominent names who have opposed the dispute text came out in suppport of that wording. (I'm thinking Savidan, csloat, timeshifter, etc).

Lastly, here are wordings that I'm pretty certain I personally will never support:

1. Part of the War on Terrorism
2. Part of "War on Terrorism"
3. Part of the US's "War on Terrorism"
4. Part of the US government's "War on Terrorism"
5. Part of the Bush Administration's "War on Terrorism".

--Alecmconroy 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Provide a single source backing your claim that a dispute exists over the language of the Iraq Resolution. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Additionally, there is a chance I could be convinced to accept simply saying "According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of WOT". My instinct would be to reject such a wording, since it doesn't explicitly mention both points of view"

This is a simple fact. There is no need to present both points of view; the Bush administration vehemently insists that the Iraq War is part of the WoT. Also, could you clarify why you will never support the wordings you listed? Is it because of the word "terrorism"? KevinPuj 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! It's nice to have some fresh faces around who haven't heard all our reasons for these things Ad Nauseum. Let my start simplest--- the reason I could never support some of the wordings is that I just feel there is a notable on-going dispute about whether "Iraq is part of WOT". 57% of Americans say it's not part of the WOT, as does the Speaker of the House.

Now, once I know that there is a major national political dispute about it, I don't have to know any more. Wikipedia can't present one side of an on-going political dispute a fact. We just can't do that. We don't take one half of the country and say "You're right", turn to the other hand and say "You're wrong". We have to present both sides." The five wordings I couldn't live with don't do that-- they present one side as a fact.

Now, here's why I'm ambivalent about "According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is part of WOT". It is verifiable. While I can find many sources who say "Iraq is NOT part of the WOT", I can't find any who say "According to the Bush Administration, Iraq is NOT part of the WOT". Not gonna happen-- it is verifiable. But is it neutral? Why are we stating only one side of the debate, but not both?

Nonetheless-- it's a borderline case because unlike the others, that wording isn't obviously POV-- it's just unbalance. If virtually no one else around here had an objection, I might not either.

The best alternative I've heard is to not have any text in the infobox on the issue. There no rule saying we have to open that can of worms in the middle of the infobox. Everyone can agree that it's not violating NPOV-- because then the infobox isn't presenting either point of view-- it's simply "Declining to commment", leaving it up to the text.

The thing to look at is this: what does the infobox really buy us? Why have people been fighting over it for so long here on Wikipedia? Is it because we really what to save people from having to scroll down a little if they want to click through to the War on Terrorism article? Is it our passionate drive to optimize our layout that's making use fight and fight and fight over this?

Of course not. We've been fighting about this precisely because there _IS_ an ongoing political dispute amongst people over whether or not Iraq is part of the WOT. Many of our editors are people who feel strongly that it is part of WOT. They know there's a debate going on-- that there are people out there who are trying to say it's not part of the WOT-- and like any side in any political dispute-- some of them want Wikipedia to reflect _their_ POV in the debate. On the other side, we've heard from people who feel strongly that Iraq is not part of the WOT, and if we left it up to them, we'd have infoboxes that said "Not part of the War on Terror". In the middle are people who feel that it's not our place to decide this issue one way or the other for our readers. We should present both sides in the text, according to NPOV, and let the readers make up their own judgement on this.

Anyway, that's my two cents. (again, for those of you who've heard it before :) )--Alecmconroy 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not taking sides in a debate, or picking a point of view to display and another to not. Lets go through this step by step. Firstly, what is the War on Terrorism? The "WoT" is not a war, it is not a conflict, it is a campaign. Who determines what is in a campaign? The creator of the campaign, in this case the USA. The United States launched its campaign, titled the "WoT," and the authorization of the use of force in Iraq did so under the campaign.

There is a debate about whether it was done to fight terror, whether Iraq was tied to terror groups, whether this is part of the same war that Afghanistan is in. But this is a seperate debate to this - we arent talking about whether its part of the same war. We dont even have an article on the supposed wider war at all, nor are we making judgements about whether Iraq is a part of it. Nancy Pelosi has - she doesnt beleive that the Iraq War is a part of this larger war. A lot of others have views on it, but these views are irrelevent, I repeat, irrelevent to whether they are a part of the campaign.

Your line of reasoning comes down to "most say its not part of the wider war, which some call the War on Terror, therefore we cannot state it as a part of anything which carries the name War on Terror, even if its something different which can be defined by its creator." I can never agree to this. I recognize that sometimes, two or more things have the same name. I also recognize that we need to look at each of these seperately and not group them together. One is a war or conflict, definable by the public view and time. The other is a campaign, definable by its maker. We have the "maker" on record stating that this was made under it with the Iraq Resolution. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq" and "WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism". --Timeshifter 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way-- I should clarify: when I say that I could never compromise or agree to something, all I mean is: I'm skeptical that I could ever be convinced that a particular wording is NPOV. That's doesn't mean I would go against a strong consensus, no matter what I believe. I could easily "live with" any clear and strong conensus of almost all the editors-- even one contradicts my own person opinions about what complies with NPOV. --Alecmconroy 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is NPOV because it is not dealing with a POV issue. Whether its part of a wider war, thats a POV issue that we cant take sides on. Whether its part of the campaign, this is not a POV issue. It either is or is not, and as we have given the authorization language, it is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, you accused me of creative counting, but the fact is I have never said that a super majority is what defines a consensus. A consensus is reached through reasonable people making reasonable, convincing arguments in a discussion format, not through having everyone or almost everyone agree. I think you are a reasonable person, but what you and Timeshifter have been saying has become unreasonable. Half of both of your arguments are "there are soooo many people who have removed it!" and the other half comes down to a misinterpretation of the rules. Timeshifter has linked us to WTA countless times, but I pointed out that the format we are using is using one of the formats it tells us that we should use. We are going by the model. You on the other hand have consistently accused us of picking sides in a debate, or me more specifically of putting my "personal convictions" ahead of my duty as a Wikipedian. So much so as to try and get me banned from Wikipedia. But I will tell you once again, we are not choosing sides in a debate, we are not stating whether this is or is not part of a war - a concept which cannot be decided by a resolution but instead by public view, or historians, or time. What we are talking about here is that it is part of the campaign, we have the language of the authorization, we can find it in multiple places and its all identical. Its verifiable. This rule states 3 main points: "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. 2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." We have it from reliable sources, multiple sources at that. We are citing it with our compromise proposal. We, the people in favor of inclusion, are the ones providing it, we didnt ask you or anyone else to find it. It is wholly within the rules, and this trumps any straw poll or any headcount that you may find in your defense. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution. Accept section "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism"

The vast majority of people discussing this issue over the last year are happy to allow you to put "war on terrorism" in your very own section. That section is currently titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" in the article. A section where you can put sourced info supporting your viewpoint. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with giving you plenty of space for your sourced info? Why do you want *less* space? --Timeshifter 09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of th epeople think its fine in the infobox, you havent shown any evidence that the War is not part of the larger campaign, and WTA requirements have been fulfilled, citing a source and mentioning who said it was terrorism. --NuclearZer0 14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's refrain from using the phrase "the vast majority". I don't believe either side has a "vast majority". KevinPuj 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_3#.22Part_of_the_War_on_Terrorism.22_Poll

Also see the list of user names higher up in the section titled: "The barrier to re-inserting the disputed text". Both the poll and the list show that most people do not want to deal with this issue in the infobox. --Timeshifter 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A summary of the latter, "Decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through editing and discussions by reasonable people, working towards consensus. Polling is not forbidden, but should be used with care." ~Rangeley (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase is "reasonable people." I don't remember you acknowledging that the WOT issue has been thoroughly discussed in a long section of the article. --Timeshifter 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That section deals with whether or not its part of the larger war, which is an issue of opinion. What I am talking about is not an opinion issue, but instead that of it being a part of the US-led campaign, which is verifiable and concrete. I have provided you with the authorization countless times which authorized the use of force to "prosecute the War on Terrorism." It is therefore a part of the campaign as the campaign is definable by the USA, just like the Great Leap Forward was definable by the Peoples Republic of China. Whether its part of a wider war, and whether its part of a campaign, are two seperate things which needs to be understood here. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You also do not really acknowledge the wikipedia guideline on the use of the word "terrorism". Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Even if things were as ironclad certain as you claim, the wikipedia guideline still has to be met. That requires at least a paragraph. And there is no reason that guideline-required paragraph can't be in that long section called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". Actually, it needs more than a paragraph. --Timeshifter 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is as ironclad as I claim, read the Iraq Resolution yourself if you do not beleive me. I completely agree that even though its proved to be a part of the campaign, guidelines have to be met. Your no compromise attitude that nothing will suffice is not something I see as getting us anywhere. Rather than place it unadorned, it is being placed lower, it is being cited, it is being linked to, it is being identified as a campaign rather than merely "part of," it is identified as a proper noun and as US-led. These steps do bring it into accordance with policy. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is window dressing since it is still in the infobox where there is not enough space to do more. Adding a few words, links, the word "campaign", etc. is not sufficient to meet this policy: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism --Timeshifter 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Timeshifter, but it is. Note one of their examples uses the exact same format we are using here: "X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list." We are following this format pretty much exactly, with X being the Iraq War, as well as the thing it is a part of in quotations. It requires that we say who, as well as cite who, both of which are done with the compromise proposal. It is in accordance with policy. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting quotes around "War on Terrorism" and adding a link is not enough. See previous discussion about the wikipedia guideline in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq" and "WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism". --Timeshifter 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Its using the very same format as the example. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration filed

Regrettably, I have filed a Request for Arbitration against NuclearZer0 and Rangeley, so I thought I should just notify everyone here, and explain my thinking.

I should say that I consider the RFAr to be primarily a "behavior issue". I have not explicitly asked the ArbCom to rule on what the content of the infobox should be-- I have simply asked that they review the users behavior. I don't know whether the ArbCom will, if they take the case, rule on whether the disputed text violates NPOV or not-- my primary interest here is more for the integrity of the process, rather than the political implications. I filed this because it seemed to me that these two editors had a very clear and obvious history of tendetious and disruptive editing on this issue. It seemed appropriate to me that I should ask Arbcom to take a look over their actions and see what steps should be taken.

Anyone who wishes to make a statment the RFA and lend their insight into the situation is, of course, most welcome to do so. --Alecmconroy 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NuclearZer0-- please do not delete my commment as you did a moment ago[15]. Notifications of these sorts are entirely standard, and they're just as likely to solicit supporters for me as they are for you. If you feel it's biasing of me to post this, point that out to Arbcom and let them decide. If you really feel this statement damages your changes in arbitration, then post to the Admin Noticeboard, explain your situation, and let the experts decide. If it's improper, I'm entirely comfortable with it coming down, and will apologize for the breach in protocol-- but given your the one I filed the RFAr against, I'm hardly going to just take your word for the inappropriateness of hte notice. --Alecmconroy 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

O lord, whatever Alec. --NuclearZer0 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel Alc has been umm hard to deal with, please leave an outside opinion. I know months ago many people over 20 something got together to come to a middle ground to end the edit warring, it was an accomplishment for many of us to meet that middleground that made 25 out of 27 people happy with the results. It showed the editors here were able to work together. So if you can, please drop by the Arbcom, leave an "outside opinion" on your views of the dispute, since this really is a content dispute and Arbcom may just end up ruling on it, then you may end up wishing you had given your side and view. --NuclearZer0 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_3#.22Part_of_the_War_on_Terrorism.22_Poll

Also see the list of user names higher up in the section titled: "The barrier to re-inserting the disputed text". Both the poll and the list show that most people do not want to deal with this issue in the infobox. --Timeshifter 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sakes Timeshifter, please read Wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A summary of the latter, "Decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through editing and discussions by reasonable people, working towards consensus. Polling is not forbidden, but should be used with care." ~Rangeley (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself; why is it so important to have a single phrase "War on Terrorism" in a box on the right side of a Wikipedia article? Ask yourself why you are not happy with the current long section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". --Timeshifter 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered this question - because its verifiable and we have reliable sources stating it to be part of the campaign. Once again, I am willing to compromise and not put it at the very top, and clearly mark it as a campaign, something not done for any other war. Further, I have no problem with it being discussed in the article in addition to being in the infobox. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is so important to have it anywhere in the infobox? Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism - This guideline can't be met by a sentence in the infobox. Quotes ("War on Terrorism") will not suffice. Neither will the addition of a few words like "campaign", or "Bush's War on Terrorism", or "U.S. War on Terrorism," or "According to some sources, Iraq is part of WOT, while other sources say Iraq is not part of WOT", etc.. It is a complex issue, as can be seen in the article section. --Timeshifter 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It can be met by 1. Introducing it as a campaign, and not "part of" 2. Stating it as a US-led campaign 3. Putting it in quotations to denote that it is a proper noun 4. Linking to the article which describes in detail what the War on Terrorism is 5. Providing a citation to the authorization of war with the language that authorizes it to "prosecute the War on Terrorism," and 6. Putting it lower down so it is not the first thing people's eyes are drawn to. You cannot continue to refuse to meet any middle ground, these steps do more than enough to make it clear that its a US campaign and a name. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley wrote: "these steps do more than enough to make it clear that its a US campaign and a name."

But it does not meet this guideline: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. --Timeshifter 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It does meet that guideline which you have cited countless times. Please check out the examples given, "X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list" is the exact format we are using here, where it is put in quotes, and we identify the nation. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting quotes around "War on Terrorism" is not enough. See previous discussion about that guideline in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq" and "WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism". --Timeshifter 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, just because you endlessly repeat your citation for Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism, it doesn't mean you're right. You're misapplying policy, as the word "terrorism" is being used akin to Rangeley's example above, in that the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list. Quotes are enough. Either say specifically how this is somehow different than Rangeley's quoted example or quit repeating yourself. It's unconstructive. --kizzle 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Its using the very same format as the example. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless as to if the Iraq war was part of the War on terror at the beginning it clearly is now, the two main combetants of the war on terror (the USA and radical sunnie Muslims) are both operating in Iraq and both concider the war to be part of a wider conflict (the war on terror) not just a single war. --Boris Johnson VC 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised to see that this discussion has gone on as long as it has. The idea that we wouldn't include the US's notable and verifiable designation for its own campaign in Iraq because we don't agree with the US or its choice of words is in conflict with Wikipedia' mission of representing reality and not adding our own interpretations and opinions. I'm also troubled by the constant referencing of WP:Words to avoid, whose goal is to prevent controversial labels from being applied as objective fact, and whose purpose is not to alter properly verified and qualified facts with our own novel neutrality. It is heartening to see that many of the editors recognise that their differing points-of-view on the subject of this entry are not really relevant to the point now disputed, and have consequentially been able to compromise over the wording; I hope that everyone else can also appreciate that this is not a question of opinions or politics, bbut rather a basic misunderstanding. Tewfik^Talk 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Agreement" or "consensus"

In their lists or statements about the number of editors who are against WOT being in the infobox some people conveniently leave out many of these editors who have spoken out against it just in the last month or 2:

• savidan
• csloat
• Timeshifter
• Alecmconroy
• UnfairlyImbalanced
• Bobblehead
• Wgbc2032

Also, some editors talk about some kind of previous "consensus" or "agreement". I have yet to find any kind of consensus or agreement about the WOT being in the infobox. See next section with my points and links about the various polls, discussions, and interpretations of them. --Timeshifter 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory info should not be in infobox. It should be in main text

Alecmconroy compiled a list of 38 people who did not want "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox. Someone else linked to a May 2006 discussion and poll showing that many people did not want it in the infobox. I pointed out that WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism require that the use of the word "terrorism" be put in context. That has already been done in a long section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". The wikipedia guideline on the use of the word terrorism can not be met in the limited space of an infobox. It would take at least a paragraph. Quotes ("War on Terrorism") will not suffice. Neither will the addition of a few words like "campaign", or "Bush's War on Terrorism", or "U.S. War on Terrorism," or "According to some sources, Iraq is part of WOT, while other sources say Iraq is not part of WOT", etc.. It is a complex issue, as can be seen in the article section. This wikipedia guideline has been discussed in several talk sections, too: [16] [17] [18]

I came into this dispute later than others. My interest was in how the wikipedia terrorism guideline did, or did not, apply. That specific guideline did not seem to have been discussed previously. There was a June 2006 discussion, but it was not about WOT being in the infobox. It was about whether the Iraq War was a part of WOT. That June 2006 discussion seems to be subject to various interpretations. The May 2006 discussion and poll said something interesting. It mentioned that using the same logic, the Iraq War could be labeled in the infobox as something like this: "Part of Bush's campaign against the Axis of Evil." The phrase "War on Terrorism" is offensive to many people in both the Western and non-Western world, because it is such an obvious propaganda slogan. Wikipedia should never put propaganda slogans in the narrative voice of any wikipedia page. It must be put in context.

Another issue is that WP:NPOV would also require the infobox to have the campaign names of the many insurgent groups from Iraq and from outside Iraq who are now fighting in Iraq. Also the nations and groups outside Iraq who are aiding insurgents in the Iraq War. Shall we put "Part of Iran's long campaign against the Great Satan" in the infobox? What are the campaign names of the foreign Sunni Wahhabi fighters? The issue is not whether these slogans and campaign names exist or not. But how Wikipedia uses these phrases. Many Iranians, Americans, Saudi Arabians, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Shiites, etc. do not agree with the minority viewpoints of Bush and the other more radical religious extremists who are fighting inside Iraq, or who are aiding combatants in Iraq. Moderates on all sides would say "that is not *my* campaign, so why is *my* affiliation being smeared by association?"

I think wikipedia needs a guideline saying that infoboxes should not have inflammatory info in them. That info needs to be put in context in the text of articles according to WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for the use of the word 'terrorism' are for Wikipeida characterization of events, not for the official name designated by others. It is simply fact that there is a "United States 'War on Terrorism'" and the Iraq front is included in their designation. For example, World War I was called the "War to End All Wars." It did no such thing, but just because it was not true does not mean that Wikipedia should purge all references to "War to End All Wars". If Iran had an operation called "Death to the Great Satan" it would most certainly be called that in Wikipedia. A similiar example is the term "Ethnic Cleansing". It is offensive to be accused or labeled as being part of Ethnic Cleansing, yet it is liberally applied throughout Wikipedia (i.e. Hurrican Katrina is labeled as Ethnic Cleansing). Yet the standard for inclusions is "reliable sources" not offense or controversy. You may not agree with the "war on terrorism" label, but it is used and it is accurate to reflect that use. --Tbeatty 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You use the example of World War I being called the "War to end all wars". You're right that nobody's trying to "purge all references" to it, but nobody's trying to purge all references to the "War on Terrorism" either. Some people are suggesting that the phrase be presented alongside some explanation of the problematic nature of that name. I'm confident we aren't using "The War to End All Wars" as a purportedly neutral "name" of World War I. We're reporting that it was called that by people at the time. Similarly, we should use a deliberately loaded name such as "War on Terrorism" in the context of reporting that it's a label applied by particular parties. A pair of quotation marks is hardly qualification enough; it still looks as if the encyclopedia is taking the position that the Iraq War is part of an actual war on terrorism.

If Iran had an anti-US operation called "Death to the Great Satan", I'm entirely confident that our own media would give it a different name, which would then be the name Wikipedia would use, per WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly so, but the name from reliable sources is "War on Terrorism". Just like War on Poverty or Great Society or No Child Left Behind are named by the people who created them. Even if the War on Poverty increased poverty or the Great Society created no such thing or No Child Left Behind leaves a lot of children behind, that is their name. Until mainstream sources rename "War on Terrorism" to something different, it should stay as it is called by the majority of mainstream sources regardless of what Wikipedians might have called it if they had the opportunity to name it themselves. The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism just like The Social Security Act of 1965 was part of the War on Poverty. There is no judgement as to whether that act acutally contributed to the War on Poverty, rather it is historical reality that it was considered part of the War on Poverty by those who made the policy. You can comment on the success/failure/effects/results of those policies but arguing that the name that was given to it by the policy makers is inaccurate is a non-starter. Use the common name for the article and template or else it will be impossible to include "War on Terror" items in the template because it will be unclear as to what is included because the Wikipeida name would be arbitrary and subject to editor interpretation rather than reliable sources. --Tbeatty 09:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism just like The Social Security Act of 1965 was part of the War on Poverty." But that doesn't appear to be the case. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone espousing the view that "Social Security Act of '65 was not part of the War on Poverty". In contrast, half of the US along with half of the US's political leaders will tell you that Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror. No matter how "right" we think one side of that debate is-- it seems like any way we cut it, saying "Iraq is part of WOT" amounts to Wikipedia contradicting a notable political view of politicians, experts, and the populace. --Alecmconroy 11:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

War on Terrorism is a name, not a political philosophy. By not including Iraq War in the War on Terrorismis taking a side and turning a historical name into political position. Just like explictly excluding the Social Security Act of 1965 from the War on Poverty would be seen as a poltical statement on that particular act as not helping the war on poverty. Opposition to including the Iraq War in the War on Terror stems from the political belief that the two are unrelated. It is a valid political viewpoint. However, it is not the historical viewpoint as the authorization for the use of force explicitly says that it is to prosecute the war on terror, regardless of how successsful or correct it was. Including the Iraq War in a political context as being part of the war on terrorism would require balance, however including it in the War on Terrorism (a specifically named historical event) requires no such thing as it is a matter of historical record. Excuse the Godwin's law faux pas, but consider the Final Solution of Nazi germany. No one would argue that Auschwitz wasn't part of the Final Solution on the basis that the murdering of Jews wasn't a final solution. The vast majority of people don't believe that the Final Solution was the final solution but we wouldn't say that Treblinka and Auschwitz weren't part of Hitler's Final Solution on the basis of the misnomer of Final Solution.--Tbeatty 07:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty-- welcome. Good to have all the new eyeballs.

I definitely agree with parts of whta you say. I don't think the "name" "War on Terrorism" is a taboo-- I expect pretty much every single person in the internet-connected world knows "War on Terrorism" is a proper name that has been used in public discourse-- not a term Wikipedia is applying. WTA suggests we need to be very careful to use attribution here, but I don't see it as providing an outright barrier to us using the term at all.

For me, the objection to the words "War on Terrorism" has little to do with the words "War" or "Terrorism". My concern is more how to square the article text with the notable (indeed, majority) opinion that says, point blank, "Iraq is not part of WOT". For my part, I try to keep open the possibility that there is a notable group of people who, when they say "Iraq is not part of WOT", actually mean "Iraq isn't part of WOT-- campaign, conflict, or otherwise". I think it'd dangerous for us to start trying to divine what notable figures "mean" when they say something. Sure, people who say that could just mean "Iraq isn't successfully stopping terrorism". But those same people could just as easily mean "The way I see it, Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT-- it's a totally separate undertaking which is in no way part of the same campaign as the Afghanistan war". I'm very skeptical that no notable person has that POV- if you asked a Cindy Sheehan-type what they mean by "Iraq is not part of WOT", I'd bet that's what they'd say. My point is: 57% + experts say "Iraq is not part of WOT"-- I think it's a hard road to try to prove that "Sure, they say 'Iraq is not part of WOT'-- but I'm sure they'd all agree that 'Iraq is part of the campaign known as WOT". You see my point?

This is one of the biggest political debates in the world-- with a very wide diversity of political opinions. When I hear that the Canadian gov't, the US Democratic leadership, and 57% of the US itself have said "Iraq is not part of the WOT", I see that as prima facie evidence that we shouldn't be saying "Iraq IS part of WOT"--- which is to say, if you want to try to include the sentence "Iraq IS part of WOT", you've going to need some serious evidence to prove people don't have an objection to it. So, that's one problem with it-- how do I know there isn't a "historical" objection to it-- as best I can tell, the notable politicians who have objected to "Iraq is part of WOT" haven't included any caveat saying "Well, we all know it IS part of the WOT campaign-- but, well, you know that I mean-- it's not actually fighting terrorism". So, that's one problem-- I haven't seen any evidence that there really isn't any notable objection to the idea that "Iraq is part of the same campaign as afghanistan".

There's a second objection I have too. Suppose it really was demonstrated that nobody notable objects to the the statement "Iraq is part of the WOT campaign". I'd argue that we still shouldn't say "Iraq is part of WOT" because it's overly vague. The abortion analogy is relevant here. The phrase "Life begins at conception" is a slogan used to represent a major political viewpoint, just as "Iraq is part of WOT" is. Now, biologically speaking, there is no debate that a zygote is, technically, alive, and it begins dividing after conception. But of course, we can't actually the sentence "Life begins at conception" in wikipedia-- even though there is no objection to it for scientific reasons, there is a huge objection to it on political grounds. We need to attribute it, or reword it in a way that has no political objection. --Alecmconroy 10:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread the public opinion polls if you think there isn't any notable objection to the idea that ""Iraq is part of the same campaign as afghanistan". This seems to be the crux of the matter. Whether we are talking about the capitalized "War of Terrorism" (which is a named campaign like World War II) or whether we are talking about the lower case "war on terrorism". The argument always seems to devolve into whether Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 which is namely whether he was terrorist or sponsored terrorism. This however is irrelevant in whether this is part of the named campaign, "War on Terrorism". It is like arguing against the name "Desert Storm". It is the proper name of the operation and leaving it out (or renaming it to something else) would be Original Research. Look at another example Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is an infobox at the bottom called World War II. Arguably, the surrender of Germany and Italy ended World War II and there was only Japan at war. However, the infobox is still (correctly) named WWII. Also see Nanking Massacre. It happened in 1937 yet it is included in the WWII infobox when WWII didn't officially start until 1939 (Germany invading Poland). The big picture is World War, world war and quibbles over the meaning of words detract from their proper name usage. It's like arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't use the term "Christ" when talking about "Jesus Christ" because "Christ" has a certain meaning in Greek/Hebrew that they don't believe is met by Jesus of Nazareth. By that standard, Wikipedia should not use the term "Christians" because the overwhelming majority of people on the planet do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah or "Christ". However, because "Christians" is the self-identified proper noun and common name, it is used. Just like the Iraq War is part of the self-identified proper noun and common name "War on Terrorism." There are certainly other points of view of whether the "War on Terrorism" is a war on terrorism or whether the Iraq War is part of the war on terrorism, there is no valid reason why it should not be included in the "War on Terrorism" as defined by those who conceived and executed it. To use my other analogy, if Cindy Sheehan went around saying that killing six million Jews from Europe was not the final solution and that 100% of people agreed that this wasn't a final solution, it still wouldn't change the campaign name known as the Final Solution. It is not subject to interpretation of opinion polls, it is simply the historical name given to it by those that conceived it and executed it, regardless of how accurate the name is. Iraq was invaded on the pretext and documented ties to the "War on Terrorism". If history judeges the War on Terror poorly, it will not change the name. It will not change the Iraq component of the "War on Terrorism." --Tbeatty 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A second objection to the disputed text

One objection to the disputed text is that it uses an inflammtory name: The War on Terrorism. There's an objection, which Timeshifter lays out, which says the use of this name violated Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. I personally don't subscribe to this specific objection, because "War on Terror" is, in fact, a name used by others.

A much larger objection, to me anyway, stems from the fact that the whole world is debating whether Iraq is, indeed, part of the War on Terrorism. No one can deny this debate is ongoing. The US speaker of the house says it's not part of the War on Terrorism. 57% of the US people say it's not part of the War on Terrorism. There are lots of good arguments on both sides of that political dispute, but the political dispute exists. And once we know that-- Wikipedia can't take sides in it. --Alecmconroy 07:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the political dispute, and that wikipedia can't take sides. I don't think you understand, though, my objection based on Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. I am not saying that "War on Terror" is not used by others.

The guideline says this:

Not encyclopedic:

• X is a terrorist group.
• Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
• After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

The USA or Bush or old Congressional resolutions make a blanket statement that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terrorism". That means that all opponents of the USA in this war are being called terrorists. That is in the "not encyclopedic" list. --Timeshifter 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to say your concerns are entirely invalid-- I'm just saying, they're not primary in my thinking. So, for example, based on what I know now, I might not object to similar "War on Terrorism" text in a Afghanistan-war box, because by and large I don't think there is a dispute about whether Afghanistan is part of the WOT. --Alecmconroy 08:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have the same objection. Because insurgents opposed to occupation don't look on themselves as terrorists. There are many groups fighting the NATO occupation in Afghanistan. Not just Al Qaeda. And I would have the same fairness request to have their campaign titles included in the infobox, too. I guarantee that some of their campaign names will be just as inflammatory, and more. Wikipedia should not be a platform for name-calling. Those names must be put in some serious context. Not just some token context consisting of quotes and a link. How about some patently offensive campaign names such as "The Islamic campaign against the bloodsucking Zionist Crusader allies and their baby-killing, gay-loving regimes." Would just quotes and a link make anybody happy? I sure as hell hope not. --Timeshifter 08:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Alec, is that you are confusing the wider conflict with the campaign. They are not the same thing - one is a debatable, opinion driven concept, the other is concrete and fully rooted in government classifications. I have given you the language of the authorization - you know what it says. It clearly is classified as a part of the US-led campaign, and this is fully within their power to do. You have not provided a single source refuting the language of the Iraq Resolution - this would be what you need to show a dispute exists over the campaign issue. What you have instead done is say that because there is a debate about whether its a part of the wider war, we cannot say that it is part of the campaign. This just doesnt cut it.

As to the name, ultimately we name things using the common name. I doubt most people would use the example you provided, Timeshifter, as the most common name, any more than people use "Global War on Terrorism" as the common name for the "WoT" campaign. But if they did, we would definitely be able to put it in an infobox. Its not for us to decide what is inflamatory and unacceptable for names, its for the public. If the public saw it as a bad name, theyd probably rename it like they renamed this campaign. But thats there job, not ours. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a source demonstrating that Nancy Pelosi, General Clark, and 57% of the americna people have said they agree with your theory that "Iraq is part of the WOT Campaign, but not the WOT CONFLICT", that would be one thing. But this idea of "conflict-vs-campaign" is, essentially, your own OR theory you've come up with to justify how notable people who say they disagree with you must, in fact, actually be agreeing with you all along. I don't buy it. --Alecmconroy 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to be careful Alec, not everything is defined by public view. Most assuredly, if the majority of sources with the Iraq Resolution language on it carried a different version, or if there were a significant (or perhaps even existent) claim made by reliable sources that the Iraq Resolution had been tampered with, then we would be in a situation where a dispute exists. But we arent in this position - each source carries the same language and you have provided no evidence of a dispute.

What is defined by public view is whether the Iraq War is part of a wider war, and there is no doubt a dispute exists over this. And I am not claiming we can pick sides in this dispute.

If you truly beleive that all of the notable individuals you have cited are talking about the campaign in their comments, they would be, simply put, incorrect. It would be like if General Clark stated there were no amendments to the constitution. His saying that isnt proof of a dispute - currently, no dispute exists over this as the constitution clearly has amendments. If the majority of sources showed that the constitution had no amendments, that would be a different scenario entirely, just like it would be if the majority of sources showed that the Iraq Resolution did not do so under the campaign. But neither of these are the case today.

I once again ask you to provide a single source backing your claim that a dispute exists over the language of the Iraq Resolution. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User Conduct RFC on Rangeley

Arbcom didn't want to take the case at this time because there hasn't been a user-conduct RFC on this. So I have started one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangeley.

Again, let me reinterate, the behavior issue is separate from the content issue, and I'm not filiing this just because of Rangeley's viewpoint on this, nor trying to say that everyone who agrees with him on the content issue is acting inappropriately.

It's not that he added the disputed text that's a problem. It's that he added it seventy-five times, engaged in vote-stacking despite multiple warnings, and has knowingly misrepresented consensus to justify his behavior. Regardless of how the content issue is decided, his actions are well beyond the realm of acceptable behavior. If he is not led to understand the inappropriateness of this behavior, I am convinced he will repeat it in other content disputes in the future. --Alecmconroy 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One could counter-argue removing the information the same number of times is likewise beyond acceptable behavior, could it not? If one goes to the Rationale for the Iraq War one can read, "The single common thread for these rationales has been the claim that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the Global War on Terrorism —itself ostensibly claimed to have begun with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. This assertion however rests largely on a claimed connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, for which positive evidence remains thin. To the contrary, claims of false or exaggerated evidence and rhetoric (Yellowcake forgery, Downing Street memo) have largely been substantiated." To my mind, we'd be best off having a link to the War on Terrorism page, but also to have link to a caveat or opposition to the assertion. That is reasonable enough. No need to censor out the Bush Administration's causus bellorum, even if (or perhaps especially if) it is argued to be an incorrect assertion. Leave the breadcrumbs for people to find the articles to read for themselves. --Petercorless 14:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The breadcrumbs need to be on the same page. Otherwise it is a POV fork. And the breadcrumbs have been all together in their own section called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" in the article. There is also no need to fork the controversial phrase to the infobox when there is this section that puts it in context. --Timeshifter 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"One could counter-argue removing the information the same number of times is likewise beyond acceptable behavior, could it not?"

One could indeed so-argue. :). I would definitely tend to agree. I find it hard to imagine ANY justification for ANY user edit-warring 75 times on a particular content dispute. By and large, it seems like a diverse group of many different users have been responsible for the removals, so I'm not aware of anyone whose level of disruption is anywhere on Rangeley's level. But "I think my POV is right" is never a justification for widespread disruption of the encyclopedia due to massive edit-warring. --Alecmconroy 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt you be more concerned with the people reverting and not participating on the talk page? Much of the people you claim toward your 40 people concensus have not edited this talk page at all, many never discussed their reversion here at all. I would think someone so concerned with fairness would address that. Oddly enough when you made your page cataloguing my reverts and I pointed out numerous were against a sockpuppet, you called my notes on that vandalism, so I guess you are not after fairness and the protecting the spirit of Wikipedia. --NuclearZer0 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw lots of people on various talk page sections explaining their reasons for being against WOT being in the infobox. --Timeshifter 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My list of 40 people is not proof of a consensus-- it was an attempt to forestall creative counting, such as your citing a "25-2" consensus when you know full well there are way more than two people who have opposed the disputed text.

As for the editing of my subpage-- it's usually considered impolite to edit another user's private subpages. Not expecting anyone to edit it, I almost copied and pasted your additions into a complaint, which would have made it appear that I was accusing you of using sock puppets. The correct venue to alert me to such information would be my talk page, not my sandboxes. --Alecmconroy 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you called it vandalism your true motives are easy to see. Next time you should investigate, unless you did and just didnt care that they were reverts against a sockpuppet. --NuclearZer0 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And try to be an adult, "he started it" is not a reason to violate WP:POINT. --NuclearZer0 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While editing 75 or so times on this does seem like a lot, in my opinion the main reason Rangeley has been doing so many edits comes basically down to the fact that he's really been the main editor closely watching this part of the article. Personally, it's been helpful to have someone watch that part of the article since it has been so controversial. I've posted my thoughts on this for the Request for Arbitration page as well. Publicus 15:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One person watching an article over many months and adding the same "war on terrorism" phrase 75 times in spite of the majority of people who oppose it is not helpful. And then saying that it is a good thing because it is so controversial makes no sense. --Timeshifter 20:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In spite of? I was one of the most vocal critics of Rangeley's position on the compromise page, and yet the "War on Terrorism" (with quotes) compromise that came out of that seemed to satisfy most people, or at least most people who participated in that discussion, including me. --kizzle 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You should read Timeshifters opinion on the RfC, its turning into a content one, not a conduct one. So I reccomend people give their 2 cents even if it is only a paragraph or so, especially since it seems to not be about Rangeley's conduct solely. Kinda how the Arbcom request was going. --NuclearZer0 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In their lists or statements about the number of editors who are against WOT being in the infobox some people conveniently leave out many of these editors who have spoken out on the talk page against it just in the last month or 2:

• savidan
• csloat
• Timeshifter
• Alecmconroy
• UnfairlyImbalanced
• Bobblehead
• Wgbc2032

Also, some editors talk about some kind of previous "consensus" or "agreement". I have yet to find any kind of consensus or agreement about the WOT being in the infobox. See previous sections with my points and links about the various polls, discussions, and interpretations of them. Also the alleged agreement.

Also, Alecmconroy has discussed the alleged agreement, votestacking, etc. on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangeley and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rangeley. --Timeshifter 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been times I was a minority, and times when I was in the majority. I didnt become wrong or right with the tides. Dicussion, not polls, leads to consensus. I have linked to this several times before, but perhaps not enough [19] here is the actual area in which the consensus was posted. Its not the discussion leading up to it, that can be found on any given page during that time period, whether it be the Iraq War, War on Terrorism, or other pages related. Its not a poll - you wont find a list of names. You will see a statement posted by me which GTBacchus clarifies (not at the very top, looks like someone added statements before mine later on), which most people see as reasonable, and those who did not at first understand it were explained to. Kevin Baas, another person listed on the above list as "against" inclusion, is yet another individual who agreed - stating "For the record, I'm happy with the compromise of using quotation marks." ~Rangeley (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Kevin Baas has since changed his mind. Here is part of a comment of his in a section farther down: "It is important, therefore, that we, the editors, are careful to avoid misleading the reader into believing things that aren't true, and the phrase 'war on terror', quoted or not, poses a significant danger in this regard."

Wikipedia is not a democracy, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Rather than making lists, and this goes to anyone, of people who think this or that, we need to be talking about what "this and that" really is. The previous consensus determined that it was a part and came up with a way of representing it. We can do this again, most people seem pleased with the moving of it to a lower position on the infobox. We have already determined it is within the WTA guideline as it uses the format in a given example. We all have better things to spend time on than this, and thats why I am willing to compromise on this. If you have a real reason not to compromise, Timeshifter, please present it. Dont cite a poll, dont cite a supposed majority. And dont cite WTA, we already went over that. State a legitimate objection, or move on. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Past concensus, both in the case of Wikipedia:WOT and the one you are claiming, Timeshifter, are not set in stone. Let's debate the merits of it now, seeing as there is a new concensus to be reached with the influx of new editors. From my understanding, the crux of this debate is a semantic point on whether or not "War on Terrorism" is a proper noun indicating the name of a set of foreign policy principles the Bush administration has adopted, or if the War on Terrorism is a general concept that can be defined by those outside the administration. The people who have adopted the latter meaning have thus taken it upon themselves to declare (correctly in my opinion) that Iraq had little connection to Al-Qaeda or at the very least that the invasion of Iraq was not for combating terrorism. Those who adopt the former must allow the "War on Terrorism" to include whatever the Bush administration states is part of the War, as it is the proper noun referring to a campaign designated and defined solely by the Bush administration. Since those who are present in this current debate are conflating these two contrasting meanings to the same linguistic phrase, I ask that we take it upon ourselves to come to a conclusion whether or not "War on Terrorism" is a proper noun or if it is a general term. My opinion is that it's a proper noun, but maybe an editor can come up with a creative way of using a citation either way to prove that it is either a general term or a proper noun. If we can decisively come to a conclusion on the status (proper noun / general term) of this phrase through citation, then it should effectively solve this debate. --kizzle 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone pointing out that citing numbers from past polls or however we're trying to cite some past consensus is totally irrelevant. The question is whether we present the phrase "War on Terrorism" in a way that meets the standard set at WP:WTA. According to that guideline, the standard we should be applying is that we can't call someone a terrorist in the narrative voice of the encyclopedia, but that the labelling must be clearly attributed, such as, "X said that Y is a terrorist group.^{with citation}" The question is, does the text: Part of the US "War on Terrorism" meet that standard?

I'm inclined to think it does not, that the quotation marks do not create sufficient distance from the narrative voice, and this is compounded by its location at the very top of the page, far from any text explaining precisely who is labelling whom as what. That said, I'm willing to agree with moving the text lower in the infobox, labelling it clearly as the campaign under which the war was authored, and providing citation that it was in fact authored under a campaign of that name, as Rangeley has suggested, and helpfully created a custom infobox. Perhaps in six months, we'll talk about it again and come to a different compromise, but that seems to be a reasonable one for now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the tremors here, let's be clear about things, there is no question about whether this is part of the WoT. As president George W. Bush said: "Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." [20]. So you see, this is actually central point in global war on terror, and our options are limited. Of course this differences that wikipedians Alecmconroy & kizzle illustrated are more than notable and distinction should be discerned in the article. imo, of course. Lovelight 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The curious thing is that the current edit removing the "War on Terrorism" only half-breaks the logical connection, because the War on Terrorism article points to this article. While there is valid argument to be had the Iraq war was not initially connected with Al Qaeda, and even now less than 5% of the combatants in Iraq are Al Qaeda operatives (versus domestic militia and insurgent groups), the logical assertion of the Bush Administration and Al Qaeda leaders is that this is part of the GWOT/global jihad. In other words, both warring parties have chosen to make Iraq part of the battleground, even if the mass of the local warring parties are fighting for other political and sectarian reasons. Add the link back in, but add to the section on criticism of the term. --Petercorless 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, thats dealing with the idea that there is a larger war going on, which is seperate to this. What we are dealing with is a very specific issue of whether its part of the US-led campaign, which is a concrete issue that can be decided with the authorization. There are lots of views about whether its a part of the wider conflict, and ultimately its too hot an issue to really get anywhere on. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me share another thought… Public opinions are certainly as important as notable. However they shouldn’t reflect historical accuracy of our project. Let me repeat: War in Iraq "is now the central front for the war on terror". Which is, as we are constantly pointing… quite absurd (and most disturbing); since the origin of this strange war on terror was horror of 9/11, and we later "reveled" that Iraq has nothing to do with it… well, as I've so vaguely pointed earlier, it appears that we have this huge gap to fill, I still think that this should be clearly discerned in related articles. Lovelight 13:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What about a "See also"?

A thought that pops into my head that I'd like to ask Kizzle, GT, and Peter:

Let's step back and ask: what are we trying to accomplish with the text in the infobox? Which is to say-- are we trying to convey assertions about the Iraq War, or are we trying to create a navigational aid for going between pages?

The issue we run into with trying to make assertions in the infobox is that the brevity requirements in an infobox tend to make us unable to attribute that opinion to specific individuals. This has been the real sticking point-- infoboxes aren't good places to be trying to making assertions of fact or opinion, because there's no room to talk about all the intricacies of an issue.

On the other hand-- maybe we we're just trying to make navigational aids-- so that readers can see click through to the War on Terrorism article. This purpose seems more in keeping with what infoboxes are for. If that's what we trying to do, what would people think of this:

At the bottom of the infobox, include a link that says "See also War on Terrorism".

if it was at the bottom, I don't think it would be making the assertion that "WOT" is a nother name for "Iraq War". We could then leave the discussion of what the precise relationship between the Iraq and WOT for the article text, but at the same time provide readers with a link to the WOT. --Alecmconroy 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. It is strictly a navigational aid, and does not remotely sound like the narrative voice of wikipedia favoring (even slightly) any viewpoint on the War on Terrorism. --Timeshifter 08:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What we are trying to convey is that it is a part of the campaign. A "see also" makes it sound as though it is seperate. The proposed compromise which GT, Kizzle, and others seem to like at the moment is placing it lower, and introducing it as a campaign specifically. What it would look like is this and would take the form of 'Campaign: US "War on Terrorism"[1]' Noone is making assertions that the Iraq War should be renamed or is named the "WOT," and noone is making the claim that it is a part of a wider war. We are merely citing the verifiable information given by reliable sources that it is a part of the US led campaign. Whether its part of a wider war is another issue entirely, and again, the WTA guidelines are met as we are going by the example. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Polls about "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox

No polls show majority support for WOT in the infobox. The June 2006 votestacked poll did not ask about WOT being in the infobox. Rangeley was reprimanded by admins about that poll.

That June 2006 poll did not ask about WOT being in the infobox. It asked whether WOT existed, and who said it existed, and whether the Iraq War was part of the WOT, etc.. Few people have a problem with all viewpoints on the WOT issue being discussed in the article.

There is a whole section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" that details all the viewpoints.

So, stop using deceptive methods, Rangeley, to push for WOT being in the infobox.

To say elsewhere about the June 2006 votestacked poll "But they surely can cite the poll, as we must assume good faith about those who voted" is total deceptive bullshit. Because that votestacked poll was not about the issue at hand. Specifically about WOT being in the infobox. --Timeshifter 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about polls? No poll results have any bearing on anything for us. Is anybody actually claiming that WoT belongs in the infobox because of a poll? Wikipedia's not a democracy, so whatever happened in the June poll is simply irrelevant. What's relevant is arguing whether or not we're complying with WP:WTA and WP:NPOV. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. I only bring it up because Rangeley and Nuclear brought it up several times in this last round, and distorted what actually happened. --Timeshifter 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading the talk page, it looks to me as if since at least December 20, Rangely has been saying clearly and repeatedly that he does not believe than any of the prior polls establish consensus for anything. (He does believe that a prior discussion established a consensus for the compromise of including "War on Terror" in quotes in the infobox, but he is willing to continue discussions here and start a new consensus). I can't say if Rangely relied on the poll in the "last round", because Timeshifter hasn't offered diffs, but I don't see how it matters anyway. Strictly as a suggestion to move forward, maybe you guys can worry about trying to reach a consensus now instead of arguing about whether a consensus existed a year ago? Thanks, TheronJ 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley conflates and combines polls, votestacking, discussion, etc, combined with selective memory and selective time periods. All in a devious effort to claim support for putting WOT in the infobox in the narrative tone of Wikipedia. The fact is that there is no real support for putting WOT in the infobox in any official way that would imply wikipedia support of *any* viewpoint on the WOT. Many, many people have made that very clear. So until that time occurs I think the best solution is the new one offered by Alecmconroy. That being to put "See also War on Terrorism" at the very bottom of the infobox, strictly as a navigational aid. --Timeshifter 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to establish that there is "no real support for putting WOT in the infobox", just go ahead and do that starting now. It's not helpful for you or Rangeley to argue about who said what 8 months ago, which is what Rangeley has been saying. (For the record, I support putting "War on Terror" in the infobox in quotes, with Part of the Bush administration "War on Terror" campaign as a second choice.) TheronJ 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Nuclear just admitted to helping out a sock puppet ring. See this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearUmpf&diff=next&oldid=104168074%7C

"Rex was a sock puppet master, but I agreed with their opinions and views. We kind of built a group that would have some pull, ..."

So Rangeley conflates and distorts past polls, discussion, etc., and has been reprimanded for it by admins. And Nuclear works with a sockpuppet ring. --Timeshifter 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didnt, I stated I agreed with Rex's views (politically) and that he was a sock puppet master. Nice attempt to smear, I guess its easier to file RfC's and Arbcom's instead of addressing the point. Then again when your WTA logic was shot down you dont have much left do you? --NuclearZer0 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Below in the next section is everything currently on your user page. Please do not remove it again saying it is offtopic. Because it is ontopic concerning what you have been doing with votestacking, canvassing, etc.. It is against wikipedia guideline to edit my entries on a talk page. --Timeshifter 19:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OT discussions can be removed from the talk page, especially after I explained to you why you are reading it wrong, however you continue to post it, quite dishonest. If you want tell people to look at my talk page, however posting the entire contents is Off-Topic and will continue to be removed. Good day. --NuclearZer0 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the embarrassing diff that has the text that Nuclear keeps removing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANuclearUmpf&diff=104247609&oldid=104168074

I will not copy the text here again. I encourage people to read that Nuclear text.

It is not offtopic. It is fully on topic concerning the arbitration requests that have been made against Nuclear and Rangeley. It clearly shows that it is not just Rangeley who has been working to stack votes and discussions. Rangeley has been reprimanded by admins for it. Nuclear admits working with a group (including some sockpuppets) to stack discussions. Both have broken the guidelines for acceptable canvassing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing

Also, Nuclear, you are getting close to a 3RR violation in 24 hours. Concerning your placement of the link at the top of the infobox. --Timeshifter 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I worked with sockpuppets? rofl stop already. lol. Maybe next you can say I admited to conspiring to ... "Take over the world" poit! --NuclearZer0 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, it is time to move on from these allegations and end the personal feud that seems to be going on. Lets get back to the real topic at hand. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The real topic is that you and Nuclear have been fully exposed breaking wikipedia guidelines and that there is a current arbitration case against you, Rangeley. It isn't anything personal because I don't know you. I am willing to move on if you are willing to accept the casus belli mode of putting the "War on Terrorism" link in the article. Along with the 2 other links. That way there is no appearance of breaking Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Your method breaks that guideline. I have explained why many times. --Timeshifter 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess since Timeshifter doesnt want to discuss the topic we can just ignore him. Think I will since numerous people have told Timeshifter he is reading WTA wrong and ignoring the very wording he is arguing over. Sounds like tenditious editing and circular logic ... --NuclearZer0 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism many times. You have ignored it many times. I bring up some new info on it farther down. --Timeshifter 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, do note that there is no arbitration case against me. They have not yet accepted the request, and further, it doesnt look as though they will at the moment. I again point you to the WTA guideline, where it states, and I quote: Encyclopedic:

• X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.

We are using this exact format in presenting the information. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. my. god. People, please stop with using polls conducted 8 months ago. Stop with sockpuppet accusations that bear no relevancy to this discussion. Now, can we focus on this debate please? Timeshifter, I believe Rangeley has a substantive point for you to answer. --kizzle 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I answered it in the following sections, and in many previous discussion sections. --Timeshifter 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Casus belli" and Template:Infobox Military Conflict

I added a standard option for a military infobox. That being the code for "Casus belli". Then I added the wikipedia pages covering it. This way people can decide for themselves the rationales, larger campaigns, reasons, etc. for the war.

Currently it says

See: Rationale for the Iraq War, Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq, War on Terrorism

More pages can be linked. This way it is a true navigational link to several relevant pages, without favoring any of them. Since it is a coalition that participated on one side of the conflict, it is important to link to a page that covers their rationales also. --Timeshifter 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice still doesnt address the issue that wars that are part of campaigns are listed at top. Good job filling in the casus belli though. --NuclearZer0 18:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the template how-to page:

"Many of the parameters can be omitted if desired; the choice of which parameters are appropriate for a particular conflict is left to the discretion of the article editors." --Timeshifter 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --NuclearZer0 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you agree, then why did you put back "See also: War on Terrorism" at the top? See this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=104380690&oldid=104370772 --Timeshifter 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I am an article editor, and its at my discretion and it seemed like a fair middleground, combining a little of what everyone wanted. --NuclearZer0 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear, you are getting close to a 3RR violation in 24 hours. Concerning your placement of the link at the top of the infobox. Why can you not wait until the discussion is over? Most people do not want it in the infobox at all. See the list of 38 people. Most of those people discussed it on the talk page at some point or another, I believe. I guess you and Rangeley don't like either of the ways that Alec and I find acceptable for putting it in the infobox. And you kept complaining about compromises. We find a way we can live with having WOT in the infobox that we feel meets Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism, but you 2 are never happy. It is your way, or the highway. It is obvious that you 2 are obsessed with pushing the POV word "terrorism" in a way that is sure to be offensive to many people. Including most Americans even. --Timeshifter 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you are getting close to a 3RR violation in 24 hours. Concerning your removal of the link at the top of the infobox. Why can you not wait until the discussion is over? Most people do want it in the infobox. See the list of 25 people who did use the talk page? Sigh, just argue your points and stop the rhetoric, you look like a hypocrite, being the one who is removing it all the time. --NuclearZer0 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What list of 25 people? --Timeshifter 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its also not a PoV, its a fact that even you admitted. I am not sure how you can feel that WTA allows for the word terrorism to appear anywhere but in the "part of" campaign portion. Its alreayd been explained, see the RfC, by TheronJ, one of the people you cite in your "38" that its ok to include it, and why it meets WTA requirements. Are you starting to see that your 38 quickly shrunk, you may not be one to admit there was a group decision, but its obvious some of your 38 changed their mind at some point. --NuclearZer0 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a few changed their mind who agreed with you in the past. --Timeshifter 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear, I never changed my mind. If you look at our recent discussion above,[21] (1) I explained that my prior comments on this page actually supported including War on Terror (in quotes) in the infobox, and (2) Alec explained that he never intended the list to show a consensus against inclusion, only to show that consensus was still not reached. TheronJ 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There has never been consensus on either side. To claim otherwise is deceptive. --Timeshifter 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More from Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism

From that wikipedia section:

• Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist". If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents call them, we would have to include:

• Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban, Chechen rebels, CIA, forcible colonization of lands inhabited by indigenous peoples, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Iran, Iraq, Israel, Osama bin Laden, Palestine Liberation Organization, Resistance movement during World War II., the American Revolutionary Sons of Liberty, Syria, Tamil Tigers, Timothy McVeigh, United States.

These examples also suggest the standards for applying the label depend upon perspective and are not consistent. --Timeshifter 22:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is just one relevant bit of info from that guideline. Here is some more:

The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified...

Because of the above pejorative connotations, those accused of being 'terrorists' rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that reference their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (from guerra Spanish for 'war' meaning 'small war'), rebel, jihadi and mujaheddin (both meaning 'struggler'), or fedayeen ('prepared for martyrdom').

And this:

Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say why we're doing that—say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.

So to meet the various wikipedia guidelines about the word "terrorism" one must balance the avoidance of the word altogether when possible, with *fully* explaining all its nuances when it is absolutely necessary to use the word. And being very careful not to use it in the "narrative voice" of wikipedia. Rangeley and Nuclear don't really care about this. They are on a mission to use the optional campaign slot in the infobox. I repeat, it is optional. We decide whether to use the campaign slot for such a propaganda term. And in fairness we would also have to add some kind of insurgent campaign phrase like "Jihad against the American terrorists." --Timeshifter 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say why we're doing that—say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.

I see nothing in policy where it says "one must balance the avoidance of the word altogether when possible". All I see is if you're going to use the word, attribute who is using it. Would you like to quote the specific passage of policy that states "one must balance the avoidance of the word altogether when possible, with *fully* explaining all its nuances when it is absolutely necessary to use the word"? --kizzle 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline under "arguments for":

Unlike traditional media, Wikipedia can fully explore the semantic nuances of words. In fact, terrorism is a good example; it's cross-linked to asymmetric warfare and doublespeak and guerrilla and assassin, etc. Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say why we're doing that—say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.

From the guideline under "arguments against":

The word "Terrorist" is pejorative. Regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to a person, a group, or our enemy, doing so is not encyclopedic.

The only sure way to meet the guideline is in the text of the article where people know how to use WP:NPOV to ensure that there is substantial context. --Timeshifter 06:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You're telling us to adhere to a guideline that has arguments both for and against? I'm sorry, but this particular guideline's utility in solving this debate seems extremely limited given the circumstances. Regardless, even the "against" argument addresses editor interpretation and not attributing "terrorism" to a party, per the "how much we want to assign a pejorative term". --kizzle 08:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not difficult to meet the guideline in the text of the article. Anytime someone calls others "terrorists" it must be put in sufficient context. Wikipedia can not be seen to be calling any person or group "terrorists" in the narrative voice of an article. --Timeshifter 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an accurate understanding of the policy. The best course of action would be one that takes into account TheronJ's statement. It is not proper that a position which editors from many POVs have achieved through compromise be ignored. Tewfik^Talk 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Most editors reached the conclusion that "war on terrorism" should not be in the infobox because it could not be done correctly in the limited space of an infobox. These same editors had no problem discussing the war on terrorism in the text of the article. This majority opinion should not be ignored. See Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict for several examples where people decided not to use certain options of infoboxes. It is only recently that we have found a way to put "war on terrorism" in the infobox in a way that satisfies a wider spectrum of editors. That being to put it in casus belli, or at the bottom of the infobox as a "see also" link. Both of those methods can't be misinterpreted as wikipedia narrative-voice endorsement of Iraq War propaganda. --Timeshifter 16:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you're missing the point. Instead of quoting a guideline with "for" and "against" arguments, let's use TheronJ's example and quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events):

#If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.

#If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.

#If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.

...

*War on Terrorism: This is a common name, so it should be used even though many people consider it to be propagandistic. Rule #1 applies.

Clearly, policy allows for quoting propagandistic terms, though taking into consideration examples like Osama Bin Laden (terrorist). Seeing as this is a purely semantic debate, as I pointed out above, I don't think this is going to get solved through debate, as we can argue on both sides until we're blue in the face, but similar to the abortion debate and whether life means "starts at conception" or "starts at birth", we're arguing over two equally arbitrary definitions, one proper and thus defined by the Bush administration, and one general and thus defined by anyone, so we're never going to get anywhere. Instead of citing "most editors" or "majority opinion" so prematurely, I emplore us to take TheronJ's suggestion and get someone from the military history project to mediate this godforsaken dispute. --kizzle 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I have no problem using the name "war on terrorism". It just has to be used in context so that it is not in the narrative voice of wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what Timeshifter, we have seen it. We have even looked at the examples of Encyclopedic ways of stating it.

"X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list."

And this is the format we are advocating. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. By using quotes and attributing, we are expressly not using the "narrative voice of Wikipedia". --kizzle 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WOT as "See also" link at top of infobox under Iraq War name

Nuclear is now using Publicus' move of the "see also" WOT link from the very bottom of the infobox to the top of the infobox as his justification for keeping it there. The Publicus edit summary was

"took Timeshifter's suggestion Alecmconroy's edit, moved "See also: War on Terrorism" to top--how does that work? Casualties section was okay, just trying diff spot"

Rangeley has not lately been adding WOT to the infobox as a campaign. So I would hope others would not do something that looks similar to a campaign link or claim. At least until this latest round of discussion and seeking of arbitration is finished.

WOT at the top of the infobox seems like it again conflates the Iraq War with the War on Terrorism. Combining the 2 phrases in this way violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism.

Can you agree with this Publicus? A "see also" link at the bottom of the infobox does not look like it is conflating the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. It does not look like the narrative voice of Wikipedia is endorsing that name-calling of U.S. enemies. Are you happy with it being at the bottom of the infobox? Would you accept the casus belli location also? Is that sufficient? --Timeshifter 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I would prefer to see something near the top of the infobox just to keep the infobox consistent. The casus belli part is great and it does answer some of the issues, altho I'd like to make one minor edit--"war justifications" there isn't really necessary since that is the definition of casus belli, kind of repetitive and casus belli does have a link on it for the non-latin speakers (myself included).

So going forward, I would like to try a couple of different solutions for the "Part of" section--because it is important to try and find something that works, but this time I will certainly avoid the words "war" and "terrorism" and I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid the word "campaign". Publicus 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Creative, but it still says "war on terrorism" when one puts one's cursor over the "campaign" link. If one looks at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict one sees that parts of the infobox come and go. Such as the casus belli section or the casualties3 section.

The infobox template talk page has an interesting related discussion that may be relevant to our talk. Here is the section titled "Casus belli and WWII".

This field is giving us headaches over at World War II. Casus belli is almost by definition POV, because it can be something untrue, like the Gleiwitz incident. I'd like a way to put "Invasion of Poland" in the infobox, but to be fair we can't really say that the Invasion of Poland was a casus belli for Germany, the US, or the USSR. See where I'm heading? My hope is that this discussion area will be a less heated, more academic place where we can talk about it without the pressure of coming to a solution. Perhaps a field labelled "Cause" should be added? Haber 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For all but the most trivial conflicts, the actual "cause" of the war needs a section (or even an article in its own right), not a two-line infobox field; so that's not going to work. As far as the WWII issue, though: have you considered simply not using the casus field? It's unused on most wars, and was really added more for the benefit of the more formalized diplomacy surrounding 18th century warfare than for general use in all cases. Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It looks like it might stay off WWII. Haber 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [End of talk section excerpt]

See also the talk section titled "Remove casus belli?"

Note that people really do have the option to use or not use various options of the infobox template. I recommend people read more of the template talk page. It would really help discussion here.

By the way, I don't have a problem with the words 'war' or 'campaign'. But 'terrorism' is on the words-to-avoid list. And when it is used it just has to be in context. Or wikipedia becomes a propaganda tool, and is taking sides.

It is a similar problem with using the German propaganda reasons for entering or starting wars. Note the template discussion. They decided not to use the casus belli option of the infobox. We can decide not to use the campaign option in the Iraq War infobox.

I know you are trying to conserve space by deleting "war justifications" next to casus belli, but I had a similar discussion with a native Spanish speaker on a page about the 2006 Mexican election. It is important for English wikipedia to prioritize for English readers. Words for other languages can be used now and then, and sometimes have to be used, but there needs to be an English translation immediately following, and the English word should be used from then on. There are guidelines for this somewhere too. It is tempting to use the foreign word after it is translated once. But people bounce around within wikipedia articles and may not see the translation of the word. And casus belli is hard to figure out even after reading its page. I speak another language so I understand the temptation to throw around foreign words because sometimes I think they have passed over to English. But actually they may not yet have become common except to certain readers. Casus belli is a phrase that is common to a specialist audience, but not to others.--Timeshifter 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. lots of good ideas. Publicus-- welcome back. I appreciate very much the searching out for compromises. I've used some strong language around here lately, but let me reiterate that it wasn't in any way directed at you-- it's a complex issue, with plenty of good people on all sides.

Time-- Putting "War in terror" in the casus belli was a great idea-- I like it. As for the words "War Justification"-- I'd deal with this on the template talk. I tend to agree that using latin phrases in an infobox is a little awkward, but it doesn't seem particularly problematic here. Maybe the template could be redone to say "causes of war" or something similar. In any case, I'd handle it at the template level-- the issues the same regardless of which page it's on.

About the alternatives for the top of the infobox. All of these are much much better than the old disputed text which just said "Part of WOT". I somewhat share Time's concern that "Iraq war (see also WOT)" conflates the two a little. That said-- I think I like it a little more than "Part of the U.S. 'Campaign' for the Middle East". That wording does a good job of addressing the WTA concern, but I still have my concern: What if Iraq really isn't "Part" of WOT at all? What if the Iraq War isn't "Part of" anything-- what if it was just a separate military action? That's of course how it looks if you take the POV of a nation like Canada that says it supports the WOT 100%, but which simultaneously says it opposes the Iraq War.

In any case-- lots of good thoughts and idea, and all much better than the old wording. --Alecmconroy 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy wrote: "That's of course how it looks if you take the POV of a nation like Canada that says it supports the WOT 100%, but which simultaneously says it opposes the Iraq War."

That is a good point. People keep forgetting that the Iraq War started as a coalition effort, and have various "casus belli" for their war justifications. Also, there are different nations supporting the WOT, like Canada, but who don't support the Iraq War. That is another reason not to conflate the Iraq War with WOT. Besides avoiding looking like wikipedia endorses WOT. Wikipedia has to avoid that, and wikipedia has to avoid confusing Canada's definition of the WOT with the U.S. definition of WOT.

I joined in some discussion about casus belli here: Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict. Also, the next section deals with it somewhat too. I think it is good to keep both "casus belli" and to add "war justification" after it as a quick translation. The Casus belli link provides a more detailed translation. --Timeshifter 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem on the "war justification" text. Didn't realize the overall implications, I just thought it was duplicating. I'll readd it. Publicus 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Personaly, I get slightly bad vibes from the words "War justification"-- there's just a hint that a "justification' is somehow insincere, sort of like an apologist's position or something. But if nobody else has probs with it, I don't. --Alecmconroy 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. Any other ideas? I would like some kind of rough translation in Engish, because I don't think most people will click the casus belli link. --Timeshifter 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "war rationales"? --Timeshifter 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shorter "results" section in infobox

Iraq War
U.S. troops pass by burning oil fields while convoying to Al Jawala, Iraq, during an operation.
Date March 20, 2003 to Present Location Iraq Result Conflict ongoing. Overthrow of Ba'athist government and execution of Saddam Hussein. Occupation of Iraq by coalition forces. Emergence of Iraqi insurgency and possible outbreak of civil war in Iraq. Substantial civilian casualties. Widespread damage to Iraqi infrastructure. Privatization of Iraqi services. Election of a new government

We can shorten the infobox by a few lines if the results section is made into a paragraph instead of a bulleted list. I got the idea after looking at the infobox at World War II. It uses a paragraph. I show what I mean in the infobox to the right. My motive is to make room to put back the words "war justifications" next to casus belli. --Timeshifter 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the infobox here from the last version I had posted here. I made the casus belli section into a bulleted list instead of a paragraph, and used a shorter name for one of the wikipedia pages listed: Governments' pre-war positions. --Timeshifter 10:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the casus belli rough translation from "war justifications" to "war rationales". --Timeshifter 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Britain stops talk of 'war on terror'

"Britain Stops Talk of 'War on Terror'." - By Jason Burke. The Observer. December 10, 2006.

British are part of coalition involved in the Iraq War. The British government no longer uses the phrase, 'war on terror'. Since the British are part of the Iraq War, it is U.S.-centric to put WOT as being the campaign under which the Iraq War is being fought. So besides the problem of the narrative voice of wikipedia, there is the problem of the other coalition members and their names for their overall campaigns. That is if they have a name they use for a larger campaign. --Timeshifter 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some quotes:

Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world. ...

A Foreign Office spokesman said the government wanted to 'avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive'. The same message has been sent to British diplomats and official spokespeople around the world. ...

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, recently stressed the threat from growing radicalisation among young British Muslims. Whitehall officials believe that militants use a sense of war and crisis and a 'clash of civilisations' to recruit supporters, and thus the use of terms such as 'war', 'war on terror' or 'battle' can be counter-productive.

Though neither Blair nor Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, has used the term 'war on terror' in a formal speech since June, President Bush continues to employ the term liberally. [end of quotes]. --Timeshifter 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not using the phrase as a descri[tion anymore. Noone here is advocating we use the phrase as a description, either. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is not Britain a member of the Iraq War coalition? --Timeshifter 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are either not understanding or attempting to change the subject. The War on Terrorism is a campaign, or so that is what we are arguing, not that it is proper, not that is the best thing for the world, not that everyone loves it, but, that it exists as the name of a campaign, and part of that campaign is the Iraq War. As being part of that war, it is our duty here at Wikipedia to note it as such in the infobox, and treat it like every other war and campaign and not seperatly. We are not saying that War on Terrorism means terrorists are being fought, much like there were many "hot wars" in the Cold War, yet noone is advocating that name not be used in the campaign box for wars it encompassed. It is just a name given to a campaign, not proof beyond all doubt that it must be factual beacuse the name says so, not a statement that Wikipedia supports the WoT, just that the Iraq War was started as part of the WoT. To demonstrate this we have the document for which the Iraq War began, that document specifically states that the Iraq War is being launched under the WoT. The people who started the IRaq War, the ones who initiated it, stated they did so under the WoT. So no its not being used a description of what is happening. --NuclearZer0 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear wrote: "it is our duty here at Wikipedia to note it as such in the infobox". No it is not our duty. All parts of the infobox are optional. See Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict. And the British disagree. --Timeshifter 18:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposed compromise

Testing the waters: I think a fair compromise would be to clearly identify the military campaign, as I did in this edit. My edit would identify the Iraq War as follows:

Identifed by the George W. Bush administration as part of the "War on Terror" campaign

IMHO, that addresses any concerns Timeshifter has identified, and also meets the minimum requirements of identifying the campaign, for the reasons that I discuss in Point 6 of my comment in the Rangeley RFC. (Kizzle also discusses those issues above.) I'm curious what people think. Thanks, TheronJ 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think it limits the fact that more then the US is involved, I am willing to settle on that as a middleground. Just add a citation and it coveres the points of WTA, meaning having a "who says" and a citation to them saying it. Though I must say I still do not believe this falls under WTA since its a name of a campaign. I would say nice work, but we all know Alec and Timeshifter will not accept it being in the campaign box, no matter what, they will just make up a new arguement against it. --NuclearZer0 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept this compromise as well. :) --kizzle 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See my reply in the section below titled "Thirty Years' War". --Timeshifter 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of good ideas

So, the infusion of attention has brought lots of good ideas to the article. Here's a list of the things I've heard so far:

• No reference to WOT in the infobox
• Part of the WOT / part of the US's WOT / part of the US's "WOT"
• "See also WOT" at bottom of infobox
• "See also WOT" at top of infobox
• "Part of the U.S. "Campaign" for the Middle East
• Identifed by the George W. Bush administration as part of the "War on Terror" campaign
• WOT listed as a Casus belli

So, in my eyes, "Part of WOT" violated verifiability, because of the many sources that say "Iraq is not part of WOT". All the others comply with WP:V, which means they're all basically in the realm of things I could live with. "See also at the top of the infobox" and "Part of the US's Campaign for the middle east" give me a bit of pause, but if others (csloat, savidan, etc) who have had objections to the "part of" text in their past felt satisfied by those wordings, I wouldn't be the one to make any fuss. My personal favorite, and the one I've head the least objections to, is listing it as a Casus belli.

In any case-- looks like there's progress afoot. --Alecmconroy 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You rather see "Part of the US's campaign for the middle east" over "Part of the US campaign named the War on Terrorism"? I think we found out why you do not want it there and why we managed to hit a road block. --NuclearZer0 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Part of a US campaign for the middle east" seems pretty undisputed-- (although I assume we mean "in the middle east" rather than "for"). In contrast, there are lots of sources who say "It's not part of WOT"-- so, wordings which state this as a fact are, obviously, problematic for me. --Alecmconroy 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that shows a major problem in your understanding. Most of the operations are not in the "middle east" and it did not start in the middle east as Afghanistan is properly designated as being in Central Asia. Of the operations last I checked, Iraq was the only one in the middle east. --NuclearZer0 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comments, Alec, it does seem like we might be getting close to a consensus. My personal favorite is my suggestion -- Identifed by the George W. Bush administration as part of the "War on Terror" campaign -- but if a consensus forms around one of the others, I think I could live with it. What does everybody else think? TheronJ 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is on "Identifed by the George W. Bush administration as part of the "War on Terror" campaign" --kizzle 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also would be happy with TheronJ's suggestion, though I do feel that substituting George W. Bush administration for "US" or "US government" unfairly denies responsibility from that country. The George W. Bush administration is the US, and must be held to whatever consequences may exist. Tewfik^Talk 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Extremely nitpicky: can we change it to "Stated" rather than "Identified" to more clearly indicate the explicitness for which the US government has included Iraq in the "War on Terror"? I'll understand if you don't want to or if you want to kick me in the face. ;) --kizzle 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with saying its the campaign in the middle east is that the campaign isnt strictly in the middle east. Actions have been carried out under the campaign in the Philippines, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, even in Georgia (the country), so it therefore clearly is not limited to the Middle East. There are no sources which refute the language used in the resolution authorizing the use of force.

Frankly, we cannot get anywhere if we cannot get passed the rather simplistic issue that is the difference between a campaign and a war. A campaign is defined by its maker, a war is not. We have the maker of the campaign on record with the authorization stating it to be a part, and when we look at other things, like the WOT Medal [22], we see that, point blank, OIF and OEF are both grouped under the designation of the campaign.

A campaign is a governmental designation, public opinion is irrelevent because public opinion doesnt dictate how things are organized. When we have reliable sources such as the above, and those which show the Iraq Resolution, stating it to be part of the campaign, these reliable sources are all we need. Its a matter of designation - not oppinion. And we have the reliable sources showing it is designated in the campaign.

We can obviously state this - its part of the campaign. I have suggested, and even put together a custom infobox which would have the information displayed differently than typical for infoboxes. It would be lower down, and would be labeled "Campaign: US "War on Terrorism"[cite]"

Every single "compromise" listed by Alec fails to recognize that it is part of the campaign out of a misguided idea that because people do not think its part of the wider war, it cannot be part of the campaign. This is false, and I can think of no rational justification for this view. They are two seperate things - unfortunately they often carry the same name. But we must look at each seperately, as well as what dictates whether one can be a part of each seperately. For a war, its something decided over time by historians or public view. For a campaign, its a matter of designation. This designation has been shown to be verifiable due to the amount of reliable sources found stating it as a part of the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley wrote: "For a war, its something decided over time by historians or public view. For a campaign, its a matter of designation." Wikipedia editors can choose to put what historians and the public use over time. There hasn't been enough time yet, so I think the best thing to do is to leave it blank. And the view of the public is changing. The British government view recently changed. The original campaign name is thoroughly discussed in a section of the article. So it is not like it is being censored. --Timeshifter 11:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, there is the crux of the matter. We are not talking about a wider war. We are talking about a campaign, which is not definable by public view, but a matter of designation. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See the wikipedia page War on Terrorism. Either way it can't be done in an NPOV way in a sentence in the infobox. --Timeshifter 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirty Years' War

If you click on the various battles and nations involved in that war, one sees the historical name "Thirty Years' War" under the battle name or national war name.

One does not see "War on terrorist Catholic infidels" or "War on terrorist protestant infidels"

Wikipedia editors have the right to decide what to put under the battle or national war name.

Wikipedia has decided to avoid the words "terrorists", "terrorism", etc. and when it can't be avoided, ... say when a dumbass President decides to call all his enemies terrorists, then it has to be put in context.

If the British can figure out that there is a problem using the phrase "war on terror", then so can wikipedia editors.

Hey, President Reagan said catsup could count as a vegetable portion in a meal. I think it was concerning school lunches. Wikipedia could point this out. But Wikipedia does not say it in the narrative voice of wikipedia. --Timeshifter 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has decided no such thing as to avoid the words "terrorists" and "terrorism", as the guideline you state has arguments both for and against. Also, the compromise text "Indicated by the Bush Administration as part of the War on Terrorism does not say it in the narrative voice but attributes it to the Bush Administration, thus satisfying your last point. --kizzle 09:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid. "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia."

It says they are words to avoid. It also gives suggestions as to how to use the terms when they can not be avoided. --Timeshifter 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should ignore this arguement, this should be effectively seen as tenditious editing, completely in bad faith. Timeshifter has been arguing that since the words appear on WTA that they should not be used. Ignorning all text that actually is on the page dealing with the rules and regulations of using the term, which it has been pointed out by numerous people that, "Indicated by the Bush Administration as part of the War on Terrorism (citation here)", does meet the requirements. --NuclearZer0 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see this page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). "Neutral Point of View. Regardless of which rule applies, there may still be different points of view on how to characterize the event, and some of these points of view may be contrary to the title. These points of view should be discussed in the article."

So even though it is OK to use the phrase or title "war on terrorism" the article must still meet WP:NPOV guidelines. The campaign name "war on terrorism" is thoroughly discussed in the article in one long section. It is not necessary, nor is it required, that a campaign name be in any infobox for a war or battle. It is strictly optional whether to use all parts of an infobox. I have yet to find a propaganda phrase used as a war name, or campaign name in an infobox. More scholarly war names and campaign names are what I see in all the infoboxes for wars and battles. Prove me wrong. Find me an infobox for a war or a battle with an inflammatory campaign name or war name. --Timeshifter 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Addressed below, I will not be discussing WTA arguements anymore as I believe they have been covered by a multitude of editors already. Just to note is "Should be discussed in the article", not "Should only be discussed in the article" --NuclearZer0 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is part of the article. So when you bring up something inflammatory in an infobox, then it needs to be explained in the infobox, and the NPOV explanation can not be buried way down in the article far away from the infobox. There needs to be a paragraph at least in the infobox. Better yet is not to put it in the infobox. I have yet to find an infobox with inflammatory use of phrases like "war on terrorism". Except in your attempt here. --Timeshifter 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes my attempt .. I edit all alone and noone supports me, any more dramatic? --NuclearZer0 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out you are quoting a guideline/policy for article titles, not article content. The very first section begins by stating "Article names ..." --NuclearZer0 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It also says "These points of view should be discussed in the article." That means the title of the article can be something like "war on terrorism", and the article discusses it in an NPOV way. --Timeshifter 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Means if you use a questinable title, then discuss it in the article. Doe snot mean do not put it anywhere. --NuclearZer0 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If the disputed POV material is put in the infobox, then this template below (and other templates) would have to be added since the info is not immediately followed by the rest of the material in the section of the article titled: "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". --Timeshifter 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, enough. We arent saying its part of a wider war because a "dumbass President" said anything. You have so thoroughly confused the issues here that it will take a bit of digging to get to the bottom of it.

For starters, we are talking about a campaign, which is a designation in which things carried out by a government are put under. The Iraq Resolution authorized the use of force under this campaign, and this is clearly reflected in the "WOT Medal" being given out to those who served in specific operations, which include but are not limited to Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. These operations are governmentally designated under its larger governmental campaign. To recognize this has nothing, and I mean literally nothing to do with calling one group terrorists and another the good guys.

The second issue is the issue of its name. The War on Terror is the current name of the article, its the common name, and its listed as a name that, although it is propagandistic (like the Great Leap Forward,) it is in such wide use in the english language that we can use it. Just like the Great Leap Forward was arguably misnamed, so too is this. But just because you think its misnamed doesnt mean it cannot be used. It just needs to be used properly. It is more than true that Terrorist is a WTA, thus we have followed the example to the tee, attributing it to the USA, citing it, and placing it in quotes. We have even agreed to place it lower, so as to not be the first thing people see.

You need to stop trying to equate this to other examples of wider wars, because this isnt a wider war. Its a governmental designation under which things have been carried out, just like the "final solution" was a governmental designation in Nazi Germany to deal with the Jews. It was neither final, nor a solution, nor is the name free of connotation - yet we are fully capable of noting when things were carried out under it. Indeed, by showing the true extent to which things were carried out under this, we get the true picture of the scope of Germany's campaign - and have come to call it The Holocaust. I dont think we should be afraid of showing the true scope of this campaign, regardless of whether you love it or hate it, because ultimately our job is to give people the full picture, and let them come away with their own thoughts on the matter. This is acheived only if they are given all the verifiable information we have. Thats what we need to do here, with the verifiable information from reliable sources that it is part of this governmental designation. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley wrote: "Timeshifter, enough." I, Timeshifter, would politely warn you against breaking the wikipedia guideline on civility: Wikipedia:Civility. Rangeley wrote: "You need to stop trying to equate this to other examples of wider wars, because this isnt a wider war." That is incorrect. According to Bush the War on Terror is a wider war. See War on Terrorism. "This is acheived only if they are given all the verifiable information we have." I agree. And it is done in the section called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism." There is no way that can be done in the infobox. --Timeshifter 21:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one throwing around "dumbass," so I am not sure you are warning the right person. According to Bush, there is a larger ideological struggle, which he equates to the Cold War that is now occuring between the west and radical islam. He has even said that the Iraq War is the "central front" in this wider struggle. But as you have said, and as I have agreed, neither Bush nor the US Government determines what a war is. We are not talking about the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century" as he puts it, because this is merely his POV on the existence of a conflict. What we are talking about is the governmental designation. The "Final Solution" was for the "Jewish Problem," in Germany's eyes. This program today is for the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." Whether these conflicts or problems exist is a side issue - the fact is a campaign exists under which things are being done. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not call you a dumbass. I called Bush a dumbass. And it was a relevant point, because wikipedia can't be seen to be endorsing the statements of dumbasses in the narrative voice of wikipedia. Hitler was a dumbass too. We don't put "Part of Hitler's Final Solution campaign against the Jews" under World War II in the infobox for World War II. If we did so we would have to add this template banner below (and other templates). --Timeshifter 07:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because there were many nations in World War II. All of them had various campaign names, war names, slogan names, propaganda names, etc., etc.. There are many nations helping and fighting in both sides of the Iraq War, too. --Timeshifter 07:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War

English Channel naval campaign, 1338-1339
Part of The Hundred Years' War
Date March 1338 - October 1339 Location English Channel Result Indecisive
Belligerents
England File:Flag Belgium flanders.svg Flanders	France Genoese mercenaries File:Blason Castille L?on.png Castilian mercenaries
Commanders and leaders
Robert Morley, Various others	Hugues Qui?ret, Nicolas B?huchet
Strength
Varied	40-70 ships

The Hundred Years War went off and on between many nations. I am sure all sides used many campaign names.

If you go to the main page for the Hundred Years' War one can see that to put one campaign name or slogan or propaganda campaign name from just one side of these many-sided confrontations would be incorrect.

Just like in the Iraq War where there are many sides involved. No side gets to name the overall campaign for everybody. They all have different campaign names. The overall war name gets picked later by common usage, history writers, etc.. --Timeshifter 09:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that no option in the infobox is required anyway.

From Template:Infobox Military Conflict:

"Many of the parameters can be omitted if desired; the choice of which parameters are appropriate for a particular conflict is left to the discretion of the article editors."

We decide. --Timeshifter 09:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the "War on Terrorism" is defined by the Bush administration and not "many nations"... also, it says "discretion of the article editors", and I see a growing concensus on "Indicated by the Bush Administration as Part of the War on Terrorism". --kizzle 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So what's the problem with "part of the US WoT?" This is on point and determines that it is a concept invented by the Bush administration.66.249.90.136 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not verifiable. Many notable sources say it is not part of WOT. --Alecmconroy 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I see these sources, I am interested in the logic being used. I have often heard the arguement that it should not have been, and its wrong to include it in, but have yet to see the view that it isnt ... period, unless it was an opinion piece, which isnt WP:RS. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The British no longer believe that their involvement in the Iraq War is part of the U.S. "war on terror", or any "war on terror". That is their policy today. So it would be inaccurate to put it at the top of the infobox. --Timeshifter 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We all see what we want to see. I see some stubborn editors who think that they can wear out all opposition to their campaign to put "war on terrorism" in the narrative voice of wikipedia. And that statement is already in the article in its own section, and thoroughly discussed in a WP:NPOV manner. Also, you continue to ignore the fairness issue of what the many other sides in this war call their campaigns. Simple wikipedia NPOV fairness. Address it please. --Timeshifter 09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What do they call them, if your issue is fairness to other nations perhaps if you provide the name we can include them all. I think its going to be hard to find them since for many nations this is the WoT and for others its just a war not a campaign. but I am willing to see what you pull up. --NuclearZer0 11:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda calls their worldwide campaign, "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". See Al-Qaeda and World Islamic Front. As you can see, it is another inflammatory name. --Timeshifter 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth-- in the arabic world, the War on Terror is often known as "Bush's War". The Iraq War is "The Third Gulf War" or "The second American-Iraqi War". Also interesting, just to get a sense of a global perspective-- the arabic wikipedia doesn't even mention the WOT in their article for the Iraq war. Not really relevant, but, since you asked.  :) --Alecmconroy 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed something in all this, The only common denominator in all the WoT battles is the US, not even al-Qaeda. So if you have sources of bin Laden using the term in the sense of a title, not a descriptor, please provide it and we can put both "Bush administration war on terror" and "osama bin laden jihad against jews and infidels" That way we represent both sides equally, fulfilling any requirements of NPOV. --NuclearZer0 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, therefore wouldn't it be great to mention that common denominator by saying "part of the US WoT." After all it is a US concept and not one that is globally used.66.249.90.136 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Bush administrations ... or US's ... etc. I am jsut saying, state bin Ladens name and the US's and you satisfy NPOV. --NuclearZer0 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is more fair, but there are much larger insurgent groups, in Iraq. They have campaign names too that cross borders. You see where I am going here. We end up with all these inflammatory POV campaign names that need to be explained, and put in context. That is why I have yet to find these type of inflammatory propaganda campaign names in other infoboxes for wars and battles. And since none of the options in an infobox are required why not just avoid all these problems by dealing with it in the text of the article as other wikipedia pages seem to be doing. --Timeshifter 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove this? You state that insurgent groups have campaign names, I would like to see some WP:RS sources for this. Campaigns are a series of wars, so I am not sure how people who only partake in one of them can have a campaign name, but I am willing to take in a source or two if you have. --NuclearZer0 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave the Al Qaeda campaign name several times already in discussion on this talk page. With sources. Here it is yet again: Al Qaeda calls their worldwide campaign, "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". See Al-Qaeda and World Islamic Front. --Timeshifter 07:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any battle or war infoboxes with propaganda names listed for the larger overall war?

I have yet to see another battle or war infobox with a propaganda phrase or name used as the overall war or campaign name listed just under the infobox title. Can anybody else point one out to me? I am sure many inflammatory campaign names must have been used by many sides in various battles, wars, or series of wars. But I don't see them listed in the narrative voice of wikipedia under the infobox title for the local war or the battle. See Hundred Years' War and its many subpages. See also Thirty Years' War. That had a large religious element. --Timeshifter 10:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not saying it is a part of a wider war. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Bush the War on Terror is a wider war. See War on Terrorism. --Timeshifter 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Vietnam War? Publicus 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam War infobox has nothing inflammatory in it. --Timeshifter 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Crusades come pretty close, and if anyone ever breaks out the individual battles in the Reconquista, I suspect that similar issues will arise. The real problem, however, is that there is no neutral term for the War on Terror campaign available. I understand that you would prefer not to identify the campaign at all in that case, but IMHO, the guidelines go the other way. TheronJ 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Crusades and Reconquista infoboxes have nothing inflammatory in them. --Timeshifter 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing inflammatory to you, maybe. Do you think the Muslims and Byzantines called those military campaigns the "Crusades" and the "Reconquista?" TheronJ 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not then. But nowadays Muslims use the word "crusade" as a form of ridicule of the West. Al Qaeda calls their worldwide campaign, "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". See Al-Qaeda and World Islamic Front. The "crusade" name is so well-known nowadays that it is no longer effective as a propaganda tool. There is no danger of of that occurring in a wikipedia page anyway. When Bush tried to use the word "crusade" as a propaganda tool he was immediately busted and ridiculed for the attempt. But "war on terrorism" is a current propaganda tool, and it must be explained in an NPOV way. --Timeshifter 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to satisfy NPOV we should push Bush's name and bin Ladens name? NPOV doesnt say put nothing it says put both. --NuclearZer0 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again showing how willing to compromise this position is, though in this case I would vehemently disagree. "War on Terror" is the official US name, and is far more common than any name Bin Laden may have created. This has nothing to do with WTA or NPOV, and everything with including sourced and verifiable objective fact in a non-narrative voice. Our personal feelings about the justice etc. of these campaigns are totally irrelevant. Tewfik^Talk 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The "sourced and verifiable objective fact in a non-narrative voice" is done well in the text of the article in the section titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". It can't be done well in the limited space of an infobox. Which is probably why I see no inflammatory use of info in other infoboxes for war and battle pages. If you look at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict you can see that people leave out options in the infoboxes in order to avoid these problems. We can do the same. --Timeshifter 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Putting "Identified by the Bush administration as part of the War on Terror" with the link in the infobox is:

1. sourced
2. verifiable
3. using a non-narrative voice by attributing the term to the Bush administration

--kizzle 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

British disagree. WTA requires context. No other war infobox has current inflammatory propaganda in it. Those pages put it in the article. Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups also have campaign names. All this adds up to several paragraphs. Too much for an infobox. --Timeshifter 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "Idenfied by Bush as part of WOT" is sourced, verifiable, and non-narrative voice. So it has all those things going for it, and I do think it complies with WP:V and WP:WTA. The down side is that takes one half of the debate, elevates it to the infobox, but leaves the other half of the debate relegated to the article text. But it's certain less troublesome than just saying the bush's POV is correct, like the old wording did. --Alecmconroy 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints. That means it should say,

Identified by Bush as part of WOT campaign, though not by the British. Identified by Al Qaeda as part of campaign called "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". American public does not believe Iraq War is part of WOT. Neither does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sunni regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Shiite regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Scholars, diplomats, and historians reject implication of WOT phrase that all insurgent groups in Iraq are terrorists. They consider the WOT phrase to be propaganda. And so on... {Sprinkle in references to verifiable sources}. --Timeshifter 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• "British disagree." - Who cares.
• "WTA requires context" - Stop telling us to adhere to a guideline that has arguments both for and against the term "terrorism".
• "No other war infobox has current inflammatory propaganda in it. Those pages put it in the article." - How many current wars are there? Given the lack of a completely neutral name, we attribute the term to the Bush administration.
• "Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups also have campaign names." - Al-Qaeda also considers George W. Bush an infidel. Do we write that in either his infobox or in his article?

No. Once again, putting "Identified by the Bush administration as part of the War on Terror" with the link in the infobox is:

1. sourced
2. verifiable
3. using a non-narrative voice by attributing the term to the Bush administration

--kizzle 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if the British and Canadians and some democrats disagree that Iraq is part of WOT?! Wikipedia does: That's the essence of NPOV. --Alecmconroy 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alec, got a source to back that claim? Is anyone disputing the language of the Iraq Resolution? Or is it back to the "a dispute exists over the wider war, thus it couldnt have been designated part of the campaign" argument? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I say "who cares" because the British and Canadians don't designate US Campaign names. --kizzle 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is not just the war of the USA. It is the war of the British too. And the rest of the Coalition. And the USA doesn't designate British campaign names. --Timeshifter

It was initiated by the U.S. --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? I had the impression the War on Terror was initiated not by the Bush administration, but by some guys flying some 747's into some skyscrapers. Endomorphic 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That impression is mistaken; the war on terror was well under way by that point. csloat 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to do sarcasm in HTML. Nevertheless, while my POV concurs with yours, csloat, our own article on it disagrees. Endomorphic 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

True - that article needs a lot of work. Even the specific campaign against al-Qaeda did not begin with 9/11; al Qaeda had been slaughtering people worldwide for almost a decade before that, and OBL explicitly declared war against the US in 1996 and 1998. Clinton gave a speech on August 20 1998 declaring war on al Qaeda that made basically the same points Bush made after 9/11. And, of course, before al Qaeda, both reagan and Bush 1 had declared war on terrorism in response to attacks by Palestinian and Lebanese extremists (as well as Latin American communists, for that matter). csloat 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"How many current wars are there? Given the lack of a completely neutral name, we attribute the term to the Bush administration." Or we wait until the war is over and the propaganda fades away. Eventually there will be a commonly accepted neutral name. In the meantime we use the text in the article. --Timeshifter

I'd prefer to use the term we have now, making sure to attribute. --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If we add just the one WOT sentence in the infobox, then we would have to add this template banner below (and others) also to the infobox. Because we also need the rest of NPOV section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism." --Timeshifter 07:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Qaeda also considers George W. Bush an infidel. Do we write that in either his infobox or in his article?" Not in an infobox because there is not enough room to put it in an infobox in sufficient NPOV context. In the article, yes. It probably is already in several wikipedia articles. It is OK as long as it is sourced and doesn't sound like wikipedia is saying Bush is an infidel. --Timeshifter

But Al-Qaeda considers most everyone who isn't Islamic an infidel. We don't write in all their bio pages that they are infidels. --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be in the Al Qaeda page that Al Qaeda considers most non-Muslims infidels. If that is true, and sourced. Al Qaeda calls their worldwide campaign, "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". See Al-Qaeda and World Islamic Front. That should be in the infobox if Bush's campaign name is listed in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Is anyone disputing the language of the Iraq Resolution?" The British do not operate under U.S. resolutions. Neither does Al Qaeda. Nor the Sunnis. Nor the Shiites. --Timeshifter 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We already talked about this so many times. Were the Mafia to launch a campaign against the police consisting of a series of bomb attacks against police stations, we would note these attacks as a part of their campaign. Were the police to, in response, surround the Mafia headquarters under their anti-Mafia campaign, it would not be a part of the Mafia's campaign as they did not initiate it - it was initiated by the police. Thats whats going on here. 9-11 wasnt part of the US-led campaign. The 7-7 bombings were not a part of the US-led campaign. But the Iraq War was.

Further, you have taken the British comments and taken them far and away from their true meaning. They are no longer using the phrase "War on Terror" as a description, that is not to say they are no longer working with the USA in its campaign. Iraq isnt a part of the War on Terror because its referred to as being a part, but instead because it is officially designated as a part of the program by the nation which initiated it. Other nations who are allied with the USA are obviously working under the same framework, otherwise they would not be allies and would be merely operating seperately. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is pure speculation and original research on your part. Read the article: "Britain Stops Talk of 'War on Terror'." - By Jason Burke. The Observer. December 10, 2006. --Timeshifter 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We're clearly not going to agree on this matter. Since there is an apparent impasse in this discussion, shall we try a straw poll? --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Sure. Contact the hundred people from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind. The majority did not want WOT in the infobox. Many have shown up again in the last month, and they have written on the talk page here that they still do not want WOT in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign insurgent deaths. All insurgent deaths.

In the infobox I separated out the foreign insurgent deaths because it is the only number I could find. I have read all the referenced articles. There are no numbers for total insurgent deaths (foreign and Iraqi). There are wild guesses. But that is about all. --Timeshifter 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is pointed out that there have been numerous human rights abuses on either side of this conflict. However, only documented abuses by coalition forces have been listed. I believe various beheadings should also be listed, such as those conducted by the insurgents like the late Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. To ignore the atrocities of the insurgency and to focus only on those committed by coalition forces, is incredibly biased. (Jack4402 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Beheadings are mentioned in the article. Use the find tools of your browser to search for "beheading." I have been writing mainly in the casualties section of the article, and in the infobox. Others will need to respond further. Also, feel free to add more sourced info. Or links to more info. Much info is moved to other wikipedia articles due to the length of this article. --Timeshifter 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Solution - TheronJ's passage

Identified by the Bush administration as part of the "War on Terrorism"

---

This option seems like it has the most support, as even Alec has half-supported this measure. To get this godforsaken debate solved, what do other people think of this addition? I'd like to hear everyone, whether you've participated or not, on the matter. --kizzle 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Contact the hundred people or so from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind. The majority did not want WOT in the infobox. Many have shown up again in the last month and week, and they have written on the talk page here that they still do not want WOT in the infobox. People don't wait around breathlessly awaiting your latest popup poll. If we add just the one WOT sentence in the infobox, then we would have to add this template banner below (and other templates) also to the infobox. Because we also need the rest of the NPOV section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism." --Timeshifter 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can this be clarified further? I dont really see this as recognizing the verifiable information that it is designated as a part of the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of clarification do you have in mind, Rangeley? IMHO, Bush is the Commander in Chief and the de facto head of the Coalition, so saying he has identified it as part of the campaign gets it about right. TheronJ 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But its like the difference between saying a book was identified by the author as part of a series, and instead saying this book is part of the series. The sole determinant is the author, so if they say its in the series, its the way it is. We have the US government on record stating this as being designated as a part of the campaign, so to say it was identified by the sole determinant seems a bit redundant. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a false analogy. The Iraq War, unfortunately, is not a work of fiction. And history is not a notebook that a person, president or not, can write their fantasies into. Now to say that bush has said that the iraq war is part of the "War on Terrorism" is certainly accurate and NPOV. Let's keep in mind to put quotes around the title of the campaign as we would around the title of a book. Lest we confuse Bram Stoker's "Dracula" with Bram Stoker's Dracula. Bram Stoker does not have a Dracula. Likewise, though iraq has been said by bush to be part of his "War on Terror", that does not mean that the Iraq war is part of a war on terror, or even that terror[ism] is being fought in Iraq, or even that terrorism is being fought. We've heard little in the news or from this administration about any American activity in nations were terrorist are known to be, so if america is fighting a war on terror, and not a "War on Terror", that war on terror certainly doesn't involve fighting terrorists or taking actions in places were terrorists are. One of the goals of an encyclopedia is to be clear and informative. It is important, therefore, that we, the editors, are careful to avoid misleading the reader into believing things that aren't true, and the phrase "war on terror", quoted or not, poses a significant danger in this regard. Kevin Baas^talk 04:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well said. Looks like yet another editor against WOT being in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bush starts the War on Kittens and Cows and states he is attacking Budapest to rid the world of Kittens and Cows. He is there instead to steal al the chickens. The fact is that Budapest War was started under the War on Kittens and Cows. As for your statement "We've heard little in the news or from this administration about any American activity in nations were terrorist are known to be" I think its because you perhaps do not listen, or do not look for it. As pointed out in the WoT article it is currently being fought in the Phillipines where they are working along side the Phillipino forces to fight Abu Sayyaf and Jemah Islamiyah, of that battle they have managed to catch Hambali, a al-Qaeda go between who was present in the Phillipines for the AQ Summit and the plotting of Oplan Bojinka. They are also present in the Horn of Africa in a "preventative mission" where the are hoping to remove terrorist elements before they gain fotting amongst the people. They are also partaking in the NATO wide mission of Operation Active Endeavor to patrol the shores to prevent the illegal importing of weapons to terrorists. Depending on your view they participated logistically and through arms support with Israel when fighting against Hisbollah in Lebanon. Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan is their efforts to remove AQ from the stronghold of Afghanistan following 9/11. Perhaps you didnt know about Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah, but they are responcible for the 2002? and 2005 Bali bombings as well as the Australian embassy bombing and numerous other bombings and kidnappings in the Phillipines for some time. Then there is the Waziristan War where the US participated logistically to remove the Taliban elements building up in the tribal region of Pakistan and the build up of AQ in the same region, where it seems Pakistan has turned over many captured high level AQ members. So you can say terrorists are not being fought anywhere, but of this so far in other countries around the world there has been some headway. --NuclearZer0 06:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also your arguement of justification of names is a little off base, its similar to arguing if the Cold War was a "cold war" since many "hot wars" took place during it. --NuclearZer0 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin_baas points were well made. Bush says whatever he wants to say about a War on Terror. But it is not the job of an encyclopedia to agree with him by inserting unchallenged POV sentences in infoboxes. Bush's actions against terror in other nations such as Afghanistan against Al Qaeda are token efforts compared to his massive effort in Iraq where there is arguably a war against an occupation, and not an attempt to terrorize the USA. --Timeshifter 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you assume one effort is larger then the other, the two battles are being conducted differently. You do not need tons of troops in Afghanistan because you are not dealing with a local uprising or civil war. In Afghanistan the majority of the resistance still presents itself from the Taliban, which is what kind of lead to the Waziristan War and Pakistans troubles. The US troops in Iraq are attempting to stabilize in-fighting, acting as a over weaponized police force more then a military. You can't gauge effort by size of troops deployed. --NuclearZer0 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a common discussion in the media over the years that Bush put too many resources in Iraq that should have gone to Afghanistan to follow up on Al Qaeda. That discussion frequently questions Bush's War on Terror, and the trumped up WMDs in Iraq, etc.. Many, many commentators have said that Bush's War on Terror is bogus, because he left the pursuit of Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq where there was no Al Qaeda threat at the time of the invasion. Many other commentators point out that Bush refuses to negotiate with all the parties in the region in order to settle the regional problems and stop the roots of the terrorism. Many other commentators say that all Bush really wants is to keep contractors like Halliburton prosperous, and oil companies prosperous, and the military industries profitable. So the WOT is questioned by many scholars, commentators, experts, Congresspeople, etc., etc.. --Timeshifter 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - imo its encyclopedically modest, but factual and proper wording. Lovelight 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support and add a citation to him saying it, then WTA is satisfied. I further support if a source can be found including under that "Osama bin Laden's War against the Jews and Infidels" has to be sourced as a title not a descriptor. --NuclearZer0 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:NPOV. Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Template:Totally-disputed-section. I made the other votes bold, to help in reading this section. --Timeshifter 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support in principle, though as I've said above in greater detail, I think that this formulation bends over too far backwards without regard for the policies at play. Compromise is important, but I don't see a real benefit to yielding on key points that in any event won't bring agreement from the opposing POV. A fair position is that presented by KevinPuj above after he changed his position just a few days ago, and which recieved support from a broad spectrum of editors. Tewfik^Talk 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a lot better than what Rangely and Nuclear propose, but here are the problems with it: First, the "war on terrorism" is not just a military campaign; many would argue it is not even primarily a military campaign. Second, the "war on terrorism" is not something that started with the Bush Administration. Reagan declared war on terrorism in his time, and Clinton specifically declared war on terrorism in response to al Qaeda bombings. Third, "terrorism" is an abstract noun, not a military opponent. There are many terrorist groups and it is not clear which was being targeted by this particular campaign (al Qaeda? Ansar al-Islam? Hamas??). Fourth, the war on terrorism is global ("gwot") and is not merely a Bush Administration initiative. I suppose "identified by the Bush Admin as part of the military aspect of its 'war on terrorism'" might be slightly better than what is proposed. My opposition here is not as strong as it is to the former proposal, so I won't go against consensus if it develops, but I do think that this is still too problematic of a notion to put in the infobox. Something this controversial should be in the text, not in the infobox. The infobox should be for totally uncontested facts rather than controversial subjective matters. There is no question that "Battle of the Bulge" is part of "World War II"; no controversy at all, not even from Nazis. Something like this is far too nebulous for such definitive status. csloat 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input :) While it is true that Reagan declared war on terrorism, this was not the same as the semantic phrase we are using now in either its "WOT" or "GWOT" form, IMHO. And yes, "terrorism" is an abstract noun, but idiomatic phrases such as "WOT" aren't meant to be parsed, just as "Operation Freedom" isn't meant to be parsed. Whose freedom are we really talking about, the oil companies? What is being operated upon? It exists as a name, not as a parsed phrase. Thus, by using quotes we designate it as such, and by attributing it, we avoid adopting or incorporating such a term into the narrative itself. I do see what you are saying about keeping controversial info out of the infobox, and I understand where you are coming from. I think as a compromise to solve the impasse between those who view "WOT" in its proper or general form, this is an acceptable solution as there is also no question that the Bush administration has identified the Iraq War as part of what they call the "WOT". Just my 2 cents :) --kizzle 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support --kizzle 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Whoops - thought I had opined already. TheronJ 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. satisfies NPOV criteria of attribution and puts proper name in quotes. Still kind of dangerous, though. and csloat made some good points. Kevin Baas^talk 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Baas^talk 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. If this is what it takes to settle the infobox issue, so be it. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And as a note, I still favor placing it lower. It will look awkward at the very top if its any longer than usual. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is a fine way to solve the problem by citing the assertion and the refutations. Now let's stop debating and write more good articles. --Petercorless 07:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose-- This is one of the better wordings that has been suggested, and it does comply with WP:V since it attributed the opinion to Bush Admin. However, it's troublesome in terms of WP:NPOV because it doesn't mention both sides in the debate. Hippocrite's wording is better. Kirill's proposed solution is best of all. --Alecmconroy 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Solution. Timeshifter's passage

Iraq War
Part of WOT campaign as identified by Bush, though not by the British. Identified by Al Qaeda as part of campaign called "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". American public does not believe Iraq War is part of WOT. Neither does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sunni regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Shiite regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Scholars, diplomats, and historians reject implication of WOT phrase that all insurgent groups in Iraq are terrorists. They consider the WOT phrase to be propaganda. And so on. For more info see the section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". {Sprinkle in references to verifiable sources}.
U.S. troops pass by burning oil fields while convoying to Al Jawala, Iraq, during an operation.
Date March 20, 2003 to Present Location Iraq Result Conflict ongoing. Overthrow of Ba'athist government and execution of Saddam Hussein. Occupation of Iraq by coalition forces. Emergence of Iraqi insurgency and possible outbreak of civil war in Iraq. Substantial civilian casualties. Widespread damage to Iraqi infrastructure. Privatization of Iraqi services. Election of a new government
Identified by Bush as part of WOT campaign, though not by the British. Identified by Al Qaeda as part of campaign called "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". American public does not believe Iraq War is part of WOT. Neither does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sunni regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Shiite regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Scholars, diplomats, and historians reject implication of WOT phrase that all insurgent groups in Iraq are terrorists. They consider the WOT phrase to be propaganda. And so on. For more info see the section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". {Sprinkle in references to verifiable sources}.

Identified by Bush as part of WOT campaign, though not by the British. Identified by Al Qaeda as part of campaign called "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". American public does not believe Iraq War is part of WOT. Neither does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sunni regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Shiite regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Scholars, diplomats, and historians reject implication of WOT phrase that all insurgent groups in Iraq are terrorists. They consider the WOT phrase to be propaganda. And so on. For more info see the section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". {Sprinkle in references to verifiable sources}.

---

• Support. This passage is just a starting point. Probably needs to be a lot longer to meet WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and to meet the level of detail and NPOV in the article section titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". --Timeshifter 08:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC). WP:POINT link by TheronJ below is uncalled for and breaches Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. I am serious about my proposal. I would prefer no discussion of WOT in the infobox, other than in casus belli, or a see also link at the bottom of the infobox. But I am willing to compromise by making this serious proposal. Other editors can support this compromise proposal in the same way, and at the same time can say they prefer no discussion of WOT in the infobox in their comment. This passage can be put lower in the infobox as suggested by some editors for the WOT info. It could even be put in the notes section at the bottom of the infobox. See a couple options in the infobox excerpt to the right. The real problem is that there is no clear guideline about this issue. That would be the best solution in my opinion. But until then this proposal may solve the problem and end all this time-wasting infighting. The root problem is one of space in infoboxes. The notes section can be as big as we want it to be. But the military infobox template currently puts the notes section only at the bottom. There has been much less arguing over the contents of the WOT section in the article because there is plenty of space there. --Timeshifter 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:POINT. My proposal is enough to explain the limitations of the statement and to identify the overall military campaign, and also has the benefit that the people at both ends of the dispute are a little uncomfortable with it. TheronJ 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:POINT Please play games elsewhere, then again this just supports my initial assertions further. --NuclearZer0 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:POINT violation. This whole discussion is already quite ridiculous. There is no obvious method of bridging the gap between this position and everyone else's; perhaps we just need to agree to disagree, and recognise that when everyone one else disagress we follow that, even if we believe that we are wrong. Tewfik^Talk 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Way too long. I much prefer TheronJ's version over this. detail about who calls it what and all that can be provided on another page, linked to from the infobox. Kevin Baas^talk 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: No, no, no, no, no, no. This whole debate is patently absurd. Timeshifter's suggestion is utterly bloated. This whole debate is completely unnecessary--Wgbc2032 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just silly. --Petercorless 07:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Most popular solution is still to keep WOT/Iraq_War claims out of infobox

It looks like the compromise solutions are just not as popular as keeping the WOT/Iraq_war claims out of the infobox.

This last month, or thereabouts, these editors have written on the talk page against putting WOT/Iraq_war claims in the infobox:

• savidan
• csloat
• Timeshifter
• Alecmconroy
• UnfairlyImbalanced
• Bobblehead
• Wgbc2032
• Kevin Baas
• The Proffesor

Unless there is a groundswell of support for one of the compromises, then the infobox should remain empty of definitive claims of connections between the Iraq War and the WOT.

This discussion has ended up with "War on Terrorism" being linked in the casus belli section of the infobox. So the navigation link is now in the infobox.

And the long article section titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" remains in the article. So the WOT discussion has not been censored in any way.

The infobox is just another section of an article. It does not have priority over any other section of an article.

I am serious about my compromise. If enough people want it in the infobox, then I will put it in the notes section of the infobox right now. That will not interfere with anything.

I will even put it under the title if enough people insist on it. Though I think that kind of defeats the purpose of an infobox, by putting too much prose at the top. But notes are meant to be prose. And they have a special section at the bottom of the infobox designated for them by the infobox template. --Timeshifter 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess since you keep saying it, I must believe it now ... can you please stop these completly useless posts that declare your overwhelming support from people who have made one post and arent involved in current discussions at all, its kinda getting old. Also your WP:POINT stuff is gonig to be reported soon, I think its starting to become apparent you never negotiated in good faith however, which will soon lead to people just ignoring you. --NuclearZer0 14:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of them have made several posts. Some are involved in current discussions. Feel free to report your claims of WP:POINT. I am negotiating in good faith. I stand by my compromise offer. Please stop breaching these guidelines with your attacks on me:

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Wikipedia:Civility

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines --Timeshifter 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh just keep proving how you are not interested in a real middleground, with your reccomendation of massive infobox nonsense describing each person ni the house of representatives view, that makes good sense, I am sure it was made in good faith ... Sorry but I cannot assume good faith anymore and AGF doesnt require I do so indefinatly. You have argued that it violated WTA and then went on to ignore the words of WTA and then ignore everyone who told you that by specifying who and giving a citation it was not violating WTA and fulfilling the requirements of it. You then moved onto guidelines regarding article titles, which doesnt even fit this discussion. Then NPOV, yet when a balance was offered, putting bin Ladens name and Bush's, you go off on this WP:POINT violation. I hope you soon stop the "these people agree with me" and just picking random people not currently engaged in the discussion, it only makes you look bad. How can you say they agree with you if they have not seen any of the middlegrounds and discussion, or had anythnig to say about any of it. PS its considered rude to quote policy to established editors. --NuclearZer0 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WTA is violated by using just one sentence, because it implies all the enemies of the USA in the War in Iraq are terrorists. NPOV is breached by just one sentence. Or why would there be a need for a whole section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". The people are not random. I read all the talk on this issue back many months. The ones that I listed are just the recent ones against WOT claims in the infobox. Some have seen the recent middle grounds. Some have seen the old middle grounds. It is considered rude to make unsubstantiated claims of WP:POINT. --Timeshifter 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not interested in your cricular logic anymore, I think its also quite obvious of the WP:POINT above. YOu can argue with the people here, Alexmconroy has at least been open to offers, you are not, which is against our policies here of working together. --NuclearZer0 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It says here that you have just been banned from editing the Iraq War page for 3 months. Why did you just add back a similar sentence to the infobox for which you were recently 3RR blocked for over 24 hours? And while discussion is ongoing. Here is the diff where you just added it back:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=105106562&oldid=105091979

The 3 month ban is also mentioned on your talk page: User talk:NuclearUmpf and on the block log of your probation page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

The 3RR board I linked to previously says this: "I've banned NuclearUmpf from editing the article (not talk page) for 3 months. This is nothing new; he knows he's on probation for edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)"

So I guess Nuclear can still write on this talk page. --Timeshifter 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, there's no point in trying to come up with old lists of people's former opinions. First, consensus can change. Second, and more importantly, none of the people you cite have opined on the proposed compromise. It's contrary to the very spirit of compromise to decide that a "consensus" opposes any compromise by putting words in other people's mouths. If you want more opinions, would you be interested in working with us to put together a request for comment? TheronJ 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation galore. They are not old lists. Some of those people have opined on the proposed compromises. There is already one RFC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangeley.

I honestly don't understand why a reasonable compromise that describes both sides of the dispute briefly and neutrally cannot be reached - perhaps people are less interested in writing an encyclopedia than arguing about politics? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already a fully fleshed out section on the "War on Terrorism" in the article. A few editors have spent almost a year trying to put a single line (in various forms) in the infobox. --Timeshifter 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Concensus?

Concensus does not mean the aggregate of "something someone said a month ago"... those editors who are participating now to try to reach a concensus seem to favor TheronJ's passage. For people to claim that the compromise in Wikipedia:WOT is invalid because it was made months ago and then cite random past comments by editors who aren't even participating in this discussion is blatantly hypocritical. This does not require me to entertain the ludicrous suggestion that I "contact the hundred people or so from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind". I realize that "People don't wait around breathlessly awaiting your latest popup poll", so I am in no hurry. But as it stands, the section is gaining support by everyone except for Timeshifter. We'll revisit the issue in a week or so and see what concensus is based upon those who have chimed in now rather than some obscure comment in the past. For those editors who are new to this discussion, please see the proposed passage here. --kizzle 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to request those who are involved in the discussion (even TheronJ) to weigh in on TheronJ's passage if you haven't already, so that we get as complete as possible an idea of what concensus is on its acceptability. --kizzle 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a month. Be bold in the meantime

There is already another editor who is not buying the TheronJ passage. He used a longer passage and was bold and posted it in the infobox. Good for Hipocrite. Shows how bogus these one-week consensus agreements are. Looking over the last couple weeks one sees more people have written against one-sentence WOT passages in the infobox than for it. Count and see for yourselves. Over the last month even more have spoken out against it. Wait another month and count again. The arbitration request concerning Rangeley had a lot to do with these claims of consensus. The real problem in my opinion is the lack of a wikipedia guideline on this specific issue, and that the admins and arbitrators are overwhelmed. --Timeshifter 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not support the passage I wrote. I attempted to find a middle ground between two sides that were, in my eyes, being unreasonably petulant. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you wrote it. Ball is in your court. I don't fully support any of the infobox passages since I don't think inflammatory info should be in the limited space of an infobox. As a compromise I prefer longer passages over shorter ones. As a stopgap measure until wikipedia forms a more specific guideline for infoboxes. --Timeshifter 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Waiting a week for concensus is not "bogus". If you truly think that we should wait much longer, then I can't see how the compromise we initially reached at Wikipedia:WOT isn't still valid. We have an influx of new editors, let's see what everyone involved in the discussion today has to say. And instead of waiting a predeterminate amount of time, I think we'll know around when concensus is reached even if we're a few days out and the passage has substantially more support than opposition. I just want to get this godforsaken debate over with, and I believe TheronJ's passage has the best possibility to bring the two opposing sides together, especially given csloat's weak oppose and Alec's weak support. --kizzle 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The RFC on Rangeley had a lot to do with these so-called consensus agreements. When analyzed they have never been found to be real. See:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangeley --Timeshifter 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I was heavily involved in the Wikipedia:WOT compromise and the concensus we adopted seemed to be unchallenged for a long time. --kizzle 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can analyze the talk pages over the last year and count the editors for and against putting WOT in the infobox. See the section higher up with the list of 37 editors against WOT in the infobox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War#The_barrier_to_re-inserting_the_disputed_text

There a few more in my list for the last month (or thereabouts). --Timeshifter 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Timeshifter, are saying that you are willing to accept Hipocrite's proposal as a possible compromise?
• Hipo, thanks for the input -- I think we're likely to reach consensus, but we'll have to see. (I don't think you've split the difference yet - my proposal was roughly splitting the difference between Rangeley and Timeshifter, both of whom have opposed it for opposite reasons. Still, I appreciate the idea.) Thanks, TheronJ 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly prefer to wait and see what ArbCom rules concerning:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangeley

In the meantime I don't mind seeing what some editing of the Hipocrite proposal by all of us comes up with. --Timeshifter 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The arbcomm doesn't rule regarding requests for comment. The purpose of those requests is to get a sense of the community's opinions on an issue, so that you can try to resolve your dispute constructively. (See WP:RFC for more info). TheronJ 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC in the section titled "Request comment on users" says: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste." --Timeshifter 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. TheronJ's point is that Arbcom has nothing to do with this step in the dispute resolution process. --kizzle 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"binding arbitration" --Timeshifter 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, arbcom's not going to rule on the RFC-- they just ask for one before a case is brought. As of this moment, Nuclear's banned from editing the page, and Rangeley has discontinued the disruptive behaviors, so hopefully there won't be any need to get Arbcom involved. --Alecmconroy 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Current State of Infobox--Is this a solution

So what do people think of the current text? Does this satisfy? Publicus 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Template editor comments on Iraq War infobox

Here are Kirill Lokshin comments below from Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict. The comments are from the talk section titled: "Partof" question

Well, there are a few related issues here.

The term "campaign" has two slightly different meanings, which seem to be the source of some confusion here. The first (and older) one refers merely to a series of engagements that form part of a war; the origin here is from the idea of a "campaigning season". This sort of campaign is not really named by the parties involved, but tends to acquire a historiographic name just as battles and wars do; see, for example, Ulm Campaign or Gettysburg Campaign. It is this sort of campaign that a battle can be said to be "part of".

The second meaning of "campaign" is limited to more modern warfare, and refers to a designation used by a particular armed force for a series of operations; it crops up in things like campaign streamers or medals. This type of campaign is named by the party in question, but is quite obviously based on that party's perspective, and is generally only used in historical works that present that perspective. (It's usually the case, incidentally, that the "official" campaign names used by different parties to a conflict won't match up; historians that aren't working from a particular party's perspective tend to avoid them in favor of the first type of campaign—or theater designations—for that reason. This is common even among allied parties; for example, the U.S. and the U.K. define the "Normandy campaign" differently.)

Beyond that, of course, is the historiographical question itself. The Iraq War is still ongoing; it's still too early for a historiographical consensus to have formed about what, exactly, its relationship to other events is. It may be that, with a few decades of hindsight, it'll be considered "Part of the War on Terror", or "Part of the Pan-Islamic Jihad", or "Part of World War III", or something entirely different—or that it will be regarded as an entirely separate conflict, unconnected to anything else—but it's simply too soon to be able to make a definitive statement in that regard.

From a utilitarian standpoint, I would suggest not using the "partof" field here and instead, as someone suggested, working the needed links into the "casus" field. Infoboxes are not well-suited to describing aspects of a conflict whose very existence is a matter of dispute; we can deal neatly with differing numbers, or disagreements about the results, but not really something so basic as whether the conflict is part of a larger one. The issue can be better covered in the body of the article, where there aren't such dramatic space limitations; and giving it such prominent play in the infobox somewhat overshadows the fact that it's supposed to be a summary table for the actual war, not the associated politcal debate. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So he suggests leaving WOT out of the top of the infobox, and putting the WOT link in the casus belli field. It seems no one has objected to the link in the casus belli field. It is the only part of this long discussion to reach a true consensus as far as I know. --Timeshifter 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Support or oppose?

• Support. This proposal has my 100 percent support. --Timeshifter 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - this seems to resolve the problems with the partof field. csloat 00:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I totally agree with Kirill Lokshin who stated: “giving it [WoT] such prominent play in the infobox somewhat overshadows the fact that it's supposed to be a summary table for the actual war, not the associated political debate”. Putting WoT as Casus belli seems enough to me.Justpassing 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support So long as "war on terror" stays out of the info box. Since the administration repeatedly justifies the war in relation to the broader war on terrorism, I guess casus belli would be fine.--Wgbc2032 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support- an ArbCom member's proposed solution carries a lot of weight in my eyes. --Alecmconroy 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support For me, it's not that Kirill is on arbcomm that swings the issue - it's that he basically wrote the military conflict infobox and is the guiding spirit behind the military history project. I'm glad that this seems to be coming to a resolution. Thanks, everybody. TheronJ 13:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. - makes sense. Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Bravo, this is an excellent solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - As stated below, I can accept this as it recognizes it is a part of the US-led campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - What was it!? Oh, some sort of technical difficulties… I'll also agree with lead coordinator on this one: "It makes for a better article, in my opinion, to simply have the issue fully discussed in the text," Lovelight 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin's Input

As noted above, a discussion occured with Kirill over the intent of the infobox fields. He clarified the difference between the two types of campaigns, one is a series of battles or wars, the other is a designation given by a government to a set of operations. The infobox field "partof" is meant for the former, not the latter. But he does note that the Iraq War is a part of one of the latter types of campaigns, which is being led by the USA. He points out that while this isnt suited for the partof field, it is suited for the article itself: 'So something like "the coalition operations in Iraq were designated as being part of the WoT" would be acceptable.' So long as we make it clear that we are talking about a government designated campaign, it can be stated, because of the verifiable information from reliable sources.

So to summarize:

1. The Iraq War is a part of the US led campaign.
2. The "partof" field is not meant for this sort of campaign, but for historical campaigns or wider wars only.
3. It can be noted in casus belli, as it was a given reason
4. We can state it as a part of the campaign within the article itself, as there are no space constraints as there are in the infobox.

I can wholly agree to this. I was not aware of the precise intent of the "partof" field, but as it has been clarified, it is clear that it is not appropriate for this field. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is more than interesting to see this editor accepting this explanation from an ArbCom member while objecting to the same arguments for months(!)(which resulted in several RFC's, mediation and an ArbCom case) when it is presented almost in a somewhat identical way by mere mortals such as ordinary editors.66.249.90.136 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Noone has ever explained that the infobox, while having a place for campaigns, is not meant for this type of campaign. Every other argument presented has been either that the Iraq War is not a part of the campaign, that it violated WTA, that it was merely a POV, that they werent really terrorists, etc. These arguments were false or irrelevent, and I was not prepared to accept them due to this. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill definitly had a different take on things, and since he's the head of the Military History project, he had a slightly different POV that was very helpful in getting everyone on the same page. Now, a cynic like 66.249 can see Rangeley acting different around Arbcom members, but I don't think that's the case at all. I think a much better answer is simply that Arbcom members have their job and their reputation for a reason, and we shouldn't be at all surprised when they're able to mediate between different groups of users better than the users themselves are. Mad props must also go out to TheronJ for his help in mediating. --Alecmconroy 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with him being an arbcom member and everything to do with what he said... as I have explained several times before. People like you, Alec, or Timeshifter have consistently argued that it is not a part of the campaign. He repudiated this, but explained that its not the same type of campaign meant to be placed in the infobox. I didnt even know he was an arbcom member until people accused me of siding with him because he was one. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, just know I'm not accusing you of that. If there's any connection, it's that people who get elected to Arbcom are people who are very good communicators. --Alecmconroy 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Kirill was the most unquestionable candidate in ArbCom elections, but that's due to his work as the lead coordinator of WP:MIL. After all, this article relates to military history, doesn't it? And I really don't see what the controversy is about except for who thinks what. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

dont say i didnt warn you

a long time ago, i posted a comment on this discussion page entitled "clean up the superscripts!"

the page is still overflowing with "citation needed" superscripts.

nobody has cleaned up the superscripts. nobody has even responded to my message. i gave you a clear warning that the page was becoming rather unprofessional and needed to be changed, and lots of time has passed since that warning. so, true to my promise, i will begin to remove many of the "citation needed" superscripts in 24 hours if nobody addresses the issues before then. its not hard to do. the page needs to look a lot more presentable. tons of people come here from all over the internet to read about the iraq war. for this reason, the page cant continue to look like a rough draft. you have 24 hours to overcome your partisan bickering and resolve these issues

70.107.37.96 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to provide the citations yourself, per "So fix it!". Removing the "Citations Needed" tags by themselves would be a step backwards, not a step forward. --Alecmconroy 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally it's not just the citations needed templates that should be removed, but the sentence that they are associated with and the template. If the anon is going to be removing the associated sentence, then more power to 'em. --Bobblehead 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

C'mon 70.107.37.96--instead of complaining about the "citation needed" tag why not clean up the un-sourced sentence? Leaving those tags on the sentences reminds people to either find a source or remove things that are unsubstantiated. Publicus 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

terrorist attacks

I would like to edit the "terrorist attacks of the Iraq war" box (its called "Campaignbox Iraq War bombings", but I dont know how to do so. My problem is that as part of the list there is an attack on a US military base. While the rest of the events in the list are genuine terrorist attacks against civilians, this is an attack targeting a military base. Since the target (and most of the casualties) were military rather than civilian in nature, I dont think it should be on the list of terrorist attacks. Another argument would be that this box only lists very large scale terrorist bombings, while the casulties of this event are light in comparison to the others. Harley peters 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Iraq War actually started on March 19, 2003 NOT March 20, 2003 as the date is posted presently. The Shock and Awe campaign started March 19, 2003 which was the beginning of the Iraq War.

Jombolo 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ERRORS: U.S.A. / Insurgent Casualties / fallujah

For the second battle for fallujah the article says the U.S. took significant casualties, and then lists 95 dead, even though only 40-50 died during the week of major fighting that was this battle, and the rest over the following months on patrols, etc. More importantly, even the inflated 95 does not constitute "significant casualties" for taking a city, in fact 95 is tiny by any historical standard and the sheer size of the Marine force involved not to mention the number of insurgents killed by comparison. In addition, when talking about fallujah the article says it is reported that 5,000 insurgents were killed, but on the side panel for the article page it says only 4,100 insurgents have been killed in the entire Iraq war. This article's writer(s) are confused.

Feel free to make editing changes if you think there is an error. On the "substantial casualties for the US Marines, for a single battle in this war 95 KIA 500 WIA is pretty substantial for a single battle. Most the coalition losses have come in rather small numbers(2-5 per incident) due to heli crashes or IEDs. So in that respect, 95 is quite large.

Also, I've changed the inusurgent killed number to 1,200 which is the same listed on DoD sites and the Second Battle of Fallujah page. Thanks for pointing out the error. Publicus 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In urban combat against an enemy force with time to entrench itself at roughly the size of the whole Fullujah defense forces the attacking force could easily be expected to have, by recent historical standards, about an initial 30% casualty rate before veteran troops could bring it down below 30% or so. The Marines had nowhere near this casualty rate. In Fallujah the insurgents were disorganized and operated in most cases at the platoon or squad level. The casualties for the Marine Corps in taking fallujah were at a bare minimum, not "significant" like say 1,000+ KIA would be. At the end of the day you have to have some context and meaning when you use words like "significant" or "large" when you talk about the Marine Corps and casaulties in Iraq in general. This is not the only war to have ever been fought. What is really significant is the amount of insurgents that were killed, many by airstrikes.

If 30% is considered a significant casualty rate then the Second Battle of Fallujah does come close depending on what you consider a casualty. According to that page's list of strengths and casualties for the US and Iraqi forces, there were approximately 3,200 troops involved in the operation. Of those troops there were 95 KIA, 622 WIA (US) plus 8 KIA, 43 WIA (Iraqi Security Force) for a total of 768 casualties both wounded and killed. As a percentage of the listed strength of 3,200--768 casualties is actually pretty high around 24%. Of course if you take out the wounded the number is much lower only 3%. Either way I think the word "significant" is helpful on this battle, after all this single battle is one of the most significant operations of the entire war so far--and that's including the actual invasion operations. Publicus 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you and I were specifically debating the words "significant" and "large" when referencing casualties, I never argued that Fallujah II was not a "significant" fight or battle in the Iraq war. However, it flat wrong to say that 95 KIA is large or significant in terms of casaulties for the USMC. The numbers of forces involved in Fallujah II I thought were more like 10,000, not 3,200. Either way, like you said with your super low number of 3,200 which must not include Iraqi forces but does in terms of you adding them to the casaulty list, had a 3% KIA. This 3% was also over a period of many weeks even months after the "battle" was considered over. Not to mention, in you original post you say that most casaulties in this war occured in small numbers like 4-5 KIA, thus Fallujah II equals in your logic more "significant" casalties. However, they died in small numbers in fallujah II as well, 4-5"s. The 95 died over weeks/ months not days.

GA nomination on hold

When reviewing this article it fails on point four of six of the good article criteria. The issues of POV and neutrality will need to be addressed. Further, the article is on the long side. Consider summarising where appropriate. Also, follow the wonderful suggestions/goals that are listed at the top of this talk page:

• Remove POV media section
• Cite all sources in media section
• Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article
• Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources

If you can accomplish this, and summarise the article some, then the article will be on its way towards being a good article. However, at this point it fails, though this time let's put the nomination on-hold to give editors some time to correct these issues. Please discuss ways that the goals set out above can be completed in a due course. If progress isn't made, this article will again fail in its review. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed

I guess a week was not enough time to accomplish these tasks. However, if they are completed in the future, you may wish to resubmit the article for a good article review. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact Box problem

Noticed after reading the Mahdi Army page that the numbers claimed in the fact box no longer have citations (thew ones noted on the page are dead links or do not contain information on the nuber of troops) and seem widely exaggereated. Adding citation superscrpt until a new reference is found. Macutty 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

False Insurgent Glorification

" In November 2003, some of these forces successfully attacked U.S. rotary aircraft with SAM-7 missiles bought on the global black market"

There is no source for the above. More importantly, no air planes have been shot down in Iraq! how can this missile attack (I've watched the video of it) that hurt no one, and barely damaged the plane (which safely landed afterwards) at all be considered militarily "succesfull" other then by this articles meer mention of it??? with a SAM-7, successful would be shooting it out of the sky. I'll give you an example; If the U.S. military fired a missile at an enemy plane, hurt no one on the plane yet alone failed to destroy it, would you consider that a succesful attack???? No way! They don't have many missiles so for them it was a failure to kill no one yet alone not destroy the plane with their expensive precious weapon.

I consistently see this article glorifying insurgent attacks: For example, stating that the insurgents inflicted significant/large casualties on the Marine Corps in Fallujah (3% at the most KIA for this Op) The fact of the matter is that the insurgents are scared to stand up and fight the U.S. A. that is why they use these tactics that many would deem cowardly. what is their favorite tactic in Iraq??? to hide and detonate bombs from concealed positions and then run off. I guess their winning the propaganda battle right here on Wikipedia though aren't they! Imagine being that insurgent who fired the missile (if he's still alive) and reading this article about your "succesful" attack that did nothing. Talk about encouragement. They don't even have to hurt anyone or destroy anything. Just hit the button and aim for the sky and you've already won on wikipedia if you happen to be an Iraqi insurgent.