Wikipedia talk:WOT

Question

I think it is obvious that the US government sees (or at least saw/presented) the invasion of Iraq and the continuing presence there as part of its War on Terror. However, in my opnion, the term "War on Terror" is just a tag applied to various wars, which might be fought for very different reasons and with different means, very much like the "global stuggle against communism" of R. Reagan.[9]. So I would propose including a text along the lines of "the US government sees the invasion of Iraq as part of its global "War on Terrorism".KarlXII 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just, "US/United States War on Terror?" Haizum 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind US War on Terrorism, but you run into two problems, there are other nations that use the term, there are other nations also participating in the content that will be included in the article. I considered US led, but that would be false as many of the operations attributed have little to no US presence, like Operation Active Endeavor and Operation APOLLO. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. Haizum 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for kicks, maybe US (some word that would symbolize they started it) War on Terrorism. That is if people want to highlight how it began with the US, I just feel limiting the name to making it seem like its only the US participating would be wrong. I also want to note NATO says Active Endeavor is part of war on terror, so its not just the US using the term. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Would it be possible to attach different prefixes to the overall War on Terror? For instance, the US and the UK are both fighting the WOT, but clearly they have different goals and policies. So, would it be possible to have US War on Terror / UK War on Terror / XYZ War on Terror with the assumption that their independent efforts are all part of a greater WOT? I'm just brainstorming here. Haizum 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be advantageous because even a small country that can only support the WOT vocally can still be recognized as a participant if they wish. Likewise, they wouldn't have to be directly attached to military actions that they may not agree with. Haizum 19:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be different tactical goals, but all share the same strategic goal. For instance, the US operations against Japan are not the US World War Two, even though they have different goals then the British advances into France. To show which countries fought in which operations or battles, you place the parties involved in the "combattants" section. Rangeley 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally follow you. I'm really just trying to make this easier for the people that can't handle obvious distinctions, eg, this poll is not an endorsement of the war. Haizum 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One solution might be to take the War on Terrorism article and rework it. Possibly create a brief history, of the start of the war on terror, then branch into each countries contributions and maybe a paragraph or two about that particular operation. This would allow people to goto the war on terror page and then see what operations are taking place by what countries. The current article however is very US centric. We can even create a large War on Terror page, then have each country sorted by participation. Such as Global War on Terror - France Participation or something to that effect. I think this can easily turn into a project, one I would be glad to work on. If you see the template there is numerous things to cover directly related to the WOT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to help with that project, though until we can recognize the true scope of the War on Terrorism it will be difficult to create accurate articles. For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not currently considered to even be involved in the conflict by Wikipedia, despite his clear involvement. Thats why its particularly important to get this specific issue right, once and for all, so that we can make Wikipedia's coverage of this conflict more comprehensive and factually based. Rangeley 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd that he would not be considered, he was after all Al-Qaeda, he pledged to bin Laden and bin Laden accepted him as his warrior in Iraq. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I'm not that surprised. Haizum 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the US?

"He joins us from Ankara," Admiral Johnson said in his introduction of the General to his new headquarters, "where he recently served with great distinction as the Chief of the Operations Division in the Turkish Air Force, and where he gained a reputation as a visionary leader with much to contribute as we all focus on prosecuting a global war on terrorism."

Admiral Johnson was the Commander-in-Chief of AFSOUTH. SO even NATO commanders consider some NATO exercises and operations as part of the global war on terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I want to mention that, for the first time in our modern history, all the countries in the area are sharing a significant number of highly important values and interests governing the evolution of the international relations. I mean: democracy, human rights, market economy and the global war on terror.

Speech made by President of Romania, Traian Basescu. [1] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The global war on terrorism has not only spurred us to complete the job of building a Europe whole and free, but it has also underscored the urgent need to consolidate stability in Southeastern Europe.

Declaration of the Prime Ministers at the Bucharest Summit 2002. [2] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty more, just do not want people thinking its onlt the US using the term, especially when one is a NATO commander. Feel free to move these or just keep chatting above. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC) All of our European allies in the NATO countries have some degree of capability with special operations forces, so you see right there a great deal of commonality between the requirement on a global basis in support of the global war on terrorism and the existing capabilities.[reply]

Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General James L. Jones [3] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Could you please direct me to where the discussion on this was already made. I thought it was rather obvious that the US government labelled its invasion of Iraq as part of its War on Terror. Wasn't that why they were trying so hard to find links between S. Hussein and Al Qaida? That it was a stupid move, is a whole diffirent issue. Also, it should be pointed out that while NATO was involved in the War on Terror in Afghanistan, it was not in Iraq.KarlXII 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not everyone interested was aware that polls were occurring; I certainly wasn't. Haizum 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Nescio, you need to disagree with the content, not attack the existence of the poll itself. Haizum 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read to lenghty rebuttals ojn the talkpages tghat already settled this debate.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was over if it belongs in the infobox. Not if they are linked. Many people said, yes its linked, but its controversial so no to the infobox. This is why a general poll is made here asking for just people who think its linked. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll was created because people misunderstood the basis of the older one. They felt that voting for the poll would be justifying the invasion. That is why its laid out here like this, in a concise matter that explains no justifications are being made, simply asking if its part of it or not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is attempting to cut through politics and hit the issue at its heart, and is laid out in a matter that it is absolutely clear what it is addressing. This was a problem last time, with many mistaking it for a "Do you support the war?" or "Was it justified?" poll. This problem does not exist here because it is explicitly stated otherwise. Anyone who disagrees with the argument put forth is more than welcome to put forward another argument that proves it incorrect, but as this has not happened throughout the entire duration of the discussion so far, it would be improper of us to not raise the issue again. A consensus must be backed logically, not merely numerically. Rangeley 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a solution that indicates both that it is a part of the War on Terror, but also indicates that this is a term used by the Bush Administration. I feel that using quotes, ex: Part of the "War on Terror", would be appropriate. KevinPuj 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we use the name "War on Terrorism" is not because the US Government has labeled it such, but instead because that is where the article on the conflict is located at Wikipedia. This is also something that this is not addressing. This is addressing whether the Iraq War is part of the conflict, not the name or name conventions that should be applied to the conflict. Rangeley 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could I forget the notorious terrorist SH. Silly me, I was thinking he was a dictator who used gas on his subjects, killed opponents and tortured. Of course this was a mistake, instead of a dictator SH was a well-known terrorist.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, please note this where the argument for inclusion is put forth. Nowhere has anyone claimed Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. Rangeley 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the US was sponsoring OBL, the IRA and other terrorists?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are demonstrating why this vote had to be taken, you are not arguing against it being linked, you are arguing that the US is also bad. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong, I observe that using as argument the links to terrorism inevitably places the US among those countries sponsoring terrorism.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And if it is? Please expand on the relevance. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The relevance is consistency. It means that if the logic is that invading a known sponsor of terrorismn is ipso facto part of the WOT, then invading the US is also part of .. And, every country that the US says is in some obscure way linked to terrorism can now be invaded under this umbrella (Iran!), and in the debate over enemy combatants we see this administration is very flexible in interpreting what supporting terrorism is. Hence my insisting on a clear definition of the term.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Its in the heading of the War on Terrorism article. The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (officially the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT"[1]) is a campaign by the United States, NATO, and other allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you elaborate on "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism," and what exactly this means? More to the point, what is international terrorism, what is state sponsorship of terrorism and what is terrorism?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, since I will not be able to layout any and every possible tactic for stopping terrorism, since I am not a professor of terrorism, you are then right? This is becoming silly, you are not even advancing an arguement anymore. You are just pleading ignorance now to anything related to the discussion. If you have an arguement to make lay it out, all your are doing is asking questions, this is an encyclopedia, read it if you do not know. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You are starting to understand why your position is flawed: you cannot define what WOT or terrorism stands for. Therefore, any conflict can be designated part of WOT since we have no inclusion nor exclusion criteria. It is in effect limitless, or as some argue, it is what the US says it is.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        They have both been given to you in this page, look fo rthe bold statements, I made it that way so you would find them easily. Use a dictionary if you need to know what a term means. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Incorrect, any definition of WOT referring to terrorism without defining terrorism is still not clearly defined.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I cannot name every method for fighting communism, but that does not mean communism and Cold War are not linked either. Your logic is horribly flawed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would again point you to this where the actual argument is put forth. The War on Terrorism is being waged against those who the USA determines to be terrorist groups, and state sponsors of terror. Iraq was listed as a state sponsor of terror.[4] Whether the USA sponsors terrorists, commits genocide, or eats babies would be irrelevant to this issue. Rangeley 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill you said eats babies, I seen a joke once online about a certain group of people eating babies, it was gross. I dont really remember the details. Just trying to insert some humor. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The key word "who the USA determines to be." In effect this is everybody, everywhere, anytime. For a demonstration of the principle read about unlawful combatant. Although designated the worst of the worst, many turn out to be innocent and without ties to terrorism.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is circular logic, the UN authorizes wars against those "The UN feels violates international laws" which can be anyone anywhere anytime. See the problem? If the above makes sense to you, then it should be just as logical that the US would be able to goto war with those it labels state sponsors of terrorism. The UN decides who broke international law, then goes to war with them on its own decission. I think the fact that its the US making the decission is what bothers most people, not that the group making the destinction is the group waging the war, because that is how it normally works. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice try, however the UN was created with the sole purpose of determining/solving international issues. The US on the other hand is not entitled to make such decisions.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - So the UN can label and attack but no other nation can? What about nations that do not belong to the UN? You seem to feel they are the ruling world authority even though its only 15 nations that get to decide if they goto war. For the US to goto war, over 200 people have to agree. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, I know you have not heard of the UN charter, but this is how it was decided under international law. Feel free to take it up with the UN if you disagree.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Then yor arguement is not valid, you are not arguing against a group labeling then attacking another group, you are just saying the US cannot do it. Once again briningup the issue of validity and not if it did happen. Not justifications are being made here. Stop trying to make it about that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The debate is whehter invading Iraq was about fighting terrorism, not whether Bush said is was. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Factually speaking, why did the US goto war with Iraq, since you do not believe it was WMDs or terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things might happen, and when and if they do, we will judge them then. We arent talking about pie in the sky, we are talking about what we know. And we know that the Iraq War began as part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we knowe is that US intelligence itself determined t5hat SH was not linked to international terrorism and especially, contrary to what Bushco keeps alleging, was in no way related to 9-11.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this basically an admission that fighting terrorism was a stated reason of the Iraq War? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is exactly why I oppose to this poll. This has already been adressed. Stating something does not make it a fact. Especially since within the US that argument was already disputed before the invasion.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fail to see whre this has been decided, are you talking about the infobox poll? Are you misunderstanding this poll to be about an infobox? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it to, you want to say the US went to war over faulty intelligence about WMD and terrorism, yet deny that the war was waged over WMDs and terrorism. If it was waged over WMDs then you believe the speech to the UN actually happened and that res 114 lists WMDs, but you then selectively want to ignore that botht he resolution and the speech listed terrorism in relation to those WMDs. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen, you just admitted that the USA began the Iraq War as a part of the War on Terror. This isnt about if the intelligence was right, this was stated in what this was "not addressing." It was begun as part of the War on Terror, a specifically defined conflict waged by the USA and allies against those they see as "terrorists and state sponsors of terror," and that is all that matters to us. As an encyclopedia we must recognize this link. Rangeley 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of stating something does not make it a fact do you not understand? Another try, suppose

I hit you in the face
I say I did that because you insulted me
You know I was more than aware you did not insult me

Clearly, the reason I advance for hitting you is you insulting me, but would you accept that as reason knowing I was well aware you did not insult me?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example assumes justification, however that is not what we are handling here. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know my english is not as good as yours but "part of the WOT" sounds like a staement of fact to me. If however, I understand you correctly you should be suggesting stated by the US as part of the WOT as title.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is the issue, you are misunderstanding. We are not here to say if the War is justified, meaning we are not saying terrorists were found, are there, etc. We are not saying the US acted responcibly by attacking Iraq etc. We are saying the US attacked Iraq as part of the War on Terror, the war on terror being "a campaign by the United States, NATO, and other allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." Also the US is not the only country that labels other countries of state-sponsored terrorism see the link for more information. I am glad we got this cleared up, no justifications, just was the Iraq War waged as part of the War on Terror. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have cleared nothing up. The title part of ... clearly is a statement of fact and not of political policy. Since there were no terrorists in Iraq we cannot assert that invading Iraq was to attack terrrorism. Feel free to explain it is what Bush said, but is is not what actually happened therefore the title should not say so.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel Bush did not attack Iraq over WMDs or terrorism? Please share with me, so I can understand, what you feel the factual reason for the Iraq War invasion was. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen, you are right. Were the US Government to merely say that they began the Iraq War as part of the war on terror, this would have no backing. But they did more than merely say that it was part, they actually began it as part in the war resolution. A single fist fight doesnt work as an analogy, so lets try this. You decide you want to beat up everyone you see who is pro war. You beat up 30 people. Your written hitlist states you wanted to beat up all pro war people. Therefore, when the police file reports on the 30 different attacks, they can all be linked together. They were carried out by you, and you began them all as an attempt to beat up all pro war people. Whether or not the people were all pro war is irrelevant to the fact that the attacks were all linked events, carried out in the same attack. Picture the USA as a bully if you want, he goes around beating up kids who he thinks are talking bad about him. When the police file the report for the 2 people he beat up, lets call them Iraq and Afghanistan, the police will note that the two beatings were linked, and done under the same larger attack. Or in the case of this, we, wikipedians, will note that the two wars are linked under the same campaign, the War on Terrorism. Rangeley 13:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To complete the analogy you must include that prior to beating them up I was aware that none were pro-war and therefore my hitlist was in error.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that change the fact that the stated reason was that they were prowar? If anything it just means the police have to prove you are lying, which goes to justification, not stated reasons. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming the USA knew Afghanistan had no ties to terror, and that Iraq had no ties to terror? This is outright wrong, considering both nations did have ties to terror. But lets for a moment assume you are right. For this analogy, you knew that none of them were pro war. They were still all attacked in the same event. You might call it "Nomen's Massacre," an imfamous tale of a liar who went around beating up people he called war mongerers. The importance of recognizing your massacre as linked is so that all can see its true scope. The same applies here, in order for people to understand the true scope of the war on terror, we must recognize the Iraq War and Afghan War as parts. Perhaps it will show someone the true scope of the terror carried out by the USA against innocent nations. Perhaps it will show someone the true scope of goodness that the USA has. But either way, it is showing someone the true scope of a campaign, for which they then can make oppinions. Rangeley 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US knew Iraq had no ties to terror, therefore the US was not fighting terrorism. Second, nobody disputes that Bush said otherwise. However, this is not about what Busah said but what actually happened.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you understand to be the factual reason for the war in Iraq if you maintain WMD's and terrorism was not the reason? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Nomen, but Saddam Hussein did have ties to terror. The Saddam Hussein article notes "Several journalists have reported on Saddam's ties to anti-Israeli and Islamic terrorism prior to 2000. Saddam is also known to have had contacts with Palestinian terrorist groups. Early in 2002, Saddam told Faroq al-Kaddoumi, head of the Palestinian political office, he would raise the sum granted to each family of Palestinians who die in the uprising against Israel to $25,000 instead of $10,000. [5]." There are others listed, but the existence of just one proves you to be wrong. Remember, Bush cannot start a war. Congress approved the war, and they began it to "prosecute the war on terrorism" and to deal with the threat posed by Iraq as such. This is the context in which the war began. Not the context in which they say the war began, but the actual authorization of force that allowed for war. It is what happened. Rangeley 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course he supported terrorism, even if he wasn't linked to 9/11. Bush specifically said that we were there to stop, among other things, Saddam's support of terrorism. Bush may have been lying or stupid, but he still coined the term and the war's a part of that term by his definition. Besides, in case you didn't hear, we deliberately (it wasn't just blind luck I mean) killed Al-Zarqawi, head of Iraq's Al-Qaeda terrorism branch. That was an objective of this war. How can you say we aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq? Karwynn 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But according to the CIA, Al-Zarqawi had nothing to do with Saddam's regime in Iraq, so how could have have been an "objective of this war" when we invaded? Unless you're referring to him later becoming a target, but the insurgents that joined up with him were directly because of our presence in Iraq, so that wouldn't make sense either. And it's not like we couldn't have killed him earlier. --kizzle 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the proposal

If we're going to vote somehow on these things, can we get at least some citations that Iraq was found "without dispute" to be involved in "international terrorism"? --kizzle 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what this was addressing, and was added by Nomen Nescio erroneously, and repeatedly [6]. I removed it as soon as I saw it, as pre war intelligence was already determined to be what this is "not addressing." Rangeley 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed he did it again after I posted that, its been fixed again. Rangeley 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information to clarify the statement and to assure participants are accurately informed. Having not all information affects how people respond, If I am not alloweed to add what the initiators for obvious reasons do not tell I will start my own poll, either try and settle the debate fairly and accept what it really is about or this debacle has not a chance in hell to find consensus.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot change the statements after they have been voted on, its misleading. Its also not fair to those who voted already. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only person not understanding what its really about. Consider perhaps you want it to be about something its not? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not count the more than a dozen others that have explained this to you.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is even more unfair to use the current incorrect description of what the debate is about which isa a flagrant misrepresentation. People are debating things that are not what this is about. Plewase consider solving the dispute fairly. You are not interested in that apparently.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bad faith assessment. None of us are pushing for the points you put forth, and it misrepresents the issue at hand. This is not a justification of the Iraq War, it is simply a recognition of the Iraq War as part of the larger conflict for which it was begun under. Rangeley 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're saying that we have to vote whether Wikipedia will decide whether or not Iraq was indisputably involved in international terrorism without using any sources? --kizzle 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Numerous editors have explained at great lenght is that a title part of WOT clearly makes that statement. Which is the reason these initiators of yet another discussion had so much opposition to including Iraq. What else does part of the WOT mean to you other than Iraq is part of international terrorism.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this was directed at me, no. Nescio added that into the topic to misguide people into thinking that was the issue the poll was addressing. It is not. Rangeley 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are stating Iraq is part of the WOT you ipso facto are stating Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism. Plain english my friend, don't reframe the discussion.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it already, I can say Bush started a war called WOT and attacked mexico over it, that doesnt me it was ok or terrorists were there, its acknowledging he did it. Stop your word games and vandalism, you are attempting to derail an actually positive situation because of your own political agenda, noone is here to justify anything. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have ceased AGF after you vandalized this article 3 times after being warned instead of attempting to discuss it with me after I told you it was being seen negatively. Your objection to this poll has been noted. Lying about what we are stating will not change anything. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly uncivil to misrepresent what has been debated for miles on several pages and then when I correct your erroneous statements start attacking me.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we agree that it is improper to misrepresent discussion. I suggest you refrain from doing so in the future, as you are the only one doing it. Rangeley 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ly! You are well aware many others have said the same to you and explained that the phrase part of WOT is a statement that Iraq was involved in terrorism. Exactly why you and Zero had so much opposition in the first place. Now you redefine the debate to try and include Iraq through the smoke and mirrors nethod.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This is not validating pre war intelligence. It is not concluding Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. It is not conclusing Saddam Hussein supported international terrorism. In the eyes of the USA and allies, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. And that is exactly what this campaign is being fought against - those who they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Not who I see, not who you see, how they see. It was begun under the context of this campaign, and it therefore is a part of the campaign. Rangeley 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asserting that "part of the WOT" is equal to "stated by the US as part of the WOT." You fail to acknowledge that part of the WOT is a statement of fact and not opinion. This is why so many people object to this. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have asserted they are infact different. Not only has the US stated it is part of the War on Terror, it is a part of the War on Terror. The War on Terror is defined by them, they can determine what is and what is not in it. Just out of curiosity, if you do not think the USA and its Allies can determine what is in the campaign they are waging, who can? Rangeley 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the UN charter and you will find that no country can legally wage any war that is not out of self defense or sanctioned by the UN. The US can claim what it wants but it is not allowed to even wage a War on Terror on its own, therefore the US does not get to decide or name what terrorism is. Aside from that, do you not think that one country cannot decide for the entire planet how to call something. Again this is not about disallowing Bush his PR name. It is whether this statement of fact, that Iraq was part of terrorism, is shared by the international commu7nity.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a discussion of the justifications of the war. For all we care it was completely illegal and Bush is a war criminal. It wouldnt change the fact that the Iraq war is part of the larger campaign, for which the USA and allies can define. Rangeley 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep saying that Bush has the right to determine the facts for the rest of the world. Feel free to say Bush suggested Iraq was a terrorist state, however Bush cannot make it a fact. Again, doubting this is factually correct is not the same as voicing opinion over any justification or whether Bush can PR as he wishes. At the end of the day to state that Iraq is invaded to fight terrorism is not compatible with the facts, therefore we should not assert it as fact.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The USA and allies began the war on terror agains those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. It is not a war against those you see, those I see, those the world see. Its those they see. Is that clarified? They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Not you, not me, not the world, they saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Is that clarified? They waged war against Iraq under the above described campaign against those they see as state sponsors of terror. This is factual. To recognize that they began it under the campaign they also began is factual. Do you understand this point? I dont know how else to state it. Rangeley 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you explained yourself why we can't present it as undisputed fact, it is what they see.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its exactly why we have to present it as fact - because it is. What they decide is all that matters, as we are dealing with a campaign and war waged by them, not us. They are the only people that can determine what is and what is not part of their campaign, against who they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Rangeley 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Since it is impossible to describe what this debate actuully is about (see talkpages where others already made this clear) I asked AN/I tyo take a look and decide whether this is a fair representation.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the previous debate for what this poll is really trying to address:[7][8][9][10] [11][12]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This straw poll is addressing what it says it's addressing; it's a one-liner. To say that this poll is really trying to address something else is pushing 'good faith' in my opinion. Haizum 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll suffers from questionable vote-stacking practices

Special:Contributions/Rangeley show the user contacting over 20 users of similar views [only]. This is not an acceptable way of reaching consensus, and is infact, prohibited. Naturally, this reflects on the poll's representativeness with respect to the Wikipedia community at large. El_C 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Rangeley contacted me about this discussion, even though I had never expressed any view on the Iraq War/War on Terrorism nomenclature issue. I assume he contacted me because I had been involved in helping to clean up the Iraq War article. Also, policy states that "posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue" is acceptable as long as language suggesting bias is not used. I believe Rangeley's actions are well within the guidelines. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you are not adhering to WP:AGF; "liberal" and "conservative" editors alike are expected to adhere to Wikipedia policy regardless of their personal politics. To assume that Rangeley and the individuals he has contacted are skewed by personal opinions is a blatant disregard for WP:AGF. We are rational individuals; we know when we are being objective, and when we aren't, so please refrain from insulting us like this. For the record, I have not worked with Rangeley in the past, as far as I can remember; but more importantly, I am guided by logic in this simple case, not partisanship. Haizum 02:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C is not stating that the people who were contacted were skewed by personal opinion but is alleging that he only contacted conservative-leaning editors, hence the vote stacking accusation. --kizzle 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which assumes that the people he contacted would be more likely to vote in a predictable way. Haizum 02:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC) There is no language suggesting bias in this post. Haizum 02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat easy to determine people's political affiliations here, so it's only trivial for someone to only choose those people who share a sympathetic worldview. Not saying that Rangely did that, just clarifying El C's point. --kizzle 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Straw polls do not make a consensus, nor is anyone attempting to have them be used as such. The poll is being used to gauge the relative acceptance of the conclusion, but ultimately it is the quality of arguments put forth that will determine the consensus. Rangeley 02:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with logical debate. Haizum 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's kind of naïve to say this issue has nothing to do with partisanship. It's not like people's views on the causes of the Iraq War are uncorrelated with party alliance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-four to two is not an acceptable ratio. The practice of mass single-pov notices is prohibited, I'm informing you that in my capacity as an administrator, so that you know to avoid repeating this practice in the future. Thanks.

In Category:Conservative Wikipedians

Not in Category:Conservative Wikipedians

El_C 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C, in your capacity as an administrator, could you point me towards the policy to which you are referring? Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to speak for El C, but I don't think it was really a personal question - the guideline (not policy) against vote-stacking is Wikipedia:Spam#Internal spamming. On the other hand, it doesn't matter much because the numerical results of this poll will be completely meaningless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. --kizzle 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not show everyone. Ecophreek, Haizum, Morton devonshire, Looper5920, Chcknwnm, KevinPuj, Czolgolz, Rexmorgan, Mmx1, Rmt2m, and Zer0faults were also contacted, who were contacted due to their involvement in cleaning the Iraq War and related articles in the past. When GTBracchus brought it up to me last night, I stopped immediately. Today I posted here that I do not deny doing it, and should it be determined to punish me I would accept it. But to try and somehow question the legitimacy of this discussion because I asked people to comment here is off base, and would be a bad faith assumption about the nature of those contacted. The discussion has progressed greatly today, moreso than previous attempts - not through a numerical majority, but through progress and concessions made by both sides in the discussion. Rangeley 02:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is legitimacy to the discussion, but it certainly colors the "majority" as it stands today. --kizzle 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is legitimate, and what Rangeley says is true about it having nothing to do with numbers, and everything to do with people being willing to listen to one another. The numbers just dop't mean anything, but they weren't going to no matter what, "vote-stacking" or not. It particularly helps that the poll is a little bit confusing, and someone wishing to discharge a quick partisan "vote" and then move on might be stymied by the page - that's good design. I don't think it's necessary to censure Rangeley any further for his contacting people - I'm confident he didn't intend to violate any guideline. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no censure necessary. --kizzle 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just for those who are interested in statistics, of those 20 users who were conservative that I contacted, I count 2 who have actually voted. If you want to outright ignore their votes, its 18-4. Rangeley 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we can't count who reads their talk pages. El_C 03:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No censure was proposed, my warning is clearly for future instances. Yes, I missed those eleven, I think largely due to the lack of consistent edit sumnmaries to go along with the copy&paste note. I can't be bothered to find there political leanings. Also, I didn't realize it was already subject to review. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I didn't see a need for sanctions, regardless —sanctions should not be imposed as punishment, ever— but having such a great concentration of single-pov editors being informed all at once, does damage the poll's credibility, in my view. Thanks. El_C 03:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that it's a poll over a matter of verifiable fact does something to its credibility ("6 out of 5 dentists agree: statistics are bunk!"). Still, it's a perfectly good vehicle for carrying the discussion which is actually the point, and which sometimes benefits from some arbitrary structure. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Is it necessary to move this discussion here? Now its sort of disjointed from the rest of the page, which is indeed also all discussion. Rangeley 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was necessary in part to reduce the page below 100Kb, and to keep discussion separate from the content that the proposal was portraying. It also reduces edit conflicts as El C found troubling. Ansell 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is actually still 115 kB, but this is an improvement nonetheless. Ansell 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed statement

"Currently, Wikipedia's article on the conflict is located at the War on Terrorism, and until it is not located there, this is the name of the conflict as far as other articles are concerned."

I removed the above statement because it does not gain anything to stake your definition on the current name of a page. A clear one sentence statement will be easier to comprehend than three sentences. Ansell 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Weapons of mass destruction

In my view you are not going to get any factual statement while this is out of the scope of discussion:

"Whether Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorism/Al Qaeda, or whether he possessed WMD. The accuracy of pre-war intelligence is irrelevant to this issue as, again, it is not attempting to justify the war."

I would state my entire basis for Iraq conflict being actually in the war on whether it was truly connected to Terror, not whether it was connected in the minds of the administration to their ultimate goal. Ansell 04:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason this is not addressing that is because regardless of whether Iraq truly supported terror would not effect whether or not the war was begun under the specific campaign named the War on Terrorism, which is a campaign waged by the USA and its allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. I do not see how the correctness of their assessment matters to this, because even if they are wrong they can still see someone as a state sponsor of terror and thus wage a war against them under the specific campaign. Rangeley 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any particular value in defining the thing as you say, but well, as I have iterated on the main page, you have defined yourself into a corner and are arguing from there. Who am I to say that the united states didn't include this conflict in their previously defined War on terrorism.

I would be more interested in participating if the discussion was actual rather than just semantics. Seems like a large waste of time and effort to debate semantics. Ansell 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This specific War on Terrorism began after the September 11th terrorist attacks. I have not defined it into a corner, I have used the definition from the Wikipedia article on it. It is important to recognize this issue isnt discussing whether the Iraq War is a war on terror, but part of The War on Terror, a specific campaign. You may not see the value of this, but I do, as some are indeed claiming it is not part of the specific campaign described. They are wrong, and I find it important to get this clarified. Rangeley 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-US citizen maybe I have a unique viewpoint on things on this majority US discussion. You are claiming that there is only one War on Terror. I do not see the harm in disambiguating this from Reagan's War on Terror.

To put it simply, the fact that this debate is so calm and collected must warn someone that you arent' actually getting down to anything deep. Partially due to the limited Wikipedia definition of the current War on Terrorism to be exactly equivalent to the entire possible definition of the concept. If you widened it up there is plenty of evidence that there are major alternatives to the Iraq conflict other than it being just the American's continuing their current military campaign. By limiting it to someones definition you have stopped people putting any kind of discussion about oil, breaking up Arab influence in the area and other such topics which are relevant to whether Iraq is "actually" in the wider war on terror as opposed to just that limited subset defined rhetorically by the US administration for their purposes. Ansell 04:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming there to be no others, there have been others. Just like there were other people named Stephen Harper, though that namespace links to the Prime Minister. This is because it is the biggest, most commonly used use for the name by far at this time. This is also not an attempt to state the wars level of necessity - if any. The fact that alternatives to carrying out the campaign in this manner exist, and deserve to be talked about is real. But just like some battles of WW2, or other campaigns may have not been necessary, or even logical, they were still a part of the campaign, and need recognition as such. The other things you gave, like oil, or even reasons you didnt give like an attempt to destroy Islam in a crusade, are also worthy of mention. However, it is possible that some of the battles of the North African Campaign were done for ulterior motives too. Even so, they were officially part of the North African Campaign, and are recognized as such. The controversy of other possible motives would be discussed in the body of the article. The same goes for here. Rangeley 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Since having a seperate page for this debate is silly I started a proper RFC where people can comment and are directed to all previous discussions, contrary to this page where another view and reference to previous consensus is disallowed. Also the massive deletion of comments makes this page absolutely unreliable. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the poll after 20+ people have vote is dishonest, have fun on your poll, its not actually an RfC. I already commented on it since it does not make sense. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting what the actual debate is about is even worse. Do tell why did you remove the reference to the previous polls and the results?

Put it below the titles and do not make it seems part of the already establish guide of the poll. WP:POINT Stop vandalizing in attempt to make the point that you do not agree with the poll. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

normally, those who delete should reestore it. Especially if what they delete is changing the debate in favour of their position.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Nescio is free to openly contest this poll and diret editors to another discussion which he feels is better organized (and I'd add less vote-stacking influenced). Please do not title these efforts vandalism. El_C 11:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not however free to vandalize the poll. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous debate

Why are links to the previous debate not allowed and why do editors keep deleting these links?[13]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because your failure to read them is causing you to state they are about something more then the infobox. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on why people objected including it in the infobox? Did it have something to with them objecting to an infobox suggesting Iraq was part of the WOT. Please explain why they objected.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will not allow participants to be misled by statements like that. Such as stated a poll asking if WMDs was a main reason, somehow in your mind is exluding terrorism as a possible reason, when as I have and others have explained to you, the two are linked as the WMDs were feared of going terrorists.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not erxcluding terrorism is not equal to including it as main reason.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People voted WMDs were the main reason. That does not mean terrorism was not a reason. You are attempting to draw a line between the two. If you think I am wrong, then keep my comments, since you won't have to worry about people seeing your poll as bias, they will just see both and brush me off. Also the other two polls do not state "is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such" They state it should not be in the infobox. Some as I keep pointing out, said it is part of the war on terror, but since its disputed it should not be in the infobox. See the problem? You are making an assumption from results of a poll, not only that but you are reversing that conclusion, making it seem as if people voted they are not linked and so it should not be included. They voted it should not be included and you are understanding that to be that its not linked. I could argue that it is linked because WMD worry was that it would goto terrorists and now since they voted WMDs was the main reason, then its obvious they voted terrorism is the main worry and so since terrorism was the main worry its obvious this was part of the war on terror. See the problem with reversing the actual answer? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reccomended reading -

House Joint Resolution 114: spells out the feared uses of WMDs and is the authorization of War.
Bush's Speech to the United Nations: points out the fear of WMD and that they may goto terrorists.
Downing Street Memos: Maintains that Bush feared the use of WMDs and that terrorists may also get them.
Powell Speech to UN: Again fear of WMD and them gonig to terrorists.

I dont even agree with some of these, but geez man, terrorism is a major link and has been stated over and over, and even you have admited Iraq had ties to terrorism: "Again, nobody denies SH had contacts with terrorists" [14] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will agree that Iraq did not have a working relationship with Al-Qaeda at the time, correct? --kizzle 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, but AQ ia not the only terrorist organization. I think there may have been talks, a mutual truce, but a truce is jsut a step up from animosity, far from a relationship. However as I keep stating, my personal beliefs are left at the door, I go by what I can prove, it just happens they coincide in this instance. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization. But why are we going after a state that supports Hamas rather than going after Iran or the numerous other targets that were directly involved with Al Qaeda? And as I recall, Saddam's secularism wasn't too popular with Bin Laden's Islamic fundamentalism. --kizzle 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the Project for a New American Century's goals of toppling Saddam contained no mention of terrorism as its purpose to go in. --kizzle 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I am not here to justify anything, neither is this poll, also PNAC doesnt decide if we goto war, congress and the president do. Perhaps they felt it would be an easier fight to remove the terrorists in Iraq then fear the other nations into dropping their support for them also. Maybe they really are after oil, gasp. I really do not care, time will answer this question factually and the world will stand still when they do, for good or bad. Its not up to me to insert my political opinion of Saddam and Iraq and the US into this encyclopedia. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue of necessity. You could argue, and I have often pondered, if going after Iran would have been a wiser choice. But you might say the same of the Battle of Gallipoli, and allege a far less futile battle could have been waged, say, 2 miles up the coast of the Ottoman Empire where there were not forts built. But the lack of wisdom behind the move doesnt make it any less a part of World War One. Iraq had ties to terror, and the US and allies determined it to be the next target in their war on terror. That is all that matters to us. Rangeley 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 24 June 2006. The result was Keep, mark as historical. This page is deprecated in favor of individual article talk page discussions and/or RfCs, the accepted Wikipedia methods of settling content disputes. Xoloz 19:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added conclusion in introduction

NOTE: Consensus or super majority has been reached, [15].

Comment on added conclusion

This fallacious statement is being reposted by two people who think that when a RFC is ongoing, and even this manipulated "poll" is ongoing, there is consensus. This is what is known as a contradictio in terminis.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion thoughts from main page

Final thoughts: at this point several editors revert my edits to this article

My initial comments were deleted
After reinserting them they again were deleted
After being denied several comments I removed all remaining comments
Even removing my comments out of protest to the severe deletion of my other comments is disallowed and repeatedly reverted.
Apparently editors can remove my comments and then sabotage my objection to that.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid editing other people's comments. It is not productive. Ideogram 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]