Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:22, 1 July 2006

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 6. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Iraqi insurgency

The Iraqi_insurgency page describes it as an ongoing event beginning with the 2003 invasion. Sfacets 08:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi

The Al-Qaeda in Iraq article has information on his leadership role. At the bottom you can find the letter he sent to bin Laden declaring his allegiance to Al-Qaeda.—thames 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada and the War on Terrorism

I think canada needs to be listed, especially from all the action our country's been through lately. I have added it, but revert if you wish.

User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You may include Canada, but Harper was not in office during the most notable Canadian action - extraditing prisoners from Afghanistan to illegal prison camps in Guantanamo. Añoranza 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But he is the current Prime Minister who is committed to keeping the Canadian troops in Afghanistan through 2009. There is also talk from NATO that Canada will take over complete operations in Afghanistan. SFrank85 00:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think due to the recent talks and the fact that he is sticking with the War on Terror he should stay listed. He has commited himself to its continuation. --Zer0faults 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, I don't think there's any more need to question Canada's participation in the War in Terrorism. Besides, Germany and Canada jointly headed the NATO taskforce in Afghanistan for some time.

By the way, Añoranza, you're talking about neutrality all the time - but it doesn't seem as if you yourself adhere to the principle of NPOV. If the extradition of prisoners is illegal or not, that's not for us Wikipedians to decide; no court of law with jurisdiction has declared it illegal as of now, as far I know. That it's illegal may be your point of view - perhaps mine, too - but that has no place in a neutral discussion (that WP has to provide). By the way, the extradition of prisoners to the US is not the "most notable Canadian action" in the War on Terrorism (as per above). Cheers, Something Wicked 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq war

The invasion of Iraq was NOT part of the War on Terrorism. The terrorists entered the country AFTER the invasion. There was no terrorism there before that. Esaborio 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would point you to Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Part Deux where its already been discussed, and all objections have been addressed. If you have any new objections not yet discredited, please present them. Rangeley 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not part of the War on Terrorism. Even the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of substantial cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda during Saddam's rule. Esaborio 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they did come to that conclusion, and it would be incorrect to allege that Saddam is a part of Al Qaeda. But I did not do this. How does this make it not a part of the War on Terror though? Rangeley 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Becuse Saddam was not a terrorist, only a ruthless President. Esaborio 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He was considered a state sponsor of terror. Rangeley 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It very much is part of the War on Terrorism. First off, Bush lead the public to believe that terrorists were there and invaded the country partially on that reasoning. He made it essentially an extenetion of the invasion of afghanistan. Secondly, there are terrorists there now, so now it really is part of the war on terror. But thats my opinion. Falphin 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But Bush lied. Esaborio 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire government could be lying, all their allies too. But whether or not the reasoning is just, its part of the campaign against those they see as terrorist groups and state sponsor of terror. Rangeley 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The so called 'war on terror(ism)' isn't a war on terror(ism) any more than the Great War to End All Wars was all that great to be around, or that it was in any way the end of wars. They're just names. They're names that are chosen to persuade you to believe certain things, but they're just names. They are not much of a description of anything. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

For a conflict to be part of the War on Terrorism, it has to have terrorists as the target, which was not the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Esaborio 08:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is actually false, for a target to be part of the WOT then the target has to have beena state sponsor of terrorism, or a terrorist state. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. --zero faults 12:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please read below then tell me if one of the targets was not stated as terrorists? We aren't here to judge if there was terrorists actually in Iraq, but to say that Bush never said there was is a falacy, to say they were not an intended target in the war, well see below.

1. HJ Res 114 -
2. Bush's Ultimatum to Iraq before invasion -
3. Bush's speech in front of the United Nations maknig a claim for war -
4. Saddam's support of the PALF, paying suicide bombers families -

When did I say Bush didn't say that? But he said that there were members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is a lie. Esaborio 04:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He also said there was general terrorists there, which there was. So if you say there are people with political affiliations in a room, then state there are republicans in the room, and it turns out no republicans were in the room. You end up being right that there were people with political affiliations, however wrong about republicans. Does that negate the fact that there was people with political affiliations? Of course not. Also if you look through res 114 you would see the general term terrorist is used more often then the term al-Qaeda. Also I am not sure why you keep removing its inclusion and telling people to look here, perhaps I missed a different discussion, but this is not a concensus. Someone is clearly disagreeing with you.--zero faults 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the al-Qaeda flag

Please discuss why it was removed. thanks, Sfacets 00:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That flag is from al-Qaeda in Iraq, not the broader al-Qaeda, which has a black flag with the Shahada in white. Esaborio 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A template entitled with a propaganda term is inherently not neutral

Therefore I added the NPOV-tag and listed it for deletion. De mortuis... 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a candidate for speedy deletion. Perhaps you should nominate it over at TfD? --Hyperbole 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are getting more and more desperate as time passes. You have lost the debates and all your points have failed, this is the only reason you are proposing this deletion. You have failed to provide convincing arguments to support your idea. It would not be propaganda to have a template listing all items of the New Deal, it is not propaganda to have this either. Rangeley 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are posting innuendo does not mean you win an argument. De mortuis... 01:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted (these events did happen), but perhaps renamed. It is POV from the point of view that the so called terrorists wouldn't view themselves as terrorists, but something like "freedom fighters". Categorising them as terrorists plays entirely to one side of the conflict, ie. the US and it's coallition.

That being said, I can't see how this could be renamed to anything shorter than a paragraph to maintain NPOV.

Sfacets 07:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is titled this because that is what most people refer to the conflict as. This is wikipedias policy. Rangeley 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know most people refer to it as the "war on terrorism"? Have you asked the people from Southern countries (which have a much higher population than the North) what they call it? Alot of people call it 'America's war on Islam', or 'Bushes' War on Islam' for eg. or don't see the connection between the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and refer to them seperately. Sfacets 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what places you are referring to as "Southern Countries," however I will note that when I say most people refer to it as the war on terror, this is in the english language alone. We do not accomadate for other languages preferences. For instance, the article on Germany is located at Germany, not Deutschland, the German name for it. The United States began a campaign against what they perceive as terrorists, and terrorist states in 2001. They have began both the Afghanistan and Iraq war as a part of this campaign. When these wars began, they were stated as parts of this campaign. It is not POV, but instead encyclopedic to include these wars in the campaign they were started under.

Further, as this campaign is most commonly called, in english, the war on terrorism, that is why we have gone with this name for the campaign. Just like the Gulf War refers to the 1991 conflict, even though in other languages it might be named differently, and despite the fact other wars have held the name Gulf War. In English, when one says Gulf War, they usually mean the 1991 conflict, and that is why Misplaced Pages describes this conflict at that articles location. Rangeley 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As it is a campaign name, it is only used without quotation marks by the US administration and its supporters. This is not neutral. As the tag for speedy deletion was removed I replaced it with the template for normal deletion given this seems to be what the editor desired who had added the speedy deletion tag. Añoranza 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the most widely used name to refer to the conflict, it is not merely the name given by the government. Rangeley 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has already been made, please stop now. It is a widely criticized propaganda term and inherently not neutral. And reverting with the summary "vandalism" when you have a content dispute shows again how little respect you have for this project. Añoranza 16:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has not ended, and I do not intend to just give up because a poll shows 9 out of 11 people do not agree with me. The basis on which they disagree is a terribly unconvicing one, and the debates are still ongoing. Your side has the numbers, and can admittedly edit much more efficiently than I, since I cannot keep reverting indefinately. But is this good enough for you? Does it make you feel content that more people agree with you? Does this settle it in your mind? Or have you looked at what the sides are saying, looked at the arguments, and questioned, authentically, whether your views are right? Is it good enough that you have more people, or are you looking to be right? I hope you do not resign yourself to accept numbers as "good enough," because even if 1000 people beleive a lie it is no more true than if 1 did.

What you are doing is vandalism, because it is removing leaders of countries who played an important role in the war on terror, and it is removing wars that were began as part of the war on terror. Your reason for removing Silvio Berlusconi and Aznar was that they were war criminals. The shear fact that this is your reasoning makes it impossible for it to be anything but vandalism. It would be like me removing Stalin from the Cold War template because hes no longer the leader of the Soviet Union, or because I claimed he was a War Criminal. Or if I removed the Vietnam War from the template because it was a controversial war that many found not worth fighting. Or if I tried to delete the Cold War template because the name implied it was a "cold war" or one where no fighting took place.

Would you just look at what you are saying, and what I am saying, and not just have a knee jerk reaction. As a liberal you do not need to oppose everything related to the war, especially facts. When you begin to oppose facts, it is a sad, sad day for us all. Rangeley 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not "oppose any facts", I oppose using a widely criticized propaganda term as an encyclopedia title without comment. For me the discussion has ended as you repeat yourself over and over. You even copied these paragraphs from another articles talk page. Not even you seem to be able to post that much innuendo with new words every time. And obviously I did not remove the war criminals because they are war criminals, otherwise I would have deleted Bush, Blair, and Howard, too. I removed politicians that are no longer in office because the template as it was mislead the reader to think that there were more allies in the US coined "war" than there actually are. Please also note that I removed Schröder, too, as he no longer is in office either. Añoranza 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I will point you to here: Template:Cold War. You will note that every single leader given is no longer in office (except Castro), many of those listed are dead, and several countries have infact dissolved. Are you going to remove these? Rangeley 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the Cold War still ongoing? Will it mislead anyone if historical people are listed there? Will you ever try thinking rather than posting innuendo? Añoranza 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the September 11th Terrorist attack still going on? Is the invasion of Iraq still going on? Is the Bali bombing still going on? The template is not trying to state who falls on what side today, or describe the state of the war today, but rather list all events and important people in the War on Terrorism. It will confuse noone to list past leaders or past events, just like it confuses noone to list them for the cold war template. Rangeley 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The "war on terrorism" is going on, as the template clearly indicates: -2006. Could you now please spare us your innuendo? I have never seen a single user posting that much nonsense in such a short time. Añoranza 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is still ongoing. Just like the Iraq War is still going on. Even though Saddam Hussein is no longer fighting in the War, nor is his baathist regime, these remain in the article because they did indeed fight in the war. It is not implying that Saddam is still fighting by including him as a major combattant. It is definately not implying that Aznar, or Berlusconi are still in power by including them in this, either. Rangeley 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows Hussein is no longer in power. I doubt that more than ten percent of the world population know who reigns in Spain, Italy or Germany. I am against the template altogether, but if you want to keep it you need to clarify which of the people you include are in power and which are not. In cases where the position of the country has changed after the government changed this gets difficult. Writing the war goes on till today and the main characters are certain people who are no longer in office but the latter is not indicated is misleading. Añoranza 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is no more confusing than saying the Iraq War is still ongoing and stating Saddam was a main character. We are not stating that they are currently involved. If someone is curious to find more about the important people, they can click the link and find out more. Thats why the links are there. Rangeley 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you state the war is going on and e.g. Bush of the US, Blair of the UK and Aznar of Spain are main characters it seems like an obvious conclusion that Berlusconi of Italy is still in power and Spain a main ally in the war on the US side. The latter two are incorrect, and misleading templates should be avoided. Añoranza 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it must be an obvious conclusion that Saddam Hussein's regime is still in power? Hardly. It neither states whether they are in power, or out of power, but rather puts them under the 'Major Combattants' section or 'Primary participants.' You are trying to make an exception here, it just wont work. Rangeley 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I have it. You suffer from Alzheimer's. Sorry to get cynical but the exact point you are making has been addressed two edits further up. Furthermore, Saddam is not in either as the Iraq war - as consensus showed - is not to be made part of this template. Añoranza 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have alzheimers, you got me. Could you please help an old guy out and point to me where 1. There is a consensus, and 2. Where its stated that the respective leaders were still in power. Rangeley 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1. You know best that there is consensus not to tag Iraq war as part of the war on terror as it was you who made 25 reverts to tag it so. 2. As you might have understood had you carefully thought about what you had read twice - you read others' posts, do you? - you might have seen that it was not criticized that the respective leaders were explicitly stated to be in power but that the template misleads to that conclusion. Añoranza 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1. A poll is not the definition of a consensus, I beleive I linked to you where it explicitly stated this. We have yet to reach what wikipedia defines a consensus. 2. In the cold war template, does it mislead people into thinking that all of the listed people were involved at the same time, when it lists all of them? Rangeley 18:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

2 had already been addressed. As you failed with another point twice you retry an old one? You were told a zillion times now that you are wrong. Indeed, a poll is not the definition of a consensus, but if a poll shows there is a consensus about something there is no rule saying particularly clever guys should have the right to go on with their edit wars. Añoranza 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It has not been addressed, nor was it posted before than. Rangeley 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You may want to download the incredible firefox and use the search option for "cold war". It helps to find what you chose to forget immediately. Añoranza 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So couldnt someone who wants to know if Berlusconi is still in power do that? Rangeley 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No he would not have the time as he would get stuck in discussion pages where Rangeley posted his 657,981th comment on why wikipedia should be dictated by the US secretary for truth as it should be seen. Añoranza 23:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can say that, or you can talk about the issue at hand. It is not implying that all the leaders listed at the cold war template were in power at once, but rather, that they were an important part of it. That is what is going on now with this. It is not implying that all leaders were there at the same time, but rather that they played an important part of it. Rangeley 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write a help file "how to read my favourite template" you can put it on your user page. Together with the template the way you like it to be. Añoranza 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Madrid and London

Can we remove these from the template? It has been established that neither had anything to do with AQ. Or, it must be that investigators concluded that both incidents resulted from a few people reacting to the transgressions in Iraq. To those claiming we should list terrorism in general, no we do not list every terrorist act in this template. Decided to go ahead and remove this error. Nomen Nescio

We should keep them, but in some other category than Main events or Tangential conflicts. Maybe something like Terrorist assaults, as opposed to Military campaigns. The 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings intermediately affected Bush's military campaign, because his ally Aznar lost his office as a result of his dealing with the bombings. The 7 July 2005 London bombings may not have been ordered by Al-Qaeda, but they were committed with explicit reference to Al-Qaeda's goals. They were the first so motivated event inside Bush's and Blair's "homeland" since 9/11. (In my opinion the 7/7-bombings are a perfect example, why Bush's idea of a War on Terrorism doesn't work: American tanks in Iraq won't prevent British citizens from blowing up their own hometowns.) So in terms of encyclopedia-logic, I think these events are relevant enough to be listed in the template. They reflect the current state of "WOT". ---zzz 11:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Improved Template Structure

Some suggestions for the template :

Changes:

• Labels of 1st and 2nd column mirror War and Terrorism. Most WOT-critics complain that they are not related, that you cannot fight a War on Terrorism. OK, so let's keep them apart. One column for military campaigns, one for terrorist acts.
• 1st column: Sublabels by political actors, not chronologically. This solves the problem "what's WOT, what not?" The government who's sending troups decides. So when Bush justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq with WOT, he established the link. From a historic perspective it doesn't matter that Saddam was a secular leader who actuall fought islamists, not supporting them. Bush created facts and now Iraq is the hotbed of war and terrorism. (Personally, I disagree with the whole idea of a WOT, but as an encyclopedist I want the arcticle and templates to document political realities.)
• 2nd column. Terrorism is an ill-defined word, but I think there's widespread consensus on events like 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali. However, grouping them is difficult. We could group them by target (Americans and their allies, Russians, ...) or by motivation (religious, independence, political), or some mix of both. Again, this would solve the problem "what's WOT, what not". For example Chechnya is sometimes linked to the WOT. Obviously there are terrorist acts on one side, and military action on the other. But it's not related to the US. So I'd place the military campaigns under "Russia" or "Other", and Beslan under "Chechnyan" or "Other". The reader can decide if and how these actions relate to each other.
• 3rd column. Merge list of participants and political leaders

What do you think? --Plauz 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq war is not part of the War on Terrorism. Esaborio 16:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, in this case I think that the president of the United States simply outweighs some arbitrary Wikipedians like you and me. Conceptually, I agree with you. But Mr. Bush simply made Iraq part of the WOT. He used his power to make it so, regardless of any factual or moral justification. I don't like it either, but 100.000 troups on the ground and thousands of bombings in Iraq (as a result) are reality. My goal is to improve this template so readers can understand reality -- and make up their own mind. The question was: What do you think of the new structure of this template? Or, for Esaborio: If you had to place the Iraq war in this template (even if you don't think it belongs there), where would you put it? --Plauz 00:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By that logic the US can invade any country as part of the WOT, as long as Bush says the magic word: terrorism. Invasion of Iran: part of the WOT, invasion of Spain (ETA): part of the WOT, invasion of Ireland (IRA): part of the WOT, invasion of Venezuela (oil?): part of the WOT. The list is endless, by definition you state that whatever the President does, as long as he says it is so it is part of the WOT. Personally I do not think that is correct. Nomen Nescio 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zer0faults (talk • contribs)

Irrelevant policy. To conclude that saying Bush determines what is part of the WOT, inevitable means that every conflict he says involves terrorism is part of ... is not a crystal ball, but rocksolid logic. It is a statement of fact and not a prediction. Just like saying that releasing an apple will cause it to fall to the ground. This is no prediction, it is an observation of the laws of physics. Nomen Nescio 07:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The name World War 2 also did not specify a conflict, however it did not go on forever and nations didnt just attack eachother cause there was a world war, and they can just jump into the current name. Just because someone can, doesnt mean they will. Its not logic just because they can, or may, you cannot state they will because they have options. What you are attempting to do is to tell people what can happen in the future. Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. We are here to report the current facts accuratly not judge them on the basis of their effects on the future. --Zer0faults 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WW II was well defined. Since nobody knows what terrorism is, nobody has limited this "war" geographically, it is safe to say there are no limits, and in effect this war, contrary to WW II, will have no end. Hence, your repeated analogy is flawed. Nomen Nescio 09:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how I define "War on Terrorism". Do you have a better definition? You might want to reread the 9/18/2001 AUMF. The list is endless. The president is already authorized to send troops against anybody he considers a potential terrorist. In my opinion, WOT is a nonsensical propaganda term, there's no point in taking it literally. So if Bush had called it "QRKQWZ", we should label this template "QRKQWZ". The driving force behind this "War on Terrorism" are the US. Other countries tag along, more or less voluntarily. Some countries just serve as battleground, most involuntarily. In their 2006 QDRR the US government made it abundantly clear, that they will continue with extraterritorial military campaigns. (Next stop Iran?). So this "war" will stay, no matter how we call it. I assume that in a few years from now, a different name will have emerged, but for now the most commonly used label is "War on Terrorism". I think of it more as a working title. :-) Actually, this discussion shows, how clever the term WoT was chosen. People talk about semantics, not about the ongoing events. If this ain't good propaganda, than what is? As a compromise, I'm leaning towards "US War on Terrorism". --plauz 11:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You can possibly put it in quotes as a means of finding a middle ground, however stating it as just US would be factually wrong since as it shows there are other nations involved and the UK was actually a member state of the initial invasion. Stating US' War on Terror seems to state noone else is involved, however the template itself goes against that. --Zer0faults 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. I updated the template below accordingly. --plauz 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

New version (see below) with focus on "US" rather than "Terrorism". It includes only military campaigns led or supported by the US and terrorist attacks on US targets. It does not include other terrorist incidents and potential military responses in lokal conflicts (like Chechnya or Israel/Palestine). --plauz 11:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

For a conflict to be part of the War on Terrorism, it has to have terrorists as the target, which was not the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Esaborio 08:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It was stated by Bush in his address to the UN here that terrorists were a target and further in Congressional Joint Resolution 114 here(PDF) and then also in his address on Tv before the start of the war here. There is also the fact that the Jordanian government has stated Saddam refused to turn over al-Zarqawi to them after they informed them where he could be found. Anyway as you can see terrorists and stopping terrorism were very much issues in the Iraq War. --Zer0faults 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Bush lied about terrorists being in Iraq before the invasion. 2. The US didn't want al-Zarqawi, so that was not a reason for going to war. Esaborio 04:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not what is at debate here. Also the fact that the Jordanian government asked Saddam to turn over al-Zarqawi proves terrorists were in fact in Iraq. Please read HJ Res 114 regarding why the US went to war. --Zer0faults 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my "personal opinion", it's a fact. Why would the US want al-Zarqawi for? They only care about themselves... Esaborio 06:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Supporting of terrorists is supporting of terrorists. You cannot say there was a terrorist there, but since the US doesn't want him, it means he wasn't actually there. Also going to war over terrorism is just that, the reason comes before the conflict, noone is trying to justify it or prove they were right, simply state why they did it. --Zer0faults 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The US wasn't looking for him, therefore he was not a reason for the agression against Iraq. Esaborio 05:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The US never said it went their looking for him, it said it was looking for terrorists, which he is ... I am not justifying their actions but you are defying logic. Was he a terrorist? yes, was he in iraq? yes, was the US looknig for him? no. That doesnt change the fact that he was a terrorist in Iraq. Before you even start, yes there are terrorists in many many countries around the globe and yes the US if they wanted to could attack any and say its after the terrorists, but Misplaced Pages is Misplaced Pages:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball and we can't say what they will do. We are here to present facts, not judge. --Zer0faults 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And the fact is that Bush lied. He said there were al-Qaeda members in Iraq, which al-Zarqawi wasn't at the time. Esaborio 04:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The above template is very US-centric. It does not, for example, include the Waziristan War, the Second Chechen War, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which are all of very high significance to the "War on Terror" in the global sense of the term. You might as well rename the template to American War on Terror. –Matveims 08:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two ARE included. The template is US-centric because the War on Terrorism was begun as part of the American foreign policy, and the operations continue to be led by the US. Esaborio 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Header

My revert to the header was done for the following. User User:Añoranza on 11 May, 2006 added "US Coined" to the header without a discussion ever being made, from there they then began to remove any edits made to the header to revert it back to its original state. I believe that shows the header is in fact in contention as to what it should be and a concensus is in fact trying to be worked out above, the header however seems to be still hotly debated and reccomend we leave it at its original state while we attempt to work out a resolution. Anyone in favor? comments? --Zer0faults 02:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I count five contenders for the header to this template: War on Terrorism, "War on Terrorism", U.S. coined "War on Terrorism", U.S.-dubbed "War on Terrorism", and The United States's War on Terrorism. Which one came first strikes me as utterly irrelevant. There is no Misplaced Pages tradition that, in the absence of consensus, the original state of an article or template should be preserved. Personally, I feel that the header (and, ideally, the title) must in some way reflect the fact that it is the United States government who considers this both a "war" and a struggle against "terrorists" and that others do not agree on one or both counts. --Hyperbole 07:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you stating we should instead constantly revert the article back and forth while waiting for a concensus to arrive? Since the the adding of the title is whats in contention would the title be best left in its original state before the contention while a concensus is reached? I am sorry if you felt I was debating the reasons for it being there or not. That is not what this discussion here is, its if the header should constantly be reverted without concensus or left in its original state. Should I take it that you feel the reversions should continue instead of leaving it in its original state? Please reply to clarify your position. Thank you --Zer0faults 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple: War on Terrorism. The caveats, POVs and yeah-buts belong in the main article, not in the template's header. --plauz 01:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Second the above, I think if people have a problem with the term is should be discussed on the page of the term, not everywhere else or the templates header. --Zer0faults 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is the exact danger of propaganda terms, they simply mislead. Añoranza 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anoranza: to label a template with a propaganda term, without at least including some scare quotes, has the possibility of misleading those who read it. --Hyperbole 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, quotation marks and bias

I'm rather tired right now, so I won't do any reverting or editing at all. Añoranza re-added the quotation marks to the term "war on terrorism". However, he did NOT remove the NPOV flag. But the NPOV dispute was just about that term - propaganda and all that. With him adding those dreadful quotation marks, the NPOV dispute should be settled (from his point-of-view). So why didn't he remove the tag? Bias? Or did he just forget? ... Good night (it's 2:42 here.. ;-)), a rather nonplussed Something Wicked 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As you might have seen, others agree with me about the quotation marks. Furthermore, the article was categorized by others as US-centric. I agree with this and would like to know what others think about the NPOV issue before I remove it just because the originally cited reason for it was put into quotation marks. Note that I find the title even with quotation marks inappropriate and have written so. And do not have any doubt that the next one who reverts the quotation marks would care to place the NPOV again. Añoranza 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a way that you will budge to have one or the other? I think if its US centric and recognized as such then quotation marks are not needed. --zero faults 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also engaging in a revert war because 1 user has agreed with you is sub par. --zero faults 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is remove the quotation marks, remove the NPOV tag and remove the US-centric tag to this template. Users can click on to the actual article anyway and then make up their own minds from there. This template is meant to present facts in relation to what is called the "War on Terrorism", not to cater to the personal opinions of individuals opposed to the naming of the operations being conducted by the United States and her allies. --Edward Sandstig 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another rename suggestion

This is just thinking out loud, but it would be possible to rename this page to "War on Terror(ism)". It's a big ugly, but terror != terrorism, and both words are used for what is pretty much the same thing. Putting the 'ism' in brackets would at least show that the title is more of a label than it is a description. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that, while I think it may actually be a pretty intelligent idea, I do not think those who want to add "US dubbed", "US Led" will agree. The contention seems more over the fact they want it to be noted/implied that its the US who uses this term. I would like to point out that India, the US, Canada and UK governments all use this term. Would that not signify a majority of countries in which English is the primary language? --Zer0faults 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that War on terrorism had replaced War on terror, but some quick googling proved me wrong. Both terms ar in use. So War on terror(ism)) actually makes sense. It resolves the semantic dispute terror vs terrorism. And regarding US led, US dubbed, US coined, quotes, ... I vote for neither. --plauz 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this vote, War on terror(ism)) seems like a good compromise however I too feel US Led, US Dubbed etc or even quotes should not be used, since the terror(ism) handles concern over misunderstandings. Very nice middleground. --Zer0faults 16:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Terrorism to Terror(ism) in the template. If no one objects, I'll see if I can't move the page? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial objection, "US Dubbed" still appearing and dubbed means "To give a name to facetiously or playfully; nickname." which doesn't seem appropriate in this case. I do however feel the "Terror(ism)" marking is a good decision. sorry forgot to sign this --Zer0faults 22:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As was already explained above, "war on terror" is a propaganda term and cannot be used without quotation marks and comment. Añoranza 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As this seems to be the last comment on the point, this edit summary seems to be wrong. Apparently, Hyperbole and Sfacets agree. Añoranza 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that NATO and their allies are the real terrorists? This is not a propaganda term as much as it is the real thing. People who support and fund terrorizing people and countries is Terror! SFrank85 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anyone to be a terrorist. But the tag "war on terror" is a propaganda term used by the US even in cases where NATO partners disagree, for example Iraq, where acts of terrorism became widespread after the invasion. Añoranza 10:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So Saddam didnt gas the Kurds, didnt use chemical weapons on Iran, didnt attack Isreal with SCUD missles during the first war? His military officials did not have "rape rooms" they didnt terrorize the population of Iraq, there wasn't mass graves? Saddam himself was a terrorist, he even tried to have the US president assassinated. He is on trial for many crimes, most that would affirm he is a terrorist. --Zer0faults 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The US were found guilty of supporting terrorist activities in Nicaragua. Does this justify to start templates "War on US terrorists" at all insurgency articles? Añoranza 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, look at the countries and organisations that are/have been supported by the US! Nomen Nescio 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly your personal political opinion is not fact.--Zer0faults 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately for you, your habit of confusing fact for opinion seems to hinder your grasp of reality. Please, who supported Bin Laden? Who supported the IRA? Who supported FARC? I rest my case. Nomen Nescio 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what your case is, sorry can you please clarify to the community as to what you are stating and how it relates to the discussion. thank you --Zer0faults 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He explained that if Saddam is a terrorist for what he did decades ago, the same standard should be applied to the US that was even found guilty at an international court. Añoranza 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current leaders only?

Do we have a current leaders only policy for this template? If so, should Ibrahim al-Jaafari be removed?

Certainly, this "War on Terror" will continue after many of the key players leave office, so will Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac be removed once they resign next year?

I think current and former leaders should remain on the list. I know it can get pretty large then, but in two years this template wont have Bush on it or Blair then. I would say both --Zer0faults 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think former leaders need to be deleted, but it is confusing if we have a mixture without noting it. Añoranza 01:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a tag and key? (OL) after the name or simply a * and then a notice at bottom of template stating those leaders are original members? --Zer0faults 01:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As it is a hystorical template, I feel all leaders should be kept, not only the current ones. Esaborio 08:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but take into account what two others agreed upon: it needs to be noted if someone is out of office. Añoranza 09:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a tag or asteriks if possible to not they are not in office currently or to note who is in office etc. But I do strongly believe all leaders should be mentioned as the main proponents of this conflict will be gone by 2 years time. --Zer0faults 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears inaccurate to list the UN and Kofi Annan as U.S./NATO allies in the "War on Terror"? Annan's been pretty critical of the whole thing, e.g.: . I also have strong doubts about whether this can be framed as a NATO operation. The template has been cast as "NATO's War on Terror" by those who want to make the point that the U.S. is not the only participant. While I sympathize with that sentiment, I just don't think it's accurate: it is not a NATO-vs-Al Qaeda conflict.

Indeed it is not, but so far political bias has gotten in the way of properly defining what this conflict is. If we were to only recognize the actions taken against Al Qaeda as part of the War on Terror, than it is indeed NATO that is the major player, as NATO declared war using the "An attack on one is an attack on all" clause. But NATO is not in reality the "major" player in the War on Terror as it actually is, as NATO has not participated in other parts of the War on Terror, such as the Iraq War. So its sort of a dead end that we have reached. Either it is solely the war against Al Qaeda, and thus inevitably a NATO affair, or it is indeed a broader conflict that can more properly be defined as being waged by the United States and Allies, against terrorists and state sponsors of terror (thus making Iraq a part of it). Or really, its a matter of what we want to say it is here, as we already know that it is the latter. Rangeley 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think NATO has to be included they are participating in Afghanistan which is undisputed part of War On Terror. The UN was also for Afghanistan. I think there is this trend that people feel just because its criticized means its not happening. Annan can say he doesnt like it but there is already personnel dedicated to the cause, hence they belong in. --Zer0faults 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the UN and Kofi Annan should not be listed, and enphasis should be taken off NATO. Esaborio 04:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Afghanistan UN operation and isnt NATO there currently. I don't see how we can lower a countries emphasis, but we can possibly put them in alphabetical order to be completely fair? --Zer0faults 10:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it initiated by the US, and later on NATO stepped in? Nomen Nescio 11:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe so, Afghanistan's initial invasion I believe was UN supported and I know France and UK were involved in initial attacks. I will do some research and see what I can find.

From what I found the war was authorized under Un Security Council Res 678 authorizing all members states use force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by Jan. 15th. So it was the UN deciding on the war, you can find the direct link via the UN website under Security Council. --Zer0faults 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But that was the GULF WAR, not the War on Terrorism. Esaborio 06:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Many scholars disagree with that explanation, so I doubt this is sufficient. The current accepted view is that Iraq was invaded without UN approval. As to Afghanistan, I already voiced my doubts. Nomen Nescio 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, simply because they do not support the war doesn't mean they didnt lay the legal foundation the US was able to use to goto war. It should also be noted Res 678 does not end with the customary "remain seized of the matter" --Zer0faults 14:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly our legal experts do not trump that many of the UN member states did in fact invade Afghanistan on the basis of that resolution. As for Iraq it is in fact highly debated if the US could use the UN resolution to goto war. Also considering Annan is currently leading the UN and its forces are in fact in Afghanistan, then Koffi supports Afghanistan so he should remain on the list. This isnt a list of who was first supporting, who later stepped in etc. Its a list of those involved at one point with the War on Terror(ism), whether in office now or then. --Zer0faults 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can name these countries you refer to in "many of the UN member states did in fact invade Afghanistan?" Nomen Nescio 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the following only China as a permanant member of the Security Council did not participate:

Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Norway, Bahrain, Jordan, Japan, Portugal, Poland, Roamnia

Or you can look here United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan#Nature_of_the_coalition. --Zer0faults 15:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While Kofi Annan and the United Nations may have been critical of the invasion of Iraq, they are supporters of the greater "War on Terror." The invasion of Afghanistan received almost unanimous support from the UN, and NATO invoked Article 5, declaring the 9/11 attacks to be attacks on all NATO states. Therefore, I will be re-adding NATO and the UN.

For those who want more information please see here(PDF) It is the UN resolution authorizing the creation of the International Security Assistance Force which the UN has setup in Afghanistan. This shows the UN supported the actions in Afghanistan, previous resolutions are mentioned in the document. Please can we now stop removing UN from the listing. --Zer0faults 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Where does it say that the UN has started a WOT? Afghanistan was in response to 9-11, but was it designated as WOT? Nomen Nescio 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a point you would like to make then feel free to do the research to prove it and present the facts here for the community to see. --Zer0faults 09:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

NATO

Why does this template state "NATO and allies" as an opposing faction, however the only countries listed are Britain, Canada, United States. The last time I checked France, Spain, Germany etc. were members of NATO yet they are considered "Other important Leaders". Isn't it misleading to state NATO is pursuing this "war". Wouldn't "United States and allied countries", "United States and allies" be a better option? Kyle sb 11:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, but some contributors feel the need to "muddy the waters" by erroneously claiming that NATO is fighting a global WOT. Nomen Nescio 11:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This if anything only supports that NATO should be listed by itself since Germany, Spain and France all sent troops to Afghanistan. So if anything we should remove the "and allies" part. --Zer0faults 11:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Zer0faults, the NATO contribution to the conflict, especially in Afghanistan, has been undeniable. In addition, Scheffer supported the invasion of Iraq.

That's fine but the NATO leaders placed in "other important leaders" should be removed and placed bellow the United States. It is a violation of POV the first section because 1) it implies that NATO only includes the United States, Canada and Britain. 2) Austrlia is listed under NATO and participants, when Australia isn't even in the North Atlantic. Personally I hate this template and would have it deleted, but that's already been discussed. The template implies this a global war with two defined sides being NATO and Al-Qaeda, it's so much more complicated. Instead it would be better to have NATO as a participant and then bellow it Other allies: such as Australia etc. Iraq confuses the situation more, because although there is general agreement by NATO countries over countering terrorism, only a few nations supported the invasion of Iraq, which was argued over WMD issues more than terrorism. Kyle sb 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

More leaders

If we are considering al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq terrorism, then shouldn't their opposites, meaning the Iraqi government, be included in this template. I suggest adding Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Nouri al-Maliki, and Muqtada al-Sadr.

Also, should participants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be included, such as Olmert, Abbas, and Haniya?

Question - why is Mohammed Omar listed as "not in office," is he not still in control of the the Taleban?

72.136.36.104 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he is no longer a head of state. Esaborio 04:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand the war between the Palestinians and Isreali's has been going on considerably longer, I wouldn't think either of these countries leaders should be present. Are they included in any of the conflicts above? do they have troops in any of the conflicts? Have they provided material or other support for the conflicts? I am not stating they don't just offering a measuring stick. --Zer0faults 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zer0faults. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another subject. Esaborio 04:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If so the organizations recognized (by US?) as terrorist should be involved: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon etc.... Shmuliko 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because the US is not fighting them directly, as it is al-Qaeda. Esaborio 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Change of title for Afghanistan discussion

I changed the title to US war in Afghanistan as that is a neutral term NPOV and correctly depicts the article in question - the "invasion" was the start - the article covers the "War." The reason for reverting does not make any sense. Explain. --Northmeister 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The invasion is the spark that stared the war and subsequent events. It is a term used widely, and the very definition of invasion is when a military force overturns a sovereign nation, which is what happened.

The invasion was a point in time, whereas 'war' implies an ongoing event (which is already described via the entire template). The linked article describes both the invasion and subsequent war.

Sfacets 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure - if it is a timeline you speak of regarding this template, I concur with your point. --Northmeister 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please at least let a consensus be formed before reverting this back. Especially don't use edit summaries such as "rv per discussion", there was no real discussion or consensus on this.--Jersey Devil 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

'Invasion' vs 'War

Invasion is a point in time, a strating point for War, which is a continuation of the invasion over a period of time. Since this is a timeline, I have changed "U.S. war in Afghanistan" to 'U.S. invasion of Afghanistan'. Sfacets 08:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean the "situation" in Afghanistan should be called a war? It is well passed the invasion stages. Its been going on for 4 years now. --zero faults 10:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said, the invasion is a flag, a marking point in history for the ongoing conflict. Sfacets 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I get that, but are you calling only the invasion part of the War on Terror and not the rest? the articles was renamed which is why I changed it in the template, there is no invasion article, so it will just redirect to the war article. --zero faults 10:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was renamed because the War in Afghanistan is just that a war - the invasion obviously was the first step - but the war continues. I don't see a reason to keep reverting back to invasion, which does not accurately describe what is going on. Would you call World War II - Normandy Invasion or Invasion of France? World War II had many invasions to take back Europe or by the other side to take over countries like Poland. Yet, all those invasions were a part of the larger war - including the Japanese invasion of China and Manuchuria and the attack on Pearl Harbor - yet all are World War II. The War in Afghanistan, which history more than likely will call the Afghanistan War is America's response to September 11th, 2001 and a part of the overall War on Terror that America is presently engaged in. You have further down in the timeline other events described as 'war' - why opposition to this phrase 'War in Afghanistan' which is neutral, historically correct etc.? I brought this up earlier and let it drop since consensus was formed against my change (see above) but I see others concur now. I reverted back to ZerOfaults version and agree with his statements above. --Northmeister 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation APOLLO/Operation Active Endeavour

Should these be included as "Main events"? Esaborio 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be included, but I also do not think they are main events. Then again OAE does show NATO's direct response in the War on Terror. OPOLLO seems to be directly linked to the afghan war, so maybe an astericks can be used and put it under afghan war? I would not object to OAE being moved to other events though. OPOLLO is directly linked to afghan war as its Canada's involvement in it. --zero faults 12:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

I would invite all who are interested to partake in the discussion that is taking place on this page. Rangeley 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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 suggested page where another view and reference to previous consensus is disallowed. Nomen Nescio 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalize Tag

Can someone please explain the globalize tag? If you look at the operations taking place, Operation Active Endeavor is NATO, Operation APOLLO is Canada, Warizstan War is not primarily US fighters. Everything in "Other Events" also have nothing to do with the US directly ... --zero faults 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to prior discussion on terms judged US-Centric. The tag was added based on this dispute. Sfacets 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide the section heading, I am not seeing it. I will move my post there once its been located where there is. --zero faults 21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, I have no idea why this template is flagged as US-centric. The War on Terrorism is not a only a US initiative; in fact, NATO itself - no, the US are not the only member of NATO - declared a state of defence after the September 11 attacks. The template provides a comprehensive overview on WOT's leading figures, ranging from George W. Bush to Junichiro Koizumi to Angela Merkel to John Howard. In case you forgot, these are heads of states of heads of governments of different countries, not all members of NATO (Australia and Japan, for instance).

Just because the US is judged to be the leader of the WOT coalition, this template is not US-centric. Numerous operations conducted within the War on Terrorism are not led by the US - the US do not contribute the bulk of the forces or do even participate in some important operations. Operation Active Endeavour and Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa are but two examples.

The War on Terrorism is not a US-only, but a multinational operation and this is reflected by this template.

I also have to admit that I'm sort of nonplussed because NOBODY who supports this Globalize Tag deigns to enlighten those who have no idea why the template was flagged with their reasons to do so. This is contrary to WP policy, where discussion is encouraged. However, no discussion can take place when one side simply refuses to justify the steps taken. Sfacets' comment about prior discussions on terms judged US-Centric is absurd; he does not provide any insight into these putative disputes. Sfacets' refusal to lay out his reasons is a form of gross disrepect for his fellow Wikipedians who seek to improve the template and the associated articles. Cheers, Something Wicked 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I originally thought sfacets was on a wikibreak and I had just missed him, judging by his contrib list it seems that I may just be being ignored. I am going to remove the globalize tag, I am sure someone will put it back, hopefully then they can answer the question. I guess I am not the only one looking for this discussion on the globalize tag. --zero faults 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonplussed. I haven't been 'ignoring' your requests. The intent of the template was to address the issues discussed throughout this page, including ut not limited to "propaganda term", removal of quotation marks, and labeling of incursions into territories using US-tagged 'codenames'.

The template was aimed at eventually replacing the POV-tag, being more appropriate in this situation. There is no 'section heading' since most of the discussion on this page addresses US-centric vs world-view. I have re-inserted the template. Sfacets 03:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue you did not address however is that the WOT is not just a US thing. If you look at the list of things related you can see some of the events are a majority of non-us forces, or events not related to the US at all. Operations such as Active Endeavor and ost of the terrorist attacks. --zero faults 12:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

Discussion on the consensus reached is located here . Rangeley 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The still ongoing proper RFC is open for comments regarding whether or not Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism. Nomen Nescio 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note the poll directly above states that anyone who supports that they are linked has to say they are doing it without facts and are being unobjectionable. (2) boycott comments have been left after this user moved another users votes to where he felt they should go, then moved their comment. --zero faults 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The question given is "People that support including Iraq in the War on Terror, because they think that since President Bush has said Iraq is "part of the War on Terror" it is sufficient to make it a fact, and it is irrelevant whether such a statement is factual or supported by evidence" - See the bold part as to why 2 users have boycotted the poll. Furthermoer the poll attempts to pigeon hold peoples views, meaning only people who support that, can do so because of that reason. Which means someone who believes it is because terrorists are being fought is excluded, someone who believes it is because Congress stated WOT numerous times in res 114 is excluded, someone who believes it is because Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism is excluded, someone who believes it is because of Saddams funding of the PALF is excluded, someone who believes it is because one of the UN resolutions tells Saddam to stop terrorist affiliations. etc. --zero faults 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

People can read and are smart enough to understand things for themselves. Feel free to explain why you rewrote that RFC and why correcting blatant manipulation is against policy. Nomen Nescio 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is links to or accusations of being a terrorist. At the end of the day the question remains was Iraq invaded to fight terrorism which the WOT says it is doing. Nomen Nescio 19:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave your political justifications at the door. We here at Misplaced Pages are here to write fact based articles, not attempt to justify or villafy anyone or anything. Stop moving my comments. --zero faults 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fact, Iraq was not behind 9-11, fact US intelligence stated Iraq had no connections to international terrorism, fact, looking at the timestamps you have just now reshuffled where your comments originally were. Yet another example of manipulation. Nomen Nescio 19:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

CIA said Iraq had no ties to al-Qaeda. Proven links to PALF, I proved this to you already. I can also comment wherever I want, including in response to myself to clarify my statements, get over it, and stop moving them. Fact Nescio has never read HJ Res 114, and that is why he keeps mentioning 9-11. --zero faults 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Overuse of template

Please, please, stop adding this template to every article listed within it. It's too big, very tangential to most articles (eg. country leaders), and feels like it has a POV slant. Thanks. Outriggr 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree; in fact I think there are virtually no articles on which this should go. It feels much more like a "portal" type thing than something that ought to be part of an encyclopedia article proper. --Delirium 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, any page containing an operation or battle related to WOT shoulf get the template, like any other template covering a larger operation, (ie. Cold War, WW2) --zero faults 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What this person thinks is every single article that remotely may eventually be seen as terrorism related should be part of WOT. Nomen Nescio 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of reading is starting to amaze me. Please refrain from addressing me or things I say if you are going to mistate them, thank you. Considering it seems you are the only one who misread what I wrote. --zero faults 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to link to where he said that? Rangeley 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this template is massive and overused. I hate it. Coffee 13:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific and say where its being used that normally a template would not be. --zero faults 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd view the template's former inclusion on Paul Martin as excessive, for example. Kurieeto 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they can be left off of people, however events, wars and operations I think they should be left on. Just my opinion, you may want to wait for others comments or just be bold --zero faults 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we edit the template to reduce its size? That might abate some concerns. The template is just really, really big, for example it takes up more than two thirds of the page on my monitor. I'd hate to see what it did on an older monitor in say a public library. Editing out some inclusions in the political leaders section might help here. For example, if the template doesn't belong on article Paul Martin, does his name really merit being in it? Additionally, that third column is twice as long as any of the others, which has resulted in a lot of empty unused space. Has a row-based layout been considered, instead of a column-based layout? Do the country flags need to be included? Kurieeto 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am saying it does not need to be on his page because like most templates related to large scale conflicts, the people involved do not have the template on their page. He is a part of the conflct and after long long discussions on this page the layout has been developed. So while he is important to the WOT, the WOT is not as important to his personal story perhaps. I was just attempting to reach a compromise, not stating he shouldnt be listed in the template. Just remove it from the persons page if you have a problem with it, I wont put it back at least. But I doubt you are gonig to garner much support for another community rework of this entire template. --zero faults 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your approach to compromise, I didn't mean to show any disrespect for the consensus of previous discussions. Are there examples of other similar-sized and/or column-based navigational templates that I could compare this one to? Kurieeto 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a Template:Cold_War, not sure about a WW one. --zero faults 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I had already listed the template for deletion as I could not see the point of it. Decision was keep, as noted to the top of this discussion. If there are more people now who think it should be deleted you could relist it. Añoranza 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the criteria for inclusion of a political leader in this template? Kurieeto 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe its the involvement of their country while they were in power in the WOT, through operations launched by them or jointly. Or their own comments they are part of it or supporting it. --zero faults 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz (Saudi King)

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has been the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia since 1995, and has ruled since his brother's death in 2005. He presided over the KSA after the September 11 Attacks and has approved several strikes on militants in the country. Does anyone else think he should join the list? He's certainly been a lot more involved than Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Picaroon9288 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added him. (And put borders around flags with white edges.) Picaroon9288 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with neutrality and factual accuracy

• According to whom is the Iraq War part of the "War on Terrorism"? No politician has stated that the invasion of Iraq was intended to quash terrorism. It may be a cause for terrorism, but that's not what this template is describing.

• According to whom are José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and Junichiro Koizumi, amongst others, primary figures in the "War on Terrorism". The first three vehemently oppose(ed) several American efforts in the "War on Terrorism". And Koizumi has recently drastically reduced the role and number of Japanese troops in the Middle East.

• Since the "War on Terrorism" is the invention of Western leaders, the title and events within the template imply all of their viewpoints.

• Overall, the inclusion of events and figures in this template seems based on the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors rather than reputable sources.

• To rectify this bias, perhaps a statement to this effect should be placed in the template:

According to proponents of the "War on Terrorism", these events and figures are important components of the "War".

--WGee 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism is a campaign waged by the USA and its allies, against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. As such, the Iraq War has been recognized as a part of it, after two month discussion. . The criteria for this template, much like the criteria for the Cold War template, is that the people played a major part in the conflict. Not everyone on this template I would agree with, for instance Zapatero. The criteria for events has been that it is either a part of the campaign, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Waziristan, or it directly impacted involved countries, such as the Madrid bombings. Rangeley 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that after two polls disagreeing with the claim Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism this user ignored consensus and started a new poll, flawed by votestacking, and incorrect statement of the controversy. To ascertain whether people think Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism you will find a RFC where you can contribute and state what you think on the subject. Nomen Nescio 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(2) other polls about if it should be in the infobox. Not about if its part of the WOT. Please read more carefully next time. --zero faults 11:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did people object to including it in the infobox? Oh, they said claiming Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism is a controversial statement. That is odd, you seem to deny they said that. Nomen Nescio 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

One of my points is that the template should be derived from reputable sources rather than the viewpoints of a small group of Wikipedians. Locate sources which state that the Iraq War et cetera are part of the "War on Terrorism" and perhaps this template will hold some legitimacy. -- WGee 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Right from the Resolution authorizing the war itself. "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; " --zero faults 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The link gave you shows the text of the consensus along with links showing it as part. Rangeley 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What about all of the other military operations and leaders? (Note the et cetera) -- WGee 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which leader or operation do you have an issue with? --zero faults 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, only have an issue with a few leaders, but that is irrelevant. The inclusion of all leaders and events in this template must be supported by reputable sources. A consensus among a small group of editors does take precedence over reputable sources. -- WGee 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To address your concerns:

1. Congress said it was when they voted on House Joint Resolution 114, the Authorization to use force in Iraq.
2. They were presidents or leaders that A) Commited their troops or other support for operations involved in the War on Terror, or b) Were highly affected by the WOT, such as being voted out of office primarily for their support of it, or lack of action against it. They are not listed as supporters.
3. Which is why there was a globalize tag, one I did not agree with since it should include Canada, Pakistan, Japan etc.
4. Please be specific to which events you are discussing
5. The globalize tag covers this considering you think these people and their involvement is a western idea.

--zero faults 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The globalize tag does not address my concerns that the template might be factually inaccurate. I'll drop my complaint when I see reputable sources that describe all of the figures and events within the template as part of the "War on Terror". -- WGee 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Which ones do you feel should not be included according to the reason I gave you as to why they are included: "They were presidents or leaders that A) Commited their troops or other support for operations involved in the War on Terror, or b) Were highly affected by the WOT, such as being voted out of office primarily for their support of it, or lack of action against it. They are not listed as supporters." --zero faults 20:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that you call certain political leaders, such as José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Romano Prodi, and Paul Martin, "participants", even though they have not personally pledged troops to any of the war efforts. Calling them "participants" because they were politically affected in some way by their countries' involvement in the "War on Terror" is misleading. Paul Martin, for instance, did not pledge support for the "War on Terror", nor was he voted out of office primarily because of it, so he I don't see where he fits into your criteria for inclusion. Also, you should mention the criteria for a "participant" in the template, to avoid confusion. -- WGee 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that WOT is claimed to be a global conflict, yet only the US gets to decide what exactly it stands for. Therefore terrorism, WOT and participant is "what the US says it means," no other opinion is allowed, making the entire concept ipso facto violating NPOV. Nomen Nescio 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hence the globalize tag, this has already been discussed. Its also not only the US as NATO has declared Active Endeavor to be part of the the WOT. --zero faults 11:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hence the general objection to what appears to be a statement of fact, and not the opinion of the Bush administration. Nomen Nescio 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

God job ignoring the second sentence. Please do not address me anymore as you do it rudely and with snide comments. --zero faults 13:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin continued his troops involvement in engagements such as OIF-A which is part of the WOT. Therefore he is supporting it through troops. Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero ran on an anti Iraq policy against his opponent who was pro war, its largely speculated that that was the defining reason of his victory. It also well believed that what led the opinion polls to switch to quickly from the former leader to Zapatero was the Madrid Train Bombings, another WOT event. As for Prodi I do not know, are troops from Italy in Iraq or OIF-A? --zero faults 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your second reason (reason "b") is invalid, in my view. It is not up to you or any other Wikipedian to "speculate" the causes of politicians' defeats, especially by using weasel phrases such as "it is largely speculated". That was the point I was making in my last comments. Also, the fact that you don't know if Italian troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan indicates the need to use reputable sources to back up claims that these people are actually "participants". Moreover, the participants of the War on Terror should be named by country rather than leader, as is the custom. -- WGee 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not named by country cause sometimes a leader pulls troops out. If it was listed by country it would have to stay on the list even though the country is no longer involved. As for me not knowing if Italian troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan, well there is alot I do not know in the world, this encyclopedia is not limited to my knowledge, so i doubt we should remove everything I do not know. As for our political defeat friend, read his article, there are plenty of sources in it. PS no other template is using the guidelines you are asking for. You say "named by country rather than leader, as is the custom." but if you view the Cold War template its by leader. The WW2 may have been done by country because no leaders pulled out support half way through, however either way it proves its not customary. --zero faults 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was listed by country it would have to stay on the list even though the country is no longer involved. -- I don't understand. If the country is no longer involved, it should be removed from the template; it's as simple as that. And you're arguments to circumvent a founding policy of Misplaced Pages—citing sources—are rather weak. -- WGee 20:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is about historical accuracy. To have a list of countries that supported the WOT as you propose, would lead France to not be on the list, even though they supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Your attempts to remove content from a template by quoting policy on articles is pretty weak. Considering you have not objected to the inclusion exclusion criteria, I will post to your talk page in 1 weeks time, how each leader is related to the WOT. --zero faults 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll on Recent Edits

Editors who agree the "Other events" section should be renamed to "Other events and US response" and include: NSA electronic surveillance program, Plame affair, Yellowcake forgery, Unitary executive theory, Unlawful combatant, Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Extraordinary rendition & Black site.

Those in favour of including actions that are stated as part of WOT

1. If Iraq needs to be included on some rather shaky logic, surely those events and actions that are officialy stated to be in name of WOT should be included. Extraordinary rendition is apparently needed to fight terrorists, unlawful combatant status is apparently needed to fight and protect against terrorism, et cetera. Point is the Bush administration states time and time again these action are part of the WOT since without them the US would be run over by terrorists. Nomen Nescio 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   So you feel the Plame Affair and Yellow Cake Forgery were necessary in fighting terrorism as part of the war on terror? Unitary Executive Theory does not fall into this category as well as Extraordinary Rendition as both concepts existed before the WOT. --zero faults 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Clearly the UET as interpreted by the Bush administration is entirely novel. Second, it is this legal oddity that is used to justify torture, extraordinary rendition, the NSA program, et cetera. This makes it the cornerstone of the Bush administration's rationale behind the policies in the WOT! Nomen Nescio 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Can I see your source where the Bush cabinet uses UET to justify its actions. Provide that and I will agree to have it included. --zero faults 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Remember the Commander in Chief rationale that is used in every controversy to date? Please read the relevant articels and you will see it, start by reading UET itself, it links to all other relevant articles. Nomen Nescio 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   UET is different from simply saying he is commander in cheif. Please provide a source or stop your accusations. --zero faults 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   After you have read the articles on ER, UC, UET, CSRT, signing statement and all their references we can discuss further. Untill such time you have insufficient knowledge to have a meaningful debate. Nomen Nescio 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Quote please. You made a statement support it now. --zero faults 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Black site is also a concept that existed before the WOT. --zero faults 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   But is an integral part of the kidnappings worldwide. Nomen Nescio 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   This template is about the WOT Campaign, not kidnapping. --zero faults 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   But kidnapping is done as part of the WOT. Nomen Nescio 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Can I see your source that lists it as such. --zero faults 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Extraordinary rendition and unlawful combatant. Nomen Nescio 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   I just looked through the ER article and it does not show a single quote about the WOT, nor does the term come up except in the category listing ... Quote please. --zero faults 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Do tell, why does the Bush administration ignore the GC and kidnap people worldwide if not as part of WOT? Is it to promote safe sex, or democracy, or is it to eradicate hunger from the planet? Nomen Nescio 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   I am still waiting on your quote. Your sarcasm however is not appreciated. Once again, ER and UC articles do not list anyone from Bush cabinet stating either of those are part of the WOT. --zero faults 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Just looked through the UC article, also failnig to see where the administration is saying it uses this as part of the WOT. Your claim below is they should be included because the Bush administration says it uses them for this purpose. I would like a quote by Bush himself or his Press speaker. --zero faults 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Do tell, why does the Bush administration ignore the GC and denies due legal processto suspected terrorists if not as part of WOT? Is it to promote safe sex, or democracy, or is it to eradicate hunger from the planet? Nomen Nescio 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Quote please, sarcasm aside, you have yet to support your comment that Bush administration calls these part of the WOT. --zero faults 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

   Can you please also expand by stating who said they are part of the WOT as your new section implies someone has. --zero faults 14:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Those against:

1. I think it is bloating the article, and not necessary, the WOT template is following templates of other campaigns such as WW2 and Cold War. It does list everything and anything, but major events and people/nations involved. --zero faults 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Its atypical to include these in a template, see the cold war on for reference. Rangeley 14:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Since this is a US defined concept we can refer to the Bush administration repeatedly claiming ER, UC, et cetera are necessary to fight terrorism and as such are part of it. Nomen Nescio 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not events ... You change the heading then attempt to justify its new contents, without ever justifynig changing the heading in the first place. --zero faults 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sponsoring terrorism is not an event, yet miraculously can be used when justifying the invasion of Iraq. Second, kidnapping people constitutes an event, torturing people is an event, ignoring international law is an event. You do not get to pick what is part of this war. You yourself have used outlandish arguments, so all I do is include everything that answers to what yopu yourself explained is part of the WOT. Nomen Nescio 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think people would see by your definition of event, exactly why they should vote to prevent the further additions of thigns you call "events" and classify as important enough to be included. --zero faults 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I see a dif of this definition you claim I gave ... Thank you. --zero faults 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, that is the most farfetched thing I have heard in a while. We arent putting the fact Saddam was a state sponsor of terror on the template. We are putting an event, the invasion and subsequent war. What you are doing is trying to include all sorts of related laws, which would be equivalent to including the articles about Saddam's orders to gas the kurds, or orders to carry out terror attacks. To have laws is not typical of such templates. And I am pretty sure that this is in violation of WP:Point. Rangeley 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The logic advanced was that since SH had links to terrorism the invasion was part of ... Clearly, using the same logic results in including all actions taken in relation to fighting terrorism. It is being consistent.14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Will you be adding every law and document to the WW2 and Cold War templates respectively as well? --zero faults 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No but if the administration repatedly claims that ER, Guantanamo Bay and other policies are vital in the fight agaisnt terroriswm they surely are more relevant than a makebelieve link between SH and purported terrorists. Nomen Nescio 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote of Bush saying Er is part of WOT please. --zero faults 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How can it be vital to, but not part of WOT? Nomen Nescio 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, would you support adding every law that was related to the Cold War to the Cold War template? Would you support adding every law that was related to World War Two to the World War Two template? Or do you recognize that this is not the function of the template? Rangeley 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Law? This is of course a red herring since nobody wants to add any laws as part of this unlimited conflict! This template is about all actions taken by the US government to fight terrorism and apparently what is considered terrorist actions. By their own admission the ignore the GC as necessary, spying on US citizens is said to be pivotal in the fight, torturing detainees is also warranted as means to fight, et cetera. If the template says part of, we need to include all actions that are officially stated as adopted to fight terrorism. Let's not ignore what the Bush administration has to say. Nomen Nescio 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, your attempt to find a contradiction here isnt going to work. These templates are not for everything. The Cold War template details major events and major players. And so will this. A law is not a major event. An order to commit terrorism is not a major event. The terrorist attack resulting from the order is a major event. The war resulting from the law is a major event. Rangeley 15:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What laws am I discussing, and how is spying on millions of US citizens not a major event? Nomen Nescio 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What event or period are you discussing? Mccarthyism is included in the Cold War template, but not the specific laws against being a communist. Laws are not events, ER is not an event, NSA Wiretapping is not an event. You have to understand the difference between a law, and an event. Rangeley 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A major violation of WP:POINT. We will see how the community feels about adding these items + who knows how many more Nescio can dig up. --zero faults 14:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, to avoid such controversy, I would like to see reputable sources from the US government or elsewhere that identify all of the events in the template as part of the War on Terror. Furthermore, it is necessary to make a distinction between primary and peripheral combatants. To list them all in equal standing is extrememly misleading, as the War on Terror was officially announced by the United States, and the overwhelming majority of troops in the War's military operations are American (more than 90% of the Iraq War troops are American, for instance). -- WGee 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what percentage of troops are American in Afghanistan currently, Operation Active Endeavor, OEF-P, Waziristan War etc. Most of these are not primarily US troops engaged, this arguement only holds true for the Iraq War and partially OEF-A which will be false after Canada takes over. --zero faults 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider the results of this poll invalid, whatever they may be, for the question was not formed with the input of all the editors invloved, it is much too specific, and the poll is very poorly organized. -- WGee 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio has made a section, he was the editor involved, I was reverting, hence I am the other. The votes are too see what editors supporting each side. Nescio did not like the questions and created his own, which is perfectly allowed. --zero faults 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy

Under the UET the President cannot be limited in his duty as Coimmander-in-Chief, hence he is allowed to

• ignore the GC
• torture
• kidnap, ER
• hold suspects without a trial, UC
• spy on US citizens without a warrant

For those disputing this I once again refer to the articles on the subjects. Why do I need to go there and provide the text? Read them yourself before claiming it is not related to WOT. Nomen Nescio 10:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

more to the point, why were the GC ignored, and why is the US kidnapping people, and why are US citizens spied upon? AFAIK this is not related to educating people about the risks of unprotected sex. Nomen Nescio 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting on a source that says Bush said he is using this. I believe it exists, but we need to provide a source of Bush saying he is using it. --zero faults 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Read about John Yoo, the main character in the UET debate. Or are you insisting that administration policy not explicitly voiced by Bush himself, is not policy? Nomen Nescio 10:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because John Yoo says the president can, doesnt me that he does. I again ask you for proof from the Presidents cabinet or administration that says the president uses UET to handle those operations. Someone at least with a cabinet level position, not a secretary that answers phones, or some other obviously unreliable source. --zero faults 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, unless the President himself admits it no amount of (circumstantial) evidence -see numerous legal analysts, newsreports on signing statements/Alito and statements by the Bush administration- can be used to suggest it is being used? Interesting, you are saying that unless a criminal confesses no amount of evidence is sufficient to prove he is guilty. Please, talk to you local DA, he will find that a novel theory. Nomen Nescio 11:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since UET is invoked to justify ER, UC, NSA spying it is pertinent to WOT. UET is not related to global warming. Please restore what is evidently part of the WOT doctrine. Or else explain why thes policies were adopted if not to fight terrorism. Nomen Nescio 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Again I ask you friendly to restore UET as it is the pivotal justification and as such part of the WOT. Just like ER, since it is useed to kidnap suspected terrorists, and not as a taxi service for girl scouts. Nomen Nescio 11:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Who in the administration has said that UET is being used to justify ER UC and NSA spying? How many people and who supports it. People are just asking you to prove your claims. I am still waiting on these quotes. --zero faults 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as you refuse to read the relevant articles and their references: signing statement (invoking the UET), unitary executive (claiming broad war powers), extraordinary rendition (transporting suspected terrorists), et cetera, you will never find sufficient cause to understand all this is used as justification for every controversial policy under WOT. It is called: as Commander in Chief Bush can do anything he deems necessary to protect the US, called inherent broad war powers under UET. Please provide another use if it is not used to counter terrorism: ER, taxiservice for moviestars? Nomen Nescio 11:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary Rendition has been in use since early 1990, it predates the War on Terrorism. --zero faults 11:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1 Prove it was used as extensively as today 2 Why is Chechnya used that surely predates 9-11 3 Stop sabotaging and read the articles, I am not rehashing for you. All you need is in the articles and references, why do you refuse to read it if not out of POV pushing. Nomen Nescio 11:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Template needs sources

What right does a small group of Misplaced Pages contributors have to decide what is part of the War on Terror? I re-state my position that all events and leaders mentioned in the template must be identified as part of the War on Terror by reputable sources; otherwise, they should not be mentioned in the template. Polls and their outcomes are absolutely irrelevant. Don't ask me which leaders or events "I have problems with" please. My demand applies to all events and leaders mentioned in the template.

By the way, Guantanomo Bay is an essential part of the War on Terror . It must therefore be mentioned in the template.

--WGee 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Places are not listed in templates, see Cold War and World War II. --zero faults 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

According to which policy? If it's not banned by a policy, then it's acceptable upon consensus. Remember, this is not any "war" either; in fact, many don't consider it a war at all, per se. -- WGee 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a campaign. Feel free to attempt to build a concensus to add all places related to the WOT. Till then it doesnt belong in the template as its not appropriate under any section heading. --zero faults 00:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't fit under any of the headings? That's quite a poor excuse to exclude what has been described by some as one of the most important tools in the War on Terror. (By the way, since your last comment, another editor has added the heading "Specific articles", taking after the WWI template, so there now exists an appropriate heading.) -- WGee 06:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I hope you support the idea of deriving the template from reputable sources. That is the best way to ensure factual accuracy and to quell current NPOV disputes. -- WGee 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Already addressed this issue. --zero faults 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)