Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearUmpf (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 27 January 2007 (→Request for Arbitration filed: rm bias notice of arbcom filing.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Iraq War was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 1, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Template:V0.5

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

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

Combatant Section

I put the coalition in section one and the terrorists in section 2.

In all the other war articles, the good guys are always in section 1 and the baddies in 2.

Casualities

In the section on the first battle of fallujah, in the second sentence of the third paragraph, it says that "Coalition troops killed about 600 insurgents and a number of civilians, while 40 Americans died and hundreds were wounded in a fierce battle." There is no citation for this, and while the same sentence links to an internal article on the battle of fallujah, there is nothing in there that verifies this claim. Also, in the section for the second battle of fallujah, it says "This battle resulted in the reputed death of over 5,000 insurgent fighters." This number is conrtadicted by the internal link to the second battle of fallujah page, which cites a DoD report for insurgent casulties. either way, this seriously needs to be changed. i can't do it b/c this page isn't open to editing from normal joes like me, so someone else ought to. thanks 70.171.43.111 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Skeet

Nothing gets done unless someone does it. Takes about one minute to get a user name, and you remain anonymous since you don't even have to give an email address. Only thing required is a user name and a password. Anonymous email addresses can be acquired too. Even if you sign up for an email address with your real name, you can change the "From" name to whatever you want later. But wikipedia does not require an email address anyway. It is good to provide one though in case you forget or lose your password. --Timeshifter 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Newly regestered users are prohibited from editing this article as well. I took your advice and registered though. It's a simple enough edit, and it needs to be done; I'd do it if I could. In fact this whole article is filled with stuff like this. What is this, CNN or an encyclopedia? Skeet 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Part which I removed from infobox:

Civilian deaths officially reported by the Iraqi health ministry .': 43,850-48,693

The article cited, in an infobox, "civilian deaths officially reported by the Iraqi health ministry". Such counts are known to be extremely unreliable. According to the famouse second Lancet article , which merely repeats scientific consensus on this point, they are almost invariably underestimating by factor of 5, and often by more than 10x.

Long quote from Lancet article:

Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures.1,5 This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden. Aside from Bosnia,21 we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods. In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded by facility-based methods underestimated events by a factor of ten or more when compared with population based estimates.11,22–25 Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence.26

Figure that is known to be underestimated by at least 5x and most likely more has really no place in the infobox. It can of course be included with complete explanations later in the article. But as very few readers are aware of scale of inaccuracy and bias such methods have, a raw figure can easily create a mistaken impression that it is an estimate of total number of civilian deaths, a position which as far as I can tell, not a single person with relevant expertise holds. Taw 04:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that IBC does not catch all the deaths; however it is also extremely likely that the Hopkins study is on the high side (see, e.g. 655,000 War Dead? I myself have located at least one factual error in the opening three paragraphs of the Lancet study, and apparently according to its authors "the appendeces were written by students and should be ignored." How much else should be ignored? This study is not the last word on the issue and should not be treated as such. Cripipper 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Lancet study is not relevant at all. The relevant points are:

• Counting number of deaths in conflict based on passive surveillance is not a reasonable estimate of total number of deaths by at least 5x any typically more.
• Inclusion of such number in infobox without full discussion can easily lead to mistaken impression that such number is a reasonable estimate of total number of deaths.
• There's not enough space in the infobox to fully explain why such number is not a reasonable estimate of total number of deaths.

Do you disagree with one of these points, or do you want to include a number knowing it can easily be misleading ? Taw 14:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• The validity of the Lancet study is very important, since you are quoting it as the source for the assertion that passive sureveillance techniques are out by 5x. There are many good arguments why 655,000 may not be a reasonable estimate either, so we either take them both out, or leave them both in with explanations in the footnotes.
• Passive surveillance picked up most deaths in Bosnia - who is to say they aren't being picked up here?
• It is not factually incorrect to say that the civilian casualty toll is somewhere between 50,000 and 665,000.
• Personally I don't think 50,000 is anything like an accurate count, but it seems to most observers that the real death toll is certainly much closer to the bottom range of the C.I. for the Lancet study than the stated 655,000, so - as you yourself say - do you want to include a number knowing it can be easily misleading? Cripipper 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I think the Lancet survey is the most significant currently available number, I have to side with Cripipper here. The Lancet number needs to be included in any responsible discussion, but the infobox has a duty to present only npov, independently verifiable data."Officially reported civilian deaths" is encyclopedic; to put the contested 655k figure in the infobox, as though it had the same authority, is potentially misleading. The WSJ editors, a group who have no small bias of their own, ask some valid and important questions of the Hopkins researchers' methods. There is a much less substantial criticism of the study in Science 20 October 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5798, pp. 396 - 397. Cyrusc 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

to clarify: quoting an "officially reported number" is acceptable to me, even though this number may fall drastically short of the real toll. WP infobox must leave suspicion of official bodycounts up to the reader. Putting the 655k number in the infobox is a different issue. Maybe there is some way to infobox 655k with the proper qualifications? I guess there's no reason for the infobox not to have a range of conflicting, similarly qualified estimates? Cyrusc 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

having trouble saying what I mean here. What I mean is that there's no dispute that ~50K was officially reported. There is dispute whether 655k have died. Cyrusc

• Personally I'd like to see it return to this version:

{{casualties3=Estimate of Total Iraqi civilian deaths of Iraqis (civilian and non-civilians) due to war:
43,850 to 655,000 (95% CI 392,979–942,636)}} Cripipper 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• {{casualties3=Total Iraqi deaths due to war::
  43,850 to 655,000 (95% CI 392,979–942,636)}}

seems like a concise and accurate presentation of available facts. Cyrusc 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is ongoing controversy "main street bias" over the Lancet article methodology , so I consider it is not statistically valid to use it as an upper bound. If the method has a systematic flaw "main street bias", it cannot represent anything. The criticism of the data size being small is not however systematic, so that part of the criticism must be ignored, and is only useful for giving error limits on the value i.e. value +- error Widefox 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Two quick points. 1. The John Hopkins team canvassed homes in residential streets that ran off main avenues. This is an important distinction. 2. Main roads by their very definition attract people from all areas. A similar conclusion can be drawn with regard to attacks on street markets, mosques, office blocks, police/army recruitment centers, police stations, etc. The victims are likely to be a random cross section of society. And so I am not convinced that this potential 'main street bias' is entirely applicable. But let's see what they come up with and we will test the results. SMB 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

actually, there are a few papers out there (on cluster sampling generally, not on Iraqi wars) that mathematically demonstrate that the distribution of errors as number of clusters drops does become biased, but more likely towards underestimates; the "balance" is restored by the fewer number of overestimates being of larger magnitude.

A few ways to show this; the estimate from the Hopkins guys is a death rate of 2.5% (critics argue that in fact it's less than 2.5%); the absolute minimum possible estimate you could get, whether accurate or by error, is 0% and the maximum possible estimate is 100%, obviously. Equally obviously, therefore, even if the actual rate were as high as 2.5%, the minimum possible estimate would be low by -2.5%; the maximum possible estimate amount would be high by +97.5%. Clearly, if the mean of the errors has to equal zero, which is the entire basis of statistical theory, there have to be a lot more -2.5%s to balance out a few +97.5%s. All the more so if you are saying the actual number is really less than 2.5%.

Or, to work through an example, imagine a minefield which (you do not know) has 10% of the area actually mined, into which you toss a sample of 1 rock (which we can all agree is too low and produces an inaccurate result) to get an estimate of how mined it is. Obviously, there are only two possibilities; you have a 90% chance of not hitting a mine and getting an estimate of 0% mined, an error of -10%, but a 10% chance of hitting a mine and getting an estimate of 100% mined, an error of +90%. With this too-small sample size you are obviously 9 times more likely to UNDERestimate than you are to OVERestimate, although when you do overestimate it's a whopper. So, OK, you say that this freakin 650,000 death rate could very well be one of these rare but huge overestimates. But...... don't forget this is the second time they've done the study, using independent samples, and the two generally agreed on death rates. What're the odds that you toss in two rocks and hit two mines, having both samples overestimate? 1%. But what're the odds that you toss in two rocks and neither hits a mine, having both samples underestimate? 81%. Doing the too small study twice and having them agree, you are 80 times more likely to underestimate than overestimate. Obviously this is an extreme example, but the same argument goes for the Hopkins studies; if there is any bias because of small sample size, it is much more likely to be in the direction of UNDERestimation. Or the sample size is adequate, and the estimate is not biased.

To sum up, whether or not the criticism of too small sample size has any validity, the estimate is virtually certainly not biased high. And if you add in the researchers' having assigned zero deaths to the three clusters which were not sampled, the possibility of this being an overestimate becomes even less. It's either in the correct neighborhood, or it's an underestimate. Gzuckier 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Or 50 clusters was not enough. When they conduct an opinion poll in Ireland, with a population of 4 million, they use 100 sampling points. Can 50 clusters be enough to be representative of a population of 25 million?

Again: if a spoonful is enough for me to test the saltiness of a bowl of soup, then it's enough for me to test the saltiness of a tureen of soup, I don't have to drink a cupful. Again: the size of the population being sampled appears nowhere in the mathematics, only the number of samples or clusters. Again: the confidence interval is calculated from the variance in the sampled clusters a posteriori, so reflects the actual variance between the clusters. If there is a huge variation in death rates, then the effect will be that the confidence interval is very wide, as in Hopkins study 2004, indicating you need more clusters. Again: if there really are insufficient clusters, then the most likely bias would be to UNDERSTATE the death rate. Again: in most cases, 50 is plenty to count whatever it is you are studying, as a general rule of thumb. More is nice, as it further insulates you from anomalies, but probably not worth getting shot over. Gzuckier 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am against using Lancet, and highly against it being used alone. Lancet is a flawed method of counting, I am not sure how there can be a complaint against the official government agency doing the counting and a group of random people knocking on doors asking if someone died, and if so how. The thing I would clarifying on is ... The Lancet people claim most of the families had death certificates, if those are handed out by the ministry of health ... how can there be more certificates then bodies? Wouldnt this mean that

• A) bodies are being counted multiple times in Lancet
• B) Someone is handing out certificates that shouldn't
• C) There is a massive conspiracy

--NuclearZer0 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a head in the sand argument. You mean the "official" government agency INSTALLED by the occupying power, who are DOING THE KILLING? Can you be any more intentionally misleading? WHY would the "Iraqi" government installed by the occupying US military NOT intentionally "forget" to mention the MASSIVE airstrikes that is primarily the cause of death of most of these civilians?

And about the IBC's "count" as you call it, here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20061120/cm_thenation/15142240_1

"Not surprisingly, the use of air power in Iraq remains a non-issue in this country. How could Americans react, when there's no news to react to, when there's next to no information to be had--which doesn't mean that information on our ongoing air campaign is unavailable. In fact, the Air Force is proud as punch of the job it's doing; so any reporter, not to speak of any citizen, can go to the Air Force website and look at daily reports of air missions over both Iraq and Afghanistan. The report of November 15th, for instance, offers the following:

"In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The F/A-18s expended guided bomb unit-31s on enemy targets. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Forward Operating Base McHenry and Baqubah. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Baghdad.

"In total, coalition aircraft flew 32 close air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities."

This was a pretty typical day's work in recent months; there were 34 "close air support missions" on November 14th, 32 on the 13th, and 35 on the 12th--and note that each of the strikes mentioned was "near" a major city. These reports can be hard to parse, but they certainly give a sense, day by day, that the low-level air war in Iraq is no less ongoing for being unreported." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.243.140 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Death certificates are not issued by the Ministry of Health, but by local doctors. The Lancet study authors claim that local doctors are still issuing them, but that the structures for centrally collating the information within the country have broken down, which does not seem unreasonable. Cripipper 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to point out to Nuclear that the method used by the Lancet, rather than being a 'flawed method of counting', is the method the U.S. government uses for performing similar tasks. The the method is indesputably the global standard, the question at hand is whether there was a flaw in how it was carried out. Cripipper 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me proof that the US uses this method to count country wide dead? No because the truth is they use it for a census, which is entirely different. Calling someone and asking how many people live in the house is different then asking them how many dead they know or lived there. Having a death certificate is a flawed method further because the mother will get the certificate as well as the father and the wife, what prevents duplicates? these people do not all necessarily live together. Multiple doctors seeing the same body is also another problem since there is no central reporting location that prevents duplications. Do you honestly think that going door to door asking is a more reliable method then actually counting bodies? --NuclearZer0 12:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot

• D) your house got blown up by a bomb and the only thing left of Grandpa and Baby Sue is a handful of bloodstained linen.

That'll get you a couple of death certificates in the US, I imagine it would also in Iraq. Now, tell us more about this "flawed method of counting" meme of which you speak. Gzuckier 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the flaw, you admit above that doctors arent following procedures and just issuing death certificates to people who show a pile of blood and guts, who is to say they arent issuing duplicates if they arent following procedure and reporting those deaths back, with the police infiltrated would it be a surprise that one doctor is spitting out death certificates incorrectly. Again No lancet alone, preferably no Lancet. Thank you for supporting my point --NuclearZer0 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then how is it that the IBC numbers include a maximum and minimum? If they're actual counts of actual deaths? How is it that different sources on the scene report different numbers which the IBC is good enough to report? Could it be that SOMEBODY is just reporting piles of blood and guts to the IBC as deaths? And somebody else is ignoring those piles as no deaths? Could it be that they are missing quite a few deaths? Newborns who die after a few hours? People without a family who are killed on backstreets and dumped in the Tigris? Gzuckier 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth here is an Oct. 21, 2006 Reuters article with several other researchers backing up the Lancet study:

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061021/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc

And from the wikipedia page on the Lancet study is this: "In a letter to The Age, however, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the studies 'methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously.'"

• Link to letter. Published Oct. 21, 2006.

I suggest using a range of deaths (from low to high) as others have suggested. The Lancet range. I don't hear any real dispute about whether it is the best estimate so far. If a better estimate comes up then we can use it. --Timeshifter 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How about an estimate from the UN? After reading the section, I can see why the neutrality dispute tag was added. In the Iraq entry, this was mentioned:

These numbers have been controversial and were immediately denounced both politically and within the statistical analysis community. The methodology used by Burham et al, known as cross-sectional population-based cluster sampling, is respected among epidemiologists for estimating mortality rates in war-torn countries. However, questions have arisen regarding the sufficiency of the sample size for the extrapolations made in the Lancet survey.

The Lancet estimate is significantly higher than estimates from other organizations. In 2004, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688, to arrive at their estimate of between 18,000 and 29,000 civilian deaths from the war. The Lancet survey used 47 cluster points, and a total of 1,849 interviews, to arrive at their estimate of 655,000 civilian deaths.

These seem like very important and relevant facts to include regarding the Lancet study and the estimated number of casualties. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum This article might also be of interest. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Thanks for the links. I happened to compile some quotes earlier today from the 2006 Lancet study article and supplement here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Iraq_Body_Count_project#2006_Lancet_study_quotes

These 2006 Lancet quotes below are relevant to the UN survey, etc. Here are some quotes below from the Lancet study supplement article here: http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

"Working for the U.N. Development Program, the highly regarded Norwegian researcher Jon Pederson led a survey that recorded between 18,000 and 29,000 violent deaths during the first year of occupation. The survey was not focused on deaths, but asked about them over the course of lengthy interviews that focused on access to services. While this was more than twice the rate recorded by IBC at the time, Pederson expressed concern for the completeness and quality of the data in a newspaper interview last year. The surveys reported in The Lancet were focused solely on recording deaths and count about two and a half times as many excess deaths from all causes over the same period. ..."

"In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000. That these two surveys were carried out in different locations and two years apart from each other yet yielded results that were very similar to each other, is strong validation of both surveys. ..."

"In the news media coverage of the 2004 survey report, much was made of the wide confidence intervals, which is a statistical technique that was frequently misunderstood. With the much larger sample of the 2006 survey, the confidence intervals are narrowed significantly. ..."

Here is a quote below from the main article for the 2006 Lancet study:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

"Information on deaths from 1,849 households containing 12,801 persons was collected. This survey followed a similar but smaller survey conducted in Iraq in 2004. Both surveys used standard methods for estimating deaths in conflict situations, using population-based methods."

A 2004 Lancet study quote below:

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

"All 33 randomly selected locations were visited and 988 households were chosen between Sept 8 and 20, 2004. These households contained 7868 residents on the date of interview."

So you can see the increase in sample size from 2004 to 2006. --Timeshifter 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Copying the questions here, because the discussion would be barely readable otherwise.

• The validity of the Lancet study is very important, since you are quoting it as the source for the assertion that passive sureveillance techniques are out by 5x. There are many good arguments why 655,000 may not be a reasonable estimate either, so we either take them both out, or leave them both in with explanations in the footnotes.
  • They only state what is scientific consensus. Such claims if incorrect would be caught in peer review process (hopefully) or later. As far as I know nobody ever questioned this one.
• Passive surveillance picked up most deaths in Bosnia - who is to say they aren't being picked up here?
  • No it did not. It picked about 30-40%, "with huge support for surveillance activities from the UN" and in much smaller and much better developed country . Let's add "in Saddam’s last year of his reign, only about one-third of all deaths were captured at morgues and hospitals through the official government surveillance network. So, when things were good, if only a third of deaths were captured, what do you think it’s like now?" (the same source) to that, and there's no way to believe such rates would be in Iraq.
• It is not factually incorrect to say that the civilian casualty toll is somewhere between 50,000 and 665,000.
  • It is grossly factually incorrect. The lower bound by body count x5 is 250,000. The 95% CI of Lancet study is 392,979 to 942,636. So 250,000 to 942,636 seems like a reasonable range. If Lancet study is right, your range has 50% change of being missed. It also includes a lot of impossible figures (even if Iraq had Bosnian rates).
• Personally I don't think 50,000 is anything like an accurate count, but it seems to most observers that the real death toll is certainly much closer to the bottom range of the C.I. for the Lancet study than the stated 655,000, so - as you yourself say - do you want to include a number knowing it can be easily misleading? Cripipper 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Lancet study (392,979 to 942,636) is trying to estimate total number of casualties. It might be seriously flawed (many studies are), but it uses widely accepted methodology, and seems to have support of at least some people with relevant expertise. Official body count is not an estimate of total number of casualties. You won't find a single person with revelant expertise who claims so. It is known to be far below the right number. By using 5%-20% numbers (from various wars), the estimate extrapolated from it is 250,000-1,000,000. Using Bosnian 30-40% figure, which would be beyond reasonable optimism, we get estimates of 125,000-167,000. These numbers are estimates of total number of deaths. 50,000 is not one. If body count is given together with a short explanation and x5 figure, it wouldn't be that misleading. Without any - it's almost like we're purposedly trying to confuse the reader. Taw 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

October 2005. Car bomb incident with suspected Americans

Two Americans disguised in Arab dress were caught as they tried to detonate a booby-trapped car in the al-Ghazaliyah residential neighborhood in western Baghdad. The men appeared suspicious and local residents apprehended the men as they left their Caprice car. The residents discovered that the two were Americans and called the police. Allied military authorities arrived at approximately the same time as the police and removed the two men before they could be questioned. (Free Market News, October 14, 2005 FreeMarketNew.com, www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1326 last visited 10/22/06.)

The above paragraph has been deleted from the article by Nwe. Nwe wrote this edit comment: "this incident does not deserve a mention, let alone a paragraph, in such a wide-ranging article. Put it somewhere more specific if you want to." I thought I would put the paragraph here for possible discussion. And also for archiving in case there is another wikipedia page it belongs on. I don't know who posted this originally. --Timeshifter 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1326

If there can be more then just one media source then the inclusion I wouldn't mind, but the media we all know unless posted by more then one and contains roughly the same content cannot really be used as a source Drew1369 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I dispute your contention that a contribution to WP cannot be based on a single RS alone. That is not what the rules say. A significant portion of WP should be deleted immediately if your contention were correct. As far as a single incident not being significant enough, I think if the US and UK occupation forces are setting off car bombs in Iraq it is quite significant. Also, since these two incidents were caught in a chaotic country like Iraq, it may be likely that there have been many more incidents that were not intercepted. Do you think if, say for purposes of illustration only, Russian agents were caught setting car bombs in Iraq it would be worthy of mention? I do. I would like to invite responses and comments. --NYCJosh 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article just doesn't pass the smell test. One has to use common sense too. If it is true then it definitely belongs in the Iraq War page. Even its own wikipedia page. But I have found nothing else verifying it. It all goes back to one source. This is from the article:

"Realityzone.com has pointed out that since the source is a Russian news agency, it is possible the above 'may be disinformation.' Below is a U.S. press release which apparently refers to the incident. The original Mirror story - and reader commentary - may be seen here: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/66519 ..."

Even if the article is true about people being observed in Arab dress, how do they know they were Americans? Who said that? There has been a lot of disinformation from all sides. "Trust no one" :)

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/66519 This page is weird:

Iraqis apprehend two Americans disguised as Arabs trying to detonate a car bomb in a residential neighborhood of western Baghdad’s al-Ghazaliyah district on Tuesday.

-

A number of Iraqis apprehended two Americans disguised in Arab dress as they tried to blow up a booby-trapped car in the middle of a residential area in western Baghdad on Tuesday.

-

Residents of western Baghdad’s al-Ghazaliyah district told Quds Press that the people had apprehended the Americans as they left their Caprice car near a residential neighborhood in al-Ghazaliyah on Tuesday afternoon (11 October 2005). Local people found they looked suspicious so they detained the men before they could get away. That was when they discovered that they were Americans and called the Iraqi puppet police.

-

Five minutes after the arrival of the Iraqi puppet police on the scene a large force of US troops showed up and surrounded the area. They put the two Americans in one of their Humvees and drove away at high speed to the astonishment of the residents of the area.

-

Quds Press spoke by telephone with a member of the al-Ghazaliyah puppet police who confirmed the incident, saying that the two men were non-Arab foreigners but declined to be more precise about their nationality.

-

Quds Press pointed out that about a month ago, the Iraqi puppet police in the southern Iraqi city of al-Basrah arrested two Britons whom they accused of attempting to cause an explosion in the city. The Britons were taken into custody by the Iraqi puppet police only to be broken out of prison by an assault of British occupation troops. That incident has created a tense relationship between the British and the local puppet authorities in al-Basrah, Quds Press noted.

Quds Day is an annual event in many Islamic nations to call for the end of the occupation of Jerusalem. Just so you know the bias of that article. Even that article says, "Quds Press spoke by telephone with a member of the al-Ghazaliyah puppet police who confirmed the incident, saying that the two men were non-Arab foreigners but declined to be more precise about their nationality." --Timeshifter 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the Arab press, but a quick google search reveals that the London-based Quds Press reports are carried by the US gov't Radio Free Europe news http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2006/01/230106.asp (see heading "Son of Aide to Iraqi Defense Minister Kidnapped"), and by the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2986810.stm. When Quds Press journalists are detained, the Committee to Protect Journalists protests and issues press releases, http://www.cpj.org/attacks95/attlist95.middle.html . So if Quds Press is reliable enough for the US gov't's propaganda arm and for the BBC, it should be reliable enough for WP, particularly if our WP piece clearly cites Quds Press as the source. (I am sure if I spent 5 minutes more looking I could find additional major reputable news agencies that carried Quds Press reports). It is difficult to get Western reporters to cover war-torn Iraq (outside of the Green Zone, military bases, US military units, and the like) like a Western news outfit in a major US or European city. So the fact that this story was not reported by CBS or the like should come as no surprise. We should also add the US gov't denial of the story. --NYCJosh 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because various news services link to articles does not mean that the articles are accurate. Large news services often link to all kinds of other news organizations and their articles. It is not an endorsement. I still can't find anything else on this specific event. So it doesn't belong on the Iraq War page. Maybe some other wikipedia page. The Iraq War page covers so much stuff that most stuff gets a sentence, and then a wikilink to more info. I don't think this event deserves even a sentence at this point. If we could find something else on it, then it merits a serious mention on the Iraq War page. Misplaced Pages demands verifiability. --Timeshifter 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was responding the argument that Quds Press is not an RS per WP policy. WP demands a RS not "verifiablity" or "truth" as those terms are subject to various interprations (please see WP rules on RS). The relevance and importance of the article itself is another matter. Please see my Nov. 15 post a few paragraphs up on that issue.--NYCJosh 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Any other objections?--NYCJosh 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that should make us wary about accepting just any matter mentioned in a news article about events in Iraq, even one widely reported: Check out this blog article... http://floppingaces2.blogspot.com/ It describes -- goes into some depth , in fact -- a suspicious source that a number of newspapers have used without bothering to fact check on their own... and why newsmen relying on certain sources like this is actually a very bad idea, but such news reporting happens that way anyway. --Nomad Of Norad 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Wrong blog page. The one you should be reading is this one: http://floppingaces2.blogspot.com/2006/11/getting-news-from-enemy.html My bad! --Nomad Of Norad

In some of his other posts, the author for that blog advocates killing US politicians he's unfond of and baits "lieberals". He's not an objective source. You might just directly cite a post from Free Republic and be done with it - it has the same validity and usefulness.

1. The blog piece assumes that because the U.S. military confirms that insurgents destroyed 1 target instead of the four targets reported by Associated Press, the Associated Press is making stuff up. That is just faulty reasoning, given that the US military does not even deny the other targets, just will not confirm them. The blog also seems to exhibit a certain bias in claiming that the Iraqi police official cited is an "enemy." Presumably, an Iraqi can only be anything other than an enemy when he is saying things favorable to perceived U.S. interests. I note that the right-wing blog you cite is not notable (not RS per WP rules) and does not specifically address the incident at hand. 2. Please read WP rules on reliable sources. We at WP are not in a position to verify the accuracy of sources and it is not our job to determine "truth". We compile the encyclopedia based on published reports that appear in at least one reliable source. If there are contradictory reliable sources on the same event, as happens often for a complex or controversial event, we cite both and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.--NYCJosh 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can agree with you there... but you are talking about a single car bomb in the entire war. Just because someone claimed that it was two americans and a news articule said it was two americans? Maybe if you put in two white guys were spotted and whisked away I can go with that, but really you need to justify why this small part of a big war needs to be in this articule Drew1369 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Part of War on Terrorism"

I expected the footnote to be a discussion of the controversy over whether or not Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism; instead its a speech by Bush where he says Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. I don't see why, for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, Bush should be allowed to define what the Iraq War is part of. If he gave a speech saying it was part of the Peloponnesian War, would Misplaced Pages be bound by this? If the Mujahideen say its just an extension of the Crusades, that shouldn't go in the infobox either. Basically, one of the combattant's definition of where a conflict fits into a larger struggle is not neutral as far as an encyclopedia is concerned.

In any case, as placing Iraq as part of the War on Terror is obviously a controversial subject, I think that it is something that should be done in the article text in an in-depth way that attributes multiple perspectives to their respective proponents rather than in a template which is better suited only for less disputed facts. savidan 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I had started an entire section of the impact of the iraq war on the war on terrorism, but someone deleted it. I restored it. The discussion of whether Iraq is part of that war would logically go here.csloat 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems appropriate. savidan 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed, it was discussed nonstop from April to July. It was eventually decided that the USA can indeed say what is a part of a campaign it creates. They made their War on Terror, they can therefore begin things under it, much like they began the Marshall plan and could include things under it. But this fact was but one issue, another was the potential for people to become confused when they see it stated as part of the War on Terror. Thus we agreed to put it in quotes, to show it to be a proper noun (ie a name, not a description), as well as linked to the relating article in order to allow people to find out more information. Further, we labeled it the "US War on Terror" to be even more specific that it is the US led campaign for which it is a part. It is a settled issue, and we reached a consensus that this was the way to present it. People compromised, and you coming in here and attempting to overule the countless people that put time into this over the summer is a bit unnerving. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to respect the points brought up in that discussion, but the fact remains that the discussion only really came to the conclusion that the U.S. government has consistently referred to the war (in the war resolution, etc.) as part of the War on Terror. If the U.S. government were the only combattant, or if Misplaced Pages was supposed to be written from their point of view, this would not be a problem. As you can see in that infobox itself, the Iraq War has many combattants, and there was no evidence presented in that discussion that any of the combattants on the left side of the infobox (i.e. the Iraqi Forces, the insurgents, the Mahdi Army, etc.) consider it part of the W.O.T. It is also possibly dubious that many of the multinational forces in Iraq do not regard the conflict as part of the W.O.T. When infoboxes places battles inside of wars that's relatively non-controversial because the combattants have declared war on each other etc. (e.g. WWII). If 40 years from now, historians generally regard the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror that would be fine too. However, since this is an ongoing conflict, it is inappropriate for us to choose one of the combattants.

If people want to put this article in the WOT category, include the WOT template, etc. that's fine. However, I think it is not suitable for the infobox. Instead, as csloat mentioned above, this is a matter that can and should be discussed in the article text. As mentioned in the past discussion Operation Enduring Freedom etc. are articles about specific operations, and its fine for them to be included as "part of the WOT." However, this article is titled "Iraq War" which is not the name of an official WOT campaign. It's an article about a war.

I'm not entirely sure where the clear cut consensus that you're referring to is. The Poll looks like it came out 15-11 against including it (and that includes some for voters who were labelled sock-puppets for voted for solutions different from the way the article appears now—e.g. "Part of the WOT 'series." That's certainly not a consensus so water tight as to justify shutting off any later discussion. savidan 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A consensus isnt the result of a poll, its an agreement that is reached by opposing sides that usually entails a compromise of sorts. The actual posting of the consensus us here, , ignore the first two posts as they appear to have been added later and seem irrelevent. A consensus isnt water tight enough to shut off all later discussion, and I dont intend to use it in this way. But a consensus isnt something that should be ignored, either. You seem to be under the assumption that the "War on Terror" is a war, but as it is defined here it is a campaign, much like the Marshall Plan. While its a matter of debate whether something can be part of a war or conflict, its not a debatable point whether something is or is not a part of a government led campaign. The United States began both the campaign and the Iraq war under it, others joined in the coalition of the willing who agreed to fight with the United States for the same goals. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly that the WOT is a campaign. If the title of this article were "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then I would support calling it part of that campaign in the template. However, the Iraq War is broader than OIF. While the US may have started the Iraq War, it's only leading the MNF, which is only one of the combattants in the Iraq War. savidan 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If your count is accurate, the consensus seems to be against including it and it should not be included until a future consensus is reached. As I stated above, I think this is a potentially endless argument of little consequence, and I prefer to treat the actual issues in the article text (as I have attempted to do). I am going to go ahead and remove it from the infobox, but I don't plan on getting into revert wars over this issue -- if people cannot respect consensus they should state their reasons why and it should be discussed openly. csloat 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you have been around Misplaced Pages for quite a while. You know better than to think a poll equals a consensus. Consensus is reached through discussion, and nowhere have I said that discussion should not happen. What I have said is that previous discussion should not be ignored when convenient to you. Unless some new ideas are brought up, its the same old same old that has already been talked about. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've brought up a whole handful of points that have nothing to do with the previous discussion. savidan 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Like what? Your point that Bush shouldnt be able to define what is in the WoT any more than Mujihadeen saying its the crusades, or label it incorrectly as another peloponesian war? These have already been raised and shot down because of their innacuracy as an analogy. Bush cant say that the Iraq War is part of the Cold War, for instance, because this is not something he has the ability to define. The Cold War was a geopolitical conflict between the USSR and USA, it wasnt a campaign led by the United States. The War on Terror, on the other hand, is a campaign, not a war. I have linked to the authorization of war already, and we have infact talked about this.

No. I agree that these various operations are part of the WOT. However, the scope of this article is and must be broader. To conflate the entirity of the Iraq War with a US operation is horribly misleading and conflate the US pov with npov. savidan 02:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You then raised the point that Al Qaeda doesnt call it the War on Terror. And thats true, they dont. They would call the conflict something like the war against infidels. But the simple fact is that they didnt begin the Iraq War, the United States and its allies did. And when they began the war, it was under the specific, defined campaign, named the "War on Terror." The definition of this is that it is a campaign being waged against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror.

Whether or not it was begun as a part of this specific "War on Terror" campaign is not debatable. I provided you with a conclusive and definitive source which settles that aspect. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the party that started the war was given the universal naming rights, it wouldn't be called World War II. savidan 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I once again think you have confused the rights to naming a war, which does not lie with the starting party, and the issue of whether something began under a campaign or not. Saying its part of the "US War on Terror" campaign isnt a description, its a statement of a concrete fact. And while the Nazis ultimately did not get to name the holocaust, we nonetheless recognize it to be part of a Nazi Germany led campaign, ie the "Final Solution." Their killing wasnt done at random, it was part of a program they conceived. When we recognize the true scope of this campaign, we get an accurate picture of what they were doing that would not be acheived if we ignored the fact that they carried it out under a campaign against minorities. Likewise, the United States began this campaign, maybe in 50 years it will be called the second holocaust, but regardless of what it is called, the things carried out under it will be recognized as such. The country carrying out the program/campaign does indeed have the ability to state what is carried out under it. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that US operations, like Operation Iraqi Freedom, are part of the WoT is acceptable. To say that the entirity of the Iraq War is part of the WoT is POV. savidan 03:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As the Iraq War was begun under the campaign, it is a part of it. Everything done in the Iraq War itself is not done under the campaign, any more than everything done in the battle of El Alamein was done under the allied North African Campaign. The things the Axis powers did were certainly not a part of that campaign, but this does not mean that the battle itself was not waged as a part of the campaign. Likewise, things that Al Qaeda does in Iraq isnt going to be in the campaign, but that does not stop the war itself from being a part of the campaign. The sort of absolute definition you are trying to get to would make nothing definable as a part of a campaign, not even the things such as OIF as you suggest. Because every bullet fired by an opposing army is being fired for drastically different reasons than that of the WoT. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious to you at this point that we've diverged from what the sources that you're providing to call this part of the WoT say. Your previous post is only one way of understanding the Iraq War, and far from the definitive, undebatable facts that you started out by claiming. To say that the US started a campaign as part of the WoT and thus everything happening in the Iraq War now is part of the WoT requires assumptions; assumptions which our NPOV policy does not permit us to take. Simply put, we can't define an ongoing conflict as part of a delcared campaign. This is quite different from using a term for a past conflict which has been accepted by historical consensus, or articles who are limited to the same scope at which the WoT can be reliably defined. savidan 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an undebatable fact that it was begun under the War on Terror campaign. Please quote me where I backed off this. Once again, I really dont understand how you can beleive what you are saying. There is never going to be an occasion where there are two opposing sides who are fighting under the same campaign, but this is the sort of thing you are looking for - and you have assumed the position that only when both sides are fighting the same campaign can a war, battle, or conflict be a part of it. This is inherently flawed idea that you are perpetuating. Further, your attempt to portray my stating this as an impossibility as me somehow backing off my statement that it is a settled, undebatable issue is certainly not being done with intellectual honesty. If you do not beleive that the Iraq War was authorized under the war on terror and choose to beleive it to be debatable despite it being certified already via official links, you have failed with flying colors to provide new arguments. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all the replies in the below RFC answer this. To say that one combattants name for an ongoing conflict is not a neutral name for that conflict, does not forclose the possibility of ever naming any conflict. savidan 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I will point to my latest response in RfC. If we cannot get past the differences between a campaign and a conflict, we cannot get anywhere in this discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC

• Quite simply, George W. Bush is not a reliable source in re what is and is not part of the "war on terror". He is a reliable source for saying that some people (i.e., the Bush Administration) claim that it is/was part of the "war on terror", but not evidence that it is, objectively, part of that war. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to not understand that the "War on Terror" is a US led campaign, and not actually a war. Therefore the US government is a reliable source for stating whether something is a part of their campaign. If you dont think its good enough coming from Bush, look at the congressional authorization of war which does so to persecute the war on terrorism ~Rangeley (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, the US may consider its campaign to be part of the WOT, but that is a very simplistic view of what is happening in Iraq—i.e. the "War" that this article is talking about. savidan 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's fine within the text to discuss the very notable opinion that the Iraq war is part of the War on Terror-- but this is one POV, not the only POV. To have a Misplaced Pages infobox espouse that POV would violate NPOV. --Alecmconroy 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it is a point of view that it was authorized under the "WoT" campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The US operations were authorized under the "WoT" campaign. It's a question of the scope of the article. Refer to the list of combattants in the infobox. We can't conflate the perspective of one of those parties with the definition of the War as a whole. "Iraq War" is the title of this article and that is not the term used by the US government. They call it Operation Iraqi Freedom, etc. In the text of the article, we don't pretend that's a neutral name for the conflict. We say that its known by that name by the US participants. If OIF is a subset of the WoT, theres no reason why WoT should be any more neutral. savidan 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It violates NPOV because most readers will assume that the words "Part of the War on Terror" mean the Iraq War is part of a war against terrorism. Readers won't assume the words "Part of the War on Terror" really mean "George Bush, Congressional Leaders, and many others say this is part of multi-regional military campaign which goes by the moniker 'War of the Terror' but which may or may not actually be a war against terror".

We could have a whole page about whether the Iraq War should be regarded as part of the "War on Terror". Some people feel strongly that it should be regarded as part of the War on Terror-- that is their POV. Some other people feel that Iraq war should not be referred to as part of the "War on Terror" and if you ask they they will say "Iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with a war on terror". Two different opinions-- we can't elevate one POV to special status in the infobox, but not mention the other POV at all in the infobox. --Alecmconroy 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, that is an astute point. It really presented us with a unique issue, we had the factual information that it was part of the so called "War on Terror," and we were therefore compelled to state it as such, but the issue arose of how to present this in the least misleading way. We ultimately decided that by putting it in quotes and stating it as specifically the "US" WoT, as well as linking to the actual page where the campaign is described in depth, it met both needs in the most efficient way. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The most efficient way to communicate complex and controversial issues is in the article text, not in the infobox with only a handful of words. savidan 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not the most efficient way to present facts. Again, the need to prevent people from getting the wrong impression is a factor in our decisions, but it cannot be a factor that trumps the need to present facts as such. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact you seem most interested in presenting is what the US Congress authorized. They really only have jurisdiction over the US forces in this conflict and therefore are not a neutral source for the definition of a conflict as a whole. savidan 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand how you can beleive this. When the Nazi government of Germany made agreements with other nations in its alliances to have Jews shipped to Germany to be killed, this was still a part of the Holocaust and the nazis "final solution" campaign of genocide. Likewise, when nations agree to contribute forces to the cause, they are doing just that, contributing to the cause. Nations serving with the coalition are cooperating with the American campaign, not fighting against it, and therefore they too are a part of the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if we give you that the coalition nations are part of WoT, which is not supported by any source you have yet provided, that does not speak for all the combattants in this conflict. savidan 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, what you are looking for never happens. It is inherently impossible for all sides to be fighting under the same campaign. The campaign is being waged against those said to be terrorists and state sponsors of terror, therefore when these parties return fire they clearly are not doing so to fight those seen by the USA as terrorists or state sponsors of terror. The North African campaign against Nazis was obviously not going to have both sides fighting for the goal of the campaign, there is going to be one side that is waging the campaign and the other which is the target of it. Its no different here. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking back on this thing from a decade or so, its quite possible that historians and the general public will come to a consensus on what it was part of. For example, during the Vietnam War there migth have been disagreement over what the war was part of, but now its relatively neutral to call it part of the Cold War. However, to universalize the perspective of one participant in an ongoing conflict is quite a different matter. savidan 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I feel as though I am talking to myself here. The "War on Terror" is not a war, its not a conflict. Its a campaign. This is a key to the entire issue, but if we cant get passed this discussion is going to get nowhere. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The WoT is a US(/allies) Campaign. The US(/allies) are participants in the Iraq War. From their perspective, the Iraq War is part of the WoT. It does not follow from this that Iraq is part of the War on Terror from a universal, neutral perspective. I think that we should let others weigh in on this discussion. savidan 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not a matter of oppinion whether something is being carried out under a calculated campaign or not. It either is being carried out under a calculated campaign, or it isnt. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is an opinion. There's no rule that a country can only engage in one campaign at a time. Maybe it's a separate campaign. --Alecmconroy

Interesting point, but noone is saying that a country cannot engage in more than one campaign at a time. They can. But my point has consistently been that the Iraq war was authorized specifically under this campaign. Read the authorization of war, its been linked to by me several times in this discussion alone, as well as on the War on Terror page itself. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The POV that the two wars are separate

So, Rangeley, looking over the arguments you've made, I think part of the problem we're having is that you're assuming as fact the idea that there is one war going on, and then you are arguing that it's acceptable to refer to that war by a POV name, because it's just a name. And yes, there is a certain logic to your claim that "War of Terror" is just a name, and that the Iraq war should be regarded as a part of that conflict, even if many thing it's not a perfect accurate name, since it may or may not be an actual war on terrorists. A case could be made that a name is just a name, and our use of it doesn't imply that Misplaced Pages believes it is literallly accurate. Conversely, a case could be made that the name should be NPOV if we're going to use it in, say, an infobox. That's one question.

But a second question, which I think is getting lost, is this: is there really just one war going on? That's certainly Bush and many other's POVs, and history may ultimately agree with them. In the 1930s and 40s, there were two conflicts-- one in Europe, and one in Asia. History ultimately decided, however, that they were best viewed as two fronts of a single war-- World War II. Modernly, people who would dispute that conclusion are a non-notable minority, if they even exist. So Misplaced Pages is free to unequivocally state "The bombing of Pearl Harbor was part of WWII". But history-writing is a rather time-consuming business, and it takes many years before society reaches consensus on these issues.

Right now, with the war or wars still on-going, there are way too many people all across the world who insist on separating the Iraq War from the War on Terror. An August 2006 poll found that 51% of the American population say that the Iraq war is not part of the "War on Terror". I won't bother to look for it, but I think it's obvious that the rest of the world would feel even more strongly that there are two separate wars, not one.

The fact is-- right now there is a highly notable POV which holds that the "Iraq war" and the "War on terror" are two completely different wars. If the poll is to be believed, 51% of the American people disagree that the Iraq War is part of the same war as the Afghanistan War. Meanwhile, another POV say they're just different fronts in one war, the War on Terror-- and supposedly 49% or so believe that. So, there's a valid dispute ongoing, the issue has not been resolved, it is being hotly debated.

Until that changes, it's not Misplaced Pages's place to decide one way or the other, whether it is or it isn't. We can say "Some regard it as part of the WOT", we can say "Bush has said it is part of the war on terror", we can say "Here are the reasons people regard it as part of the war on terror", but we absolutely cannot say "it is part of the war on terror". Nor can we say "it is not part of the war on terrror". --Alecmconroy 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. What I'd really like to see come out of this is some better content explaining the nuances of the situation. Invariably that is the way that Misplaced Pages has been able to make great content about controversial issues, although I have to say that this article is perhaps not there yet. savidan 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...Once again, unless you can understand that the US War on Terror is a campaign, and not a conflict, this discussion is utterly pointless. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea that "War on Terror" is a campaign not a conflict is certainly one POV, but again, it's just one POV. Another POV is that it is a conflict. But you know, whatever "War on Terror" means, 51% say Iraq isn't part of it. Whether it should be a "name", a "campaign", a "conflict" or whatever-- most people disagree with our infobox. --Alecmconroy 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand very strongly that the US views Iraq as part of the WoT campaign. Unless you can understand that that the other combattants have other views, and that the US view is only one view, I agree that this would be pointless; hence the desire to draw in comments from other editors. savidan 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, please read the War on Terrorism article. After you read atleast to intro, maybe you will know what it is. Until you can recognize that it is legitimately a campaign and not a conflict, and until you stop calling that merely a POV and not a fact, we cant get anywhere. Ignoring facts never works in debates. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently, a prominent US government official expressed the view that the legislation that authorized Bush to go to war in Iraq was no longer applicable, because the nature of the war had changed (to sectarian conflict, I believe.) This also should be taken into account. I think that we should be very careful about things like templates, infoboxes, and categories, because things presented in these modes will be seen as factual by the reader, and when there are multiple points of view on an issue, it is better to deal with that issue in the body of the article. --MaplePorter 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Part of U.S. 'War on Terror'" was the agreement

I initially opposed labeling the info-box with the "War on Terror" label. The first label that I removed a couple of times simply said "Part of the War on Terror", then came "Part of Global War on Terror", and "Part of Fight Against Violent Extremism"--all of which were just parroting various lines from US administration speeches.

The "Part of U.S. 'War on Terror'" was the agreement we came to because the edit war was ongoing (of which I was part) and it seemed a good compromise at the time. The main reason I agreed to this label had to do with the label specifying:

• it was the U.S. who was calling this the war on terror
• it was labeled as part of a greater campaign
• war on terror was listed in quotes to notify people of its rhetorical basis
• the U.S. administration(lead actor) and the U.S. population really does believe(or used to) that this is part of the war on terror

Personally, I think the current U.S. administration is a bunch of knuckleheads who couldn't fight out of a wet paper bag (i just love that expression). But that doesn't matter. What does matter is what label best expresses how this war fits into the overall history of the region. And as distasteful as it is to me personally, the rationale for invading Iraq was based on and supported by language stating the Iraq War was part of a war on terrorism. Polls at the time supported invading Iraq for just that reason--70% of the US population believed Hussein had something to do with 9-11. When the US Congress voted on the authorization, Rangeley is right much of the language talked about the war on terrorism and the vote was something like 75-25.

I think it is important to include this label as part of the history of the Iraq war, so that the people can look back and say what the hell were they thinking--just as I look back at Vietnam and think "why on earth did anyone care about a conflict in this tiny little country and why did 58,000 Americans die there?" At the time, the reasons were the domino theory, fear of communism, etc--which were all crap. But at the time, everyone believed that those were important reasons and that Vietnam had to be defended.

The same should be true of the Iraq War. Especially now as the conflict seems to move into a civil war phase. I think it is important to list the "war on terror" rationale so people can understand why exactly the U.S. got into this mess. Savidan is right current polls do show Americans no longer think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror. But the American people shouldn't get off so easy, just because they change their mind when the fight isn't going so well--it is important for history to record why the American people supported this war that is "part of the US 'war on terror'." Publicus 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day, 51% of the US population say the sentence "Iraq is part of the US War on Terror" is false. NPOV will not let us state as fact something that so many people disagree with. --Alecmconroy 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate of whether the Iraq war is part of the struggle against terrorists is a totally seperate argument to this. This is whether the Iraq War is part of the "US War on Terror" campaign, which it obviously is. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not obvious. Every day you can turn on the tv and hear people say "I support the War on Terror, but I do not support the Iraq War". If it were obvious that the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror, nobody could say things like that. --Alecmconroy 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is not the same issue they are talking about. When you hear those people on TV saying its not part of the War on Terrorism, they are saying that they do not beleive it to be in the wider conflict. This is a hopeless issue to discuss here, we would never be able to agree whether it is a part of a conflict or not because it is so contentious and so polarized. That isnt what this is about though, because the "War on Terrorism" that is being linked to is the campaign, not an actual conflict. This is where a lot of people got hung up last time, and it took months to get past. I hope the learning curve this time isnt going to take as long. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if the polls showed near 100% support for the idea that "Iraq is part of the 'War on Terror'", then I'd be happy to include it, even if evidence showed that the actually issue of terrorism may have been unrelated. But 51% of the US population says "Iraq is not part of the 'War on Terror'". Any way you slice it, if the people don't agree with a statement, we can't present that statement as fact.

Now, you're arguing: "No, no-- they really DO think it's part of the War on Terror-- they all just misspoke when they said it wasn't part of the War on Terror. What everyone means to say is 'It is part of the War on Terror. It just isn't part of a war against terrorism.". But we have to look at what people actually say-- not decide what they logically should mean when they say things. --Alecmconroy 00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You know that you have a way of mirepresenting what is being said. Allow me to explain with a sort of example. There was a campaign recently led by LBJ called the "War on Poverty," which had a stated purpose of lowering poverty rates. Lets say under this campaign, LBJ lowered taxes on lower income families. There wouldnt be a debate whether this action was carried out under his campaign. Do you understand this? It would have been under his campaign for sure. But lets say the take a poll, people say they dont think it was part of the war on poverty by a 70-30 percent margin. What they are saying could be several different things, that it wasnt done to fight poverty in reality, that it doesnt lower poverty, that there were ulterior motives. But what they are not saying is that it was not part of LBJ's campaign. Before I get any farther, I have to ask if this made sense to you. There is the issue of whether something is in a campaign - thats what we are talking about here - and the issue of whether it in all actuality is actually helping to accomplish something, which we are not talking about here. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Publicus, I know that we're all probably from the US, so sometimes that makes the acknowledgement of non-US points-of-view difficult. However, even if every single person in the US thought Iraq was part of the WoT that still would not make it a neutral description. "Savidan is right current polls do show Americans no longer think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror"? That is not my argument! I am arguing that the Iraq War has many participants who view it as part of entirely different struggles (to the US, a campaign; to the Mujahideen, perhaps as part of a jihad) and that that is something that needs to be addressed in the article text. NPOV doesn't just mean mixing the US left with the US right; you have to step back and look at it from a globally neutral point of view. savidan 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, we are not trying to describe anything. This isnt trying to describe the war in Iraq as against terrorists. It is merely stating the fact that the Iraq War was begun under a wider campaign being waged by the USA and willing allies. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, sorry if I misquoted you. I wasn't saying that was your argument I was just agreeing that today's polls to show a different level of support.Publicus 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's beside the point because what the label "part of US war on terror" is referring to is a campaign. The Iraq War can be many different things to the different actors, but the primary actor in this case--the U.S.--used the "war on terror" language to label this conflict. The reason I changed my mind had to do with the identification of the "war on terror" label with the U.S. instead of the general label "war on terror" which made it seem as if everyone thought the Iraq war was part of the war on terror.Publicus 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting debate, but let me say as someone who typically dwells elsewhere at wiki, I have to say this debate is steering off-course a fair bit. My opinion on "war on terror"? Bush and company falsely linked Iraq to that over-arching "campaign", I think that will be the general historical consensus - it seems to be one now. But in terms of what the US policy on this, there can be NO QUESTION that Iraq forms, for America and her allies there, part of the "War on Terror." And as it is noted, that should be how it is properly addressed - as the allies view this as part of the over-arching campaign.

Whether the public agrees or disagrees is beside the point. The crucial point is NOT whether the Iraq conflict is seen as part of the War on Terror - it is whether it is seen as a conflict on to its own, which is not quite the same thing as asking whether it is or is not part of the War on Terror. I would think that the general consensus is that this war, whatever its justification, is perceived as a conflict born out of the White House's opportunism, and mostly as a war of CHOICE, rhetorically linked to other acts but in fact a separate conflict. Obviously, this is no simple matter to resolve but that is not the purpose of wikipedia - we note the controversy, state the sides, not pick a side or offer a resolution or consensus until one has already been reached.

What the page does in a) stating the justifaction by the WHite House for this and b) stating the objections and widely held views on what really the war is suffices to bring this into NPOV land. Because in the end there is no way to resolve if the conflict is "really" part of the war on terror - the battle is not done and what may prove to have been a thin link now may turn out to be a strong link down the road, if Iraq indeed becomes a central player in world-wide terror.

But that is all down the road. What we have now is "War on Terror" and "Iraq War" or what have you. Maybe this will be seen as "Bush's War" by the future or an opening part of "The Sunni/Shia War of the Middle East." All we can do is fairly describe what the conflict is called by various parties. Canada Jack 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This debate, as far as I can tell, is not over whether the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism, but whether Misplaced Pages's entry for the Iraq War should claim that it is. Adding quotation marks doesn't change the fact that most congressional Democrats believe Iraq is a distraction, not a part of, the war on terror, or War On Terrorism, or U.S. "War on Terrorism", or whatever the hell you wanna call it. Does the presidency entitle one to a monopoly over the English language? Removing the controversial language (clearly placed at the top of the page to be just that) does not force the reader to believe Iraq is not part of the War on Terror while keeping it there forces readers to accept that it is. The compromise language is quite silly. People are smart enough to know what the War on terrorism is and declaring it a U.S. war and putting it in quotations doesn't change the subject.

What makes this debate so utterly maddening is that nothing is lost by removing the subtitle. If the page said "Iraq War: Not a part of the war on terror" people would rightly be angered. A purportedly neutral site would be forcing a viewpoint on readers who disagree. This page is doing just that right now. That wording is only there to drive home someone's opinion with which others may strongly disagree. Why is it important that it be there when it's a point of strong contention? Wgbc2032 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire analogy

Okay, Rangeley, I do understand the argument you making-- I just disagree with it. Let me explain by way of anology. Suppose we are having a debate about the following sentence:

France was part of the Holy Roman Empire.

Now, there are two main objections to this sentence:

Objection 1. "But 'Holy Roman Empire' isn't a neutral terminology!"

The first objection you might hear is that Holy Roman Empire is a non-neutral name. Someone could argue that we shouldn't call it the "Holy Roman Empire" because it implies that the empire is holy and that the empire is Roman-- neither of which are true. But you argue that it's just a name, and a name doesn't have to be neutral. When saying "France was part of the Holy Roman Empire", you're not trying to make a statement about the sanctity of the empire. Ultimately, your argument would win out-- we have no trouble referring to the empire in question as the "Holy Roman Empire"-- but I suspect if Misplaced Pages were being written in 800 AD, there would be more debate about this point.

Objection 2. "But France wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire!"

A second objection, however, is that most of France wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire. This has nothing to do with the name "Holy Roman", it is simply a fact that France as a whole was not part of the Holy Roman Empire. As such, many people regard the sentence "France was part of the Holy Roman Empire" to be false. Other people, however, would say that since some regions of France were in the Holy Roman Empire, "France was part of the Holy Roman Empire" is true. We therefore can't present either viewpoint as fact.

Clear? I get your rebuttal to Objection #1, and if that were the only objection, I might be inclined to be okay with the infobox. But it is not the only objection. There is a valid POV which says the Iraq War is part of a totally separate campaign, which is happening at the same time as the "War on Terror campaign", but which is completely distinct and unrelated to it-- part of a completely different military operation, which has different military goals, a different region, a different motivation, and different combatants.

Now, I'm not saying that's a correct POV-- but it is a notable one. --Alecmconroy 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not choose POV's, we merely deal with verifiable information. Its verifiable that the Iraq war was authorized under this specific campaign, as it uses that language. Its a possibility that the "War on Terror" campaign itself has ulterior motives other than that of purely fighting terror, but this holds no bearing on whether the Iraq war was begun under it.

I can find an even better sort of thing that is more clear cut than what you presented, lets say Tyco toys has a ball which is colorless. They add a blue dot to it, and then cover the rest with red paint. Were someone to say that the ball is blue, that would be false. Just because one part is blue, it doesnt mean that the ball itself is blue.

But that isnt what is going on here. The Iraq War is not a part of the War on Terror because a portion of it is, but instead because the war was begun under a calculated campaign. I suppose a sort of analogy keeping with the ball theme would be that it was made by Tyco as a "Cool 2000" series ball. Lets say this ball was really notable and got an article here. We would say it was made as a "Cool 2000" series ball, even if it isnt really cool or made in 2000. Again, this is entering into the realm of objection 1 when it comes down to it, its just that you have to dig to the real reasons behind the objection when it comes down to it.

Ultimately whether it is or is not part of the "Cool 2000" series could be decided with records provided by Tyco about that specific ball and verifiable information in that way. In the case of the Iraq war, the verifiable information is the authorization of war. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly live with the statment "According to so-and-so, Iraq is part of the War on Terror". But saying "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" presents too many problems. Beyond that, I think we're deadlocked. I think I do understand your point, but I think it's outweighed by the need to talk neutrally about a conflict that is, undoubtedly, one of the top-ten most controversial issues in the world today. This is definitely one of those times to err on the side of neutral point of view and choose the verbose but NPOV sentence over the phrase which is brief but easily misinterpreted. --Alecmconroy 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a point of view, and if you beleive it is than you do not understand my point. My point is that it is a verifiable fact, from a primary source that it was authorized as a part of the campaign. As such, we are bound as an encyclopedia to present it in this manner. I completely agree that stating it in the form of 'The Iraq War is part of the War on Terror' is not clear enough, as it can mean several different things. So we must handle it in the way that other possibly misleading statements are handled. First, we link to the article which provides further information on it. The introductory paragraph explains exactly what the "War on Terrorism" is, and I have no doubt that reading it could have aided this discussion significantly. In addition to making that further information available through linking, quotations were put around "War on Terrorism" to make it clear that it was the name of something, ie a proper noun and not a description. We went even further in the name of compromise, and put "US" before the "War on Terrorism" therefore making it clear what nations campaign it was. It was my original beleif, which I still hold weight in, that controversial facts deserve the exact same treatment as uncontroversial facts in an encyclopedia. We do not go to these lengths to show that the Cold War is a name and not a description, for instance, or that it was between the USA and the USSR. But I was willing to compromise due to the concerns expressed by people such as yourself on the possibility of it being misleading. I am not, however, going to accept a solution which involves the total removal of facts from their rightful place, and this would be totally going against what Misplaced Pages is meant to be, an encyclopedia that is not beholden to any point of view. We do not hide the circumference of the earth from its infobox just because some people dont beleive the verifiable information that the earth is round. This isnt an encyclopedia for people who dont want to know verifiable information, its for people who do. Therefore we are bound by this and must present it. I think the manner in which was decided in the last consensus takes into consideration concerns while keeping with the component of Misplaced Pages which presents facts. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've exceeded the amount of debate I'd usually have on a point like this, but I feel good about that because can sense that you're a good-faith editor who has a point and is legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia. You're not some POV pusher who just say "Iraq is WOT because I think so". So, I want you to understand that I DO see your point, and if you were a teacher or a book author, I think it would be fine to use "War on Terror" in the way that you are using it, being clear that that you're justing using it as name, not necessarily as an endorsement (or a condemnation) of the views the name implies. And it's not that I disagree that Iraq is part of the War on Terror-- obviously concerns over Terrorism were a huge part of its motivation, obviously it is a result of 9/11, etc. What's more, I think it's obvious that 20 years from now, it's pretty obvious that the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war will be discussed together, inexorably linked by their common timeframes, circumstances, and motivations. The title for the the chapter in that history book written in 2026 will most likely be "The US War on Terror", although the author may state an opinion about whether that name is appropriate.

The problem with us just saying "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" is that it isn't 2026, and people are still debating whether that sentence is true. I'm fine "According to many, it's WOT". I'm fine with "According to Bush or congressional resolution or whatever". But that "According to" is critical.

Put another way: I hear that you've taken safeguard to try to make it clear that "Part of the War on Terror" is just on point of view-- you've added quotes, you've added the word US. I appreciate those safeguards. However, I don't think they're sufficient. I think the reader looking at the sentence in the infobox would still read it as saying that "Part of the WOT" is an undisputed fact, rather than one POV in an active debate. --Alecmconroy 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The huge misunderstanding here remains to be the idea that we are putting this statement because we will recognize them to be part of the same conflict within 20 years or whatever. And further, the idea that this is being put here because it is part of the same conflict at all, or rather that the War on Terrorism is a conflict in our eyes to begin with. A significant group of people beleive it is a conflict, but as far as we are concerned, it is not classified as such. It is a campaign, you could say its a "super operation." In operations there are sub operations, for instance in Operation Summer Rains, which was launched into Gaza this June by Israel, there were sub operations within this, such as Operation Bashan Oaks. It is undeniably a part of the larger Operation, because the Israeli military - the authority on its operations - stated it explicitly as such. A campaign is a super operation in the sense that it encompasses operations within it, much like an operation encompasses sub operations. Again, the authority on these would be the government of the respective country.

If 90% of the world said that they didnt beleive Operation Bashan Oaks to be part of Operation Summer Rains, they would be wrong. This isnt an opinion issue, it just isnt. Its like a President signing a bill, its not a matter of opinion, it either happened or didnt. The Iraq War was begun under the super operation/campaign that has been named the "War on Terror." ~Rangeley (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, if we accept that we're discussing the domain of proper-named military operations-- but I think this misses the forest from the trees.

Let me use another historical analogy. One of the big disputes prior to WWI concerned a region known as Alsace-Lorraine. Germany said it was fundamentally part of Germany. France said it was fundamentally part of France. This was a major controversy. People fought and died over it. Now, suppose it's 1910 and we're trying to decide whether or not to include the sentences "Alsace-Lorraine is part of Germany" in then Encyclopedia.Some editors feel very very strongly it is part of France. Some editors feel very strongly that it is part of Germany. We make a whole section on the debate, and include both points of view.

Now, since it's 1910, Alsace-Lorraine is under the control of Germany. So you come along and say "Well, I looked at a map, and Alsace-Lorraine is part of Germany. It's a fact. So that settles that debate". But this misses the whole point of the debate going on. It's not that you're wrong-- it is, in fact, part of Germany in 1910. But the whole issue is whether the factuality of the map really justifies the sentence "Alsace-Lorraine is part of Germany", given that it's such a hotly-debated question.

You could say "Alsace-Lorraine is part of Germany" just means "Alsace-Lorraine is currently controlled by Germany". But that's not what the rest of the world means when they have drag-out debates about whehter or not Alsace-Lorraine is part of Germany. --Alecmconroy 22:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was controversial, but it would not be incorrect to state that it was part of Germany in 1910. There really wouldnt be a basis for debate about it, at that time Germany not only occupied it but it was officially given to Germany in the treaty which ended the Franco Prussian War. Check out the article for Alsace, it shows it within the map of France. In 1910, you would have seen it superimposed over Germany in this manner.

We could have done that, and better yet other people did do this back then in their encyclopedias or atlases. If you found vintage 1910 map, Alsace and Lorraine would indeed be colored whatever color Germany was, not the color France was.

Beyond this obvious issue, there is the "no, really, its not German, French people live there" sort of debate. That is entering the realm of the "should/should not." Lots of people think it was unwise to go into Iraq, but that doesnt mean we didnt, even if 100% say we shouldnt have. Lots of people think that Iraq shouldnt have been the next stop for the WoT, and even if 100% say it shouldnt have been, it still was. Lots of people in France felt that Alsace Lorraine should not have been handed over to Germany, but it was. Ultimately they fought a war and got it back. In 1930, a map would show it as part of France, because it was. France occupied it, it was officially handed to France in a treaty.

Germany surely did not like it, and felt that they shouldnt have signed the treaty (not just for this), but the fact is they did. That would be the verifiable source, the treaty of versailles. But that doesnt change the fact that a map in 1930 would include it as part of France.

The Iraq War is a part of the War on Terror, our verifiable source is the authorization of war. There is a debate, much like with Alsace Lorraine, about whether it should be, should have been, should continue to be. There is debate, much like Alsace Lorraine, whether it acheived the goals it set out to, whether it was done for the reasons it was stated as being for. But none of these interfere with the representation of fact.

Controversial facts are still facts. You can talk about the controversy, without leaving out that its a fact. Thats what we have to do now, just like they undoubtedly did with Alsace Lorraine in outlets such as Encyclopedia Britannica. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there we go-- that's our difference of opinion there. How do you treat sentences which can be interpreted both larger social controversies AND as literal question of fact from the certain specific but nonstandard point of view. For example:

• "Iraq war is part of War on Terror". If this means a specific military authorization, it's true-- but there's a larger social debate that also uses the same sentence.
• "An embryo is a life". An embroyo is literally alive, so it's true. But there's a larger debate about the personhood of an embroyo that also uses the same sentence.
• "Homosexuality is natural". It does occur among living things, so it's true. But there's a larger debate about the morality of homosexuality that also uses the same sentence.

So, there's your difference of opinion. Even if something's literally true from a certain point of view, the reader will read it as being part of a larger issue, so we should err on the side of neutrality. But, I think this is one of those deadlocked issues where we'll just have to see what others say. --Alecmconroy 08:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we are not dealing with points of view. Scientifically speaking, an Embryo is life. End of story. We can state it that way. If someone says scientifically it is not life, they are wrong, and blatently so. Not only can we, but we do, check out the article, it states it to be a Eukaryote, a scientific classification of life.

The Iraq War is part of the US led campaign, this isnt a point of view. Much like with the article on Eukaryotes, the "War on Terrorism" article explains what it is, a specific campaign, just like they defined it as a specific sort of life. That is something that Encyclopedias do, they dont restrict themselves to language that people will understand without any knowledge, they instead provide further reading where you can acquire this knowledge. Just like dictionaries. Sometimes when I look something up in one, I get a definition that uses another word I dont know. I end up looking that one up too in order to understand the first definition. Same with stuff in my World Book encyclopedia, occasionally I would need to look up a second entry in order to clarify the first. That happens here all the time, and its so much easier here as you can just click the word and go there rather than having to find it yourself. The possible misconceptions that can arise from stating it to be a Eukaryote lead them to link to the article where it describes what it is. There are undoubtedly a range of misconceptions people will have about the "Part of the "US War on Terror"" statement, they might think this is stating it as part of a conflict - such as you did. But just as peoples lack of knowledge on Eukaryote's doesnt keep us from stating something as such, we are nto kept from stating it as such in this case. We provide a link to the article on the War on Terror where you can find out more. It provides a specific definition - the War on Terror as defined here is a campaign, not a conflict.

We never "err on the side of neutrality," we simply go with neutrality, and your constant allegations that I oppose neutrality are persistent and totally incorrect. It is a neutral statement because it is a true statement. When you say A is a letter in the Latin alphabet, its true. When you say A is a letter in the Alphabet, its only true so long as you define Alphabet as the Latin Alphabet. Thats why they provide clarity in the article on A, and state it as part of the specific set of letters. Thats what we are doing here, we are stating it as part of the War on Terrorism, which has a specific definition as a campaign. People might not know this at first glance, but they might think that the Latin Alphabet is only used in Latin at first glance too. But its linked to with the assumption that those seeking further knowledge will have the ability to find it. Thats all we can ask of anyone, that they use the information we provide them. If they choose to disregard this information, disregard the definitions we provide, that is something we cannot help and cannot account for. We are an encyclopedia for people who want to know, not for people who only want to see their views re-enforced, regardless of their factuality. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just a note, one of the downsides of Misplaced Pages is that consensus is not permanent and can change at any time. The last discussion and poll on whether or not Iraq War was part of the "US War on Terrorism" was held back in June. Six months is practically a lifetime here on Misplaced Pages and feelings within the US have changed in regards to it's inclusion. It's also a touch ridiculous to continue to cite that poll as if it were a permanent decision. As such, what harm is there in putting up another poll to see what the current feeling is in relation to whether or not the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism, or more specifically, the US War on Terrorism. Six months of relative "calm" was achieved the last time consensus was sought, perhaps it can be achieved again with a more formal discussion. --Bobblehead 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary or proper for Misplaced Pages to be making judgements of fact by straw poll. We should only be making editorial decisions. savidan 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The poll is only a means of judging where editors are in relation to consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, after all.;) That being said, depending on the results of the poll, they have a tendency of bringing edit wars and content disputes to an end if one side's views are supported by a large percentage of editors.--Bobblehead 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The other problem with polls on wikipedia is who participates at any given time. I was part of the May poll, not the June poll. The May poll was actually about the infobox, the June poll was not. Another poll now might be useful but it's really not important enough to me to have strong feelings either way -- as long as the article itself accurately discusses the real relationship between Iraq and terrorism I think the infobox is secondary (though I do object to it). csloat 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have consistently stated that straw polls are never a consensus, and I have never stated that the June poll was the basis for the consensus. But instead, the discussion which occured actively from April through July finally resulted in a consensus which I beleive you were a part of, Bobblehead. While consensus's can change, I do not want to have to revisit the same issue and waste another 4 months of my time (or anyones, for that matter) merely to cover things that were already talked about with people who didnt want to take the time and read past discussions and see how things settled.

Obviously people can bring up anything they want here, but common sense should be excercised on occasion. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, things weren't "settled" four months ago. csloat 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was part of the June-July discussion, Rangeley, but that still doesn't mean the decision is set in stone. Realistically, the only reason why consensus was even reached was because Zer0faults gave up and agreed to the inclusion of US in the part of and Nescio moved on to fighting over Zarqawi PSYOP program.--Bobblehead 08:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran and Syria as Combatants?

I noticed that Iraq and Syria are listed as combatants. Although there have been reports of limited clandestine involvement by the two states, does that suffice to classify them as combatants. I would argue no. TSO1D 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if there is a reliable source showing them having direct military actions, beyond arms and money. The arms and money trafficking might warrant a section if reliable sources can be used to do this. --Bobblehead 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

added npov tag to crit of u.s. media

with all the citations needed being negative in nature against the u.s. media I added the pov tag, these things needs the citations... I believe, to remove the tag. Drew1369 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems generally OK, it only really needs the citations. To have the NPOV tag as well is a bit excessive, there's no argument that US media coverage has been criticized. JW 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

War on Terror template

I've just added the war on terror template. I ususally edit much less contraversial pages but clearly the article needs the template regardless of anyones views on Iraq conflict. Francium12 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The template's fine. It has information that can be found useful, as long as the Iraq War isn't reduced to part of the war on terror. savidan 23:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting to edd a link

This article Describes what would happen if us Withdraw from iraq. the articl was writen by Seth Wikas (who is a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, focusing on opposition elements to the Syrian regime), and published at omedia, which is a non commercial articles site.

thanks yuval —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuval a (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Didn't want to make a new section or anything, but just telling you guys that the www.mourningthevote.com site that is in external links is no longer available (shows a domain sitting page) For someone who can edit the page. 65.26.139.93 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

International law

I wondering whether a note on international law sould be put under "criticism". At least in other countries (e.g. Germany, my home country) international law issues have been a main topic back in 2003.

Maybe, if you can look up some of the stuff to do with UN resolutions and provide adequate citations. Walton monarchist89 11:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cost of war

Cocoaguy tried to put this code below (indented) in the infobox just after the Lancet casualty estimate and before the Iraq Health Minister estimate. It caused that estimate and the IBC info not to show up at all:

|cost1='''total amount of money spent on the iraq war '''349.594 dollars''' as per 12/12/2006

Looks like an interesting web page that the URL goes to. I just added the link as a reference in the financial costs section. Along with the cost of the war to date.

• http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 --Timeshifter 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible page for iraq strategies

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

June Poll

posted to user_talk:Alecmconroy "I dont understand why you continue to use a May poll and ignore the June poll which was 25-4 and occured after discussion had occured and not before. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You majorly misunderstand the outcome if you think the outcome was a strong consensus that the article infobox should include the words "part of the war on terror".

1. An poll conducted a month earlier seemed to find the opposite conclusion. Consensus can change, but usually not so quickly, which suggests we take a very close look at whether a true consensus emerged.
2. It's claimed the was extensive notification of the survey, contacting users in category:Conservative Wikipedians. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it were, that would certainly bias the poll results.
3. The June straw poll wording did not even make any direct mention of the infobox. Infoboxes, like article titles, are the "Voice of Misplaced Pages" and therefore must be especially NPOV.
4. You claim the results of the poll was 25-4-- that's an impressive sounding number, and it gave me pause when I first heard you cite it. A closer inspection reveals that summarized the poll as "25-4" is quite misleading, because there were some 15 or so comments which object to the existence of the poll, and say the poll is irrelevant or inappropriate. These opinions have apparently been ignored and not counted in the "25-4" number-- which is exceptionally misleading, and I would strongly advice you to cite the poll results as "25/4/14" or such in the future.

The June poll does not reveal a consensus about the infobox issue. The infobox issue is not even mentioned in the straw poll. Only half of the voters agreed with the straw poll question, not 5-to-1 as your numbers suggested. If you want to try generate a strong consensus about your specific issue, that's fine. You could also step through the dispute resolution process with Savidan. What you can't do, however, is just add it back repeatedly. --Alecmconroy 06:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The poll you cite has nothing to do with infoboxes. As many people have stated here, infoboxes are not the ideal medium for controversial facts. In fact, here's one of the "25": "So I would propose including a text along the lines of "the US government sees the invasion of Iraq as part of its global "War on Terrorism."" I think the real issue that this poll reveals is that whether or not Iraq is part of the War on Terror is an issue which is complex and controversial and needs to be dealed with in the article text. savidan 07:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate what you are doing here at all Alecmconroy. It is very, very difficult to discuss things when you constantly take what I say, put it out of context, and mislead others into thinking I am saying something I am not when you know full well what I was saying. I frankly find it despicable that you did not copy the entire statement I made, which has far more clarity:

"I dont understand where you got the idea that a consensus is the result of a straw poll. And I dont understand why you continue to use a May poll and ignore the June poll which was 25-4 and occured after discussion had occured and not before. The actual consensus was posted here, , and was the result of an arduous discussion that lasted from April to July." Nowhere did I make the claim that that particular poll was the basis of any consensus. Not only did I state that the June poll was not the basis for one, but I also said that the May one was not one either. Straw Polls are not how you make a consensus. Thus not only was I bringing into question your idea that Straw Polls were consensus, but I was also pointing out that you were picking and choosing only Straw Polls that had results in favor of your idea. This is entirely misleading, and your accusation that I was being misleading - when I never even put any weight on the polls to begin with - is totally disrespectful and diversionary to any legitimate discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't quote the entirety of your statement. I wasn't trying to criticize you on the "straw poll automatically equals consensus" issue-- you've denied that opinion many times, so I shouldn't have used the word "consensus" in my reply to your comment. I was just trying to say-- the result of the straw poll isn't really 25-4, and it isn't really relevant to the issue at hand. I wasn't trying to say that you didn't understand that Voting is Evil. --Alecmconroy 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly trying to say that whether or not it is a part is not really relevent to the issue at hand? Once again I am left feeling that you are either being intellectually dishonest or have a misunderstanding of the aims of the poll. Whether or not its a part holds direct bearings on whether it should be stated as such. As straw polls are never binding, this one was made with that taken into consideration with the hopes that covering the overarching topic - which sure as hell is relevent - would provide a better atmosphere for discussion rather than having it be purely the voters opinion on whether it should be included. Through the poll, it was hoped to get to the "why" rather than just the binary yes or no provided with the previous poll. Ultimately the discussion that went on at that page helped contribute to the consensus building by bringing people together, and bringing arguments together. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to the issue itself, the issue of "Is Iraq part of the War on Terror", then yes, I'm honestly saying that it is irrelevant what Wikipedians themselves think about that issue. If we have scientifically acquired evidence that a good chunk of the population says "Iraq is not part of the War on Terror", that settles in my mind the question.

As to "whether or not it is a part is not really relevent to the issue at hand?" -- You have to understand, I don't believe there "is" such a thing as a matter of fact. If nearly everyone views Iraq as part of the War on Terror, then it is part of the War on Terror. If nearly everyone says it's not, then it's not. If people are split, as they are at this point in history, then we can't report either opinion as fact. --Alecmconroy 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There you go again. I have two tips for you. One, read what is being said, and do not misrepresent what is being said in your replies. Two, read what is being said, and dont blow it off. Incase you didnt read the above two tips, they both included read what is being said as a main focal point. Not only are you now portraying my above statement as dealing with polls and not discussion, but you have ignored every other part of this discussion where we talked about how something is either a part of a campaign or it is not. Its not a matter of opinion whether it is or isnt. If there is verifiable information stating it as having been begun under the campaign, it was begun under the campaign. You can cite however many polls you want to, but not only are scientific polls no more a way of determining facts than our straw polls, but the polls are most definitely dealing with a different issue than whether or not it was authorized under the US led War on Terror, as noone can honestly say it was not authorized under the US led War on Terror if they had read the actual authorization - which you either have not read, or are choosing to ignore.

People can be split as to whether it is part of the same conflict that Afghanistan is in, thats a matter of opinion. But it is not a matter of opinion when dealing with official campaigns and language from primary sources providing verifiable proof. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything-- understand that I'm here trying to help you see why I'm looking at this the way I am, and if you feel I'm just misrepresent your words to the point that the discussion isn't helpful, I'll stop. The reason I keep rephrasing what you say in my own words is because that's how discussions work. Communication theory people recommend that. You say something, I try to resay it in my own words as honestly as I can, and you tell me how I'm misunderstanding what you're.

And we're making progress. I now understand that the whole dispute we're having comes down to this: "Is it a matter of fact or a matter of opinion to say 'Iraq is part of the WOT'". If it's a question of fact, then you have lots of evidence you can point to in order to show they are linked. If it's a matter of opinion, then the opinion poll rules we have to say one way or the other.

I feel that it is fundamentally just a matter of intepretation whether the two wars are the same or not. Certainly, saying "US govt cited the War on Terror when authorizing" is a fact. But I don't think it automatically follows that it "is" part of the War on Terror. The world public as a whole doesn't seem to automatically accept that reasoning, so I don't know why we as Misplaced Pages should either-- although I personally might. --Alecmconroy 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make things easier, I basically responded to this reply in the section above. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section and criticism of medio coverage section need to report criticisms rather than attempt to assess the criticisms or the need for the war itself, in order to avoid POV disputes and maintain an encyclopediac style. Ashmoo 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

second or third gulf war

Isn't it the third gulf war, considering the first between Iraq and Iran? SeHe 84.188.225.137 21:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. In many English speaking countries the war between Iran and Iraq was the Iran-Iraq War and the invasion/liberation of Kuwait was the Gulf War. In that case, the Iraq War would be the Second Gulf War. On the other hand, some consider the Iran-Iraq War the First Gulf War, the invasion/liberation of Kuwait as the Second Gulf War and this war the Third Gulf War. --Bobblehead 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats exactly what i was thinking. WEll this is English WikiPedia So it should be second and the 1990 should be first and Iran Iraq should remian Iran-Iraq.

Private Forces?

Can anybody tell something about the role of mercenaries and private military companies / security forces in Iraq? I've heard there were about 30.000 troops of about 80 private companies active (estm. 2004). German Wiki talks of Companies like:

• The Hart Group: Defense of Electronic Companies
• ISI Group: Security for Coalition buildings
• Eriny's International: Security for oil infrastructure
• Custer Battles: Airportsecurity
• DynCorp: Training the iraqi Police (for 40 million $ ?)
• Vinnell: Formation and training the iraqi army
• Blackwater USA: Escorts and Bodyguards
• Armor Group: Clearing minefields
• Kroll: Bodyguards
• Global Risk: Bodyguards
• CACI International
• Titan Corporation

(see: http://de.wikipedia.org/Irak-Krieg#Rolle_von_privaten_Milit.C3.A4rdienstleistern)

30.000 private troops (combatants/mercenaries/armed security forces) would form the third biggest party after the U.S. troops. What would be the legal status of them? Does anybody know? The Wiki links to the companies contain quite harsh accuses about the role of some of them. SeHe 84.188.225.137 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Contractor casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KIA symbol for Zarqawi, others

Could anyone find a different symbol/text to use on Zarqwai and anyone else they want to label as dead? Using the Christian cross to symbolize the death of a Muslim is hardly appropriate. Not exactly what should be used, for now I'm just going to add KIA after his name. Any ideas appreciated. Publicus 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the cross † by the name of al-Zarqawi as an indication that he was killed is just,it doesn't have anything to do with fate,in the Vietnam war article there are † by NVA and VC commanders and most communists are atheists. Also if you would look at Battle of Marj Ardebil you will see that the cross is put by the commander al-Djarrah ibn Abdullah who was a Muslim and there are numeres other articles on wikipedia where there are crosses by military commander who were killed and who were not of that fate or any other faith as the matter of fact.It's just an indicator on wikipedia that a person is dead and it's the most apropriat one. Top Gun 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Its recognized as a symbol for someone who died, regardless of their religion, in the English language. Its a tombstone. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:Rangeley that's what I'm talking about. Top Gun 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule in Misplaced Pages on this. I dislike using the cross for signifying deaths of Muslims. I believe many Muslims would find it highly offensive. I am going to put "dead" after his name. There is no need for symbolism. And tombstones in some U.S. military cemeteries use the Star of David for Jews. I don't know what those cemeteries use for Muslims or atheists or agnostics or .... Maybe they now also use non-symbolic tombstones. --Timeshifter 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshifter and Publicus. Better to give a short explanation with text instead. --Merat 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Activities

Can somebody update the article with 'Happenings of UN' - UN resolutions, their time lines and other activities which happened in UN in relation to this war! --Natrajdr 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

December 2006 news added

I realize Saddam's execution is reported elsewhere in the article but I consider it relevant to the campaign as a turning point, so I included it in that section as well. The ISG report is also mentioned elsewhere but not in a complete context. The Haditha events might seem biased to bring up, but it got a lot of press coverage. I'd like to find more positive news to add alongside it, but unfortunately I was unable to. If someone else wishes to do so then by all means...

I have no intentions of starting any edit wars or pushing any POV onto the article because frankly I have no opinion on this war. Whoblitzell 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please lock user out

The user Whoblitzell is continually vandalizing this article with lieberal propeganda, can an admin do something about this?

UnfairlyImbalanced 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? "Lieberal". That is funny. Was it intentionally funny? ;) --Timeshifter 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, lieberal - where you insist on writing the number of civilians that get killed by military actions ;) Sad mouse 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not have sexual relations with this article, depending on what your definition of it is. Whoblitzell 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Move Iraq War timeline to its on article?

It's not that long right now, but as the war goes on for even the next year (which I assume we can all agree on) it will grow in size by 25% or more. I believe the best way to solve this is to move the Iraq timeline to its own article and provide a synopsis or listing or short events here in Date: Event form or something of the sort.

I don't want to start an edit war or be accused of "lieberal proeganda" as above, so I thought I'd post here before doing it myself. Whoblitzell 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea right now. There's several timeline pages already started, "2003 in Iraq", "2004..."-so a lot of the timeline material is covered. What would be helpful is to move the less relevant material to either one of the timeline pages, or to an article page specifically covering one aspect of the war. This would serve to shorten the main war page while still providing a link to an article covering a particular issue in depth. Publicus 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean up the superscripts!!

lots of editors of this page have left it as a mess of "citation needed" and "name a specific person/group" superscripts, which really compromises the presentability of the page. take a ctrl-F seach down the page for "citation" and you will find A TON of "citation needed" superscripts. unless you guys resolve them soon, i think i should remove a lot of them (and leave a note on this discussion page that lists the parts where i removed them, just so there is a record). sorry if this is a bit drastic but i think it needs to be done, because this article needs to look a lot more encyclopedic and complete, debates can stay on the discussion page. lots of people come here to read about the details of the iraq war, and for this reason the page needs to look much more presentable. 160.39.208.20 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move (withdrawn). Patstuart 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War → Second Gulf War — Title is overtly Western-centric and recentist. Patstuart 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support as nom. -Patstuart 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose. The war is limited to a single country, not the whole Gulf region; furthermore, Iraq has only a small coastline with the Gulf, and most of the country is distant from the Gulf, including the Sunni areas where the war has mainly been waged- how close is Mosul to the Gulf? Also, calling it the "Second" Gulf War is also Western-centric, as it implies that a "Gulf War" only takes place when US/Western powers are involved- was the "Iran-Iraq War" not a Gulf War? --Groggy Dice T | C 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

   • Um, but the "Second Gulf War" is an official title. The Iraq war is not - especially given that there was an Iraq war with almost the same combatants only 10 years beforehand: the First Gulf War. Patstuart 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

   How is it less "official?" It is far more commonly used than "Second" or "Third Persian Gulf War," thus we note them as alternative names but they are by no means the name the majority of English speaking people use when talking about the war. Therefore we should not use them as the article name. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. It is referred to as the Iraq War by the vast majority of English speaking people. The Vietnam War is a perfect example - in English we call it the Vietnam War, in Vietnamese they call it the American War. And thats perfectly fine, you use the language that you are working in when naming stuff. The sort of "NPOV" you are advocating would mean we literally couldnt name anything because its different in other languages. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Same reasons as in above comments. I don't see how any other name will be better. I am open to being convinced. But another thing to consider is that Misplaced Pages does not invent new names. It uses current names. --Timeshifter 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

   • It's not a new name: see (including some military links). Patstuart 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

   Doesnt matter if its new or not, its not the name that is most commonly used by any means. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   If one looks up "second gulf war" and "iraq war" (with the quotes) in Google one gets many more results for "Iraq War." To me "Second Gulf War" is new to me. In the sense that I am always confused by the name, and never know which war they are referring to. I see that term so rarely that I forget that it exists and it seems new to me again. --Timeshifter 01:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Groggy. The first gulf war was so titled because a portion of the fighting took place in the gulf nation of Kuwait. Even if this war expands into Iran, I don't think that would qualify as a "gulf war" 205.157.110.11 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Iraq War is most common name. --Alecmconroy 07:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Per Groggy and others. Better to use the most common name. 'Second Gulf War' could be a re-direct to Iraq War though.- Fairness And Accuracy For All 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose: because it's not really clear which was the FIRST. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

War on Terrorism infobox subtitle

Looking over the discussions, it seems clear that there is no consensus for the infobox subtitle that calls the Iraq War part of the War on Terror. In the discussion and the polls that explicitly mentioned the infobox, the majority of users opposed the subtitle. Its inclusion is, in my eyes, inconsistent with NPOV. I and many others have explained why we feel that way above, and I'm now removing the subtitle.

Rangeley, it's fine that you disagree on this point-- you should feel free to continue to discuss the issue and try to convince other editors that the subtitle is approriate and consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. However, as of this moment, most editors disagree-- both in the polls and in the discussion, and so please respect that, and allow the issue to be discussed fully in the text instead. Do not add the subtitle back until there is a strong consensus for its inclusion. --Alecmconroy 09:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry Alecmconroy, but just because you refuse to change your mind despite the outcome of discussion does not mean that no consensus has been reached. A consensus was reached as a result of discussion back in the early summer, and I beleive that the reasoning behind it has been re-affirmed by our little discussion we had. In fact, you simply stopped responding to my points and it is you that has begun removing it with no basis. I refrained for replacing it while discussion was ongoing and kept an open mind for the possibility of being wrong, but what you are doing is ceasing all discussion, removing it without presenting a valid argument that has not been refuted, and then accusing me of edit warring. There are some who would call this vandalism - but I will not jump to this conclusion. I think its possible that you are acting in good faith, it is however getting harder and harder to defend this point of view in my mind.

I do not push issues after I have been shown to be wrong, I think this hurts people's reputation and they become seen as a "pov warrior." Hell, people still have thrown it around, but I can honestly say I am not because the stances I take are defendable, and they are right as far as I know. If I was stuck between a rock and a hard place, I wouldnt stay there, I would admit I was wrong and move on to greener pastures.

But just as this attribute drives me to continue in this case, the part of me which wants to think this is a legitimate discussion is starting to lose ground to the other aspects which doubt this. It is a policy here to assume good faith, and I will do this so long as you participate in discussion and do not consider "I dont agree" with "There is no consensus." Consensus doesnt mean everyone gets exactly what they want, this is inevitably impossible. A consensus is an agreement here reached through discussion, and indeed through multiple people over a long period of time. Were we to poll people on any given time whether they think its part or not, what we would probably get is an opinion - their opinion - of the Iraq war. This is not useful here, we arent looking for a majority view, we are looking to get to the bottom of things. This is inevitably not suited well for a poll question, the decision needs to be made by people who have knowledge on the subject.

And thats what discussion is meant to be, people who have knowledge using that knowledge, presenting that knowledge, and applying that knowledge in making their decision. It is a fact that the War on Terrorism is a campaign, or a super operation. It is a fact that nations or entities who begin these can then begin things under them. This is a bit of knowledge that is necessary in coming to an informed conclusion - one needs to know both the rules on deciding what is in a campaign, as well as knowing that it is indeed a campaign. I had hoped that you got this from reading the WoT article, but you did not and you raised your argument with me. I then hoped that you could take this knowledge from what I was saying, but apperantly you did not. It is a simple, easy concept, and the pure simplicity of it and your failure to acknowledge this after so much has been said is definitely a major factor in my growing doubts.

What I need from you is a resumption of discussion, and a participation in the discussion that actually addresses these points. With these new points your actions will be valid. But until you do so - which you have not with this recent accusation directed towards me - I will continue to re-add it, and I ask others to as well. You cannot say do not edit war and then do it yourself as you have just done, I am acting within my powers to enforce the consensus reached in the summer - not an invalid poll from May. The consensus was not overturned by your re-raising of already heard points, and it will not be overturned by your re-re-raising of them either. You need to prove to us that nations cannot determine what is done under their own campaigns, which I can honestly say is something that cannot be proven, because its simply not reality.

If you do not want to prove this, that is fine. I wouldnt want to be on your side of the debate either. But do not continue to remove the information. Leave with grace, join other discussions, find greener pastures. But do not trouble this one when you are unwilling or unable to defend your view. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I oppose putting "War on Terrorism" in the infobox. Why not take another poll right now? WP:NPOV says that the narrative tone of an article should not be used to put out info. It should be in the form of X says Y. Putting "War on Terrorism" on the top of the infobox (even with quotes) does not allow for other viewpoints to be placed with such prominence in the same area. The infobox is too small. I hear NPR right now using the phrase "War in Iraq", and without adding...part of "War on Terror." If they do discuss the "War on Terror" they discuss it in the context of who uses the phrase. --Timeshifter 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid: "The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Misplaced Pages format 'X says Y'. If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the 'narrative voice' of the article." --Timeshifter 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, straw polls are not binding, and you present a perfect example of why polls are useless. Your arguments are based entirely around the false presmise that stating something as part of the "WoT" is a description, when it is not. We arent saying that the people they are fighting are terrorists, which would probably be violating NPOV. What we are saying is that it is a part of a campaign, named the "WoT." This is a verifiable fact, its not something a poll can decide, its something that is decided by sources. I highly recommend you read the article on the War on Terrorism where it states it to be a campaign, and I highly recommend that you read discussion, and read arguments. Again, this is something that a poll really doesnt get at, we arent trying to see what most people think, we are trying to see what it is in reality, which is inevitably a task that can be done through discussion and looking at things such as the authorization of war and other documents stating it as a part of the campaign. Its not done by having more people saying "support" or "oppose." ~Rangeley (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nations have all kinds of names for their wars. Misplaced Pages does not name the wars according to the combatants. What about the names used by the insurgents? Should we use their names also at the top of the infobox? In English it is the "Iraq War" or "War in Iraq". See the previous discussion. Just because there are other wikipedia pages for some of the other names used to describe a war, ... or an operation name, or a campaign name, or a propaganda name from either side, etc., does not mean those names trump the most common name for a war. Misplaced Pages does not take sides. Putting "part of the war on terrorism" on the top of the infobox is not necessary. Put it in the middle of the article. Describe the history of that name, who uses it, who opposes it, etc.. Maybe we can call it "part of George Bush's war with continually-changing causation reasoning". Or we could use some of the satirical names. Such as "part of OIL, (Operation Iraqi Liberation)." Misplaced Pages is not Fox News. We don't have big banners on top of "breaking" news stating "War on Terror". Misplaced Pages is not run by Karl Rove. --Timeshifter 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, can you honestly say you have read anything? Here are a few misconceptions in your post:

• The "War on Terrorism" is a War
• You are suggesting changing the name to "Iraq War is part of the War on Terror" or to "War on Terror"
• The "War on Terrorism" is a description

Now allow me to address these three points. 1. The War on Terrorism is not a war. If you had read the article, or read anything I said, because you know I end up saying this in nearly every post, the "War on Terrorism" is a campaign, being waged by the United States and allies against those they see as terrorist in nature, as well as against those they see as state sponsors of terror. A campaign is not a war, it is a "super operation." Much like Operations can contain subops, an operation can be included within a larger superop, or campaign. This is exactly whats going on here, the USA launched its campaign, titled the "WoT" which has included various operations. It doesnt matter what you think is being done to fight terror - the things that are parts of this campaign are parts of the campaign regardless. When the US army, and US government state something as being under their campaign, it is. End of story. 2. I am not suggesting we change the name, I dont even know where this came from. You told me to see the above discussion, but as you already know I was one of the main participants in that very discussion. I am not suggesting remotely that we rename this article, I have argued the opposite, stating the Iraq War to be the most common name. Likewise, the "War on Terrorism" is the most commonly used name in the english language given to the campaign being waged by the United States and allies. Regardless of whether people consider Iraq to be a part of the same conflict that wars such as Afghanistan are in, it is irrefutable that it is a part of the military campaign being carried out by the US army. It is because this campaign has been termed the "War on Terrorism" that we state it as being a part of the "War on Terrorism." If most people called it Bush's continual warfare mission or any of the other ridiculous names you suggested, we would move the War on Terrorism article to that location. But they dont. Sorry. 3. This is not a description of the Iraq War either, another thing I said last time which you failed to read or in the very least failed to acknowledge in your response. We are not stating that it is a war against terrorism, we are merely stating, again, that it is a part of the campaign. I ask you to read this response well, and at a time before you respond again. We cant get anywhere if you continually build arguments based around these three falsities. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points. I have read the info you asked me to look at. But look at the Vietnam War page: Vietnam War. It says it is part of the Cold War. The Cold War is a phrase agreed to by historians and average people worldwide. It has survived the test of time. I hear few average people use the term "war on terror". The US government and Fox News may use the term a lot, but not average people. Plus it is clearly a propaganda name that is made to elicit support for a war that was originally claimed to be part of a campaign to stop weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an old enemy who had theoretically broken his surrender/truce agreements (Saddam). The War on Terror is an afterthought. I have no problem using that phrase farther down in the article, but not at the top of the infobox. Especially with the use of the word terror. --Timeshifter 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, was the Cold War a campaign, or a conflict? Is the "War on Terror" a campaign, or a conflict? Do you see the difference here? Its a judgement formed over time whether something is part of a conflict like the Cold War, its not a judgement formed over time whether something is a part of a campaign, its a decision made by those who began the campaign. As you continue to use conflicts as comparisons, I fully doubt that you have grasped these differences thus far. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference between overall campaign names and conflict names. That is why I brought up the Cold War example. I thought of something else too. Most of the infobox tries to scrupulously list all sides of the conflict. Combatants, leaders, casualties, etc.. So we would have to list all the various campaign names of all the insurgent groups in Iraq. Plus the campaign name Saddam used. There are probably various campaign names that are equally inflammatory from their side. With words like "Zionist" "infidel" "butchers". Let us see how inflammatory we could make some campaign names. "The campaign to eject the crusader butchers of Baghdad". Or "the campaign to crush the Zionist-controlled infidel invaders of the Middle East". Or "the campaign to kick American butt". Or "the campaign for national liberation from the terrorist carpet bombers". Non-inflammatory campaign names are OK in infoboxes without explanation. But inflammatory campaign names need to be put in context farther down in the article in the usual wikipedia way of X says Y. The USA calls their campaign such and such. Sadr calls his campaign such and such. Shiites call their campaign in the Middle East such and such. Al Qaeda calls their campaign worldwide such and such, and their sub-campaign in Iraq such and such. --Timeshifter 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley-- the majority of editors who have offered comments oppose the subtitle, end of story. When a consensus of editors want the subtitle, then you'll be justified in inserting it. In the mean time, you're just substituting your personal POV for that of the consensus-- and that ain't the way it works, you know? --Alecmconroy 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that a consensus can change as opinions change and the term therefore does, by definition, depend on opinion. A consensus can also be a majority opinion, as defined at dictionary.com. If most editors, most people (most polls of Americans show that half or more do not regard Iraq as part of the war on terror) and most of the world does not regard something to be the case then it is not part of a consensus. It cannot be again by definition.

Rang only seems willing to accept a 'consensus' that agrees with him. I find it hard to assume him not to be what he called a POV warrior when he cites a June discussion that led to what he wanted but then rejects current editorial consensus as well as public consensus on the issue. You cannot pick your facts simply because they agree with you.

I have no problem with the infobox containing that it is part of the War on Terror, as long as it is listed in a way clearly labelling it as an OPINION. However past edits of this do not present it this way. It is cited as a fact, with the citation being the OPINION of the American government.

Rang stated that "This is inevitably not suited well for a poll question, the decision needs to be made by people who have knowledge on the subject." I agree. Many political pundits and worldwide intellectuals do not view Iraq as part of the war on terror. I'd venture to say a majority of them do not.

"It is a fact that nations or entities who begin these can then begin things under them." I dispute this. They can claim to, but fact does not follow. If you want to report their opinion fine, but do so in a more straightforward way that reports it as an opinion. Quotation marks alone do not do this, they only implicate. It isn't appropriate to put this sort of opinion in an infobox, because you can't include a sentence of it. IMO It is better to state something of the like that "American President George W. Bush and his allies have said that Iraq is an important battleground in their global war against terrorism."

Reporting an opinion as a fact and then defending it because of a single six month old "consensus" (which was as Rang said essentially one side giving up) and the minority opinion of a government is not correct. I would also be interesting to see if any proponent of keeping this label in the infobox can produce a 2003 citation of Iraq being listed as part of the war on terror (NOT Saddam/Al-qaeda claims but Iraq being referred to as part of the war on terrorism in explicit language). I'm willing to bet you can't, because to my knowledge that rationale for the war evolved after it had already began and in reality it wasn't started "under" it. 68.58.28.162

Quite a bit here to respond to. I will begin with Timeshifter. I appreciate this advance in points, and I am glad that we have gotten past the initial confusion over the difference between a conflict and a campaign. The argument you presented is an interesting one, and one which shall be looked at. What is the criteria for determining what something is a part of? If someone were to, for instance, begin a campaign called the "War on Crime," and within it they put under seige a house of a mafia don, it is the police that initiated the seige, it is not the mafia who initiated their seiging. Now if this were a well known thing, like the "Seige of Don Corlione's Villa," we would state it as a part of the NYPD's campaign. But what if the Mafia launched their own campaign, which was attempting to fight the police back? Lets say they in turn set up a bomb at a police department, it goes off, kills 3 people. Did the police initiate this in being bombed, or did the Mafia initiate it? Its obviously the Mafia, and we would note their act to be a part of this campaign, regardless of its name.

The Iraq War was not begun by Saddam Hussein, or by the Insurgent groups. The initiator was the USA and the coalition, thus the Iraq War, like a seige against Mafia dons, is a part of the USA's campaign. Is every shot fired in the Iraq War fired to acheive the ends of the campaign? Hardly, but neither is every shot fired within a seige carried out by the people who began it. The Mafia is going to fight back, perhaps even launch an elaborate series of counter attacks on the seiging police via outside forces. Perhaps it would last years, or decades. But none of this changes that it was initiated and therefore was a part of the police's campaign. Its the same case with Iraq.

Alecmconroy, I will be frank here. I wouldnt mind coming in here and being bombarded with an assortment of people who have different views then me, even entirely disagreeing with me. I wouldnt mind a poll being taken here with results against what I say, because I am not in here to convince everyone. What I am hoping for is some other people who are open minded, and willing to actually look at this accepting that they could be wrong. I have done this, and I wouldnt still be here if I was shone to be wrong because I have better things to do then lying to myself and others over a course of many months over an issue that I could easilly drop. I am here to have a discussion and get to the definitive information in this topic. I want you to be here for that purpose too, but instead all you have been doing lately is saying more people think this, or more people think that. Or more people when polled on day 10 felt this way. Dont bother telling me these things, 90% of Americans felt that Saddam was involved in 9-11 at one point, they were wrong then just as they are wrong today. People can be wrong, so we dont make decisions here based on what more people say. We make decisions here, and come to consensus's through discussion, weighing arguments, and carrying them out to their ends. Thats Misplaced Pages's policy for everything, even page deletions. If you have 100 people saying "Delete," but 10 people disagreeing with them who present a clear reason why it should not be deleted, one that holds weight, the page would be kept. Saying "Delete," "oppose," and "keep" mean nothing. They are votes in a system that doesnt take votes, it takes arguments - persuasive arguments. I dont want to see you waste any more of your time telling me that more people think one thing without explaining why that one thing is better then this other thing. You have stopped even trying it seems. If you have something to add to discussion, say it.

Finally, 68.58.28.162. People have different ideas of what a consensus is, but ultimately we here at Misplaced Pages use the definition provided at Misplaced Pages:Consensus. It is not a majority view, it is not a supermajority. It is a conclusion that can be reached by good faith editors who enter a situation with an open mind, willing to admit they are wrong. Often they just come together unanimously, other times, like this, it needs to be fought out on talk pages. With good faith, open minded editors contributing to a discussion, a consensus can be reached on any topic. I do not beleive that you have participated in discussion, because unlike Timeshifter you are confusing conflicts and campaigns. A nation most certainly can determine what is in their campaigns, they are the ones carrying them out. A campaign is a super operation. Much like Operations contain suboperations, Operations can be contained within a Super Operation, ie a campaign. It is this distinction which one must grasp before they can really get any farther in this issue. A statement is true or untrue on its own merits, never on how many people beleive it. It is not a point of view that this war was begun under a campaign. You were willing to bet that I could not provide a source using that language from early 2003, but I will one up that in taking up your bet. I will provide you with the actual authorization of war by the congress, from October 2002. In it war is authorized to "prosecute the War on Terrorism." Further, I would ask you to look at any of the speeches given at the time, which played heavilly upon the war on terrorism, so far as to say that the "end of major combat operations" was a victory in the war on terror in the infamous Mission Accomplished speech.

So there you have it, it was indeed begun under it, and if you were to check out any US government website, they make it clear that Iraq is in the campaign. The "evolving rationale" has always included terrorism, but in different contexts. Before the war it was more the threat of Saddam giving aid to terrorists with WMD's that was the rationale, now the rationale for a continued presense is the fear of letting Iraq fall to "terrorists." But again, at no time was terrorism not included within the rationale, and the very authorization of war did so under the WoT campaign being waged by the USA.

I dont know if you will take any time to respond, being that you havent taken any time to register here, but I hope that you do as well as others. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the language to something of a compromise so hopefully this will diffuse the situation Whoblitzell

This is nonsense. For something to be "partof=" in the infobox it should be unproblematically factual. It should not be a POV that requires a footnote and it should not require scare quotes for neutrality purposes. There is enough dispute on this that it goes in the text of the article, not the infobox. The consensus has been pretty clear in the discussion page despite one editor's intransigence. csloat 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley. I get your point that you believe that the U.S. gets to name the conflict and the campaign since it started it. I wasn't arguing about who started it or who gets to name it. One could make the case that the campaign was started at 9/11. So using that logic Al Qaeda should get to name the campaign at the top of the infobox. What did Al Qaeda name their campaign? My point was over the inflammatory and/or propaganda nature of various campaign names. Misplaced Pages NPOV guidelines requires that such inflammatory info be in the form of X says Y, and put in an NPOV context. That can't be done just by adding quotes to "war on terrorism". --Timeshifter 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I found an Al Qaeda campaign name. From the wikipedia page on Al Qaeda:

On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, along with Sumedh Gawai and three other Islamist leaders co-signed and issued a fatwa (binding religious edict) under the banner of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin) declaring:

That campaign has never stopped. Many of the foreign Sunni fighters who have entered Iraq fight as part of that campaign. And then there are the foreign Shiite fighters who have entered Iraq under various longterm campaigns. --Timeshifter 10:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat, if there are problems, why dont you address them? Why cant a nation decide whats in one of their campaigns?

Timeshifter, I think there is some confusion here. I havent really said that countries can name wars they begin, while they can name things these names dont always stick. Names for things come about over time, The Iran Iraq War for instance was once called the Gulf War popularly, but with the war in 1991, this became more popularly known as the Gulf War, and the previous one was renamed to the Iran-Iraq war to distinguish. Campaigns can also potentially develop names over time, as this one did. It is officially the Global War on Terrorism, or GWOT, but our article is at the more popular name, War on Terrorism.

All of this deals with names, but this is a seperate issue to that of whether something is in a campaign. For the sake of discussion, lets say the campaign is simply "Campaign A" rather than a specific name. The US government began Campaign A with their first actions designated under it, in this case that would be the invasion of Afghanistan. They did other actions designated under Campaign A, all of these things would be noted as under the campaign. This is, again, something governments have the power to do, and it is not really debatable. A campaign is like a book series, the author can designate books as parts of this series regardless of anyones views. To extend this analogy, lets say there is a book series called "Good Books." The author states 5 books are a part of the series. We would note that they are part of "Good Books." But are they necessarilly good books? Who knows, we are talking about a made up series here, but lets say 90% of the world says they suck. Does this keep us from stating them as a part of the "Good Books" series? Nope. We might want to put quotes around it, and link to the article on the series to provide more information - but we can surely state it as a part of the series.

Back to "Campaign A," what I have provided you with is information making it clear that the "author" of the campaign has designated things as a part of this campaign - even before they began. We have to state it as a part of this campaign, regardless of its name.

You said that Al Qaeda began a campaign and its still ongoing, yes, it is. But I point you back to my analogy to the police fighting the mafia. When the Mafia launches a bombing raid at a police station, thats part of their campaign. When the Mafia gets their headquarters put under seige, that is not part of their campaign - it would be part of the police's. 9-11 was done as a part of their Jihad, or atleast I am assuming it is as you stated it as such. It wasnt part of the US/allied campaign. Invading Iraq was not an act of Al Qaeda, or "terrorists," jihadists, or anyone like that - it was begun by the United States and allies as a part of their campaign. I said earlier, not every shot fired in the seige is going to be fired to acheive the ends of the police's campaign, just as not every shot fired in the Iraq war was done to acheive the goals of the USA's campaign. But it is part of the campaign for the same reason the seige would be, it was begun under it. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are still avoiding the main point. Misplaced Pages does not allow the use of inflammatory language as part of the narrative tone of the article. It has to be put in context. That can not be done in the infobox. I am removing it. --Timeshifter 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Continue to remove it and you will be called disruptive. We cannot call people terrorists, but we are not doing this here, and the lengthy example you show near the bottom of this page is irrelevent and a failure to analogize on the simple basis that unlike with the Israeli conflict, there is noone proposing we label one side of the combattants terrorists. What we are doing is stating it as a part of a campaign, which happens to have a name some disagree with. But just as you said earlier in agreeance with me, we decide where to place articles by what name is most commonly used in english. The War on Terror article is there for this reason, and so long as it is there, this is the name of the campaign at Misplaced Pages. Regardless of the name, the Iraq War was started under it.

I have avoided no main point, this isnt a point, its a misconception. Its Misplaced Pages policy to not call groups terrorist unless there is very conclusive proof, but this policy doesnt have anything to do with this situation and your continued citation of it is a misuse of the rule. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you not happy with it being discussed in the first paragraph of the Iraq War article, and also in a section of the Iraq War article called "Terrorism"? Why is it so important to have it in the infobox? --Timeshifter 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

To avoid duplication please see my reply in the section below titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" --Timeshifter 05:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

White House not a valid source for infobox

I dispute the White House being a source for its own war, this seems to go against Misplaced Pages policy on verifiability and more importantly reliability because the WH is a partisan source and the viewpoint is seen by much of the world as extremist. Furthermore including it as part of the war on terrorism simply because the American government views it as such is tantamount to saying Israel is an illegal state simply because the Iranian government doesn't say so. After all, he says it in a lot of his speeches. He even said it at the official convention against the Holocaust! It was a meeting of academic minds.

As it stands, the infobox is POV and it has only one clear proponent going agaisnt public opinion and editorial consensus in favor of a previous consensus reached only through one side leaving the table. 68.58.28.162

Whenever an editing question raises this much controversy, it seems to me self-evident that the topic in question should be addressed only in the body of the article, where it can be rebutted. Putting something which may be POV in an infobox, category, template, etc. should be absolutely avoided. --MaplePorter 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I point both of you to the above discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

These points appear to be in response to the above discussion, and I agree with them. This doesn't belong in the infobox at all. Continuing to stick it in is disruptive. csloat 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More Neutral Language

I'm changing the description to Part of the U.S. "War on Terrorism" to make a distinction between the POV that Iraq is a justified part of the war on terrorism and the Administration's factual claim to including it in their initiated conflict. If this is unacceptable please reply here or on my talk page, I have no intention of starting an edit war.

Please note that 'U.S. "War on Terrorism"' was the prior language before this recent controversy Whoblitzell 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be discussed in the text of the article - it should not be in the infobox at all. Please change it back. csloat 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

sadly, that version of the infobox meets with the same problems as the old one. The subtitle needs to be removed. --Alecmconroy 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it and will continue to do so until there can be shown a recent consensus in its favor. One person citing a 6 month old "consensus" in which people merely got tired of arguing with this user is not a consensus at all. If this continues, perhaps the user in question needs to have action taken against him. UnfairlyImbalanced

Another terribly bad faith analysis, in addition to your blatent violation of WP:Point here . I ask you to participate in discussion, present arguments, dont just call me names or try and discredit me with ad hominem attacks. Someone can be near brain dead and still get something right, even if you think Im a total dumbass retard POV pusher as you seem to be implying I could actually have this right. Thats why you have you look at arguments individually and on their own merits, and not judge them by who says them, or how many say them. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One person citing a 6 month old "consensus" in which people merely got tired of arguing with this user is not a consensus at all. If this continues, perhaps the user in question needs to have action taken against him Argument bolded since apparently you missed it UnfairlyImbalanced

How does that address anything? I have never said that the June consensus must remain, I have continually stated the conclusions found in the June consensus and asked people to present counter arguments. If your only counter argument is that its old, thats pretty sad. Something doesnt become automatically wrong after 6 months, unless you can present an argument as to why its wrong, you should stop removing it as if you had a justification. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again, it wasn't a consensus one side simply gave up. No real agreement was reached. UnfairlyImbalanced 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is both irrelevent and incorrect. Irrelevent in that even if one side dropped out you still havent presented any counter arguments, and incorrect in that an agreement was indeed reached that included people other then me as you seem to want to portray. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

• Iraq War#Terrorism

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

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iraq_War&diff=100341183&oldid=100339760

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Blair as a Commander?

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

2 different wars in Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saddam Executed

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq civilians

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

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

Australia's bit

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

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

UN discussions before the invasion

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

Iraq war images

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

Information and context

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

War on Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the problem with the quoted wordings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The barrier to re-inserting the disputed text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What concensus?

For Inclusion:

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

Against

• Alecmconroy
• Timeshifter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism

See: Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Compromises" I could compromise on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ^ "Iraq Body Count".
2. "Iraq Body Count: War dead figures". BBC. 2006-09-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. ^ "Second Lancet Mortality Study" (PDF). Lancet. 2006-10-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. "Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans". Retrieved 2006-05-15.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class military history articles