Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For unproductive time-wasting activities, see Wikipedia:Waste of Time. For a wall of text, see Wikipedia:Wall of text.

NOTE: Consensus or super majority has been reached, [1].

"Any claim of 'consensus' herein is deprecated in favor of typical methods of discussion at individual article talk pages and RfCs." , according to Xoloz, closing admin of the MFD debate on this page. [2] -- Alecmconroy 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The issue of whether or not the Iraq War is included in the scope of the War on Terrorism, as defined by the United States administation, has been a contentious issue, that often causes people to make knee jerk reactions based on their personal, political views. This is an attempt to escape the preconceived notions, and come to a logical, historical, and factual conclusion on the issue.

Introduction

This issue has been discussed both on articles', and users' talk pages over the past months, resulting in two polls being made with differing results [3] [4], it is necessary that we address this issue in one location as it is easier to reach a consensus when conversations are able to be read in full.

What this is not addressing

  • The name of the United States sponsored War on Terrorism.
  • Whether the Iraq War was justified. This is not an attempt to justify, or use Wikipedia to justify the War in Iraq. There is no agenda being pushed other than that of presenting facts to Wikipedians.
  • Whether Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorism/Al Qaeda, or whether he possessed WMD. The accuracy of pre-war intelligence is irrelevant to this issue as, again, it is not attempting to justify the war.

What this is addressing

Why it is part of the United States sponsored War on Terrorism

  • The United States and its allies began a military campaign known as the War on Terrorism, a campaign whose goal is "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." [5]
  • Saddam Hussein's regime was considered a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the United States government. [6]
  • The United States and its allies began the Iraq War as a stated part of the War on Terrorism, both pre-war, and since it has begun. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

"War on Terrorism" vs. War on Terrorism

The primary reason why we all disagree on this page is our perception of the War on Terrorism as a general concept of combating terrorism or as "The War on Terrorism," a semantic phrase created by the Bush administration that applies as a label to the US's foreign policy post-9/11. The former is just a general concept and allows (and accounts) for the discussion here and other places as to whether or not Iraq truly consists of a "terrorist threat" that would include it as part of the War on Terrorism. The semantic phrase is just a language container that can be fit with anything, thus if Bush wanted to say "Attacking Canada is our God-sworn duty and part of the War on Terrorism", bingo, it's part of the "War on Terrorism."

The proposal here is somehow trying to objectively define the general concept rather than the semantic label, which is not what Wikipedia is here to do. As I have explicitly said before, there is significant conflict applying to the general concept of what constitutes a terrorist state, advanced by notable critics stated above, and whether Iraq belongs in the War on Terrorism. This cannot be simply made up as whatever the Bush administration wants. However, if we identify the form as the semantic phrase by using quotations, as the War on Terrorism article does so itself, then it makes this absolutely clear that we are referring to the arbitrary label that the US has applied to its foreign policy goals post-9/11. This is really not too much to ask, and is not necessarily contradictory with what Rangeley is saying, so I really don't see the problem with adopting it to make things perfectly clear what we are referring to. -- kizzle 20:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The use of quotes would be a seperate decision. The War on Terrorism being referred to by this is the specific campaign, described at its article, not an open ended term. Rangeley 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then why can't we use quotations around the term, like the article you're referring to does in its introductory paragraph? -- kizzle 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps we should change War on Terrorism, to Global War on Terrorism, so we can satisfy kizzles point. This way there is no debate of symantics anymore as Global War on Terrorism is obviously the phrase enacted by the US Government after 9/11 and it will not be confused with the idea of "war on drugs" system some people claim to think its getting mixed up with. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have to say though, the fact that War on Terrorism, is capitalized is the equivalent of quotation marks in the sense you are speaking of. You do not want people to get confused, and to realize its a title, hence the capitalization. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, why can't we use quotations? It's such a simple and minor point that I'm starting to think that the people who brought this about have no room for compromise. -- kizzle 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If quotation marks were used, would you then be moving your vote to agree? If so I say fine, if not then please do not drag this arguement on if it has no bearing on your vote. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just to be crystal clear, if quotation marks were used, I would move my vote to agree, but only under this one condition. -- kizzle 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Whatever the name, and whatever method we use to present it is irrelevant. This is about the issue of the Iraq War's inclusion in this specific campaign. Your suggestion is not a compromise, because it doesnt deal with whether or not the Iraq War is part of this specific campaign. I do not see it possible for there to be any compromise on this yes-or-no issue, because it is either a part or it is not. Rangeley 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Because this isn't a yes-or-no issue, and whether or not we use the semantic or general form entirely changes my vote from yes or no, so yes, it does matter and should be focused upon now. -- kizzle 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The conflict this is dealing with is the specific War on Terrorism defined in the article. It is not the general, open ended term. Is this part of this specific campaign, that is a yes or no question. Rangeley 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Whether or not my vote is agree or disagree depends upon whether we are using the semantic or general form, of which you seem to be conflicted in. We're talking about just adding two quotation marks to your initial proposal, (which is how the phrase is referenced on its OWN article) it's really not too much to ask and I doubt it would change other people's votes. -- kizzle 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is not the issue, I have no other way to say this. Whether it is stated as "War on Terrorism" or War on Terrorism is irrelevant, in either case it would be referring to the specific, US-led campaign. This is dealing with the inclusion of the Iraq War in this US-led campaign, not the name or naming conventions of the US campaign. Rangeley 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If it's irrelevant than why don't we use quotations? -- kizzle 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Obviously he means the use of quotations is irrelevant to the issue brought up by this page. Way to disrupt. Haizum 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If the use of quotations is irrelevant to the issue, then it shouldn't suffer from its inclusion in the proposal. In addition, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -- kizzle 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Interesting articles, NPA and AGF, but I have no idea why you would cite them. Quotation marks aren't part of the discussion, clearly, and trying to make them so for the purpose of flanking the issue (what you are doing) is disruptive. Wether the proposal suffers or not is also irrelevant. What do both points have in common? They aren't personal attacks. Haizum 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I cite them because the phrase "Way to disrupt" is assuming that I am here to disrupt ( WP:AGF) as well as characterizing me as disruptive, which is purely an attack and not advancing the debate in any productive form ( WP:NPA), but I thank you for actually advancing reason in your immediately prior post then blindly labeling me as disruptive. What form we use in determining whether or not the Iraq War was part of is important to this debate, as it would personally determine whether or not I vote agree or disagree. -- kizzle 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrect. A. You assumed bad faith on my part when I said "Way to disrupt," which is explained by your assumption that I believed you were purposefully being disruptive. It is possible to be disruptive and not be aware of it. Note that I didn't cite the Wikipedia definition of Disruption. Haizum 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Please. Out of the blue you say "Way to disrupt" then tell me I "assumed bad faith"? Noted. -- kizzle 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am free to say if someone is being disruptive (not Disruptive) if I don't accuse them of doing it on purpose. AGF mainly applies to edits, so please, spare me. Haizum 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no difference between the terms, just as there is no difference between "Addresses" and "addresses". And no you're not: "You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold." Saying "Way to disrupt" is scolding, thus a blatant violation of WP:AGF. -- kizzle 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
B. Since I am not establishing intent, and I need not, I am not assuming bad faith, nor am I assuming good faith. I'm merely observing how this talk of quotations marks has nothing to do with what this page Addresses. Haizum 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then you should have said that without accusing me of being Disruptive. -- kizzle 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Indeed. I said, "disruptive," not, "Disruptive." Clearly you aren't being Disruptive, but since I believe your focus is off-topic, and though you may mean well, I still find it disruptive. No blood no foul. Haizum 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no difference between the meaning of "disruptive" and "Disruptive", as the difference in capitalization is only due to variations in syntax, just as "Addresses" means the same thing as "addresses", though this is unlike adding quotations to a term, as that changes the meaning and use of the word. It's all good, we all make mistakes some time. No foul done. -- kizzle 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Of course there is, look at Wikipedia's definition of the word; it's a serious charge. Haizum 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Capitalization is a serious charge? :) LOL! -- kizzle 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Come on. I'm talking about the dictionary definition vs. the Wikipedia definition. Haizum 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
And by "Addresses" I was referring to the heading "What this is addressing." Haizum 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok guy. Good to know. -- kizzle 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The use of quotes would imply that this is making it Wikipedia policy to put quotes around the term. It is not Wikipedia policy at this time, and is not what this is addressing. It is worthy of being discussed on its own right, as it applies to far more articles than just those relating to this. It deserves to be addressed fairly, and not as a "clip on" amendment to the issue this is addressing. Rangeley 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The use of quotes would imply no such thing. It would just be continuing the syntax found at the term's own article, if not for the sake of consistency. -- kizzle 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
You will note its not even consistently used on the article, and for the parts that is in, it has only been there a few weeks, and was added without discussion. The use of quotes was never agreed on, and has always been done unilaterally. They should not be used here, because they are not policy, and we should not try to either make them or prevent them from being policy in this discussion. Rangeley 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then maybe we should solve that first before voting on whether this should be accepted or not. If we're unclear as to even how to reference the term, how do you possibly propose we vote on such a proposal? -- kizzle 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not suggesting how to reference it, this is open ended and different people have different ways. Before we settle on one way of how we would reference it, we must first decide if we want it to be part at all. I think discussion is nearing its conclusion, the sooner it ends the sooner we can decide what standard to employ, whether it be quotes, capitals, renaming it to something else, etc. But as this effects far more articles than this, which only effects the Iraq War and related articles, and must be addressed seperately as the decision would have implications on every facet of the War on Terrorism, from the Waziristan War to 9-11. Rangeley 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
But if we don't even know how to reference to the term, whether or not quotations should be used, then how can we possibly vote on the terms relationship to other terms? If a decision later on renders that quotations should or shouldn't be used, it will have a direct bearing on this vote as well. We should figure out that aspect first before voting on its relationship to other terms. -- kizzle 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is getting nasty for no reason, there is no reason I see why we cannot discuss Kizzles point now while discussing the rest. Get it all done at the same time. I personally would accept quotation marks. I prefer a tag saying (disputed), but I would settle for quotation marks. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I just don't like the suggestion that discussion here should cease until the quotation debacle is figured out. Haizum 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ah, see, much better (and civil) than simply saying "Way to be disruptive". Looking at the War on Terrorism, the usage of quotations around the term seems frequent, though Rangeley says that it is intermittent. If so, then we don't even know how to refer to the term, so how are we going to vote on this? -- kizzle 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Lets all be nice, im capable of discussing 2 things at once, it may make things messy but its doable i think. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Kizzle and I play fight all the time. No need to worry. Haizum 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't take "Way to disrupt" as anything close to resembling playful. -- kizzle 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I just said that to relieve the tension for everyone's sake, but if you want to stay bitter, fine, I'll take a break so you can calm down. Haizum 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As I said before, no foul done. Just don't claim you said "Way to disrupt" to relieve tension. See you after your break. -- kizzle 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Christ on a bike, I said, "[you] and I play fight all the time," to relieve the tension. "Way to disrupt" was in reference to this bickering about punctuation when "What this is Addressing" makes no mention of such minutia. Haizum 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ah, I thought you were saying "Way to disrupt" was an attempt at relieving tension. And as I can recall, "Way to disrupt" came way before any talk about punctuation, in fact, it was the first comment you made to me in this section. -- kizzle 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Read it again...quotations [are] irrelevant to the issue brought up by this page. Way... Haizum 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Thought you meant the wonderful and informative discussion on capitalisation. Not every day you have two disputes over punctuationsyntax. -- kizzle 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I would prefer capitalization, as we are not quoting anyone specifically, but instead referencing the most widely accepted name for the event. I feel that to put quotations around it would imply that it is not infact a war on terrorism, much like some put quotes around The "Holocaust" to downplay its importance. I believe that capitalizing the event does it justice, just like it does with The Holocaust - capitalization differentiates between this event, and other holocausts (I believe it means great fire). I would strongly oppose placing "disputed" next to it. I would however agree with renaming it to the Global War on Terrorism. My list of preferemces are 1. Capitalization 2. Global War on Terrorism 3. Quotes. Rangeley 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Kizzle how do you feel about Global War on Terrorism, capitalized as such? Also I think it means burnt offering to the gods. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What about the term's later incarnation as "The Long War", which is used in quotations in the Washington Post as well as the Wikipedia article? -- kizzle 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Eh, that along with World War Three are simply not as well accepted. I dont necessarilly oppose Long War, but I dont know that it is better than Global War on Terror, or even War on Terror. Rangeley 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I just meant that its other incarnation is referred to with quotations. -- kizzle 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I think changing the title screws up everything and only leads to the arguement that Afghan was war on terror and iraq was long war as the long war term came later. But what do you feel about Global War on Terrorism? its alot more specific. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ya I'm not so sure about Global War on Terrorism, unless it has something like "the phrase coined by the Bush administration" or quotes around it... otherwise we get into long drawn-out debates about justification like we are on this page. Putting quotations around either of the concepts makes it completely inarguable. -- kizzle 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
How does everyone feel about Global War on Terrorism (disputed), with disputed linking to an article about the debate? I think that should appease everyone, makes the name something that stands out more and reflects the arguement. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No, disputed should only be put around something for which there is a debate. I think were we to put it as Global War on Terror, it would be clear to people that it is this specific event. Whereas War on Terror has been used before, Global War on Terror is more of a title, like World War Two. We will never get an inarguable name, but I think this is a good compromise as it differentiates itself quite clearly from other wars on terror, or the idea of a war on terror, into an identifiably singular event. Capitalizing and placing Global before it should be enough. Rangeley 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have an interesting proposal, How about if we put Global War on Terrorism, but do not include a disputed tag, but make sure that Global War on Terror article talks about the dispute in the overview, and one of the seealso links at the top directs to the debate? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I can agree to that. Rangeley 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm just going to simply re-iterate my point that I would like quotations. This isn't an attempt to discredit as if it was "The Holocaust" but rather to ensure that it is the label for US foreign policy post-9/11, and thus anything the Bush administraiton says can be applied to it. -- kizzle 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We can ensure this by doing the compromise as well, of using Global and stating in the overview. I think we would be silly to try and reach a name that everyone agrees with, as this isnt going to happen. The Global/Overview compromise differentiates sufficiently, if people object to it in the future, they can easilly be shown why they are wrong. Rangeley 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Agree to disagree? :) "Global War on Terrorism" or "War on Terrorism" are fine with me, quotes ensure that we're talking about the label applying to US foreign policy post-9/11. -- kizzle 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I would far prefer to agree, I have already made a concession by agreeing to rename it, is it really that important to you to have quotes? If we can agree to agree, perhaps we can put this into action before too long as an established consensus, both on the name, and the link. Rangeley 23:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As would I, of course, but I don't feel that Global War on Terrorism would do anything, especially considering it just re-directs to the War on Terrorism article. -- kizzle 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
We would move the page to the location Global War on Terrorism, so that it would be located here rather than its current location. Rangeley 23:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure I understand what you mean? -- kizzle 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The page currently located at War on Terrorism would be moved to the location Global War on Terrorism, using the move option. Rangeley 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What about "The Bush Administration's Global War on Terrorism"? -- kizzle 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
But it is not merely the Bush administration, it is the entire US government's, along with its allies. Rangeley 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No, but according to you, the Bush administration (and no other body) is the entity that dictates what determines the "War on Terrorism", thus it is fitting to attribute it to the Bush administration. -- kizzle 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What do you mean by the Bush adminstration? When you say this, I think Bush and his cabinet. The people who determined Iraq to be a state sponsor of terror are the CIA, and it was determined in 1990. While a Bush was in power than, the CIA was not part of his administration. It was the entire US government that is waging the war, along with its allies. I have stated this before, they are the sole determinanents of what the war is as its wager. Rangeley 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, but we didn't invade Iraq in 1990 because of terrorism or anything close to a "War on Terrorism". The "War on Terrorism" did not originate with the CIA but with foreign policy, of which final authority runs out of the president and his cabinet, if I'm not mistaken. -- kizzle 04:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not sure who coined the term originally. But the definition is not merely that of the Bush Administration, even if it originated from them. It has become the accepted definition by the entire government, and allies. That is why I feel it unfair to limit it to the "Bush Administration's War on Terrorism" because they are not the only party participating. It would be like calling the Cold War "Bernard Baruch's Cold War" because he was the first to use the term and define it. Just for the record, are you unwilling to use Global War on Terrorism with a paragraph in the overview outlining the controversy? Rangeley 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I find it odd that wiki uses WOT instead of GWOT. As an ex-employee of the USG, we always refer to the campaign against terror as GWOT. That is the official language for the State Department and multiple other sections within the gov't. I agree that this War on Terrorism page should be moved to GWOT instead of being a redirect. Fcyoss 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Straw Poll

I agree with this conclusion

  1. I agree that it is definately part of the campaign, whether or not it was the best way to fight the war is irrelevant. This was the way chosen, and we must recognize this as an encyclopedia. Rangeley 14:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. I also agree its part of the War on Terror. I think people need to just look at the evidence, and not form opinions on right and wrong regarding the issue. We are not here to justify anyones actions. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism> Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the accuracy of pre war intelligence. There doesnt need to be an ounce of proof behind the US allegations, the fact is that the War on Terrorism is against those that the USA determines to be terrorists or state sponsors of terror. Iraq was determined to be a state sponsor of terror, therefore Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Agreed. Regardless of opinion on the justification. Rmt2m 16:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. I agree. It is part of the War on Terror regardless of one's opinion on its current and/or potential success. It is also part of the War on Terror independently of a user's views on the United States and its criteria for how Terrorism is defined. Haizum 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism> Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the accuracy of pre war intelligence. There doesnt need to be an ounce of proof behind the US allegations, the fact is that the War on Terrorism is against those that the USA determines to be terrorists or state sponsors of terror. Iraq was determined to be a state sponsor of terror, therefore Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. I think it is obvious that the US government sees (or at least saw/presented) the invasion of Iraq and the continuing presence there as part of its War on Terror. However, in my opnion, the term "War on Terror" is just a tag applied to various wars, which might be fought for very different reasons and with different means, very much like the "global stuggle against communism" of R. Reagan. [13]. So I would propose including a text along the lines of "the US government sees the invasion of Iraq as part of its global "War on Terrorism". KarlXII 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment: How is this statement in support of the above conclusion? If you want to include the disclaimer "the US government sees", then your vote should obviously be "disagree". Rkrichbaum 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. I believe that many people don't want to allow the Iraq war to be part of the WOT because they believe that the true purpose behind the conflict was money, oil, power, etc. However, that is conjecture and can never be proven, only debated. Such things have no place in an encyclopedia. Historical fact does not necessarily mean the true purpose and intent in an instigator's mind, but rather what is publicly visible. Rexmorgan 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment: If the true purpose of the Iraq invasion can never be proven, how can you accept the purpose as stated by the government as the one and only truth? There is no lack of educated commentary on the Iraq war as well as on the so-called war on terror and any decent encyclopedia will make an attempt to fairly represent those various views. Rkrichbaum 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the accuracy of pre war intelligence. There doesnt need to be an ounce of proof behind the US allegations, the fact is that the War on Terrorism is against those that the USA determines to be terrorists or state sponsors of terror. Iraq was determined to be a state sponsor of terror, therefore Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Agreed. It has always been classified as part of the war on terrorism-- Looper5920 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    No, it was classified by Bushco, not the entire planet. To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Depends what you call Bushco. If by Bushco, you mean the coalition, you are right. As pointed out here, Bush, The Senate, The House of Representatives, England, and Italy all call it part of the war on terrorism. Aznar of Spain also referred to it as part of the War on Terror. So I agree, "Bushco" call it part of the war on terror, therefore making it part of the war on terror as "Bushco" defined it. Rangeley 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Yes. I think people are missing the most important part of the quote. "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." It doesn't matter at all what actual connections exist. If tommorow Bush declared War on Denny's and identified them as having ties to terrorist groups, the article on War on Denny's would warrant a subsection of the War on Terror. Basically, the War on Terrorism article and it's content is not defined by whether or not the war is against terrorist forces but whether or not the war is against forces identified by the US as terrorist forces (or forces with ties to terrorists). Staxringold talk contribs 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I think you yourself are missing the point. By claiming that the US can designattre any conflict as part of .., you admit there are no limits. WOT is ipso facto involving the entire planet for eternity.
    That is the future, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. World War Two could have gone on forever, but it didnt. The Cold War could have gone on forever, but it didnt. This could go on forever too. But just like the last two I listed, we do not state what could happen, but instead what as. The US designated Iraq a State sponsor of terror, and therefore it could be attacked in a war defined as a war against those the US declares state sponsors of terror. Rangeley 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    In addition, no, I'm not missing anything. The War on Terrorism (caps) is not the same as a war on terrorism. A war on terrorism (no caps) is a war waged against terrorist forces. The War on Terrorism (caps) is a specifically defined conflict, and that definition involves fighting forces designated by the combatants as terrorist forces. Again, it doesn't matter if it's Denny's, the importance for definition in the capitalized War is the designation of terrorist affiliation, not actual affiliation. Staxringold talk contribs 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Yes, per Rexmorgan it just makes sense. ← ΣcoPhreek  contribs talk→ 22:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Yes, I find it odd that the same people pushing the WMD rationale that they believe to be false will exclude the WOT rationale....because they think it's a false rationale. -- Mmx1 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    It is odd indeed that pointing out both the WMD and the terrorism rationale were widely disputed, even among US intelligence, is evidence of Iraq not being part of ... Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You cannot say WMD's were the reason, then ignore the War on Terror, since WMD's were given as a reason because they would be given to terrorists. I believe that is the point they are making. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. The reason for going to war in Iraq was the War on Terror, hopelessly flawed as intelligence. To say otherwise is to impute other motives for which we have no documentation. -- Vaquero100 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Yes. Like other wars declared by other countries, whether you like it or not or think it is wise or not, the War on Terrorism (declared by the U.S.) is defined as whatever the U.S. government says it is. Period. Lawyer2b 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Currently, American forces are fighting terrorists, the intended target of the War on Terror. Certain parts of the campaign may not have been directly against terrorists, but the terrorist involvement now clearly demonstrates that it is part of the War. Homagetocatalonia 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Agree. Wars are defined by those who wage them. Congress, as a whole (judged as a whole by majority), voted for this war. Obviously, President Bush has had a huge part in it. They are the ones who dictate this war and coined the term war on terror in the first place. They include the Iraq War in the War on Terror, and since the Iraq War and the War on Terror are defined by them, it should be included. Note that the name War on Terror is arbitrary; several people argue (though I disagree) that the War on Terror does nothing to stem the flow of terrorism. SHould we even consider renaming it The War that Accomplishes Nothing... no way. This is not about what is accomplished here, it is about what the people in chargte of this war consider it to be. (After all, we would not change WWII to The Second War in Europe, even though to call it a WORLD war is inaccurate.) Besides, I know it has not been in the news or anything, but the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq was rcently killed by the U.S. military operatives ;-) By the way, I know that this writing is akward, but (long story) my question mark and apostrophe and quote mark keys do not work, hence the lack of contractions :-) Whoops, tildaes do not work either... Karwynn ¨13:08, 19 June 2006
  15. Agree. To me this seems to be part of the Wikipedia's larger problem with picking and choosing what organizations, policies, concepts, etc. get self-definition, and which ones are defined by critics of the organization, policy, concept, etc. The President and Commander-in-Chief acting with the authorization of Congress in the name of the United States government is fighting what they defined as the War on Terrorism. There's a place to wage a political debate against the policies of the President and Congress -- the Wikipedia is just not part of it. patsw 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Agree. per Rangeley and zero faults |sockpuppets|.-- James Bond 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Agree per Staxringold. Ch u ck (contrib) 05:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Agree per Staxringold. The War on Terror is whatever the coalition decides it is. Nscheffey( T/ C) 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Agree. The "War On Terrorism", in its semantic form, can be described as whatever the Bush Administration sees fit, as it purely exists as a label for US's foreign policy post-9/11. -- kizzle 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Agree per all the above. Arkon 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Agree I agree to all of the above. Those who are denying it are they themselves putting their own opinions or political belief into this article, and if Wikipedia is to be considered a legitimate encylopedia with no bias, then this simply cannot be done. Runiteshark 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Agree The U.S. claims the war to be part of the War on Terror which is their own created doctrine, they determine whether a conflict fits the needed guidelines to be called that because they are the sole creator of the term. Therefore I support the use of Iraq war to fall under the War on Terrorism. People need to stop trying to edit with political doctrines in mind. - Patman2648 08:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Agree I think there's a strong precedent for this in the Fourth Crusade. Even though it attacked Christians, rather than infidels, undermined the objective of protecting holy sites in the Levant from Islamic domination, and is sometimes said to have been planned for venal enrichment from an early point (essentially analogous to the criticisms leveled against the Iraq War in the context of the War on Terror), it is still treated as a part of the series of Crusades. I think the same principle should apply here. Choess 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Agree Yeah, of course. When you wage war, you get to choose what your targets are or aren't. Morton Devonshire Yo
  25. Agree per Rangeley and Zer0faults -- Edward Sandstig 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral / Abstain

  1. The beginning section goes out of its way to absolve the discussion of any responsibility for coming to grips with the concept of the "War on Terror" itself, and its flawed definition. Unfortunately, this is required for discussion to proceed sensibly. The concept of a war on an emotion being meaningless, and the "War on Terror" not yet having been clearly defined, there's no way to even determine any sensible guidelines for which conflicts should be placed within the category and which should not. I say not clearly defined because the "War on Terror" lacks clearly defined enemies, and lacks clearly defined goals which, if met, would bring an end to the conflict. Without these basic requirements, it is the eternal war against whoever we don't like this week. Respectfully, I feel this is a waste of time. If you're going to use the U.S. government's definition of what the term "War on Terror" means, you have no choice but to include the Iraq War in it by default, because the "War on Terror" as it currently stands has no clearly defined boundaries or limits. There's no way to say that any American conflict or military action is not part of it. Kasreyn 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Exactly the reason why the consensus (I would call an overwhelming numerical vote against inclusion consensus) was against including Iraq. WOT as advocated by Bush can indeed be apllied to any conflict. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I do not remember a vote on this. I remember a poll asking people if it should be in the infobox specifically. Some editors felt it was part, but since it was controversial, it should be left out of the infobox. This is not about the specifics of the infobox, this is addressing the larger issue of the general classification of the term and this war. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    There is a way to say that something is not part of it. Was it begun to fight terrorism or a sponsor of terror? If not, then it is not part of the War on Terror. It is always difficult to set limits on something that is ongoing. For instance, how would they have set limits on defining World War Two when it was going on? At first, it would have been defined as a conflict between Poland/France/England and Germany. But as years went by, the conflict gradually became quite different. If you were to tell a Pole in 1939 that the war that begins there would lead to 2 nuclear bombs being dropped on Japan, he would probably be quite skeptical of such a thing, and not just because nuclear weapons hadnt been invented. Where we are in this conflict, we cannot see the future of it. Maybe another war will start, maybe not. We are in no place to predict, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Where the War on Terrorism will go tomorrow is not the issue, it is where it has gone. Currently it is defined as a campaign against "terrorists and state sponsors of terror," for which the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are most certainly part. This is all we can deal with, as this is all we know today.
    And Nescio, 15-9 is not even an overwhelming numerical majority, let alone a consensus. Rangeley 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. This is a question of POV. The U.S. government says one thing and certain groups opposed to that government (or its actions) say something else. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view says that both these claims should be covered in the article. I suggest something like the following The United States (together with a coalition of like minded nations) invaded Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from power, citing violations of UN Security Council resolutions, alleged links to terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda, and his alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. The United States, both at the time of the invasion and since, has consistently maintain that removing Saddam was an integral part of the War on Terrorism that it is prosecuting in responce to the Sepember 11th terrostis atacks. This claim has been disputed by many opponents of the war in Iraq, including prominent members of the United States Congress, who claim that the war is, in fact, a distraction from the true battle against terrorism and does not further the U.S. position in that conflict. The War on Terrorism should be prominently mentioned in the article and link to and could be included in a See Also section but is not appropriate in an info-box claiming that the War in Iraq is an integral part of the GWOT the way the '44 invasion of France was part of WWII. That claim is in dispute and until there is more historical perspective and more reliable sources which take a position Wikipedia should maintain a studied neutrality in the matter. Eluchil404 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I agree we couldnt say its an integral part, as of now that would be POV since we dont know how the campaign will play out in the end. However, it is certainly a part of the war on terrorism. This is because the War on Terrorism, as defined by its wagers, is a war against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror, and began the Iraq War as part of the war on terrorism. Rangeley 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I like the relative neutrality of your statement, Eluchil404, but it still has clear bias. How about this: The United States (together with a coalition of like minded nations) resumed hostilities with Iraq, citing violations of UN Security Council resolutions, links to terrorist groups (including Al-Qaeda), and possession of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration, both at the time of the invasion and since, has consistently maintained that resuming hostilities was an integral part of the War on Terrorism that is being persued by the coalition in response to terrorist activity. This claim has been disputed by many opponents of the war in Iraq, including prominent members of the United States Congress, who claim that the war is a distraction from combatting terrorism and does not further the U.S. position in that conflict. This would accurately and without bias define the war in Iraq from today's perspective, where nothing has solidified and none should be made the bad guy, because choices are choices, opinions are opinions, and only time will allow everyone to look back on the events objectively. Somewhere in here it should also mention what terrorism-related and UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's government was removed from power in Iraq. EricJ 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. It is apparent to me that a consesus cannot be reached without a compromise. I am abstaining from agreeing or disagreeing and I am in favor of an alternative. KevinPuj 13:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    There is no way to compromise on this, its one or the other. Either it is part of the campaign, or not. How this is displayed, for instance kizzle suggested putting War on Terrorism in quotes, is another issue that can be addressed later. But before we can get this far, we must first recognize it as part of the conflict. Rangeley 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I disagree with this conclusion

  1. On the grounds that you cannot rehash a debate in which consensus clearly was against inclusion (see talk pages of Iraq war and the template WOT). Having this kind of "poll" again and again and again and again and again and again and again, untill the result is the one you want is not encyclopedic. Just accept that consensus is against including Iraq. Since this is the millionth "poll" I object to repeating this procedure and reject this one, it should be stopped immediately. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would point you to the opening paragraph, and the introduction which outline the underlying problems with the two previous polls (which were simultaneously carried out in two seperate articles). A numerical majority is not the definition of a consensus, you are welcome to provide a counter argument for the one put forth in this article. This would be more constructive than voting against this on the basis that it has been talked about before. Rangeley 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please define consensus. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    It is an agreement that can be reached on this issue. I will not agree to an argument put forth that I can easilly knock down, and I ask noone else to. The purpose of this is to either come to an agreement about the argument put forward here, or to find a convincing argument against this. I have backed down on other issues at Wikipedia when I found myself to be wrong, because frankly I dont like making a fool of myself, consider it to be "cutting and running" from a debate if you will. I would not be debating here if I felt I was wrong, because this could hurt my future attempts to acheive anything if I debated idiotically a clearly incorrect point. When an argument arises which sufficiently shows me to be wrong, for which I cant respond, I will back down and agree with you. This is all I can ask of anyone, when they see that their argument can no longer stand, they too would back down. If you are not at this point, please present an argument. When either side gets to this point, this is a consensus. Rangeley 21:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This page ignores the lengthy rebuttal already advanced. Please read the concluded debate and accept that the majority feels that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. how ever much Bushco wants us to believe he is behind 9-11. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Who cares what the majority feels? Is this an encyclopedia, or an experiment in democracy? The feelings of the majority shouldn't even be on the list of factors considered. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    the majority feels -- this isn't about feelings and emotive mob rule, it's about facts. Haizum 01:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is about the sillyness of having this debate over and over again, with the same arguments. Since nobody can deny that SH was not linked to 9-11, he did not go around and bomb bars and restaurants it is incorrect to label him a terrorist and therefore invading Iraq can never be linked to terrorism. That is unless we do what Bush does and claim that every remote contact (he spoke to the brother of the milkman of the sister of a neighbourt of a man who went to scholl with, .....) constitutes supporting terrorism. Howevcer I already proved that this logic means that the US too is sponsoring international terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    He did fund people who went around and blew up bars and stuff. That is almost the equivalent fo saying bin Laden is not a terrorist, cause he did not blow up anything himself. Iraq was deamed a state sponsor of terrorism, the keywords are sponsor, and Iraq, not Saddam. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You can of course explain how this is different from the US financing and training OBL, a known terrorist most notably the brain behind 9-11. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Because at the time bin Laden was not a terrorist, he was fighting against the Soviet Republic as part of a recognized armed militia, no nation designated the afghan rebels as terrorists and they did not indiscrimantly kill civilians during their fight against the Soviets. Once again, you do not seem to be denying that the US said Iraq was a state sponsor, your only arguement seems to be that the US may have sponsored terrorism as well, even though no nation recognizes them as such. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not a debate on the definition of terrorism, or if the USA has supported terrorism, committed genocide, or eats babies. The War on Terrorism is a specifically defined conflict, being waged by the USA and allies, against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq was seen as a state sponsor of terrorism, and the war began as such. Rangeley 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Since this is about whether Bush was fighting terrorism in Iraq it is pertinent to know what terrorism is, to determine whether or not Iraq was guilty of terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    For the last time, they were found to be a state sponsor of terrorism, stop misleading the discussion by changing the phrase. The War on Terror is also against state sponsored terrorism. No matter how much you change the words around the fact remains Iraq was found to be a state sponsor of terrorism, are you denying the PALF incident, or are you stating Saddam is not on trial right now for what the dictionary definition of terrorism is, the one I have already provided. You have lots of questions, perhaps you should read the articles and then return, since you do not know what terrorism is, or War on Terror is. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nomen, if I merely said that I posted an argument that noone could provide a counter argument for, noone would believe me. Instead I actually provided it for everyone to see, it did take some time but I did it because I knew I was right. If you dont feel the same of yours, just stop debating this. You dont need to admit defeat, Im not looking to humiliate anyone. Either present your argument or stop talking about it. Rangeley 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You are wrong and by suggesting I should admit I am wrong you try to prove you are right. Circular logic if ever I saw one. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its circular logic to stop debating when you have no rebuttal? Thats news to me. As far as I know, thats what you do when you cant rebut something, rather than continue to debate with irrelevant things. Unless you can explain why the argument put forth in this topic is wrong, I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Rangeley 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. The "war on terror" is not a military campaign, but an "ideological struggle" (Bush) according to the reference given above (1). That the Iraq invasion constitutes part of this "ideological struggle" clearly is the partisan view of the the Republican party, or its leaders - this follows from other references given above (Financial Times, Houston Chronicle). The opposition within the US disagrees. Many critics have characterized the label "war on terror" as a propaganda term. As such, using it unquestioningly is part of a war of semantics. Some prominent critics, including Zbigniev Brzezinski, have stated that it even constitutes a war ON semantics, given that it is impossible to wage war on military tactics. To label the Iraq invasion and occupation on Wikipedia as part of the "war on terror" would therefore obviously constitute a partisan statement, which is inappropriate without a disclaimer and the citation of opposing views. This has probably been pointed out many times before, but I only arrived here recently and thought I should add my 2 cents. Rkrichbaum 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    It's obviously both a military campaign and an ideological struggle. Haizum 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, no, it is obviously something whose very empirical existence outside of semantics is questioned by notable critics. Rkrichbaum 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would like to note that none of what you said is relevant to the question at hand, and instead are arguments against things this is not attempting to address, such as the name of the conflict. Recognizing this as part of a larger conflict is no more a partisan stance than recognizing previous wars or battles as part of a wider conflict. It is no more a justification of the Iraq War than calling the Vietnam War part of the Cold War was a justification of that. Rangeley 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I realize quite well your attempt to limit the discussion to the Republican view of US policies which they describe as a "war on terror". The Iraq invasion may well become part of a wider conflict, but this remains to be seen. The Vietnam war was not part of the "Cold War" since by its very definition the term "Cold War" does not include military campaigns. Rkrichbaum 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Haizum 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the well meant advice. I certainly always assume good faith and do not even need Wiki policies for that. I also never pretend to assume something when it doesn't seem rational to do so. Rkrichbaum 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well you just said that another user is attempting to "limit the discussion to the Republican view," which is assuming a POV and is therefore not AGF, hence the template. Haizum 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Rkrichbaum, a slight problem with this is that the Vietnam War was part of the Cold War, as stated on both articles. The Cold War involved no direct conflicts between the two superpowers, but instead existed in the form of "an arms race involving nuclear and conventional weapons, networks of military alliances, economic warfare and trade embargos, propaganda, espionage and proxy wars, especially those involving superpower support for opposing sides within civil wars." Thus, The Vietnam War is inherently part of the conflict. Likewise, the Iraq War fits into the definition of the War on Terrorism stated in its respective article, whose stated goal is "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." Rangeley 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The articles do not state that the Vietnam war was "part of the Cold War". I'm sure nobody will reject the statement that according to the present US administration, the Iraq invasion is seen as part of the so-called war on terror. What you seem to be asking is for everyone to accept that this Republican view has to be stated as fact in a Wiki article. Please correct me if this perception is wrong. Rkrichbaum 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its in the info box for Vietnam War ... I believe its also in the template for Cold War. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its also mentioned 9 times, once being casus belli, and a 10th time in the template on the bottom for Cold War. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The articles do not state that the Vietnam war was "part of the Cold War". Period. Rkrichbaum 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Are you being serious? I do not know if this is a joke or not. When the page loads, look to the right ... The infobox clearly states it does, the term comes up 9 times in the article, its listed in the template on the bottom as part of the Cold War ... Am I missing a joke? Vietnam War ... ? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Ok, you are correct, I missed the phrase in the info box of the Vietnam war. It is, of course, complete nonsense. Rkrichbaum 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    What I am asking for is for people to put aside their personal politics and look at the facts. This was stated above. Rangeley 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please point me to where ANY of your citations say that it is a "fact" and not a Republican / adminstration view that the Iraq invasion is "part of the war on terror". Not even the war powers resolution states such a thing, it mentions a "war on terrorism", but only in the context of SC resolution enforcement and use of force against states harboring 9/11 terrorists. Since the Iraq invasion was neither, it doesn't fit that definition. Rkrichbaum 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Party positions do not matter. The President, Senate, and House of Representatives have all stated that it is part of the War on Terrorism. I do not know what war resolution you are talking about, but the one dealing with the Iraq War [14] states as a reason to go to war that "the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism" and "including those" nations and groups that carried out the 9-11 attacks. It does not state that it is limited to those who were involved. It goes on to further state authorization of force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," which was outlined above to be a threat of terrorism and WMD. This makes it clear that it was begun as a part of the war on terror, and was waged as part of the war on terror. Whether or not the intelligence was right is irrelevant, and not what this is addressing. It is also not addressing whether the USA was right to wage the war. This is attempting to recognize the terms under which the Iraq war was, and is being waged. The War on Terrorism is a campaign waged by the USA and its allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Rangeley 12:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Party positions do matter, since parties have - according to your own sources cited above - significantly different views on whether or not the Iraq occupation is "part of the war on terror". It is totally irrelevant on what language a particular majority in Congress agrees upon, or that you seem to think the US president can freely "determine" without evidence whether or not some country is "harboring terrorists". No, the president cannot determine that black is white and white is black. The US may be almost there, but there is still some way to go. It is common knowledge that the justification for the Iraq invasion was based on false information, and that includes the supposed harboring of al-Qaeda terrorists. That is a fact. If you could find a source that unequivocally states that the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a part of the "war on terrorism", please quote it. The war powers resolution does not unequivocally state that. Bush was authorized to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq", as you correctly point out. The references to the "war on terrorism" in this resolution are quite vague, however. In public debate, the stated reasons for the war were clearly centered around the alleged "immediate threat" supposedly posed by Iraq's alleged WMD capabilities. The alleged "harboring of terrorists" was rarely even mentioned, and the validity of this claim strongly denied by relevant actors. So maybe you could say that one of the purported reasons was to eliminate a minor and much disputed terrorist threat, and that the "war on terrorism" was used as one of several justifications for the intervention. But stating that it was "part" of a wider campaign to eliminate (individual) terrorism (against civilians) is clearly not true. Rkrichbaum 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Just to inform you, the president does not choose which nations are considered to be state-sponsors of terrorism. Also resolution 114 which you seem to be talking about, notes terrorism independantly, then repeatedly when reffering to WMDs. The threat was Iraq could strike US allies, its neighbors or give the weapons to terrorists. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that this is not about defining terrorism, defining white, or defining black. The very definition of the War on Terrorism is a campaign waged by the USA, NATO, and allies against those they see as terroists, and state sponsors of terror. They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror, and therefore began the war under the War on Terrorism. Whether you or I think Iraq was a state sponsor of terror doesnt matter. The USA and allies can determine who they see as state sponsors of terror, and this is who they are targetting in the campaign they are waging - the War on Terrorism. We must recognize this as an encyclopedia. Rangeley 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Interesting that you would mention NATO. The very fact that NATO did NOT intervene in Iraq should make you think again. Yes, the NATO countries agreed to participate in the so-called "war on terrorism" when they were shown the confidential dossier with "evidence" against al-Qaeda by Blair. They were not presented with evidence that implicated Iraq as "harboring terrorists" and most of NATO's partner countries did not even agree that Iraq posed an "immediate threat". The US can determine whatever they wish and it still does not make such claims true, especially if they are proven to be false. Rkrichbaum 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Just because every ally didnt participate doesnt change anything... Iraq was still seen as a state sponsor of terror. Some nations chose not to participate, some did. Rangeley 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Should be either:
    and not:
    Not really. [p ∧ (q ∨ r)] ⊢ [(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)] Haizum 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Could you please re-state your concern and not just use symbolic notation? -- kizzle 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I just restated your comment as a calculus form to show that injecting Bush+whatever doesn't matter. Haizum 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Of course it matters. This isn't calculus. Adopting your logic would mean that we wouldn't have to cite anything and simply adopt it into the official tone of the text, which would be ludicrous. Either that or I have your argument wrong... replace your symbolic notation with what you think p, q, and r are. -- kizzle 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    If its highly debatable, what is the rebuttal to this? Rangeley 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "The United States and its allies began the military campaign known as the War on Terrorism,"Saddam Hussein's regime was considered a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the United States government," and "The United States and its allies began the Iraq War as a stated part of the War on Terrorism" are exactly why I justify my position. Once again, the fact that the United States advanced the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism is indisputable. However, to evaluate here on Wikipedia whether or not Iraq is actually connected to terrorism in the manner that would justify its inclusion in such states as Afghanistan as part of the War on Terrorism is not our responsibility nor appropriate for us as Wikipedians to decide. There is a significant opposition to the position to that stated on this Wikipedia page from the likes of Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and many other significant and notable voices that would disagree with the sentiments here. Are we truly going to rule these voices out by siding with one voice? Of course not. We instead cite such a judgment, as anything else would be irresponsible editing and contrary to several stated Wikipedia policies.
    In sum:
    There are two different sides to whether or not Iraq is justified as being part of the War on Terrorism, the opposition of the side expressed here especially coming from the likes of Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies, and Paul O'Neill in Price of Loyalty,two former Bush cabinet members. If you doubt this assertion, page numbers and passages can be provided where both of these former administration officials state that including Iraq in the War on Terrorism is dubious at best.
    What this Wikipedia page proposes is to adopt one of these sides into the official tone of articles in the namespace and thus conclude the debate.
    The above assertion violates Wikipedia policy of NPOV by siding with one side in a debate.
    Thus, we should cite such a position to the Bush administration, as it is indisputable.
    -- kizzle 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that we are not attempting to justify the war at all. We are not trying to validate pre-war intelligence either. Iraq could have had no ties to terror or wmd whatsoever and it would change nothing. The War on Terror is defined by a conflict that is waged against those that the US determines to be terrorists, and state sponsors of terror. The United States labeled Iraq a state sponsor of terror. Therefore, it was eligible to become part of the War on Terror, and it did, when the USA made war with Iraq. This does not conclude any debate. If you want to think about it in a very negative light, compare it to a school shooting. It is carried out by 3 people, and they kill 30 hispanic children and one white child. One might suggest that the killing of the white child was unassociated with the killing of the 30 black kids. But they find the hitlist, and the terms set forth in this hitlist states the killers wanted to take down all hispanics and hispanic sympathizers. It would therefore be correct to state that all 31 people were killed in the same event. Whether or not the sole white kid actually sympathized with hispanics, and whether or not any of the people killed were bad in any way shape or form is irrelevant. It would not be biased to recognize they are all linked.
    I apologize for my overtly negative example, but it is there to illustrate that linking together things does not justify anything, even when it is completely wrong, such as this fictional killing. The USA and allies made its "hitlist," and this includes those they say are terrorists or state sponsors of terror. It is not biased or POV to recognize, therefore, the different components as linked together. By doing so it is not a justification, but instead a factual look at the events. Rangeley 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You misread my comment. I am not trying to "justify" the war at all, I am saying whether or not the war is "justified" as part of the War on Terrorism is a real debate. I agree with you that Iraq was stated by the US as part of the War on Terrorism, but it's inappropriate to go beyond that and say Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. Besides, stating that the War in Iraq was advanced by the US as part of the War on Terrorism is truer to the point and indisputable. -- kizzle 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    But the point is that the US and allies have the power to determine what is and what is not in the War on Terror, as they began the War on Terror. To only state they say its part of the war on terror is to imply that it is not factual, when in reality it is factual. Much like in a series of books, for instance Harry Potter. We do not state that the author "alleges Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is part of a wider series," because it is a part of a wider series of books. Likewise, we cannot just say that the US and Allies allege it to be part of the War on Terror, because it is a part of the war on terror. As the "author" or in this case creator of the conflict, they can define it and add as they see fit. Rangeley 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This "the US and allies have the power to determine what is and what is not in the War on Terror" is exactly what is wrong with this poll. The US gets to determine for the entire planet what terrorism is, and we know this administration is very flexible in adopting novel interpretations to justify their policies, i.e. unlawful combatant, torture in the US is called enhanced interrogation, et cetera. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We simply fundamentally disagree on the usage of War on Terrorism... you see it as a semantic phrase that can be defined as the Bush administration sees fit, and I do not. However, if we are going to use it as a semantic phrase, which you propose, than I am fine with something along the lines of "The War in Iraq is part of the 'War on Terrorism'", as using the quotations mirrors that which is found upon the actual War on Terrorism... the quotes also establish that we're talking about a semantic phrase rather than a concept. -- kizzle 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Kizzle, check down here, Wikipedia:WOT#Alternative_Possibilities. And Nomen, no, I am not claiming that the USA and allies can determine for the world what terrorism is. But the USA and allies can determine what it sees as terrorism and state sponsors of terror, and these nations and groups that fit the US and allies definition are the ones that the War on Terrorism is being fought against. Rangeley 13:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. "War on terror" is a propaganda term and inherently not neutral. Furthermore, the main reasoning about the Iraq war was WMD, not WOT. None of the 9-11 terrorists was Iraqi, however, opinion polls showed more than 60% of the US population thought that Hussein was somehow responsible for the attack. We should not add to that confusion. Añoranza 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The reason given was that those WMD's would get into terrorist hands, please see HJ Res 114 as you seem unfamiliar with it. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please explain how training OBL, IRA and FARC is not supporting terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the name of the conflict. The context in which the WMD was a threat was (as Zero pointed out) the allegged risk of it falling into the hands (or being given) to terrorists, along with Iraq's support of terrorism elsewhere, all of which made them a state sponsor of terror according to the USA. As the War on Terrorism was begun with the goal of "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism," and Iraq was a stated part of the War on Terrorism, it is part of the War on Terrorism. This is not addressing whether Iraq was involved in 9-11. Rangeley 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Ludicrous argument since you can always assert that somebody might, eventually, possibly, notwithstanding in the future give money, or technology to alleged terrorists. BTW, what exactly is your definition of a terrorist? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Almost like basing years around stopping the spread of communism, but we know that never happened, and there was never any conflicts about it, wars, operations etc. We know that if there was it would have gone on forever and see we would dare never to name it. Sorry I felt if I mentioned the name someone would accuse me of using the "Cold War anology". It was not mean to mock you. Sigh it wasa a pointless joke, I see it appearing on my RfC soon. Woe is me. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nomen, I respect your opinion, and as I have told you, my personal beliefs run contrary to what is proven factually. But having communists as a target can take you anywhere, much like having terrorists as one. However that conflict did not go on forever, and it did spread to poor countries that it shouldnt have, but that does negate what it was and that it happened. Yes the US can attack anyone, sadly, much like in the Cold War, it basically encompasses the stopping of communism. Sad but true. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Interesting you should mention communism. As we now know the threat of that was seriously exaggerated, just as the threat of terrorism is today. As to the US being able to attack anyone, please read about war of aggression, jus ad bellum, crime against peace and war crimes. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Correct,you are seeing the point. Now does that mean the Cold War never happened since the threat was exaggerated? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nomen, my definition of a terrorist, and your definition of a terrorist is irrelevant. It is the USA's governments definition of a terrorist and a state sponsor of terror that matters. They determined Saddam Hussein's regime to be a state sponsor of terror, and they began a war against him under the context of the War on Terrorism - a war against those they see as state sponsors of terror and terrorists. Is it right? Is it justified? Irrelevant. The justness of the actions do not effect our recognition of the connection, which is vital in our job as an encyclopedia. Rangeley 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is a perfect answer to my rhetorical question. Apparently you think the US is the sole authority on what a terrorist/terrorism is. Clearly, this is by definition a biased statement. When I ask for the definition of what a terrorist is I ask for a neutral description and not "what the US says it is." First of all, the US is party to this and cannot be trusted with such a definition and second, it suggests that when the US is not involved, and does not determine anything, there is no terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Noone says the US is the only nation that can say what a terrorist is, what we are saying is the US said Iraqi was a state sponsor of terrorism. You are over exaggerating the point. Oddly enough if the UN said Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and then the SC council voted to attack Iraq, would you find that wrong? You should because its the UN stating they are a terrorist sponsor, and the UN attacking. This basically is your circle logic. You state only the UN can justify a war, you also state that a group cannot label another group a state sponsor of terrorism and then take part in the invasion. IF its wrong for the US to do it, its wrong for the UN, oddly enough the UN can only act on things that it has voted on, basically eliminating any war as just. But most of all, we are not here to justify the war, simply say if its part of it or not. You keep wanting to justify it, but we as wikipedians are not here to judge our subjects. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You fail to understand that the UN is not a country like the US, but an international body created specifically to deal with these issues. Clearly the US has not been appointed by the international community to do the same, therefore the analogy is incorrect. Second, this debate is not about justification ort what did the Bush administration say. The debate is about which terrorist was the US fighting in Iraq? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "War on terror" is a propaganda term and inherently not neutral. -- is a subjective statement and is inherently not neutral, as usual. Haizum 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please provide a neutral definition of the term terrorism. Let's start from there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Just look it up in the dictionary, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please explain why that definition does not apply to how Israel treats Palestinians, i.e the recent killing of a family in Gaza. Or, how invading Iraq without UN support, to topple a regime the US disliked does not fall under this definition. Have I already mentioned threatening Iran to force that country to adopt another policy? There are more examples but I think this suffices. Finally you supplied the ammo and proved my point. Terrorism is open to interpretation and if you take this definition many countries are guilty of terrorism. Hence the lenghty debate to find an acceptable defintion. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Stop trying to derail discussion. This is not about the definition of terrorists, or if terrorism is carried out by anyone. This isnt "a" war on terrorism, it is the War on Terrorism, a specifically defined conflict being waged by the USA and its allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. The USA saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror, and they began a war against them under the campaign of The War on Terrorism. I said it before, Ill say it again. Whether the USA commits terrorism, genocide, or eats babies is irrelevant. The same can be applied to Israel, England, China, Japan, Norway, any nation. Whether they actually are terrorists or state sponsors of terror doesnt matter. The War on Terrorism is against those that the USA and allies see as being terrorists or state sponsors of terror. This has been stated many times, and you keep ignoring it. Rangeley 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Could you please cite the respective declaration of war, thank you. Or do you apply the term "war" as a metaphor? As in "war on drugs"? In this case your main point is moot, since it is merely a label for various policies that is open to interpretation by anybody. This is how metaphors work. Rkrichbaum 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    So now the claim is the Iraq War did not happen or anyone war since WW2 since there is no declaration of war? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Since the concept is so well-defined you will have no trouble in telling us where exactly this war is taking place, and what actions are being countered by it and who is committiing terrorist acts. In other words define WOT and terrorism in such a way that we know which countries fall within and outside that definition, and what organisations, person, actions are considered to be terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Did you read the definitions I have given you, two times already? Your attempts to rephrase this question are no longer going to be permitted. Participate in the current discussion or start another one if you want to talk about the issue of justification. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This fundamentally misunderstands NPOV

  1. There is a dispute about whether one term means one thing or another. Therefore, avoid using the term directly, and describe the dispute about its application if appropriate. Simple. Don't say "The Iraq War, a part of the broader War on Terrorism", say "The Iraq War, which the United States government views as part of the broader War on Terrorism". Please carefully read through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if you haven't already. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 20:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem is that such a construction would be incredibly burdensome in an infobox. Do you have a better suggestion? Personally, I like: Part of the "War on Terror" KevinPuj 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  1. Agreed. If a claim (such as this one) is obviously controversial (as this one is) then don't state it as a bare fact state who claims it, and who disagrees. This is basic, simple NPOVing. Come on, people. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. There is no consensus on this in the world. A straw poll cannot authorize a violation of fundamental policy. Septentrionalis 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

m:Polls are evil

  1. Calling this a vote gives the impression that some kind of binding decision is being made here, and that's a bad impression to give, especially with the spamming going on to bring people here to "vote". Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy. "Votes" are a terrible way to try and get things done here. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, which I noted here. As noted in the consensus policies, polls and surveys are used only to assist in consensus building. I said this about Mr. Tibbs polls, and the same applies to this. Rangeley 00:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    As all Straw Polls, its not binding. I hope you take the time to visit the Iraq War page and spread that knowledge to the polls there that were erected in an attempt to enforce a majority rule. This however is an attempt to build a consensus, see the discussion page where ideas are being thrown around. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Rangeley, posting to 20 talk pages of Wikipedians listed in Category:Conservative Wikipedians with a message that says "WP:WOT is up for vote now" is a pretty bad way to convince anyone that you don't think of this as a vote in which numbers matter. To an outside observer... it looks that way. (That category, and others like it, shouldn't even exist.) As for the Iraq war article, I've just added it to my watchlist - am I going to regret that? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I regret adding it everyday ... no seriously. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I've already got Abortion on my watchlist; maybe they can keep each other company. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Not if you like having it remain at the top of your list indefinately. But my calling it a vote was more out of ignorance than anything, being a admin at a forum I have taken to habit of calling polls votes ("such and such is up for a vote"). If you would like I can change it in the individual messages, I have changed the "Vote" sub section to "Straw Poll" here already. Rangeley 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Attempts to mitigate or undermine the impact of this page by subversive methods will not be tolerated; e.g., I will be reviewing the deletion request very closely. Haizum 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "The impact of this page"? What do you figure that is, other than the ideas exchanged in discussion, which can't be taken away from us by deletion or anything else? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    If this page is deleted, discussion (regarding this particular issue) will cease and dialogue will no longer be dynamic. Haizum 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    On the contrary, if this page is deleted, this pointless exercise in PoV pushing will spread all over Wikipedia, which is worse. Septentrionalis 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You can't decide issues of fact with a straw poll

  1. Tony Sidaway 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Deciding fact? I am not sure what you are reffering to, but it appears that some people debate the facts, and hence decide that those facts should not be included. This is a poll to see how many people actually debate the fact that the IRaq War is part of WOT. Its not to determine if it is a fact. The previous straw polls which are listed above, attempted to blue the issue by making it about a specific location, instead of gathering information regarding the war in Iraq and WOT in general. Again as noted above, noone is trying to state for a fact, or make this binding, just get an idea of opinions and ideas. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. What part of WP:NOR escaped your notice? — Phil | Talk 08:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    My apologies if this page was quoted as a source some place, feel free to point me to the article and I will remove it. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The results of the straw poll are a useful tool in gauging support for one side or another, and are nothing more than that. The reason it is in the form of a poll is that polls tend to be a good discussion starter, and also it was previously claimed by certain individuals that polls were a consensus. I disagree with this premise, however by making this in the form of a poll it would legitimize it in their view. But this is trying to acheive a consensus, which I stated above is, in the case of this, the point where it is clear that one side has an argument that cannot be torn down. The argument put forth in this article has not yet been rebutted, and most people seem to agree with it instead. Obviously a majority isnt a consensus, but I believe it is a consensus when an argument is strong enough that it cannot be rebutted successfully. This is to determine if we are at that point, with the argument put forth. We are awaiting a rebuttal. Rangeley 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I don't get what you think you're determining in this poll.... what proportion of Wikipedians who happen to contribute to this page think that the War in Iraq is part of the WOT? That's ridiculous. Whatever a majority of us decide here, it won't change anything. There is no correct answer to that question. Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a side, we're supposed to report the controversy. What are we supposed to do, supposing one "side" gets much more support than the other in this poll? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its also about seeing why, which ideas are heavily supported, what may change others minds etc. Most votes are accomanied by a statement, unless the user feels its been stated well by another. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We are also suppose to report fact, and that is being held back by some editors, and people would like to know why. Its a fact hat the Iraq War was entered into under the reach of the War on Terror, however going to Iraq War page, the "partof" section does not exist or is repeatedly removed. So it seems an understanding of everyone opinions is necessary. The previous poll was only addressing the infobox, a greater discussion on a more broad subject needed to take place, this is it. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    GTBacchus, I said "The results of the straw poll are a useful tool in gauging support for one side or another, and are nothing more than that." I also said that I believe "it is a consensus when an argument is strong enough that it cannot be rebutted successfully. This is to determine if we are at that point, with the argument put forth." As Zero pointed out, this is dealing with facts, and the fact that the USA and allies can add different wars to a larger campaign that they also began. This seems obvious to me and many others, yet whenever it is said, someone edits it out. This is getting to the bottom of the issue. Rangeley 17:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I see - you think it's possible to argue whether or not the WII is part of the WOT and come to a conclusion that will be supported by "stronger arguments" than the other side. Well, that's incorrect, because it's neither a matter of fact, nor opinion, nor argument, nor support, but one of spin. Our job is not to choose the spin we prefer. The fact of the matter is that some people consider the WII to be part of the WOT for such-and-such reasons, and others consider it to be obviously not part of the WOT for such-and-such other reasons. Since both groups are well-represented among sources. We don't pick a side. It doesn't matter how much "support" we gauge here or there; that's utterly meaningless. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    WW2? I am not sure what you are talking about anymore. This page has nothing to do with WW2 ... Furthermore if I goto the article Vietnam War and post on the talk page that this was not part of the Cold War, because the term Cold War is propaganda to hide the fact that real wars took place, then ask them to remove it, what do you think the outcome would be? Would you support this action because its now disputed amongst editors? Obviously not, because its a fact that its part of it. Much like I am stating to you that Iraq is part of the WOT, however I am not arguing that WW2 was ... If you want to see how factual it is, see some of the votes on the Iraq War page, many people said they believe it is, however should not be in the infobox because people are debating it. That is supressing fact due to editors not wanting to believe it. People who start wars get to say why they did it and get to pick targets ... I have never seen this point debated yet. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Good thing I never said WWII. I said "WII", attempting to abbreviate "War In Iraq", which is what we are talking about. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    And the rest of what I wrote ... -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, it's not clear to me what you think I'm supporting - you seem to think that I support the removal of something or another, when I haven't said that. The best way to find out what I think is to ask me. I think the question "Is Iraq part of the WOT?" does not have a single correct answer, and we're doing a disservice to pretend that it does. In other words, I'm not taking the side against you; I'm just not taking your side either. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You are absolutely wrong. It is not a matter of oppinion, because it is something that can be determined. I have stated countless analogies throughout this, such as the example of a hitlist. When 30 people are killed by the same person, and all of them were all on the same hitlist in which the criminal states his intentions to "kill anyone who wears a hat," you know that all 30 killings are linked under the same rampage carried out by the criminal. It is factual. When an author writes a series of books and releases them, it is a factual statement to say all of the books are in the same series. We do not say that it is alleged that the books are in the same series, or that the author claims they are in the same series, because it is within the authors power to determine what is, and what is not in the series. It was the criminals choice to determine who to put on his hitlist and kill. It is not for us to say otherwise, because that would be untrue, and unfactual. It would be incorrect. Likewise, it is absolutely incorrect to say "The US Alleges the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism" because the US, as the creator of the War on Terror and the Iraq War, can determine what is and what is not in the War on Terrorism. The War on Terrorism and " A Series of Unfortunate Events" is a specific campaign and book series respectively. Whether or not you consider the War on Terrorism to truly be against terrorism is irrelevant, just like whether or not A Series of Unfortunate Events is actually unfortunate is irrelevant. If one of them had a happy ending, it would not make us "report on the controversy" and only claim that this is allegedly in the series. If the author says its in the series, it is, regardless of how well it lives up to expectations. The creator of the War on Terrorism has made it a war against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. They saw Iraq as a State Sponsor of Terror, and began the war against them as a part of the war on terror. This is factual, and there is no reason to not recognize this. Just because some disagree doesnt change the facts, this hasnt led the Earth article to say its allegedly round, the article on Evolution to state it allegedly occurs, or the article on the Moon landing to say it allegedly happened. All comment on the controversy, but none of them allow the controversy to hinder the presentation of factual information. I can only expect the same for this. Rangeley 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I think I understand your argument. The trouble is this: one of the major points of the Iraq war that's criticized is the motivation. Critics say that the administration didn't really initiate the war because of the threat of terrorism, but for other reasons, right? Furthermore, we read in Criticisms of the War on Terrorism that, "arguments are also made against the phrase [War on Terrorism], calling it a misnomer." The criticism is that, by calling it the War on Terrorism, and referring to it with that name, one is conceding an entire agenda. See political framing. If you concede to the language of one side, on certain issues such as this, then you also concede to their agenda. This follows from the tension between a designation like "The War on Terrorism" and the literal meanings of the words "the war on terrorism" in some general context. Smart rhetoricians exploit that tension, to create a dialogue prejudicial to their side appearing more plausible and correct. Our job is to not allow the rhetoricians of any side of a dispute to do that. If we blithely state that the Iraq War simply is part of The War on Terrorism (proper noun) without acknowleding that the term is considered by some to be a very misleading misnomer, then we're allowing one position to determine the language of discourse to the exclusion of others. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    But we are not talking about mere motivations, we are discussing the official positions taken by the government. The use of force was authorized to "prosecute the War on Terrorism" against the "threat posed by Iraq." You outlined a problem, the name War on Terrorism has its critics. But this is a seperate issue. The only thing this page is trying to acheive is the recognition of the Iraq War as part of the larger campaign, which it has been explicitly stated as such. And so long as the name for this specific campaign is the War on Terrorism, according to Wikipedia, then that is what we say it is a part of. The objections to the name are legitimate, and worthy of a discussion all their own. But the name of the campaign is irrelevant to this. Were it called "Bush's War of Subjugation" at Wikipedia, than the Iraq War would still be part of the campaign. Were it called "The War waged by America and Allies against those they see as Terrorists" the Iraq war would still be part of it. We must put the name aside, and recognize first that the Iraq War is a part of it - whatever the name of the campaign may be. Its as fair as recognizing The Bad Beginning as part of A Series of Unfortunate Events. That is the name of the series, and while it is undoubtedly a loaded name for a book series, this does not interfere with our recognition of the book as part of the series. Rangeley 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I agree that we should definitely acknowledge that the War in Iraq is part of a broader campaign, AND that the campaign is named "The War on Terrorism", AND that the name is controversial for reasons that have very much to do with the inclusion of the Iraq War in that campaign, and I don't think there's room to do the subject justice in an infobox. The infobox ought to say something to acknowledge that the statement "The Iraq War is part of The War on Terrorism" is not entirely unproblematic, and the problematic nature should be explained in the body text. How does that sound? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    While this is not entirely what this is about (which is merely its inclusion), I agree that it should be not kept out of the infobox. I strongly believe there should be a section, paragraph, several paragraphs, whatever it takes to represent fairly the fact that some disagree with its inclusion. But the fact that it is part of the campaign, which is irrefutable by facts, should qualify it for inclusion in the infobox. Much like, in the Earth infobox, it states the factual data on the circumferance and diameter, and covers the flat earth theory in the body, we can do the same here. Obviously, many people do not know this fact, that it is indeed part of the campaign. But many people also think/thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. This, however, does not interfere with us stating he was not, instead we would address it as a controversy about him. To legitimize the view that he was behind it by saying "The idea he was not involved is disputed" gives the false impression that he might have. That is the same here, if we say it is disputed in the infobox, or leave it out entirely, we give the false impression that it is not true. So again, we should definately cover it in the body, but this should not interfere with the presentation of facts. -Upon re-reading, it seems you were saying this too, I appear to have misread at first- Rangeley 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I'm not above agreeing with you by stealth, if you aren't careful. ;) Seriously though, I think the only point about which we're differening is whether it should be stated unadorned in the infobox that the IW is part of the WOT. I would prefer it be adorned with a footnote indicating that the name of the campaign is seen by a significant faction to be prejudicial in this particular context, and directing the reader to discussion of that point. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I think (disputed) with a link to controvery over war on terror article kinda thing would work. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, this same discussion is going on up here now, since the name is finally being addressed as the other stuff seems clarified to a reasonable extent. Rangeley 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Every voter in this poll should be hit with trout. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I prefer Codfish but whatever. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I prefer civility. Ch u ck (contrib) 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Are you contending that this discussion is an exercise in civility? Septentrionalis 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I am contending that saying that people who voted (myself included) should be hit with trout is not civil. Ch u ck (contrib) 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. I agree that you cannot decide fact based on polls, only evidence and reliable sources determine what we call findings of fact.-- MONGO 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. The results of this poll will demonstrate that the Iraq war's relation to the war on terror is intensely controversial. Anyone who was not aware of that going in deserves to be hit by one of Hipocrite's trout. Kickaha Ota 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Precisely. Septentrionalis 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We all agree straw polls do not determine facts. We are not attempting to use it to determine facts, but instead to gauge the relative amount of agreeance over a specific solution put forward. The quality of arguments are the only factor that will be used when determining policy. Rangeley 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Alternative Possibilities

  1. The War in Iraq is part of the "War on Terrorism"
    • The quotations are used in order to identify it as the semantic phrase the Bush administration is using as a label for its foreign policy post-9/11. This mirrors the usage of the phrase on the " War on Terrorism" page itself.
      The use of quotes deals with the name of the event, something this is not addressing. Should it be decided to use quotes around it, that is deserving of discussion all its own. But as of now, the name is War on Terrorism, and as such that is what we are discussing it being a part of. Rangeley 12:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
      If it is favorable to those who oppose it, to instead have it shown this way, then I will support it in compromise. Since some people feel its part of it, but then state they feel its bad or wrong. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The only reason I do not want this to be discussed here is because we must be focused singularly on addressing this issue first, before other things can be addressed. Whether the "partof" or opening paragraph reads its part of the War on Terrorism or " War on Terrorism," neither of these can happen without us first recognizing the Iraq War is part of the campaign in the first place. If you believe it is part of the campaign, then we agree, and you should vote in the "I agree with the conclusion" section. Where we go from there can be determined later. Rangeley 12:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I agree, perhaps it should be moved to the talk page. Its a step ahead of the process we are currently undergoing and may lead people to think its an alternate section to voice their opinion. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I didn't realize this was solely your pet project Rangeley and that alternative possibilities couldn't be addressed. Knowing whether or not there are other solutions heavily factors in whether or not people vote yes or no for the concept. -- kizzle 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    There are no alternatives to this specific issue. It is a part of it, or it is not a part of it. Its that simple. If we decide here that it is a part of it, we can then determine how to show it in the article in a new discussion. Some ideas thrown around have been the standard "Part of the War on Terrorism," the alternative "Part of the 'War on Terrorism.'" But again, this is the issue we can address after we have decided whether its even a part of the campaign at all. Rangeley 20:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. There will never be total agreement because the phrase 'War on Terrorism' can be interpreted in different ways. It is just too broad, and can be applied to too many different things. So it should say: "Some believe that the invasion of Iraq is part of the American Government's so-called 'War on Terrorism'". Madder 17:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The War on Terrorism article specifically states what it is. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Not everyone agrees that the earth is round, this does not prevent us from stating it is. Look up in this section where I posted a rather lengthy response to GTBacchus, who basically said the same as you. Rangeley 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The truth is though, we will never know what really went through their heads when they invaded Iraq. Some will argue that it was part of their 'War on Terror', while others will argue that they just wanted the oil. Who is right? Madder 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I say the Cold War was a martian plot to have 2 countries destroy the planet for germination. That does not make it a fact. Nor is this discussion about if the reasons for attacking were justified, the question is, was terrorism a reason for attacking? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We do not need to look into their heads at all, when the use of force was authorized it was to "continue to prosecute the war on terrorism." This doesnt require brain surgery or the use of psychic detectives, it was written in the authorization of force. [15]. When this passed, it became more than a thought or a word, it became official US policy. We can only deal with officially stated and implemented reasons. Rangeley 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    So then lets identify the originator of the "War on Terrorism" to make sure its not used as some broad general concept but what you really want to identify it as: the label applied to the US's foreign policy post 9/11, hence the quotations. On a side note, just because the article War on Terrorism states what it is, that doesn't mean we still shouldn't provide quotations around the phrase and attribute it to the White House. We are not here on Wikipedia to decide matters such as what you propose. -- kizzle 19:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To this I again would say that we can deal with how to display War on Terrorism later, and can decide the most appropriate way then. I just really want to get this one step out of the way. If we agree its part, we can then talk about how to represent this. This article is only addressing whether its part of the conflict, and nothing more. Rangeley 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    No, we deal with it now. This shouldn't be simply a binary decision, despite your original framing of this proposal. --[[User:Kizzle|ki
    I am sorry but this is not the topic this is addressing. Rangeley 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "We can only deal with officially stated and implemented reasons" and "We do not need to look into their heads at all" - official statements are not always true, and Wikipedia shouldn't automatically state them as fact. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a propaganda tool. Madder 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We can deal with the fact that both WMD and AQ were disputed prior to the invasion. To say Bush had no way of knowing this might be false is ludicrous. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You have already stated that terrorism links were legit. "Again, nobody denies SH had contacts with terrorists" [16] -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Once again, invading Iraq over connections with Hamas and connections with Al Qaeda are two waaaaay different things. -- kizzle 21:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    But not for us. As the War on Terrorism is a campaign by the USA and allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror, so long as they see Iraq as a state sponsor of terror - whatever these terrorists may be - they can than make war with Iraq under their campaign. Which they just so happened to do. Rangeley 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This was more of a tangential discussion, not to do with WOT. I already said I agreed with you that technically speaking Iraq had connections to anti-Israel terrorist groups. My remark was that to truly think we invaded Iraq because of those links is as ludicrous as believing that Rumsfeld knew where the WMDs were in the leadup to war. -- kizzle 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment about poll itself

Discussion

For discussion see the talk page.


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

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

Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments by Nescio

The following comments were added by Nescio and were removed on the basis they were attempting to change the foundation of this poll. They are being added back at the bottom here to preserve Nescio's comments in accordance with mediation. Please note the issues being addressed below are not the guidelines or information that correspond to the votes above. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This issue has been discussed both on articles', and users' talk pages over the past months, resulting in polls being made, it is necessary that we address this issue in one location as it is easier to reach a consensus when conversations are able to be read in full.

Results of the previous polls were:

  • 16-10 are saying that Iraq is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such. [17]
  • 14-4 are saying that Iraq is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such. [18]
  • 10-3 WMD was the prominent -that is, not terrorism- reason advanced by the Bush administration to invade Iraq. [19]

This is repeatedly deleted, apparently people are not allowed to judge for themselves what this debate is about and that the subject was decided against including Iraq I restore the reference to previous discussions in the hope that an homest and unbiased debate is possible. For the previous debate for what this poll is really trying to address: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

What this is "not" addressing

  • The name of the War on Terrorism. Currently, Wikipedia's article on the conflict is located at the War on Terrorism, and until it is not located there, this is the name of the conflict as far as other articles are concerned.
  • Whether the Iraq War was justified. This is not an attempt to justify, or use Wikipedia to justify the War in Iraq. There is no agenda being pushed other than that of presenting facts to Wikipedians.
  • Whether Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorism/Al Qaeda, or whether he possessed WMD. The accuracy of pre-war intelligence is irrelevant to this issue as, again, it is not attempting to justify the war.
  • What the Bush administration was asserting.

What this is addressing

  • Part of the "War on Terrorism" means that the US went to Iraq to fight terrorism.
  • Part of the "War on Terrorism" is not the same as stated by the US as part of the "War on Terrorism."
  • That it has been established by the Bush Administration that Iraq was involved in international terrorism and the Bush administration had no way of knowing otherwise.
  • Resulting in the recognition of the Iraq War as part of the " War on Terrorism."

Why it is not part of the War on Terrorism

  • Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was no terrorism of significance present.
  • US intelligence stated prior to the invasion that no proof existed of any link between Iraq and international terrorisme, more specifically no link to 9-11.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WOT&oldid=1084027895"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For unproductive time-wasting activities, see Wikipedia:Waste of Time. For a wall of text, see Wikipedia:Wall of text.

NOTE: Consensus or super majority has been reached, [1].

"Any claim of 'consensus' herein is deprecated in favor of typical methods of discussion at individual article talk pages and RfCs." , according to Xoloz, closing admin of the MFD debate on this page. [2] -- Alecmconroy 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The issue of whether or not the Iraq War is included in the scope of the War on Terrorism, as defined by the United States administation, has been a contentious issue, that often causes people to make knee jerk reactions based on their personal, political views. This is an attempt to escape the preconceived notions, and come to a logical, historical, and factual conclusion on the issue.

Introduction

This issue has been discussed both on articles', and users' talk pages over the past months, resulting in two polls being made with differing results [3] [4], it is necessary that we address this issue in one location as it is easier to reach a consensus when conversations are able to be read in full.

What this is not addressing

  • The name of the United States sponsored War on Terrorism.
  • Whether the Iraq War was justified. This is not an attempt to justify, or use Wikipedia to justify the War in Iraq. There is no agenda being pushed other than that of presenting facts to Wikipedians.
  • Whether Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorism/Al Qaeda, or whether he possessed WMD. The accuracy of pre-war intelligence is irrelevant to this issue as, again, it is not attempting to justify the war.

What this is addressing

Why it is part of the United States sponsored War on Terrorism

  • The United States and its allies began a military campaign known as the War on Terrorism, a campaign whose goal is "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." [5]
  • Saddam Hussein's regime was considered a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the United States government. [6]
  • The United States and its allies began the Iraq War as a stated part of the War on Terrorism, both pre-war, and since it has begun. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

"War on Terrorism" vs. War on Terrorism

The primary reason why we all disagree on this page is our perception of the War on Terrorism as a general concept of combating terrorism or as "The War on Terrorism," a semantic phrase created by the Bush administration that applies as a label to the US's foreign policy post-9/11. The former is just a general concept and allows (and accounts) for the discussion here and other places as to whether or not Iraq truly consists of a "terrorist threat" that would include it as part of the War on Terrorism. The semantic phrase is just a language container that can be fit with anything, thus if Bush wanted to say "Attacking Canada is our God-sworn duty and part of the War on Terrorism", bingo, it's part of the "War on Terrorism."

The proposal here is somehow trying to objectively define the general concept rather than the semantic label, which is not what Wikipedia is here to do. As I have explicitly said before, there is significant conflict applying to the general concept of what constitutes a terrorist state, advanced by notable critics stated above, and whether Iraq belongs in the War on Terrorism. This cannot be simply made up as whatever the Bush administration wants. However, if we identify the form as the semantic phrase by using quotations, as the War on Terrorism article does so itself, then it makes this absolutely clear that we are referring to the arbitrary label that the US has applied to its foreign policy goals post-9/11. This is really not too much to ask, and is not necessarily contradictory with what Rangeley is saying, so I really don't see the problem with adopting it to make things perfectly clear what we are referring to. -- kizzle 20:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The use of quotes would be a seperate decision. The War on Terrorism being referred to by this is the specific campaign, described at its article, not an open ended term. Rangeley 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then why can't we use quotations around the term, like the article you're referring to does in its introductory paragraph? -- kizzle 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps we should change War on Terrorism, to Global War on Terrorism, so we can satisfy kizzles point. This way there is no debate of symantics anymore as Global War on Terrorism is obviously the phrase enacted by the US Government after 9/11 and it will not be confused with the idea of "war on drugs" system some people claim to think its getting mixed up with. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have to say though, the fact that War on Terrorism, is capitalized is the equivalent of quotation marks in the sense you are speaking of. You do not want people to get confused, and to realize its a title, hence the capitalization. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, why can't we use quotations? It's such a simple and minor point that I'm starting to think that the people who brought this about have no room for compromise. -- kizzle 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If quotation marks were used, would you then be moving your vote to agree? If so I say fine, if not then please do not drag this arguement on if it has no bearing on your vote. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just to be crystal clear, if quotation marks were used, I would move my vote to agree, but only under this one condition. -- kizzle 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Whatever the name, and whatever method we use to present it is irrelevant. This is about the issue of the Iraq War's inclusion in this specific campaign. Your suggestion is not a compromise, because it doesnt deal with whether or not the Iraq War is part of this specific campaign. I do not see it possible for there to be any compromise on this yes-or-no issue, because it is either a part or it is not. Rangeley 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Because this isn't a yes-or-no issue, and whether or not we use the semantic or general form entirely changes my vote from yes or no, so yes, it does matter and should be focused upon now. -- kizzle 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The conflict this is dealing with is the specific War on Terrorism defined in the article. It is not the general, open ended term. Is this part of this specific campaign, that is a yes or no question. Rangeley 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Whether or not my vote is agree or disagree depends upon whether we are using the semantic or general form, of which you seem to be conflicted in. We're talking about just adding two quotation marks to your initial proposal, (which is how the phrase is referenced on its OWN article) it's really not too much to ask and I doubt it would change other people's votes. -- kizzle 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is not the issue, I have no other way to say this. Whether it is stated as "War on Terrorism" or War on Terrorism is irrelevant, in either case it would be referring to the specific, US-led campaign. This is dealing with the inclusion of the Iraq War in this US-led campaign, not the name or naming conventions of the US campaign. Rangeley 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If it's irrelevant than why don't we use quotations? -- kizzle 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Obviously he means the use of quotations is irrelevant to the issue brought up by this page. Way to disrupt. Haizum 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If the use of quotations is irrelevant to the issue, then it shouldn't suffer from its inclusion in the proposal. In addition, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -- kizzle 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Interesting articles, NPA and AGF, but I have no idea why you would cite them. Quotation marks aren't part of the discussion, clearly, and trying to make them so for the purpose of flanking the issue (what you are doing) is disruptive. Wether the proposal suffers or not is also irrelevant. What do both points have in common? They aren't personal attacks. Haizum 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I cite them because the phrase "Way to disrupt" is assuming that I am here to disrupt ( WP:AGF) as well as characterizing me as disruptive, which is purely an attack and not advancing the debate in any productive form ( WP:NPA), but I thank you for actually advancing reason in your immediately prior post then blindly labeling me as disruptive. What form we use in determining whether or not the Iraq War was part of is important to this debate, as it would personally determine whether or not I vote agree or disagree. -- kizzle 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrect. A. You assumed bad faith on my part when I said "Way to disrupt," which is explained by your assumption that I believed you were purposefully being disruptive. It is possible to be disruptive and not be aware of it. Note that I didn't cite the Wikipedia definition of Disruption. Haizum 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Please. Out of the blue you say "Way to disrupt" then tell me I "assumed bad faith"? Noted. -- kizzle 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am free to say if someone is being disruptive (not Disruptive) if I don't accuse them of doing it on purpose. AGF mainly applies to edits, so please, spare me. Haizum 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no difference between the terms, just as there is no difference between "Addresses" and "addresses". And no you're not: "You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold." Saying "Way to disrupt" is scolding, thus a blatant violation of WP:AGF. -- kizzle 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
B. Since I am not establishing intent, and I need not, I am not assuming bad faith, nor am I assuming good faith. I'm merely observing how this talk of quotations marks has nothing to do with what this page Addresses. Haizum 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then you should have said that without accusing me of being Disruptive. -- kizzle 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Indeed. I said, "disruptive," not, "Disruptive." Clearly you aren't being Disruptive, but since I believe your focus is off-topic, and though you may mean well, I still find it disruptive. No blood no foul. Haizum 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no difference between the meaning of "disruptive" and "Disruptive", as the difference in capitalization is only due to variations in syntax, just as "Addresses" means the same thing as "addresses", though this is unlike adding quotations to a term, as that changes the meaning and use of the word. It's all good, we all make mistakes some time. No foul done. -- kizzle 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Of course there is, look at Wikipedia's definition of the word; it's a serious charge. Haizum 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Capitalization is a serious charge? :) LOL! -- kizzle 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Come on. I'm talking about the dictionary definition vs. the Wikipedia definition. Haizum 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
And by "Addresses" I was referring to the heading "What this is addressing." Haizum 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok guy. Good to know. -- kizzle 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The use of quotes would imply that this is making it Wikipedia policy to put quotes around the term. It is not Wikipedia policy at this time, and is not what this is addressing. It is worthy of being discussed on its own right, as it applies to far more articles than just those relating to this. It deserves to be addressed fairly, and not as a "clip on" amendment to the issue this is addressing. Rangeley 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The use of quotes would imply no such thing. It would just be continuing the syntax found at the term's own article, if not for the sake of consistency. -- kizzle 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
You will note its not even consistently used on the article, and for the parts that is in, it has only been there a few weeks, and was added without discussion. The use of quotes was never agreed on, and has always been done unilaterally. They should not be used here, because they are not policy, and we should not try to either make them or prevent them from being policy in this discussion. Rangeley 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then maybe we should solve that first before voting on whether this should be accepted or not. If we're unclear as to even how to reference the term, how do you possibly propose we vote on such a proposal? -- kizzle 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not suggesting how to reference it, this is open ended and different people have different ways. Before we settle on one way of how we would reference it, we must first decide if we want it to be part at all. I think discussion is nearing its conclusion, the sooner it ends the sooner we can decide what standard to employ, whether it be quotes, capitals, renaming it to something else, etc. But as this effects far more articles than this, which only effects the Iraq War and related articles, and must be addressed seperately as the decision would have implications on every facet of the War on Terrorism, from the Waziristan War to 9-11. Rangeley 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
But if we don't even know how to reference to the term, whether or not quotations should be used, then how can we possibly vote on the terms relationship to other terms? If a decision later on renders that quotations should or shouldn't be used, it will have a direct bearing on this vote as well. We should figure out that aspect first before voting on its relationship to other terms. -- kizzle 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is getting nasty for no reason, there is no reason I see why we cannot discuss Kizzles point now while discussing the rest. Get it all done at the same time. I personally would accept quotation marks. I prefer a tag saying (disputed), but I would settle for quotation marks. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I just don't like the suggestion that discussion here should cease until the quotation debacle is figured out. Haizum 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ah, see, much better (and civil) than simply saying "Way to be disruptive". Looking at the War on Terrorism, the usage of quotations around the term seems frequent, though Rangeley says that it is intermittent. If so, then we don't even know how to refer to the term, so how are we going to vote on this? -- kizzle 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Lets all be nice, im capable of discussing 2 things at once, it may make things messy but its doable i think. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Kizzle and I play fight all the time. No need to worry. Haizum 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't take "Way to disrupt" as anything close to resembling playful. -- kizzle 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I just said that to relieve the tension for everyone's sake, but if you want to stay bitter, fine, I'll take a break so you can calm down. Haizum 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As I said before, no foul done. Just don't claim you said "Way to disrupt" to relieve tension. See you after your break. -- kizzle 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Christ on a bike, I said, "[you] and I play fight all the time," to relieve the tension. "Way to disrupt" was in reference to this bickering about punctuation when "What this is Addressing" makes no mention of such minutia. Haizum 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ah, I thought you were saying "Way to disrupt" was an attempt at relieving tension. And as I can recall, "Way to disrupt" came way before any talk about punctuation, in fact, it was the first comment you made to me in this section. -- kizzle 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Read it again...quotations [are] irrelevant to the issue brought up by this page. Way... Haizum 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Thought you meant the wonderful and informative discussion on capitalisation. Not every day you have two disputes over punctuationsyntax. -- kizzle 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I would prefer capitalization, as we are not quoting anyone specifically, but instead referencing the most widely accepted name for the event. I feel that to put quotations around it would imply that it is not infact a war on terrorism, much like some put quotes around The "Holocaust" to downplay its importance. I believe that capitalizing the event does it justice, just like it does with The Holocaust - capitalization differentiates between this event, and other holocausts (I believe it means great fire). I would strongly oppose placing "disputed" next to it. I would however agree with renaming it to the Global War on Terrorism. My list of preferemces are 1. Capitalization 2. Global War on Terrorism 3. Quotes. Rangeley 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Kizzle how do you feel about Global War on Terrorism, capitalized as such? Also I think it means burnt offering to the gods. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What about the term's later incarnation as "The Long War", which is used in quotations in the Washington Post as well as the Wikipedia article? -- kizzle 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Eh, that along with World War Three are simply not as well accepted. I dont necessarilly oppose Long War, but I dont know that it is better than Global War on Terror, or even War on Terror. Rangeley 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I just meant that its other incarnation is referred to with quotations. -- kizzle 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I think changing the title screws up everything and only leads to the arguement that Afghan was war on terror and iraq was long war as the long war term came later. But what do you feel about Global War on Terrorism? its alot more specific. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ya I'm not so sure about Global War on Terrorism, unless it has something like "the phrase coined by the Bush administration" or quotes around it... otherwise we get into long drawn-out debates about justification like we are on this page. Putting quotations around either of the concepts makes it completely inarguable. -- kizzle 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
How does everyone feel about Global War on Terrorism (disputed), with disputed linking to an article about the debate? I think that should appease everyone, makes the name something that stands out more and reflects the arguement. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No, disputed should only be put around something for which there is a debate. I think were we to put it as Global War on Terror, it would be clear to people that it is this specific event. Whereas War on Terror has been used before, Global War on Terror is more of a title, like World War Two. We will never get an inarguable name, but I think this is a good compromise as it differentiates itself quite clearly from other wars on terror, or the idea of a war on terror, into an identifiably singular event. Capitalizing and placing Global before it should be enough. Rangeley 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have an interesting proposal, How about if we put Global War on Terrorism, but do not include a disputed tag, but make sure that Global War on Terror article talks about the dispute in the overview, and one of the seealso links at the top directs to the debate? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I can agree to that. Rangeley 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm just going to simply re-iterate my point that I would like quotations. This isn't an attempt to discredit as if it was "The Holocaust" but rather to ensure that it is the label for US foreign policy post-9/11, and thus anything the Bush administraiton says can be applied to it. -- kizzle 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We can ensure this by doing the compromise as well, of using Global and stating in the overview. I think we would be silly to try and reach a name that everyone agrees with, as this isnt going to happen. The Global/Overview compromise differentiates sufficiently, if people object to it in the future, they can easilly be shown why they are wrong. Rangeley 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Agree to disagree? :) "Global War on Terrorism" or "War on Terrorism" are fine with me, quotes ensure that we're talking about the label applying to US foreign policy post-9/11. -- kizzle 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I would far prefer to agree, I have already made a concession by agreeing to rename it, is it really that important to you to have quotes? If we can agree to agree, perhaps we can put this into action before too long as an established consensus, both on the name, and the link. Rangeley 23:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As would I, of course, but I don't feel that Global War on Terrorism would do anything, especially considering it just re-directs to the War on Terrorism article. -- kizzle 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
We would move the page to the location Global War on Terrorism, so that it would be located here rather than its current location. Rangeley 23:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure I understand what you mean? -- kizzle 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The page currently located at War on Terrorism would be moved to the location Global War on Terrorism, using the move option. Rangeley 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What about "The Bush Administration's Global War on Terrorism"? -- kizzle 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
But it is not merely the Bush administration, it is the entire US government's, along with its allies. Rangeley 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No, but according to you, the Bush administration (and no other body) is the entity that dictates what determines the "War on Terrorism", thus it is fitting to attribute it to the Bush administration. -- kizzle 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What do you mean by the Bush adminstration? When you say this, I think Bush and his cabinet. The people who determined Iraq to be a state sponsor of terror are the CIA, and it was determined in 1990. While a Bush was in power than, the CIA was not part of his administration. It was the entire US government that is waging the war, along with its allies. I have stated this before, they are the sole determinanents of what the war is as its wager. Rangeley 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, but we didn't invade Iraq in 1990 because of terrorism or anything close to a "War on Terrorism". The "War on Terrorism" did not originate with the CIA but with foreign policy, of which final authority runs out of the president and his cabinet, if I'm not mistaken. -- kizzle 04:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not sure who coined the term originally. But the definition is not merely that of the Bush Administration, even if it originated from them. It has become the accepted definition by the entire government, and allies. That is why I feel it unfair to limit it to the "Bush Administration's War on Terrorism" because they are not the only party participating. It would be like calling the Cold War "Bernard Baruch's Cold War" because he was the first to use the term and define it. Just for the record, are you unwilling to use Global War on Terrorism with a paragraph in the overview outlining the controversy? Rangeley 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I find it odd that wiki uses WOT instead of GWOT. As an ex-employee of the USG, we always refer to the campaign against terror as GWOT. That is the official language for the State Department and multiple other sections within the gov't. I agree that this War on Terrorism page should be moved to GWOT instead of being a redirect. Fcyoss 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Straw Poll

I agree with this conclusion

  1. I agree that it is definately part of the campaign, whether or not it was the best way to fight the war is irrelevant. This was the way chosen, and we must recognize this as an encyclopedia. Rangeley 14:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. I also agree its part of the War on Terror. I think people need to just look at the evidence, and not form opinions on right and wrong regarding the issue. We are not here to justify anyones actions. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism> Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the accuracy of pre war intelligence. There doesnt need to be an ounce of proof behind the US allegations, the fact is that the War on Terrorism is against those that the USA determines to be terrorists or state sponsors of terror. Iraq was determined to be a state sponsor of terror, therefore Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Agreed. Regardless of opinion on the justification. Rmt2m 16:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. I agree. It is part of the War on Terror regardless of one's opinion on its current and/or potential success. It is also part of the War on Terror independently of a user's views on the United States and its criteria for how Terrorism is defined. Haizum 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism> Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the accuracy of pre war intelligence. There doesnt need to be an ounce of proof behind the US allegations, the fact is that the War on Terrorism is against those that the USA determines to be terrorists or state sponsors of terror. Iraq was determined to be a state sponsor of terror, therefore Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. I think it is obvious that the US government sees (or at least saw/presented) the invasion of Iraq and the continuing presence there as part of its War on Terror. However, in my opnion, the term "War on Terror" is just a tag applied to various wars, which might be fought for very different reasons and with different means, very much like the "global stuggle against communism" of R. Reagan. [13]. So I would propose including a text along the lines of "the US government sees the invasion of Iraq as part of its global "War on Terrorism". KarlXII 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment: How is this statement in support of the above conclusion? If you want to include the disclaimer "the US government sees", then your vote should obviously be "disagree". Rkrichbaum 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. I believe that many people don't want to allow the Iraq war to be part of the WOT because they believe that the true purpose behind the conflict was money, oil, power, etc. However, that is conjecture and can never be proven, only debated. Such things have no place in an encyclopedia. Historical fact does not necessarily mean the true purpose and intent in an instigator's mind, but rather what is publicly visible. Rexmorgan 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment: If the true purpose of the Iraq invasion can never be proven, how can you accept the purpose as stated by the government as the one and only truth? There is no lack of educated commentary on the Iraq war as well as on the so-called war on terror and any decent encyclopedia will make an attempt to fairly represent those various views. Rkrichbaum 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the accuracy of pre war intelligence. There doesnt need to be an ounce of proof behind the US allegations, the fact is that the War on Terrorism is against those that the USA determines to be terrorists or state sponsors of terror. Iraq was determined to be a state sponsor of terror, therefore Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Rangeley 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Agreed. It has always been classified as part of the war on terrorism-- Looper5920 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    No, it was classified by Bushco, not the entire planet. To justify the inclusion of Iraq there must be evidence of terrorism being fought. Which terrorist was attacked, and why did US intelligence doubt t6here was a link to terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Depends what you call Bushco. If by Bushco, you mean the coalition, you are right. As pointed out here, Bush, The Senate, The House of Representatives, England, and Italy all call it part of the war on terrorism. Aznar of Spain also referred to it as part of the War on Terror. So I agree, "Bushco" call it part of the war on terror, therefore making it part of the war on terror as "Bushco" defined it. Rangeley 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Yes. I think people are missing the most important part of the quote. "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." It doesn't matter at all what actual connections exist. If tommorow Bush declared War on Denny's and identified them as having ties to terrorist groups, the article on War on Denny's would warrant a subsection of the War on Terror. Basically, the War on Terrorism article and it's content is not defined by whether or not the war is against terrorist forces but whether or not the war is against forces identified by the US as terrorist forces (or forces with ties to terrorists). Staxringold talk contribs 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I think you yourself are missing the point. By claiming that the US can designattre any conflict as part of .., you admit there are no limits. WOT is ipso facto involving the entire planet for eternity.
    That is the future, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. World War Two could have gone on forever, but it didnt. The Cold War could have gone on forever, but it didnt. This could go on forever too. But just like the last two I listed, we do not state what could happen, but instead what as. The US designated Iraq a State sponsor of terror, and therefore it could be attacked in a war defined as a war against those the US declares state sponsors of terror. Rangeley 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    In addition, no, I'm not missing anything. The War on Terrorism (caps) is not the same as a war on terrorism. A war on terrorism (no caps) is a war waged against terrorist forces. The War on Terrorism (caps) is a specifically defined conflict, and that definition involves fighting forces designated by the combatants as terrorist forces. Again, it doesn't matter if it's Denny's, the importance for definition in the capitalized War is the designation of terrorist affiliation, not actual affiliation. Staxringold talk contribs 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Yes, per Rexmorgan it just makes sense. ← ΣcoPhreek  contribs talk→ 22:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Yes, I find it odd that the same people pushing the WMD rationale that they believe to be false will exclude the WOT rationale....because they think it's a false rationale. -- Mmx1 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    It is odd indeed that pointing out both the WMD and the terrorism rationale were widely disputed, even among US intelligence, is evidence of Iraq not being part of ... Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You cannot say WMD's were the reason, then ignore the War on Terror, since WMD's were given as a reason because they would be given to terrorists. I believe that is the point they are making. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. The reason for going to war in Iraq was the War on Terror, hopelessly flawed as intelligence. To say otherwise is to impute other motives for which we have no documentation. -- Vaquero100 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Yes. Like other wars declared by other countries, whether you like it or not or think it is wise or not, the War on Terrorism (declared by the U.S.) is defined as whatever the U.S. government says it is. Period. Lawyer2b 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Currently, American forces are fighting terrorists, the intended target of the War on Terror. Certain parts of the campaign may not have been directly against terrorists, but the terrorist involvement now clearly demonstrates that it is part of the War. Homagetocatalonia 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Agree. Wars are defined by those who wage them. Congress, as a whole (judged as a whole by majority), voted for this war. Obviously, President Bush has had a huge part in it. They are the ones who dictate this war and coined the term war on terror in the first place. They include the Iraq War in the War on Terror, and since the Iraq War and the War on Terror are defined by them, it should be included. Note that the name War on Terror is arbitrary; several people argue (though I disagree) that the War on Terror does nothing to stem the flow of terrorism. SHould we even consider renaming it The War that Accomplishes Nothing... no way. This is not about what is accomplished here, it is about what the people in chargte of this war consider it to be. (After all, we would not change WWII to The Second War in Europe, even though to call it a WORLD war is inaccurate.) Besides, I know it has not been in the news or anything, but the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq was rcently killed by the U.S. military operatives ;-) By the way, I know that this writing is akward, but (long story) my question mark and apostrophe and quote mark keys do not work, hence the lack of contractions :-) Whoops, tildaes do not work either... Karwynn ¨13:08, 19 June 2006
  15. Agree. To me this seems to be part of the Wikipedia's larger problem with picking and choosing what organizations, policies, concepts, etc. get self-definition, and which ones are defined by critics of the organization, policy, concept, etc. The President and Commander-in-Chief acting with the authorization of Congress in the name of the United States government is fighting what they defined as the War on Terrorism. There's a place to wage a political debate against the policies of the President and Congress -- the Wikipedia is just not part of it. patsw 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Agree. per Rangeley and zero faults |sockpuppets|.-- James Bond 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Agree per Staxringold. Ch u ck (contrib) 05:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Agree per Staxringold. The War on Terror is whatever the coalition decides it is. Nscheffey( T/ C) 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Agree. The "War On Terrorism", in its semantic form, can be described as whatever the Bush Administration sees fit, as it purely exists as a label for US's foreign policy post-9/11. -- kizzle 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Agree per all the above. Arkon 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Agree I agree to all of the above. Those who are denying it are they themselves putting their own opinions or political belief into this article, and if Wikipedia is to be considered a legitimate encylopedia with no bias, then this simply cannot be done. Runiteshark 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Agree The U.S. claims the war to be part of the War on Terror which is their own created doctrine, they determine whether a conflict fits the needed guidelines to be called that because they are the sole creator of the term. Therefore I support the use of Iraq war to fall under the War on Terrorism. People need to stop trying to edit with political doctrines in mind. - Patman2648 08:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Agree I think there's a strong precedent for this in the Fourth Crusade. Even though it attacked Christians, rather than infidels, undermined the objective of protecting holy sites in the Levant from Islamic domination, and is sometimes said to have been planned for venal enrichment from an early point (essentially analogous to the criticisms leveled against the Iraq War in the context of the War on Terror), it is still treated as a part of the series of Crusades. I think the same principle should apply here. Choess 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Agree Yeah, of course. When you wage war, you get to choose what your targets are or aren't. Morton Devonshire Yo
  25. Agree per Rangeley and Zer0faults -- Edward Sandstig 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral / Abstain

  1. The beginning section goes out of its way to absolve the discussion of any responsibility for coming to grips with the concept of the "War on Terror" itself, and its flawed definition. Unfortunately, this is required for discussion to proceed sensibly. The concept of a war on an emotion being meaningless, and the "War on Terror" not yet having been clearly defined, there's no way to even determine any sensible guidelines for which conflicts should be placed within the category and which should not. I say not clearly defined because the "War on Terror" lacks clearly defined enemies, and lacks clearly defined goals which, if met, would bring an end to the conflict. Without these basic requirements, it is the eternal war against whoever we don't like this week. Respectfully, I feel this is a waste of time. If you're going to use the U.S. government's definition of what the term "War on Terror" means, you have no choice but to include the Iraq War in it by default, because the "War on Terror" as it currently stands has no clearly defined boundaries or limits. There's no way to say that any American conflict or military action is not part of it. Kasreyn 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Exactly the reason why the consensus (I would call an overwhelming numerical vote against inclusion consensus) was against including Iraq. WOT as advocated by Bush can indeed be apllied to any conflict. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I do not remember a vote on this. I remember a poll asking people if it should be in the infobox specifically. Some editors felt it was part, but since it was controversial, it should be left out of the infobox. This is not about the specifics of the infobox, this is addressing the larger issue of the general classification of the term and this war. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    There is a way to say that something is not part of it. Was it begun to fight terrorism or a sponsor of terror? If not, then it is not part of the War on Terror. It is always difficult to set limits on something that is ongoing. For instance, how would they have set limits on defining World War Two when it was going on? At first, it would have been defined as a conflict between Poland/France/England and Germany. But as years went by, the conflict gradually became quite different. If you were to tell a Pole in 1939 that the war that begins there would lead to 2 nuclear bombs being dropped on Japan, he would probably be quite skeptical of such a thing, and not just because nuclear weapons hadnt been invented. Where we are in this conflict, we cannot see the future of it. Maybe another war will start, maybe not. We are in no place to predict, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Where the War on Terrorism will go tomorrow is not the issue, it is where it has gone. Currently it is defined as a campaign against "terrorists and state sponsors of terror," for which the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are most certainly part. This is all we can deal with, as this is all we know today.
    And Nescio, 15-9 is not even an overwhelming numerical majority, let alone a consensus. Rangeley 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. This is a question of POV. The U.S. government says one thing and certain groups opposed to that government (or its actions) say something else. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view says that both these claims should be covered in the article. I suggest something like the following The United States (together with a coalition of like minded nations) invaded Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from power, citing violations of UN Security Council resolutions, alleged links to terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda, and his alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. The United States, both at the time of the invasion and since, has consistently maintain that removing Saddam was an integral part of the War on Terrorism that it is prosecuting in responce to the Sepember 11th terrostis atacks. This claim has been disputed by many opponents of the war in Iraq, including prominent members of the United States Congress, who claim that the war is, in fact, a distraction from the true battle against terrorism and does not further the U.S. position in that conflict. The War on Terrorism should be prominently mentioned in the article and link to and could be included in a See Also section but is not appropriate in an info-box claiming that the War in Iraq is an integral part of the GWOT the way the '44 invasion of France was part of WWII. That claim is in dispute and until there is more historical perspective and more reliable sources which take a position Wikipedia should maintain a studied neutrality in the matter. Eluchil404 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I agree we couldnt say its an integral part, as of now that would be POV since we dont know how the campaign will play out in the end. However, it is certainly a part of the war on terrorism. This is because the War on Terrorism, as defined by its wagers, is a war against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror, and began the Iraq War as part of the war on terrorism. Rangeley 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I like the relative neutrality of your statement, Eluchil404, but it still has clear bias. How about this: The United States (together with a coalition of like minded nations) resumed hostilities with Iraq, citing violations of UN Security Council resolutions, links to terrorist groups (including Al-Qaeda), and possession of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration, both at the time of the invasion and since, has consistently maintained that resuming hostilities was an integral part of the War on Terrorism that is being persued by the coalition in response to terrorist activity. This claim has been disputed by many opponents of the war in Iraq, including prominent members of the United States Congress, who claim that the war is a distraction from combatting terrorism and does not further the U.S. position in that conflict. This would accurately and without bias define the war in Iraq from today's perspective, where nothing has solidified and none should be made the bad guy, because choices are choices, opinions are opinions, and only time will allow everyone to look back on the events objectively. Somewhere in here it should also mention what terrorism-related and UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's government was removed from power in Iraq. EricJ 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. It is apparent to me that a consesus cannot be reached without a compromise. I am abstaining from agreeing or disagreeing and I am in favor of an alternative. KevinPuj 13:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    There is no way to compromise on this, its one or the other. Either it is part of the campaign, or not. How this is displayed, for instance kizzle suggested putting War on Terrorism in quotes, is another issue that can be addressed later. But before we can get this far, we must first recognize it as part of the conflict. Rangeley 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I disagree with this conclusion

  1. On the grounds that you cannot rehash a debate in which consensus clearly was against inclusion (see talk pages of Iraq war and the template WOT). Having this kind of "poll" again and again and again and again and again and again and again, untill the result is the one you want is not encyclopedic. Just accept that consensus is against including Iraq. Since this is the millionth "poll" I object to repeating this procedure and reject this one, it should be stopped immediately. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would point you to the opening paragraph, and the introduction which outline the underlying problems with the two previous polls (which were simultaneously carried out in two seperate articles). A numerical majority is not the definition of a consensus, you are welcome to provide a counter argument for the one put forth in this article. This would be more constructive than voting against this on the basis that it has been talked about before. Rangeley 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please define consensus. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    It is an agreement that can be reached on this issue. I will not agree to an argument put forth that I can easilly knock down, and I ask noone else to. The purpose of this is to either come to an agreement about the argument put forward here, or to find a convincing argument against this. I have backed down on other issues at Wikipedia when I found myself to be wrong, because frankly I dont like making a fool of myself, consider it to be "cutting and running" from a debate if you will. I would not be debating here if I felt I was wrong, because this could hurt my future attempts to acheive anything if I debated idiotically a clearly incorrect point. When an argument arises which sufficiently shows me to be wrong, for which I cant respond, I will back down and agree with you. This is all I can ask of anyone, when they see that their argument can no longer stand, they too would back down. If you are not at this point, please present an argument. When either side gets to this point, this is a consensus. Rangeley 21:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This page ignores the lengthy rebuttal already advanced. Please read the concluded debate and accept that the majority feels that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. how ever much Bushco wants us to believe he is behind 9-11. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Who cares what the majority feels? Is this an encyclopedia, or an experiment in democracy? The feelings of the majority shouldn't even be on the list of factors considered. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    the majority feels -- this isn't about feelings and emotive mob rule, it's about facts. Haizum 01:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is about the sillyness of having this debate over and over again, with the same arguments. Since nobody can deny that SH was not linked to 9-11, he did not go around and bomb bars and restaurants it is incorrect to label him a terrorist and therefore invading Iraq can never be linked to terrorism. That is unless we do what Bush does and claim that every remote contact (he spoke to the brother of the milkman of the sister of a neighbourt of a man who went to scholl with, .....) constitutes supporting terrorism. Howevcer I already proved that this logic means that the US too is sponsoring international terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    He did fund people who went around and blew up bars and stuff. That is almost the equivalent fo saying bin Laden is not a terrorist, cause he did not blow up anything himself. Iraq was deamed a state sponsor of terrorism, the keywords are sponsor, and Iraq, not Saddam. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You can of course explain how this is different from the US financing and training OBL, a known terrorist most notably the brain behind 9-11. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Because at the time bin Laden was not a terrorist, he was fighting against the Soviet Republic as part of a recognized armed militia, no nation designated the afghan rebels as terrorists and they did not indiscrimantly kill civilians during their fight against the Soviets. Once again, you do not seem to be denying that the US said Iraq was a state sponsor, your only arguement seems to be that the US may have sponsored terrorism as well, even though no nation recognizes them as such. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not a debate on the definition of terrorism, or if the USA has supported terrorism, committed genocide, or eats babies. The War on Terrorism is a specifically defined conflict, being waged by the USA and allies, against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq was seen as a state sponsor of terrorism, and the war began as such. Rangeley 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Since this is about whether Bush was fighting terrorism in Iraq it is pertinent to know what terrorism is, to determine whether or not Iraq was guilty of terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    For the last time, they were found to be a state sponsor of terrorism, stop misleading the discussion by changing the phrase. The War on Terror is also against state sponsored terrorism. No matter how much you change the words around the fact remains Iraq was found to be a state sponsor of terrorism, are you denying the PALF incident, or are you stating Saddam is not on trial right now for what the dictionary definition of terrorism is, the one I have already provided. You have lots of questions, perhaps you should read the articles and then return, since you do not know what terrorism is, or War on Terror is. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nomen, if I merely said that I posted an argument that noone could provide a counter argument for, noone would believe me. Instead I actually provided it for everyone to see, it did take some time but I did it because I knew I was right. If you dont feel the same of yours, just stop debating this. You dont need to admit defeat, Im not looking to humiliate anyone. Either present your argument or stop talking about it. Rangeley 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You are wrong and by suggesting I should admit I am wrong you try to prove you are right. Circular logic if ever I saw one. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its circular logic to stop debating when you have no rebuttal? Thats news to me. As far as I know, thats what you do when you cant rebut something, rather than continue to debate with irrelevant things. Unless you can explain why the argument put forth in this topic is wrong, I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Rangeley 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. The "war on terror" is not a military campaign, but an "ideological struggle" (Bush) according to the reference given above (1). That the Iraq invasion constitutes part of this "ideological struggle" clearly is the partisan view of the the Republican party, or its leaders - this follows from other references given above (Financial Times, Houston Chronicle). The opposition within the US disagrees. Many critics have characterized the label "war on terror" as a propaganda term. As such, using it unquestioningly is part of a war of semantics. Some prominent critics, including Zbigniev Brzezinski, have stated that it even constitutes a war ON semantics, given that it is impossible to wage war on military tactics. To label the Iraq invasion and occupation on Wikipedia as part of the "war on terror" would therefore obviously constitute a partisan statement, which is inappropriate without a disclaimer and the citation of opposing views. This has probably been pointed out many times before, but I only arrived here recently and thought I should add my 2 cents. Rkrichbaum 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    It's obviously both a military campaign and an ideological struggle. Haizum 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, no, it is obviously something whose very empirical existence outside of semantics is questioned by notable critics. Rkrichbaum 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I would like to note that none of what you said is relevant to the question at hand, and instead are arguments against things this is not attempting to address, such as the name of the conflict. Recognizing this as part of a larger conflict is no more a partisan stance than recognizing previous wars or battles as part of a wider conflict. It is no more a justification of the Iraq War than calling the Vietnam War part of the Cold War was a justification of that. Rangeley 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I realize quite well your attempt to limit the discussion to the Republican view of US policies which they describe as a "war on terror". The Iraq invasion may well become part of a wider conflict, but this remains to be seen. The Vietnam war was not part of the "Cold War" since by its very definition the term "Cold War" does not include military campaigns. Rkrichbaum 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Haizum 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the well meant advice. I certainly always assume good faith and do not even need Wiki policies for that. I also never pretend to assume something when it doesn't seem rational to do so. Rkrichbaum 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well you just said that another user is attempting to "limit the discussion to the Republican view," which is assuming a POV and is therefore not AGF, hence the template. Haizum 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Rkrichbaum, a slight problem with this is that the Vietnam War was part of the Cold War, as stated on both articles. The Cold War involved no direct conflicts between the two superpowers, but instead existed in the form of "an arms race involving nuclear and conventional weapons, networks of military alliances, economic warfare and trade embargos, propaganda, espionage and proxy wars, especially those involving superpower support for opposing sides within civil wars." Thus, The Vietnam War is inherently part of the conflict. Likewise, the Iraq War fits into the definition of the War on Terrorism stated in its respective article, whose stated goal is "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." Rangeley 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The articles do not state that the Vietnam war was "part of the Cold War". I'm sure nobody will reject the statement that according to the present US administration, the Iraq invasion is seen as part of the so-called war on terror. What you seem to be asking is for everyone to accept that this Republican view has to be stated as fact in a Wiki article. Please correct me if this perception is wrong. Rkrichbaum 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its in the info box for Vietnam War ... I believe its also in the template for Cold War. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its also mentioned 9 times, once being casus belli, and a 10th time in the template on the bottom for Cold War. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The articles do not state that the Vietnam war was "part of the Cold War". Period. Rkrichbaum 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Are you being serious? I do not know if this is a joke or not. When the page loads, look to the right ... The infobox clearly states it does, the term comes up 9 times in the article, its listed in the template on the bottom as part of the Cold War ... Am I missing a joke? Vietnam War ... ? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Ok, you are correct, I missed the phrase in the info box of the Vietnam war. It is, of course, complete nonsense. Rkrichbaum 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    What I am asking for is for people to put aside their personal politics and look at the facts. This was stated above. Rangeley 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please point me to where ANY of your citations say that it is a "fact" and not a Republican / adminstration view that the Iraq invasion is "part of the war on terror". Not even the war powers resolution states such a thing, it mentions a "war on terrorism", but only in the context of SC resolution enforcement and use of force against states harboring 9/11 terrorists. Since the Iraq invasion was neither, it doesn't fit that definition. Rkrichbaum 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Party positions do not matter. The President, Senate, and House of Representatives have all stated that it is part of the War on Terrorism. I do not know what war resolution you are talking about, but the one dealing with the Iraq War [14] states as a reason to go to war that "the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism" and "including those" nations and groups that carried out the 9-11 attacks. It does not state that it is limited to those who were involved. It goes on to further state authorization of force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," which was outlined above to be a threat of terrorism and WMD. This makes it clear that it was begun as a part of the war on terror, and was waged as part of the war on terror. Whether or not the intelligence was right is irrelevant, and not what this is addressing. It is also not addressing whether the USA was right to wage the war. This is attempting to recognize the terms under which the Iraq war was, and is being waged. The War on Terrorism is a campaign waged by the USA and its allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Rangeley 12:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Party positions do matter, since parties have - according to your own sources cited above - significantly different views on whether or not the Iraq occupation is "part of the war on terror". It is totally irrelevant on what language a particular majority in Congress agrees upon, or that you seem to think the US president can freely "determine" without evidence whether or not some country is "harboring terrorists". No, the president cannot determine that black is white and white is black. The US may be almost there, but there is still some way to go. It is common knowledge that the justification for the Iraq invasion was based on false information, and that includes the supposed harboring of al-Qaeda terrorists. That is a fact. If you could find a source that unequivocally states that the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a part of the "war on terrorism", please quote it. The war powers resolution does not unequivocally state that. Bush was authorized to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq", as you correctly point out. The references to the "war on terrorism" in this resolution are quite vague, however. In public debate, the stated reasons for the war were clearly centered around the alleged "immediate threat" supposedly posed by Iraq's alleged WMD capabilities. The alleged "harboring of terrorists" was rarely even mentioned, and the validity of this claim strongly denied by relevant actors. So maybe you could say that one of the purported reasons was to eliminate a minor and much disputed terrorist threat, and that the "war on terrorism" was used as one of several justifications for the intervention. But stating that it was "part" of a wider campaign to eliminate (individual) terrorism (against civilians) is clearly not true. Rkrichbaum 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Just to inform you, the president does not choose which nations are considered to be state-sponsors of terrorism. Also resolution 114 which you seem to be talking about, notes terrorism independantly, then repeatedly when reffering to WMDs. The threat was Iraq could strike US allies, its neighbors or give the weapons to terrorists. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that this is not about defining terrorism, defining white, or defining black. The very definition of the War on Terrorism is a campaign waged by the USA, NATO, and allies against those they see as terroists, and state sponsors of terror. They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror, and therefore began the war under the War on Terrorism. Whether you or I think Iraq was a state sponsor of terror doesnt matter. The USA and allies can determine who they see as state sponsors of terror, and this is who they are targetting in the campaign they are waging - the War on Terrorism. We must recognize this as an encyclopedia. Rangeley 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Interesting that you would mention NATO. The very fact that NATO did NOT intervene in Iraq should make you think again. Yes, the NATO countries agreed to participate in the so-called "war on terrorism" when they were shown the confidential dossier with "evidence" against al-Qaeda by Blair. They were not presented with evidence that implicated Iraq as "harboring terrorists" and most of NATO's partner countries did not even agree that Iraq posed an "immediate threat". The US can determine whatever they wish and it still does not make such claims true, especially if they are proven to be false. Rkrichbaum 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Just because every ally didnt participate doesnt change anything... Iraq was still seen as a state sponsor of terror. Some nations chose not to participate, some did. Rangeley 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Should be either:
    and not:
    Not really. [p ∧ (q ∨ r)] ⊢ [(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)] Haizum 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Could you please re-state your concern and not just use symbolic notation? -- kizzle 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I just restated your comment as a calculus form to show that injecting Bush+whatever doesn't matter. Haizum 01:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Of course it matters. This isn't calculus. Adopting your logic would mean that we wouldn't have to cite anything and simply adopt it into the official tone of the text, which would be ludicrous. Either that or I have your argument wrong... replace your symbolic notation with what you think p, q, and r are. -- kizzle 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    If its highly debatable, what is the rebuttal to this? Rangeley 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "The United States and its allies began the military campaign known as the War on Terrorism,"Saddam Hussein's regime was considered a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the United States government," and "The United States and its allies began the Iraq War as a stated part of the War on Terrorism" are exactly why I justify my position. Once again, the fact that the United States advanced the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism is indisputable. However, to evaluate here on Wikipedia whether or not Iraq is actually connected to terrorism in the manner that would justify its inclusion in such states as Afghanistan as part of the War on Terrorism is not our responsibility nor appropriate for us as Wikipedians to decide. There is a significant opposition to the position to that stated on this Wikipedia page from the likes of Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and many other significant and notable voices that would disagree with the sentiments here. Are we truly going to rule these voices out by siding with one voice? Of course not. We instead cite such a judgment, as anything else would be irresponsible editing and contrary to several stated Wikipedia policies.
    In sum:
    There are two different sides to whether or not Iraq is justified as being part of the War on Terrorism, the opposition of the side expressed here especially coming from the likes of Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies, and Paul O'Neill in Price of Loyalty,two former Bush cabinet members. If you doubt this assertion, page numbers and passages can be provided where both of these former administration officials state that including Iraq in the War on Terrorism is dubious at best.
    What this Wikipedia page proposes is to adopt one of these sides into the official tone of articles in the namespace and thus conclude the debate.
    The above assertion violates Wikipedia policy of NPOV by siding with one side in a debate.
    Thus, we should cite such a position to the Bush administration, as it is indisputable.
    -- kizzle 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that we are not attempting to justify the war at all. We are not trying to validate pre-war intelligence either. Iraq could have had no ties to terror or wmd whatsoever and it would change nothing. The War on Terror is defined by a conflict that is waged against those that the US determines to be terrorists, and state sponsors of terror. The United States labeled Iraq a state sponsor of terror. Therefore, it was eligible to become part of the War on Terror, and it did, when the USA made war with Iraq. This does not conclude any debate. If you want to think about it in a very negative light, compare it to a school shooting. It is carried out by 3 people, and they kill 30 hispanic children and one white child. One might suggest that the killing of the white child was unassociated with the killing of the 30 black kids. But they find the hitlist, and the terms set forth in this hitlist states the killers wanted to take down all hispanics and hispanic sympathizers. It would therefore be correct to state that all 31 people were killed in the same event. Whether or not the sole white kid actually sympathized with hispanics, and whether or not any of the people killed were bad in any way shape or form is irrelevant. It would not be biased to recognize they are all linked.
    I apologize for my overtly negative example, but it is there to illustrate that linking together things does not justify anything, even when it is completely wrong, such as this fictional killing. The USA and allies made its "hitlist," and this includes those they say are terrorists or state sponsors of terror. It is not biased or POV to recognize, therefore, the different components as linked together. By doing so it is not a justification, but instead a factual look at the events. Rangeley 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You misread my comment. I am not trying to "justify" the war at all, I am saying whether or not the war is "justified" as part of the War on Terrorism is a real debate. I agree with you that Iraq was stated by the US as part of the War on Terrorism, but it's inappropriate to go beyond that and say Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. Besides, stating that the War in Iraq was advanced by the US as part of the War on Terrorism is truer to the point and indisputable. -- kizzle 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    But the point is that the US and allies have the power to determine what is and what is not in the War on Terror, as they began the War on Terror. To only state they say its part of the war on terror is to imply that it is not factual, when in reality it is factual. Much like in a series of books, for instance Harry Potter. We do not state that the author "alleges Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is part of a wider series," because it is a part of a wider series of books. Likewise, we cannot just say that the US and Allies allege it to be part of the War on Terror, because it is a part of the war on terror. As the "author" or in this case creator of the conflict, they can define it and add as they see fit. Rangeley 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This "the US and allies have the power to determine what is and what is not in the War on Terror" is exactly what is wrong with this poll. The US gets to determine for the entire planet what terrorism is, and we know this administration is very flexible in adopting novel interpretations to justify their policies, i.e. unlawful combatant, torture in the US is called enhanced interrogation, et cetera. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We simply fundamentally disagree on the usage of War on Terrorism... you see it as a semantic phrase that can be defined as the Bush administration sees fit, and I do not. However, if we are going to use it as a semantic phrase, which you propose, than I am fine with something along the lines of "The War in Iraq is part of the 'War on Terrorism'", as using the quotations mirrors that which is found upon the actual War on Terrorism... the quotes also establish that we're talking about a semantic phrase rather than a concept. -- kizzle 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Kizzle, check down here, Wikipedia:WOT#Alternative_Possibilities. And Nomen, no, I am not claiming that the USA and allies can determine for the world what terrorism is. But the USA and allies can determine what it sees as terrorism and state sponsors of terror, and these nations and groups that fit the US and allies definition are the ones that the War on Terrorism is being fought against. Rangeley 13:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. "War on terror" is a propaganda term and inherently not neutral. Furthermore, the main reasoning about the Iraq war was WMD, not WOT. None of the 9-11 terrorists was Iraqi, however, opinion polls showed more than 60% of the US population thought that Hussein was somehow responsible for the attack. We should not add to that confusion. Añoranza 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The reason given was that those WMD's would get into terrorist hands, please see HJ Res 114 as you seem unfamiliar with it. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please explain how training OBL, IRA and FARC is not supporting terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is not addressing the name of the conflict. The context in which the WMD was a threat was (as Zero pointed out) the allegged risk of it falling into the hands (or being given) to terrorists, along with Iraq's support of terrorism elsewhere, all of which made them a state sponsor of terror according to the USA. As the War on Terrorism was begun with the goal of "ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified by the U.S. as terrorist groups and ending state sponsorship of terrorism," and Iraq was a stated part of the War on Terrorism, it is part of the War on Terrorism. This is not addressing whether Iraq was involved in 9-11. Rangeley 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Ludicrous argument since you can always assert that somebody might, eventually, possibly, notwithstanding in the future give money, or technology to alleged terrorists. BTW, what exactly is your definition of a terrorist? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Almost like basing years around stopping the spread of communism, but we know that never happened, and there was never any conflicts about it, wars, operations etc. We know that if there was it would have gone on forever and see we would dare never to name it. Sorry I felt if I mentioned the name someone would accuse me of using the "Cold War anology". It was not mean to mock you. Sigh it wasa a pointless joke, I see it appearing on my RfC soon. Woe is me. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nomen, I respect your opinion, and as I have told you, my personal beliefs run contrary to what is proven factually. But having communists as a target can take you anywhere, much like having terrorists as one. However that conflict did not go on forever, and it did spread to poor countries that it shouldnt have, but that does negate what it was and that it happened. Yes the US can attack anyone, sadly, much like in the Cold War, it basically encompasses the stopping of communism. Sad but true. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Interesting you should mention communism. As we now know the threat of that was seriously exaggerated, just as the threat of terrorism is today. As to the US being able to attack anyone, please read about war of aggression, jus ad bellum, crime against peace and war crimes. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Correct,you are seeing the point. Now does that mean the Cold War never happened since the threat was exaggerated? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nomen, my definition of a terrorist, and your definition of a terrorist is irrelevant. It is the USA's governments definition of a terrorist and a state sponsor of terror that matters. They determined Saddam Hussein's regime to be a state sponsor of terror, and they began a war against him under the context of the War on Terrorism - a war against those they see as state sponsors of terror and terrorists. Is it right? Is it justified? Irrelevant. The justness of the actions do not effect our recognition of the connection, which is vital in our job as an encyclopedia. Rangeley 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is a perfect answer to my rhetorical question. Apparently you think the US is the sole authority on what a terrorist/terrorism is. Clearly, this is by definition a biased statement. When I ask for the definition of what a terrorist is I ask for a neutral description and not "what the US says it is." First of all, the US is party to this and cannot be trusted with such a definition and second, it suggests that when the US is not involved, and does not determine anything, there is no terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Noone says the US is the only nation that can say what a terrorist is, what we are saying is the US said Iraqi was a state sponsor of terrorism. You are over exaggerating the point. Oddly enough if the UN said Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and then the SC council voted to attack Iraq, would you find that wrong? You should because its the UN stating they are a terrorist sponsor, and the UN attacking. This basically is your circle logic. You state only the UN can justify a war, you also state that a group cannot label another group a state sponsor of terrorism and then take part in the invasion. IF its wrong for the US to do it, its wrong for the UN, oddly enough the UN can only act on things that it has voted on, basically eliminating any war as just. But most of all, we are not here to justify the war, simply say if its part of it or not. You keep wanting to justify it, but we as wikipedians are not here to judge our subjects. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You fail to understand that the UN is not a country like the US, but an international body created specifically to deal with these issues. Clearly the US has not been appointed by the international community to do the same, therefore the analogy is incorrect. Second, this debate is not about justification ort what did the Bush administration say. The debate is about which terrorist was the US fighting in Iraq? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "War on terror" is a propaganda term and inherently not neutral. -- is a subjective statement and is inherently not neutral, as usual. Haizum 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please provide a neutral definition of the term terrorism. Let's start from there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Just look it up in the dictionary, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please explain why that definition does not apply to how Israel treats Palestinians, i.e the recent killing of a family in Gaza. Or, how invading Iraq without UN support, to topple a regime the US disliked does not fall under this definition. Have I already mentioned threatening Iran to force that country to adopt another policy? There are more examples but I think this suffices. Finally you supplied the ammo and proved my point. Terrorism is open to interpretation and if you take this definition many countries are guilty of terrorism. Hence the lenghty debate to find an acceptable defintion. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Stop trying to derail discussion. This is not about the definition of terrorists, or if terrorism is carried out by anyone. This isnt "a" war on terrorism, it is the War on Terrorism, a specifically defined conflict being waged by the USA and its allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. The USA saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror, and they began a war against them under the campaign of The War on Terrorism. I said it before, Ill say it again. Whether the USA commits terrorism, genocide, or eats babies is irrelevant. The same can be applied to Israel, England, China, Japan, Norway, any nation. Whether they actually are terrorists or state sponsors of terror doesnt matter. The War on Terrorism is against those that the USA and allies see as being terrorists or state sponsors of terror. This has been stated many times, and you keep ignoring it. Rangeley 12:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Could you please cite the respective declaration of war, thank you. Or do you apply the term "war" as a metaphor? As in "war on drugs"? In this case your main point is moot, since it is merely a label for various policies that is open to interpretation by anybody. This is how metaphors work. Rkrichbaum 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    So now the claim is the Iraq War did not happen or anyone war since WW2 since there is no declaration of war? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Since the concept is so well-defined you will have no trouble in telling us where exactly this war is taking place, and what actions are being countered by it and who is committiing terrorist acts. In other words define WOT and terrorism in such a way that we know which countries fall within and outside that definition, and what organisations, person, actions are considered to be terrorism. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Did you read the definitions I have given you, two times already? Your attempts to rephrase this question are no longer going to be permitted. Participate in the current discussion or start another one if you want to talk about the issue of justification. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This fundamentally misunderstands NPOV

  1. There is a dispute about whether one term means one thing or another. Therefore, avoid using the term directly, and describe the dispute about its application if appropriate. Simple. Don't say "The Iraq War, a part of the broader War on Terrorism", say "The Iraq War, which the United States government views as part of the broader War on Terrorism". Please carefully read through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if you haven't already. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 20:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem is that such a construction would be incredibly burdensome in an infobox. Do you have a better suggestion? Personally, I like: Part of the "War on Terror" KevinPuj 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  1. Agreed. If a claim (such as this one) is obviously controversial (as this one is) then don't state it as a bare fact state who claims it, and who disagrees. This is basic, simple NPOVing. Come on, people. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. There is no consensus on this in the world. A straw poll cannot authorize a violation of fundamental policy. Septentrionalis 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

m:Polls are evil

  1. Calling this a vote gives the impression that some kind of binding decision is being made here, and that's a bad impression to give, especially with the spamming going on to bring people here to "vote". Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy. "Votes" are a terrible way to try and get things done here. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, which I noted here. As noted in the consensus policies, polls and surveys are used only to assist in consensus building. I said this about Mr. Tibbs polls, and the same applies to this. Rangeley 00:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    As all Straw Polls, its not binding. I hope you take the time to visit the Iraq War page and spread that knowledge to the polls there that were erected in an attempt to enforce a majority rule. This however is an attempt to build a consensus, see the discussion page where ideas are being thrown around. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Rangeley, posting to 20 talk pages of Wikipedians listed in Category:Conservative Wikipedians with a message that says "WP:WOT is up for vote now" is a pretty bad way to convince anyone that you don't think of this as a vote in which numbers matter. To an outside observer... it looks that way. (That category, and others like it, shouldn't even exist.) As for the Iraq war article, I've just added it to my watchlist - am I going to regret that? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I regret adding it everyday ... no seriously. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I've already got Abortion on my watchlist; maybe they can keep each other company. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Not if you like having it remain at the top of your list indefinately. But my calling it a vote was more out of ignorance than anything, being a admin at a forum I have taken to habit of calling polls votes ("such and such is up for a vote"). If you would like I can change it in the individual messages, I have changed the "Vote" sub section to "Straw Poll" here already. Rangeley 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Attempts to mitigate or undermine the impact of this page by subversive methods will not be tolerated; e.g., I will be reviewing the deletion request very closely. Haizum 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "The impact of this page"? What do you figure that is, other than the ideas exchanged in discussion, which can't be taken away from us by deletion or anything else? - GTBacchus( talk) 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    If this page is deleted, discussion (regarding this particular issue) will cease and dialogue will no longer be dynamic. Haizum 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    On the contrary, if this page is deleted, this pointless exercise in PoV pushing will spread all over Wikipedia, which is worse. Septentrionalis 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You can't decide issues of fact with a straw poll

  1. Tony Sidaway 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Deciding fact? I am not sure what you are reffering to, but it appears that some people debate the facts, and hence decide that those facts should not be included. This is a poll to see how many people actually debate the fact that the IRaq War is part of WOT. Its not to determine if it is a fact. The previous straw polls which are listed above, attempted to blue the issue by making it about a specific location, instead of gathering information regarding the war in Iraq and WOT in general. Again as noted above, noone is trying to state for a fact, or make this binding, just get an idea of opinions and ideas. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. What part of WP:NOR escaped your notice? — Phil | Talk 08:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    My apologies if this page was quoted as a source some place, feel free to point me to the article and I will remove it. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The results of the straw poll are a useful tool in gauging support for one side or another, and are nothing more than that. The reason it is in the form of a poll is that polls tend to be a good discussion starter, and also it was previously claimed by certain individuals that polls were a consensus. I disagree with this premise, however by making this in the form of a poll it would legitimize it in their view. But this is trying to acheive a consensus, which I stated above is, in the case of this, the point where it is clear that one side has an argument that cannot be torn down. The argument put forth in this article has not yet been rebutted, and most people seem to agree with it instead. Obviously a majority isnt a consensus, but I believe it is a consensus when an argument is strong enough that it cannot be rebutted successfully. This is to determine if we are at that point, with the argument put forth. We are awaiting a rebuttal. Rangeley 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I don't get what you think you're determining in this poll.... what proportion of Wikipedians who happen to contribute to this page think that the War in Iraq is part of the WOT? That's ridiculous. Whatever a majority of us decide here, it won't change anything. There is no correct answer to that question. Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a side, we're supposed to report the controversy. What are we supposed to do, supposing one "side" gets much more support than the other in this poll? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Its also about seeing why, which ideas are heavily supported, what may change others minds etc. Most votes are accomanied by a statement, unless the user feels its been stated well by another. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We are also suppose to report fact, and that is being held back by some editors, and people would like to know why. Its a fact hat the Iraq War was entered into under the reach of the War on Terror, however going to Iraq War page, the "partof" section does not exist or is repeatedly removed. So it seems an understanding of everyone opinions is necessary. The previous poll was only addressing the infobox, a greater discussion on a more broad subject needed to take place, this is it. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    GTBacchus, I said "The results of the straw poll are a useful tool in gauging support for one side or another, and are nothing more than that." I also said that I believe "it is a consensus when an argument is strong enough that it cannot be rebutted successfully. This is to determine if we are at that point, with the argument put forth." As Zero pointed out, this is dealing with facts, and the fact that the USA and allies can add different wars to a larger campaign that they also began. This seems obvious to me and many others, yet whenever it is said, someone edits it out. This is getting to the bottom of the issue. Rangeley 17:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I see - you think it's possible to argue whether or not the WII is part of the WOT and come to a conclusion that will be supported by "stronger arguments" than the other side. Well, that's incorrect, because it's neither a matter of fact, nor opinion, nor argument, nor support, but one of spin. Our job is not to choose the spin we prefer. The fact of the matter is that some people consider the WII to be part of the WOT for such-and-such reasons, and others consider it to be obviously not part of the WOT for such-and-such other reasons. Since both groups are well-represented among sources. We don't pick a side. It doesn't matter how much "support" we gauge here or there; that's utterly meaningless. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    WW2? I am not sure what you are talking about anymore. This page has nothing to do with WW2 ... Furthermore if I goto the article Vietnam War and post on the talk page that this was not part of the Cold War, because the term Cold War is propaganda to hide the fact that real wars took place, then ask them to remove it, what do you think the outcome would be? Would you support this action because its now disputed amongst editors? Obviously not, because its a fact that its part of it. Much like I am stating to you that Iraq is part of the WOT, however I am not arguing that WW2 was ... If you want to see how factual it is, see some of the votes on the Iraq War page, many people said they believe it is, however should not be in the infobox because people are debating it. That is supressing fact due to editors not wanting to believe it. People who start wars get to say why they did it and get to pick targets ... I have never seen this point debated yet. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Good thing I never said WWII. I said "WII", attempting to abbreviate "War In Iraq", which is what we are talking about. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    And the rest of what I wrote ... -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, it's not clear to me what you think I'm supporting - you seem to think that I support the removal of something or another, when I haven't said that. The best way to find out what I think is to ask me. I think the question "Is Iraq part of the WOT?" does not have a single correct answer, and we're doing a disservice to pretend that it does. In other words, I'm not taking the side against you; I'm just not taking your side either. - GTBacchus( talk) 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You are absolutely wrong. It is not a matter of oppinion, because it is something that can be determined. I have stated countless analogies throughout this, such as the example of a hitlist. When 30 people are killed by the same person, and all of them were all on the same hitlist in which the criminal states his intentions to "kill anyone who wears a hat," you know that all 30 killings are linked under the same rampage carried out by the criminal. It is factual. When an author writes a series of books and releases them, it is a factual statement to say all of the books are in the same series. We do not say that it is alleged that the books are in the same series, or that the author claims they are in the same series, because it is within the authors power to determine what is, and what is not in the series. It was the criminals choice to determine who to put on his hitlist and kill. It is not for us to say otherwise, because that would be untrue, and unfactual. It would be incorrect. Likewise, it is absolutely incorrect to say "The US Alleges the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism" because the US, as the creator of the War on Terror and the Iraq War, can determine what is and what is not in the War on Terrorism. The War on Terrorism and " A Series of Unfortunate Events" is a specific campaign and book series respectively. Whether or not you consider the War on Terrorism to truly be against terrorism is irrelevant, just like whether or not A Series of Unfortunate Events is actually unfortunate is irrelevant. If one of them had a happy ending, it would not make us "report on the controversy" and only claim that this is allegedly in the series. If the author says its in the series, it is, regardless of how well it lives up to expectations. The creator of the War on Terrorism has made it a war against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. They saw Iraq as a State Sponsor of Terror, and began the war against them as a part of the war on terror. This is factual, and there is no reason to not recognize this. Just because some disagree doesnt change the facts, this hasnt led the Earth article to say its allegedly round, the article on Evolution to state it allegedly occurs, or the article on the Moon landing to say it allegedly happened. All comment on the controversy, but none of them allow the controversy to hinder the presentation of factual information. I can only expect the same for this. Rangeley 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I think I understand your argument. The trouble is this: one of the major points of the Iraq war that's criticized is the motivation. Critics say that the administration didn't really initiate the war because of the threat of terrorism, but for other reasons, right? Furthermore, we read in Criticisms of the War on Terrorism that, "arguments are also made against the phrase [War on Terrorism], calling it a misnomer." The criticism is that, by calling it the War on Terrorism, and referring to it with that name, one is conceding an entire agenda. See political framing. If you concede to the language of one side, on certain issues such as this, then you also concede to their agenda. This follows from the tension between a designation like "The War on Terrorism" and the literal meanings of the words "the war on terrorism" in some general context. Smart rhetoricians exploit that tension, to create a dialogue prejudicial to their side appearing more plausible and correct. Our job is to not allow the rhetoricians of any side of a dispute to do that. If we blithely state that the Iraq War simply is part of The War on Terrorism (proper noun) without acknowleding that the term is considered by some to be a very misleading misnomer, then we're allowing one position to determine the language of discourse to the exclusion of others. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    But we are not talking about mere motivations, we are discussing the official positions taken by the government. The use of force was authorized to "prosecute the War on Terrorism" against the "threat posed by Iraq." You outlined a problem, the name War on Terrorism has its critics. But this is a seperate issue. The only thing this page is trying to acheive is the recognition of the Iraq War as part of the larger campaign, which it has been explicitly stated as such. And so long as the name for this specific campaign is the War on Terrorism, according to Wikipedia, then that is what we say it is a part of. The objections to the name are legitimate, and worthy of a discussion all their own. But the name of the campaign is irrelevant to this. Were it called "Bush's War of Subjugation" at Wikipedia, than the Iraq War would still be part of the campaign. Were it called "The War waged by America and Allies against those they see as Terrorists" the Iraq war would still be part of it. We must put the name aside, and recognize first that the Iraq War is a part of it - whatever the name of the campaign may be. Its as fair as recognizing The Bad Beginning as part of A Series of Unfortunate Events. That is the name of the series, and while it is undoubtedly a loaded name for a book series, this does not interfere with our recognition of the book as part of the series. Rangeley 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I agree that we should definitely acknowledge that the War in Iraq is part of a broader campaign, AND that the campaign is named "The War on Terrorism", AND that the name is controversial for reasons that have very much to do with the inclusion of the Iraq War in that campaign, and I don't think there's room to do the subject justice in an infobox. The infobox ought to say something to acknowledge that the statement "The Iraq War is part of The War on Terrorism" is not entirely unproblematic, and the problematic nature should be explained in the body text. How does that sound? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    While this is not entirely what this is about (which is merely its inclusion), I agree that it should be not kept out of the infobox. I strongly believe there should be a section, paragraph, several paragraphs, whatever it takes to represent fairly the fact that some disagree with its inclusion. But the fact that it is part of the campaign, which is irrefutable by facts, should qualify it for inclusion in the infobox. Much like, in the Earth infobox, it states the factual data on the circumferance and diameter, and covers the flat earth theory in the body, we can do the same here. Obviously, many people do not know this fact, that it is indeed part of the campaign. But many people also think/thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. This, however, does not interfere with us stating he was not, instead we would address it as a controversy about him. To legitimize the view that he was behind it by saying "The idea he was not involved is disputed" gives the false impression that he might have. That is the same here, if we say it is disputed in the infobox, or leave it out entirely, we give the false impression that it is not true. So again, we should definately cover it in the body, but this should not interfere with the presentation of facts. -Upon re-reading, it seems you were saying this too, I appear to have misread at first- Rangeley 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I'm not above agreeing with you by stealth, if you aren't careful. ;) Seriously though, I think the only point about which we're differening is whether it should be stated unadorned in the infobox that the IW is part of the WOT. I would prefer it be adorned with a footnote indicating that the name of the campaign is seen by a significant faction to be prejudicial in this particular context, and directing the reader to discussion of that point. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I think (disputed) with a link to controvery over war on terror article kinda thing would work. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, this same discussion is going on up here now, since the name is finally being addressed as the other stuff seems clarified to a reasonable extent. Rangeley 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Every voter in this poll should be hit with trout. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I prefer Codfish but whatever. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I prefer civility. Ch u ck (contrib) 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Are you contending that this discussion is an exercise in civility? Septentrionalis 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I am contending that saying that people who voted (myself included) should be hit with trout is not civil. Ch u ck (contrib) 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. I agree that you cannot decide fact based on polls, only evidence and reliable sources determine what we call findings of fact.-- MONGO 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. The results of this poll will demonstrate that the Iraq war's relation to the war on terror is intensely controversial. Anyone who was not aware of that going in deserves to be hit by one of Hipocrite's trout. Kickaha Ota 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Precisely. Septentrionalis 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We all agree straw polls do not determine facts. We are not attempting to use it to determine facts, but instead to gauge the relative amount of agreeance over a specific solution put forward. The quality of arguments are the only factor that will be used when determining policy. Rangeley 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Alternative Possibilities

  1. The War in Iraq is part of the "War on Terrorism"
    • The quotations are used in order to identify it as the semantic phrase the Bush administration is using as a label for its foreign policy post-9/11. This mirrors the usage of the phrase on the " War on Terrorism" page itself.
      The use of quotes deals with the name of the event, something this is not addressing. Should it be decided to use quotes around it, that is deserving of discussion all its own. But as of now, the name is War on Terrorism, and as such that is what we are discussing it being a part of. Rangeley 12:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
      If it is favorable to those who oppose it, to instead have it shown this way, then I will support it in compromise. Since some people feel its part of it, but then state they feel its bad or wrong. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The only reason I do not want this to be discussed here is because we must be focused singularly on addressing this issue first, before other things can be addressed. Whether the "partof" or opening paragraph reads its part of the War on Terrorism or " War on Terrorism," neither of these can happen without us first recognizing the Iraq War is part of the campaign in the first place. If you believe it is part of the campaign, then we agree, and you should vote in the "I agree with the conclusion" section. Where we go from there can be determined later. Rangeley 12:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I agree, perhaps it should be moved to the talk page. Its a step ahead of the process we are currently undergoing and may lead people to think its an alternate section to voice their opinion. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I didn't realize this was solely your pet project Rangeley and that alternative possibilities couldn't be addressed. Knowing whether or not there are other solutions heavily factors in whether or not people vote yes or no for the concept. -- kizzle 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    There are no alternatives to this specific issue. It is a part of it, or it is not a part of it. Its that simple. If we decide here that it is a part of it, we can then determine how to show it in the article in a new discussion. Some ideas thrown around have been the standard "Part of the War on Terrorism," the alternative "Part of the 'War on Terrorism.'" But again, this is the issue we can address after we have decided whether its even a part of the campaign at all. Rangeley 20:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. There will never be total agreement because the phrase 'War on Terrorism' can be interpreted in different ways. It is just too broad, and can be applied to too many different things. So it should say: "Some believe that the invasion of Iraq is part of the American Government's so-called 'War on Terrorism'". Madder 17:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The War on Terrorism article specifically states what it is. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Not everyone agrees that the earth is round, this does not prevent us from stating it is. Look up in this section where I posted a rather lengthy response to GTBacchus, who basically said the same as you. Rangeley 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    The truth is though, we will never know what really went through their heads when they invaded Iraq. Some will argue that it was part of their 'War on Terror', while others will argue that they just wanted the oil. Who is right? Madder 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    I say the Cold War was a martian plot to have 2 countries destroy the planet for germination. That does not make it a fact. Nor is this discussion about if the reasons for attacking were justified, the question is, was terrorism a reason for attacking? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We do not need to look into their heads at all, when the use of force was authorized it was to "continue to prosecute the war on terrorism." This doesnt require brain surgery or the use of psychic detectives, it was written in the authorization of force. [15]. When this passed, it became more than a thought or a word, it became official US policy. We can only deal with officially stated and implemented reasons. Rangeley 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    So then lets identify the originator of the "War on Terrorism" to make sure its not used as some broad general concept but what you really want to identify it as: the label applied to the US's foreign policy post 9/11, hence the quotations. On a side note, just because the article War on Terrorism states what it is, that doesn't mean we still shouldn't provide quotations around the phrase and attribute it to the White House. We are not here on Wikipedia to decide matters such as what you propose. -- kizzle 19:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    To this I again would say that we can deal with how to display War on Terrorism later, and can decide the most appropriate way then. I just really want to get this one step out of the way. If we agree its part, we can then talk about how to represent this. This article is only addressing whether its part of the conflict, and nothing more. Rangeley 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    No, we deal with it now. This shouldn't be simply a binary decision, despite your original framing of this proposal. --[[User:Kizzle|ki
    I am sorry but this is not the topic this is addressing. Rangeley 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    "We can only deal with officially stated and implemented reasons" and "We do not need to look into their heads at all" - official statements are not always true, and Wikipedia shouldn't automatically state them as fact. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a propaganda tool. Madder 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    We can deal with the fact that both WMD and AQ were disputed prior to the invasion. To say Bush had no way of knowing this might be false is ludicrous. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    You have already stated that terrorism links were legit. "Again, nobody denies SH had contacts with terrorists" [16] -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    Once again, invading Iraq over connections with Hamas and connections with Al Qaeda are two waaaaay different things. -- kizzle 21:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    But not for us. As the War on Terrorism is a campaign by the USA and allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror, so long as they see Iraq as a state sponsor of terror - whatever these terrorists may be - they can than make war with Iraq under their campaign. Which they just so happened to do. Rangeley 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    This was more of a tangential discussion, not to do with WOT. I already said I agreed with you that technically speaking Iraq had connections to anti-Israel terrorist groups. My remark was that to truly think we invaded Iraq because of those links is as ludicrous as believing that Rumsfeld knew where the WMDs were in the leadup to war. -- kizzle 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment about poll itself

Discussion

For discussion see the talk page.


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

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

Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments by Nescio

The following comments were added by Nescio and were removed on the basis they were attempting to change the foundation of this poll. They are being added back at the bottom here to preserve Nescio's comments in accordance with mediation. Please note the issues being addressed below are not the guidelines or information that correspond to the votes above. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This issue has been discussed both on articles', and users' talk pages over the past months, resulting in polls being made, it is necessary that we address this issue in one location as it is easier to reach a consensus when conversations are able to be read in full.

Results of the previous polls were:

  • 16-10 are saying that Iraq is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such. [17]
  • 14-4 are saying that Iraq is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such. [18]
  • 10-3 WMD was the prominent -that is, not terrorism- reason advanced by the Bush administration to invade Iraq. [19]

This is repeatedly deleted, apparently people are not allowed to judge for themselves what this debate is about and that the subject was decided against including Iraq I restore the reference to previous discussions in the hope that an homest and unbiased debate is possible. For the previous debate for what this poll is really trying to address: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

What this is "not" addressing

  • The name of the War on Terrorism. Currently, Wikipedia's article on the conflict is located at the War on Terrorism, and until it is not located there, this is the name of the conflict as far as other articles are concerned.
  • Whether the Iraq War was justified. This is not an attempt to justify, or use Wikipedia to justify the War in Iraq. There is no agenda being pushed other than that of presenting facts to Wikipedians.
  • Whether Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorism/Al Qaeda, or whether he possessed WMD. The accuracy of pre-war intelligence is irrelevant to this issue as, again, it is not attempting to justify the war.
  • What the Bush administration was asserting.

What this is addressing

  • Part of the "War on Terrorism" means that the US went to Iraq to fight terrorism.
  • Part of the "War on Terrorism" is not the same as stated by the US as part of the "War on Terrorism."
  • That it has been established by the Bush Administration that Iraq was involved in international terrorism and the Bush administration had no way of knowing otherwise.
  • Resulting in the recognition of the Iraq War as part of the " War on Terrorism."

Why it is not part of the War on Terrorism

  • Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was no terrorism of significance present.
  • US intelligence stated prior to the invasion that no proof existed of any link between Iraq and international terrorisme, more specifically no link to 9-11.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WOT&oldid=1084027895"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE