Wikipedia talk:WOT

message: I think it is obvious that the US government sees (or at least saw/presented) the invasion of Iraq and the continuing presence there as part of its War on Terror. However, in my opnion, the term "War on Terror" is just a tag applied to various wars, which might be fought for very different reasons and with different means, very much like the "global stuggle against communism" of R. Reagan.[9]. So I would propose including a text along the lines of "the US government sees the invasion of Iraq as part of its global "War on Terrorism".KarlXII 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just, "US/United States War on Terror?" Haizum 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind US War on Terrorism, but you run into two problems, there are other nations that use the term, there are other nations also participating in the content that will be included in the article. I considered US led, but that would be false as many of the operations attributed have little to no US presence, like Operation Active Endeavor and Operation APOLLO. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Thanks. Haizum 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for kicks, maybe US (some word that would symbolize they started it) War on Terrorism. That is if people want to highlight how it began with the US, I just feel limiting the name to making it seem like its only the US participating would be wrong. I also want to note NATO says Active Endeavor is part of war on terror, so its not just the US using the term. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Would it be possible to attach different prefixes to the overall War on Terror? For instance, the US and the UK are both fighting the WOT, but clearly they have different goals and policies. So, would it be possible to have US War on Terror / UK War on Terror / XYZ War on Terror with the assumption that their independent efforts are all part of a greater WOT? I'm just brainstorming here. Haizum 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might be advantageous because even a small country that can only support the WOT vocally can still be recognized as a participant if they wish. Likewise, they wouldn't have to be directly attached to military actions that they may not agree with. Haizum 19:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I totally follow you. I'm really just trying to make this easier for the people that can't handle obvious distinctions, eg, this poll is not an endorsement of the war. Haizum 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution might be to take the War on Terrorism article and rework it. Possibly create a brief history, of the start of the war on terror, then branch into each countries contributions and maybe a paragraph or two about that particular operation. This would allow people to goto the war on terror page and then see what operations are taking place by what countries. The current article however is very US centric. We can even create a large War on Terror page, then have each country sorted by participation. Such as Global War on Terror - France Participation or something to that effect. I think this can easily turn into a project, one I would be glad to work on. If you see the template there is numerous things to cover directly related to the WOT. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is odd that he would not be considered, he was after all Al-Qaeda, he pledged to bin Laden and bin Laden accepted him as his warrior in Iraq. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, I'm not that surprised. Haizum 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: "He joins us from Ankara," Admiral Johnson said in his introduction of the General to his new headquarters, "where he recently served with great distinction as the Chief of the Operations Division in the Turkish Air Force, and where he gained a reputation as a visionary leader with much to contribute as we all focus on prosecuting a global war on terrorism."
*Admiral Johnson was the Commander-in-Chief of AFSOUTH. SO even NATO commanders consider some NATO exercises and operations as part of the global war on terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only the US?

message: If we're going to vote somehow on these things, can we get at least some citations that Iraq was found "without dispute" to be involved in "international terrorism"? --kizzle 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not what this was addressing, and was added by Nomen Nescio erroneously, and repeatedly . I removed it as soon as I saw it, as pre war intelligence was already determined to be what this is "not addressing." Rangeley 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: You seem to be the only person not understanding what its really about. Consider perhaps you want it to be about something its not? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not count the more than a dozen others that have explained this to you.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, you're saying that we have to vote whether Wikipedia will decide whether or not Iraq was indisputably involved in international terrorism without using any sources? --kizzle 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Numerous editors have explained at great lenght is that a title part of WOT clearly makes that statement. Which is the reason these initiators of yet another discussion had so much opposition to including Iraq. What else does part of the WOT mean to you other than Iraq is part of international terrorism.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Incorrect. This is not validating pre war intelligence. It is not concluding Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. It is not conclusing Saddam Hussein supported international terrorism. In the eyes of the USA and allies, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. And that is exactly what this campaign is being fought against - those who they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Not who I see, not who you see, how they see. It was begun under the context of this campaign, and it therefore is a part of the campaign. Rangeley 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is not a discussion of the justifications of the war. For all we care it was completely illegal and Bush is a war criminal. It wouldnt change the fact that the Iraq war is part of the larger campaign, for which the USA and allies can define. Rangeley 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep saying that Bush has the right to determine the facts for the rest of the world. Feel free to say Bush suggested Iraq was a terrorist state, however Bush cannot make it a fact. Again, doubting this is factually correct is not the same as voicing opinion over any justification or whether Bush can PR as he wishes. At the end of the day to state that Iraq is invaded to fight terrorism is not compatible with the facts, therefore we should not assert it as fact.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The USA and allies began the war on terror agains those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. It is not a war against those you see, those I see, those the world see. Its those they see. Is that clarified? They saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Not you, not me, not the world, they saw Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Is that clarified? They waged war against Iraq under the above described campaign against those they see as state sponsors of terror. This is factual. To recognize that they began it under the campaign they also began is factual. Do you understand this point? I dont know how else to state it. Rangeley 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, you explained yourself why we can't present it as undisputed fact, it is what they see.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Since it is impossible to describe what this debate actuully is about (see talkpages where others already made this clear) I asked AN/I tyo take a look and decide whether this is a fair representation.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This straw poll is addressing what it says it's addressing; it's a one-liner. To say that this poll is really trying to address something else is pushing 'good faith' in my opinion. Haizum 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AN/I

message: Is it necessary to move this discussion here? Now its sort of disjointed from the rest of the page, which is indeed also all discussion. Rangeley 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was necessary in part to reduce the page below 100Kb, and to keep discussion separate from the content that the proposal was portraying. It also reduces edit conflicts as El C found troubling. Ansell 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually still 115 kB, but this is an improvement nonetheless. Ansell 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move 

message: "Currently, Wikipedia's article on the conflict is located at the War on Terrorism, and until it is not located there, this is the name of the conflict as far as other articles are concerned."
I removed the above statement because it does not gain anything to stake your definition on the current name of a page. A clear one sentence statement will be easier to comprehend than three sentences. Ansell 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed statement 

message: Why are links to the previous debate not allowed and why do editors keep deleting these links?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your failure to read them is causing you to state they are about something more then the infobox. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you elaborate on why people objected including it in the infobox? Did it have something to with them objecting to an infobox suggesting Iraq was part of the WOT. Please explain why they objected.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We will not allow participants to be misled by statements like that. Such as stated a poll asking if WMDs was a main reason, somehow in your mind is exluding terrorism as a possible reason, when as I have and others have explained to you, the two are linked as the WMDs were feared of going terrorists.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not erxcluding terrorism is not equal to including it as main reason.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People voted WMDs were the main reason. That does not mean terrorism was not a reason. You are attempting to draw a line between the two. If you think I am wrong, then keep my comments, since you won't have to worry about people seeing your poll as bias, they will just see both and brush me off. Also the other two polls do not state "is not part of the War on Terror and therefore the infobox should not state it as such" They state it should not be in the infobox. Some as I keep pointing out, said it is part of the war on terror, but since its disputed it should not be in the infobox. See the problem? You are making an assumption from results of a poll, not only that but you are reversing that conclusion, making it seem as if people voted they are not linked and so it should not be included. They voted it should not be included and you are understanding that to be that its not linked. I could argue that it is linked because WMD worry was that it would goto terrorists and now since they voted WMDs was the main reason, then its obvious they voted terrorism is the main worry and so since terrorism was the main worry its obvious this was part of the war on terror. See the problem with reversing the actual answer? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You will agree that Iraq did not have a working relationship with Al-Qaeda at the time, correct? --kizzle 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, but AQ ia not the only terrorist organization. I think there may have been talks, a mutual truce, but a truce is jsut a step up from animosity, far from a relationship. However as I keep stating, my personal beliefs are left at the door, I go by what I can prove, it just happens they coincide in this instance. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization.  But why are we going after a state that supports Hamas rather than going after Iran or the numerous other targets that were directly involved with Al Qaeda? And as I recall, Saddam's secularism wasn't too popular with Bin Laden's Islamic fundamentalism. --kizzle 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that the Project for a New American Century's goals of toppling Saddam contained no mention of terrorism as its purpose to go in. --kizzle 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said I am not here to justify anything, neither is this poll, also PNAC doesnt decide if we goto war, congress and the president do. Perhaps they felt it would be an easier fight to remove the terrorists in Iraq then fear the other nations into dropping their support for them also. Maybe they really are after oil, gasp. I really do not care, time will answer this question factually and the world will stand still when they do, for good or bad. Its not up to me to insert my political opinion of Saddam and Iraq and the US into this encyclopedia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue of necessity. You could argue, and I have often pondered, if going after Iran would have been a wiser choice. But you might say the same of the Battle of Gallipoli, and allege a far less futile battle could have been waged, say, 2 miles up the coast of the Ottoman Empire where there were not forts built. But the lack of wisdom behind the move doesnt make it any less a part of World War One. Iraq had ties to terror, and the US and allies determined it to be the next target in their war on terror. That is all that matters to us. Rangeley 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous debate

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

message: *This fallacious statement is being reposted by two people who think that when a RFC is ongoing, and even this manipulated "poll" is ongoing, there is consensus. This is what is known as a contradictio in terminis.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on added conclusion

message: 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 NescioGnothi seauton 12:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion thoughts from main page