Template talk:War on terror/Archive 1

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

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

message: Please discuss why it was removed.
thanks,
Sfacets 00:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the al-Qaeda flag

message: Therefore I added the NPOV-tag and listed it for deletion. De mortuis... 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as a candidate for speedy deletion.  Perhaps you should nominate it over at TfD?  --Hyperbole 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that you are posting innuendo does not mean you win an argument. De mortuis... 01:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be deleted (these events did happen), but perhaps renamed. It is POV from the point of view that the so called terrorists wouldn't view themselves as terrorists, but something like "freedom fighters". Categorising them as terrorists plays entirely to one side of the conflict, ie. the US and it's coallition.
That being said, I can't see how this could be renamed to anything shorter than a paragraph to maintain NPOV.
Sfacets 07:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: If you state the war is going on and e.g. Bush of the US, Blair of the UK and Aznar of Spain are main characters it seems like an obvious conclusion that Berlusconi of Italy is still in power and Spain a main ally in the war on the US side. The latter two are incorrect, and misleading templates should be avoided. Añoranza 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I have it. You suffer from Alzheimer's. Sorry to get cynical but the exact point you are making has been addressed two edits further up. Furthermore, Saddam is not in either as the Iraq war - as consensus showed - is not to be made part of this template. Añoranza 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: If you want to write a help file "how to read my favourite template" you can put it on your user page. Together with the template the way you like it to be. Añoranza 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A template entitled with a propaganda term is inherently not neutral

message: Can we remove these from the template? It has been established that neither had anything to do with AQ. Or, it must be that investigators concluded that both incidents resulted from a few people reacting to the transgressions in Iraq. To those claiming we should list terrorism in general, no we do not list every terrorist act in this template. Decided to go ahead and remove this error. Nomen Nescio
: We should keep them, but in some other category than Main events or Tangential conflicts. Maybe something like Terrorist assaults, as opposed to Military campaigns. The 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings intermediately affected Bush's military campaign, because his ally Aznar lost his office as a result of his dealing with the bombings. The 7 July 2005 London bombings may not have been ordered by Al-Qaeda, but they were committed with explicit reference to Al-Qaeda's goals. They were the first so motivated event inside Bush's and Blair's "homeland" since 9/11. (In my opinion the 7/7-bombings are a perfect example, why Bush's idea of a War on Terrorism doesn't work: American tanks in Iraq won't prevent British citizens from blowing up their own hometowns.) So in terms of encyclopedia-logic, I think these events are relevant enough to be listed in the template. They reflect the current state of "WOT". ---zzz 11:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Madrid and London

message: My revert to the header was done for the following. User User:Añoranza on 11 May, 2006 added "US Coined" to the header without a discussion ever being made, from there they then began to remove any edits made to the header to revert it back to its original state. I believe that shows the header is in fact in contention as to what it should be and a concensus is in fact trying to be worked out above, the header however seems to be still hotly debated and reccomend we leave it at its original state while we attempt to work out a resolution. Anyone in favor? comments? --Zer0faults 02:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I count five contenders for the header to this template: War on Terrorism, "War on Terrorism", U.S. coined "War on Terrorism", U.S.-dubbed "War on Terrorism", and The United States's War on Terrorism.  Which one came first strikes me as utterly irrelevant.  There is no Wikipedia tradition that, in the absence of consensus, the original state of an article or template should be preserved.  Personally, I feel that the header (and, ideally, the title) must in some way reflect the fact that it is the United States government who considers this both a "war" and a struggle against "terrorists" and that others do not agree on one or both counts.  --Hyperbole 07:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you stating we should instead constantly revert the article back and forth while waiting for a concensus to arrive? Since the the adding of the title is whats in contention would the title be best left in its original state before the contention while a concensus is reached? I am sorry if you felt I was debating the reasons for it being there or not. That is not what this discussion here is, its if the header should constantly be reverted without concensus or left in its original state. Should I take it that you feel the reversions should continue instead of leaving it in its original state? Please reply to clarify your position. Thank you --Zer0faults 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep it simple: War on Terrorism. The caveats, POVs and yeah-buts belong in the main article, not in the template's header. --plauz 01:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second the above, I think if people have a problem with the term is should be discussed on the page of the term, not everywhere else or the templates header. --Zer0faults 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That is the exact danger of propaganda terms, they simply mislead. Añoranza 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anoranza: to label a template with a propaganda term, without at least including some scare quotes, has the possibility of misleading those who read it.  --Hyperbole 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As you might have seen, others agree with me about the quotation marks. Furthermore, the article was categorized by others as US-centric. I agree with this and would like to know what others think about the NPOV issue before I remove it just because the originally cited reason for it was put into quotation marks. Note that I find the title even with quotation marks inappropriate and have written so. And do not have any doubt that the next one who reverts the quotation marks would care to place the NPOV again. Añoranza 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a way that you will budge to have one or the other? I think if its US centric and recognized as such then quotation marks are not needed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also engaging in a revert war because 1 user has agreed with you is sub par. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is remove the quotation marks, remove the NPOV tag and remove the US-centric tag to this template. Users can click on to the actual article anyway and then make up their own minds from there. This template is meant to present facts in relation to what is called the "War on Terrorism", not to cater to the personal opinions of individuals opposed to the naming of the operations being conducted by the United States and her allies. --Edward Sandstig 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Header 

message: I'm rather tired right now, so I won't do any reverting or editing at all. Añoranza re-added the quotation marks to the term "war on terrorism". However, he did NOT remove the NPOV flag. But the NPOV dispute was just about that term - propaganda and all that. With him adding those dreadful quotation marks, the NPOV dispute should be settled (from his point-of-view). So why didn't he remove the tag? Bias? Or did he just forget? ... Good night (it's 2:42 here.. ;-)), a rather nonplussed Something Wicked 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you might have seen, others agree with me about the quotation marks. Furthermore, the article was categorized by others as US-centric. I agree with this and would like to know what others think about the NPOV issue before I remove it just because the originally cited reason for it was put into quotation marks. Note that I find the title even with quotation marks inappropriate and have written so. And do not have any doubt that the next one who reverts the quotation marks would care to place the NPOV again. Añoranza 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a way that you will budge to have one or the other? I think if its US centric and recognized as such then quotation marks are not needed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also engaging in a revert war because 1 user has agreed with you is sub par. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is remove the quotation marks, remove the NPOV tag and remove the US-centric tag to this template. Users can click on to the actual article anyway and then make up their own minds from there. This template is meant to present facts in relation to what is called the "War on Terrorism", not to cater to the personal opinions of individuals opposed to the naming of the operations being conducted by the United States and her allies. --Edward Sandstig 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, quotation marks and bias 

message: This is just thinking out loud, but it would be possible to rename this page to "War on Terror(ism)".  It's a big ugly, but terror != terrorism, and both words are used for what is pretty much the same thing.  Putting the 'ism' in brackets would at least show that the title is more of a label than it is a description.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't considered that, while I think it may actually be a pretty intelligent idea, I do not think those who want to add "US dubbed", "US Led" will agree. The contention seems more over the fact they want it to be noted/implied that its the US who uses this term. I would like to point out that India, the US, Canada and UK governments all use this term. Would that not signify a majority of countries in which English is the primary language? --Zer0faults 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that War on terrorism had replaced War on terror, but some quick googling proved me wrong. Both terms ar in use. So War on terror(ism)) actually makes sense. It resolves the semantic dispute terror vs terrorism. And regarding US led, US dubbed, US coined, quotes, ... I vote for neither. --plauz 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this vote, War on terror(ism)) seems like a good compromise however I too feel US Led, US Dubbed etc or even quotes should not be used, since the terror(ism) handles concern over misunderstandings. Very nice middleground. --Zer0faults 16:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've changed Terrorism to Terror(ism) in the template.  If no one objects, I'll see if I can't move the page?  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partial objection, "US Dubbed" still appearing and dubbed means "To give a name to facetiously or playfully; nickname." which doesn't seem appropriate in this case. I do however feel the "Terror(ism)" marking is a good decision. sorry forgot to sign this --Zer0faults 22:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As was already explained above, "war on terror" is a propaganda term and cannot be used without quotation marks and comment. Añoranza 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this seems to be the last comment on the point, this edit summary seems to be wrong. Apparently, Hyperbole and Sfacets agree.   Añoranza 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that NATO and their allies are the real terrorists? This is not a propaganda term as much as it is the real thing. People who support and fund terrorizing people and countries is Terror! SFrank85 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suggesting anyone to be a terrorist. But the tag "war on terror" is a propaganda term used by the US even in cases where NATO partners disagree, for example Iraq, where acts of terrorism became widespread after the invasion. Añoranza 10:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Saddam didnt gas the Kurds, didnt use chemical weapons on Iran, didnt attack Isreal with SCUD missles during the first war? His military officials did not have "rape rooms" they didnt terrorize the population of Iraq, there wasn't mass graves? Saddam himself was a terrorist, he even tried to have the US president assassinated. He is on trial for many crimes, most that would affirm he is a terrorist. --Zer0faults 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US were found guilty of supporting terrorist activities in Nicaragua. Does this justify to start templates "War on US terrorists" at all insurgency articles? Añoranza 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, look at the countries and organisations that are/have been supported by the US! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly your personal political opinion is not fact.--Zer0faults 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately for you, your habit of confusing fact for opinion seems to hinder your grasp of reality. Please, who supported Bin Laden? Who supported the IRA? Who supported FARC? I rest my case. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what your case is, sorry can you please clarify to the community as to what you are stating and how it relates to the discussion. thank you --Zer0faults 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He explained that if Saddam is a terrorist for what he did decades ago, the same standard should be applied to the US that was even found guilty at an international court. Añoranza 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another rename suggestion 

message: If we are considering al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq terrorism, then shouldn't their opposites, meaning the Iraqi government, be included in this template. I suggest adding Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Nouri al-Maliki, and Muqtada al-Sadr.
Also, should participants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be included, such as Olmert, Abbas, and Haniya?
Question - why is Mohammed Omar listed as "not in office," is he not still in control of the the Taleban?
72.136.36.104 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand the war between the Palestinians and Isreali's has been going on considerably longer, I wouldn't think either of these countries leaders should be present. Are they included in any of the conflicts above? do they have troops in any of the conflicts? Have they provided material or other support for the conflicts? I am not stating they don't just offering a measuring stick. --Zer0faults 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More leaders 

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

message: Invasion is a point in time, a strating point for War, which is a continuation of the invasion over a period of time. Since this is a timeline, I have changed "U.S. war in Afghanistan" to 'U.S. invasion of Afghanistan'.
Sfacets 08:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that mean the "situation" in Afghanistan should be called a war? It is well passed the invasion stages. Its been going on for 4 years now. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I get that, but are you calling only the invasion part of the War on Terror and not the rest? the articles was renamed which is why I changed it in the template, there is no invasion article, so it will just redirect to the war article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was renamed because the War in Afghanistan is just that a war - the invasion obviously was the first step - but the war continues. I don't see a reason to keep reverting back to invasion, which does not accurately describe what is going on. Would you call World War II - Normandy Invasion or Invasion of France? World War II had many invasions to take back Europe or by the other side to take over countries like Poland. Yet, all those invasions were a part of the larger war - including the Japanese invasion of China and Manuchuria and the attack on Pearl Harbor - yet all are World War II.  The War in Afghanistan, which history more than likely will call the Afghanistan War is America's response to September 11th, 2001 and a part of the overall War on Terror that America is presently engaged in. You have further down in the timeline other events described as 'war' - why opposition to this phrase 'War in Afghanistan' which is neutral, historically correct etc.?  I brought this up earlier and let it drop since consensus was formed against my change (see above) but I see others concur now.  I reverted back to ZerOfaults version and agree with his statements above. --Northmeister 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Invasion' vs 'War

message: Should these be included as "Main events"? Esaborio 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be included, but I also do not think they are main events. Then again OAE does show NATO's direct response in the War on Terror. OPOLLO seems to be directly linked to the afghan war, so maybe an astericks can be used and put it under afghan war? I would not object to OAE being moved to other events though. OPOLLO is directly linked to afghan war as its Canada's involvement in it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation APOLLO/Operation Active Endeavour  

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

message: Discussion on the consensus reached is located here . Rangeley 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note the poll directly above states that anyone who supports that they are linked has to say they are doing it without facts and are being unobjectionable. (2) boycott comments have been left after this user moved another users votes to where he felt they should go, then moved their comment. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People can read and are smart enough to understand things for themselves. Feel free to explain why you rewrote that RFC and why correcting blatant manipulation is against policy. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether it is links to or accusations of being a terrorist. At the end of the day the question remains was Iraq invaded to fight terrorism which the WOT says it is doing.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave your political justifications at the door. We here at Wikipedia are here to write fact based articles, not attempt to justify or villafy anyone or anything. Stop moving my comments. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Please, please, stop adding this template to every article listed within it. It's too big, very tangential to most articles (eg. country leaders), and feels like it has a POV slant. Thanks. Outriggr 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; in fact I think there are virtually no articles on which this should go.  It feels much more like a "portal" type thing than something that ought to be part of an encyclopedia article proper. --Delirium 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, any page containing an operation or battle related to WOT shoulf get the template, like any other template covering a larger operation, (ie. Cold War, WW2) --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What this person thinks is every single article that remotely may eventually be seen as terrorism related should be part of WOT.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lack of reading is starting to amaze me. Please refrain from addressing me or things I say if you are going to mistate them, thank you. Considering it seems you are the only one who misread what I wrote. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Please be specific and say where its being used that normally a template would not be. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd view the template's former inclusion on Paul Martin as excessive, for example.  Kurieeto 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they can be left off of people, however events, wars and operations I think they should be left on. Just my opinion, you may want to wait for others comments or just be bold --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we edit the template to reduce its size?  That might abate some concerns.  The template is just really, really big, for example it takes up more than two thirds of the page on my monitor.  I'd hate to see what it did on an older monitor in say a public library.  Editing out some inclusions in the political leaders section might help here.  For example, if the template doesn't belong on article Paul Martin, does his name really merit being in it?  Additionally, that third column is twice as long as any of the others, which has resulted in a lot of empty unused space.  Has a row-based layout been considered, instead of a column-based layout?  Do the country flags need to be included? Kurieeto 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying it does not need to be on his page because like most templates related to large scale conflicts, the people involved do not have the template on their page. He is a part of the conflct and after long long discussions on this page the layout has been developed. So while he is important to the WOT, the WOT is not as important to his personal story perhaps. I was just attempting to reach a compromise, not stating he shouldnt be listed in the template. Just remove it from the persons page if you have a problem with it, I wont put it back at least. But I doubt you are gonig to garner much support for another community rework of this entire template. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your approach to compromise, I didn't mean to show any disrespect for the consensus of previous discussions.  Are there examples of other similar-sized and/or column-based navigational templates that I could compare this one to? Kurieeto 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is a Template:Cold_War, not sure about a WW one. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already listed the template for deletion as I could not see the point of it. Decision was keep, as noted to the top of this discussion. If there are more people now who think it should be deleted you could relist it. Añoranza 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the criteria for inclusion of a political leader in this template? Kurieeto 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe its the involvement of their country while they were in power in the WOT, through operations launched by them or jointly. Or their own comments they are part of it or supporting it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of template 

message: Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has been the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia since 1995, and has ruled since his brother's death in 2005.  He presided over the KSA after the September 11 Attacks and has approved several strikes on militants in the country.  Does anyone else think he should join the list?  He's certainly been a lot more involved than Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Picaroon9288 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I added him. (And put borders around flags with white edges.) Picaroon9288 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz (Saudi King) 

message: *According to whom is the Iraq War part of the "War on Terrorism"?   No politician has stated that the  invasion of Iraq was intended to quash terrorism.  It may be a cause for terrorism, but that's not what this template is describing.
*According to whom are José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and Junichiro Koizumi, amongst others, primary figures in the "War on Terrorism".  The first three vehemently oppose(ed) several American efforts in the "War on Terrorism".  And Koizumi has recently drastically reduced the role and number of Japanese troops in the Middle East.
*Since the "War on Terrorism" is the invention of Western leaders, the title and events within the template imply all of their viewpoints.
*Overall, the inclusion of events and figures in this template seems based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors rather than reputable sources.
*To rectify this bias, perhaps a statement to this effect should be placed in the template: 
:According to proponents of the "War on Terrorism", these events and figures are important components of the "War". [source]
--WGee 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The War on Terrorism is a campaign waged by the USA and its allies, against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. As such, the Iraq War has been recognized as a part of it, after two month discussion. . The criteria for this template, much like the criteria for the Cold War template, is that the people played a major part in the conflict. Not everyone on this template I would agree with, for instance Zapatero. The criteria for events has been that it is either a part of the campaign, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Waziristan, or it directly impacted involved countries, such as the Madrid bombings. Rangeley 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that after two polls disagreeing with the claim Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism this user ignored consensus and started a new poll, flawed by votestacking, and incorrect statement of the controversy. To ascertain whether people think Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism you will find a RFC where you can contribute and state what you think on the subject.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (2) other polls about if it should be in the infobox. Not about if its part of the WOT. Please read more carefully next time. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did people object to including it in the infobox? Oh, they said claiming Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism is a controversial statement. That is odd, you seem to deny they said that.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One of my points is that the template should be derived from reputable sources rather than the viewpoints of a small group of Wikipedians.  Locate sources which state that the Iraq War et cetera are part of the "War on Terrorism" and perhaps this template will hold some legitimacy. -- WGee 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right from the Resolution authorizing the war itself. "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; " --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The link gave you shows the text of the consensus along with links showing it as part. Rangeley 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about all of the other military operations and leaders?  (Note the et cetera) -- WGee 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which leader or operation do you have an issue with? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, only have an issue with a few leaders, but that is irrelevant.  The inclusion of all leaders and events in this template must be supported by reputable sources.  A consensus among a small group of editors does take precedence over reputable sources. -- WGee 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The globalize tag does not address my concerns that the template might be factually inaccurate.  I'll drop my complaint when I see reputable sources that describe all of the figures and events within the template as part of the "War on Terror". -- WGee 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones do you feel should not be included according to the reason I gave you as to why they are included: "They were presidents or leaders that A) Commited their troops or other support for operations involved in the War on Terror, or b) Were highly affected by the WOT, such as being voted out of office primarily for their support of it, or lack of action against it. They are not listed as supporters." --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is that you call certain political leaders, such as José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Romano Prodi, and Paul Martin, "participants", even though they have not personally pledged troops to any of the war efforts.  Calling them "participants" because they were politically affected in some way by their countries' involvement in the "War on Terror" is misleading.  Paul Martin, for instance, did not pledge support for the "War on Terror", nor was he voted out of office primarily because of it, so he I don't see where he fits into your criteria for inclusion.  Also, you should mention the criteria for a "participant" in the template, to avoid confusion. -- WGee 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that WOT is claimed to be a global conflict, yet only the US gets to decide what exactly it stands for. Therefore terrorism, WOT and participant is "what the US says it means," no other opinion is allowed, making the entire concept ipso facto violating NPOV.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the globalize tag, this has already been discussed. Its also not only the US as NATO has declared Active Endeavor to be part of the the WOT. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the general objection to what appears to be a statement of fact, and not the opinion of the Bush administration.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God job ignoring the second sentence. Please do not address me anymore as you do it rudely and with snide comments. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Martin continued his troops involvement in engagements such as OIF-A which is part of the WOT. Therefore he is supporting it through troops. Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero ran on an anti Iraq policy against his opponent who was pro war, its largely speculated that that was the defining reason of his victory. It also well believed that what led the opinion polls to switch to quickly from the former leader to Zapatero was the Madrid Train Bombings, another WOT event. As for Prodi I do not know, are troops from Italy in Iraq or OIF-A? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your second reason (reason "b") is invalid, in my view.  It is not up to you or any other Wikipedian to "speculate" the causes of politicians' defeats, especially by using weasel phrases such as "it is largely speculated".  That was the point I was making in my last comments.  Also, the fact that you don't know if Italian troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan indicates the need to use reputable sources to back up claims that these people are actually "participants".  Moreover, the participants of the War on Terror should be named by country rather than leader, as is the custom. -- WGee 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not named by country cause sometimes a leader pulls troops out. If it was listed by country it would have to stay on the list even though the country is no longer involved. As for me not knowing if Italian troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan, well there is alot I do not know in the world, this encyclopedia is not limited to my knowledge, so i doubt we should remove everything I do not know. As for our political defeat friend, read his article, there are plenty of sources in it. PS no other template is using the guidelines you are asking for. You say "named by country rather than leader, as is the custom." but if you view the Cold War template its by leader. The WW2 may have been done by country because no leaders pulled out support half way through, however either way it proves its not customary. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was listed by country it would have to stay on the list even though the country is no longer involved. -- I don't understand.  If the country is no longer involved, it should be removed from the template; it's as simple as that.  And you're arguments to circumvent a founding policy of Wikipedia—citing sources—are rather weak. -- WGee 20:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about historical accuracy. To have a list of countries that supported the WOT as you propose, would lead France to not be on the list, even though they supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Your attempts to remove content from a template by quoting policy on articles is pretty weak. Considering you have not objected to the inclusion exclusion criteria, I will post to your talk page in 1 weeks time, how each leader is related to the WOT. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: Editors who agree the "Other events" section should be renamed to "Other events and US response" and include: NSA electronic surveillance program, Plame affair, Yellowcake forgery, Unitary executive theory, Unlawful combatant, Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Extraordinary rendition & Black site. 
#
#
Those in favour of including actions that are stated as part of WOT
#If Iraq needs to be included on some rather shaky logic, surely those events and actions that are officialy stated to be in name of WOT should be included. Extraordinary rendition is apparently needed to fight terrorists, unlawful combatant status is apparently needed to fight and protect against terrorism, et cetera. Point is the Bush administration states time and time again these action are part of the WOT since without them the US would be run over by terrorists.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not events ... You change the heading then attempt to justify its new contents, without ever justifynig changing the heading in the first place. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sponsoring terrorism is not an event, yet miraculously can be used when justifying the invasion of Iraq. Second, kidnapping people constitutes an event, torturing people is an event, ignoring international law is an event. You do not get to pick what is part of this war. You yourself have used outlandish arguments, so all I do is include everything that answers to what yopu yourself explained is part of the WOT.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people would see by your definition of event, exactly why they should vote to prevent the further additions of thigns you call "events" and classify as important enough to be included. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Nescio, that is the most farfetched thing I have heard in a while. We arent putting the fact Saddam was a state sponsor of terror on the template. We are putting an event, the invasion and subsequent war. What you are doing is trying to include all sorts of related laws, which would be equivalent to including the articles about Saddam's orders to gas the kurds, or orders to carry out terror attacks. To have laws is not typical of such templates. And I am pretty sure that this is in violation of WP:Point. Rangeley 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic advanced was that since SH had links to terrorism the invasion was part of ... Clearly, using the same logic results in including all actions taken in relation to fighting terrorism. It is being consistent.14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you be adding every law and document to the WW2 and Cold War templates respectively as well? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No but if the administration repatedly claims that ER, Guantanamo Bay and other policies are vital in the fight agaisnt terroriswm they surely are more relevant than a makebelieve link between SH and purported terrorists.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote of Bush saying Er is part of WOT please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it be vital to, but not part of WOT?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio, would you support adding every law that was related to the Cold War to the Cold War template? Would you support adding every law that was related to World War Two to the World War Two template? Or do you recognize that this is not the function of the template? Rangeley 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Law? This is of course a red herring since nobody wants to add any laws as part of this unlimited conflict! This template is about all actions taken by the US government to fight terrorism and apparently what is considered terrorist actions. By their own admission the ignore the GC as necessary, spying on US citizens is said to be pivotal in the fight, torturing detainees is also warranted as means to fight, et cetera. If the template says part of, we need to include all actions that are officially stated as adopted to fight terrorism. Let's not ignore what the Bush administration has to say.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nescio, your attempt to find a contradiction here isnt going to work. These templates are not for everything. The Cold War template details major events and major players. And so will this. A law is not a major event. An order to commit terrorism is not a major event. The terrorist attack resulting from the order is a major event. The war resulting from the law is a major event. Rangeley 15:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What laws am I discussing, and how is spying on millions of US citizens not a major event?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What event or period are you discussing? Mccarthyism is included in the Cold War template, but not the specific laws against being a communist. Laws are not events, ER is not an event, NSA Wiretapping is not an event. You have to understand the difference between a law, and an event. Rangeley 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A major violation of WP:POINT. We will see how the community feels about adding these items + who knows how many more Nescio can dig up.  --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to avoid such controversy, I would like to see reputable sources from the US government or elsewhere that identify all of the events in the template as part of the War on Terror.  Furthermore, it is necessary to make a distinction between primary and peripheral combatants.  To list them all in equal standing is extrememly misleading, as the War on Terror was officially announced by the United States, and the overwhelming majority of troops in the War's military operations are American (more than 90% of the Iraq War troops are American, for instance). -- WGee 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what percentage of troops are American in Afghanistan currently, Operation Active Endeavor, OEF-P, Waziristan War etc. Most of these are not primarily US troops engaged, this arguement only holds true for the Iraq War and partially OEF-A which will be false after Canada takes over. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the results of this poll invalid, whatever they may be, for the question was not formed with the input of all the editors invloved, it is much too specific, and the poll is very poorly organized. -- WGee 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio has made a section, he was the editor involved, I was reverting, hence I am the other. The votes are too see what editors supporting each side. Nescio did not like the questions and created his own, which is perfectly allowed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on Recent Edits

message: Since this is a US defined concept we can refer to the Bush administration repeatedly claiming ER, UC, et cetera are necessary to fight terrorism and as such are part of it.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not events ... You change the heading then attempt to justify its new contents, without ever justifynig changing the heading in the first place. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sponsoring terrorism is not an event, yet miraculously can be used when justifying the invasion of Iraq. Second, kidnapping people constitutes an event, torturing people is an event, ignoring international law is an event. You do not get to pick what is part of this war. You yourself have used outlandish arguments, so all I do is include everything that answers to what yopu yourself explained is part of the WOT.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people would see by your definition of event, exactly why they should vote to prevent the further additions of thigns you call "events" and classify as important enough to be included. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Nescio, that is the most farfetched thing I have heard in a while. We arent putting the fact Saddam was a state sponsor of terror on the template. We are putting an event, the invasion and subsequent war. What you are doing is trying to include all sorts of related laws, which would be equivalent to including the articles about Saddam's orders to gas the kurds, or orders to carry out terror attacks. To have laws is not typical of such templates. And I am pretty sure that this is in violation of WP:Point. Rangeley 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic advanced was that since SH had links to terrorism the invasion was part of ... Clearly, using the same logic results in including all actions taken in relation to fighting terrorism. It is being consistent.14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you be adding every law and document to the WW2 and Cold War templates respectively as well? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No but if the administration repatedly claims that ER, Guantanamo Bay and other policies are vital in the fight agaisnt terroriswm they surely are more relevant than a makebelieve link between SH and purported terrorists.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote of Bush saying Er is part of WOT please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it be vital to, but not part of WOT?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio, would you support adding every law that was related to the Cold War to the Cold War template? Would you support adding every law that was related to World War Two to the World War Two template? Or do you recognize that this is not the function of the template? Rangeley 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Law? This is of course a red herring since nobody wants to add any laws as part of this unlimited conflict! This template is about all actions taken by the US government to fight terrorism and apparently what is considered terrorist actions. By their own admission the ignore the GC as necessary, spying on US citizens is said to be pivotal in the fight, torturing detainees is also warranted as means to fight, et cetera. If the template says part of, we need to include all actions that are officially stated as adopted to fight terrorism. Let's not ignore what the Bush administration has to say.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nescio, your attempt to find a contradiction here isnt going to work. These templates are not for everything. The Cold War template details major events and major players. And so will this. A law is not a major event. An order to commit terrorism is not a major event. The terrorist attack resulting from the order is a major event. The war resulting from the law is a major event. Rangeley 15:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What laws am I discussing, and how is spying on millions of US citizens not a major event?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What event or period are you discussing? Mccarthyism is included in the Cold War template, but not the specific laws against being a communist. Laws are not events, ER is not an event, NSA Wiretapping is not an event. You have to understand the difference between a law, and an event. Rangeley 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A major violation of WP:POINT. We will see how the community feels about adding these items + who knows how many more Nescio can dig up.  --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to avoid such controversy, I would like to see reputable sources from the US government or elsewhere that identify all of the events in the template as part of the War on Terror.  Furthermore, it is necessary to make a distinction between primary and peripheral combatants.  To list them all in equal standing is extrememly misleading, as the War on Terror was officially announced by the United States, and the overwhelming majority of troops in the War's military operations are American (more than 90% of the Iraq War troops are American, for instance). -- WGee 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what percentage of troops are American in Afghanistan currently, Operation Active Endeavor, OEF-P, Waziristan War etc. Most of these are not primarily US troops engaged, this arguement only holds true for the Iraq War and partially OEF-A which will be false after Canada takes over. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the results of this poll invalid, whatever they may be, for the question was not formed with the input of all the editors invloved, it is much too specific, and the poll is very poorly organized. -- WGee 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio has made a section, he was the editor involved, I was reverting, hence I am the other. The votes are too see what editors supporting each side. Nescio did not like the questions and created his own, which is perfectly allowed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What right does a small group of Wikipedia contributors have to decide what is part of the War on Terror?  I re-state my position that all events and leaders mentioned in the template must be identified as part of the War on Terror by reputable sources; otherwise, they should not be mentioned in the template. Polls and their outcomes are absolutely irrelevant.  Don't ask me which leaders or events "I have problems with" please.  My demand applies to all events and leaders mentioned in the template.
By the way, Guantanomo Bay is an essential part of the War on Terror .  It must therefore be mentioned in the template.
--WGee 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Places are not listed in templates, see Cold War and World War II. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to which policy?  If it's not banned by a policy, then it's acceptable upon consensus.  Remember, this is not any "war" either; in fact, many don't consider it a war at all, per se. -- WGee 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a campaign. Feel free to attempt to build a concensus to add all places related to the WOT. Till then it doesnt belong in the template as its not appropriate under any section heading. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't fit under any of the headings?  That's quite a poor excuse to exclude what has been described by some as one of the most important tools in the War on Terror.  (By the way, since your last comment, another editor has added the heading "Specific articles", taking after the WWI template, so there now exists an appropriate heading.) -- WGee 06:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I hope you support the idea of deriving the template from reputable sources.  That is the best way to ensure factual accuracy and to quell current NPOV disputes. -- WGee 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already addressed this issue. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources that associate the 2002 Bali bombing, 2005 Bali bombings, and 2005 Amman bombings with the US-led War on Terror.  The respective articles did not contain sources that link them to the War on Terror.  Please note that not all acts of Islamic extremism are part of the War on Terror, even if Al-Qaeda claims responsibility for them (which doesn't necessarily  mean that Al-Qaeda committed them).  Until sources are provided, I will remove the aforementioned events from the template. -- WGee 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed the Second Chechen War and the Beslan school hostage crisis, for no sources in their articles link them to the US-led War on Terror.  The Second Chechen War started before the WOT was declared, anyway, and both of them are the results of long-standing domestic conflicts.  Please don't re-insert any of the events I removed unless you possess reputable sources that identify them as part of the War on Terror. -- WGee 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template needs sources 

message: Is not a main event, the official report states it was a solitary group and not linked to international terrorism, please correct this talking point into a more accurate version!Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they do, just as any other incident. But that does not make it true or negate the official report stating the opposite. we should use the official report and not resort to OR.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I guess it wasnt clear, the report came out before the admission. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what, even if AQ claims it was responsible for Katrina that still would not make it true. Ever heard of propaganda?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, therefore stick to the official report and do not resort to OR claiming AQ was responsible.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the policy, we do not determine the future, hence why your anaology is inappropriate. It is a fact AQ said they did it however, your contrary proof is a report filed before they claimed responcibility. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hereby declare I did it. So, now it is me and I should be in the template too. Please accept that there is no non-propaganda source (read verifiable evidence) to support the claim AQ planned and executed the London attack.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspapers accepted it, they do their own verification, want some links? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you mean the same newspapers that without any criticism voiced the Bush administration's rationale for war, which turned out to be incorrect. Apparently you have missed the numerous articles explaining that had the newspappers been more critical and looked at what was really known none of the hype would have happened. Second, I don't doubt that newspapers report what AQ said, however, you have to explain how that proves AQ bombed London.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are now talking about a different topic, or are stating you feel newspapers are not valid sources for Wikipedia. Please specify. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bomber himself also appeared with Zawahiri in the video. Here is a quote from the video "And just as Blair makes light of the blood of our brothers in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, so he also makes light of your blood too when he drew you into this war in Iraq." "The al-Qaida deputy characterised the blasts as a response to UK foreign policy "just as 9/11 was a response to America's"." --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another quote for you " I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray) to Allah... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the... of this cause." --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then your issue is with Wikipedia policy and not this article, please take it up at WP:V WP:RS etc. where its more appropriate. As of this post Wikipedia accepts newspapers as reliable sources. Furthermore I believe this is over since the bomber himself said he did it because of Afghan and Iraq and for other reasons listed above. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is with you ignoring the OFFICIAL REPORT. If that is not a violation of NPOV I don't know what is. There is no verifiable evidence that shows OBL planned the attack. AQ merely used it as propagandaNomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The bomber himself stated he did it for AQ, he appears in a video with the 2nd highest ranking AQ member. His reasons are the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and Chechnya ... Now that I have given evidence and sources. Please provide sources that acknowledge your claim. Yet still adhere to WP:V and WP:RS. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what circular logic means, the bombers want to make a statement regarding their aversion of the Iraq war. Please provide sources showing the OFFICIAL REPORT can be ignored. Without that you are violating WP:OR.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not conversating with you any longer. The report you are reffering to is from before the admission by both the bomber and al-qaeda's number 2 man. I have also given you examples of quotes from the tape itself stating this. If you choose to move it, I will put it back. The newspapers, no matter how corrupt you think they are, are valid sources according to Wikipedia and state that they did this in response to Iraq and Afghanistan. Take a poll if you want it removed, we will see if everyone shares your distate for WP:RS and WP:V. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You point out the problem yourself. Including every exploded bomb as part of WOT is ridiculous, I miss Israel and other terrorist attacks.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bombers said they did it as revenge for western actions in Afghanistan and Iraq ... They are also linked to AQ. Hence it stays. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: London

message: Added several key components of fighting terrorism
*PATRIOT ACT: instated as response to 9-11 and part of policy to fight terrorism
*ER: method of transporting terrorist suspects to countries less known for democratic principles. Since it was initiated following 9-11, and no similar program existed before, again this is used to fight terrorism
*UET, many policies are controversial, however, using the authority of broad war powers this administration justifies ignoring US and international law (see GC, FISA, signing statement, et cetera).
*Memos showing policy regarding the invasion of Iraq, which some contributors here see as part of WOT.
To those interested, the details can be found in the articles and their references. They clearly show these things are introduced under the guise of necessary to fight terrorism. I ask you to read those articles before blindly reverting.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Rangeley that is exactly the reason. Operations Enduring Freedom - Philippines is specifically targetting these groups, and therefore they should be permitted, they also go to show why Bali 2002 and 2005 are allowed, these are the groups that carried out those attacks. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: I am attempting to rework the template to create a self-sourcing system. The idea is to create a tree structure so its easy to understand how anything added relates. Meaning if you add a government leader, it has to go into an existing tree, and so its relationship to the WOT is being explained. Its not a 100% sourcing of course, but makes things clearer. 
The page is located at: User:Zer0faults/WOT_Template Please use the talk page there for comments, things I should add and remove. Some items on this template are not included as well as people. If you know where they should fit in and have a source I will gladly add it. Please do not edit the template there directly. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template Rework

message: I would like to add a seperate section call Additions, much like what Nescio began above. This section will be a seperate page, linked from the main template. Its contents will include a user adding an item to the template and giving an explanation why, then sources, to avoid original research, then a section where people either vote for or against or neutral. Items cannot be removed until (1) week has passed once added and the votes will determine if it stays or not. It will work by simple majority. All items put on the "Additions page" will be linked here so people can find them easier over there and be able to facilitate in the voting. Hopefully this or a similar idea will end the edit warring. To make things fair, items removed for being voted against can be readded again in a certain time frame only up to 2x, making 3 total attempts to add the item. This is all just a rough idea, comments are welcomed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I moved Jordan and Russia under "NATO members and allies" from "Other important figures" because NATO has ties with them. See the NATO article. Esaborio 09:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATO members and allies 

message: Can you please show me on which page the Unitary Executive Theory is mentioned please. You provided a 158 page source. So far the word unitary appears only once in the whole document. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you are unable to read the articles on unitary executive and signing statement, maybe your browser can visit this detailed discussion on the inherent powers concept following 9-11.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove the articles then since you seem to not have a real source for this. If you do have a page feel free to provide it. Citing sources you havent even read nor know what they say is highly inappropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing articles without reading them, or any sources presented in them, is most assuredly uncivil, illogical, and against policy. Thank you for cooperating.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You dont have a source, you have a 158 page document that you apparently did not read. Provide a page or at least a section so I can verify your information, else by the end of the day I will simply remove the items you attribute to that source. Thank you, for your cooperation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't misrepresent my words. I repeatedly said that if you would read the articles and sources (including the New Yorker above) you would see that UET is being used. However, time and again you refuse to read the sources I provide, therefore claiming UET is not being used, and in general you leave the impression you have not read WP:OWN and WP:AGF either.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You gave a 158 page ruling, point out the page number in it, or are you stating the ruling is not valid? You provide a source then provide the page please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "And this week the Court is expected to deliver a decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case that questions the legality of the military commissions." Thats all it says about the ruling, doesnt state that ruling was about UET. Please provide a page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ruling is about inherent authority of Bush, and if you have difficulty understanding what that means feel free to read about signing statements and the unitary executive, which you conveniently fail to mention as evidence for the use of UET in the torture debate, NSA spying, and now the Military Tribunals that the Supreme Court affirms are nothing more than a kangaroo court.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I will take this as you do not have a page, and wait till the end of the day for you to provide one. Kangaroo court? at least attempt to hide your blatant POV. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is my last reply to you unless I see a page number, Do not state items as sources if you do not know if they are actually valid or not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamdan v Rumsfeld

message: I have just reverted an exaggerate listing of practically all the terrorist attacks since 2001, because, as the header suggests, only the "Main events" should be listed. Esaborio 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: London and Madrid do not qualify as main event, yet they keep reappearing. Furhter, there was a better template a few days ago explaining what was what, this apparently is not allowed.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you and your continued violations of WP:POINT are going too far now. I ask you to stop. You attempted to have this page deleted and now you flood it with events that everyone else on the page tell you do not qualify. You also attempt to add Iraq War related incidents yet have stated you do not believe that Iraq War is even paert of the War on Terrorism. Stop disrupting Wikipedia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I try to get this deleted? Again you are misrepresenting facts, just as this template is doing.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you feel every terrorist incident to happen since 2001 is part of the war on terrorism? and you feel further that by me keeping them out I assisting the misrepresenting of facts? So that means you do believe that Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism as your edits here show then correct? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact I do not remove Iraq proves I am trying to find middle ground, whereas your removal of my edits is evidence of you trying to continue our dispute.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand the middleground, again I ask, Do you believe Iraq War is part of the WOT, if not how do you find Zarqawi PSYOP program and Downing Street memo to then be part of it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am done with this game, I will inform you later if I file the RFAr, you are being disruptive to this template to prove some point in direct violation of WP:POINT. Your edits are contradictory to eachother, proving you are attempting to damage this article to prove some point about the War on Terrorism, the fact you cannot even answer the above question furthers my idea. Goodday Nescio. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the acute observer I only removed something AFTER you started removing a substantial part of the template. Before you started the edit war I did nothing. Maybe you should try compromise instead of bullying others into your position.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main events 

message: Is there a reason the 2005 bali bombing is being removed? I would like to hear this. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason for the memos outlining policy in WOT, the method of transporting terror suspects named extraordinary rendition, the psyop program in Iraq (which you claim is part of WOT), et cetera for being removed?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No revenge. Simply removing what I disagree with as you refuse to compromise. As you remove everything you dislike I don't see any reason why I can't do the same. Apparently you are thinking that avoiding compromise is being constructive.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please layout your arguement as to why you disagree so we can have a discussion. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, do realize, both of you, that protection is NOT an endorsement of the template's state (I haven't looked into what was going on exactly). Circeus 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, I am just hoping Nescio will be willing to state why he is against the inclusion of 2005 Bali bombings in the template. I sourced it above showing the bombings were carried out by a group directly being fought in a WOT operation. I hope they will reply with a reason. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems liek the best course of action. Nescio can you please layout your arguement for why you feel the 2005 Bali bombing should not be included. That way I can try to see where you are coming from in removing it. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Bali bombing

message: Does anyone else find it objectionable/questionable that an admin, (Staxringold) can add content while the rest of us editors are forced to stand back and watch it happening, and squabble and quibble on the talk page? The whole point of the block is so editors (as in ALL editors) can discuss proposed changes...
Sfacets 01:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to agree on that one. Esaborio 05:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I was mistaken upon reading (yes I did read the talk page before adding) the protection appeared to only be put up because of the 2005 Bali bombing. I'm a little confused why User:Circeus said the content I added was what was being discussed over the protection, as that is not what I see for the current protection. I'll stay out of this template from now on, however, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following articles removed from the template definitely belong there: 
1. Bybee memo. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism.
2. Combatant Status Review Tribunal. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism.
3. Extraordinary rendition. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism.
4. Long War. The Bush Administration has callen the War on Terrorism that.
5. Unitary executive theory. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism.
6. U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Do I need to explain?
7. Detroit Sleeper Cell. This was certainly not a main event.
The following articles were added, and shouldn't have been:
1. 2002 Bali bombing. This was not a main event. If the Madrid and London attacks are not listed, why this one?
2. Hambali. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his.
3. Khadaffy Janjalani. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his.
4. Shamil Basayev. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his.
5. Moscow theater hostage crisis. The Second Chechen War article is listed, and has a link to it.
As the Second Chechen War and the Al-Aqsa Intifada are ongoing conflicts, they should be listed as "Contemporaneous conflicts", just as the other war templates have that section. 
Also, why were the borders of the flags removed? Esaborio 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I answered you on the other page. Hambali is the leader of a group being fought in OEF-P, much like bin Laden is the leader of a group that was being fought in OEF-A, he also commited 9/11. By not adding Bali you are essentially removing partially the reason to list Hambali and Janjalani. As for stating Bali isnt a main event because London isnt listed, well London should be listed and so should BAli, more so 2002 Bali because it sparked OEF-P, 2005 Bali shows the groups defiance in the face of OEF-P. I have no problem removing Hambali and Janjalani if we remove bin Laden and Zawarhi, it shouldnt be a popularity contest. If you read about Abu Sayyaf and JI, you will see they possibly accomplished more then bin Laden ever did, they have taken over almost an entire island. Shamil is the leader of the Chechen revolution partially, again keeping bin Laden because of popularity is very US centric, where in Philippines Janajalani and Hambali are probably more popular. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually thinking of removing the names of leader and just listing countries and maybe a tag of some sort to state what operation they are participating in, this way its not misread as general support for everything. How does that sound?
*OEF-P = OP
*OEF-HOA = OH
*OEF-A = OA
*OIF = OIF
*Waziristan War = WW
*Second Chechen War = SCW
*Operation Active Endeavor = OAE
The tags can go after the countries names. Makes it more discriptive then it currently is.
Only the countries? Ok. Tags? No. It makes the template way too big. Esaborio 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The idea is by naming countries instead of people, it will take up less space, leading room for the tags on the same line. We can make them shorter perhaps to show who is part of what.
No, I don't think so. The template would look bad with so much information in it. Esaborio 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Block

message: You've all been arguing over what 'classifies' as a main event. Some people are saying that the London bombings should not be in the main event section. This is absolute nonsense. If, for some reason, the bali bombings have been mentioned I see no reason why the London bombings should not be under the main events section also. --ItIsMe 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough the person who wanted the 2005 Bali bombings removed still has not answered why, and they left the 2002 ones commited by the same group. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main Events" 

message: #The template should read "US War on Terrorism," since that is what it is and this would prevent any misinterpretation.
#Then of course we should define "main event." As it stands every exploding bomb is now called a "main event." Why is London or Iraq a "main event?" The main event is 9-11 and all the rest is merely a consequense of that. Or, does main event stand for major terrorist attacks, in that case we should include Moscow and many other event.
#The following articles  should be included:
#*Buffalo Six: a US operation closing down terrorists in the US
#*Bush-Blair memo: showing basis of the policy in WOT
#*Bush Doctrine: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
#*Bybee memo: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
#*Combatant Status Review Tribunal: used to confirm detainees in WOT are unlawful combatant
#*Detroit Sleeper Cell: a US operation closing down terrorists in the US
#*Downing Street memo: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
#*Extraordinary rendition: used to transport detainees in WOT
#*Guantanamo Bay detainment camp: used to hold detainees in WOT
#*Long War: used to describe WOT
#*NSA electronic surveillance program: used to fight terrorists
#*Unitary executive theory: legal theory used to justify policies in WOT, most notably the suggestion that the President in protecting his country cannot be bound by any law (see arguments used in torture debate, NSA spying, et cetera).
#*Unlawful combatant: designation used to justify not applying the Geneva Conventions in WOT
#*USA PATRIOT Act: a US law for closing down terrorists in the US
#*U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks: evidently it describes the response in WOT
#*Zarqawi PSYOP program: since Bush declared Iraq part of WOT inevitably his actions in Iraq are also part of WOT
#A few days ago there was a template using descriptions of the several events and where it relates to. This does look better than the current version, so aside from what should be included I think a new lay-out might not be a bad idea.
So, I would suggest starting with the following, and feel free to add/remove with explanation.
U.S. War on Terrorism
Main events	Specific articles	Primary participants	Other important figures
*Jerusalem bus 20 massacre
*Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003
*Bush-Blair memo
*Bush Doctrine
*Bybee memo
*Downing Street memo
*Palestinian Islamic Jihad
*Unitary executive theory
*Zarqawi PSYOP program
*List of terrorist incidents
*Second Chechen War
*Al-Aqsa Intifada
*Moscow theater hostage crisis	
* NATO members and allies
*Al-Qaeda
*Taliban
Political leaders:
*NATO members and allies
** John Howard
** Jean Chrétien*
** Paul Martin*
** Stephen Harper
** Jacques Chirac
** Gerhard Schröder*
** Angela Merkel
** Silvio Berlusconi*
** Romano Prodi
** Junichiro Koizumi
** Abdullah II of Jordan
** Vladimir Putin
** José María Aznar*
** José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero
** Tony Blair
** George W. Bush
*Al-Qaeda's main leaders
**Osama bin Laden
**Ayman al-Zawahiri
*Taliban
** Mohammed Omar*	
Political leaders:
* Hamid Karzai
* Pervez Musharraf
* Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
* Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
* Kofi Annan
* political leaders no longer in office.	
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not addressed the other points. And you ignore that WOT is now driven by Iraq, the principal driving force behind terrorism today. Even if we use your logic that Iraq is not part of WOT, why do you object to the UET, which is evidently used to cover All actions in WOT? I forgot, you refuse to read that article and its sources.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say Iraq is not part of the War on Terrorism. Please read the comments before replying. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Logic dictates that if you insist Iraq is part of WOT, then all actions in the Iraq war need to be part of WOT. It's like saying my house is located in the US but then refusing to describe you kitchen as being located in the US.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please state if you are going to answer the question on the 2005 Bali bombings so I know if I can contact an admin, thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Nescio you were to answer the question and seem to be refusing to, you are also present on the wiki and aware of the post. So you are actually refusing the asnwer it. If an answer does not appear shortly I will contact an admin regarding the situation and show him your refusal to answer the question, to state the reason why you even objected to the removal in the first place. That should lead to the unprotection of the article seeing as you are refusing to discuss your reasons that lead to it being protected. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Nescio, you refuse to answer the question that started this, and then are attempting to rewrite the entire template instead of addressing the single issue that lead to the template being protected in the first place. I find your dismissive attitude toward me disturbing. As I stated I will be contacting an admin later regarding the issue if an answer does not appear here in about 5 hours. I do not even know why you refuse to provide one since then I will be more then happy to participate in your above discussion further. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying that if I do not do what you order me to do you refuse to try and find a solution, i.e. compromise?Second, the question at the heart of you edit warring is what should be included in this template? Exactly the points I started this paragraph with.<Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Nescio no bait. What it is says is what it says. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says you will not answer my questions before I answer yours. Clearly that sounds like some form of extortion.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see, while assuming alot, what exactly is your response to the points raised?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I will check back here in 5 hours before my lunch break. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to contribute to the debate by responding to the points I raised at the beginning of this paragraph.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its stated and sourced above, once again I ask you to state why you removed it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Where exactly are those inclusion/exclusion criteria stated?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I take this silence as a sign you not longer object to the inclusion of the 2005 Bali bombings. Considering you have not even made an arguement against it yet. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its a group being fought in the WOT. Your objections are noted and will be noted when I file the RfC today, this has gone on long enough. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I infer from your comment you are unwilling to negotiate the criteria for including articles in the template but think that my attempts at trying to get you to discuss these criteria warrants a RFC. Clearly you are more interested in personal vendettas than resolving the issues at hand. Evidently I have no objections to any article you mention, but you continue to evade the more important question regarding the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Therefore, I ask you once again, what exactly is needed to include an article in this template? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed one article that I placed in the template. You gave no reason, and still have not given one. YOu have been asked to and refuse to. Instead you attempt to make this a larger issue of the whole template, still dodging the issue of why you removed 2005 Bali bombing, even after its sourced above, you still refuse to answer why you removed it. Instead you ask me to provide inclusion exclusion criteria, when you yourself never have. I have given you a fully sourced statement why it should be included, the group responcible is being fought in a WOT operation. Its listed above before you even asked, you even replied to the explanation as to why it was originally included. Perhaps you simply forgot, however your edits make me feel this is being done to prove some point and I feel they are disruptive as they have led this template to be protected. I have decided its to goto RfC and we can see what other people feel of your edits. If I am wrong, then the RfC will close, and then we can sit here and make inclusion exclusion criteria, even though you still refuse to give sourced evidence as to why anything you add belongs, you simply point people to another wikipedia article and tell them to find it themselves, or to a 158 page court ruling where you refuse to provide even a page number. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I would like to start a RfC regarding which template to use, current design, my design or Nescio's design, as well as if we should include Hamas, Hezbollah and events of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Would I would need to do this however is a statement from the people who feel Hamas Hezbollah etc should be included stating why. It will be the basis for your arguement, meaning the people who agree should come to a concensus on the wording, I will write why I feel it shouldnt. After its all been decided I or someone else can post the RfC and we can just wait to see if a concensus develops or a super majority. As I can see why it would be included, just feel it shouldnt, I will not contest a large majority stating it should.
So if those who feel it should be included can please come together and work on the proper wording that would be great.
I would also need Nescio to put the final touches on his template, meaning design wise and possibly content wise. The talk here seems to stall as their is not enough of us to actually come to a concensus or real majority. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this one to my watchlist and will attempt to participate in this conversation.  I have not made up my mind yet whether I think these various conflicts should be included, but I do think that if they are, there should be some attempt to be comprehensive, and conflicts such as the one in Kashmir and the one in Sri Lanka should feature in such a list alongside the Arab-Israeli conflict, and perhaps even Timothy McVeigh and the like.  I do not see how we can restrict "war on terrorism" to the war of the Bush Admin against Islamist terrorism when the phrase has had wide currency in other situations.  I have not been active editing the War on Terrorism page, but glancing at it, it makes the same fundamental error as this template -- there may be a much larger debate yet to be had on that page.  Even limiting it to Islamist terrorism, we have the problem that a "war on terrorism" has been declared several times in US history.  Even limiting it to the war against al-Qaeda -- which would exclude Hamas and Hezbollah along with the LTTE -- the war starts in 1998 or 1996 depending on your point of view.  That Bush announced the war as a bold new initiative is accurate, but that his announcement was in fact bold and new is a point readily disputed (note, I'm not talking about post-9/11 policies here; just on the announcement of a "war on terrorism" itself).--csloat 10:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is a unique one because I do believe these incidents, as Bobblehead provided proof of, is part of the WOT. However I think adding every Palestinian "militia" to this list and every bombing or rocket attack in Israel or arrest in Palestine can create quite a mess. Even adding incidents since 2001 would be adding 5 events, 3 groups, 3 theatres of operations and 4-5 participating countries. However you hint at a middleground, encompassing all that is involved in that conflict as simply adding Arab-Israeli conflict, instead of the events individually. The problem with that is if they are gonig to be included they shouldnt be minimalized. I really am starting to drift toward neutral, my only reason for not wanting it, is the size of this template would grow too a point where it wouldnt be welcomed anywhere. If this was all added I would reccomend the template I suggest above as its more streamlined and better fitted for this incoming information. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparation for RFC

message: Can anyone give a verifiable account of why Moscow theater hostage crisis and Second Chechen War are included as "Related events"? The template seems very unsatisfactory and unwieldy, and is triggering my WP:NOR alarm here. Can we take them out, for a start? All the former leaders can go too, this is information overkill. --Guinnog 03:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related events?