Talk:Iraq War/Archive 10

Are there any battle or war infoboxes with propaganda names listed for the larger overall war?
I have yet to see another battle or war infobox with a propaganda phrase or name used as the overall war or campaign name listed just under the infobox title. Can anybody else point one out to me? I am sure many inflammatory campaign names must have been used by many sides in various battles, wars, or series of wars. But I don't see them listed in the narrative voice of wikipedia under the infobox title for the local war or the battle. See Hundred Years' War and its many subpages. See also Thirty Years' War. That had a large religious element. --Timeshifter 10:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not saying it is a part of a wider war. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Bush the War on Terror is a wider war. See War on Terrorism. --Timeshifter 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Vietnam War? Publicus 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Vietnam War infobox has nothing inflammatory in it. --Timeshifter 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Crusades come pretty close, and if anyone ever breaks out the individual battles in the Reconquista, I suspect that similar issues will arise. The real problem, however, is that there is no neutral term for the War on Terror campaign available.  I understand that you would prefer not to identify the campaign at all in that case, but IMHO, the guidelines go the other way.  TheronJ 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Crusades and Reconquista infoboxes have nothing inflammatory in them. --Timeshifter 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing inflammatory to you, maybe. Do you think the Muslims and Byzantines called those military campaigns the "Crusades" and the "Reconquista?"  TheronJ 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not then. But nowadays Muslims use the word "crusade" as a form of ridicule of the West. Al Qaeda calls their worldwide campaign, "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". See Al-Qaeda and World Islamic Front. The "crusade" name is so well-known nowadays that it is no longer effective as a propaganda tool. There is no danger of of that occurring in a wikipedia page anyway. When Bush tried to use the word "crusade" as a propaganda tool he was immediately busted and ridiculed for the attempt. But "war on terrorism" is a current propaganda tool, and it must be explained in an NPOV way. --Timeshifter 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps to satisfy NPOV we should push Bush's name and bin Ladens name? NPOV doesnt say put nothing it says put both. --Nuclear Zer0 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again showing how willing to compromise this position is, though in this case I would vehemently disagree. "War on Terror" is the official US name, and is far more common than any name Bin Laden may have created. This has nothing to do with WTA or NPOV, and everything with including sourced and verifiable objective fact in a non-narrative voice. Our personal feelings about the justice etc. of these campaigns are totally irrelevant.  Tewfik Talk 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "sourced and verifiable objective fact in a non-narrative voice" is done well in the text of the article in the section titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". It can't be done well in the limited space of an infobox. Which is probably why I see no inflammatory use of info in other infoboxes for war and battle pages. If you look at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict you can see that people leave out options in the infoboxes in order to avoid these problems. We can do the same. --Timeshifter 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Putting "Identified by the Bush administration as part of the War on Terror" with the link in the infobox is:
 * sourced
 * verifiable
 * using a non-narrative voice by attributing the term to the Bush administration
 * --kizzle 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * British disagree. WTA requires context. No other war infobox has current inflammatory propaganda in it. Those pages put it in the article. Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups also have campaign names. All this adds up to several paragraphs. Too much for an infobox. --Timeshifter 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the "Idenfied by Bush as part of WOT" is sourced, verifiable, and non-narrative voice. So it has all those things going for it, and I do think it complies with WP:V and WP:WTA.  The down side is that takes one half of the debate, elevates it to the infobox, but leaves the other half of the debate relegated to the article text.  But it's certain less troublesome than just saying the bush's POV is correct, like the old wording did.  --Alecmconroy 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is true. But WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints. That means it should say,


 * Identified by Bush as part of WOT campaign, though not by the British. Identified by Al Qaeda as part of campaign called "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". American public does not believe Iraq War is part of WOT. Neither does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sunni regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Shiite regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Scholars, diplomats, and historians reject implication of WOT phrase that all insurgent groups in Iraq are terrorists. They consider the WOT phrase to be propaganda. And so on... {Sprinkle in references to verifiable sources}. --Timeshifter 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Once again, putting "Identified by the Bush administration as part of the War on Terror" with the link in the infobox is: --kizzle 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "British disagree." - Who cares.
 * "WTA requires context" - Stop telling us to adhere to a guideline that has arguments both for and against the term "terrorism".
 * "No other war infobox has current inflammatory propaganda in it. Those pages put it in the article." - How many current wars are there? Given the lack of a completely neutral name, we attribute the term to the Bush administration.
 * "Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups also have campaign names." - Al-Qaeda also considers George W. Bush an infidel. Do we write that in either his infobox or in his article?
 * 1) sourced
 * 2) verifiable
 * 3) using a non-narrative voice by attributing the term to the Bush administration


 * Who cares if the British and Canadians and some democrats disagree that Iraq is part of WOT?! Wikipedia does: That's the essence of NPOV.    --Alecmconroy 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alec, got a source to back that claim? Is anyone disputing the language of the Iraq Resolution? Or is it back to the "a dispute exists over the wider war, thus it couldnt have been designated part of the campaign" argument? ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I say "who cares" because the British and Canadians don't designate US Campaign names. --kizzle 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But it is not just the war of the USA. It is the war of the British too. And the rest of the Coalition. And the USA doesn't designate British campaign names. --Timeshifter
 * It was initiated by the U.S. --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I had the impression the War on Terror was initiated not by the Bush administration, but by some guys flying some 747's into some skyscrapers. Endomorphic 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That impression is mistaken; the war on terror was well under way by that point. csloat 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard to do sarcasm in HTML. Nevertheless, while my POV concurs with yours, csloat, our own article on it disagrees. Endomorphic 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True - that article needs a lot of work. Even the specific campaign against al-Qaeda did not begin with 9/11; al Qaeda had been slaughtering people worldwide for almost a decade before that, and OBL explicitly declared war against the US in 1996 and 1998.  Clinton gave a speech on August 20 1998 declaring war on al Qaeda that made basically the same points Bush made after 9/11.  And, of course, before al Qaeda, both reagan and Bush 1 had declared war on terrorism in response to attacks by Palestinian and Lebanese extremists (as well as Latin American communists, for that matter). csloat 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "How many current wars are there? Given the lack of a completely neutral name, we attribute the term to the Bush administration." Or we wait until the war is over and the propaganda fades away. Eventually there will be a commonly accepted neutral name. In the meantime we use the text in the article. --Timeshifter
 * I'd prefer to use the term we have now, making sure to attribute. --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If we add just the one WOT sentence in the infobox, then we would have to add this template banner below (and others) also to the infobox. Because we also need the rest of NPOV section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism." --Timeshifter 07:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

totally-disputed-section


 * "Al-Qaeda also considers George W. Bush an infidel. Do we write that in either his infobox or in his article?" Not in an infobox because there is not enough room to put it in an infobox in sufficient NPOV context. In the article, yes. It probably is already in several wikipedia articles. It is OK as long as it is sourced and doesn't sound like wikipedia is saying Bush is an infidel. --Timeshifter
 * But Al-Qaeda considers most everyone who isn't Islamic an infidel. We don't write in all their bio pages that they are infidels. --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be in the Al Qaeda page that Al Qaeda considers most non-Muslims infidels. If that is true, and sourced. Al Qaeda calls their worldwide campaign, "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". See Al-Qaeda and World Islamic Front. That should be in the infobox if Bush's campaign name is listed in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Is anyone disputing the language of the Iraq Resolution?" The British do not operate under U.S. resolutions. Neither does Al Qaeda. Nor the Sunnis. Nor the Shiites. --Timeshifter 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We already talked about this so many times. Were the Mafia to launch a campaign against the police consisting of a series of bomb attacks against police stations, we would note these attacks as a part of their campaign. Were the police to, in response, surround the Mafia headquarters under their anti-Mafia campaign, it would not be a part of the Mafia's campaign as they did not initiate it - it was initiated by the police. Thats whats going on here. 9-11 wasnt part of the US-led campaign. The 7-7 bombings were not a part of the US-led campaign. But the Iraq War was.
 * Further, you have taken the British comments and taken them far and away from their true meaning. They are no longer using the phrase "War on Terror" as a description, that is not to say they are no longer working with the USA in its campaign. Iraq isnt a part of the War on Terror because its referred to as being a part, but instead because it is officially designated as a part of the program by the nation which initiated it. Other nations who are allied with the USA are obviously working under the same framework, otherwise they would not be allies and would be merely operating seperately. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is pure speculation and original research on your part. Read the article: "Britain Stops Talk of 'War on Terror'." - By Jason Burke. The Observer. December 10, 2006. --Timeshifter 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We're clearly not going to agree on this matter. Since there is an apparent impasse in this discussion, shall we try a straw poll? --kizzle 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Sure. Contact the hundred people from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind. The majority did not want WOT in the infobox. Many have shown up again in the last month, and they have written on the talk page here that they still do not want WOT in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Solution - TheronJ's passage
Identified by the Bush administration as part of the "War on Terrorism"

This option seems like it has the most support, as even Alec has half-supported this measure. To get this godforsaken debate solved, what do other people think of this addition? I'd like to hear everyone, whether you've participated or not, on the matter. --kizzle 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Contact the hundred people or so from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind. The majority did not want WOT in the infobox. Many have shown up again in the last month and week, and they have written on the talk page here that they still do not want WOT in the infobox. People don't wait around breathlessly awaiting your latest popup poll. If we add just the one WOT sentence in the infobox, then we would have to add this template banner below (and other templates) also to the infobox. Because we also need the rest of the NPOV section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism." --Timeshifter 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

totally-disputed-section


 * Can this be clarified further? I dont really see this as recognizing the verifiable information that it is designated as a part of the campaign. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of clarification do you have in mind, Rangeley? IMHO, Bush is the Commander in Chief and the de facto head of the Coalition, so saying he has identified it as part of the campaign gets it about right.  TheronJ 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But its like the difference between saying a book was identified by the author as part of a series, and instead saying this book is part of the series. The sole determinant is the author, so if they say its in the series, its the way it is. We have the US government on record stating this as being designated as a part of the campaign, so to say it was identified by the sole determinant seems a bit redundant. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a false analogy. The Iraq War, unfortunately, is not a work of fiction.  And history is not a notebook that a person, president or not, can write their fantasies into.  Now to say that bush has said that the iraq war is part of the "War on Terrorism" is certainly accurate and NPOV.  Let's keep in mind to put quotes around the title of the campaign as we would around the title of a book.  Lest we confuse Bram Stoker's "Dracula" with Bram Stoker's Dracula.  Bram Stoker does not have a Dracula.  Likewise, though iraq has been said by bush to be part of his "War on Terror", that does not mean that the Iraq war is part of a war on terror, or even that terror[ism] is being fought in Iraq, or even that terrorism is being fought.  We've heard little in the news or from this administration about any American activity in nations were terrorist are known to be, so if america is fighting a war on terror, and not a "War on Terror", that war on terror certainly doesn't involve fighting terrorists or taking actions in places were terrorists are.  One of the goals of an encyclopedia is to be clear and informative.  It is important, therefore, that we, the editors, are careful to avoid misleading the reader into believing things that aren't true, and the phrase "war on terror", quoted or not, poses a significant danger in this regard. Kevin Baastalk 04:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well said. Looks like yet another editor against WOT being in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bush starts the War on Kittens and Cows and states he is attacking Budapest to rid the world of Kittens and Cows. He is there instead to steal al the chickens. The fact is that Budapest War was started under the War on Kittens and Cows. As for your statement "We've heard little in the news or from this administration about any American activity in nations were terrorist are known to be" I think its because you perhaps do not listen, or do not look for it. As pointed out in the WoT article it is currently being fought in the Phillipines where they are working along side the Phillipino forces to fight Abu Sayyaf and Jemah Islamiyah, of that battle they have managed to catch Hambali, a al-Qaeda go between who was present in the Phillipines for the AQ Summit and the plotting of Oplan Bojinka. They are also present in the Horn of Africa in a "preventative mission" where the are hoping to remove terrorist elements before they gain fotting amongst the people. They are also partaking in the NATO wide mission of Operation Active Endeavor to patrol the shores to prevent the illegal importing of weapons to terrorists. Depending on your view they participated logistically and through arms support with Israel when fighting against Hisbollah in Lebanon. Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan is their efforts to remove AQ from the stronghold of Afghanistan following 9/11. Perhaps you didnt know about Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah, but they are responcible for the 2002? and 2005 Bali bombings as well as the Australian embassy bombing and numerous other bombings and kidnappings in the Phillipines for some time. Then there is the Waziristan War where the US participated logistically to remove the Taliban elements building up in the tribal region of Pakistan and the build up of AQ in the same region, where it seems Pakistan has turned over many captured high level AQ members. So you can say terrorists are not being fought anywhere, but of this so far in other countries around the world there has been some headway. --Nuclear Zer0 06:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also your arguement of justification of names is a little off base, its similar to arguing if the Cold War was a "cold war" since many "hot wars" took place during it. --Nuclear Zer0 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kevin_baas points were well made. Bush says whatever he wants to say about a War on Terror. But it is not the job of an encyclopedia to agree with him by inserting unchallenged POV sentences in infoboxes. Bush's actions against terror in other nations such as Afghanistan against Al Qaeda are token efforts compared to his massive effort in Iraq where there is arguably a war against an occupation, and not an attempt to terrorize the USA. --Timeshifter 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you assume one effort is larger then the other, the two battles are being conducted differently. You do not need tons of troops in Afghanistan because you are not dealing with a local uprising or civil war. In Afghanistan the majority of the resistance still presents itself from the Taliban, which is what kind of lead to the Waziristan War and Pakistans troubles. The US troops in Iraq are attempting to stabilize in-fighting, acting as a over weaponized police force more then a military. You can't gauge effort by size of troops deployed. --Nuclear Zer0 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a common discussion in the media over the years that Bush put too many resources in Iraq that should have gone to Afghanistan to follow up on Al Qaeda. That discussion frequently questions Bush's War on Terror, and the trumped up WMDs in Iraq, etc.. Many, many commentators have said that Bush's War on Terror is bogus, because he left the pursuit of Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq where there was no Al Qaeda threat at the time of the invasion. Many other commentators point out that Bush refuses to negotiate with all the parties in the region in order to settle the regional problems and stop the roots of the terrorism. Many other commentators say that all Bush really wants is to keep contractors like Halliburton prosperous, and oil companies prosperous, and the military industries profitable. So the WOT is questioned by many scholars, commentators, experts, Congresspeople, etc., etc.. --Timeshifter 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - imo its encyclopedically modest, but factual and proper wording. Lovelight 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support and add a citation to him saying it, then WTA is satisfied. I further support if a source can be found including under that "Osama bin Laden's War against the Jews and Infidels" has to be sourced as a title not a descriptor. --Nuclear Zer0 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:NPOV. Words to avoid. Template:Totally-disputed-section. I made the other votes bold, to help in reading this section. --Timeshifter 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though as I've said above in greater detail, I think that this formulation bends over too far backwards without regard for the policies at play. Compromise is important, but I don't see a real benefit to yielding on key points that in any event won't bring agreement from the opposing POV. A fair position is that presented by KevinPuj above after he changed his position just a few days ago, and which recieved support from a broad spectrum of editors.  Tewfik Talk 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a lot better than what Rangely and Nuclear propose, but here are the problems with it:  First, the "war on terrorism" is not just a military campaign; many would argue it is not even primarily a military campaign.  Second, the "war on terrorism" is not something that started with the Bush Administration.  Reagan declared war on terrorism in his time, and Clinton specifically declared war on terrorism in response to al Qaeda bombings.  Third, "terrorism" is an abstract noun, not a military opponent.  There are many terrorist groups and it is not clear which was being targeted by this particular campaign (al Qaeda?  Ansar al-Islam?  Hamas??).  Fourth, the war on terrorism is global ("gwot") and is not merely a Bush Administration initiative.  I suppose "identified by the Bush Admin as part of the military aspect of its 'war on terrorism'" might be slightly better than what is proposed.  My opposition here is not as strong as it is to the former proposal, so I won't go against consensus if it develops, but I do think that this is still too problematic of a notion to put in the infobox.  Something this controversial should be in the text, not in the infobox.  The infobox should be for totally uncontested facts rather than controversial subjective matters.  There is no question that "Battle of the Bulge" is part of "World War II"; no controversy at all, not even from Nazis.  Something like this is far too nebulous for such definitive status. csloat 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input :) While it is true that Reagan declared war on terrorism, this was not the same as the semantic phrase we are using now in either its "WOT" or "GWOT" form, IMHO. And yes, "terrorism" is an abstract noun, but idiomatic phrases such as "WOT" aren't meant to be parsed, just as "Operation Freedom" isn't meant to be parsed.  Whose freedom are we really talking about, the oil companies?  What is being operated upon?  It exists as a name, not as a parsed phrase.  Thus, by using quotes we designate it as such, and by attributing it, we avoid adopting or incorporating such a term into the narrative itself.  I do see what you are saying about keeping controversial info out of the infobox, and I understand where you are coming from.  I think as a compromise to solve the impasse between those who view "WOT" in its proper or general form, this is an acceptable solution as there is also no question that the Bush administration has identified the Iraq War as part of what they call the "WOT". Just my 2 cents :) --kizzle 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --kizzle 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Whoops - thought I had opined already. TheronJ 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. satisfies NPOV criteria of attribution and puts proper name in quotes. Still kind of dangerous, though. and csloat made some good points.  Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Baastalk 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. If this is what it takes to settle the infobox issue, so be it. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And as a note, I still favor placing it lower. It will look awkward at the very top if its any longer than usual. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This is a fine way to solve the problem by citing the assertion and the refutations. Now let's stop debating and write more good articles. --Petercorless 07:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose-- This is one of the better wordings that has been suggested, and it does comply with WP:V since it attributed the opinion to Bush Admin. However, it's troublesome in terms of  WP:NPOV because it doesn't mention both sides in the debate.  Hippocrite's wording is better.  Kirill's proposed solution is best of all.  --Alecmconroy 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Solution. Timeshifter's passage
Identified by Bush as part of WOT campaign, though not by the British. Identified by Al Qaeda as part of campaign called "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". American public does not believe Iraq War is part of WOT. Neither does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sunni regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Shiite regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Scholars, diplomats, and historians reject implication of WOT phrase that all insurgent groups in Iraq are terrorists. They consider the WOT phrase to be propaganda. And so on. For more info see the section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". {Sprinkle in references to verifiable sources}.


 * Support. This passage is just a starting point. Probably needs to be a lot longer to meet WP:NPOV and Words to avoid and to meet the level of detail and NPOV in the article section titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". --Timeshifter 08:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC). WP:POINT link by TheronJ below is uncalled for and breaches Assume good faith and Civility. I am serious about my proposal. I would prefer no discussion of WOT in the infobox, other than in casus belli, or a see also link at the bottom of the infobox. But I am willing to compromise by making this serious proposal. Other editors can support this compromise proposal in the same way, and at the same time can say they prefer no discussion of WOT in the infobox in their comment. This passage can be put lower in the infobox as suggested by some editors for the WOT info. It could even be put in the notes section at the bottom of the infobox. See a couple options in the infobox excerpt to the right. The real problem is that there is no clear guideline about this issue. That would be the best solution in my opinion. But until then this proposal may solve the problem and end all this time-wasting infighting. The root problem is one of space in infoboxes. The notes section can be as big as we want it to be. But the military infobox template currently puts the notes section only at the bottom. There has been much less arguing over the contents of the WOT section in the article because there is plenty of space there. --Timeshifter 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: WP:POINT.  My proposal is enough to explain the limitations of the statement and to identify the overall military campaign, and also has the benefit that the people at both ends of the dispute are a little uncomfortable with it.  TheronJ 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: WP:POINT Please play games elsewhere, then again this just supports my initial assertions further. --Nuclear Zer0 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: WP:POINT violation. This whole discussion is already quite ridiculous. There is no obvious method of bridging the gap between this position and everyone else's; perhaps we just need to agree to disagree, and recognise that when everyone one else disagress we follow that, even if we believe that we are wrong.  Tewfik Talk 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Way too long. I much prefer TheronJ's version over this.  detail about who calls it what and all that can be provided on another page, linked to from the infobox. Kevin Baastalk 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No, no, no, no, no, no. This whole debate is patently absurd. Timeshifter's suggestion is utterly bloated. This whole debate is completely unnecessary--Wgbc2032 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is just silly. --Petercorless 07:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Most popular solution is still to keep WOT/Iraq_War claims out of infobox
It looks like the compromise solutions are just not as popular as keeping the WOT/Iraq_war claims out of the infobox.

This last month, or thereabouts, these editors have written on the talk page against putting WOT/Iraq_war claims in the infobox:


 * savidan
 * csloat
 * Timeshifter
 * Alecmconroy
 * UnfairlyImbalanced
 * Bobblehead
 * Wgbc2032
 * Kevin Baas
 * The Proffesor

Unless there is a groundswell of support for one of the compromises, then the infobox should remain empty of definitive claims of connections between the Iraq War and the WOT.

This discussion has ended up with "War on Terrorism" being linked in the casus belli section of the infobox. So the navigation link is now in the infobox.

And the long article section titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" remains in the article. So the WOT discussion has not been censored in any way.

The infobox is just another section of an article. It does not have priority over any other section of an article.

I am serious about my compromise. If enough people want it in the infobox, then I will put it in the notes section of the infobox right now. That will not interfere with anything.

I will even put it under the title if enough people insist on it. Though I think that kind of defeats the purpose of an infobox, by putting too much prose at the top. But notes are meant to be prose. And they have a special section at the bottom of the infobox designated for them by the infobox template. --Timeshifter 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess since you keep saying it, I must believe it now ... can you please stop these completly useless posts that declare your overwhelming support from people who have made one post and arent involved in current discussions at all, its kinda getting old. Also your WP:POINT stuff is gonig to be reported soon, I think its starting to become apparent you never negotiated in good faith however, which will soon lead to people just ignoring you. --Nuclear Zer0 14:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of them have made several posts. Some are involved in current discussions. Feel free to report your claims of WP:POINT. I am negotiating in good faith. I stand by my compromise offer. Please stop breaching these guidelines with your attacks on me:
 * Assume good faith
 * Civility
 * Talk page guidelines --Timeshifter 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh just keep proving how you are not interested in a real middleground, with your reccomendation of massive infobox nonsense describing each person ni the house of representatives view, that makes good sense, I am sure it was made in good faith ... Sorry but I cannot assume good faith anymore and AGF doesnt require I do so indefinatly. You have argued that it violated WTA and then went on to ignore the words of WTA and then ignore everyone who told you that by specifying who and giving a citation it was not violating WTA and fulfilling the requirements of it. You then moved onto guidelines regarding article titles, which doesnt even fit this discussion. Then NPOV, yet when a balance was offered, putting bin Ladens name and Bush's, you go off on this WP:POINT violation. I hope you soon stop the "these people agree with me" and just picking random people not currently engaged in the discussion, it only makes you look bad. How can you say they agree with you if they have not seen any of the middlegrounds and discussion, or had anythnig to say about any of it. PS its considered rude to quote policy to established editors. --Nuclear Zer0 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WTA is violated by using just one sentence, because it implies all the enemies of the USA in the War in Iraq are terrorists. NPOV is breached by just one sentence. Or why would there be a need for a whole section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". The people are not random. I read all the talk on this issue back many months. The ones that I listed are just the recent ones against WOT claims in the infobox. Some have seen the recent middle grounds. Some have seen the old middle grounds. It is considered rude to make unsubstantiated claims of WP:POINT. --Timeshifter 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry not interested in your cricular logic anymore, I think its also quite obvious of the WP:POINT above. YOu can argue with the people here, Alexmconroy has at least been open to offers, you are not, which is against our policies here of working together. --Nuclear Zer0 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It says here that you have just been banned from editing the Iraq War page for 3 months. Why did you just add back a similar sentence to the infobox for which you were recently 3RR blocked for over 24 hours? And while discussion is ongoing. Here is the diff where you just added it back:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=105106562&oldid=105091979

The 3 month ban is also mentioned on your talk page: User talk:NuclearUmpf and on the block log of your probation page:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

The 3RR board I linked to previously says this: "I've banned NuclearUmpf from editing the article (not talk page) for 3 months. This is nothing new; he knows he's on probation for edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)"

So I guess Nuclear can still write on this talk page. --Timeshifter 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, there's no point in trying to come up with old lists of people's former opinions. First, consensus can change. Second, and more importantly, none of the people you cite have opined on the proposed compromise. It's contrary to the very spirit of compromise to decide that a "consensus" opposes any compromise by putting words in other people's mouths. If you want more opinions, would you be interested in working with us to put together a request for comment? TheronJ 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Misinformation galore. They are not old lists. Some of those people have opined on the proposed compromises. There is already one RFC here: Requests for comment/Rangeley.


 * I honestly don't understand why a reasonable compromise that describes both sides of the dispute briefly and neutrally cannot be reached - perhaps people are less interested in writing an encyclopedia than arguing about politics? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already a fully fleshed out section on the "War on Terrorism" in the article. A few editors have spent almost a year trying to put a single line (in various forms) in the infobox. --Timeshifter 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Concensus?
Concensus does not mean the aggregate of "something someone said a month ago"... those editors who are participating now to try to reach a concensus seem to favor TheronJ's passage. For people to claim that the compromise in WOT is invalid because it was made months ago and then cite random past comments by editors who aren't even participating in this discussion is blatantly hypocritical. This does not require me to entertain the ludicrous suggestion that I "contact the hundred people or so from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind". I realize that "People don't wait around breathlessly awaiting your latest popup poll", so I am in no hurry. But as it stands, the section is gaining support by everyone except for Timeshifter. We'll revisit the issue in a week or so and see what concensus is based upon those who have chimed in now rather than some obscure comment in the past. For those editors who are new to this discussion, please see the proposed passage here. --kizzle 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to request those who are involved in the discussion (even TheronJ) to weigh in on TheronJ's passage if you haven't already, so that we get as complete as possible an idea of what concensus is on its acceptability. --kizzle 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a month. Be bold in the meantime
There is already another editor who is not buying the TheronJ passage. He used a longer passage and was bold and posted it in the infobox. Good for Hipocrite. Shows how bogus these one-week consensus agreements are. Looking over the last couple weeks one sees more people have written against one-sentence WOT passages in the infobox than for it. Count and see for yourselves. Over the last month even more have spoken out against it. Wait another month and count again. The arbitration request concerning Rangeley had a lot to do with these claims of consensus. The real problem in my opinion is the lack of a wikipedia guideline on this specific issue, and that the admins and arbitrators are overwhelmed. --Timeshifter 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not support the passage I wrote. I attempted to find a middle ground between two sides that were, in my eyes, being unreasonably petulant. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, you wrote it. Ball is in your court. I don't fully support any of the infobox passages since I don't think inflammatory info should be in the limited space of an infobox. As a compromise I prefer longer passages over shorter ones. As a stopgap measure until wikipedia forms a more specific guideline for infoboxes. --Timeshifter 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Waiting a week for concensus is not "bogus". If you truly think that we should wait much longer, then I can't see how the compromise we initially reached at WOT isn't still valid.  We have an influx of new editors, let's see what everyone involved in the discussion today has to say.  And instead of waiting a predeterminate amount of time, I think we'll know around when concensus is reached even if we're a few days out and the passage has substantially more support than opposition. I just want to get this godforsaken debate over with, and I believe TheronJ's passage has the best possibility to bring the two opposing sides together, especially given csloat's weak oppose and Alec's weak support. --kizzle 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The RFC on Rangeley had a lot to do with these so-called consensus agreements. When analyzed they have never been found to be real. See:
 * Requests for comment/Rangeley --Timeshifter 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I was heavily involved in the WOT compromise and the concensus we adopted seemed to be unchallenged for a long time. --kizzle 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anybody can analyze the talk pages over the last year and count the editors for and against putting WOT in the infobox. See the section higher up with the list of 37 editors against WOT in the infobox:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War#The_barrier_to_re-inserting_the_disputed_text


 * There a few more in my list for the last month (or thereabouts). --Timeshifter 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter, are saying that you are willing to accept Hipocrite's proposal as a possible compromise?
 * Hipo, thanks for the input -- I think we're likely to reach consensus, but we'll have to see. (I don't think you've split the difference yet - my proposal was roughly splitting the difference between Rangeley and Timeshifter, both of whom have opposed it for opposite reasons.  Still, I appreciate the idea.)  Thanks, TheronJ 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly prefer to wait and see what ArbCom rules concerning:
 * Requests for comment/Rangeley


 * In the meantime I don't mind seeing what some editing of the Hipocrite proposal by all of us comes up with. --Timeshifter 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The arbcomm doesn't rule regarding requests for comment. The purpose of those requests is to get a sense of the community's opinions on an issue, so that you can try to resolve your dispute constructively.  (See WP:RFC for more info).  TheronJ 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:RFC in the section titled "Request comment on users" says: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste." --Timeshifter 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. TheronJ's point is that Arbcom has nothing to do with this step in the dispute resolution process. --kizzle 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "binding arbitration" --Timeshifter 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, arbcom's not going to rule on the RFC-- they just ask for one before a case is brought. As of this moment, Nuclear's banned from editing the page, and Rangeley has discontinued the disruptive behaviors, so hopefully there won't be any need to get Arbcom involved. --Alecmconroy 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Current State of Infobox--Is this a solution
So what do people think of the current text? Does this satisfy? Publicus 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory info should not be in infobox. It should be in main text
Alecmconroy compiled a list of 38 people who did not want "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox. Someone else linked to a May 2006 discussion and poll showing that many people did not want it in the infobox. I pointed out that WP:NPOV and Words to avoid require that the use of the word "terrorism" be put in context. That has already been done in a long section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". The wikipedia guideline on the use of the word terrorism can not be met in the limited space of an infobox. It would take at least a paragraph. Quotes ("War on Terrorism") will not suffice. Neither will the addition of a few words like "campaign", or "Bush's War on Terrorism", or "U.S. War on Terrorism," or "According to some sources, Iraq is part of WOT, while other sources say Iraq is not part of WOT", etc.. It is a complex issue, as can be seen in the article section. This wikipedia guideline has been discussed in several talk sections, too:

I came into this dispute later than others. My interest was in how the wikipedia terrorism guideline did, or did not, apply. That specific guideline did not seem to have been discussed previously. There was a June 2006 discussion, but it was not about WOT being in the infobox. It was about whether the Iraq War was a part of WOT. That June 2006 discussion seems to be subject to various interpretations. The May 2006 discussion and poll said something interesting. It mentioned that using the same logic, the Iraq War could be labeled in the infobox as something like this: "Part of Bush's campaign against the Axis of Evil." The phrase "War on Terrorism" is offensive to many people in both the Western and non-Western world, because it is such an obvious propaganda slogan. Wikipedia should never put propaganda slogans in the narrative voice of any wikipedia page. It must be put in context.

Another issue is that WP:NPOV would also require the infobox to have the campaign names of the many insurgent groups from Iraq and from outside Iraq who are now fighting in Iraq. Also the nations and groups outside Iraq who are aiding insurgents in the Iraq War. Shall we put "Part of Iran's long campaign against the Great Satan" in the infobox? What are the campaign names of the foreign Sunni Wahhabi fighters? The issue is not whether these slogans and campaign names exist or not. But how Wikipedia uses these phrases. Many Iranians, Americans, Saudi Arabians, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Shiites, etc. do not agree with the minority viewpoints of Bush and the other more radical religious extremists who are fighting inside Iraq, or who are aiding combatants in Iraq. Moderates on all sides would say "that is not *my* campaign, so why is *my* affiliation being smeared by association?"

I think wikipedia needs a guideline saying that infoboxes should not have inflammatory info in them. That info needs to be put in context in the text of articles according to WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidelines for the use of the word 'terrorism' are for Wikipeida characterization of events, not for the official name designated by others. It is simply fact that there is a "United States 'War on Terrorism'" and the Iraq front is included in their designation.  For example, World War I was called the "War to End All Wars."  It did no such thing, but just because it was not true does not mean that Wikipedia should purge all references to "War to End All Wars".  If Iran had an operation called "Death to the Great Satan" it would most certainly be called that in Wikipedia.  A similiar example is the term "Ethnic Cleansing". It is offensive to be accused or labeled as being part of Ethnic Cleansing, yet it is liberally applied throughout Wikipedia (i.e. Hurrican Katrina is labeled as Ethnic Cleansing).  Yet the standard for inclusions is "reliable sources" not offense or controversy.  You may not agree with the "war on terrorism" label, but it is used and it is accurate to reflect that use.  --Tbeatty 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You use the example of World War I being called the "War to end all wars". You're right that nobody's trying to "purge all references" to it, but nobody's trying to purge all references to the "War on Terrorism" either.  Some people are suggesting that the phrase be presented alongside some explanation of the problematic nature of that name.  I'm confident we aren't using "The War to End All Wars" as a purportedly neutral "name" of World War I.  We're reporting that it was called that by people at the time.  Similarly, we should use a deliberately loaded name such as "War on Terrorism" in the context of reporting that it's a label applied by particular parties.  A pair of quotation marks is hardly qualification enough; it still looks as if the encyclopedia is taking the position that the Iraq War is part of an actual war on terrorism.
 * If Iran had an anti-US operation called "Death to the Great Satan", I'm entirely confident that our own media would give it a different name, which would then be the name Wikipedia would use, per WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly so, but the name from reliable sources is "War on Terrorism". Just like War on Poverty or Great Society or No Child Left Behind are named by the people who created them.  Even if the War on Poverty increased poverty or the Great Society created no such thing or No Child Left Behind leaves a lot of children behind, that is their name.  Until mainstream sources rename "War on Terrorism" to something different, it should stay as it is called by the majority of mainstream sources regardless of what Wikipedians might have called it if they had the opportunity to name it themselves.  The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism just like The Social Security Act of 1965 was part of the War on Poverty.  There is no judgement as to whether that act acutally contributed to the War on Poverty, rather it is historical reality that it was considered part of the War on Poverty by those who made the policy.  You can comment on the success/failure/effects/results of those policies but arguing that the name that was given to it by the policy makers is inaccurate is a non-starter.  Use the common name for the article and template or else it will be impossible to include "War on Terror" items in the template because it will be unclear as to what is included because the Wikipeida name would be arbitrary and subject to editor interpretation rather than reliable sources.   --Tbeatty 09:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism just like The Social Security Act of 1965 was part of the War on Poverty."  But that doesn't appear to be the case.  I think we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone espousing the view that "Social Security Act of '65 was not part of the War on Poverty".  In contrast, half of the US along with half of the US's political leaders will tell you that Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror.  No matter how "right" we think one side of that debate is-- it seems like any way we cut it, saying "Iraq is part of WOT" amounts to Wikipedia contradicting a notable political view of politicians, experts, and the populace.  --Alecmconroy 11:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * War on Terrorism is a name, not a political philosophy. By not including Iraq War in the War on Terrorismis taking a side and turning a historical name into political position.  Just like explictly excluding the Social Security Act of 1965 from the War on Poverty would be seen as a poltical statement on that particular act as not helping the war on poverty.   Opposition to including the Iraq War in the War on Terror stems from the political belief that the two are unrelated.  It is a valid political viewpoint.  However, it is not the historical viewpoint as the authorization for the use of force explicitly says that it is to prosecute the war on terror, regardless of how successsful or correct it was.  Including the Iraq War in a political context as being part of the war on terrorism would require balance, however including it in the War on Terrorism (a specifically named historical event) requires no such thing as it is a matter of historical record.   Excuse the Godwin's law faux pas, but consider the Final Solution of Nazi germany.  No one would argue that Auschwitz wasn't part of the Final Solution on the basis that the murdering of Jews wasn't a final solution.  The vast majority of people don't believe that the Final Solution was the final solution but we wouldn't say that Treblinka and Auschwitz weren't part of Hitler's Final Solution on the basis of the misnomer of Final Solution.--Tbeatty 07:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tbeatty-- welcome. Good to have all the new eyeballs.
 * I definitely agree with parts of whta you say. I don't think the "name" "War on Terrorism" is a taboo-- I expect pretty much every single person in the internet-connected world knows "War on Terrorism" is a proper name that has been used in public discourse-- not a term Wikipedia is applying.  WTA suggests we need to be very careful to use attribution here, but I don't see it as providing an outright barrier to us using the term at all.
 * For me, the objection to the words "War on Terrorism" has little to do with the words "War" or "Terrorism". My concern is more how to square the article text with the  notable (indeed, majority) opinion that says, point blank, "Iraq is not part of WOT".  For my part, I try to keep open the possibility that there is a notable group of people who, when they say "Iraq is not part of WOT", actually mean "Iraq isn't part of WOT-- campaign, conflict, or otherwise".  I think it'd dangerous for us to start trying to divine what notable figures "mean" when they say something.   Sure, people who say that could just mean "Iraq isn't successfully stopping terrorism".  But those same people could just as easily mean "The way I see it, Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT-- it's a totally separate undertaking which is in no way part of the same campaign as the Afghanistan war".  I'm very skeptical that no notable person has that POV- if you asked a Cindy Sheehan-type what they mean by "Iraq is not part of WOT", I'd bet that's what they'd say.   My point is:  57% + experts say "Iraq is not part of WOT"--  I think it's a hard road to try to prove that "Sure, they say 'Iraq is not part of WOT'-- but I'm sure they'd all agree that 'Iraq is part of the campaign known as WOT".   You see my point?
 * This is one of the biggest political debates in the world-- with a very wide diversity of political opinions. When I hear that the Canadian gov't, the US Democratic leadership, and 57% of the US itself have said "Iraq is not part of the WOT", I see that as prima facie evidence that we shouldn't be saying "Iraq IS part of WOT"--- which is to say, if you want to try to include the sentence "Iraq IS part of WOT", you've going to need some serious evidence to prove people don't have an objection to it.  So, that's one problem with it--  how do I know there isn't a "historical" objection to it-- as best I can tell, the notable politicians who have objected to "Iraq is part of WOT" haven't included any caveat saying "Well, we all know it IS part of the WOT campaign-- but, well, you know that I mean-- it's not actually fighting terrorism".   So, that's one problem-- I haven't seen any evidence that there really isn't any notable objection to the idea that "Iraq is part of the same campaign as afghanistan".
 * There's a second objection I have too. Suppose it really was demonstrated that nobody notable objects to the the statement "Iraq is part of the WOT campaign".   I'd argue that we still shouldn't say "Iraq is part of WOT" because it's overly vague.  The abortion analogy is relevant here.  The phrase "Life begins at conception" is a slogan used to represent a major political viewpoint, just as "Iraq is part of WOT" is.  Now, biologically speaking, there is no debate that a zygote is, technically, alive, and it begins dividing after conception.  But of course, we can't actually the sentence "Life begins at conception" in wikipedia-- even though there is no objection to it for scientific reasons, there is a huge objection to it on political grounds.  We need to attribute it, or reword it in a way that has no political objection. --Alecmconroy 10:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misread the public opinion polls if you think there isn't any notable objection to the idea that ""Iraq is part of the same campaign as afghanistan".  This seems to be the crux of the matter.  Whether we are talking about the capitalized "War of Terrorism" (which is a named campaign like World War II) or whether we are talking about the lower case "war on terrorism".  The argument always seems to devolve into whether Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 which is namely whether he was terrorist or sponsored terrorism.  This however is irrelevant in whether this is part of the named campaign, "War on Terrorism".  It is like arguing against the name "Desert Storm".  It is the proper name of the operation and leaving it out (or renaming it to something else) would be Original Research.  Look at another example Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  There is an infobox at the bottom called World War II.  Arguably, the surrender of Germany and Italy ended World War II and there was only Japan at war.  However, the infobox is still (correctly) named WWII.  Also see Nanking Massacre.  It happened in 1937 yet it is included in the WWII infobox when WWII didn't officially start until 1939 (Germany invading Poland).   The big picture is World War, world war and quibbles over the meaning of words detract from their proper name usage.  It's like arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't use the term "Christ" when talking about "Jesus Christ" because "Christ" has a certain meaning in Greek/Hebrew that they don't believe is met by Jesus of Nazareth.  By that standard, Wikipedia should not use the term "Christians" because the overwhelming majority of people on the planet do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah or "Christ".   However, because "Christians" is the self-identified proper noun and common name, it is used.  Just like the Iraq War is part of the self-identified proper noun and common name "War on Terrorism."   There are certainly other points of view of whether the "War on Terrorism" is a war on terrorism or whether the Iraq War is part of the war on terrorism, there is no valid reason why it should not be included in the "War on Terrorism" as defined by those who conceived and executed it.  To use my other analogy, if Cindy Sheehan went around saying that killing six million Jews from Europe was not the final solution and that 100% of people agreed that this wasn't a final solution, it still wouldn't change the campaign name known as the Final Solution.  It is not subject to interpretation of opinion polls, it is simply the historical name given to it by those that conceived it and executed it, regardless of how accurate the name is.    Iraq was invaded on the pretext and documented ties to the "War on Terrorism".  If history judeges the War on Terror poorly, it will not change the name.  It will not change the Iraq component of the "War on Terrorism."  --Tbeatty 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Template editor comments on Iraq War infobox
Here are Kirill Lokshin comments below from Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict. The comments are from the talk section titled: "Partof" question


 * Well, there are a few related issues here.
 * The term "campaign" has two slightly different meanings, which seem to be the source of some confusion here. The first (and older) one refers merely to a series of engagements that form part of a war; the origin here is from the idea of a "campaigning season".  This sort of campaign is not really named by the parties involved, but tends to acquire a historiographic name just as battles and wars do; see, for example, Ulm Campaign or Gettysburg Campaign.  It is this sort of campaign that a battle can be said to be "part of".
 * The second meaning of "campaign" is limited to more modern warfare, and refers to a designation used by a particular armed force for a series of operations; it crops up in things like campaign streamers or medals. This type of campaign is named by the party in question, but is quite obviously based on that party's perspective, and is generally only used in historical works that present that perspective.  (It's usually the case, incidentally, that the "official" campaign names used by different parties to a conflict won't match up; historians that aren't working from a particular party's perspective tend to avoid them in favor of the first type of campaign—or theater designations—for that reason.  This is common even among allied parties; for example, the U.S. and the U.K. define the "Normandy campaign" differently.)
 * Beyond that, of course, is the historiographical question itself. The Iraq War is still ongoing; it's still too early for a historiographical consensus to have formed about what, exactly, its relationship to other events is.  It may be that, with a few decades of hindsight, it'll be considered "Part of the War on Terror", or "Part of the Pan-Islamic Jihad", or "Part of World War III", or something entirely different—or that it will be regarded as an entirely separate conflict, unconnected to anything else—but it's simply too soon to be able to make a definitive statement in that regard.
 * From a utilitarian standpoint, I would suggest not using the "partof" field here and instead, as someone suggested, working the needed links into the "casus" field. Infoboxes are not well-suited to describing aspects of a conflict whose very existence is a matter of dispute; we can deal neatly with differing numbers, or disagreements about the results, but not really something so basic as whether the conflict is part of a larger one.  The issue can be better covered in the body of the article, where there aren't such dramatic space limitations; and giving it such prominent play in the infobox somewhat overshadows the fact that it's supposed to be a summary table for the actual war, not the associated politcal debate. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So he suggests leaving WOT out of the top of the infobox, and putting the WOT link in the casus belli field. It seems no one has objected to the link in the casus belli field. It is the only part of this long discussion to reach a true consensus as far as I know. --Timeshifter 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Support or oppose?


 * Support. This proposal has my 100 percent support. --Timeshifter 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - this seems to resolve the problems with the partof field. csloat 00:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I totally agree with Kirill Lokshin who stated: “giving it [WoT] such prominent play in the infobox somewhat overshadows the fact that it's supposed to be a summary table for the actual war, not the associated political debate”. Putting WoT as Casus belli seems enough to me.Justpassing 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support So long as "war on terror" stays out of the info box. Since the administration repeatedly justifies the war in relation to the broader war on terrorism, I guess casus belli would be fine.--Wgbc2032 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- an ArbCom member's proposed solution carries a lot of weight in my eyes. --Alecmconroy 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support For me, it's not that Kirill is on arbcomm that swings the issue - it's that he basically wrote the military conflict infobox and is the guiding spirit behind the military history project. I'm glad that this seems to be coming to a resolution.  Thanks, everybody.  TheronJ 13:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. - makes sense. Kevin Baastalk 18:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Bravo, this is an excellent solution. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - As stated below, I can accept this as it recognizes it is a part of the US-led campaign. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - What was it!? Oh, some sort of technical difficulties… I'll also agree with lead coordinator on this one: "It makes for a better article, in my opinion, to simply have the issue fully discussed in the text," Lovelight 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin's Input
As noted above, a discussion occured with Kirill over the intent of the infobox fields. He clarified the difference between the two types of campaigns, one is a series of battles or wars, the other is a designation given by a government to a set of operations. The infobox field "partof" is meant for the former, not the latter. But he does note that the Iraq War is a part of one of the latter types of campaigns, which is being led by the USA. He points out that while this isnt suited for the partof field, it is suited for the article itself: 'So something like "the coalition operations in Iraq were designated as being part of the WoT" would be acceptable.' So long as we make it clear that we are talking about a government designated campaign, it can be stated, because of the verifiable information from reliable sources.

So to summarize:
 * 1) The Iraq War is a part of the US led campaign.
 * 2) The "partof" field is not meant for this sort of campaign, but for historical campaigns or wider wars only.
 * 3) It can be noted in casus belli, as it was a given reason
 * 4) We can state it as a part of the campaign within the article itself, as there are no space constraints as there are in the infobox.

I can wholly agree to this. I was not aware of the precise intent of the "partof" field, but as it has been clarified, it is clear that it is not appropriate for this field. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more than interesting to see this editor accepting this explanation from an ArbCom member while objecting to the same arguments for months(!)(which resulted in several RFC's, mediation and an ArbCom case) when it is presented almost in a somewhat identical way by mere mortals such as ordinary editors.66.249.90.136 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Noone has ever explained that the infobox, while having a place for campaigns, is not meant for this type of campaign. Every other argument presented has been either that the Iraq War is not a part of the campaign, that it violated WTA, that it was merely a POV, that they werent really terrorists, etc. These arguments were false or irrelevent, and I was not prepared to accept them due to this. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kirill definitly had a different take on things, and since he's the head of the Military History project, he had a slightly different POV that was very helpful in getting everyone on the same page. Now, a cynic like 66.249 can see Rangeley  acting different around Arbcom members, but I don't think that's the case at all.  I think a much better answer is simply that Arbcom members have their job and their reputation for a reason, and we shouldn't be at all surprised when they're able to mediate between different groups of users better than the users themselves are.  Mad props must also go out to TheronJ for his help in mediating.  --Alecmconroy 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with him being an arbcom member and everything to do with what he said... as I have explained several times before. People like you, Alec, or Timeshifter have consistently argued that it is not a part of the campaign. He repudiated this, but explained that its not the same type of campaign meant to be placed in the infobox. I didnt even know he was an arbcom member until people accused me of siding with him because he was one. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, just know I'm not accusing you of that. If there's any connection, it's that people who get elected to Arbcom are people who are very good communicators. --Alecmconroy 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Kirill was the most unquestionable candidate in ArbCom elections, but that's due to his work as the lead coordinator of WP:MIL. After all, this article relates to military history, doesn't it? And I really don't see what the controversy is about except for who thinks what. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

dont say i didnt warn you
a long time ago, i posted a comment on this discussion page entitled "clean up the superscripts!"

the page is still overflowing with "citation needed" superscripts.

nobody has cleaned up the superscripts. nobody has even responded to my message. i gave you a clear warning that the page was becoming rather unprofessional and needed to be changed, and lots of time has passed since that warning. so, true to my promise, i will begin to remove many of the "citation needed" superscripts in 24 hours if nobody addresses the issues before then. its not hard to do. the page needs to look a lot more presentable. tons of people come here from all over the internet to read about the iraq war. for this reason, the page cant continue to look like a rough draft. you have 24 hours to overcome your partisan bickering and resolve these issues

70.107.37.96 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution is to provide the citations yourself, per "So fix it!". Removing the "Citations Needed" tags by themselves would be a step backwards, not a step forward.  --Alecmconroy 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally it's not just the citations needed templates that should be removed, but the sentence that they are associated with and the template. If the anon is going to be removing the associated sentence, then more power to 'em. --Bobblehead 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

C'mon 70.107.37.96--instead of complaining about the "citation needed" tag why not clean up the un-sourced sentence? Leaving those tags on the sentences reminds people to either find a source or remove things that are unsubstantiated. Publicus 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

terrorist attacks
I would like to edit the "terrorist attacks of the Iraq war" box (its called "Campaignbox Iraq War bombings", but I dont know how to do so. My problem is that as part of the list there is an attack on a US military base. While the rest of the events in the list are genuine terrorist attacks against civilians, this is an attack targeting a military base. Since the target (and most of the casualties) were military rather than civilian in nature, I dont think it should be on the list of terrorist attacks. Another argument would be that this box only lists very large scale terrorist bombings, while the casulties of this event are light in comparison to the others. Harley peters 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Iraq War actually started on March 19, 2003 NOT March 20, 2003 as the date is posted presently. The Shock and Awe campaign started March 19, 2003 which was the beginning of the Iraq War.

Jombolo 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ERRORS: U.S.A. / Insurgent Casualties / fallujah
For the second battle for fallujah the article says the U.S. took significant casualties, and then lists 95 dead, even though only 40-50 died during the week of major fighting that was this battle, and the rest over the following months on patrols, etc. More importantly, even the inflated 95 does not constitute "significant casualties" for taking a city, in fact 95 is tiny by any historical standard and the sheer size of the Marine force involved not to mention the number of insurgents killed by comparison. In addition, when talking about fallujah the article says it is reported that 5,000 insurgents were killed, but on the side panel for the article page it says only 4,100 insurgents have been killed in the entire Iraq war. This article's writer(s) are confused.

Feel free to make editing changes if you think there is an error. On the "substantial casualties for the US Marines, for a single battle in this war 95 KIA 500 WIA is pretty substantial for a single battle. Most the coalition losses have come in rather small numbers(2-5 per incident) due to heli crashes or IEDs. So in that respect, 95 is quite large.

Also, I've changed the inusurgent killed number to 1,200 which is the same listed on DoD sites and the Second Battle of Fallujah page. Thanks for pointing out the error. Publicus 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In urban combat against an enemy force with time to entrench itself at roughly the size of the whole Fullujah defense forces the attacking force could easily be expected to have, by recent historical standards, about an initial 30% casualty rate before veteran troops could bring it down below 30% or so. The Marines had nowhere near this casualty rate. In Fallujah the insurgents were disorganized and operated in most cases at the platoon or squad level. The casualties for the Marine Corps in taking fallujah were at a bare minimum, not "significant" like say 1,000+ KIA would be. At the end of the day you have to have some context and meaning when you use words like "significant" or "large" when you talk about the Marine Corps and casaulties in Iraq in general. This is not the only war to have ever been fought. What is really significant is the amount of insurgents that were killed, many by airstrikes.

If 30% is considered a significant casualty rate then the Second Battle of Fallujah does come close depending on what you consider a casualty. According to that page's list of strengths and casualties for the US and Iraqi forces, there were approximately 3,200 troops involved in the operation. Of those troops there were 95 KIA, 622 WIA (US) plus 8 KIA, 43 WIA (Iraqi Security Force) for a total of 768 casualties both wounded and killed. As a percentage of the listed strength of 3,200--768 casualties is actually pretty high around 24%. Of course if you take out the wounded the number is much lower only 3%. Either way I think the word "significant" is helpful on this battle, after all this single battle is one of the most significant operations of the entire war so far--and that's including the actual invasion operations. Publicus 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you and I were specifically debating the words "significant" and "large" when referencing casualties, I never argued that Fallujah II was not a "significant" fight or battle in the Iraq war. However, it flat wrong to say that 95 KIA is large or significant in terms of casaulties for the USMC. The numbers of forces involved in Fallujah II I thought were more like 10,000, not 3,200. Either way, like you said with your super low number of 3,200 which must not include Iraqi forces but does in terms of you adding them to the casaulty list, had a 3% KIA. This 3% was also over a period of many weeks even months after the "battle" was considered over. Not to mention, in you original post you say that most casaulties in this war occured in small numbers like 4-5 KIA, thus Fallujah II equals in your logic more "significant" casalties. However, they died in small numbers in fallujah II as well, 4-5"s. The 95 died over weeks/ months not days.

Fact Box problem
Noticed after reading the Mahdi Army page that the numbers claimed in the fact box no longer have citations (thew ones noted on the page are dead links or do not contain information on the nuber of troops) and seem widely exaggereated. Adding citation superscrpt until a new reference is found. Macutty 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Maintence Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold
When reviewing this article it fails on point four of six of the good article criteria. The issues of POV and neutrality will need to be addressed. Further, the article is on the long side. Consider summarising where appropriate. Also, follow the wonderful suggestions/goals that are listed at the top of this talk page:


 * Remove POV media section
 * Cite all sources in media section
 * Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article
 * Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources

If you can accomplish this, and summarise the article some, then the article will be on its way towards being a good article. However, at this point it fails, though this time let's put the nomination on-hold to give editors some time to correct these issues. Please discuss ways that the goals set out above can be completed in a due course. If progress isn't made, this article will again fail in its review. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed
I guess a week was not enough time to accomplish these tasks. However, if they are completed in the future, you may wish to resubmit the article for a good article review. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

False Insurgent Glorification
" In November 2003, some of these forces successfully attacked U.S. rotary aircraft with SAM-7 missiles bought on the global black market"

There is no source for the above. More importantly, no air planes have been shot down in Iraq! how can this missile attack (I've watched the video of it) that hurt no one, and barely damaged the plane (which safely landed afterwards) at all be considered militarily "succesfull" other then by this articles meer mention of it??? with a SAM-7, successful would be shooting it out of the sky. I'll give you an example; If the U.S. military fired a missile at an enemy plane, hurt no one on the plane yet alone failed to destroy it, would you consider that a succesful attack???? No way! They don't have many missiles so for them it was a failure to kill no one yet alone not destroy the plane with their expensive precious weapon.

I consistently see this article glorifying insurgent attacks: For example, stating that the insurgents inflicted significant/large casualties on the Marine Corps in Fallujah (3% at the most KIA for this Op)  The fact of the matter is that the insurgents are scared to stand up and fight the U.S. A. that is why they use these tactics that many would deem cowardly. what is their favorite tactic in Iraq??? to hide and detonate bombs from concealed positions and then run off. I guess their winning the propaganda battle right here on Wikipedia though aren't they! Imagine being that insurgent who fired the missile (if he's still alive) and reading this article about your "succesful" attack that did nothing. Talk about encouragement. They don't even have to hurt anyone or destroy anything. Just hit the button and aim for the sky and you've already won on wikipedia if you happen to be an Iraqi insurgent.


 * I don't think this is the place to brag about killing peasants in Iraq who were never a threat to America or its freedom and had nothing to do with 9/11. Try a political discussion forum. Richard Cane 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

-WTF are you talking about?????


 * If you see something that doesn't have a source, type at the end of the sentence or next to the phrase. Also, if you see something that looks like it is unbalanced, label it POV or something similar. This article is constantly a work in progress so if there's a problem create an account and start editing. The more editors the merrier. Publicus 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Enormous
This talk page is enormous. Currently more than 300kb long. I've sent a message to Werdna to see what can be done. Maybe shortening the archive timeframe for Werdnabot can fix it. Any suggestions?? - Mtmelendez (TALK 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lowered the archival time. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did. But then you reverted yourself when you put your message here in. So I changed it again from 30 to 15 days. JRSpriggs 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I blame the database (sorry). Thanks for noticing and fixing. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Casualties
This section needs serious cleaning up, more than a mention of coalition casualties (a reference to an infobox). This should be repeated in the section, in descending orders of magnitude.Mach Seventy 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was in the casualties section before, but it duplicated the totals in the infobox. And it was not updated as often as the infobox. There is very little space for more info in any section of the Iraq War article. Most info is moved to separate articles. Many separate articles. In the casualties section the main casualties article is listed as: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. Have you looked at it? --Timeshifter 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper descriptive word for Saddam
At beginning of article "Coalition forces overthrew Iraqi _____ Saddam Hussein." What word should be used? We could use "leader", "president", or "dictator"?

Leader should be used. Randomfrenchie 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maintence Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the German version of "leader" is appropriate in Saddam's case &mdash; Führer. JRSpriggs 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

must be leader 203.170.226.253 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Combatant Section
--- Why is South Korea's input not listed here? South Korea's input is almost double that of Australia...
 * I added South Korea to the infobox. --Timeshifter 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but the casualties section is a mess. The amounts are far below what could possibly be accurate on the insurgent side, and are insanely huge on the behalf of the total Iraqis; tabulate everything and the counts don't make sense. I think you should change the "Iraq war" page and distinguish it from "Occupation" or "Post-Invasion" Iraq; give them different pages and make "Iraq war" point to a disambiguation, giving them the option of Iraq the country, Iraq the Invasion, or Occupation of Iraq, because trying to keep invasion and post invasion figures together is confusing to the layman. If, say, an 8 year old came on here, unaware of recent events, they would be confused as to what groups are still around and what groups are gone, and what casualties were suffered where.

So if you can find it in your hearts, please, divide the info, and if possible, the pages.

Also, the "Mahdi Army" and "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" groups are listed as united against the Coalition, along with the Ba'athists. That's patent nonsense. The Mahdis HATE the Sunnis. The smelly Sunnis hate the Shi'tes back. The Mahdi army is not really attacking coalition soldiers, nor are the Shia in general. 99% of terror incidents against our boys are from Sunnis. It's too complex a situation to have just 2 sides listed, with little factions that hate each other as working together. --The Lizard Wizard 04:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I added "--Multi-sided combatants after Ba'athist government fell:" to infobox. Any other ideas to make it clearer? --Timeshifter 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maintence Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)