User talk:Rangeley/Archive 3

Iraq War article
This user is continually re-adding part of the infobox that many users have attempted to remove. If you're an admin, please do something about this. UnfairlyImbalanced 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop editing against consensus
Rangeley, I've taken a moment to ask you to please stop re-adding the disputed text to the Iraq War page.Saying that the Iraq War is "Part of the War on Terrorism" is inappropriate for the reasons I've discussed:
 * The text violates NPOV.Whether Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism is a conplex and controversial issue which must be discussed, rather than presenting one opinion as fact.
 * In a New York Times poll, a majority of Americans said the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terrorism.
 * In the talk page poll that was taken, a consensus of users opposed including the disputed text in the infobox.
 * In the talk page discussions, a consensus of users opposes your re-insertion of the disputed text into the infobox.

Please stop re-inserting the disputed text, and do not attempt to re-insert it again until such time as a consensus of Wikipedians supports doing so. As I've said before, you've made many excellent contributions to the encyclopedia in the past, but we're at the point where if you keep re-inserting it, people are going to start trying to get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Already, several individuals have contacted me asking for advice on how to proceed in this manner.

Please, stop.Seriously.If you keep editing against consensus, people will be forced to take whatever actions are necessary to stop you-- and that means a lot of wasted time and a lot of bad feelings for everyone.I sincerely ask you to please, just recognize that right now, the consensus is against you, and you if you want the text in the article, you need to change minds, not edit-war.

Please, don't put the text back.If you do, then I or someone else has to take the time to go and get you blocked for it, and then you won't be able to even discuss the situation, and it'll just be a giant, giant mess, and nobody wants that. --Alecmconroy 11:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied to User_talk:Alecmconroy
You misunderstand what the War on Terrorism is. Its not a war, its not a wider conflict. Its a military campaign, ie a superop. Much like operations can contain subops, Operations themselves can be contained within a campaign. The War on Terrorism is one such campaign, and it is the official designation under which other operations have been carried out. It is not a POV that the Iraq War began under this campaign, the authorization of war specifically states that it was authorized to "prosecute the war on terrorism." ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Never cite majority opinion when determining what is factual. Most people do not think it is a war against terrorists, but this is a seperate issue of whether it is part of the campaign, which is indisputable. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Have you read this? ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Have you read this? A consensus isnt reached by a majority or a super majority, and your insistence that it is violates wikipedia rules. A consensus is reached through discussion and weighing arguments, the 4 you have given are either false on the basis that they violate the rules or false on the basis that they view the War on Terrorism as a war. Please participate in discussion with valid arguments. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The text violates NPOV. Whether Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism is a conplex and controversial issue which must be discussed, rather than presenting one opinion as fact."
 * "In a New York Times poll, a majority of Americans said the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terrorism."
 * "In the talk page poll that was taken, a consensus of users opposed including the disputed text in the infobox."
 * "In the talk page discussions, a consensus of users opposes your re-insertion of the disputed text into the info"


 * Well, we have two different issues, here-- a content and a behavior one.The content one, I think you understand my position.Many people around the world think it is false to say "The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism".The opinion exists, it is notable, and in fact, appears to be the majority opinion in both the US and the world as a whole.This means that NPOV will not allow us to present that statement as fact.Instead we must present it as a notable opinion.I think you and I have discussed this as far as it is profitable to do.If you admit that there is a notable viewpoint which says "Iraq War is not part of the War on Terror",then Wikipedia cannot present it as fact, end of story.That's what NPOV means-- when there are two widely-held notable opinions, Wikipedia does not present either POV as fact, but instead treats them both as sourced opinions. It's a pretty non-negotiable policy.In a hotly-contested polticial debate such as this, if you want to present one POV as fact, it's just not good enough to argue that your POV is "right",you have to be able to show that a political dispute doesn't even exist-- that's just not the case here.Anyway, that's the content debate, and that's a summary of my and other editors views on the subject.


 * More relevant here, however, is the behavior issue-- i.e. your repeated re-insertion of the same disputed text.This is an even more clear-cut issue.Whatever you think of the Iraq War, you just don't edit war like you have been, you have to stop, and if you reinsert it again, you will in all probability find yourself unable to edit the encyclopedia further.


 * I have read Wikipedia is not a democracy andConsensus, and they only underscore the inappropriateness of your edits.Even if a majority of users supported you, your actions still might not be justified-- someone could argue that a consensus still did not exist.Given that a majority of users oppose your inserts, your edit-warring is doubly unjustified.Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is certainly not a Monarchy-- if you view "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" as a license to ignore the opinions of others about your behavior in cases where your POV is "right", then you are very mistaken.


 * Anyway, I don't mean to come down hard on you-- remember, I don't even personally disagree with you about Iraq and I wouldn't be at all surprised if 20 years from now it's completely non-controversial to say "The Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism".I'm not trying to say you're a bad person, a bad editor, or otherwise bad-- I'm just saying, you need to not do it again.There may be a certain number of reverts that are excusable due to not understanding the rules, the situation, or the relevant policies. You have now exceeded that number of reverts by a factor of 10, and if you do it again, in all probability, you will wake up and find yourself blocked for it, which means we all lose.So, "Final Warning" and all that jazz.Please, just "retire" yourself from re-inserting the disputed text (being free to converse about the subject in order to try to change the minds of editors if you wish).--Alecmconroy 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the issue. When people are asked whether the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror, they typically answer within the context of the beleif that the War on Terrorism is a conflict, a literal war. This is a point of view, one which you or I could hold, one which George Bush even holds. He has called it the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." Whether you or I agree with him there is a matter of opinion which doesnt really go here. When someone, like the Democratic party, argues that it is not a part of the War on Terror, they do so in this context - that it is not a part of the ideological struggle, that its a civil war wholly seperate from the issue of terrorism, or that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, or any other issue that they might raise.
 * But this is not the context under which we are acting. Wikipedia has not classified the War on Terror as an ideological conflict, or a conflict period. It has classified it as a campaign, like the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, or other "War on's" which were launched by the United States. The question you have to ask yourself is not whether the Iraq War is a part of the conflict against terrorists, which is a POV, but instead whether the Iraq War was begun under the United States campaign. That is an emphatic yes.
 * You raised the 20 year point before, and I addressed it before. We arent using a crystal ball here and asking what people will see this as in 20 years, we are in the here and now. There is a campaign being led by the USA, and within this campaign was begun the Iraq War.
 * If you truly think I have made worthwhile edits here, I do tend to think that this point should be actually looked at. You really havent acknowledged the difference, every time I say this you state the same old line that a significant portion dont consider the Iraq War a part. You need to acknowledge that the context in which they state this is not the same context in which we state this. The article at the War on Terrorism speaks of a campaign, not a "decisive ideological struggle," not of a broad war on the scope of WW3. These are views which we have yet to adopt. Heres where the 20 years come in - maybe then we will consider it a war. But in the here and now, we do not.
 * I have read the 3 revert rule, and I have not exceeded it since perhaps May 2006 when I was far less experienced (or various times in the Israel-Lebanon conflict when there were tons of vandals.) I have been discussing this issue since April. I have done many other things within this time, but this has been raised by so many people and my lines have been said so many times that it is nearly effortless. What you have been saying is nothing new, it comes from a misunderstanding of context. Reading the WoT article in reality should be enough to make clear what we are talking about, but to give extra help I and others compromised in allowing a citation, quotes, the addition of "US," which all should make it easier for people. It is not a violation of NPOV to state, it is a violation the principles of Wikipedia to not state. This is an encyclopedia of verifiable information. This is what this is. And that is why it must be said. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think there's going to be much headway on getting us to see eye-to-eye on the content issue.Your arguments about context and "campaign-vs-war" might be interesting exposition if you were the only author and wanted to explain the way in which you personally are using the terms, but they aren't really relevant to a collaborative encyclopedia that has a NPOV policy, where you don't get to be the personal arbitor of what the context is.


 * If there is a notable, widely-held controversy among the sources about whether X is true, then we cannot present X as a fact.No matter what words "X" contains.Simple as that.All the talk of context and campaigns and crystal balls can't change that basic principle, I'm afraid.


 * Now as to the behavior issue-- realize-- it does no good to try to change my mind anyway-- even I agreed with you, I couldn't and wouldn't go against consensus by putting it in.The fact is, in the polls, rfcs, and discussions, people don't want believe it's consistent with NPOV, and until you change enough minds that there is a strong consensus which supports putting it in the article, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to put it back in.If I woke up tommorrow and decided you are 110% right on this, I still wouldn't be able to put it back into the article until there was a strong consensus among all the editors that it belonged there.That's just how it works--I find myself in the situation all the time of disagreeing with consensus, but having to acquiesce to it.


 * I'm glad you're aware of the WP:3RR-- but let me call your attention to the most important part:"The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence". Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. "


 * Which is to say-- the 3RR is in no way a permit to edit war.Users who repeatedly revert against consensus can be blocked at an point, even if they have not made 4 reverts within a 24 hour period.Happens all the time.People can be reverted for as little as 3 or even 2 edits, in the right circumstances, and I see people blocked all the time for re-inserting the same material 5 or 6 times.You, by my count, have personally re-inserted the subtitle a total of 76 times, which is the egregious example I've ever personally come across.It's nothing short of amazing that there hasn't been a RFC/RFAr/Block/Ban on you already, and if you do it again, I think it's almost certain that things will go that way.


 * So, yeah-- I appreciate your POV on the subject.When 75% of the legitimate users agree that the subtitle belongs in, then I'll be happy to personally put it back in for you myself, regardless of whether I myself think it belongs there or not.But your 76 reverts are way, WAY more than is appropriate, so, yeah, it's definitely time for you to stop now.--Alecmconroy 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think we could easilly make headway and see eye to eye. It begins with recognizing several points. The first is that I have never said that a crystal ball has any application here. Never. You have persistently thrown this in and then debated against it, wholly misrepresenting what I have said. I dont know what it will take to get it through your head, I have outright denied that what people think 20 years from now matters at all to this issue. Yet here you go again, and casually throw it in as if it was a point of mine. You can stop that. Its not helpful.
 * Second, I have to take a moment to admire some of your tactics. In making vague references to some of my points, it would make the casual onlooker assume that you are responding to my points. But in reality, you arent. You just take some of my words to make it look that way. For instance, what I said was that here at Wikipedia, we do not recognize the War on Terror to be a war, the article only sees it as a campaign. What you or I beleive, or what we beleive 20 years from now - or what Bush beleives about it being the decisive ideological struggle of the century - doesnt matter. What matters is what the Wikipedia article is. This is the context we operate under. The article describes it, as you know, having read the opening yourself, as "an ongoing campaign with the stated goal of 'ending international terrorism.'" Now what you have done is mention a few key words, like "context," and turned this into me personally deciding what the War on Terrorism is. Its like you cut out the core, took the shell, and then complained that the shell didnt taste good. Well ofcourse it wont, you left out the juicy part. In this case the juicy part is that the context we operate isnt mine or yours, its the context of Wikipedia. And again, this means that when we say War on Terrorism, we arent talking about an ideological struggle, we arent talking about WW3, we are talking about a campaign. Its the name of the campaign. Thats all we see it as.
 * And again, you have said that when 90% of people say X isnt part of Y, we cant say it is. This is false. Not only is the context incorrect, but majorities dont decide facts. Were you to ask people if the Iraq War is designated by the US military under the same campaign as the Afghanistan War, people would probably say it was, simply because this puts them into the same context that we are operating under. If you were to ask them if the Iraq War was a part of the same war as Afghanistan, most would say no. One doesnt have a definitive source which can claim it to be part, thats the issue of whether its part of the same war. Public opinion is the "author" of that, to an extent. We cannot say the the Iraq War is part of the same war as the Afghanistan war, its simply too controversial and too mixed in views. But get this, are you ready? We arent! Surprised? Because you should be, the way you have been talking to me. Your jaw should be hanging down to your knees in total awe at this statement. No? Didnt think so. This is the key breaking point that you dont seem to want to acknowledge. We are not saying its part of the same war. Thats not what we are saying. We are not saying its part of the same war. We are not classifying it as the same war. We have not taken the steps to state it as the same war. A consensus will not easilly arise deciding its the same war. We are not saying its part of the same war. Public oppinion is mixed whether its the same war. We cant say its part of the same war. We arent saying its part of the same war.
 * Now that thats out of the way, what are we saying, you might ask. What we are saying is that it is part of the US led campaign. This has an author which decides, and thats the US government. Its not public opinion. If the public is actually asked within the same context we are in, and 90% say that it is not part of the campaign, they are wrong. Why are they wrong? For the same reason that someone would be wrong for saying that Harry Potter book 6 is not part of the Harry Potter series because they dont like the book. Lets say the 6th book bombed, noone liked it, everyone disowns it and says they dont like it, it shouldnt have been written, its not part of the series. They might be right about the first two points, but as to whether its part of the series or not, that is decided by good ole JK Rowling, not public opinion. She is the creator of the series, she can put books in it. The United States is the creator of its campaign, it can add initiatives and operations to it as it wishes. Regardless of public opinion.
 * As to your veiled threats of an RFC, I havent reverted now have I. Stop harping about it and address the points. I dont care if 90% say something, I care whether they are right. This is your chance to prove them right, or admit they are wrong. Its up to you whether we can see eye to eye or not. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is a major dispute among the sources about whether a particular book is not part of the Harry Potter series, then we cannot present it as fact.If there is a major dispute among the sources about ANYTHING, then we cannot present it as fact, but have to present it as source opinions.Summarizing sources are all we have-- everything else is Original Research.--Alecmconroy 23:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose you have a point there, if the only sources we had were secondary sources such as Amazon.com or book stores and they classified it differently, we would not be able to use these as reliable sources. But if JK Rowling herself came out and said it was part, that would be that. Thats the situation we are in, even if we had multiple secondary sources stating various things about whether it was begun under a seperate campaign, which we dont, it would be cleared up by going straight to the source and straight to the authority on the issue. Even though we do not need them in this case as there is no confusion amongst sources as to whether it began under the campaign, we do indeed have the authority on record stating it as a part of the campaign. The authorization of war uses the language, the defense department website puts Iraq under its WoT section to show that it still is classified this way to this day. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The author has no monopoly on the truth-- if there is an actual dispute among reliable sources, then that's that-- we don't present either side as fact.For example, the author of A Million Little Pieces classified it as a autobiography, but others regarded it as a novel.Wikipedia uses NPOV-- not the author's POV or the US Govt POV.--Alecmconroy 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, matters of description do not have an author monopoly on them. If that were true authors would just describe their books as #1 Bestsellers and must reads, and would all be trillionaires. But we arent talking about matters of description, we are talking about a relatively limited scope which the author does have a monopoly over. They can create a series, and they can put books in their series, as thats something they have total control over. The same could be said about a comic strip, like Peanuts. Some might say that the earlier Peanut's comics didnt look like the later ones so they cant be part of the series, but that would be incorrect. The early ones were still Peanut's comic strips as designated by Charles Shultz. He was only one that could determine what is and what is not part of the strip. He couldnt have said "this one is the best one" and have that be accepted as fact, as that isnt a matter that he has control over. He can have an opinion, but thats it.
 * If JK Rowling said that book 6 was part, which she has, that makes any source which states otherwise inherently unreliable, as she is the sole authority. Were she to call it a true story, this is an issue that she is not the authority on, as it has left the realm of control that an author or creator has.
 * If the US Government called this the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," that is merely their opinion. This is a matter of description. What is not a matter of description is whether its part of a wider campaign. Just like an author with a series, the government is the creator of the campaign and it does have the ability to determine what is and what is not in it. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 02:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And that's why we don't object to the language in the text that says "Congress mentioned the War on Terror in its authorization" or that the Bush Administration has used similar terminology-- because everyone agrees those sentences are factual.But many, many people believe the sentence "Iraq is part of WOT" is not factual.If you disagree with them, that's something you'll have to take up with the sources, pollsters, and the US population-- all the arguing in the world can't make that go away, I'm afraid.When many reliable sources say that a given sentence is false, Wikipedia does not present that sentence as a fact-- ever.If and when society reaches a consensus that the disputed sentence is true, then and only then can it be treated as fact.


 * In any case, I think I've explained things about as well as I can, so at this point, or some other point in the future, I'll stop replying.When that happens, do not give into the temptation to intepret my silence as agreement-- it justmeans I've gone on to more productive conversations-- it does not mean I agree with you, or that my silence implies I have withdrawn my opinions.The consensus right now is against the disputed text, adding it back in will be a violation of policy, and if someone comes to me and shows me you've added it back in a 77th time and asks for my assistance, I will take whatever steps are necessary to stop that behavior.


 * I don't mean to be forceful, of course-- I just don't think we're going to get anywhere on this one, I'm afraid, and there are probably better uses of both of our time here. --Alecmconroy 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont really see now as a timely point to cease discussion. You have more or less conceded that the Iraq War was authorized under the campaign, the disagreement which still exists seems to be that because reliable sources exist stating it to not be a part we cannot say it is. This is a problem that comes about when things are named a certain way. I will bring back another analogy which I may or may not have used in discussion with you. Lets say that there was a series called the "War on Christmas." In it there are various different books by various different people. One such book is released in this series, but all the reviewers say it is not part of the "War on Christmas" in the sense that it does not attack Christmas but defends it instead. This is the sticky situation we are in here, where there is a series, as well as a concept which carry the same name. Its true that it is part of the "War on Christmas" series, but its also true that most do not see it as part of the literal "War on Christmas." How we would handle this sticky situation, in an ideal world, would be to have two articles, one for the concept, one for the series. The books are definitely a part of the series, they are not necessarilly a part of the concept. We would state it as a part of the series, because this is verifiable. Even if 90% do not think it is part of the concept.
 * You said this is an issue I would have to take up with the pollsters, but I do not really see it this way. Common sense says that the poll would be dealing with the only area where people can have valid opinions and differing views, and it would not be dealing with the somewhat semantic issue of the series. Its not debatable which series it was released under, while it is debatable whether it fits under the broader concept, and therefore the poll most certainly was dealing with that aspect. If it was dealing with the other, it would be a rather silly poll where there is actually a wrong answer as its not an opinion question. Its a possibility, I just dont think its a big one, and even if it was the poll would not keep us from stating the truth.
 * In an ideal world, we would have two articles, one for the campaign WoT, one for the conflict. But I have floated this idea before and had it really get nowhere, with most opting out of the almost certain controversy it would create. Instead, I prefer working around these parameters, where things do have certainty, rather then attempting to deal with a conflict and all the uncertainty that would bring. But until one such article appears, the only article using the War on Terrorism namespace is the campaign, and therefore its where we link to when we state things to be a part of it. I would like to think that if we had (campaign) and (concept) in the names of the articles it would make things clear to people, but just from my experience here I know that there is no silver bullet which makes everyone happy. Thats why, again, I have come to see compromise as a necessity. In a world where everyone understands everything, stating it as a part of the campaign would not be problematic. But we dont live in a world like that, we live in a world where it needs to be adorned with extra things to help clarify. I am willing to accept these things and these compromises because they allow for added clarification without the removal of facts. This is what I have been working for for the greater part of a year. Ultimately it has put me against a great many people, as well as put me with a great many people. They havent really stuck around as long as me, the only person who remains from April is Csloat, who really hasnt presented an argument outside of "there is a consensus against it" since then. Some people have left, some have been banned for sockpuppeteering in removing it, some have been banned for sockpupeteering in replacing it. The reason I have stuck around through all of this is because I dont know that there are other people out there to make this case without becoming a "casualty" of the whole experience. I strongly beleive it to be important to state, because I strongly beleive that people need to understand the width and size of what America is doing with its allies under its campaign. Its not just freezing money assets, its not just fighting the Taliban, its all over the place. One needs to understand the entire scope of something before they actually have full knowledge of it. Maybe someone will look at its full scope and say, man, these guys are crazy for doing all that. Maybe they will look at it and decide its good afterall. There are millions of possible reactions, just like there are tons of reactions when you see the full scope of anything. Taken bit by bit, it might seem like Germany had isolated cases of antisemitism - taken together its a holocaust. Whatever peoples reactions to things, its important that their reaction is to the accurate picture of what happened, not to an inaccurate picture. The Iraq War was begun under this campaign, as was Afghanistan, as was action in Somalia, as was action in the Philippines, and as were many other things. They must be taken together because they are together. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * About your hypothetical "War on Christmas" series-- if we can find notable, reliable sources who say "Book is not part of War on Christmas", then we don't ever just say "Book IS part of War on Christmas". We state both opinions, we source those opinions, we provide an in-depth discussion.


 * So, let me ask you something for a change-- you agree that many many many people are "confused" by what you mean when you say, in the infobox,"The Iraq War is part of the War on Terrrorism". This is a campaign name, you say-- not a name of a war, not an implication that terrorism is related to the campaign, and not an implication that there were terrorists in Iraq-- just a name.Now, if that's the case-- what is to be lost by removing this text that is so ambiguous that it takes an extended 1000 word-discussion in order to explain what you mean by it.You say that six words "Part of the War on Terrorism" basically just mean "The US Govt cited the 'War on Terrorism' campaign when it authorized the Iraq war"-- if that's all it really means, then why not just SAY so in the text, as we currently do?Why insist on the different phrasings you have insisted on?


 * See, among the people I've talked to, there's two schools of thought on you.One view is that you genuinely believe what you say-- that the reader will read words "Part of the War on Terrorism" and somehow know that means "Ahh, the US Gov't has referred to this as the War on Terrorism, but it doesn't actually refer to a literal war against literal terrorists".I am the main supporter of this position, though I'm not positive that you're sincere.


 * The second theory is that you deliberately insisting on misleading terminology in the infobox because you want to push a particular political POV, and "War on Terrrorism" sounds a lot better to US ears than "Iraq War". In this view, you are well-aware that no reader will understand your "campagin" justification-- and in fact, this is the whole point of you insisting on the text you are trying to insist on.As I said, I'm a big believer of Assume Good Faith myself, but if you feel like typing, you might try to explain to those listening how you can on the one hand realize that no one understands your argument, but on the other hand insist that readers will understand exactly what you mean when they first encounter the article. --Alecmconroy 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See, heres the thing. You keep telling me that there are reliable sources saying that the Iraq War is not part of the campaign, but I highly doubt this. This gets back to the very lengthy comment I made before this, where there is the concept, and there is the campaign. Its unlikely that anyone would say its not part of the campaign, and if they did they would be blatently wrong because the sole arbitrator of what is and is not in a campaign is its creator. The issue is not merely that the authorization mentioned it, its that the authorization authorized the war under the campaign - and therefore its part of the campaign.
 * I have never said noone understands my argument, its very easy to understand my argument, and further its very easy to understand what the War on Terror is according to Wikipedia. There have been many people who have even agreed with me, as unthinkable as that may sound to you. There have even been months at a time where the infobox remained largely untouched, with removals met with people enforcing the consensus. GTBacchus, an administrator even helped put together the consensus this summer, and found it to be reasonable.
 * I dont really care how many words it takes, if there are people confused, I am willing to talk to them. At this point, I could have said nothing at all on this issue, saved myself countless minutes or hours, and really there would be no difference - its not in the infobox currently, it wouldnt have been without me either. But I wouldnt take any of this time, or any of these words back because what you have said - that it was authorized under the War on Terrorism, makes it a part of the War on Terrorism. Its like the difference between saying "JK Rowling stated this as a part of the series" and "it is a part of the series." Her act of saying it is part of it makes it a part of it. By leaving it at merely her saying it, it makes it look as though its in oppinion when in reality it is fact, because she is the sole individual who can determine it. When she determines it, its a fact. When war was authorized under the WoT campaign, it became fact. Stating that they said this or that makes it seem as though its a debatable view when it is not.
 * To those who think I am not being truthful or whatever, this would be quite the charade indeed. I cant really prove to people what I am thinking, so all I can really say to that is look at what I am saying and ask yourself whether I am here saying its my way or the highway, or instead justifying at every turn and presenting a line of reasoning in attempt to explain, and indeed convince people who do not agree with me. In the lack of the existence of a simple way of stating the fact, I have no problem working with people, even when it takes several thousand words to do. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 05:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The disputed infobox text doesn't include the word "campaign", its words talk about a concept, and we have only your say-so to clue us into the the hidden "true" meaning of the text.If you really just wanted the article to reflect the fact that the Bush Administration has said the Iraq War is part of a campaign known as the "War on Terrorism", then there are thousands of different wordings you could use which would be clear and non-controversial.The phrase you insist upon "Part of the US 'WOT'" however, is a wording where no one could reasonably intepret it as just a named campaign. Now, if you really want the reader to be aware that the Bush Administration, the "authors" of the campaign, have named the campaign "The War on Terrorism", then you have nothing to worry about-- because I don't think there is asingle reader who wouldn't know that anyway, and we further explicitly mention the War on Terror in the article text.If that's your goal, then the body of the article accomplishes it.--Alecmconroy 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, when the author says its a part, its a part, and it belongs in the "part of" section. The article doesnt talk about the concept, the article talks about the campaign, as you have certainly read. I offered up the suggestion of having two articles, one on the concept, and one on the campaign, as at this moment we have none on the concept. The Iraq War is a part of the same campaign as Afghanistan in the same sense that money sent to France post ww2 is under the same campaign - the Marshall Plan, as money sent to the UK was. You might not see it as important to state them as part of the same thing, but as they are true, I see it as an inherently necessary task. The Iraq War, Afghan war, and stuff in other places are under the campaign, thus they must be stated as so. If it takes a move to War on Terrorism (campaign) then so be it. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry that we weren't able to see eye to eye on that, but I think we did at least reach an agreement that you will not re-insert it until there is a strong consensus to do so.If that's correct, then this dialogue was certainly a worthwhile one, and I'm glad that it helped us avert administrative action.Good luck in your editing. --Alecmconroy 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

War on terror(campaign)
I am very dissappointed with you. When you contacted the various people who had disagreed with me in the past, but not others, via talk pages in attempt to "stack" discussion against me I had an inkling that you didnt want to see eye to eye, but now that you have dropped all pretenses and dont even bother addressing anything I say, its good to see what this has boiled down to. Whats wrong with splitting articles and even adding "campaign" in? Anything? If not, dont just go away and pretend that you didnt just waste my time on a useless discussion, you are going to end what you began and come to a conclusion besides that of another veiled threat aimed at me. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My first thought is that such a title would imply that you were just going to talk about the military aspects of the WOT.The words "WOT" refer to many things-- some involve the military, some involve the courts, some involve diplomats.WOT is also an ideological statement that tries to justify US actions, a political argument that tries to justify politicians actions, and in some ways, is even a bit of a PR campain.WOT is in some ways like "The Vietnam War" but it other ways it's like the "War on Drugs".WOT means different things to different people.


 * So, since you ask-- I don't see what "War on Terror (campaign)" would really buy us.It implies you wouldnt' be talking about the political aspects of WOT, the media aspects, the legal aspects, or the diplomatic aspects, but would be focusing primary on the military aspects.And that's not a focus the main article should have.


 * In any case, it doesn't matter what you call the page-- you still can't present "Iraq is part of WOT" as a fact, rather than an opinion. --Alecmconroy 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The current article would merely be moved to the new location. And as it stands, the current article does deal with the entire campaign, not just the military aspects. The move would be carried out because people such as yourself show great difficulty in reading past the title. The average person reads the article when they dont know right away what something is when they see the title. Its what I do, and I really do think its what anyone acting to acquire further knowledge does. But this step isnt for the average Joe, its for the people who are so opposed to seeing that the Iraq War can be a part of anything which carries the name "WoT" that they will remove it on sight, regardless of what this thing is. They dont care to read what the WoT is that we are talking about. I honestly dont know that you care what its about anymore, you only care about the name - and think that if something is named that, it doesnt matter what it is, the Iraq War cannot be a part of it.
 * Thats all that this has boiled down to, and this is why we do not see eye to eye. I look past the name and realize that what we are saying it is a part of, is something it truly is a part of. These concessions, such as adding (campaign) to the name, are concessions that would remove any possibility of a good faith opposition. I can understand the view some might think it was the concept. Thats why we state it, even in the title, explicitly as being the campaign. If we explicitly state it as a campaign in the article, and in the title, noone can honestly claim it to be wrong to state the Iraq War as a part of it, being that its verifiable. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right-- well moving the current article, as is, to "War on Terrorism (campaign)" would result in a page discussing all aspects of WOT, but with a title the refers to just the military aspect-- i.e.it would be an inappropriate title.


 * And yes, your absolutlely correct, to me, the name is all that matters.It's not up to me to substitute my own judgement on these matters.If lots of people say "Iraq is NOT part of the WOT" then that's that.I don't have to think about the nature of the conflict, or my own political beliefs about it, any further-- and indeed, whether I personally regard it as part of the WOT is irrelevant.That's the thing-- if you try to prove to me Iraq is part of WOTwith your own views on what the WOT is-- a "campaign" not a "war", "just a name"-- none of that matters.


 * Once I know that there's a huge on-going controversy among sources about whether the sky is blue, then there isn't anything you can say that will me believe NPOV can let us say the sky is blue.The most you could hope for is to convince me personally that the sky is blue, but that won't change anything about what the article should say.If there is a significant point of view that "Iraq is not part of WOT" then we don't present the contrary position as fact-- even if you can convince me that you really believe the sentence "Iraq is part of WOT" actually means "Jelly is part of a Peanutbutterandjelly sandwich".If there is a major controversy about a set of words, then we don't present those words as facts.


 * My thinking is simple.
 * If many sources say X is false, we can't present X as a fact.
 * Many sources say "Iraq is WOT" is false.
 * Therefore, we can't present "Iraq is WOT" as a fact.


 * Your sincere argument, as best I can tell, runs the following:
 * The Iraq War is part of a larger set of wars.
 * Bush admin is the architect of that set of wars.
 * The architect of a set of wars has exclusive naming rights for that set of wars.
 * Therefore Bush admin has the exclusive right to name the set of wars anything they want.
 * The Bush admin has chosen to name the set of wars "The War on Terror".
 * Therefore, the name of the set of wars IS "The War on Terror"
 * The words "Iraq is part of the WOT" are defined to mean "The Iraq War is one in a set of wars which has been named by the Bush administration 'The War on Terror' but which isn't necessarily a war and isn't necessarily being fought against terrorists."
 * No one could seriously doubt that "The Iraq War is one in a set of wars which has been named by the Bush administration 'The War on Terror' but which isn't necessarily a war and isn't necessarily being fought against terrorists."
 * Therefore, no one can doubt that "Iraq War is part of WOT"
 * All the people who say they do doubt it, therefore, must actually mean something else, because no one could really doubt "Iraq is part of WOT".
 * Since no one actually doubts "Iraq is part of the WOT" (not even the 51% of the US population who say they doubt it) then we can present it as a fact.


 * See what I mean?You don't get to tell us what a set of words means to you, prove to us everyone agree with you (even those who say they don't), and then present your POV as fact.I have to give you, this is by far one of the more engaging and creative arguments I've come across, and I do find it fascinating, but at the end the day, nothing you say can change the fact that the sentence "Iraq is part of WOT" is very very very controversial, and Wikipedia isn't going to take sides in that political debate.--Alecmconroy 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your latest post shows your elaborate inability, and perhaps unwillingness to read the many instances to which I have outright denied parts of what you claim to be my argument. Are my responses too long, too short? Does the message get lost? I dont know how I can talk to you, I even tried repeating in about 7 different ways that the "WoT" is not a war.
 * For one, lets go with your argument, shall we. You are saying that if 90% of people say X is not part of Y, we cannot say that X is part of Y. In creating a working formula, in the math world or otherwise, we have to test it - plug in values. Lets do that. If 90% of people say that the (sun) is part of the {earth's orbital neighborhood), does it now become fact that the sun orbits the earth? Nope. People can be wrong, majorities can be wrong. The publics view is important sometimes, but in deciding facts your little formula doesnt work.
 * For two, your formula hits another roadblock because the way you are using it, it is moreso "If 90% of people say X is not a part of Y, anything which also carries the name Y cannot encompass X." Its like the distributive theory on crack. Or a really bad dating situation. Lets say there are two boys named James, and a girl named Margot. Margot had been dating James 1 for a week, but they broke up after creative differences. She declares defiantly, she will never date James again. Does this mean that she will never date James 2, because his name is also James afterall. Or any other James, the James 3, 4, 5's in this world? Herein lies the impreciseness of this world, different things can have the same name, but get this, still be different.
 * Your formula is even more incorrect before, because multiple things have carried the name "WoT" and they were not all the same thing. For simplicity sake, your mathmatical formula comes down to Y = (1,2) X=/=1, therefore X=/=Y, therefore X=/=2. Or, 90% of people say that its not part of something which carries the name "WoT," therefore it cannot be part of anything which carries the name "WoT," therefore it cannot be a part of a campaign called the "WoT." As you should know in math, you cant try one variable and know that all others are wrong. Therefore your argument is wrong on both the factual basis, and the mathematical basis. We have to take a look at 2, which in this case is the campaign. Can popular opinion determine what is and is not part of a campaign? Nope. (You said you have reliable sources saying it wasnt part of the campaign, I asked you before, produce them now.)
 * And here we get back to you saying I cannot choose the context. And here we have me saying "I wasnt, infact I outright denied I could choose the context." Now that this is out of the way, I can say the next line, "when we say that it is part of the War on Terror, the context depends entirely on what we have at the namespace of what I just linked to." Thats the context of Wikipedia. The article, which I have in good faith assumed you have checked out, clearly states it to be a campaign - not solely a military one, it does include other initiatives. It also doesnt say it to be a war, because we have not here at Wikipedia decided that a war even exists. All we have decided is that the USA has launched the WoT and a great many things under it. When saying something is a part of another thing, it depends entirely on what that other thing is, not what that other thing is named. In this case that other thing is a campaign, which we have documentation stating the first thing to have begun under. No amount of public opinion matters when we have this authoritative information.
 * As to the possible rename, I see your objection as just for the sake of objecting. A campaign doesnt have to be solely military, it can involve various elements. It would make it clear that we are not talking about the war or the concept, is this really something you dont want? ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 13:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your questions illustrate where we differ.If 90% of our sources say that "the Earth orbits the sun" is false, then Wikipedia does not present that as fact.IF 90% of our sources say that "2+2=4" is false, then Wikipedia does not present that as a fact.Wikipedia summarizes sources-- it doesn't convey "Truth".


 * That's why any argument you personally make about whether Iraq is part of the WOT is doomed to failure.It's Original Research.It's not up to you or me to decide whether I agree with a statement or not-- it's up to the sources.There's a huge debate-- with congressmen, politicians, pundits, different nations, and the american public all debating the question.I can't substitute my own judgement for the sources. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you concede that polls do not matter - sources do. This is a step forward. Now show that 90% of sources are infact saying that it is not a part of the campaign. Or really, show one. I have shown you the direct language of the authorization, I have told you to look at the defense department website where it puts Iraq under its War on Terrorism section. Do you actually have something that trumps this? Are you implying that the authorization's language was edited after the fact to state it was authorized to prosecute the campaign? Because this needs a source. You need to provide sources which would back this claim should you wish to make it.
 * If not, what is your objection? Its a clear cut issue, a campaign is definable by its maker, the maker defined it in a certain way, all the sources I have found carry identical language. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The polls, and their accompany news stories, are one such source that demonstrates there is a major debate ongoing. Another source that mentions the widespread view that "Iraq is not part of WOT" is Pres. Bush.One of the adherents of the view is Nancy Pelosi, the current leader of the US Congress.Obviously, you don't think these sources count, for reason you'll now tell me.I predict, in fact, you'll tell me that Pelosi, the democrats, and the 53% of the US population do in fact think Iraq is part of the War on Terror, but they have just somehow miscommunicated this belief through non-specific language. :) --Alecmconroy 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You provided no reliable source which carries a copy of the resolution which differs from the one I provided, and you provided no reliable source which makes the claim that the authorization was edited after the fact to make it look as though it was authorized under the campaign.
 * Again, a campaign is not a war, nor is it a neutral set of wars to be determined by public opinion. A campaign is an initiative, a series of actions if you will, which in this case is being carried out by the USA and its willing allies. It is comprised both of military actions, and of domestic actions, such as freezing assets. This isnt just my opinion of it, this is right from the War on Terrorism article.
 * Lets say Nancy Pelosi really was saying that the Iraq War wasnt a part of the campaign, and that she really is talking about the same thing which carries the name as we are. This in itself is not a reliable source, just because she is well known does not make her word carry as much weight as an official authorization. Bush stating it is part of the War on Terrorism, were he to be talking about the campaign, does not carry weight on itself either. If any other well known person came on and said it was not - even if they were talking about the same thing as us - it would not carry as much weight. They need to say why, make a claim. If Nancy Pelosi came on and said it is not a part of the War on Terrorism because the language of the authorization did not do so under the umbrella of the initiative known as the "WoT," that is getting into the realm of a source we could use. We could state that some dispute the claim, were a dispute to exist. But you have yet to provide a single source which shows any sort of dispute exists over the language of the authorization. The only source we have is that of the authorization, from multiple sites, with identical language on each. They all authorize it under the War on Terrorism.
 * There is not a dispute over this, and you can either play cute and try to pre-empt what I will say, or you can provide a response that addresses what I have actually said. I will ask you a fourth time, provide sources which show a dispute exists over the language. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've given you sources of notable individuals who say, point blank, "Iraq is not a part of the War on Terror".You want to include the sentence "Iraq is a part of the War on Terror". If you want to say that a source who says "Iraq is not part of the War on Terror" is not in fact disputing the sentence "Iraq is part of the War on Terror", then you should consult this source.--Alecmconroy 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Point?
What point do you think I'm trying to make?Be careful!Better not say I want the ED article recreated, I've said several times that I don't.Milto LOL pia 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangely, please report any disruptive edit-warring at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Tom Harrison Talk 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Are you even looking at the text you are reverting?You are removing a citation that says the Uncyclopedia logo is a parody of the Wikipedia logo, and you're restoring a self-reference, which is supposed to be avoided.Stop reverting without discussing the changes; the article doesn't have to be static, and these blind, unexplained reversions are highly disruptive.Milto LOL pia 01:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I always love it when editors add things without discussion, and then insist a discussion occurs before anyone can remove them. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Be careful; you are close to a 3RR violation. --Chris Griswold( ☎  ☓  ) 04:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone object to adding a source to an unsourced statement?And discussion did occur on the talk page, which you have been ignoring.I even said so in my edit summary inserting that source.Milto LOL pia 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My intent was to revert the opening sentence, anything else would have been a mistake that I apologize for. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting an outsider's help
You and I "wikimet" during the Iraq War/ War on Terrorism naming debate.I am seeking your help as an objective, far-removed observer of the edits made by user Jmlodal to the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology article, starting with this one, through my edits, and up to the current one.Even though I am not a member of the group that has the biggest stake in this argument, I have a personal connection to this article that mitigates my ability to edit on controversial issues objectively.One might also note that the username of the other editor corresponds to the first two initials and last name of Mrs. Lodal's husband.For both of these reasons I am asking you, an objective, respected member of the community, to come in and straighten things out.Thank you.KevinPuj 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know Rangley or Mr. Puj.But I believe he says it all with his comment "I have a personal connection to this article that mitigates my ability to edit on controversial issues objectively."He inserted a misleading and irrelevent section into the subject article to persue a personal vendetta.This has no place in Wikipedia.It may well be appropriate to have a section on Elizabeth Lodal, but if so, it needs to be accurate and compete.I notice that Mr. Puj has now reverted back to his original section, ignoring all the insertions and edits made since I began this round of edits, including even the several edits he contributed that I left in.So for now, I am deleting Mr. Puj's personal vendetta section.Perhaps someone who truly is objective might write a new setion.Until then, this is not a major issue relative to TJ and the TJ article can do quite well without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlodal (talk • contribs)
 * I have no connection to the school, personal or otherwise, and frankly had not even heard of it or this controversy prior to the statements made on this talk page. He is being honest in stating that he does have a personal connection, but his personal connection does not make what he says automatically incorrect, any more than it might for you. It has to be judged on its own merits. I feel like this judging is better placed on the talk page of the article itself then here. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal vendetta against Mrs. Lodal.I am not even a member of the group that was so insulted by her simple statement of a fact.I removed myself from editing in a responsible way, and, Mr. Lodal, I would ask you to do the same.We can discuss the changes on the talk page and have a third party decide what to do with them.I did not revert back to the original section (which I did not write, by the way, so calling it "his original section" is inaccurate).Please check the edit history.This is a major issue relative to TJ, as evidenced by the multiple, non-trivial sources that reference it.KevinPuj 15:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with deciding to recuse myself from editing the section, I am unable to make a change on the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology article. But I would appreciate it if you took a look at this edit.KevinPuj 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War
Rangeley, as we have discussed many times, it is not appropriate for you to re-insert the disputed text against consensus. It has been brought to my attention that you have again re-inserted the disputed text.I therefore am going to begin proceedings against you, with the aim of having you blocked / banned from editing Wikipedia as a whole or Iraq War in particular.

If sometime before I lodge the complaint, you voluntarily self-revert and promise not to re-insert the text against yourself, I will accept that and will not proceed at this time.Given how many different individuals have tried to explain to you the inappropriateness of your behavior on this, however, I think that is an unlikely scenario, so I'll go ahead.

I'm sorry it's come to this.I hope you'll save us all a lot of time and hurt feelings by undoing your edit.--Alecmconroy 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will self revert. However, I also ask that you rejoin discussion. I gave you time to respond, and allowed for the possibility that you were on an extended break. But you have shown that you are not. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much.I appreciate that.Nobody wins when people start getting banned-- wikipedia just loses. --Alecmconroy 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the discussion-- I personally think I've said all I can say on the subject.My position is that the sources that express the opinion "Iraq is not part of the War on Terror" mean that we can't assert "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" as fact.I've made this point as clearly as I can-- nothing I can say is likely to change your mind on the subject, and so there are more productive ways I can help the encyclopedia than simply re-iterating this point to you. --Alecmconroy 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley-- thank you again for your self-revert.I have posted a very sharply-worded discussion on the talk page re-iterating that the repeated re-insertions need to stop until there is a truly solid consensus.Let me say, however, that while I mean what I say about a willingness to request banning,I'm not actually upset or angry or even really "peeved" in any way.If we knew each other in real life, I'm sure we'd have many excellent conversations, and you might find we agree on much more than you might suspect.

People need my assistance, they have repeatedly solicited my aid, and I think a certain amount of forcefullness is necessary to resolve the situation, so I'm willing to play that role as needed-- but just known I'm not actually mad at you or anything. :).I'll still try to get you banned, of course, if you return to your old ways of reinserting the disputed text -- but I won't hate your guts or anything-- it would just mean you're a good person, just one whose participation is causing more disruption than help.(and seriously, take me up on my offer to have me reinsert it for you if htere's a strong clear consensus--- I really would do it without a second thought.)

Given how much discussion has been spent on the issue, I have to say, I think there's absolutely zero chance that you'll get a consensus on the issue.So, let me suggest to you that short of a consensus, you have one other way to get the text in--- arbitration.I can almost guarantee you that if a consensus of Wikipedians did emerge, I would file a request to have the Arbitration Committee review the situation, because it's so far from my concept of NPOV.I certainly wouldn't begrudge you the same priviledge, so... if you wanted to file a request and get a definitive ruling on whether your disputed text complies with NPOV, if they took the case, I would be happy to step through that process with you, without animosity or anything towards you for filing it.

Lastly, as I've always said-- I'm not trying to make the readers think that Iraq is not part of WOT-- I'm just trying to make the page comply with NPOV.There's nothing wrong with the readers knowing that many people call Iraq part of WOT-- we just can't have Wikipedia being one of those people.To that end, I've written a short paragraph summaring the POV on the issue-- I included the congressional authorization you've pointed me to, mentions of the president's statements.I even did my own research and dug up a strongly worded house resolution that said Iraq is part of WOT and a 2003 poll where 80% of america said Iraq is part of WOT.I hope, perhaps naively, that having a whole paragraph chock full ofexperts, world leaders, and opinion polls saying that Iraq is part of WOT will take some of the pressure off with regard to the desire to have Wikipedia say Iraq as part of WOT.--Alecmconroy 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I see you've been soliciting opinions from users on the WOT issue.I should probably point you to Canvassing.It's a fuzzy area to be sure-- I generally feel, in a talk page discussion like this, that it's probably okay to ask people who already have stated opinions on the issue to discuss further (their opinions are on record anyway), whereas solicitiing the opinions of many new people to join in the discussion (especially based on their perceived POV) is probably a bit of a no-no.If you want to get more opinions, reposting an RFC is a always better way to get more eyeballs, as no one can accuse you of canvassing.--Alecmconroy 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a result of your solicitation, Zero has re-introduce the disputed text despite the lack of consensus.Assuming he doesn't revert it himself, I'd ask you to do the same.Some people are saying that you've actually understood the importance of consensus, and shouldn't be subjected to behavioral proceedings if you're really turned the corner.Others say that you've just taken a moment to recruit meatpuppets to do your editing for you.So, the edit-warring done by your associates presents us with a nice opportunity to determine which you were doing.If you wanted them to edit war for you, you don't need to do anything.If you understand now that the repeated reinsertion against consenssu was inappropriate, please remove the disputed text.As always, your decisions will dictate your outcomes. --Alecmconroy 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What concensus?

For Inclusion:
 * Rangeley
 * KevinPuj
 * Top Gun
 * Publicus
 * TheFEARgod
 * Tewfik
 * NuclearUmpf

Against
 * Alecmconroy
 * Timeshifter

This will be my response to you when you claim a concensus is on your side. --Nuclear Zer0 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One is fully able to contact people for discussions so long as they do so in a way so as to not lead the invitee on in a certain way or another. Arguably, you did lead on certain editors when you "solicited" peoples opinions, but as you can read with my message, I did not. I invited people who participated in the July discussion, people who I have met in articles such as the Somalian War and the Israel Lebanon conflict, as well as people who have joined the Terrorism and Counter Terrorism project. To insinuate that all of these editors are somehow POV pushers or meatpuppets is frankly a very bad faith assessment. While you snidely labeled this something "others say," your spreading of them makes you as inappropriate as the people who originally said them, whoever and wherever they may be. Nucleaumpf, Publicus, Kizzle, and Kevinpuj all pariticipated in the June discussion, and all disagreed with me at one point before agreeing to the comrpromise which they are yet again restating and supporting. Unfairlyimbalanced originally disagreed with me, and you even put him on your list, but if you actually read what he said he later agreed that so long as the resolution was cited, he would support showing it. There is no consensus against its inclusion. The consensus for its inclusion has not been shown to be built around false footing. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Side Switch
It seems like in every war article, the "good guys" are in section 1, while the "bad guys" are in 2. It seems right to put the coalition into one and the terrorists into 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CipherPixy (talk • contribs)

Request for Arbitration
Rangeley--I'm genuinely sad to inform you that I've decided to file a Request for Arbitration against you for your behavior on Iraq War and related pages.I'm genuinely sorry that we weren't able to see eye-to-eye on this.Since this is never a pleasant process, let me take a moment to say that just because we appear to be advesaries in this limited domain, don't think that extends to me actually thinking badly of you as a person.

Let me apologize again for the "imperative" tone I've had to take lately, or the imperative tone demanded by the RFAr process.It's silly, but I want to assure you I'm in no way "mad" at you or angry with you---to the extend that I was bold and forceful, it was just because I'd hoped that maybe if I was sufficently forceful, maybe we could avoid going through this process. In the end, I was mistaken and the forcefulness didn't help-- so in the end, nothing was gained by me writing in all bold and threatening action against you.So, I'm sorry for any bad blood that may have stirred up.

In the end, the worst I can say about you is that your edits may have placed your duty to your political convinctions, your nation, your planet ahead of your duty to comply with Wikipedia policies-- and in the end, who is to say if that is even a bad thing at all. --Alecmconroy 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you ceased to assume good faith. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't have to look at it as thinking you're acting in bad faith. As I said-- it's really just asking the Arbcom to take a look over things, see if everybody's doing their job, take whatever steps are necessary for the encyclopedia to continue with a minimum of disruption.Because of the brevity restrictions and the advesarial nature of the process, the arguements may come off sounding like I think you're a veritable war-criminal-- but that's far from the truth.Like I said, once we step out of the realm of Wikipedia policy discussions I'd prefer to see your actions not necessarily as "bad faith" as much as "higher faith".Arbcom may still have to choose to take strong action against you for the good of the encyclopedia-- but outside of that debate-- whatever your actions here, you're being altruistic-- taking time out of your life to educate and inform the rest of the world, and fighting for "truth, justice, and the american way", as you see it.


 * So, no, I haven't stopped assuming good faith about you Rangeley-- far from it!It's just that your attempt to make the world a better place is getting in the way of my attempt to make the world a better place, and so we need Arbcom to sort it out for us. --Alecmconroy 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Enough of the nicities, I frankly dont care about what you personally think of me, and this has never played into this whatsoever. I do not need to be patronized, you have accused me of acting in the interests of something other than Wikipedia - in saying I am acting in a "higher faith" or "truth, justice, and the american way." I am not working for these things, my personal opinion on this issue is irrelevent. I have not even really stated my personal views on this issue because I understand that Wikipedia is not a forum. My argument has never been "I think this, so we must do this," its been that we have the language of the authorization - it was authorized under the campaign. Governments have the ability to put things in their campaigns. When Mao announced The Great Leap Forward, things listed as parts of it were inarguably parts of this "Great Leap Forward" campaign, even if they truly did not bring the nation forward. Infact, many beleive it brought the nation backwards. But this doesnt keep us from stating it as part of the campaign.
 * You invited members to the discussion, I invited members to discussion. In your invite, one could argue you led on the invitee with your language, in mine I did not. I invited people who participated in discussion previously, nearly all of whom at one time opposed its inclusion but later worked with me to meet a middle ground - as well as people who had shown themselves to be objective in other articles I have dealt with. Votestacking is a misnomer, to begin with, as we dont "vote," nor does a majority view win out. Instead, we determine things through consensus and weights of arguments. These people helped put together the last consensus, making concessions from their original stances in order to create a compromise solution. To call this "votestacking" is both incorrect and inappropriate.
 * I have not acted out of my personal views, I have acted in good faith and have attempted to show what is verifiable from reliable sources. Even Timeshifter seems to have conceded that the authorization is the authority on this issue, not polls, his issue is that he does not beleive it should go in the infobox due to the rule on using the word terrorist/terrorism. Your filing of this request - despite my lack of editing the article remotely since I self reverted - does not help us discuss, especially as you stated above your intention of preventing me from ever editing Wikipedia again. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 18:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You should be aware of this Requests for comment/Rangeley. --Alecmconroy 10:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck
I see you tried many many middlegrounds, but circular logic will keep up the nonsense forever. If you have not noted Timeshifter has argued that terrorism cannot appear in the infobox, then says it can at the bottom. They just do not want it at the top, the arguement that WTA isnt being met is false as explained on the RfC, and even their own edits dont look to meet WTA by adding a see also for casus belli, in that case its not being explained at all who says or giving a citation. Hope they do not drive you ove rthe edge, but this is a common tactic, giving what you know the other person isnt interested in, then it always looks like you tried. The truth of the matter is neither have ever stated that its not part of WoT, so neither has given a reason why it should not be in the portion of the template where we list campaigns. Timeshifter will circle around WTA indefinatly even though TheronJ stated he is reading it wrong and that the compromise meet its requirements. So good luck. Seems they only care about admins who are taking their side, quoting Xoloz, but ignoring TheronJ. --Nuclear Zer0 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing about Xoloz is that he didnt take their side, he made the decision that the Wikipedia:WOT was not a consensus in itself. I wasnt happy with the decision at the time, because I was worried that all that time was put to waste. But in reality the discussion there really helped to reach a consensus later on.
 * There have been a lot of misleading, if not outright false accusations thrown around, but I dont let them get to me. If someone wants to continue to say I called a poll a consensus, even after I quote my exact wording showing otherwise, they are free to. They will just look silly for doing it. Ultimately, this "behavioral" issue is a side one. I think we can get past it and address the real issue, which beleive it or not is similar in ways. If someone wants to continue to point us to WTA and say we are violating it, even after we point out what we are doing is an example of what you should do, they are free to. They will just look silly for doing it. Luckilly, though, most arent doing this. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but the person who reverts wins, if you have 30 people who discuss and one that reverts, you are effectively ignored, no matter how large your concensus. So he can look silly saying WTA all day and just keep reverting, while everyone else that agree's with TheronJ are ignored. That is what being a nice editors gets you. As long as its not more then 3RR in a day, no penalty either. --Nuclear Zer0 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found WOT, and now I'm really confused.  Tewfik Talk 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That was an old place for discussion made this summer by me with the intent of merging all discussion into one place (before that it was going on at templates, at the Iraq War, Invasion of Iraq, etc.) The discussion that occured there contributed into the summer consensus, which was overturned by this latest one. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how Kirill's explanation changes anything... Perhaps you could enlighten me?  Tewfik Talk 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox's "part of" field's explanation says its for the wider war, or campaign for which something is a part. What he explained is that there are actually two types of campaigns, one is a neutral term for a set of wars or battles, the other is a sort of government campaign, like a program. While the Iraq war is indeed a part of the WoT campaign, this is one of the latter types of a campaign, which is not what the "part of" field was meant for.
 * Before his input, the only reasons put forward against including it were basically that it wasnt really a part of the campaign, which I vehemently disagreed with and argued against, using things such as the language of the Iraq Resolution. And now it seems that even the most ardent opponents of the idea its a part of conceded this fact and agree with me that it is. Its just that its not the right sort of campaign for the part of field, which might have been a useful thing to know way back when, but oh well. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For Work on Iraq War "Part of WOT" debate
The Resilient Barnstar