Template talk:War on Terrorism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Archive now! 2 Vote 3 participants list 4 Template Layout RFC 5 Overhaul 6 Found a couple of Templates that are ripe for deletion 6.1 TfD nomination of Template:War in Iraq 6.2 TfD nomination of Template:WoT 7 The 7/7 London attacks 8 New layout discussion 9 Inclusion of major bombings in Iraq 10 Globalize Tag 11 Templates and what they are used for 12 Why... 13 Title is not NPOV 14 Unacceptable, not negotible 15 Hezbollah

Archive now!

Apologies for top posting. This talk page urgently needs archiving. Can somebody who knows how please do it? Thank you. --Guinnog 14:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Archived. Enjoy. --Bobblehead 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote

We should just take a tally of who thinks what events belong and dont. This is getting out of hand and I almost regret asking for it to be unprotected. Feel free to add things you feel needs a vote on, just vote oppose or support them being included please. Comments welcomed as always. Vote support to keep, oppose to remove.

Bybee Memo

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support If unlawful combatant gets a link, then Bybee Memo should get a link. --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

1. Support --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support If only because the Bush Admin says it is. --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose --TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Detroit Sleeper Cell

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Chechen War

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Sfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Theatre Hostage

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support--TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Six

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arab Israeli Conflicts

1. Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Aussie King Pin 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Conflict as a whole not single events (as there are too many) PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support As per PPGMD, only linking the Arab-Israeli Conflict article, not each event. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Flymeoutofhere 12:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
8. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose --TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Are we voting to remove or retain them? --Guinnog 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

oppose to remove, support to keep. Sorry about that, clarified above as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

When I support the Arab Israeli conflict, I only support 1 link to the whole conflict. I don't support links to every event and every person involved in the conflict. Aussie King Pin 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go with that as a compromise. And can we please get rid of all the politicians' names? They are mentioned in the respective articles anyway and having so many just looks like templatecruft to me. As it stands, the template is an eyesore. With about 70-80% deleted, it could serve a useful purpose. --Guinnog 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnog, If we got rid of the pollies we could add all things above without worring about space Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be best to add countries, I made a template above but I wanted the content RFC to finish before the template RFC begins regarding layout. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm striking out Esaborio's vote as he has been blocked for being user:Copperchair avoiding his block. Circeus 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

participants list

I have taken the liberty of reediting the list of participants in the War on Terror, since the old list was full of errors: i.e. Chavez as participant??? he rants a lot, but he is not involved actively. I have decided to include all Nations that are or were contributing troops or are part of the coalition of the willing. Further I have included nations that are actively involved in intelligence operations (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have important Anti Terror Bases on their soil (i.e. Tajikistan) and/or fight a national Al-Qaeda affiliate (i.e. India, Indonesia). Also I merged the list of Politicians from the Participants list with the important figures list, since the war on terror is in most nations a state commitment and does not change when the people in power change, albeit sometimes the way how it is fought changes (i.e. Zapatero in Spain). I hope this edits meets with your approval noclador

I'm awfully sorry but I very strongly didn't like it and have reverted for now. Templates should not attempt to be articles in their own right. A simple, clear design is what we are after, not even more clutter. --Guinnog 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That is much better! --Guinnog 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The WoT is against more than just al Qaeda and the Taliban.. And is the Taliban really valid opponent anymore? They aren't in power in Afghanistan anymore and most of the attacks in Afghanistan are coordinated with the al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan. If we're going to include the Taliban, shouldn't Iraqi insurgency be included? If we don't keep Taliban, maybe something along the lines of "Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist organizations". --Bobblehead 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we haev the main participants listed by country again and not just "allies" considering there is more then enough room in the column. If noone objects I will get to work on this again. Furthermore Philippines and Pakistan are main participants, there are wars going on in their country or at least large scale insurgent activities. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I will be readding Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf as main participants. This template developed into a very single minded idea it seems. The WOT is not limited to AQ and the Taliban. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me. I edited the template because, when I came upon it, it was full of errors: South American presidents like Néstor Kirchner, Evo Morales, Michelle Bachelet, Vicente Fox, Alan García and Hugo Chávez were included in the list of Primary participants!!! But people like Sarkawi or Nasrallah were missing! In that form the template was a joke and a bad one. None of the above mentioned South American presidents is in any way involved in the War on Terror and therefore I edited them out and inserted all the nations (War on Terror: Allies) that were or are contributing troops to the War on terror and the nations that participate in other ways in this war. Since the template then became way to long I moved all the nations involved to an new article (War on Terror: Allies) and let only those nations on the template that are actively involved on every front in this war and are contributing the majority of the soldiers and intelligence operations worldwide: the UK and US. Also I decided to only put Al- Qaeda on the template, because the war began as a war against Al- Qaeda and all the other Terrorist organizations either were founded later or allied themselves after September 11th with Al- Qaeda. Also I listed only nations on the primary participants list, because war is not a politicians personal thing, but a national cause and therefore doesn’t change when the government changes (as proven by the fact, that in the old template no less than three !! Canadian Prime Ministers were listed as Primary participants.) I moved the list of persons involved to the last column of the template and removed everyone from the list, who has no connection to the war on terror (i.e. Chavez) or does not have any information in his wiki article about the war on terror. If anyone does not agree with my edits- that is ok and I encourage everyone to make useful edits- but please do not edit in deliberate errors as putting Michelle Bachelet President of Chile since 4 months on the template as Primary participant! noclador

I have no problem with conflicting edits, but perhaps you may want to find out who added certain presidents and ask them why, perhaps he made an announcement or offered some sort of assistance etc. Not saying he did, but it may server a better purpose to find out why he was added. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked on the discussion page if there are reasons given for the presence of the South American presidents on the template- i checked them all- and there is not a single entry about them! So I concluded that is a form of vandalism and removed them. noclador

Template Layout RFC

I am proposing the following layout, not the content in it as that is being voted on above. I think its more concise and to the point. The template is below, please say if you oppose or support using this template or leave comments on what you feel needs changed, once again its the layout, not the content in it you will be voting on.

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose - Places too much emphasis on the military aspects of the WoT. As Bush said, it's a war that will be fought on many fronts, not all of which are military fronts. Keep the Main events, Specific articles, and Primary participants. Shift the Theatres of Operation into Specific articles.--Bobblehead 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry I meant the sections etc. Not specifically their order. The order they are in comes from the WW2 template I believe. So other then simply the order you have no issue with the layout? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Also how do you feel about Theatres being last then, to list who before listing where. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Meant more removing that column completely. I originally thought there was content in the column worth keeping, but in looking at it closer, the articles are already in the Main Event column. The WoT isn't a WWI style conflict, it's more on par with War on Drugs and as such, the entire globe is its theatre of operation (except antartica, gotta watch out for those penguins, but they aren't terrorists).--Bobblehead 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Considering the arguement is that its like the War on Drugs which has no locations of fighting, this actually does. Hence the need for a Theatres of Operations section. You say its not a WW2 style conflict then state it takes place all over the world, would those not be the same in fact? WW2 took place in Africa, the US, Europe, China, etc. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps you've heard of Colombia, Panama, and Nicaragua? The US is heavily involved in the Columbian government's current war with FARC and their former fighting with the cartels, overthrew Noriega in Operation Just Cause in part because of his drug trafficking ties, and the CIA was nice enough to help the Nicaraguan Contras smuggle cocaine into the US in exchange for them fighting the Sandinistan government. But that's neither here nor there. The WoT is a global operation, there are areas with flare-ups of armed combat, but the operation is definitely not limited there. The US is involved in anti-terrorist operations(sometimes regular military, generally special forces, intelligence, and monetarily) in most Middle Eastern countries, many SE and Central Asian countries, a number of African (not just in the horn), and throughout Europe and North America. Basically any country that has Islamic extremists and is willing to get help from the US. As I said, if you want to use the Theatre of Operation moniker, it's the entire globe, not just where the US and it's allies' militaries are involved in armed conflict. I think you're hung up on the word "War". --Bobblehead 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I dont understand your point, are you saying since there are lots of theatres of operations we shouldnt list any? or that there is none and they are just "flare-ups"? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hmm.. Excellent question.. It's not that there are too many theatres of operations, because in the most literal sense of the phrase there are only a few (Middle East, Asia (South, Central, Southeast), and Africa), but that the nature of WoT makes the use of the term obselete. ToP has historically been used only in the context of military campaigns with relatively well defined command and control structures established within those ToPs. The decentralized nature of terrorist organizations, the lack of use of the military in many WoT activities (No military actions in N. America and Europe), and no official declaration of ToPs seems to preclude us from using that term. There also isn't a need to include the column as the other columns already cover what would go there as far as content. WWI and WWII templates have linkable articles to ToPs as they were defined by the militaries at the time or historians since, WoT doesn't have these and any content we add will merely be self-imposed division with links already used in other areas of the template. --Bobblehead 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment

1. I agree with the format expect for the fact that major events need two columns not one. Aussie King Pin 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Would you be ok with removing Theatres of Operations as per Bobbleheads idea and then expanding main events into 2 columns that way? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I think that's a great idea Aussie King Pin 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Make that change and I'll flip to Support as far as the format goes. It should also reduce the general size of the template. --Bobblehead 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I will make the changes later tonight, are there any content issues people would like to call more votes on in the RfC above? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I witnessed some hours ago the edit war going on about the War on Terrorism template. The majority of you want a World War-like template, instead of a Cold War-like template. I, for one, adhere to what the majority seems to want. After investigating the countries involved in the coalition in the United States war in Afghanistan article, and after watching the format for the templates for both World War I and World War II carefully, I have come up with this proposal:

It is far from complete (for example the "See Also" section currently lists only the "Contemporaneous conflicts"), but it is a start. I used the version that was similar to the Cold War template because of the number of countries involved, not because I prefer that version, as I stated at the beginning of this post. Thoughts? SPECTRE 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it however I think the see also section is not needed. Also the theatres should not be split by our interpretation of importance. Some people however have stated they did not like the theatres because its not a traditional war. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, we could remove the theatres, but the See Also section is needed for the "Contemporaneous conflicts". SPECTRE 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a vote above that is greatly against the inclusion of Second Chechen War being included which only really leaves a section with 1 event, the Al-Aqsa Intifida. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've changed quite a bit of the template. Please provide feedback.

It looks like this:

--Soviet Canuckistan 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like it. Far too big and unwieldy (a template should not do duty as an article in its own right). Also, as I think I said already, our style here is not to use capitals for headings or emphasis. Sorry for being so negative, but it's better to be honest. --Guinnog 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ill chime in here as well. I think the capitals need to go. The Israeli/Palestinian/Lebanon items need to be removed as well. Most of the Islamphobe related stuff should be removed as well. North Korea and Iran and Syria should be removed as well as Cuba, the whole state sponsor section I guess. From PA groups from terrorist organizations. Remove Islamofascism/wahhabism/clash of civilizations/al-jazeera. i think that is it. PS I already proposed a template and there is a discussion on what items should be on the template above. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the input. Soviet Canuckistan 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a couple of Templates that are ripe for deletion

TfD nomination of Template:War in Iraq

Template:War in Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bobblehead 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WoT

Template:WoT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bobblehead 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The 7/7 London attacks

I noticed that the 7/7 London attack is not on the template. This is part of the war on terror. Everything in the template is correct but that and the Madrid attacks are missing.

Amlder20 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is also missing a few other bombings, but if you see anything missing, feel free to add.;) Currently working on a new template above, but no sense in leaving London and madrid off. --Bobblehead 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a section above if you want to get peoples feedback before adding anything, kid of a quick poll. As for the layout have we come to any conclusions? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok new idea for sake of speed. How about we remove the "important figures" column, and change main participants to be a list of countries and move it over to where important figures are. Then move specific articles over to where main participants was, then finally use the blank column where specific articles was to split main events into basically the terrorist attacks. So we will have each side represented in its own column, cutting down on the length the article will be over time. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of the important figures is definitely a good idea. All in all. I like it. --Bobblehead 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New layout discussion

Since the new layout is out there, might as well start a new section for it's discussion. I'm not sure I like splitting the main events up into 'faction' columns. Maybe something like:

--Bobblehead 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I preffered the split because it showed who was doing what, it also allowed a quick comparison to see what may have been in reaction to what. However I do not object to this layout as well. My primary concern was keeping the template in a manner that was not overbearing to articles it was attached to, this accomplishes the same goal I suppose. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One side may have instigated the action, but both sides are doing someting this is especially the case in the US, NATO, & Allies column where within the operations there are terrorist activities (daily bombings in Iraq, ambushes in Afghanistan, etc). In the case of the terrorists column you have police investigations, trials, etc. That's my main reasoning for only one column. So if it's alright, I'll put in the version I suggested above? --Bobblehead 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont get what you are saying really, Operation OPOLLO is a Canadian operation, there are no terrorist activities involved in it. The only one that it really applies to Waziristan War and Iraq War since they are not named by operational codename, which could be changed if that is the only objection. Feel free to put your version up while we discuss, as long as you are willing to continue discussing. I am not really opposed to it, just feel a split colum would be more appropriate to help people distinguish, another idea I had would be to add dates (Dec 2) style to the end of the event to better help people track events that way and see what might have sparked what conflict, that can be applied to either layout. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I have a horrible habit of having half the conversation in my head. But just to avoid the confusion, I'll just let the topic drop since we seem to be in agreement? I like adding the dates, especially to the ones that don't already have dates in the title. --Bobblehead 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So i leave it to you to split the columns or not, I have no objection to the one you did above, especially if the dates are added since it creates a similar effect anyway. If you want to use the single column + dates I will take that as a more then reasonable middleground. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the template and added dates. I'm not sure I like where I put the dates though. It makes the rows look really busy. But I'm leaving for the day so can't make any more updates. If you have any ideas on how to handle the dates, feel free to do so.. Maybe going without the bullets and using the dates instead? --Bobblehead 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the main column larger since participants does not need as much room. I was thinking just starting dates, but at 1280x1024 it looks fine. If you want to cut it down to just starting feel free another time. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of major bombings in Iraq

Since TheFEARgod added Canal Hotel Bombing to the template, thoughts on adding other major Iraq bombings? Unfortunately the volume of the killing in Iraq may preclude us from including them. A thought might be to link toSuicide bombings in Iraq since 2003. But even that doesn't include all of the major bombings.. IMHO might be better to just not include the bombings within Iraq or risk having a huge template again... --Bobblehead 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, they really arent notable in and of themselves, but instead in the context of the war in general, which is linked to. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalize Tag

I have (re)added a Globalize tag addressing the US-centered nature of the article, such as using Codenames given by the US to military incursions. Sfacets 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Codenames are used by all parties ie Israel and Canada. Please review more carefully, I am removing the tag as it seems your reason doesnt make it a need for US globalize. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and those that are inordinately long or include the date in the title, the links in the template are the links of the article name in Wikipedia. If you want to add some links to the template, give it a go and see what happens.;) --Bobblehead 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, the fact that these codenames are used demonstrates bias - would someone in Iraq/Afghanistan use those names? Also re-arranging the main participant section connotes that organisations such as Al-Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, and the Taliban are leading the War on terrorism... which isn't the case. Sfacets 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first point, who is the bias against if everyone has the codename? putting Iraq War may not work either, people in Iraq may call it the American invasion, people in afghanistan may call it the liberation of Afghanistan etc. As for yuor second point, many of these operations were carried out by or are specifically against those groups. so I am not sure what the point is there at all. Are you saying OEF-A wasnt against the Taliban and al-Qaeda or OEF-P wasnt against Abu Sayyaf or Jemaah Islamiyah? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that listing the aforementioned groups ontop of the other participants separated by the word "against" would suggest that they were heading the "war on terrorism". As for codenames, most people do not know which events the codenames correspond to - if "OEF" corresponds to the reaction of the US to the events of 9/11 then it should read "reaction of the US to the events of 9/11" and not 'hide' behinfd a codename that only holds significance to a certain party or population. Sfacets 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This isnt an article its a sumplement to an article, if they want to know what OEF stands for they click the OEF link and it takes them to an article on OEF ... As for against what method of seperation do you reccomend? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates and what they are used for

Zero, you are the one that apparently needs to go look at the other templates because they sure do include more than just 'events'. Just to name a few that are not events. In WWI you have Naval warfare, Air warfare, Cryptography, People, Poison gas, Railways, and Technology. In WWII you have Blitzkrieg, Cryptography, Equipment, Home Front, and Production. In Cold War you have Iron Curtain, Non-Aligned Movement, Containment, and Rollback. The point of a template is to make it easy for people to find related articles that might be of interest to them. Like it or not, but criticisms of WoT is something that is of interest to people. --Bobblehead 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note none of those are criticisms and none of the template contain articles like that. These are templates they are a listing of events related, and items of direct interest, not a chance to go for or against. Again please follow the layout that all of the other templates use, thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Could be because there isn't an article for Criticisms of World War I, World War II, and Cold War. The templates do include links to things that aren't positive for the 'winning' side, such as Allied war crimes on the WWII template. It seems most of your opposition is that it doesn't present a happy clappy view of the WoT. If you read WP:NPOV nowhere does it say that NPOV only applies to articles.--Bobblehead 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, so doesnt this template include things that can make it look bad or make one disagree with it. The difference is that with the other templates the articles linked to tell it like it is, whereas the criticism article, much like an article titled "good things about the WoT," is ostensibly an article that lists arguments used in debates. But I dont oppose including a link to this article necessarilly, because it is still relevant. Not to balance the template or to reach NPOV, though, as there isnt a pro wot article on it to balance with one of criticisms. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why...

Israel-Lebanon conflict and not Chechen war??--TheFEARgod 16:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the war on terrorism is a campaign by the US and its allies. Russia is not an ally of the US and the US doesn't have any part in the Chechen war. The US also hasn't identified the war as being part of the WoT as they did the Israel-Lebanon conflict. --Bobblehead 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as the Chechen War began before the WoT, it obviously could not have been begun under it. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Title is not NPOV

"War on Terrorism" is propaganda. It's not NPOV. Change the title to "US-dubbed 'War on Terror'", or similar. We can't have propaganda terms stated like that on Wikipedia. If the terrorists "won" it would read "The Holocaust", if you see what I mean. The "enemy" don't think they're terrorists. Okay enough political banter, just change that title. --Alfakim-- talk 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I dont agree, would you say The Great Depression needs to be changed cause not all people were depressed? Better yet, do you really think none of these groups think of themselves as terrorist groups? --User:Zer0faults 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Created a strawpoll on Talk:War on Terrorism. Still capturing possible names for the article (the current name is acceptable, just needs to be added), so if you (Alfakim) would like to add a proposed name there with an explanation, that'd be great. --Bobblehead 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do historians refer to the war as the war on terror - more to the point will they do so in twenty years? They'll mention it was CALLED that, and it'll no doubt also be recognised as a propaganda term, which it is. It could have any number of names, they could even be abstract (e.g. the Cold War is a neutral name, rather than War on the Commies or The Strife Against Capitalist Dogs). The War on Terror article needn't change its name because that is a term that refers to something ("The 'War on Terror' refers to...") and so should be in an encyclopedia. But when a pan-article template dubs the entire crisis as the "War on Terror", it's endorsing a political standpoint. We mustn't have that. --Alfakim-- talk 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For about 20 years people called WWI "The Great War." And I am sure many other wars were reffered to by other names either locally or for a period of time. The War on Terror is known in most of the Western World as The War on Terror. The name is NPOV, and is well known. If history changed the name that it's reffered to we can make the changes, but until then Wikipedia isn't used to POV pushing, which your POV is that the War on Terror isn't what some call it. PPGMD 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. "Great War" is an NPOV title. "War Against the Evil Germans" isnt. Likewise, "War on Terror" is NOT NPOV. Thats very simple. Is there a place I can request arbitration on this? If they shut me up, I'll shut up. --Alfakim-- talk 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Great Depression is a POV title because it insinuates americans were depressed. Please stop already, its the name of an event, we cannot change it, there is an article on it, we may not liek the name but its a proper name, it doesnt have to meet NPOV. What are you gonig to name it to, and what is the point of renaming it when a redirect will still exist and the header will still say also known as War on Terror / War on Terrorism and still throught the article have references to WOT as the quotes contain them. This is really beating a dead horse already. --User:Zer0faults 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alfakim, here's the Resolving disputes process. --Bobblehead 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can just give him the links to the last 5 of those undertaken. I am not participating in another, feel free to ask whatever mediator to reference comments from the past ones if they need my input. I am tired of repeating the same thing over and over as we all here have many many times, you can see the archive for many examples. --User:Zer0faults 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and corrected the heading to something a little more NPOV. Ideally we wouldn't have to mention the term War on Terrorism at all, as it is not is popular use (except in an ironic sense) outside of the U.S. 80.192.21.20 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed, please see the archives and if you have a different arguement for it from those previously made, then feel free to introduce it. --User:Zer0faults 20:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable, not negotible

This template is against the foundations of wikipedias non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy. Actualy I'll keep this short since there are many many reassons why this template and perhaps linked articles are problematic. --Cat out 21:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, give up. See above. I've tried. Not happening. --Alfakim-- talk 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah

If the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is in Main events, should Hezbollah be in Main participants? --Adam (Talk) 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)