Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WOT

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. There is a consensus that this record should be maintained; there is also a consensus (with the support of policy) that this wiki-space page is not the proper method for the debate of article content. Several methods have been suggested for marking and/or moving the page to make clear that the page is non-optimal according to Wikipedia's standards for content discussion. For now, I will mark the page historical, with a special notation that any "consensus" supposedly found therein is deprecated in favor of a traditional RfC or talk page discussions. Xoloz 19:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WOT[edit]

Wikipedia is not a politics chatboard. That page now is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, it is not. It is discussing the issue of whether the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism, because as it stands several people insist it is not. Rather than continue an endless revert war, it was decided to bring the issue up for a discussion, the results of which could be considered the consensus policy used on this contentious issue. There is no basis to delete this page, as it would only continue an edit war and prevent us from reaching a consensus. Rangeley 14:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected excerpts from some of your recent contributions to the page - "I am sorry Nomen, but Saddam Hussein did have ties to terror.", "Are you claiming the USA knew Afghanistan had no ties to terror, and that Iraq had no ties to terror?", And Nomen, no, I am not claiming that the USA and allies can determine for the world what terrorism is.
- You do realize your excepts are by a user attempting to change the question being asked right? They have been notified of this numerous times yet continue to attempt to change the question into a matter of justification instead of a factual question of did it happen. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those diffs are by Rangeley. You are complaining about the conduct of Nescio. All three of you should be directed to some politics argument forum. Please pay attention. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nescio claimed that the Iraq War was not part of the War on Terror because the US knew Iraq had no ties to terrorism. I disproved him, in an effort to show that the USA did truly begin the war as a part of the war on terrorism. This is what the discussion is about, and it is clearly stated, that this is addressing "The recognition of the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism." If we cannot discuss the facts of the issue without it being deleted, how are we ever to reach a consensus? Rangeley 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - THey are by Rangely directed at Nescio, perhaps you need to pay attention and read the page you attempt to have deleted. Would you prefer this take place on the Iraq War page for umpteenth time? Turning it into a complete mess yet again? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would prefer that all of you go do something encyclopedic and stop arguing about current events throughout an encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I would prefer you research this whole issue before assumings its negative. Did you even read the intro to see why the discussion is taking place? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Hippocrite, I beleive there is a misunderstanding here. Allow me to state the context. Since April, there has been an edit war in the Iraq War article, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article, the War on Terrorism Article, and the War on Terrorism template. Some say the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism, some say it is not. Rather than revert back and forth indefinately, we are attempting to discuss this in a civil nature, in one, centralized article. This is how you deal with things at wikipedia. Deleting it is counter-productive and would only cause the edit war to continue. Rangeley 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please review WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you please point ot the article in which this poll is being used as a source? I asked you for this alraedy and you have failed to provide it, I hope you are not just spitting out acronyms and really do have a location that this page is being used as original research. Also this page does not violate NPOV because its a discussion and noones opinions are being excluded, its actually quite the opposite since the poll is extremely inclusive of everyones POV, not that WP:NPOV even applies to discussions. This is also not an article, hence WP:V is not even valid. I would like to know how many talk pages you placed WP:V on ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is in bad faith, this user seem to not even know what is gonig on, on the page. It clearly states its an attempt to discuss the issue of if Iraq is part of the War on Terror in a location that does not clog up the current page. If anyone has seen the Iraq War article talk page they would see why. Furthermore its an attempt for everyone to layout out what they feel to work towards a middleground and some users have been doing, such as Kizzle, myself and Hazium on the talk page and the other ideas section. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected excerpts from some of your recent contributions to the page - What do you understand to be the factual reason for the war in Iraq if you maintain WMD's and terrorism was not the reason?, Factually speaking, why did the US goto war with Iraq, since you do not believe it was WMDs or terrorism., that change the fact that the stated reason was that they were prowar?.Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, is there a reason you feel I cannot ask another user why they feel WMDs and terrorism was not the reason? Are you stating I not allowed to ask a question? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT for arguing about weapons of mass destruction and why countries went to war. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a discussion taking place on the talk page, people are brainstorming how to improve and expand on the Iraq War/War on Terror issue. Please read everything before commenting. YOu seem to only focus on the negative aspect of one users attempts to derail the discussion and poll. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Immediately prior to the above comment, user wrote "No matter how much you change the words around the fact remains Iraq was found to be a state sponsor of terrorism, are you denying the PALF incident, or are you stating Saddam is not on trial right now for what the dictionary definition of terrorism is, the one I have already provided." Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again you will see that is in response to Nescio trying to reframe the debate about if its over justification or not. Thank you for yet againt proving my point. If you would read the article, you would see its not about justification. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are attempting a discussion to find a middleground, how do you expect people to do this if they cannot ask questions and understand other views. This is beginning to become comical. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that you are not attempting a discussion to find a middleground, but rather engaging the the standard pastime of arguing about current events. Wikipedia is not for arguments about current events. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are attempting to reach a consensus on the issue of "The recognition of the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism," as is stated in the article itself. It is not a political debate. Rangeley 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop providing me with diffs that demonstate political arguments as opposed to discussions about what to include in an encyclopedia article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Read the introduction. Its about the inclusion of War on Terror in the Iraq War article. Of course its a political discussion, it involves politics. Its however not just a political discussion, its about the inclusion of a major combat operation in its umbrella group. Not everythnig is black and white. Its about the inclusion of content into the encyclopedia that has previously been withheld.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that is certainly what you say the page is about. The facts on the ground beg to differ. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        When a user claims that Saddam Hussein did not support terrorism and therefore the Iraq War cannot be considered to be part of the War on Terrorism, the way to show this to be wrong is both to show Saddam supported terror, and that even if he did not, the shear fact that the US beleived him to is enough to qualify it. I dont understand your objection. Rangeley 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid poll. One-sided. etc. Kevin Baas^talk 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the straw poll (like any straw poll) will not matter, it merely gauges oppinion on a proposed solution. The discussion that takes place will be the determinant for the consensus. Rangeley 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be one sided if its a poll? You agree or you disagree with the question --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is being used to build consensus.← ΣcoPhreek _contribs ^talk→
Delete. Whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terror is a matter for references and talk pages. It's not a matter of editors opinions, any more than any other matter on Wikipedia. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is there to garner a concensus without further messing up the talk page. Please see the talk page in question and read the Wikipedia:WOT section for specific links. Oddly enough for a test, maybe you should add partof=War on Terror, to the Iraq War article, and give a source and see what happens. This page was created to avert edit wars taknig place on numerous pages and to consolidate the discussion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with a subpage behind one of the article talk pages? Ansell 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete and confirm this debate is settled, a poll does not need a seperate page, especially since this subject has already been debated at length and consensus was invading Iraq is not part of WOT. Restarting the debate untill you get the result you like is not wikipedia policy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to think that you have no clue what you voted for before, the question was, does War on Terror belong in the infobox. Also polls are to facilitate building a concensus, they themselves are not a concensus. You and Mr. Tibbs refuse to read Wikipedia:Straw polls for some reason. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? Its been stated countless times a poll is not a consensus, and most certainly not a poll that results in a mere 6 vote difference as the one did that you call a consensus. The poll in this article has reached a 14 point difference in the other direction, highlighting how polls should never be used to determine anything here. The weight of arguments is the only factor that we should consider, and this is why this must not be deleted. Rangeley 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hopefully can be a preemptive strike on future edit wars by building a consensus. Rmt2m 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This project should have the chance to be Wiki-0wned... If you don't like it, than vote against it rather than for deleting the page. --kizzle 20:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an overall encyclopedia issue. It is not even a project. It is american's putting forward their point of view on what their countries actions mean. Ansell 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is the wrong way to go about this process, you do not need a Wikipedia page to decide upon this issue. Talk pages with reliable evidence should be user. Note WP:V and WP:NOR. --Wisd e n17 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the topic itself notes, discussion had gone on for months in different talk pages. It got confusing, and was silly considering it was all about the same thing. So it was centralized into one place, consider it a mega talk page. Its not in violation of either of those policies you linked to. Rangeley 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly worthwhile. We let RFC's go on constantly, this is just on a more widely known issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not an RfC, as you imply it is? Then it wouldn't have a problem. It is out of place. BTW, what in the RfC guidelines says that something is not suitable for RfC if it is too widely known? Ansell 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep This deletion request is subversive. Debate the topic through discussion, not bureaucracy. Haizum 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of the page may be said to be subversive, given its obvious POV arguments. Why not move it to a real RfC? Ansell 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep I believe I understand why the page was created, but I don't understand what the objectives are. Kind of smells of a POV fork, but if there is a way to reach a finding of fact about the subject, maybe this is the only way to handle such a controversial issue. We can always delete it when the findings are agreed to be either true or false.--MONGO 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is based in POV, not attempting to "find facts". The page is here not because of its lack of finding of fact, wikipedia has structures, and saying that this goes over a few pages does not mean you can ignore them. Ansell 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Reformat into a proper article RfC, which is what this should be. Jkelly 23:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat into a proper article RfC. Perhaps a rule that single editors only can make a certain percentage of the edits on it would be helpful. Añoranza 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be better than unhindered discussion? Rangeley 01:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the page unhindered discussion? And does this discussion have a rational basis? Ansell 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For one, people are not limited to a certain number of responses and are free to discuss as much as they want to. I dont see how limiting how much can be said would help the discussion, or attempt for a consensus. Rangeley 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Reformat as RfC or move to a subpage of the related pages Show me where it says that the Wikipedia: namespace is to be used for content polls. This is not an administrative issue. Ansell 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Should not be on the project namespace. This should be on the article's talk page. Vote stacking concerns are also an issue. El_C 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote does not matter, and this is dealing with more than one article: Iraq War, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, War on Terrorism and the War on Terrorism template. Rather than have an identical discussion in all 4 places as had previously occured, it was decided to centralize it in one place, so that all arguments are seen. Rangeley 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this discussion belongs on Talk:Iraq War, but it certainly does not belong in the Wikipedia project space. joturn e r 02:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one discuss an issue that deals with several different articles, such as this, if not the Wikipedia namespace? If there is a place, let us move it there, rather than delete it. Rangeley 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the regulars at the articles in question decided that this might be a better way to sort things out than the round-and-round they seem to have been involved in for a while, then I don't see any benefit in telling them no, that they have to restart on another page, or fill out the proper paperwork, or some kind of wonky nonsense like that. These people are trying to improve the encyclopedia as far as I can tell; there's no reason to delete this page out from under them. Don't worry about the fact that it looks like a poll - nothing's being decided by any numbers. If the page is in the wrong namespace, that is not reason to delete it; it's reason to suggest moving it, but since it relates to more than one article, I don't see any particular article's talk page as being appropriate. The project namespace is good enough for Wikiprojects, and this is a similarly themed endeavor. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion they are arguing over politics, not improving the encyclopedia. They could just as easily put notices on the three or four involved talk pages directing people to one of the involved talk pages instead of setting up a poll about what is a heavily POV content issue in project namespace. Ansell 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  I see no harm being done. Are they tracking mud all over the clean project namespace, or what? Maybe some people there are arguing politics, but such is the magic of the Wiki that a few people like that can be herded into improving the encyclopedia despite themselves if a few people who really know what's going on are involved. Have you tried to join the conversation, find the fundamental issues, and help remind the participants what will be necessary to improve the encylopedia? How would deleting this page teach anybody anything constructive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  The discussion implies a number of things to start out with, 1) that America is immune to any involvement as terrorists themselves, which given their behaviour in South America in the last 30-40 years does not impress me to delve in on their side implicitly, and 2) that the War on Terrorism is a real war, and we are simply making a truth decision on whether to include a conflict in the overall war. It smells of rhetoric without a firm basis in NPOV to me. Teaching people that wikipedia does not implicitly take the American POV when deciding on issues would be a big plus for moving this discussion to an RfC, or to a subpage of one of the related talk pages. By being in project space it puts up what you are so against with Userboxes, that wikipedia would be putting up a POV instead of a NPOV. BTW, changing my vote for the reasons stated above. Ansell 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  All I can say to that is I recommend you view again what exactly is being addressed. It is not implying that Saddam Hussein even supported terrorism in the conclusion that was put to a straw poll, but instead rides on the fact that the USA and allies can add wars to a campaign that they created and defined. Rangeley 03:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
  (edit conflict) Ansell, I think the best way to make people aware of those concerns of yours would be to talk about them, to those people. Pushing a page around different namespaces is easier than engaging people in constructive dialogue, but is it more effective? I don't see much similarity between this page and userboxes - this is at least about deciding on encyclopedic content. GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, June 20, 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep only because I believe the discussion could have an impact on multiple pages. --InShaneee 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the more talking there is, the less fighting there will be. Scented Guano 07:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - without saying anything about the debate topic, there is nothing to be wronged by discussing whether something belongs or not. Consensus is always drawn on heated issues to determine the best course of editing. Because this discussion was scattered across so many pages, a centralized location was created allowing the merging of ideas and opinions. By the way: If you want to vote to disagree with the Iraq War being part of the WOT, vote at Wikipedia:WOT, and not here. Please do not vote delete here just because you don't like the way the straw poll is going, or because you disagree with the IW being WOT. Thanks, Ch u ck^(contrib) 08:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since having a seperate page for this debate is silly I started a proper RFC where people can comment and are directed to all previous discussions, contrary to this page where another view and reference to previous consensus is disallowed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, uh, I'm pretty sure that this is an MfD page, not a page where reference to previous consensus is disallowed. Taking this action while knowing that this MfD is open is inappropriate and evading consensus...something you seem so familiar with. Ch u ck^(contrib) 12:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a very civil comment. But you fail to explain why clarifying this unbelievably biased and manipulated (have you seen the massive vote-stacking and deletion of comments!) "poll" can be deleted, since a proper RFC has been filed, is "evading consensus." You are probably thinking that ignoring three pols which clearly objected to including Iraq to start yet another, this one, is a prime example of trying to reach consensus.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THis user has also been vandalising this poll to get across their political point, a clear violation of WP:POINT. THey setup their own poll, which is fine if they do want to use the current discussion, but they have also attempted to change the content of the poll after 20+ people have commented on it and voted in a particular favor. This has caused some people to ask questions such as Kizzle about the polls intention, because the content was changed afterward, they became confused on what they voted for. I think if Nomen refuses to participate in the current poll, which is his perogative, then he should cease attempting to change it to one he wants to participate in, even after starting his own. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, where is that long discussion with Kizzle where she more than convincingly addresses the flawed nature of your assertion Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism. Indeed, the entire debate is deleted. How about manipulating a poll!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kizzles vote currently stands in two locations, I am not sure what you are saynig was deleted? can you show the dif please. So I can address your accusations --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is not supposed to be a vote, so we are looking at what people say. Please provide the location of Kizzle's discussion. Again, you can't since her discussion, and others have been deleted.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOu have said before you haev trouble understanding so I will assume good faith in this fiasco. You are the one claiming Kizzles statements have been deleted from the WOT category page. Please provide a dif showing this deletion, since the dif would still be there, or cease your accusations. The discussion I was talking about, where your edits caused confusion is here [[1]], you can see Kizzles post and Rangeley explaining to Kizzle those were not the points, and your vandalism caused that confusion. I hope that better explains it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth noting Kizzle changed his position to agree after a lot of discussion about how we are talking about including the Iraq War in the specific conflict. Rangeley 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to WP:LAME. --Golbez 18:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gaming the system. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys stating it is both lame, and gaming the system to work towards a consensus through discussion? Rangeley 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man. I'm saying it's gaming the system to create a separate page for a discussion already going on, through a flawed poll, when the debate is already ongoing/been hashed out, just not to your satisfaction. An RFC would have been the appropriate step here. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- edit conflictIf building consensus means misrepresenting what the actual deabte is about, votestacking and prohibiting any reference to the previous debates (where people can see that your rendering of the debate is biased), yes it is lame and gaming the system.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 2 straw polls on this before, both carried out simultaneously with differing results. By definition a straw poll is not a consensus. The straw polls here will not be used for a consensus, but instead the conclusion we reach through debate. Rangeley 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep if marked essay or rejected, otherwise delete. You want them to have this whole argument again somewhere else? What poor talk page deserves that? If somebody wants to mark it "rejected, hit all participants with trout" I will support the marking, but deletion is unwarranted. Septentrionalis 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that having this debate for the fourth time is ridiculous?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth? Is it that few? Yes, of course it is. If you keep this, you can short-circuit the next time by saying: All this has been discussed at WP:WOT. Septentrionalis 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four times in two months seems a bit over the top to me. As to linking to this page, great idea if that is allowed. I tried to insert links to the other debates but people keep deleting them.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Nomen, I would love to have it have ended after one. But we never reached a consensus. Wikipedia:WOT#Introduction has links to the previous two polls that dealt with its inclusion in the Infobox. The introduction was removed, likely in the confusion caused when you continually edited the start of the article by inserting misrepresentations of what was being discussed. It is up again, so you no longer need complain. But do note that the two previous polls were different than the current topic, they dealt specifically with the infobox and not with whether or not it was actually a part of the specific campaign War on Terrorism. Rangeley 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC):::By the way, it is not an essay. It is an attempt to consensus build, meaning it would be used as policy to settle the edit war. Rangeley 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page demonstrates, what is of course the case, that there is no consensus on this point. Efforts to proclaim it policy are and will continue to be abusive. Septentrionalis 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again reference to the consensus is deleted.[2] Of course when I present the actual numbers and links to the debate this is misrepresenting the facts. Since people are not allowed to read these discussions themselves and see that there was consensus against your position this proves the poll is inherently flawed, biased and manipulated. All the more reason to delet.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating you beleive the results of a straw poll to be a consensus? Rangeley 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A genuine effort to build consensus would include reading WP:Consensus and the related pages. Straw polls can indeed be evidence of consensus. Septentrionalis 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To finally sort out the issue. Multiple articles have suffered enough because of the edit wars going on, especially on the template. --Edward Sandstig 09:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least get rid of the Wikipedia: part and userfy it somewhere.--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussion of editing policy should never be shut down. And no, it's never finished; established consensus can always be questioned. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom and deleters is seeking to kill discussion. --Mmx1 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already were two polls on this same issue: [3][4]. Also was a poll on the WMD issue: [5] Vote-stacking concerns: [6]. And Wikipedia is not a politics webforum. At least userfy the thing or turn it into an article RfC, as it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia: namespace. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those straw polls matter as much as this one. Straw polls have no bearing on consensus. Rangeley 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Weak Move and Redirect This shouldn't be a seprate page. It should be a subpage of a talkpage. It's good that we can resolve edit wars, but how the resolution is formatted is improper. (But I don't really have a strong opinion; this whole discussion is rediculous.)Tobyk777 07:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it deals with multiple pages, it made no sense to put it on any one existing talk page. Rangeley 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the RFC that is not biased and manipulated was deleted from the talk page I restored it. Also, although there is no consensus people have now include the disputed term in the infobx without disclaimer so I removed it. Wait untill we rerach consensus!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a concensus because out of 27 participants, 3 disagree, one of those being you. Oddly enough you have already admitted that Iraq had ties to terrorism, the war on terror was about terrorist, the us labeled iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism and the UN also cited Iraq and terrorism in one of the resolutions attached to 1441, as well as 114 stating WMDs were feared to get in the hands of terrorists, and you agree with WMDs being the reason. I don't understand what more dots you want connected. Just because you think it was over oil does not mean this encyclopedia has to stand still for you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, when polls went your way, you called them consensus. When a poll didnt go your way, its not a consensus. You were right the second time - polls do not make consensus. The consensus was reached not through a super majority, but through a discussion about the nature of the campaign, as well as a discussion on how to represent this campaign. Most people are glad that we were able to reach a compromise, and are looking forward to working on other things. You cant always get your way, I didnt get exactly what I wanted, but I gave a little and agreed to use quotes because I recognize that there are more important things in this world, and especially at Wikipedia, that need work. If you still have concerns, please state them. GTBracchus, Zer0, and I would all be willing to talk to you and explain things, and I am sure other people who worked towards the consensus would be more than willing to as well. But do not continue to edit war, this solves nothing, and will only make you look bad to others. You are an asset to this community with your dedication, if you begin to use this dedication in more constructive venues it would be beneficial to us all. Rangeley 15:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the continuing debate on the matter proves there is no consensus and since there is no consensus it is a controversial statement which should not be in the infobox. Goodbye.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid criteria for deletion—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect I withhold judgment on the content of the article but the idea of creating a centralized place for discussion of and compromise over a contentious topic seems to be a very good idea. As Rangeley states above, this discussion belongs on a Talk page or somewhere more appropriate and not in an article. --ElKevbo 01:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deciding article content by polls is almost never a good idea. Eluchil404 06:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its never a good idea, and its not what happened there. Rangeley 11:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.