text:
006 (UTC)
 * You dont have a source, you have a 158 page document that you apparently did not read. Provide a page or at least a section so I can verify your information, else by the end of the day I will simply remove the items you attribute to that source. Thank you, for your cooperation. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent my words. I repeatedly said that if you would read the articles and sources (including the New Yorker above) you would see that UET is being used. However, time and again you refuse to read the sources I provide, therefore claiming UET is not being used, and in general you leave the impression you have not read WP:OWN and WP:AGF either. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You gave a 158 page ruling, point out the page number in it, or are you stating the ruling is not valid? You provide a source then provide the page please. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "And this week the Court is expected to deliver a decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case that questions the legality of the military commissions." Thats all it says about the ruling, doesnt state that ruling was about UET. Please provide a page. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The ruling is about inherent authority of Bush, and if you have difficulty understanding what that means feel free to read about signing statements and the unitary executive, which you conveniently fail to mention as evidence for the use of UET in the torture debate, NSA spying, and now the Military Tribunals that the Supreme Court affirms are nothing more than a kangaroo court. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will take this as you do not have a page, and wait till the end of the day for you to provide one. Kangaroo court? at least attempt to hide your blatant POV. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked you before, and I will ask it again, if you are unwilling to read the articles and references they mention, what exactly is it you ask of me when asking for a source? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is my last reply to you unless I see a page number, Do not state items as sources if you do not know if they are actually valid or not. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Main events
I have just reverted an exaggerate listing of practically all the terrorist attacks since 2001, because, as the header suggests, only the "Main events" should be listed. Esaborio 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * London and Madrid do not qualify as main event, yet they keep reappearing. Furhter, there was a better template a few days ago explaining what was what, this apparently is not allowed. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you and your continued violations of WP:POINT are going too far now. I ask you to stop. You attempted to have this page deleted and now you flood it with events that everyone else on the page tell you do not qualify. You also attempt to add Iraq War related incidents yet have stated you do not believe that Iraq War is even paert of the War on Terrorism. Stop disrupting Wikipedia. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When did I try to get this deleted? Again you are misrepresenting facts, just as this template is doing. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So you feel every terrorist incident to happen since 2001 is part of the war on terrorism? and you feel further that by me keeping them out I assisting the misrepresenting of facts? So that means you do believe that Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism as your edits here show then correct? -- zero faults   ' '' 10:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact I do not remove Iraq proves I am trying to find middle ground, whereas your removal of my edits is evidence of you trying to continue our dispute. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the middleground, again I ask, Do you believe Iraq War is part of the WOT, if not how do you find Zarqawi PSYOP program and Downing Street memo to then be part of it. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am done with this game, I will inform you later if I file the RFAr, you are being disruptive to this template to prove some point in direct violation of WP:POINT. Your edits are contradictory to eachother, proving you are attempting to damage this article to prove some point about the War on Terrorism, the fact you cannot even answer the above question furthers my idea. Goodday Nescio. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To the acute observer I only removed something AFTER you started removing a substantial part of the template. Before you started the edit war I did nothing. Maybe you should try compromise instead of bullying others into your position. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

In other words this would be a good opportunity to discuss what should be in the template. Let's hear some suggestions and arguments. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you stating you removed Bali bombings out of some revenge? I am still waiting to hear your reason. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No revenge. Simply removing what I disagree with as you refuse to compromise. As you remove everything you dislike I don't see any reason why I can't do the same. Apparently you are thinking that avoiding compromise is being constructive. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then please layout your arguement as to why you disagree so we can have a discussion. Thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the page until you two can come to an agreement via constructive discussion instead of mindless revert warring. Circeus 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, do realize, both of you, that protection is NOT an endorsement of the template's state (I haven't looked into what was going on exactly). Circeus 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that, I am just hoping Nescio will be willing to state why he is against the inclusion of 2005 Bali bombings in the template. I sourced it above showing the bombings were carried out by a group directly being fought in a WOT operation. I hope they will reply with a reason. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Block
Does anyone else find it objectionable/questionable that an admin, (Staxringold) can add content while the rest of us editors are forced to stand back and watch it happening, and squabble and quibble on the talk page? The whole point of the block is so editors (as in ALL editors) can discuss proposed changes... Sfacets 01:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll have to agree on that one. Esaborio 05:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Unless I was mistaken upon reading (yes I did read the talk page before adding) the protection appeared to only be put up because of the 2005 Bali bombing. I'm a little confused why User:Circeus said the content I added was what was being discussed over the protection, as that is not what I see for the current protection. I'll stay out of this template from now on, however, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The following articles removed from the template definitely belong there:

1. Bybee memo. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 2. Combatant Status Review Tribunal. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 3. Extraordinary rendition. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 4. Long War. The Bush Administration has callen the War on Terrorism that. 5. Unitary executive theory. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 6. U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Do I need to explain? 7. Detroit Sleeper Cell. This was certainly not a main event.

The following articles were added, and shouldn't have been:

1. 2002 Bali bombing. This was not a main event. If the Madrid and London attacks are not listed, why this one? 2. Hambali. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 3. Khadaffy Janjalani. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 4. Shamil Basayev. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 5. Moscow theater hostage crisis. The Second Chechen War article is listed, and has a link to it.

As the Second Chechen War and the Al-Aqsa Intifada are ongoing conflicts, they should be listed as "Contemporaneous conflicts", just as the other war templates have that section.

Also, why were the borders of the flags removed? Esaborio 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for an answer... Esaborio 05:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

We should not list terrorists, then, just their organizations, but as "Specific articles", since the template says "Political leaders", and they aren't. What do you think? Esaborio 04:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I was actually thinking of removing the names of leader and just listing countries and maybe a tag of some sort to state what operation they are participating in, this way its not misread as general support for everything. How does that sound?

The tags can go after the countries names. Makes it more discriptive then it currently is.
 * OEF-P = OP
 * OEF-HOA = OH
 * OEF-A = OA
 * OIF = OIF
 * Waziristan War = WW
 * Second Chechen War = SCW
 * Operation Active Endeavor = OAE

Only the countries? Ok. Tags? No. It makes the template way too big. Esaborio 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The borders around the flags were removed because they caused a line break... it would be great to have them though, as the white backgrounds of some flags make them less apparent than other flags... does anyone know of a method to prevent breakage? Sfacets 04:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, except about adding those tags. That would make the template unnecessarily bigger, and it is huge already. Esaborio 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The idea is by naming countries instead of people, it will take up less space, leading room for the tags on the same line. We can make them shorter perhaps to show who is part of what.

No, I don't think so. The template would look bad with so much information in it. Esaborio 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq War is NOT part of the War on Terrorism, therefore, I removed it AGAIN. I removed the Detroit Sleeper Cell because they were not part of any of the terrorist organizations being fought in the War on Terrorism, and readded Bybee memo to fill its space. I also removed Shamil Basayev because he is dead, and readded Combatant Status Review Tribunal to fill its space. I changed Related events: to Contemporaneous conflicts: to match the other war templates, and in that section removed the Moscow theater hostage crisis because 1)It is mentioned in the Second Chechen War article, and 2)Because it is not a conflict. Finally, I changed the Primary participants' flags' size to 30px to match the Cold War template. Esaborio 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Suggestion

 * 1) The template should read "US War on Terrorism," since that is what it is and this would prevent any misinterpretation.
 * 2) Then of course we should define "main event." As it stands every exploding bomb is now called a "main event." Why is London or Iraq a "main event?" The main event is 9-11 and all the rest is merely a consequense of that. Or, does main event stand for major terrorist attacks, in that case we should include Moscow and many other event.
 * 3) The following articles should be included:
 * 4) *Buffalo Six: a US operation closing down terrorists in the US
 * 5) *Bush-Blair memo: showing basis of the policy in WOT
 * 6) *Bush Doctrine: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
 * 7) *Bybee memo: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
 * 8) *Combatant Status Review Tribunal: used to confirm detainees in WOT are unlawful combatant
 * 9) *Detroit Sleeper Cell: a US operation closing down terrorists in the US
 * 10) *Downing Street memo: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
 * 11) *Extraordinary rendition: used to transport detainees in WOT
 * 12) *Guantanamo Bay detainment camp: used to hold detainees in WOT
 * 13) *Long War: used to describe WOT
 * 14) *NSA electronic surveillance program: used to fight terrorists
 * 15) *Unitary executive theory: legal theory used to justify policies in WOT, most notably the suggestion that the President in protecting his country cannot be bound by any law (see arguments used in torture debate, NSA spying, et cetera).
 * 16) *Unlawful combatant: designation used to justify not applying the Geneva Conventions in WOT
 * 17) *USA PATRIOT Act: a US law for closing down terrorists in the US
 * 18) *U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks: evidently it describes the response in WOT
 * 19) *Zarqawi PSYOP program: since Bush declared Iraq part of WOT inevitably his actions in Iraq are also part of WOT
 * 20) A few days ago there was a template using descriptions of the several events and where it relates to. This does look better than the current version, so aside from what should be included I think a new lay-out might not be a bad idea.

So, I would suggest starting with the following, and feel free to add/remove with explanation.

U.S. War on Terrorism Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Suicide bombings in Iraq are not part of the War on Terrorism. You seem to have a conceptual problem, the Iraq War is part of the War on Terrorism, insurgency in Iraq is part of the Iraq War. You are going down 3 tiers it seems instead of looking at directly related events. This is why you insist on putting the Bush Blair memo as well, because you do not understand that the memo is directly related to Iraq War, not War on Terrorism. Your explanation for Zarqawi program is exactly whats wrong since Bush declared Iraq part of WOT inevitably his actions in Iraq are also part of WOT that would mean all 50+ operation conducted in Iraq should then be added as well, every insurgency group also etc. which does not make much sense. No other template works that way and I hope you take a look at those to see what is wrong with your above layout. Furthermore you still have not answered the question regarding Bali bombings in 2005, if this is not answered I will ask the admin to remove the protection since it seems you will not be answering it at all. The following items do not belong, I will make the list longer as I go through the rest:

 * Jerusalem bus 20 massacre - Not about the War on Terrorism, this is the Arab Palestinian conflict
 * Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 - Related to Iraq War, not directly War on Terrorism
 * Bush-Blair memo - Related to Iraq War, not directly War on Terrorism
 * Bybee memo - Memo that is not proven to be in use.
 * Downing Street memo - Related to Iraq War, not directly War on Terrorism
 * Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Not about the War on Terrorism, this is the Arab Palestinian conflict
 * Unitary executive theory - Theory not proven to be in use. I have asked you numerous times and all you provide are law opinions.
 * Zarqawi PSYOP program - Related to Iraq War, not directly War on Terrorism
 * List of terrorist incidents - Too broad.

The fact that you would make a summary stating: apparently all terrorism is included shows why you are not grasping the concept here. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the other points. And you ignore that WOT is now driven by Iraq, the principal driving force behind terrorism today. Even if we use your logic that Iraq is not part of WOT, why do you object to the UET, which is evidently used to cover All actions in WOT? I forgot, you refuse to read that article and its sources. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not say Iraq is not part of the War on Terrorism. Please read the comments before replying. Thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Logic dictates that if you insist Iraq is part of WOT, then all actions in the Iraq war need to be part of WOT. It's like saying my house is located in the US but then refusing to describe you kitchen as being located in the US. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please state if you are going to answer the question on the 2005 Bali bombings so I know if I can contact an admin, thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is contacting any admin. First we reach a compromise so keep talking. There are several questions you have not answered. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict More to the point, could you explain what should be included since you object to mentioning Palestinian incidents but insist on mentioning Bali. What is your criterium for including incidents? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I do not think that your obstinate way of discussing is very helpful. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton
 * Sorry Nescio, you refuse to answer the question that started this, and then are attempting to rewrite the entire template instead of addressing the single issue that lead to the template being protected in the first place. I find your dismissive attitude toward me disturbing. As I stated I will be contacting an admin later regarding the issue if an answer does not appear here in about 5 hours. I do not even know why you refuse to provide one since then I will be more then happy to participate in your above discussion further. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying that if I do not do what you order me to do you refuse to try and find a solution, i.e. compromise?Second, the question at the heart of you edit warring is what should be included in this template? Exactly the points I started this paragraph with.< Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC) edit conflict
 * Sorry Nescio no bait. What it is says is what it says. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It says you will not answer my questions before I answer yours. Clearly that sounds like some form of extortion. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF -- zero faults   ' '' 10:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see, while assuming alot, what exactly is your response to the points raised? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will check back here in 5 hours before my lunch break. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contribute to the debate by responding to the points I raised at the beginning of this paragraph. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To stop the silly obstructiveness by certain editors here is a general observation. As long as I do not know on what grounds incidents are included or excluded I am unable to determine whether Bali should be mentioned. So, the first thing to do is define the criteria for including/excluding articles in the template. Oddly enough, that is exactly what this paragraph started out with. Before we can do anything let's determine what we think should be included and why. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its stated and sourced above, once again I ask you to state why you removed it. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where exactly are those inclusion/exclusion criteria stated? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2005 Bali bombing - Government suspects Jemaah Islamiyah who is a al-Qaeda affiliated group. PDF Arrested Hambali in connection,  known to be al-Qaeda's Southeast Asia representative and logistical coordinator. Attempted to arrest Jemaah Islamiyah bomb maker Azahari Husin in relation to bombing. Azahari Husin has trained at al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Noordin Mohammed Top is also being sought as the originator of the bombs, Top is the Jemaah Islamiyah top bomb maker. Jemaah Islamiyah is being fought in Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines as part of the War on Terrorism.  There you go, completly sources as well, something your proof of events above lacks. So I do not see how you can state objections when you havent even presented sources for your own material. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Age classifies the 2005 Bali bombing as part of the War on Terror.

Furthermore your edits are again contradictory, you added Zamboanga bombings, which is an attack carried out by Abu Sayyaf, but will not include 2005 Bali bombings which is an attack by Jeemah Islamiyah, both groups are being fought in the same operation, OEF-P. Both share equal status as terrorist groups by US designation, the groups have been linked financially to eachother and to al-Qaeda. They even both belong to the same umbrella group the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Although your preoccupation with Bali is amusing, I still have not seen a general definition as to what the criteria are to include an article. As long as you do not provide us with a rough guideline as to what should be included, it is impossible to know whether or not any particular article meets the requirements. Please state your criteria for including an article in this template. Not a difficult requets I would think. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

RFC
Since you two (zer0faults and nescio) are, for the most part, the only ones involved in this lenghty discussion, I have made a content-related request for comments for external opinions. Just wanted to let you know. Circeus 04:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment I think you two need to take a day off and relax. It clear that we need to develop some guidelines as too what should be included. In my unquaflied opinion the 2005 Bali bombing should not be inclued in the WAR of Terrioism even though it is a terroist act because the War of Terrorism is by definition the fight against terrorism NOT terrorism itself. A distintion needs to be reached.Aussie King Pin 06:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As you can read in the previous paragraph inclusion/exclusion criteria is exactly what I was trying to establish. So, great somebody agrees that is the first thing to do. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion revisited

 * 1) The template should read "US War on Terrorism," since that is what it is and this would prevent any misinterpretation.
 * 2) Then of course we should define "main event." As it stands every exploding bomb is now called a "main event." Why is London or Iraq a "main event?" The main event is 9-11 and all the rest is merely a consequense of that. Or, does main event stand for major terrorist attacks, in that case we should include Moscow and many other event.
 * 3) The following articles should be included:
 * 4) *Buffalo Six: a US operation closing down terrorists in the US
 * 5) *Bush-Blair memo: showing basis of the policy in WOT
 * 6) *Bush Doctrine: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
 * 7) *Bybee memo: showing the basis of the policy in WOT, although apparently it is now refuted
 * 8) *Combatant Status Review Tribunal: used to confirm detainees in WOT are unlawful combatant
 * 9) *Detroit Sleeper Cell: a US operation closing down terrorists in the US
 * 10) *Downing Street memo: showing the basis of the policy in WOT
 * 11) *Extraordinary rendition: used to transport detainees in WOT
 * 12) *Guantanamo Bay detainment camp: used to hold detainees in WOT
 * 13) *Long War: used to describe WOT
 * 14) *NSA electronic surveillance program: used to fight terrorists
 * 15) *Unitary executive theory: legal theory used to justify policies in WOT, most notably the suggestion that the President in protecting his country cannot be bound by any law (see arguments used in torture debate, NSA spying, et cetera).
 * 16) *Unlawful combatant: designation used to justify not applying the Geneva Conventions in WOT
 * 17) *USA PATRIOT Act: a US law for closing down terrorists in the US
 * 18) *U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks: evidently it describes the response in WOT
 * 19) *Zarqawi PSYOP program: since Bush declared Iraq part of WOT inevitably his actions in Iraq are also part of WOT, also this program is aimed at the US public to influence their support for WOT
 * 20) A few days ago there was a template using descriptions of the several events and where it relates to. This does look better than the current version, so aside from what should be included I think a new lay-out might not be a bad idea.

Please suggest other articles you feel need to be included. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not exclusion inclusion criteria ... -- zero faults   ' '' 11:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So what I propose is to follow the other templates on major campaigns.
 * Column 1 = Theatres
 * Column 2 = Major Events
 * Column 3 = Specific Events (directly related to the campaign)
 * Column 4 = Participants (divided by side)

This also helps to create uniformity for those searching the Wiki and includes all the relevant information, also stops the pile up of country leaders that are no longer in office. Furthermore it establishes the locations such actions are taking place at.

As such i think we need to leave out memo's, as they are not proof of policy, they are simply memo's. The ones listed above are even debated as to their relevance or usage. Theories on government should also not be included as they are not proven to be in use, just people feel they are in use. Programs relating directly to sub conflicts only should also be left out. Zarqawi PSYOP program was designed to garner hatred toward Zarqawi by labeling him a foreigner to turn the insurgency against him, this is obviously not the same as to garner support for the WOT. As Nescio wrote the article I am not sure why he is now stating its goal was something other then he originally wrote himself. Detroit Sleeper cell was not actually in the position to do anything, their capacity to operate is highly debated as is, they seemed like some bored militants planning an unspecified attack on a location without any arms to do it nor backing or funds. I have no problem with Guantanamo however adding tribunals that are related to guantanamo is then extending too far, we dont add the names of the seperate camps and divisions there or castro's name or an article on Cuba etc. US response to 9/11 should not be included as all its contents are already in the template, furthermore its a poorly written article that only covers a few days after the attack. Its also only covering US's response and not NATO's or other countries, furthering the need for a globalize tag, something we should be attempting to remove, not support.

I think we need to take a tier approach and only include the closest tier. For instance as mentioned above, keep Guantanamo, but do not include every lawsuit related to guantanamo and every tribunal and division etc. Keep Iraq War, but every operation taking place within Iraq should not be listed, every memo tied to Iraq and every program should not be listed. Keep the main groups in the template but remove the names of the players, state leader, terror group leaders etc.

Also remove other names for the conflict, such as Long War and WW3, they are redundant and not as popularly used. They are adequatly mentioned in the WOT article itself, according to their popularity that is. Also the idea of calling it US War on Terrorism is just wrong, I accepted it to be put in the Iraq War article because of that wars particular lack of international support, and just to end a back and forth revert war. However the larger WOT this is covering is not just a US operation, many operations listed, unless they have been removed by an editor, such as operation endeavor are entirely NATO operations, or some such as OEF-HOA are highly NATO backed. Also there are programs by NATO to train the Iraqi soldiers, so even their participation in Iraq is now debated. Just to top it off Canada is preparing to take over most of the responcibility in Afghanistan, furthering the reason why it should not be labeled US WOT.

As for what constitutes a main event. My criteria was to include events that had major impacts on their local governments, international support or change of support for the WOT itself, or lead to operations being conducted. Also terrorist incidents that were conducted directly against a country for the purpose of defiance to the WOT should be included. These are major offensives for terrorists, much like in a battle between two armies you would not just cover one sides attacks. As for why is Iraq a major event, considering its the invasion of a country in the name of the WOT and overthrowing of a government, I think it speaks for itself.

Posted this above, rehashing here for clarity. I think the countries participating should be listed and after their name a tag stating what operation they are participating in. The tags can go after the countries names. Makes it more discriptive then it currently is. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OEF-P = OP
 * OEF-HOA = OH
 * OEF-A = OA
 * OIF = OIF
 * Waziristan War = WW
 * Second Chechen War = SCW
 * Operation Active Endeavor = OAE

Could you start with Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 13:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the criteria to include an article? Part of WOT? How do we determine if it is part of WOT? Because Bush says so, because theAge says so? Define criteria please. In other words, only when we have established criteria can we look at specific articles and whether they meet those criteria.
 * 2) What are "main events?" Please define.

 * It was defined above, you apparently missed it so I will post it again. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As for what constitutes a main event. My criteria was to include events that had major impacts on their local governments, international support or change of support for the WOT itself, or lead to operations being conducted. Also terrorist incidents that were conducted directly against a country for the purpose of defiance to the WOT should be included. These are major offensives for terrorists, much like in a battle between two armies you would not just cover one sides attacks.
 * As for why is Iraq a major event, considering its the invasion of a country in the name of the WOT and overthrowing of a government, I think it speaks for itself. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is my criteria for main events, as for related, they should be events that are major, but not an actual attack in either direction. All terrorist acts and major military offensives should be main events, terrorist incidents are the way in which terrorists launch offensives. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You will find that using your definition of main event we should include Moscow and the other examples I and others provided. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Zer0's Template
I have revisited the template layout, its included below. Its alot smaller and more trim. Removing the leaders by name reduced the size greatly. As for related events, I have no personal opinion on Second Chechen War and its events. I also have no opinion on Detroit Sleeper Cell or Buffalo Six. I stil think Bush Doctrine should not be included, but I dont have the patience to argue about it anymore. I think memo's should be left out, however actual laws should be included. No court rulings unless they have concluded and are directly about WOT, not about an event within the WOT. So not court rulings on detainees status, because thats more directly about a sub article. There was also the al-Aqsa Infitada listed, I didnt see what it was related to, feel free to explain it and add it back if anything. Main events contains military actions and terrorist attacks only, because that is there method of attacking. I have left out the Iraqi insurgency, because that is directed at fighting the Iraq War more then the WOT. As such al-Qaeda in Iraq is left out, also more directly related to Iraq. Questions, comments? -- zero faults   ' '' 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also have no opinion on Operation Apollo as it seems Canada conducted a few operations and none of them are directly linked to a greater over arching operation. -- zero faults   ' '' 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Some of my of thoughts..
 * Is 7/7 a common enough reference for the London bombings that it can be referenced only by 7/7 and not London bombings? This is the first I've heard that reference.
 * Because a bombing took place in Iraq or a group operates in Iraq should not be used to exclude its inclusion in the article. Like it or not Iraq is the most active front on WoT and major events and groups should be mentioned (if they have links to foreign jihadists, rather than local insurgents). I would expect at a minimum the Canal Hotel Bombing and Al-Qaeda in Iraq to be included and hopefully Al Askari Mosque bombing as both bombings have signified major turning points in not only the Iraq War, but also WoT, and the OBL wing of Al-Qaeda has little control over the Iraq group's operation (which may have changed now that Zarqawi is dead).
 * If Jordan is going to be included as a primary member, then the 2005 Amman bombings should be included as a main event. Which is further evidence that al-Qaeda in Iraq should be mentioned as that was the group that conducted this bombing.
 * Indonesia needs to be included as a front. If Jemaah Islamiyah is going to be included, their area of operation should be included. That also means the Australian Embassy bombing should be included.
 * May also want to include Palestinian groups and their state supporters in primary members. The Bush Administration specifically targetted supporters of Hamas, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Hezbollah following the 9/11 attacks and has periodically fired warning shots across Syria's and Iran's bow.
 * Consider rolling Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain into a flag for NATO as none of these countries are currently conducting operations outside of the auspices of NATO.
 * Why is Russia included if Chechnya is not considered a front and none of the major events of that war are included as a main event, especially the [[Beslan school hostage crisis]?
 * Depending on your response to my Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain suggestion, Khazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan may need to be included. They've all been bases of operations for US strikes into Afghanistan and are currently getting funding from the US to fight Islamic extremists inside their borders. Here's an article on Khazakhstan's growing involvement (as of 2004).
 * I'm going to keep as far away from I can on the inclusion of memos argument.;)

--Bobblehead 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just some points, I wasnt aware of Jakarta and agree it should be included. I think AQ in Iraq should not be included because its an insurgent group, they are fighting to over throw the occupation and nothing more, their operations are even local and directly without a larger impact limited to Iraq. Their actions did not facilitate the inclusion of any group, or any of the main events. Good point on Indonesia as well. I am afraid adding AQ in Iraq will open the floodgate and cause every insurgent group to then be listed causing an absolute mess, terror attacks in Iraq are quite frequent, listing everyone would be a mess, they are not major events, they arent even of the scope to have articles written about them independantly. Palestinian groups are not included because they are part of what the Wiki considered the Arab Israeli conflict, not the WOT. Remember the WOT is not a war that encompasses all terror groups and acts, not yet at least, but Wiki is not a crystal ball.

As for inclusion of certain countries. I believe they are there because they are supplying troops, not bases. Canada is actually supplying troops, getting read to take over in afghanistan partially and launched independant major operations such as operation apollo.
 * I didnt list Russia as a front ... As I stated I have no opinion about the Chechen War etc.

Canada as I pointed out launched operations outside of NATO, but you may have a good point of rolling the other into NATO, I will look into that more tomorrow.
 * As for 7/7 I just tacked that on their, I heard it mentioned before but if it lacks notoriety then you have a point, we should write it out as London bombing, perhaps. Appreciate the feedback, the idea behind the specific events is that they tie to major events which are attacks etc. Esabario I believe added Chechen so hopefully he can respond as to why. -- zero faults   ' '' 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Interesting. It does look like Canada is operating outside of NATO's auspices in Afghanistan. According to NATO the top 4 contributors in Afghanistan currently are France, Germany, UK, and Italy. Canada has more troops in Afghanistan than all 4 of those countries, so, ignore my reference to Canada needing to be rolled in. France, Germany, Spain, and Italy should still be rolled in under the NATO flag.
 * Despite the Palestinian groups being covered under the Wikipedia Palestinian-Israeli conflict they are part of the War on Terror and should be listed. If the criteria for inclusion is that the Bush administration says it is, then the administration has mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah many a time in connection with WoT. Immediately following 9/11 the administration froze the assets of charrities and arrested several of the charities' leaders because they are suspected of funding Hamas and used Iraq's support of Hamas as one of the reasons to invade.
 * AQ in Iraq.. Honestly.. That's a weak argument to leave them out, especially considering they've conducted operations in Jordan and have a history of operating in Jordan as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, including the assassination of US Consulate Laurence Foley in 2002. Their operations outside of Iraq is what makes them notable and is what excludes the rest of the insurgent groups in Iraq. --Bobblehead 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't add the Second Chechen War. Esaborio 08:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Russia linked it with WOT I fail to see the problem in mentioning it. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please post a source of a Russian president stating this please. I have heard he does, just never seen him stating its part of the war on terror, just stating he is fighting a war against international terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Added

 * Main Events -> 2004 Jakarta embassy bombing - Attack by Jemaah Islamiyah as per Bobblehead
 * Theatres of Operations -> Indonesia - Related to 2004 Jakarta embassy bombing as per Bobblehead.
 * Theatres of Operations -> Palestine - Related to Hamas as per Bobbleheads sources.
 * Theatres of Operations -> Israel - Related to Hamas as per Bobbleheads sources.
 * Main Events -> al-Aqsa Intifada - Related to Hamas as per Bobbleheads sources.
 * Primary Participants -> Against -> Hamas - Related to Bobbleheads sources.

Removed

 * Primary Participants -> Russia - Noone is taking responcibility for adding Second Chechen War and I have yet to see a source stating its part of WOT. Nescio if you have one please provide, thanks.
 * Specific articles -> Related events -> Second Chechen War & Moscow theatre hostage crisis - Noone is taking responcibility for adding these items.

Changed

 * Theatres of Operations -> Europe -> 7/7 - Changed "7/7" to "London bombing" as per Bobblehead, 7/7 not as widely accepted as 9/11.

Nescio's Template
How about this template:

Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * No I do not like this one, its too large, lists people instead of countries and contains numerous items you refuse to prove link directly to the WOT. Furthermore it doesnt follow the standards of other templates, do you actually have any objections to the template I proposed above? The smaller more condensed one. -- zero faults   ' '' 09:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a first draft so feel free to add/remove with arguments. Second, I provided sufficient arguments to warrant inclusion of those articles, however you refuse to answer to the evidence, simply stating there is no evidence. You also refuse to tell me what, aside from the sources I provideed you need to be convinced. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore it attempts to link the Arab Israeli conflict to the WOT. These two are unrelated. -- zero faults   ' '' 09:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since 9-11 is a direct result from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I fail to see why it can't be used. Apart from that, on what grounds is this disallowed but London is included?
 * Show me proof of this. From what I understand al-Qaeda has taken responcibility for the attacks, bin Laden has always stated his reason as being US presence in Saudi Arabia, not supporting Israel. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not even having this redundant arguement with you anymore, you honestly seem to believe every memo related to the Iraq War should be included in this WOT template, every operation conducted in Iraq, you haven't even linked the Information Operations Roadmap to the Zarqawi program and now you want to link it to the WOT ... I havent seen this proof, I am not sure if anyone else has, but you are grasping at straws to want to include every document related to the IRaq War, oddly however you do not seem to want to include any of the actual resolutions for the war ... -- zero faults   ' '' 11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That settles it. You are either the most intellectually challenged editor or a disruptive troll. There is no other explanation for adopting two mutually exclusive arguments to prevent mentioning what you do not want. First, you argue that SH had ties to the Palestinians and as such needs to be included in WOT. Fair enough, if that is what you want. But then, you object to including the same Palestinians you use to justify mentioning Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Either SH was helping in the conflict and both are accepted as part of WOT, or the conflict is not part of WOT and you have to remove Iraq. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it when someone asks you to prove something you go off in a rant? Noone said SH had ties to Palestinians, again your problem is your lack of reading. I specifically stated the PLF was a Baathist front group funding suicide bombers. That shows his support for terrorism, that doesnt mean everything related to that incident then gets introduced to this template. You keep failing to see there is a cut off point to events. Its almost as silly as arguing that Kuwait is at war with Iraq right now because the cease fire that stopped that first Gulf War was used to restart this war, so that means Kuwait is at war again and should be readded to the list ... Again, prove something. What is so hard about sources for you? Do you really want to add everything mentioned on the Arab-Israeli conflict to this template? -- zero faults   ' '' 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * More simply, just because Saddam gave money to suicide bombers doesnt make him part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor make that whole conflict part of the WOT. The group you did as a matter of fact isnt even the group funded by Saddam. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I do not understand all of the issues here, but why do you consider the Arab/Israeli conflict as outside the WOT? Israel has been fighting terrorists for years. When news of 9/11 reached the Middle East, Saddam Hussein praised the attacks and the Palestinians danced in the streets. When Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa, one of the reasons given for declaring war on America is because the U.S. supports Israel in the Arab/Israeli conflict. Israel is a partner with the U.S. in the WOT. The U.S. chooses to support Israel because they are one of the few stable, democratic regimes in the region. I do not want to confuse two things that are separate, but I am not certain such a distinction is defensible any longer. Is there something I am missing here? RonCram 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Saddam never "praised" the attacks, though he failed to condemn them vigorously (against the advice of his advisors).--csloat 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want to add the Arab ISraeli conflict to this template? Look over it and see if you think its gonig too far, you can see below just a hint of items that would be added since 2000 and possibly even more. IF you guys want to do it, then proceed, I will probably make a new template at that point based around a more general view and let a vote be taken, or some sort of RfC/poll for which has a better grasp on the WOT concept. -- zero faults   ' '' 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Now I see it is largely a matter of space. Is that correct? Perhaps we limit the article to organizations that have attacked the U.S. or that the U.S. has attacked? That may require changing the name of the article.  Using that criterion, we could add Hezbollah although I am not sure if Hamas would fit. Read this:

 * The group has never launched a terrorist attack inside the United States. But before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other single terrorist organization.

 * The group's deadliest strike against Americans was the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. servicemen. RonCram 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The Hezbollah attacks were pre-9/11 which marks the beginning of the 'War on Terrorism'. If the template is renamed/defined to only those that attack/are attacked by the US then there definitely is need for a renaming as the article no longer represents the War on Terrorism as defined by the US government.--Bobblehead 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You want to add groups and attacks that took place before the WOT actually existed and in no way related to any other even already listed? I mean I dont even see the point, the only link is that their funding was cut after 9/11 ... It seems like grasping at straws. -- zero faults   ' '' 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not trying to grasp at straws, I was trying to provide an historical context. The WOT was declared by President Bush after 9/11, but the terrorists declared war on the U.S. long before that.  Bush was the first president to recognize we were already in a war.  Bin Laden's fatwa was in 1998... or was that his second fatwa?  I don't recall at the moment.  At any rate, Hezbollah has threatened to strike the U.S. recently.  Only this time they are threatening to strike within U.S. borders.  The FBI is tracking known Hezbollah operatives inside the U.S. now.  This is very much a current event, not ancient history.  I do not want to gum up the template with unrelated events.  But I am willing to say Hezbollah considers themselves combatants in the WOT.  I believe Hamas does as well.  The question is - what do we do with that information? RonCram 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I already added it to my template above, However my issue is with the constant expansion of this template to unrealistic proportions. For example by listing Hamas you have to list Operation Summer Rains, Hezbollah, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, al-Aqsa Intifada, 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. That is just off the top of my head, at what point does this template overwrite or dupliacte everything in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Considering you would be stating everything dont by Israel after 2000 against Hamas or Palestine is included, or if by going with bin Laden, then everything after 98 possibly. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, President Clinton declared a war on terrorism in 1998 in a speech whose main points Bush quite freely plagiarized on Sept. 20 2001. And Reagan had declared war on terrorism as early as 1981.  Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa was his second major one; he issued a much longer one in 1996, and his three main grievances against the US were the troops in Saudi Arabia, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the sanctions on Iraq.  I'm not sure how or whether to incorporate all these various conflicts into the template; should the conflicts over Cyprus and Kashmir, or the activities of LTTE and Aum Shinrkyo be included as well?--csloat 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article list Hamas and Hezbollah?
Hezbollah (with the backing of Syria and Iran) just started a war with Israel. President Bush clearly sees this conflict as part of the War on Terror. Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist organization, as is Hamas. The U.S. seems to be encouraging Israel's counteroffensive because the Administration is calling for a ceasefire when it will be "conducive." Most everyone understands that to mean in a week or so after Hezbollah has been mostly dismantled. Why are these terror organizations not listed? RonCram 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's Zer0faults's answer when I suggested they should be included. Personally I agree they should be listed as the US has definitely said the elimination of both terrorist organizations as being included in WoT. --Bobblehead 17:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I see a source where the Bush administration says they are fighting Hamas and Hezbollah as part of the WOT. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And this is part of the problem Nescio is having with you, Zer0, you do not read cites that are provided for you.. I provided two sources from the White House webpage where the Bush administration linked Hamas and the support of Hamas to the WoT. The thing you are not realizing is that the 'War on Terrorism' is a proper noun and is not necessarily an actual war, in the same way that the Drug War and Cold War are/were not actual wars. The US has made it very clear that the actual use of military force is not the only mechanism they'll use as part of WoT.(read the executive summary) But since you are not willing to crack open the sources I provided you, here are three direct quotes from them:
 * On December 4, President Bush froze the assets of a U.S.-based foundation – The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development -- that has been funneling money to the terrorist organization Hamas.Global War on Terror - First 100 days
 * The Treasury Department and the Department of Justice collaborated to freeze the assets and accounts of 62 individuals and organizations connected with two terrorist-supporting financial networks, the al-Taqua and the al-Barakaat, and one organization funneling money to Hamas.Global War on Terror - First 100 days
 * Saddam Hussein's Iraq provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, according to a State Department report. This included paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, according to testimonials from Palestinians and cancelled checks. Also, according to State Department reports, terrorist groups the Iranian Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal organization were protected by the Iraqi regime protected by the Iraqi regime.10 WAYS THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ SUPPORTS THE WAR ON TERROR
 * And here's a new source conveniently called "Winning the War on Terrorism":
 * Established a National Joint Terrorism Task Force and expanded local task forces to cover every state. As a result of work done by one local task force, a senior Hamas leader was indicted in Texas for conspiring to violate U.S. laws prohibiting financial support to terrorists.
 * And just for fun, run this google search. 81 references of Hamas and "War on Terror" on the white house website.--Bobblehead 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good references, however adding it will clutter this template up, considering other then assest freezing there is no other actiosn taken against these groups. Furthermore this template is about the military campaign, not every action. Opening it up past the military campasign means listing all 153 people or groups who's assets were frozen, then linking Hamas also leads to adding all of their attacks and half the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the recent events and Palestine / Israel / Lebanon etc as part of the theaters of operations etc. It would make ac omplete mess and I think its un warranted for a simple asset freezing, especially since we are talking about a military campaign here. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will add it to my template above, however I feel we should be careful of the slippery slope that is going to be created, I can see half the Arab-Israeli conflict ending up on the template all based on the addition of Hamas. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you reccomend a main event to tie their addition to? -- zero faults   ' '' 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If this template is only for military campaigns, then it needs to be renamed to reflect this. As it is currently named it covers the entirity of the War on Terrorism, which has been defined by the Bush Administration as a fight to end global terror and we've previously agreed that War on Terrorism is a proper noun and inclusion of something under that proper noun is that the Bush Administration says it is. Under those definitions Hamas et. al warrant inclusion. As for a main event. Al-Aqsa Intifada, 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 2006 Israel-Hamas crisis, just to name a few possible ones.. I would include Al-Aqsa Intifada for sure as that would cover the various bombings you alluded to earlier.. Unfortunately we aren't the ones that define what is part of the War on Terrorism and what is not... --Bobblehead 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct that is why, though I can see a flood gate opening soon by certain editors, I will be adding it. I think al-Aqsa Intifada is the best to cover everything as it includes all the attacks and not individual one, its the most general article, hopefully that prevents the flood gates from opening. I think its also best covers everything as the other events are just revent events and cover only smaller portions then the Intifada page does. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Lebanon invasion might warrant its inclusion since it is an escalation beyond the intifada and an expansion of the fronts.. Hezbollah's membership in the Lebanese government also makes it more than just a fight between Israel and a Palestinian group. --Bobblehead 19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think adding the 2006 incidents as seperate is going too far. It would then be adding anything that happened after 2000 from the Arab-Israeli conflict into this article, which would also involve adding all those locations, countries and smaller events. You would be adding the following: Probably even more, in other words it would create a massive mess by linking specific incidents instead of general ones. -- zero faults   ' '' 19:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2000-2006 Al-Aqsa Intifada
 * 2002 Operation Defensive Shield
 * 2004 Operation Rainbow
 * 2004 Operation Days of Penitence
 * 2006 Operation Summer Rains
 * 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
 * 2001 Taba Summit
 * 2002 Arab Peace Initiative
 * 2005 UNSC Resolution 1583
 * 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh Summit
 * 2005 Israel's unilateral disengagement plan
 * 2006 Palestinian Prisoner's Document
 * PLO
 * Hezbollah
 * Fatah
 * Syria
 * Iran

 * Most of those would be included in Al-Aqsa Intifada so are not strictly necessary. The Israeli-Lebanon conflict(which is Operation Summer Rains) warrants inclusion in the same manner that the Iraq War and Afghanistan War warrants inclusion. It represents an invasion of another country in order to remove a terrorist organization. --Bobblehead 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is that slope I was talking about, then any fighting involving Israel is slowly going to get added. Hezbollah and Hamas are not the same group anyway. Furthermore we are now bordering on that other point, mentioning all 100+ people and groups that had funding cut and all of their attacks and incidents. This template is about the campaign waged by the US and NATO etc., its a military based template. I think Hamas etc should be removed since this is what I figured would happen if a middleground was attempted. -- zero faults   ' '' 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the basis we should be working with "The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (also the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT"[1]) is a campaign by the United States, supported by several NATO members and other allies, with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups said to be terrorist groups, and ending alleged state sponsorship of terrorism. This "War on Terrorism" was launched by the Bush administration following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. allegedly by al-Qaeda." -- zero faults   ' '' 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The War on Terrorism is not solely a military campaign, it is also a political, financial, and law enforcement campaign, conducted not by the USonly, but by its allies as well (Israel is an ally in the WoT). You're more than welcome to propose that the template be renamed, but as long as it is called "War on Terrorism" it needs to include aspects of the other campaigns. Any attempt to do otherwise is intellectually unethical and patently against the definition applied to the WoT by the organization that is responsible for defining it (The US government). The Palestinian groups clearly meet the requirement for being included in the template and your explanations to prevent their inclusion violates all of Wikipedia's content principles.--Bobblehead 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what I wrote, do you look at the template I made? They both include your edits. I said I dont agree with it, I have a right to say that. Just in case your are mixing up mine with Nescio's Template_talk:War_on_Terrorism -- zero faults   ' '' 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is good to see I am not the only one that thinks Zero is making policy up as he goes and cherry picks the arguments to suit his needs. Somehow his edit/discussing style does seems to have a strong POV. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF -- zero faults   ' '' 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting observations coming from an individual that makes massive changes to articles and then has the gall to ask others to explain why his edits are not justified while aside from wild assertion, does not explain his edit. Then continues ignoring several clear questions showing he is wrong and appears to have developed an addiction to edit warring. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the topic under which you post, and WP:AGF. Also if you do not know how it works, explanations are contained in whats called edit summaries, they are located on the history page. -- zero faults   ' '' 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the any of the articles involving the Arab-Isreali conflict should be included on this template, just 1 link to the conflict which only needs to be included because the USA considers Hamas a terrioist group. Aussie King Pin 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except the US considers not only Hamas, but PFLP, Hezbollah, and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade as terrorist groups as well.--Bobblehead 01:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bobblehead, you misunderstand me. I didn't mean a link to Hamas, I meant a link to the Arab-Isreali conflict page.Aussie King Pin 07:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Preparation for RFC
I would like to start a RfC regarding which template to use, current design, my design or Nescio's design, as well as if we should include Hamas, Hezbollah and events of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Would I would need to do this however is a statement from the people who feel Hamas Hezbollah etc should be included stating why. It will be the basis for your arguement, meaning the people who agree should come to a concensus on the wording, I will write why I feel it shouldnt. After its all been decided I or someone else can post the RfC and we can just wait to see if a concensus develops or a super majority. As I can see why it would be included, just feel it shouldnt, I will not contest a large majority stating it should.

So if those who feel it should be included can please come together and work on the proper wording that would be great.

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

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

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template talk:War on terror/Archive 1


text:
Cookbook talk:Albanian Stewed Fig Pudding

This page was transwikied from en.wikipedia.org. List of contributors: Poccil 22:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * [2003-10-02T05:06:39Z] Dori ( new, needs editing )
 * [2003-10-02T05:18:43Z] Dysprosia ( intro )
 * [2003-12-27T20:35:54Z] Moink ( vfd )
 * [2004-11-30T07:33:05Z] Cool Hand Luke ( modern VfD )


text:
好学

Etymology
→ →

From compound. Compare modern 🇨🇬 reading hou3 hok6.

Noun

 * 1) scholarliness, a love of learning

title: 好学


text:
Sèvres–Lecourbe station

Sèvres–Lecourbe is an elevated station on Line 6 of the Paris Métro. It is located at the intersection of several streets including the Avenue de Suffren and Boulevard Garibaldi in the 15th arrondissement. It is named after two nearby streets, the Rue de Sèvres and Rue Lecourbe.

The station is one of a small number of elevated Métro stations within the city of Paris. The tracks emerge from underground nearby to the southeast after Pasteur station at the Rue de Vaugirard, remaining elevated through four more stations on the Rive Gauche, crossing the Seine on the Pont de Bir-Hakeim, then descending underground west of the Seine at Passy station. Visitors have excellent views of several notable landmarks from the latter bridge.

Location
Elevated above-ground, the station overlooks Boulevard Garibaldi, west of Place Henri-Queuille (intersects with the Rue de Sèvres and Rue Lecourbe, Avenue de Breteuil and Boulevard Pasteur). Oriented approximately along a northwest/southeast axis, it is situated between Cambronne and Pasteur stations. It is also geographically close to the Ségur Métro station (to the northwest) on Line 10.

History
The station opened on 24 April 1906, when the former Line 2 South was extended from Passy to Place d'Italie. The station was initially called Suffren after the nearby Avenue de Suffren, which here inauspiciously terminates after its straight-arrow run from the Seine near the Eiffel Tower. The Avenue was named after Admiral Pierre André Suffren (1729–1788), who fought the British aggressively during the many wars of his 45-year career.

When Line 2 South was incorporated into Line 5 on 14 October 1907, the station was renamed Sèvres, after the more proximate commercial street, the Rue de Sèvres, in the trace of Roman road which ran from the heart of today’s Latin Quarter to the suburban village of Sèvres.

After the opening of the Metro’s Nord-Sud line (today’s Line 12) in 1910, Lecourbe came to be attached to the station name to avoid confusion with the Nord-Sud’s Sèvres–Croix Rouge station, and it was officially renamed in 1913. Rue Lecourbe, the continuation of Rue de Sèvres in the outer arrondissements, was named after General Claude Lecourbe (1758–1815) who fought in the wars of the French Revolution and the First Empire. In 1942, the former Line 2 South was transferred from Line 5 to Line 6.

The nearby intersection of Boulevard Garibaldi with Rues Sèvres and Lecourbe was the location of the Barrière de Sèvres, one of the gates in the Wall of the Farmers-General, where taxes were collected on goods brought into the city. The Barrière was built in 1784-85 and demolished with the Wall in the early 1860s. The neighborhood to the north of the station was built on the site of the abattoirs de Grenelle, one of the five Paris slaughterhouses ordered built by Napoleon in 1810 to replace the city’s small butcheries. It was demolished in 1899.

Access
The station has a single entrance called Boulevard Garibaldi, leading to the central median-strip of this boulevard, to the right of no. 94. It opens onto a common area under the viaduct from where access to the platform is by means of stairs or escalators.

Platforms
Sèvres-Lecourbe is an elevated metro station of standard configuration. It has two platforms separated by metro tracks, all covered by a glass roof marquee in the style of the stations of the time. The vertical walls are covered on the inside with white ceramic tiles and bricks with geometric patterns on the outside. The advertising frames are white ceramic and the name of the station is written in capital letters on enamelled plates attached to the metal frame. The Motte style seats are red. The lighting is semi-direct, projected onto the ground by blue ceiling lights, on the walls by partially concealed tubes and on the framework by projectors of blue light. Access is via the eastern end.

Bus connections
The station is served by Lines 39, 70 and 89 of the RATP Bus Network and, at night, by Lines N12, N13, N61, N62 and N121 of the Noctilien network.

Culture
The Bourne Ultimatum by Paul Greengrass (2007) is a movie where a scene shows Martin Kreutz (played by Daniel Brühl) coming out of the station.

Nearby
Nearby are the Lycée Buffon and the Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, the oldest pediatric hospital in the world.

title: Sèvres–Lecourbe station


text:
Sarah Ogoke

Sarah Ogoke (born 25 June 1990) is a Nigerian-American basketball player for Ferroviário de Maputo and the Nigerian national team.

She participated at the 2017 Women's Afrobasket and 2019 Women's Afrobasket. Ogoke was also a member of Nigeria's female basketball team, D'tigress, at the 2018 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup in Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.

Personal life
Ogoke was born in New York to Nigerian parents, Bentley Ogoke and Edith Ogure-Ogoke. She obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in Biology/Premedicine from the Southern Polytechnic State University, Georgia.

College

 * style="text-align:left;" | 2008–09
 * style="text-align:left;" | Pittsburgh
 * 22||-||-||33.3||30.0||60.0||0.6||0.4||0.2||0.0||0.4||1.4
 * style="text-align:left;" | 2009–10
 * style="text-align:left;" | Pittsburgh
 * 28||2||9.7||22.0||12.5||33.3||1.4||0.8||0.4||0.0||1.2||1.0
 * style="text-align:center;" colspan=2 | Career
 * 50||2||8.2||26.5||19.2||47.4||1.0||0.6||0.3||0.0||0.8||1.2
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * style="text-align:center;" colspan="14"|Statistics retrieved from Sports-Reference.
 * 50||2||8.2||26.5||19.2||47.4||1.0||0.6||0.3||0.0||0.8||1.2
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * style="text-align:center;" colspan="14"|Statistics retrieved from Sports-Reference.

title: Sarah Ogoke


text:
Οκτώβριος

Etymology
Learnedly, from Hellenistic, from , with -ber > -βριος in the pattern of other names of months e.g. . An addition of [m] -- similar to other month names, since Hellenistc times. It also occurs at a contemporary vernacular Οκτώμβριος which is considered a mistake.

Proper noun

 * 1) October

title: Οκτώβριος


text:
1900 Bathurst colonial by-election

A by-election was held for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly electorate of Bathurst on 25 June 1900 when Protectionist party member Francis Suttor was appointed to the Legislative Council.

Results
Protectionist party member Francis Suttor was appointed to the Legislative Council. William Young, while a member of the Protectionist party was also endorsed by the Labour party. Alfred Thompson, whilst a Free Trader, was nominated by the Ministerialist faction of Sir William Lyne's protectionist government.

title: 1900 Bathurst colonial by-election


text:
Talk:Easter Epic

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed article tags
Seeing as there was no entries on this talk page's history for any of the tags below, WP:BOLDness says that they can be removed. If they are needed to be re-added, please do so and add specific information to this page so that editors can make the requested improvements. — MrDolomite • Talk 07:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * POV from date=April 2008
 * Inappropriate tone from date=December 2007
 * Unreferenced from date=July 2008

title: Talk:Easter Epic


text:
Talk:TrueHoop

Untitled
Notability for this site based on lots of critical mention in the mainstream press; this isn't some random hoops junkie penning his rants on blogspot or similar.

I've no affiliation with the blog, other than being a reader (and occasional poster in the talkbacks)

--EngineerScotty 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Contributors
This site would be helped by a section which lists true-hoops regular contributors.TheHappiestCritic (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

TheHappiestCritic (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Added contributors section
 * Added contributors

title: Talk:TrueHoop


text:
Cookbook:Cuisine of Albania

| European cuisines

Albanian cuisine consists of local dishes from around the country of Albania. Many of these dishes are typical of the Balkans and indeed the Mediterranean, but some are local specialties.

Influences
Albanian cuisine is primarily influenced by general Mediterranean cuisine as well as Balkan and Turkic/Ottomon cuisines. Its long coastline provides ample access to seafood.

Characteristics
Meat, seafood, and fresh vegetables are all common to Albanian cuisine. It shares in a variety of Balkan dishes, including fried cheese curds, casseroles, stuffed grape leaves, and meatballs. One interesting feature of Albanian cuisine is an avoidance of combining many seasonings in the same dish.

The main meal of the Albanians is lunch and it is usually accompanied by a salad of fresh vegetables, such as tomatoes, cucumbers, green peppers, olives, olive oil, vinegar and salt.

Sweets
The desserts most common in Albania are made throughout the Balkans and are probably of Turkish or Arabic origin. Many use a sweet syrup called sherbet. Some desserts include:
 * Bakllava: sweet layered pie filled with syrupy nuts
 * Llokume: Albanian version of Turkish delight, a very sweet jellied confection
 * Kadaif: sweetened baked pastry made of shredded dough
 * Mualebi: thickened milk pudding
 * Revani: syrupy semolina cake
 * Sultjazh: type of pudding made by boiling rice with milk, sugar, and cinnamon
 * Ballokume: butter cookie made with very fine cornmeal
 * Hasudja/hasude: baked cornstarch pudding
 * Trileçe: Albanian version of tres leches cake, made by soaking cake in three types of milk and topping with caramel

Beverages
Mineral water is among the most preferred non-alcoholic drinks in Albania along with carbonated beverages. Some of these are produced locally and some are imported from abroad. Alcoholic beverages are vastly consumed in Albania, and these include beer (Birra Tirana and Birra Korca are local brands), brandy (Skanderbeg and Vecchia), raki, and wines. Most of these are produced locally, and even by private citizens.

Seafood
Carp and trout are preferred, and the coastline provides ample access to seafood.

Fruits and vegetables
Fresh fruits and vegetables are widely available and routinely consumed. Vegetables include tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, okra, potatoes, cabbage, string beans, onion, garlic, bean sprouts, peas, beans, and cucumbers. Popular fruits include cherries, melons, figs, grapes, apples, peaches, lemons, oranges, pears, and apricots.

Dairy
Dairy is frequently consumed, typically in the forms of yogurt and a variety of cheeses.

Recipes

 * Albanian vegetable pie
 * Baked lamb and yogurt
 * Baked leeks
 * Bean Jahni soup
 * Albanian Meat with Walnuts
 * Fërgesë of Tirana with peppers
 * Fërgesë of Tirana with veal
 * Garlic dressings
 * Mixed vegetables
 * Potato and cabbage soup
 * Stewed dry figs dessert
 * Hallva
 * Hasude

title: Cookbook:Cuisine of Albania


text:
User:Flover~enwikiversity

Hi My name is Mohammad Pishdar and I`m 29. I work as a research worker in an agricultural research center in SW Iran. My field of studies include onion and also pulse crops at the moment. I am really happy to join wiki projects and i think together we can make a difference.I will update the page with more details about myself as soon as i go home !!!

title: User:Flover~enwikiversity


text:
Cookbook:Sriracha

| Sauces

Sriracha is a sweet hot sauce made from red chiles and garlic that is popular in Asia and the Southern United States. It has the consistency of ketchup. It is often eaten on pasta, hamburgers, and hot dogs.

Ingredients

 * 1/2 pound red Thai chiles, destemmed
 * 1/3 cup malt vinegar
 * 3 tbsp minced garlic

Procedure

 * 1) Combine all ingredients in a food processor and pulse until desired consistency. Refrigerated in a squirt bottle, this will last well, forever.

title: Cookbook:Sriracha


text:
טבע

Verb

 * 1) to sink, to drown
 * 2) to stamp, to seal

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) Nature; the outdoors, wildlife, and so on.
 * 2) The nature of a person or thing; its inherent or essential characteristics, taken collectively.
 * 3) * דניאלה ספקטור, גני גנים

Verb

 * 1) to drown; to sink

title: טבע


text:
Thyroid Exam

Vital Signs

 * HR (brady/tachycardia)
 * BP (wide pulse pressure)

Inspection

 * medial and inferior, isthmus crosses trachea between 2nd and 4th tracheal ring
 * each lobe should be no larger than the distal phalanges of the patient’s thumb
 * obliteration of the medial borders of SCM muscles
 * have the patient slightly extend their neck and to swallow a sip of water
 * assess for a ≥ 2 mm increase in the horizon of the lateral view of the neck over the area of the thyroid isthmus, especially if it moves upwards during swallowing
 * assess for asymmetry, masses, erythema, deviation of the trachea

Palpation

 * cervical nodes, tracheal deviation
 * CAROTID PULSE - absence indicates malignant thyromegaly (Berry’s Sign)
 * Tenderness
 * start from under the suprasternal notch, medial the SCM

Anterior Approach

 * face the patient sitting, have pt turn head to relax a SCM; with your hand, displace the trachea to that side and palpate while she swallows

Posterior Approach

 * index finger just below the cricoid
 * displace trachea and palpate as the patient swallows

 * DESCRIBE: size, symmetry, consistency

Auscultation

 * over thyroid lobes for a BRUIT (thyrotoxicosis)

Special Tests
PEMBERTON’S TEST
 * elevate, extend, rotate both arms for 3 min
 * goiter → presyncope, SOB, cyanosis, plethora (compression of artery and veins)

Videos of Proper Examination

 * Medical Examination of thyroid Gland
 * Surgical Examination of a thyroid swelling
 * Examination of clinical status of thyroid hormones

General

 * fatigue
 * agitation, nervousness
 * heat intolerance

GI

 * ↓ weight
 * diarrhoea

Dermatological

 * warm and moist skin
 * fine hair
 * thyroid acropatchy (clubbing)
 * onycholysis
 * pretibial myxedema

Cardiovascular

 * tachycardia
 * ↑ pulse pressure, systolic outflow tract murmurs
 * a fib

Neurological
Insomnia, restlessness, irritability
 * fine tremor - place piece of paper on patient's outstretched hand
 * hyperreflexia

Musculoskeletal

 * proximal muscle weakness

Opthalmologic

 * lid lag
 * stare with ↓ blink
 * widened palpebral fissures

Grave's Disease Opthalmopathy
rosenbach;s sign fine tremoreson closure eye lid
 * proptosis/exopthalmos - bulging eye
 * chemosis - eye irritation
 * EOM dysfunction (up gaze)
 * corneal ulcerations
 * optic nerve entrapment

title: Thyroid Exam


text:
Πάνορμος

Etymology
From, because of the good natural harbor.

Proper noun

 * 1) Panormus; Palermo, Sicily, Italy
 * 2) Panormus; Bandırma, Marmara, Turkey

Descendants

 * (in Sicily)
 * (in Sicily)
 * (in Sicily)
 * (in Sicily)
 * (in Sicily)
 * (in Sicily)

title: Πάνορμος


text:
Novokytmanovo

Novokytmanovo (Новокытманово) is a rural locality (a selo) in Novotarabinsky Selsoviet, Kytmanovsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 56 as of 2013. There are 2 streets.

Geography
Novokytmanovo is located on the Taraba River, 32 km southwest of Kytmanovo (the district's administrative centre) by road. Losikha is the nearest rural locality.

title: Novokytmanovo