Jump to content

Talk:War on terror/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

India as a participant in War on Terror & Kashmir Section

1. India as a participant in War : I had pointed this out previously in the talk page while removing India as a participant. As the article explains, this "War on Terror" only relates to the one waged by USA and its allies in response to 9/11. India has been fighting terrorism since much before. No Indian troops are deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq. The Indian government has, in fact, passed a resolution in parliament condemning the US invasion of Iraq. Link here: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/exclusive/iraq/resolution1.htm. So how can you call India a participant? Re: Anti-piracy operations, India is not part of the CTF-150. It conducts its anti-piracy operations independently (just like several other non-CTF-150 countries including China, Russia, Greece, Saudi Arabia, etc). So I am taking out India as a participant.

2. Kashmir Section: The fight against terrorism in Kashmir has no place in this article either as it is unrelated - would you call Russia's operations against Chechen terrorists as apart of the US-led war on terror?. The Kashmir conflict started in 1947 since partition. The insurgency in specific started by around 1989 after the 1987 State legislative assembly elections were disputed. Both of these precede the US-led "War on Terror". In fact much through the cold-war era, the US has been supporting Pakistan as India was more inclined to the USSR. Its only recently that India and the US are co-operating on a military front. I agree there has been a lot of information sharing, but that hardly qualifies to grant it a place in this article. Re, the SAS-DF operation: I was surprised to see this, and yes, it does seem to have a RS. But the Telegraph article sticks out as a sore thumb, I'm aware of joint training missions and such sort with various countries, but no operational presence of foreign troops. Do we have more sources for this? Re: Ilyas Kashmiri's killing: he was killed South Waziristan. Only similarity are the groups that US and India are fighting, but then these are the same groups that US supported during the Soviet invasion. Further, countries like Iran also conducts operations against similar groups but you wouldnt call Iran as a participant on the US side, so that argument does not hold much water either. However, since someone has made the effort of putting in a decent looking section, rather than delete it, I'll wait for this discussion to evolve. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hate taking unilateral action after having a discussion with only myself, but will give time till July 31 before I delete the Kashmir section. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Just saw the discussion topic here! Seems like almost every statement is referenced with reliable sources. Also according to this acticle, Indian Navy escorted US naval ships participating in Operation Enduring Freedom through the Malacca Straits after 9/11. I am sure better references to support that could be found. So India did side clearly with the US on the War on Terror. The cooperation has increased since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The war on terror is ongoing, and new and stronger allies emerge, and deserve a mention on this article.
As for the Kashmir operations: even if it is not a region where US forces are publicly/directly involved, these operations are being conducted side by side with the US operations elsewhere and have the support of the US Govt, according to the statements given by the US officials. Some of the details that are deemed not relevant can be trimmed down. I think only info related to Al-Qaeda, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba should be kept in this section, going by Template:US War on Terror. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, thanks for your response. India did support the US invasion of Afghanistan (I even recall Fernandes offering Indian bases!) but the parliament unanimously and strongly condemned the Iraq invasion. Isolated cases of military co-operation always exist - even between the US and Iran, and further increased levels of information sharing also exist - that does not make India a participant. There is a need to distinguish between war against terrorism and the US-led "War on Terror" (as the terminology section explains). Regarding the specific naval operation, OEF-HOA is conducted by the CTF-150, CTF-151 and CTF-152. India is not one of the 26 member states who part-take in these.[1] (although someone has edited the OEF-HOA page to include India in there) The Indian Navy routinely provides assistance to friendly navies in its areas of operation, to call that participation in the US-led action is misleading. INS Sharada (now replaced by INS Sukanya) escorts ships of several countries through the Straight of Malacca with permission from Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. [2] I accept that certain sources did report this as participation in the War on Terror - you really have to question the accuracy of these reports. IMO, the resolution of the parliament (which remains the documented position of the Republic of India) condemning the Iraq invasion, is sufficient to make a determination of India's position on this. Regarding your statement: The war on terror is ongoing, and new and stronger allies emerge, and deserve a mention on this article.: what India is part of, is the war on terrorism - and is no new participant - India has been against these groups even when the US were supporting them during Soviet times.
  • India fights Al Qaeda affiliates in Kashmir, its part of the US-led War on Terror. Russia fights Al Qaeda affiliates in Chechnya and its a genocide ?[3] Its perhaps time to stop clubbing all conflicts with the US seal of approval as "War on Terror". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead section begins with: The War on Terror (also known as the Global War on Terror or the War on Terrorism) is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom with the support of other NATO as well as non-NATO countries. That would include the efforts of nations with similarly aligned interests, like India. There are many reliable sources to support this view.
  • Secondly, the section of India and Kashmir based terrorism are included in a section separate from the US operations:War_on_Terror#Other_military_operations. And then, there are reliable sources which state US special forces were in Kashmir as part of the War on terror.
  • I suggest changing the name of the section. Fighting in Kashmir is basically an internal territorial dispute, and suggests so. The War on terror which India is assisting is separate from the Kashmir separatist moment and i fully support removal of any part that relates to the internal conflict. As i said earlier, IMO, we should keep info that is related to Al-Qaeda, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, as they have been officially declared as terrorists by the US/NATO and India, and hence are part of the current War on Terror.
  • I am not going to touch Russia and Chechnya, as this issue is quite complex without them, and that is not the topic of discussion here :) Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • One more thing i forgot to touch: The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada. (from the lead of 2003 invasion of Iraq). But those countries are definitely part of the War on terror. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont agree with this at all, but have to concede there are a lot of "reliable" sources that call India as a participant on the "War on Terror" and that in fact some who say that India is a participant in OEF (the latter is really stretching it), so I'll drop this (although I'm pretty sure most of these "reliable" sources got their facts from incorrect Wikipedia page which had listed India's independent anti-piracy operations as part of the CTF-150 - and hence OEF-HOA) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we add the recent attack on the US embassy in Libya to the terrorism list?

The US govt have suspicions that the attack was planned by an extremist group. Should we add it to this article? Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source to cite. Can you link something here? Doc talk 05:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the metric used to include an event in this article. Is there even one? TomPointTwo (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It's always up for debate. We know the official "War On Terror" happened only after after the 9/11 attacks, arguably beginning with the first official U.S. response on October 7, 2001 (see the thread above). It's so complicated that I would recommend at least one reliable source mentioning the phrase (WOT) per listed event, but that's some very wishful thinking from just one editor. Doc talk 07:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, "The concept of America at war with terrorism may have begun on September 11, 2001 when Tom Brokaw, having just witnessed the collapse of one the towers of the World Trade Center, declared "Terrorists have declared war on [America].": this needs work. Tom Brokaw neither created the concept of the WOT nor coined the "reverse term" - it needs to be written more carefully and responsibly. Doc talk 07:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Totally unencyclopedic and biased article

To call this article ridiculous is a gross understatement. It is a confused attempt to turn what is essentially part of the political lexicon in Washington into a reality on the ground, and it will never work. The "War on Terror" is not an actual war. It does not have "commanders" or "casualties". It does not have a scope or a timeline. It is primarily a political phrase and should be discussed as such. Consider for example that some users are trying to add "Saddam Hussein" on the side of "Osama Bin Laden" in the commanders. Consider that Hamas terrorist attacks are listed as part of the war, but Hamas and Israeli leaders are not part of the commanders. Consider that Israeli terrorist attacks (for example by Kach) against Palestinians are not listed. Consider that terrorist attacks are almost selected entirely based on whether the aggrieved party is allied with Washington or not. Terrorist attacks by Islamists against Israel are listed but terrorist attacks by Islamists against Iran are not.

All this should make it at least clear that it is an idiotic notion to try to define the "war on terror" as an actual war. It is in fact much more similar to the Cold War, in that it is not a real war but a phrase used in ongoing political discussions.

That aside, this article reeks of bias to an unbelievable degree. It is so twisted and corrupted by POV that the article does not even use commonly-used phrases anymore. It uses official Washington propaganda terms that even the most subservient US officials no longer use. The Iraq War is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom". The Afghan War is called "Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan". The War in Somalia is called "Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa" (a phrase even US officials feel to embarrassed to use given that the war is primarily empowering warlords and pirates). US withdrawal from Iraq is called "Operation New Dawn".

And just to cap off the bias, and make sure it becomes obvious to the reader that the article is not even really intended to describe the Washington's "War on Terror", the end has a special section for "Islamic terrorism since Sept 11" which includes the most absurd and totally unrelated incidents (such as Cricket-related hooliganism in Pakistan), a bomb-plot by an anti-Muslim bigot against a mosque and a variety of other absurd collection of unrelated events.

For these reasons, I am adding NPOV and Offtopic tags. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me state plainly that I do not agree with the above editor that this article suffers from major POV issues, or that the list that was tagged as off topic does not belong in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with RCLC. Regardless of our own opinions about the U.S. "War on Terror", there are very obvious reasons why (say) "Israeli terrorist attacks" are not mentioned here: They aren't what the U.S. is fighting against in the War on Terror. To claim that the U.S. and its allies define what is meant by the phrase "War on Terror" is to state the obvious; the term doesn't refer to any other war. Mentioning the official name for the invasion of Iraq isn't a POV issue, and Poyani's implying that Iran is not really an Islamist state puzzles me. It appears that Poyani's comments about the War on Terror and the Cold War are based largely on synthesis and original research. The "War on Terror" may just be a propaganda hoax, but we can only report what the term describes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually you just proved my point. I said that terrorist attacks against Israel do not belong here, since they are not part of the US lead "war on terror". Yet they are listed. I did not say that Iran was not an Islamist state. I just said that like Israel, Iran is also the target of Islamic terrorists (from groups like Jundallah or the MEK). The only reason why attacks against Israel by Hamas are listed in this article and yet attacks against Iran by Jundallah are not, is because of POV. Neither should be mentioned since neither is part of the Washington "War on Terror". I also never referred to the "War on Terror" as a "hoax". I just pointed out that it is not an actual "war" in the traditional sense. It is part of the political lexicon, like the "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" or "the Cold War". It is as absurd to have "commanders" and "casualties" in the "war on Terror" as it is for the "War on Drugs". They are not actual wars like "World War 2" or "Korean War". They are just phrases used to describe a trend. The most ridiculous response must be the claim that the "official" name of the Iraq War is "Operation Iraqi Freedom". That is not Wikipedia's "official name" for the war. That is the Bush Administration's official name and Wikipedia is not supposed to be considered a political arm of the now gone Bush Administration. We are supposed to use the commonly used name to describe events. It is as absurd to call the Iraq War "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as it would be to call the Iran-Iraq War "The Holy Defense of the Homeland" (which is the Iranian government's "official name" for the war).Poyani (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is POV even by your own standards TheTimesAreAChanging. You state that using the Bush admin's official names and positions is acceptable (I think it is TOTALLY unacceptable) and yet Bush himself on numerous occasions stated that the War on Terror is not a war on Islam. If that is the case, why does this article have a section entitled "Islamic terrorism after 9/11" which include items such as cricket hoolaganism in Pakistan against the Sri Lankan cricket team, or terrorist attacks against Israel by Palestinians or the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan by her political rivals? What do any of these have to do with Bush's official "War on Terror". The reality is that this article should be considered as only describing the "war on terror" as defined by the Bush administration and it should use commonly-used names for things like the Iraq War, drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc, and not the official propaganda terms. It should also be made clear in the lead that the "War on Terror" is a term created by the Bush administration to describe a series of campaigns, involving military action, as a response to the Sept 11 attacks. It should not have a war infobox. It should not have "casualties" or "commanders". And it should attribute official Bush positions to his administration and not state them as outright facts. The notion that Iraq was invaded as a result of connections with the 9/11 attackers is extremely fringe (and I would say by now totally discredited in the mainstream RS) and should not be presented as outright fact. Poyani (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Poyani, your comments make very little sense. The article doesn't claim that Iraq was behind 9/11. I haven't edited the article more than a couple times. The article nowhere implies a war on Islam. I agreed that the list of terrorist attacks is probably off-topic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
TTAC, including the Iraq war in this article implies that they are related. The article clearly implies that the war on terror is a war on Islam. It does so by including sections like "Islamic Terrorism since 9/11" which include mundane things like cricket hooliganism in Pakistan. The section "Islamic Terrorism since 9/11" doesn't even belong in this article. It should be removed and replaced by a section which describes ONLY Al Qaeda terrorist attacks which fall under the War on Terror. Nothing else should be listed. And as before, a much more sensible name for this article would be something along the line of "American response to the Sept 11 attacks". Then the body can state that the Bush administration called its response "The War on Terror". This is far more sensible and is consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. To use an official government phrase on such a matter-of-fact basis is clear POV. Poyani (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been a template on the discussion regarding Islamic Terrorism since 11 September 2001 and movement of the content to a different article, perhaps this should be done?
See WP:COMMONNAME; the War on Terror is the most common name in mainstream reliable sources for the subject which this article covers, and to which the past consensus of editors agreed it to cover. And since the scope is defined, content not related to the scope should be moved to the appropriate article; for instance please see this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
War on Terror is by far the most common name for the global conflict against militant salafists. It is very much a real war with campaigns and military leaders just like any other. Al-Aqaeda and its afflilates command and field forces throughout the globe, with active campaigns being waged in Mali, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Siani, and other places. Several defense analysts have refered to this conflict as World War IV, but War on Terror is by far the most common name used in the media and the general public and World War IV has not gained much use outside analysts and academia. Indeed these two terms or variations of them are the only ones i've seen as names for the conflict at all. If you know of other name that is in common use i'd very much like to see it.XavierGreen (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with what you have written here. The problem is that the war you are describing "conflict against militant Salafists" is not how this article is organized. For example, this article has sections which deal with the American invasion of Iraq. There is a discussion (above) about adding Saddam Hussein to the list of "commanders" on the "terror" side of the war. Saddam Hussein is not a "Salafist" by any extension of that term. After looking at your arguments, I agree with using the name "War on terror". It is the most commonly used term for the conflict in RS. But using the same logic, "War in Afghanistan" is far more commonly used in RS than "Operation Enduring Freedom".

I also think the article should be limited to the US response to the 9/11 attacks, and not deal with offshoots like the Israel/Palestinian conflict, the Iraq War, or cricket hoolaganism in Pakistan. There should be a section which includes American operations of the war and another section which includes Al Qaeda operations/attacks. Nothing outside of this scope should be included. If everyone can agree to this then I will make the changes. Please advise Poyani (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If the scope, which appears to be the past consensus, of this article is on the United States defined campaigns that fall under the War on Terror description, the question remains does OIF fall under the descriptor. I believe that are RSs that support both inclusion and exclusion. Information about the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and cricket hoolaganism, although notable in their own right, are not connected to this. However, it can be argued that the Fort Hood Shooting and the killing of the soldier in Arkansas are directly related to it.
I am fine having the sections remain named for the operations, as this article is focused on a campaign, however at the same time I can understand (although it is not my preference) the argument for renaming to the common name used in the media.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox countries

The military infobox should remain. However, it should not contain such a strange long list of countries. It looks a lot like OR to me. I agree with Poyani that the non-US response stuff in the article should be removed, because the term commonly refers to the American response. Adding other's countries struggle with terrorism is OR and inaccurate interpretation.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We should include responses from nations that are involved in the war on teror as US allies. It's not just a US war. If conclict X is part of (what the USA defines) the war on terror then any ntions participant in the conflict are part of the war n terror.18:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
Well, that means Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are definitely part of the war. However, we need to decide on which countries involved in the other OEFs should also be included. The Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara article contains a long list of countries in the infobox along with a long list of supporting countries. The same goes for the Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa article. I'm not sure which of the countries listed are actually involved in the conflict. And then there's other countires that are listed in this article's infobox such as Russia and China who are clearly fighting who they consider terrorists, but related to America's War on Terror. What I'm saying is some of the countries listed in the infobox definitely needs to be removed. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
If a nation is directly involved in supporting the USA in operations that the USA considers part of the war on terror then tose nations are combatants. If a nation is not directly involved in what the USA had defined as part of the war on terror then they are not combatants.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done -I've done a fact check from these two official sources regarding the missions in Africa: [4] and [5]. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Philipines are kept in the infobox for obvious reasons. I've removed any other country that was not listed in the OEF African missions. Interestingly, I even had to add a few. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Austrailai was involved i the war i Iraq, Africa is ot the only war zone.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hold on...check this article: Multi-National Force – Iraq#List of countries in the coalition. We have a lot more to include according to your logic. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes we do, we list all countries that are 'officialy' participants in the war on terror.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that New Zealand has been taken off the list of combatant nations? New Zealand servicemembers have been killed in support of ISAF and are listed here as a contributing nation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like we are missing countries that are listed under ISAF. New Zealand, Mongolia, and several more needs to be added into the list. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Before removing any more nations (or indeed ading them) we need to discue why they are a combatant (or not). This has to be done on a case by case, not block, basis.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Aren't all the troops in the ISAF combatants? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think they are. Why?Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
So should't we include all ISAF countries in the list then? So what's there to discuss? I don't quite understand what you mean by "This has to be done on a case by case". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
When you deleted a lot of countries you removed countires (such as Australia) that are activley (or were) engaged in millitary operations. What you should have done is apprached this in a rather less then a bull in a china shop approach. We need to examine the argument for each nation seperatly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Other than the nations in the ISAF and African coalitions, what other countries do you suggest we add? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Those that operated as part of the colaitionin Iraq, any that are participants of any of the operations listed in this article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -Okay, I think I've added all the previously missing countries that were part of the ISAF and Iraq coalition. Is it good now? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Are those who are part of Operation Active Endeavour listed?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The article for that operation has multiple issues, including citation ones. I'm not sure if the country it lists are reliable. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hamas & Hezbollah

In a recent change, an editor added Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, sometime after 30 September. I understand that they are designated as terrorist organizations, however are they a combatant in the campaigns that would fall under Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, or Afghanistan Campaign Medal?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Those groups are not involved in any major war with the U.S. I think they should be removed. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of POV Tag

I just reduced the number of attacks to only those related to the topic (i.e. only attacks involving the belligerents) and renamed the section. Given that all the POV issues I had listed have been addressed and the remaining issues are only pertaining to style and format I propose we delete the POV tag. Poyani (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Resumed discussion

I have to again disagree with the use of this infobox. It makes no sense. The "War on Terror" is not an actual war. It is a commonly used phrase which encompasses a campaign to achieve a set of often vaguely defined political objectives. Consider the distinction between, say, on one side the "War on drugs" or the "War on Poverty" and on the other side the "Vietnam War" or the "Six-Day War". The latter are actual wars between states. The former are political phrases. The "War on Terror" is a campaign much like the former.

If we try to make the War on Terror fit the mold of an actual war by using things like this infobox, we are just going to confuse people. Aside from the ridiculous number of countries we would have to list on the two belligerent sides, the list of "commanders" is going to look ridiculous. Do we list the leader of every country involved? How can anyone make the argument that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership should not be listed (especially since Iraq is listed in the belligerents)? Iran's leadership has been accused of participating in the war covertly. Do we include them on the belligerent list?

The infobox only makes sense if you are explaining a war which has two sides. That is why the infobox as 2 sides. But this "war" does not have two sides. Does it make sense to include Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the same side (giving the impression that they are allied) when in fact they were enemies? Does it make any sense to include Iran's leadership given that it was violently opposed to both Iraq's and Afghanistan's leadership?Poyani (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this: [6] The government considers the Overseas Contingency Operation (aka War on Terror) an official political and military campaign. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. The link you posted is about budgetary information relating to "overseas contingency operations". The words "war on terror" do not even appear once in the pdf. Furthermore, the government also has identical documents relating to military spending associated with the "war on drugs". It is an interesting document but I am not sure how it relates to the argument at hand. Poyani (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The overseas contingency operations is the War on Terror [7]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You are right. I still don't see how this affects the argument about the infobox. As I said, the "war on drugs" also has budgetary documents relating to the military operations that use that classification. My argument is the infobox is not intended for the way it is being used here. It is unnecessarily confusing and misleading.Poyani (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The War on Drugs is an interesting analogy. Actually both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs are listed as ongoing conflicts on the current events main page. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I support having an infobox for the War on Drugs article as well. There's undeniable evidence showing DEA agents engaging in para-military operations in Latin America. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these are ongoing conflicts. I just don't think it is expedient to present them using the infobox. As I noted, this creates a whole slew of problems. For example, as I noted before, the two sides of an infobox usually represent two sets of alliances. But that is not the case for this article. Washington categorizes different conflicts as part of the war on terror and their adversaries in each conflict are not necessarily allied to one-another. A perfect example of this is the Baath Party and the Al Qaeda affiliates. They are both listed in the belligerents but they are not allied. How do you propose we fix something like this?Poyani (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, for that matter, there's an easy solution. We can add a note in the infobox saying that the War on Terror targets do not necessarily cooperate. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a sensible solution. Poyani (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Disputed casualties section lead content

I deleted this under "casualties," because it was essentially being used as propagndistic rhetoric, and had little to do with actual casualty figures:

" The Global War of Terror has seen fewer war deaths than any other decade in the past century.[1]"

The quote is also misleading, since it ignores war casualities of countries which were invaded which are in the 10s of thousands. War casualties can not only be based on the war casualties of only one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansummermh (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:BRD, I have reverted the bold removal of verified to a reliable source content. Additionally, I have attributed the content to the author of the source in order to indicate it's the subject's opinion of facts. It can be argued that content should be removed based on other grounds, but bold removal of verified content without an edit summary, or a consensus to support the removal, is IMHO not the best course of action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Post 9/11 events inside the United States

The last area which needs major overhaul is "Post 9/11 events inside the United States". It is a disorganized and incoherent mess. I'll reorganize it soon. Feel free to post any comment here. Poyani (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how you plan to reorganize it? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Second Iraq war

  • I agree with most of User:Poyani's comments about POV in the article, and in particular I am perturbed by the inclusion of the second Iraq war. The first official justification for this war was ridding the Iraqi state of its weapons of mass destruction; the second official justification was bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. Neither of these has an obvious connection to "terrorism", and the theoretical state sponsorship of terrorists does not address that issue. (By the way, almost every state sponsors terrorists—it's how they get away with stuff.)
  • Another major issue is the name. An article under this name is fine, but the description of the name is misleading. It's not "a term commonly applied" to the wars of the US and the UK, it is a term created by the governments of the US and UK for their own use. God only knows what name the targets of this "war" in Afghanistan and Pakistan call it. groupuscule (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the Iraq War didn't really have much to do with terrorism. However Bush have claimed repeatedly that the war in Iraq was part of the War on Terror, which is why we include it. As for your second point, perhaps we can reword the first sentence, such as the War on Terror "is a term coined by..."? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the tangibles between international Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussein regime, the post-invasion of Iraq included military operations against several jihadist groups, both Iraqi and foreign. The US government included Iraq as part of it's perceived wider struggle against terrorism and, one way or another, the was the reality in the end. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The war resolution explicitly cited Iraq’s role in "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations". It was not an afterthought created because no WMDs were found.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempting definition

  • OK, I'm convinced by these responses regarding the inclusion of the Iraq war. Now let's talk about improving the definition accordingly. (And it's actually a little clunky, regardless of attributing the name, so that aspect could be improved also.) The "terminology" section is pretty now regarding the history of the term's development. Adopted by Bush, picked up by the UK, dropped by the UK, dropped by Obama. If the article is correct, as is, and we're using "war on terror" to refer to the policy of the US federal government... then isn't the war on terror over? If this were correct it would create a bit of an identity crisis for the page; but perhaps there are reasons to describe the O administration as still conducting a "war on terror". Curious to hear people's thoughts.
  • Discussions of the term/phrase "War on Terror":
  • Searching for War on Terror on Google Scholar turns up articles and books predominantly from 2004 and 2005. These are uniformly critical, use scare quotes, are anti-Bush... y'all know the drill. Searching on Google proper seems to indicate the term coming into greater use/analysis later, particularly in 2006/2007.
  • "Defining the War on Terror" on NPR, two possibilities; either
  • (a) it's an ambiguous ongoing thing with multiple enemies, or
  • (b) it's the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan
  • Brzezinski editorial in the Washingon Post; "war on terror" generally appears in scare quotes, describes Bush administration as creating a "false historical narrative" to support its own agenda
  • "Can the War on Terror Be Won?" by By Philip Gordon, also 2007 (perhaps a popularity low point); points to ambiguities in the definition
  • "White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over", Washington Times 2009, support for the 'Obama ended it' position
  • Forbes piece, May 2011, responding to reports that OBL has been killed, asks "Is the war on terror over?" and basically equates WoT with military presence in Iraq/Afghanistan.
  • Wired piece on Michael Hayden, September 2012: Bush "war on terror" = Obama "war on terror" = potential Romney "War on Terror"
  • Not really sure how to organize all this. It does seem to me that we can't have it both ways: War on Terror is "fighting terrorism" or War on Terror is something the government says is going on. If "War on Terror" = "fighting terrorism", defined in some neutral encyclopedic way, then this page needs to look totally different. If "War on Terror" = whatever the government says, then the page should reflect the idea that the government says we're not in the "War on Terror" anymore. Possible third option: "War on Terror" is overseas operations inherited from Bush? (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan). This would still exclude Pakistan. OK, what say youze? groupuscule (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The "War on Terror" has been described as ambiguous and difficult to define. We can mention that in the Terminology section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Surprised to see few responses here. If this is a page not about a definable military conflict but about a unit of terminology, then it should be treated as such. groupuscule (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Updating WoT Participating nations list

The list appears to need an overhaul. It should be synced with the following websites Participants in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa, Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines, Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara, Operation Enduring Freedom – Caribbean and Central America, Operation Enduring Freedom - Kyrgyzstan, and Multi-National Force – Iraq#List of countries in the coalition.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Beginning of War on Terror

A particular user has taken issue to when the "War on Terror" occur and assumed it to be on September 11th, 2001. Unfortunately that is not backed by any sources whatsoever since I can find plenty of sources that states that the "War on Terror" occurred on October 7th, 2001 when Operation Enduring Freedom occurred. That's the start date of the "War on Terror" unless we can use Operation Active Endeavour which started October 4th, 2001 but there were no hostilities as far as we know during that operation. ViriiK (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In the past I would have concurred with the statement above, however if the article is treated like other campaign articles, the campaign would be covered by the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal or Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. If that is the case the date which one could first earn the medal is stated as 11 September 2001.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would also support Sept 11 as the start-date (and so apparently would the other user who edited the start-date recently). Wartime actions were being conducted on that date in direct response to the attacks. It doesn't really matter when the invasion of Afghanistan began; fixation on that one event would be overly technical and not in concert with usual Wikipedia conventions. --SchutteGod (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing MASSIVE OR here. Completely unacceptable. Proper starting date according to most sources is Oct. 7-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's only OR if the scope is that of a single, specific military operation which includes a definite start and end date. Otherwise, like any broad historical event or conflict, the beginning of the "War on Terror" would include a lead up section and an explanatory section on initial stages of the event. There's no shortage of sources willing to say the War on Terror "began" when al Qaeda hijacked four airliners. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that since various sources contradict each other that a good consensus on when the war started needs to be created.
As I have said before, I think using campaign medal dates have a very well founded background, but I can understand if they are not accepted universally.
In looking for references I found the BBC saying that 8OCT01, being the date and the US Army saying that it wasn't 11SEP01, the Brookings Institute says it started 12 hours after the 11 September attacks, another source saying it really started in the 1990's, and another says it really started in 1989. So consensus is very important.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Good hunting on the refs, RightCowLeftCoast! I think consensus at this moment is firmly of the position that the declared WOT did not occur until after 9/11, whether it be hours or weeks after. Terrorist acts prior to 9/11 were not part of the "War On Terror" simply because that phrase was not in common usage at those times. There was a "war on terrorism" going on long before 9/11 in many nations, but the WOT was declared after the events of September 11, 2001. Doc talk 08:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is yet a clear consensus, and as such the discussion tag I believe should remain, that being said I will not change the date until a consensus has been formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
When I'm reading Executive Order 13289 which establishes the GWOT medal, it only pertains to any combat operations that have taken place which Enduring Freedom was being carried out on October 7, 2001. Executive Order 13289 of March 12, 2003 the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal shall be awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who serve or have served in military operations to combat terrorism, as defined by such regulations, on or after September 11, 2001, and before a terminal date to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. ViriiK (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted a good faith change to the infobox here. There was no reliable source provided for the change, and there is no consensus above to change the content, especially with the OR charge made by Futuretrillionaire. As I indicated above there are multiple reliable sources that give multiple different beginning dates for this conflict.

Let me suggest this solution:

  1. ) In the infobox use a date that will be determined to have consensus
  2. ) Add a see note after that date, in the see not in that section to be added to the infobox it can list the multiple different verifiable to reliable source(s) start dates.

What do we think of this solution?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists as our start date? Just as with WW-II, we shrugged off a lot of Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks before finally getting into the game. Hcobb (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is an international campaign/conflict, it could be said that the start date differed for each combatant. For instance Al Qaeda had declared war in 1998, and before that in 1996. The west didn't recognize that a war had began until, as the article which Hcobb had linked until 18 September for events which began with the September 11th attack. This is why we needs an RS, which I think the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists can be used; also the NATO Article 5 authorization could also be seen as a starting point. This is why I think giving a consensus date (with verification from a reliable source) with a note would be a good solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
... Or we can Teach the Controversy and simply give several dates with the sources for each. Hcobb (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the tired and never entirely appropriate analogy but there's a parallel in the Second World War. Some of the war's combatants had been fighting for years before the first shot was fired in Europe and the US didn't enter until almost a year and a half after all the other major combatants. Generally speaking the start date is regarded as the 1st of September, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland as this is considered the "trigger" event which precipitated global involvement. I think September 11th is an event which is widely viewed in the same light. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a overwhelming number of reliable sources that verify that the War on Terror began with the September 11th attacks, as we have September 1939 being the most recognized start of World War II (although some combatants such as in the Pacific War had been fighting since 1937)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be entitled "War of Terror"?

To maintain a non-US centric POV? Garth of the Forest (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. For instance, we wouldn't title an article "War on Iraq". groupuscule (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
We just follow the WP:commonname, which is usually war on terror. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I assume the "of" was unintentional?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Why would that be an issue? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Because essentially (or flat out) none of the sources on the page identify it as such? When used in this context "of" and "on" declare methods and targets, respectively. It's why the "War on Drugs" isn't the "War of Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" isn't the "War of Poverty". To alter the name is an editorial statement on the nature of the conflict and one not backed by a preponderance of reliable, neutral and third party sources. TomPointTwo (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201294115140782135.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list

So you just need sources? (And where do I write to get my name off that disposition matrix? Drones are thick as flies around my house these days.) Hcobb (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Three political editorials using a play on words is your array of "sources" to rationalize using "War of Terror" as the encyclopedic header for the content of this article? I can only reasonably assume you know that's ridiculous and instead are abusing the talk page by using it as a soapbox. The alternative is impossibly depressing instead of being merely boringly predictable. TomPointTwo (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename it to Overseas Contingency Operation then. Hcobb (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME I believe that the article name is good as "War on Terror", as it is also the name given to the overall campaign, the terminology section includes all the other names that have been used to describe the greater conflict.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how sourceable it is but, while "War of Drugs" and "War of Poverty" are very clearly not real wars the "War on terror" is not actually a war either. Just because it has "War" in the title doesn't make it a war.

undeclared wars: On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.

As the president has the formal option to declare war it can not be considered a war until he declares it. You can still send soldiers and kill people but it isn't a war until he announces it to be one. A declaration of war against Saddam does not last beyond his regime. If you stick around after the war is won it becomes an occupation.

The difference between an occupation and a war should be obvious to anyone. If you call the occupation "War on Terror" I would think you the same author as the "PATRIOT act", same bullshit, different wrapper.

The technical differences should be mentioned in the article but I leave that up to more experienced editors on this page. :-)

If not convinced:

The War Powers Resolution: "In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. "

It really cant be that today it is all the same. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Try reign of terror.Keith-264 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Both are POV pushing titles, and does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. Multiple reliable sources that are primary, secondary, and tertiary that verify that the current title of the article is the common name for the conflict. There is a section regarding terminology where alternate names of the conflict can be found, added (if verified by reliable sources).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Al Qaeda Network Exord

Please, can someone include this page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Al_Qaeda_Network_Exord, in the article? According to Top Secret America, by Dana Priest and William Arkin, on page 236, the country list included Algeria, Iran, Malasya, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia and Syria and others, which did not require additional approving by the President nor the Secretary of Defense. The above mentioned needed "at least tacit approval from the country involved". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.140.194.198 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion

Should the Boston Marathon bombings be included in the section entitled Post 9/11 events inside the United States? There are multiple sources, some of them reliable, connect the event to the conflict which is the subject of this article. Other reliable sources caution inclusion of this subject under the "War on Terror" heading. Therefore, I am seeking consensus to see how we on Wikipedia should proceed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My first inclination was no but I was surprised at the number of people who are stringing the events together, both as a rhetorical device and for legal precedent. I wouldn't include it on a bullet list but I'd say there's more than enough there to discuss the event as a point of debate regarding the continuity of the War on Terror in a post-Bush/Iraq context as well as the latest event in the War on Terror's enemy combatant v. federal criminal statute debate. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

President Obama rejects the phrase 'War on Terror'

I know, I know... Not exactly news but seems like this is first time he's said anything to that tune publicly.

While delivering a speech at the National Defense University on May 23, 2013, President Obama stated: "Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' — but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."[8]

Maybe a yada-yada from Obama's senior advisers to hammer home his message. Whatcha think? †TE†Talk 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, I think you're right in saying WP:NOTNEWS applies. One source does not end a campaign, IMHO. When they stop awarding the GWOTEM and GWOTSM, then I think it would be more appropriate to put an end date on the campaign which is the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

POV

The introduction states "The War on Terror (also known as the Global War on Terrorism) is a term commonly applied to an international military campaign which started as a result of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. This resulted in an international military campaign to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant organizations. The United Kingdom and many other NATO and non-NATO nations participate in the conflict" But even the one other named participant, the United Kingdom, as per the article itself, does not use that name anymore. The Obama administration also avoids the term. So speaking of "commonly applied" is quite a stretch and gives undue relevance and justification to the use of the term. Given that the criticism has been whisked away into a separate article with but a cursory glance at the points raised, the article is extremely one-sided and presents a rather US-centric analysis (demonstrated also by considering only US casualties as worth noting and only terrorist actions against the US). The article is written in a style that also suggests we're talking about an actual cohesive campaign. This is exacerbated by throwing the French intervention in Mali into one pot with OEF-TS.

Aside from those pesky details that the UK and Obama administrations don't use the term anymore, one could get the impression the article was written by Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld. It's a glorification of US efforts with any kind of activity of other nations hijacked as an alleged support of something the US actually came up with. --95.89.50.102 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? I believe the line in that poem runs "To VEIL THE THREAT OF TERROR". Since this devil sees "TERROR" as threatening, when will wiki have pages on wars against all other "threatening" things? You devils editing for wiki have little time before the true sovereign reigns you in. How is that for non-veiled TERROR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

edit request please remove dubious claim

does al qaeda cooperate politically or militarily with each other and if so should the mentioned below be removed? 83.180.209.214 (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

please remove dubious claim from infobox "(* note: the groups listed here do not necessarily cooperate politically or militarily in this conflict)" Al-Qaeda and taliban as the "main targets" does necessarily cooperate politically or militarily in this conflict 90.129.79.235 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

or atleast move symbol * from "main targets" list to "others" list 90.129.79.235 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I would oppose this change, the Taliban are a primary combatant in the Afghanistan conflict, and Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations are primary combatants in other campaigns, although they may not directly cooperate politically or militarily they are in opposition to the coalition that has opposed them. Another option is to create a third combatant section, which would separate certain combatants from each other, however the infobox template only allows for three combatant groups (that I am aware of).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done: There doesn't appear to be consensus for this change; if you provided a source saying that Al-Qaeda and Taliban do cooperate politically or militarily, you'd probably have a better shot. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Invited to discussion via RFC bot. Not taking a strong stance on this question, but it does appear that our statement that "they do not cooperate" is factually wrong.

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Bold preemption of RFC Per the sources I linked above, I took some WP:BOLD action and removed the text, since at a minimum if the text is correct it would need sources to the contrary of these sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

GWOT Service Medal

In the introductory paragraph "US Army's Global War on Terrorism Service Medal" should be changed to reflect that it is awarded to all four branches and the Coast Guard.

I'm skeptical the coast guard had much to do with wars in land locked desert countries. The medal has it's own article, discuss it there.Ancholm (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Questioning accuracy of an attribute

The second paragraph of this article contains the following:

Western media have since used the term to signify a global military, political, lawful, and conceptual struggle...

The US government's global military "struggle" is far from lawful according to many international legal authorities. So the attribute "lawful" needs to be eliminated in the above statement.

Changed it to "allege" Ancholm (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Something about lack of declaration of war

A blurb regarding the lack of a declaration of war from either the US or UK against either Afghanistan or Iraq would not be out of place. It should definitely be brief with more extensive information differed to the relevant articles. Ancholm (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-AQ-affiliated acts of terrorism

Are not part of the "war on terror". Therefore I have removed:

I have not gone through failed/thwarted attempts, as any links to AQ must perforce remain speculative, as those attempts are rarely officially claimed. walk victor falk talk 13:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Result" is biased.

"... started as a result of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. This resulted in an international military campaign ...". The 9/11 article does not say " 9/11 happened as a result of US support of Israel and the Saudi royalty". In both cases that is what the perpetrators said, and both of these beliefs are widely held (popularly and in serious historical works). On the other hand, some say that the alleged terror connection was merely a pretext for the invasion, and others deny the Israel/Saudi connection. By using the word "result" in this way in the lead paragraph of one article but not the other, Wikipedia is taking sides on these issues. Keith McClary (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I presume that the "War on terror" is based solely on the efforts after 11th September and nothing to do with the acts of terror around the rest of the globe? ETA and the IRA who both (by a funny coincidence)stopped after the 11th September event, but we see the Republican Army has started again. Could it be that people are forgetting and the charity boxes are back out to support these dare I say it "Freedom Fighters"? Which one would you consider the terrorist, Israel or Palestine? I don't like the title of this work. More thought should be given. Sounds like an american movie and not cognitive thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmech (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinions re starting new page on Overseas Contingency Operations

This very important bureaucratic term, that the article nicely worked out as having replaced the term war on terror, seems to get short shrift on the page. In fact, there is nothing but etymology on it. I have to agree with Darmech above, that the page seems one sided.

I have been contemplating since February to start a new page on Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which currently redirects to this page. Since nothing on OCO has been added to this article in 4 months I feel it is time to start one. Opinions?--Wuerzele (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Final Phase of War section

Given how he War on Terror never officially ended, and recent events in the Middle East have simply highlighted that fact, are the "Final Phase of War" and "Revival Phase of War" section really appropriate? That is not to say much of the info on possible scenarios regarding a future end to the war, as well as recent info on the rise of the Islamic State, shouldn't be included in the article, because they absolutely should be. But to suggest that the War on Terror ever truly ended and is simply "revived" with such titles for sections would be inaccurate. Feel free to discuss here what sections the necessary info included in the sections be moved, so that this article's section could be fixed. --24.177.242.201 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel–Palestine situation

Perhaps, under "Other military operations", the fighting between Israelis and Hamas should be added. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That conflict appears to be outside of the scope of this article, which is an article about a U.S.-led international campaign. While they are related, they are not one in the same.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The weapons of mass destruction intelligence

This section is given multiple paragraphs about a subject that is a sub-subject of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article, while the intelligence issues leading up to the invasion are notable, I am of the opinion that they are given undue weight here, and should be trimmed down to a single paragraph under the Operation Iraqi Freedom sub-sub-section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Without any objections, I am deleting this content, per WP:DUPLICATE & WP:UNDUE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIL conflict

Given the differing talking points by the Obama Administration, should this content be included in this article? At the same time a non-American source does state that it is part of the War on Terror. I ask this because, there are several pending changes regarding this subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The intervention in Iraq and Syria against ISIL and Al-Nusrah should have its own section in this article. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did Ohconfucius change everything from MDY and YMD to DMY two-and-a-half years ago?

Changed here - The United States is the most involved English-speaking country by far, and most certainly will 'never' refer to the "11 September attacks" in that form, and the majority in-text usage was already mdy. I have already seen this user doing the same thing to other articles more recently (changing mdy and ymd to dmy automatically using scripts), and I seriously do not see how this is justified. Also, date format for the |date= parameter is (or can be) independent from the |accessdate= parameter. It's probably way too late to change anything now (so I won't argue for that), but I'd like to see the justification for that change at least. Dustin (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is seen as a campaign article of primarily the United States Military, and NATO. Therefore both us DMY dating format it was likely changed, and per WP:STRONGNAT, this is what is used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

War on Terror ended?

I'm pretty sure the "War on Terror" is either ended or isn't called that way any more. The War on Terror was a campaign since 2011 by the Bush administration, and Obama finished that campaign. He is also reluctant to start any new foreign involvement by US military as of 2014. I think the end date for "War on Terror" should be December 2011, any other opinions?GreyShark (dibra) 15:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The preferred wording by the present administraton is noted in the article, "Overseas Contingency Operations". As this article is about a campaign, and the awarding date for the campaign medal associated with the subject of the article has not been closed, we can safely say that the campaign hasn't ended, and that the campaign (by any name one wants to use) isn't over.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate out jihadist camps in infobox?

Since the conflicts between the United States & its allies against the Sunni Al-Qaeda-type jihadist bloc and predominantly Shia Hezbollah-type jihadist bloc are distinct, should the infobox be separated out?--86.149.181.17 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not support creating a third column of combatants that the above proposal by the IP would cause.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn´t the position of USA and UK be more highlighted in the infobox, because currently it has UK and USA mentioned in the NATO section only, and USA is clearly the nation what started the campaign and UK has been the closest ally of USA also in this campaign. Especially the commanders list highlights Pakistan´s role over UK´s or other US allies, while Pakistan is not much of an ally to US and the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. StanMan87 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time. bd2412 T 04:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

War on Terror → Global War on Terrorism – Global War on Terrorism a more widely encompassing term that War on Terror. I have regularly seen links to the article be misrepresented as the US War on Terror. I think that a change in article title may also help in limiting potential abuse. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Current title fails WP:AT: "The title indicates what the article is about ..." Someone who is unfamiliar with the title would better understand the content and the scope of the topic from the proposed title. gregkaye ✍♪ 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updates Needed

It looks like some updates are needed, especially to keep terms straight. From their respective articles, it looks like the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal has limited or no applications nowadays, while the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal is applicable to the campaign against Islamic State. Also, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan has concluded, and is being replaced with Operation Freedom's Sentinel, which is officially described as ending combat operations in Afghanistan (see | here, | here and | here). I guess my question is that as Operation Enduring Freedom winds down, and as the Global War on Terror is a term less used with less overlap to "Overseas Contingency Operations", is there any sort of line that can be drawn under the former term? If the actual operations are concluded, and the term only lives on in military service medals, is that enough? The actual dates Korean War and Gulf War don't match the service medal periods in those cases. Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

MOS image

Per WP:BRD, I am opening a discussion regarding this reversion, and hoping to keep this on the relevant talk page, and not my user talk page. MOS states that textual information should not be presented as an image. I am of the opinion that the relevant text about the recently released report can be included in a neutrally worded, well cited, and short sentence; or could be included in a relevant sub-article. Including an image of it gives it more weight than it may necessarily deserve, and is (again) against MOS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The link is not the image of the cover page but a link to the full report hosted on wikimedia commons. I do not see the relevance to the edit in question of the cited wp, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images , which states that textual info should be entered as text. Using the basic wcommons template to provide this report to the readers also works to properly cite the source and date of access of the report without burying it inline as if it were a regular link like any other. Mehmetaergun (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Giving this recently released report, which appears as an image, in this article gives it undue weight, given that many other sources of criticism have been created, and just because it has been recently released, and may I state rebutted. This would be better off in the article about criticism of enhanced interrogation techniques, than in this article. Furthermore, no other report is given its own image link in this article. And based on my citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images, I would also support removing the image of the Pres. Obama memo in the Etymology section as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: "[report is] rebutted" - thanks for providing insight into your actual motivation for removing content under the guise of various WPs. Mehmetaergun (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
These are guideline and MOS based reasons to oppose the linking to the wikicommons file in this article. I have not read a reason why the recently released report should be given undue weight in this article by giving its wikicommons copy a direct link here. There have been several reports made by various sources, and why should this source be given more weight than the others? Also including the report without a rebuttal does not meet WP:NEU, or provide balance in the section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article Criticism of the War on Terror appears to be a sub-article, as the text that started the article was removed from this article in July 2004. Therefore, the section should be a summary of the sub-article, and thus the image/link to the Wikicommons hosted copy of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture would be best there. I have already provided a wikilink on that page of the report, therefore, there is no need for a image/link here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As the content is suppose to be a summary section due to there being a sub-article in existence with the content in dispute, I will remove it here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Only muslims?

Didn't Obama send troops against Joseph Kony and France in CAR? Does this count as part of the war on terror or is it discounted because LRA and Antibalaka are not Muslim? 89.241.25.94 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a reliable source that describes the efforts to find Kony as a part of the War on Terror, you can add it to the article. I didn't see anything promising on Google News, as none of the articles that I skimmed explicitly connected the two. Part of the problem is that the United States has downplayed the use of the phrase in recent years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"religious war"

An IP address editor has attempted to define this in the lede as a religious war. But when a reporter asked President Bush if his "War on Terror" was a "crusade," (after at first agreeing in a puzzled sort of way), Bush immediately retracted that and denied it is a crusade after his advisers warned him NOT to frame it as a religious war. Calling it a religious war in the lede is inaccurate, and the perspective of a faction of ideological zealots with which President Bush himself did not agree. cf. account of Bush's retraction and reprimanding a General for using religious language to describe the war here and another account in a book hereElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Transfer of Combat Roles

The U.S-led NATO & International involvement in Afghanistan has been transfering combat roles since 2013, why only mention it after the close of ISAF in the infobx. Furthermore, Both present articles (one that presently ends in 2014)(one that presently begins in 2015) include "NATO-lead International involvement in the War in Afghanistan", so why separate it into two sub-sections? That's entirely arbitrary. Why not make the split at 2003, when NATO took over command of ISAF? Why not make the split in 2009 during the surge? Why not make the split in 2013, when Afghanistan took responsibility for security? etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Date format

Considering this is primarily a U.S. topic, why use DMY dates instead of MDY (11 September instead of September 11, for example)? -- Calidum 21:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:STRONGNAT, DMY is the date format most often used in the United States Military, or at least, it is currently.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
September 11 was an attack on civilians in America, though. In that context, it makes sense to use the article's actual name. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't engage in an edit war. As reverting a reversion may lead to. The 11 September attacks were not only on civilians, unless one is arguing that the Pentagon was not a military target. Please revert yourself and achieve a consensus for the change, prior to make it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't revert the whole thing. Conceded the NATO and non-NATO bit. The date issue is a much clearer, I think.
Yes, the Pentagon was also hit, but that's a relatively small part of the story. Even among those deaths, most were civilian. That's why it was considered terrorism, rather than war. A further problem with the old pipe was that it explicitly called them "terrorist attacks". That sends a mixed message, if combined with the military-style date.
For the other bit, if one leads a coalition of anyone to do anything, it goes without saying that those in the coalition participated. Otherwise, there'd be nobody to lead. Awkward grammar.
Since I think I'm right, it'd be weird to revert myself. But you feel free, if you think I'm wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

@Weegee12:, see WP:BRD & more importantly WP:SYNTH. Please do not re-add content without first getting a consensus that it belongs in the infobox. Not all sources appear to meet WP:IRS, it doesn't matter whether a source has a bias, and definitely no need to mention it in the article. Just cause a source is conservative doesn't make it a non-reliable source. Also adding a bunch of different numbers doesn't make for good content. Also please format your references see WP:CITESTYLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Long List

Has nobody seriously noticed the long list of ISIS and Al-Qaeda commanders, along with a former Polish President, that is out of place at the very beginning of the article? I can't seem to be able to fix it but people have edited it since but it's still there. Apparently it didn't stand out to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaviix (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was fixing it earlier, but nope. Guys, can someone in an actual computer take a look at this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 28 Adar 5775 02:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Operation Inherent Resolve

I have undone a increase of section level of the section Operation Inherent Resolve. While it involves American combat in Iraq, it is also inclusive of American combat in Syria. The United States stopped issuing the Iraq Campaign Medal at the end of 2011, therefore OIR is separate from OIF/OND. For OIR, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal is authorized. So yes, a section belongs in things article, but IMHO it should remain listed separately from the Iraq section, related but not contiguous.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Name

The current name makes no sense, because terror (terrorism) is a tactic and you can't declare war on a tactic. Alex discussion ★ 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the name is technically nonsense, but it's the WP:COMMONNAME, used in headlines from many WP:RPs, much like War on Poverty. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Strongly oppose, as stated by A D Monroe III, the common name for the campaign/conflict is War on Terror. There is already a article regarding opposition to the conflict/campaign and there is already a section about the name of the conflict/campaign. No need to move the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
What exactly are you opposing? I mean, I agree that this is the common name, but I don't see any actual proposition to oppose here. If we're talking about a rename, then, no, it should not be renamed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The OP is about the name of the article; I'm assuming this RFC is proposing changing it. If it's something else, please let us know. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
A D Monroe III, NinjaRobotPirate, RightCowLeftCoast. I oppose remaining according to multiple WP policies elaborated above. However, I think we should also provide an additional factually correct name and include it in the article and also add that this is merely colloquial and factually incorrect name. VS6507 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a terminology section for that. Either way, other non common names should not be given undue weight. Also there is is an article Criticism of the War on Terror for "merely colloquial and factually incorrect name" content, a sub-article of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The random RFC bot recommended this RFC to me. If this RFC is on the name, keep the name, it fits all the subjects on the page. AlbinoFerret 00:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • While the OP states that you "can't declare war on a tactic", that is exactly what was done. That is why the article is titled as it is. This has been brought up more than once before, and there was never any consensus to change the title of the article. Doc talk 00:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Doc9871 You might as well declare war on passivity then, right? RightCowLeftCoast, let me put this clear, in my opinion the current name is a nonsense, but it is frequently used i.e. "common name", colloquial or whatever you want to call it. This has nothing to do with my political opinion or criticism, it's just a fact. I just propose that we include a name that makes sense in the lead section too by a note (reference) or next to common name. VS6507 (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. The staggering wealth of references that back up this article being titled the "War On Terror" supersedes your opinion, unfortunately. We call it the War On Terror because that's what it at least was called. I believe it still is called that, but if it no longer is we're not going to revise/rewrite history here with a completely unecessary name change. Doc talk 01:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The title has no official status. In fact it is a euphemism, and misleading. There is as much terrorism (and more torture) used by the USA and its reluctant allies than by the [other] "terrorists". Although this is beyond the scope of this page, I suggest that that a less misleading title should be chosen. Any ideas?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
See WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
See WP:COMMONNAME. War on Terror is the common name of the campaign which is the subject of this article. There is no change in consensus to support renaming. Gooday.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Abu Sayyaf

I have removed an image related to the subject 2004 Madrid train bombings, no other event in that section has an image associated with it. It is better of in the sub-sub-article Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings than this article. It gives those protest undue weight in this main article.
I have also removed Iran from the list of nations supporting the War on Terror, no reliable sources were provided to show this is fact, therefore it is subject to WP:PROVEIT.
I have also re-added Abu Sayyaf. If it is not added under ISIS/ISIL, it should be somewhere in the infobox, as it is a primary combatant in the Philippine campaign.
Diff of changes(2).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Abu Sayyaf hasn't been accepted into the Islamic State. These two IS sources [9][10] under 'regions' do not list the Philippines or any South-East Asian affiliate as being apart of the group. They have listed Boko Haram as being their West African province or region but not Abu Sayyaf. Most of the sources used to justify the IS-Abu Sayyaf connection do not even mention this relationship between the two groups. StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
To remove Abu Sayyaf outright is foolish, especially as they remain an active combatant in the Philippine campaign, regardless of whether they are affiliated with ISIS/ISIL/IS or not. Now, MILF has laid down their arms, but should be included somewhere as a former combatant; even though now they may be taking up on the other side.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Change to lead

@Greyshark09:, I have reverted your good faith change to the lead paragraph of this article. It did not have consensus, and thus was reverted partially due to WP:BRD. The article is heavily weighted towards operations that fall under Operation Enduring Freedom, but also includes operations and conflicts that do not fall within the scope of that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

US vs. U.S.

Resolved

Both styles of our country's initials are acceptable as per WP:NOTUSA, but there's about 45 instances of U.S. And around 60 of US. As per that same MOS guideline, one style must be chosen and consistent throughout the article. Unfortunately, I can't do this properly as I'm on an iPad, but does someone else want to take a crack at it? Cheers. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20 Adar 5775 13:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The guideline in question, also called MOS:U.S. is pretty clear on this point, that "U.S." should be used preferentially (save for the exceptions outlined in the guideline). As such, I've switched most instances of "US" to "U.S." in the article, save in those instances where references use "US" in their titles specifically (generally, in UK and Commonwealth news articles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Death of Mullah Mohammed Omar

Someone added a {{KIA}} after Mohammed Omar's name in the infobox. I removed it. We know his death has been reported. Most speculation is that he died in a hospital of a lingering disease, like Tuberculosis.

I don't think this should be characterized as "Killed in action".

Due to experts questioning whether he was even truly at large, I would question whether he should even be described as "killed while at large". Many experts believe that he spent the post-9-11 years under ISI protection, in Pakistan, under a kind of ISI house arrest. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Queries

1.) With all the talk of pulling out troops has the war ended actually? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.136.138 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

War on Terror -vs- War on terror

Why is the article title Terror instead of terror? Checkingfax (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is the name of U.S.-led campaign, which began in September 2001 and finished in May 2013.GreyShark (dibra) 19:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

American Time

Under pictures why are attacks refereed to with Euro time format? Attack was on American soil and referred by our time date September 11th attacks. Not other way around.69.126.106.78 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation 44 incorrect

The citation "U.S. President George W. Bush first used the term "War on Terror" on 20 September 2001.[44]" is incorrect. The article makes no mention of that date. [44] should be replaced with [57], which is a transcript of the speech in which Bush made his first formal use of the phrase. Editing of that sentence, however, seems to be locked. 137.207.167.19 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

End Date...?

Bush announced the war had commenced on Sept 20, 2001. Obama announced the war had ended on May 23, 2013. So why is it that in the info box, the date shows the war as current and ongoing? Should it not list the end date, and show a calculated duration of 11 years, 8 months & 4 days? (4264 days) - theWOLFchild 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Precisely my point - "War on Terror" is not a generic term, but a campaign, finished two years ago. Perhaps we should even rename it to War on Terror (U.S. campaign) in order people don't automatically insert all possible terror-related staff worldwide in.GreyShark (dibra) 19:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, though I would go with War on Terror (American-led campaign), similar to American-led intervention in Syria. - theWOLFchild 03:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Obama was just saying he would stop using the terminology war on terror. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists is still in effect, there are still drone strikes and military campaigns ongoing, and a Google search will show that WP:RS continue to use this term to refer to these events. Gazkthul (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The AUMF was specifically against those that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. That pretty much ended with the death of bin Laden. - theWOLFchild 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: - i would be against using "American", since it is not specific to US. I would propose either Global War on Terrorism (campaign) or War on Terror (U.S.-led campaign).GreyShark (dibra) 17:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading information

THIS INFORMATION IS FRAGMENTED AND THUS SHOWING THE INNOCENCE OF THE US FORCES AND THE CIA (hiding their ill doings),TO THE EDITORS OF THE INFORMATION: "Truth has to come one day and you cant run from it, the world will know one day of your cancerous authorities" 

                    "How can you fight war against terrorism when war itself is terrorism?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.8.169 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased. No mention of deaths of enemy combatants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.165.171 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Indian claims

There is a POV paragraph from a so called Indian source (without the source being there) about how Pakistan is using this so called aid to suppress domestic issues Balochistan. We must also mention how India is supporting the unrest via its proxies in Afghanistan seems very unbalanced and biased at the moment considering Egypt and Israel receive billions more than Pakistan itself. 2.219.97.149 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on War on Terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:PRECISION, unnecessary disambiguation should be avoided (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 08:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


War on Terror → War on Terror (U.S.-led campaign) – Per discussion on the talk page - the US-led campaign of War on Terror (GWOT) has finished several years ago, but many still think that it is an ongoing worldwide generic struggle against terrorism (counter-terrorism). I herewith propose to rename this page to emphasize that this was a campaign and make it a disambiguation (and add "other Wars on Terror" wlinks), since many people seek in fact information on counter-terrorism. GreyShark (dibra) 08:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@VS6507, A D Monroe III, RightCowLeftCoast, NinjaRobotPirate, AlbinoFerret, Doc9871, and Royalcourtier:.GreyShark (dibra) 09:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this comment by GreyShark.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Would this actually be solved by moving the page? I don't think the issue is whether it's a U.S.-led campaign or not; people using it in a more generic sense are still likely to be thinking of it as a U.S.-led campaign whether or not that's specified in the page title. Keeping the title as the common name and altering the lede and the hatnote to clarify this and also point to counter-terrorism might be a better option? I'm not sure, the concerns are valid, I just don't know whether the page move would actually help. —Nizolan (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no evidence for readers being confused that WoT is not US-ish. Even if there was, how would moving this page from its common name help that confusion? -- A D Monroe III (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Casualties

This article about a war has an infobox, so question; what were the casualties of this war, the infobox doesnt specify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.224.26 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

First Libyan Civil War

So why is there a section for the 2011 Libyan Civil War? Seems out of place. 72.192.191.40 (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

NATO belligerents

Could we please verify which NATO members actually do engage in the listed sub-conflicts and which haven't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Goldstein, Joshua S. "Think Again: War." Foreign Policy Magazine, 15 August 2011.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_terror/Archive_10&oldid=1142782564"