![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
To maintain a non-US centric POV? Garth of the Forest ( talk) 00:23, 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)
Rename it to Overseas Contingency Operation then. Hcobb ( talk) 14:44, 13 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.
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:
It really cant be that today it is all the same. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 01:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, can someone include this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
I know, I know... Not exactly news but seems like this is first time he's said anything to that tune publicly.
Maybe a yada-yada from Obama's senior advisers to hammer home his message. Whatcha think? †TE† Talk 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
"... 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)
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)
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)
Perhaps, under " Other military operations", the fighting between Israelis and Hamas should be added. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 here ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The U.S-led NATO & International involvement in Afghanistan has been transfering combat roles since 20 1 3, 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)
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)
@ 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is the article title Terror instead of terror? Checkingfax ( talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:PRECISION, unnecessary disambiguation should be avoided ( non-admin closure). SST flyer 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
To maintain a non-US centric POV? Garth of the Forest ( talk) 00:23, 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)
Rename it to Overseas Contingency Operation then. Hcobb ( talk) 14:44, 13 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.
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:
It really cant be that today it is all the same. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 01:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, can someone include this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
I know, I know... Not exactly news but seems like this is first time he's said anything to that tune publicly.
Maybe a yada-yada from Obama's senior advisers to hammer home his message. Whatcha think? †TE† Talk 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
"... 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)
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)
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)
Perhaps, under " Other military operations", the fighting between Israelis and Hamas should be added. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 here ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The U.S-led NATO & International involvement in Afghanistan has been transfering combat roles since 20 1 3, 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)
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)
@ 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is the article title Terror instead of terror? Checkingfax ( talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:PRECISION, unnecessary disambiguation should be avoided ( non-admin closure). SST flyer 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)
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)
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)
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)