Template talk:War on terror

Iraqi insurgency

The Iraqi_insurgency page describes it as an ongoing event beginning with the 2003 invasion. Sfacets 08:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi

The Al-Qaeda in Iraq article has information on his leadership role. At the bottom you can find the letter he sent to bin Laden declaring his allegiance to Al-Qaeda.—thames 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada and the War on Terrorism

I think canada needs to be listed, especially from all the action our country's been through lately. I have added it, but revert if you wish.

User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You may include Canada, but Harper was not in office during the most notable Canadian action - extraditing prisoners from Afghanistan to illegal prison camps in Guantanamo. Añoranza 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But he is the current Prime Minister who is committed to keeping the Canadian troops in Afghanistan through 2009. There is also talk from NATO that Canada will take over complete operations in Afghanistan. SFrank85 00:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think due to the recent talks and the fact that he is sticking with the War on Terror he should stay listed. He has commited himself to its continuation. --Zer0faults 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, I don't think there's any more need to question Canada's participation in the War in Terrorism. Besides, Germany and Canada jointly headed the NATO taskforce in Afghanistan for some time.

By the way, Añoranza, you're talking about neutrality all the time - but it doesn't seem as if you yourself adhere to the principle of NPOV. If the extradition of prisoners is illegal or not, that's not for us Wikipedians to decide; no court of law with jurisdiction has declared it illegal as of now, as far I know. That it's illegal may be your point of view - perhaps mine, too - but that has no place in a neutral discussion (that WP has to provide). By the way, the extradition of prisoners to the US is not the "most notable Canadian action" in the War on Terrorism (as per above). Cheers, Something Wicked 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq war

The invasion of Iraq was NOT part of the War on Terrorism. The terrorists entered the country AFTER the invasion. There was no terrorism there before that. Esaborio 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would point you to Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Part Deux where its already been discussed, and all objections have been addressed. If you have any new objections not yet discredited, please present them. Rangeley 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not part of the War on Terrorism. Even the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of substantial cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda during Saddam's rule. Esaborio 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they did come to that conclusion, and it would be incorrect to allege that Saddam is a part of Al Qaeda. But I did not do this. How does this make it not a part of the War on Terror though? Rangeley 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Becuse Saddam was not a terrorist, only a ruthless President. Esaborio 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It very much is part of the War on Terrorism. First off, Bush lead the public to believe that terrorists were there and invaded the country partially on that reasoning. He made it essentially an extenetion of the invasion of afghanistan. Secondly, there are terrorists there now, so now it really is part of the war on terror. But thats my opinion. Falphin 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But Bush lied. Esaborio 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The so called 'war on terror(ism)' isn't a war on terror(ism) any more than the Great War to End All Wars was all that great to be around, or that it was in any way the end of wars. They're just names. They're names that are chosen to persuade you to believe certain things, but they're just names. They are not much of a description of anything. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

For a conflict to be part of the War on Terrorism, it has to have terrorists as the target, which was not the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Esaborio 08:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please read below then tell me if one of the targets was not stated as terrorists? We aren't here to judge if there was terrorists actually in Iraq, but to say that Bush never said there was is a falacy, to say they were not an intended target in the war, well see below.

1. HJ Res 114 - [1]
2. Bush's Ultimatum to Iraq before invasion - [2]
3. Bush's speech in front of the United Nations maknig a claim for war - [3]
4. Saddam's support of the PALF, paying suicide bombers families - [4] [5] [6]

When did I say Bush didn't say that? But he said that there were members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is a lie. Esaborio 04:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the al-Qaeda flag

Please discuss why it was removed. thanks, Sfacets 00:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That flag is from al-Qaeda in Iraq, not the broader al-Qaeda, which has a black flag with the Shahada in white. Esaborio 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A template entitled with a propaganda term is inherently not neutral

Therefore I added the NPOV-tag and listed it for deletion. De mortuis... 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a candidate for speedy deletion. Perhaps you should nominate it over at TfD? --Hyperbole 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are getting more and more desperate as time passes. You have lost the debates and all your points have failed, this is the only reason you are proposing this deletion. You have failed to provide convincing arguments to support your idea. It would not be propaganda to have a template listing all items of the New Deal, it is not propaganda to have this either. Rangeley 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are posting innuendo does not mean you win an argument. De mortuis... 01:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted (these events did happen), but perhaps renamed. It is POV from the point of view that the so called terrorists wouldn't view themselves as terrorists, but something like "freedom fighters". Categorising them as terrorists plays entirely to one side of the conflict, ie. the US and it's coallition.

That being said, I can't see how this could be renamed to anything shorter than a paragraph to maintain NPOV.

Sfacets 07:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is titled this because that is what most people refer to the conflict as. This is wikipedias policy. Rangeley 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know most people refer to it as the "war on terrorism"? Have you asked the people from Southern countries (which have a much higher population than the North) what they call it? Alot of people call it 'America's war on Islam', or 'Bushes' War on Islam' for eg. or don't see the connection between the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and refer to them seperately. Sfacets 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what places you are referring to as "Southern Countries," however I will note that when I say most people refer to it as the war on terror, this is in the english language alone. We do not accomadate for other languages preferences. For instance, the article on Germany is located at Germany, not Deutschland, the German name for it. The United States began a campaign against what they perceive as terrorists, and terrorist states in 2001. They have began both the Afghanistan and Iraq war as a part of this campaign. When these wars began, they were stated as parts of this campaign. It is not POV, but instead encyclopedic to include these wars in the campaign they were started under.

Further, as this campaign is most commonly called, in english, the war on terrorism, that is why we have gone with this name for the campaign. Just like the Gulf War refers to the 1991 conflict, even though in other languages it might be named differently, and despite the fact other wars have held the name Gulf War. In English, when one says Gulf War, they usually mean the 1991 conflict, and that is why Wikipedia describes this conflict at that articles location. Rangeley 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As it is a campaign name, it is only used without quotation marks by the US administration and its supporters. This is not neutral. As the tag for speedy deletion was removed I replaced it with the template for normal deletion given this seems to be what the editor desired who had added the speedy deletion tag. Añoranza 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the most widely used name to refer to the conflict, it is not merely the name given by the government. Rangeley 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has already been made, please stop now. It is a widely criticized propaganda term and inherently not neutral. And reverting with the summary "vandalism" when you have a content dispute shows again how little respect you have for this project. Añoranza 16:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has not ended, and I do not intend to just give up because a poll shows 9 out of 11 people do not agree with me. The basis on which they disagree is a terribly unconvicing one, and the debates are still ongoing. Your side has the numbers, and can admittedly edit much more efficiently than I, since I cannot keep reverting indefinately. But is this good enough for you? Does it make you feel content that more people agree with you? Does this settle it in your mind? Or have you looked at what the sides are saying, looked at the arguments, and questioned, authentically, whether your views are right? Is it good enough that you have more people, or are you looking to be right? I hope you do not resign yourself to accept numbers as "good enough," because even if 1000 people beleive a lie it is no more true than if 1 did.

What you are doing is vandalism, because it is removing leaders of countries who played an important role in the war on terror, and it is removing wars that were began as part of the war on terror. Your reason for removing Silvio Berlusconi and Aznar was that they were war criminals. The shear fact that this is your reasoning makes it impossible for it to be anything but vandalism. It would be like me removing Stalin from the Cold War template because hes no longer the leader of the Soviet Union, or because I claimed he was a War Criminal. Or if I removed the Vietnam War from the template because it was a controversial war that many found not worth fighting. Or if I tried to delete the Cold War template because the name implied it was a "cold war" or one where no fighting took place.

Would you just look at what you are saying, and what I am saying, and not just have a knee jerk reaction. As a liberal you do not need to oppose everything related to the war, especially facts. When you begin to oppose facts, it is a sad, sad day for us all. Rangeley 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not "oppose any facts", I oppose using a widely criticized propaganda term as an encyclopedia title without comment. For me the discussion has ended as you repeat yourself over and over. You even copied these paragraphs from another articles talk page. Not even you seem to be able to post that much innuendo with new words every time. And obviously I did not remove the war criminals because they are war criminals, otherwise I would have deleted Bush, Blair, and Howard, too. I removed politicians that are no longer in office because the template as it was mislead the reader to think that there were more allies in the US coined "war" than there actually are. Please also note that I removed Schröder, too, as he no longer is in office either. Añoranza 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I will point you to here: Template:Cold War. You will note that every single leader given is no longer in office (except Castro), many of those listed are dead, and several countries have infact dissolved. Are you going to remove these? Rangeley 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the Cold War still ongoing? Will it mislead anyone if historical people are listed there? Will you ever try thinking rather than posting innuendo? Añoranza 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the September 11th Terrorist attack still going on? Is the invasion of Iraq still going on? Is the Bali bombing still going on? The template is not trying to state who falls on what side today, or describe the state of the war today, but rather list all events and important people in the War on Terrorism. It will confuse noone to list past leaders or past events, just like it confuses noone to list them for the cold war template. Rangeley 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The "war on terrorism" is going on, as the template clearly indicates: -2006. Could you now please spare us your innuendo? I have never seen a single user posting that much nonsense in such a short time. Añoranza 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is still ongoing. Just like the Iraq War is still going on. Even though Saddam Hussein is no longer fighting in the War, nor is his baathist regime, these remain in the article because they did indeed fight in the war. It is not implying that Saddam is still fighting by including him as a major combattant. It is definately not implying that Aznar, or Berlusconi are still in power by including them in this, either. Rangeley 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows Hussein is no longer in power. I doubt that more than ten percent of the world population know who reigns in Spain, Italy or Germany. I am against the template altogether, but if you want to keep it you need to clarify which of the people you include are in power and which are not. In cases where the position of the country has changed after the government changed this gets difficult. Writing the war goes on till today and the main characters are certain people who are no longer in office but the latter is not indicated is misleading. Añoranza 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is no more confusing than saying the Iraq War is still ongoing and stating Saddam was a main character. We are not stating that they are currently involved. If someone is curious to find more about the important people, they can click the link and find out more. Thats why the links are there. Rangeley 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you state the war is going on and e.g. Bush of the US, Blair of the UK and Aznar of Spain are main characters it seems like an obvious conclusion that Berlusconi of Italy is still in power and Spain a main ally in the war on the US side. The latter two are incorrect, and misleading templates should be avoided. Añoranza 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it must be an obvious conclusion that Saddam Hussein's regime is still in power? Hardly. It neither states whether they are in power, or out of power, but rather puts them under the 'Major Combattants' section or 'Primary participants.' You are trying to make an exception here, it just wont work. Rangeley 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I have it. You suffer from Alzheimer's. Sorry to get cynical but the exact point you are making has been addressed two edits further up. Furthermore, Saddam is not in either as the Iraq war - as consensus showed - is not to be made part of this template. Añoranza 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have alzheimers, you got me. Could you please help an old guy out and point to me where 1. There is a consensus, and 2. Where its stated that the respective leaders were still in power. Rangeley 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1. You know best that there is consensus not to tag Iraq war as part of the war on terror as it was you who made 25 reverts to tag it so. 2. As you might have understood had you carefully thought about what you had read twice - you read others' posts, do you? - you might have seen that it was not criticized that the respective leaders were explicitly stated to be in power but that the template misleads to that conclusion. Añoranza 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1. A poll is not the definition of a consensus, I beleive I linked to you where it explicitly stated this. We have yet to reach what wikipedia defines a consensus. 2. In the cold war template, does it mislead people into thinking that all of the listed people were involved at the same time, when it lists all of them? Rangeley 18:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

2 had already been addressed. As you failed with another point twice you retry an old one? You were told a zillion times now that you are wrong. Indeed, a poll is not the definition of a consensus, but if a poll shows there is a consensus about something there is no rule saying particularly clever guys should have the right to go on with their edit wars. Añoranza 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It has not been addressed, nor was it posted before than. Rangeley 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You may want to download the incredible firefox and use the search option for "cold war". It helps to find what you chose to forget immediately. Añoranza 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So couldnt someone who wants to know if Berlusconi is still in power do that? Rangeley 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No he would not have the time as he would get stuck in discussion pages where Rangeley posted his 657,981th comment on why wikipedia should be dictated by the US secretary for truth as it should be seen. Añoranza 23:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can say that, or you can talk about the issue at hand. It is not implying that all the leaders listed at the cold war template were in power at once, but rather, that they were an important part of it. That is what is going on now with this. It is not implying that all leaders were there at the same time, but rather that they played an important part of it. Rangeley 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write a help file "how to read my favourite template" you can put it on your user page. Together with the template the way you like it to be. Añoranza 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Madrid and London

Can we remove these from the template? It has been established that neither had anything to do with AQ. Or, it must be that investigators concluded that both incidents resulted from a few people reacting to the transgressions in Iraq. To those claiming we should list terrorism in general, no we do not list every terrorist act in this template. Decided to go ahead and remove this error. Nomen Nescio

We should keep them, but in some other category than Main events or Tangential conflicts. Maybe something like Terrorist assaults, as opposed to Military campaigns. The 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings intermediately affected Bush's military campaign, because his ally Aznar lost his office as a result of his dealing with the bombings. The 7 July 2005 London bombings may not have been ordered by Al-Qaeda, but they were committed with explicit reference to Al-Qaeda's goals. They were the first so motivated event inside Bush's and Blair's "homeland" since 9/11. (In my opinion the 7/7-bombings are a perfect example, why Bush's idea of a War on Terrorism doesn't work: American tanks in Iraq won't prevent British citizens from blowing up their own hometowns.) So in terms of encyclopedia-logic, I think these events are relevant enough to be listed in the template. They reflect the current state of "WOT". ---zzz 11:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Improved Template Structure

Some suggestions for the template [7]:

Military Campaigns	Terrorism	Primary participants	Other important figures
Led by USA 2001-2003 Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan 2001-? Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa 2002 Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom - Iraq Supported by USA 2004-current Waziristan War - Pakistan Other Second Chechen War - Russia	Al-Qaeda and supporters 11 September 2001 attacks (USA) 11 October 2002 Bali bombing (Indonesia) 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings (Spain) 7 July 2005 London bombings (UK) 1 October 2005 Bali bombings (Indonesia) 9 November 2005 Amman bombings (Jordan) Israel/Palestine al-Aqsa Intifada Other 1-4 September 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis (Russia)	United States & main allies George W. Bush Tony Blair John Howard al-Qaeda and supporters Osama bin Laden Ayman al-Zawahiri Taliban Mohammed Omar	Political leaders Vladimir Putin Pervez Musharraf Jacques Chirac Hamid Karzai Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Abdullah II

Changes:

• Labels of 1st and 2nd column mirror War and Terrorism. Most WOT-critics complain that they are not related, that you cannot fight a War on Terrorism. OK, so let's keep them apart. One column for military campaigns, one for terrorist acts.
• 1st column: Sublabels by political actors, not chronologically. This solves the problem "what's WOT, what not?" The government who's sending troups decides. So when Bush justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq with WOT, he established the link. From a historic perspective it doesn't matter that Saddam was a secular leader who actuall fought islamists, not supporting them. Bush created facts and now Iraq is the hotbed of war and terrorism. (Personally, I disagree with the whole idea of a WOT, but as an encyclopedist I want the arcticle and templates to document political realities.)
• 2nd column. Terrorism is an ill-defined word, but I think there's widespread consensus on events like 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali. However, grouping them is difficult. We could group them by target (Americans and their allies, Russians, ...) or by motivation (religious, independence, political), or some mix of both. Again, this would solve the problem "what's WOT, what not". For example Chechnya is sometimes linked to the WOT. Obviously there are terrorist acts on one side, and military action on the other. But it's not related to the US. So I'd place the military campaigns under "Russia" or "Other", and Beslan under "Chechnyan" or "Other". The reader can decide if and how these actions relate to each other.
• 3rd column. Merge list of participants and political leaders

What do you think? --Plauz 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq war is not part of the War on Terrorism. Esaborio 16:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, in this case I think that the president of the United States simply outweighs some arbitrary Wikipedians like you and me. Conceptually, I agree with you. But Mr. Bush simply made Iraq part of the WOT. He used his power to make it so, regardless of any factual or moral justification. I don't like it either, but 100.000 troups on the ground and thousands of bombings in Iraq (as a result) are reality. My goal is to improve this template so readers can understand reality -- and make up their own mind. The question was: What do you think of the new structure of this template? Or, for Esaborio: If you had to place the Iraq war in this template (even if you don't think it belongs there), where would you put it? --Plauz 00:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By that logic the US can invade any country as part of the WOT, as long as Bush says the magic word: terrorism. Invasion of Iran: part of the WOT, invasion of Spain (ETA): part of the WOT, invasion of Ireland (IRA): part of the WOT, invasion of Venezuela (oil?): part of the WOT. The list is endless, by definition you state that whatever the President does, as long as he says it is so it is part of the WOT. Personally I do not think that is correct. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zer0faults (talk • contribs)

Irrelevant policy. To conclude that saying Bush determines what is part of the WOT, inevitable means that every conflict he says involves terrorism is part of ... is not a crystal ball, but rocksolid logic. It is a statement of fact and not a prediction. Just like saying that releasing an apple will cause it to fall to the ground. This is no prediction, it is an observation of the laws of physics. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The name World War 2 also did not specify a conflict, however it did not go on forever and nations didnt just attack eachother cause there was a world war, and they can just jump into the current name. Just because someone can, doesnt mean they will. Its not logic just because they can, or may, you cannot state they will because they have options. What you are attempting to do is to tell people what can happen in the future. Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. We are here to report the current facts accuratly not judge them on the basis of their effects on the future. --Zer0faults 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WW II was well defined. Since nobody knows what terrorism is, nobody has limited this "war" geographically, it is safe to say there are no limits, and in effect this war, contrary to WW II, will have no end. Hence, your repeated analogy is flawed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how I define "War on Terrorism". Do you have a better definition? You might want to reread the 9/18/2001 AUMF. The list is endless. The president is already authorized to send troops against anybody he considers a potential terrorist. In my opinion, WOT is a nonsensical propaganda term, there's no point in taking it literally. So if Bush had called it "QRKQWZ", we should label this template "QRKQWZ". The driving force behind this "War on Terrorism" are the US. Other countries tag along, more or less voluntarily. Some countries just serve as battleground, most involuntarily. In their 2006 QDRR the US government made it abundantly clear, that they will continue with extraterritorial military campaigns. (Next stop Iran?). So this "war" will stay, no matter how we call it. I assume that in a few years from now, a different name will have emerged, but for now the most commonly used label is "War on Terrorism". I think of it more as a working title. :-) Actually, this discussion shows, how clever the term WoT was chosen. People talk about semantics, not about the ongoing events. If this ain't good propaganda, than what is? As a compromise, I'm leaning towards "US War on Terrorism". --plauz 11:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You can possibly put it in quotes as a means of finding a middle ground, however stating it as just US would be factually wrong since as it shows there are other nations involved and the UK was actually a member state of the initial invasion. Stating US' War on Terror seems to state noone else is involved, however the template itself goes against that. --Zer0faults 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. I updated the template below accordingly. --plauz 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

New version (see below) with focus on "US" rather than "Terrorism". It includes only military campaigns led or supported by the US and terrorist attacks on US targets. It does not include other terrorist incidents and potential military responses in lokal conflicts (like Chechnya or Israel/Palestine). --plauz 11:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

War on Terror(ism)

Military Campaigns	Terrorism	Primary participants
Led by USA 2001-2003 Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan 2001-? Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa 2002 Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom - Iraq Supported by USA 2004-current Waziristan War - Pakistan	Al-Qaeda and supporters 11 September 2001 attacks (USA) 11 October 2002 Bali bombing (Indonesia) 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings (Spain) 7 July 2005 London bombings (UK) 1 October 2005 Bali bombings (Indonesia) 9 November 2005 Amman bombings (Jordan)	United States & main allies George W. Bush Tony Blair John Howard al-Qaeda and supporters Osama bin Laden Ayman al-Zawahiri Taliban Mohammed Omar

For a conflict to be part of the War on Terrorism, it has to have terrorists as the target, which was not the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Esaborio 08:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It was stated by Bush in his address to the UN here that terrorists were a target and further in Congressional Joint Resolution 114 here(PDF) and then also in his address on Tv before the start of the war here. There is also the fact that the Jordanian government has stated Saddam refused to turn over al-Zarqawi to them after they informed them where he could be found. Anyway as you can see terrorists and stopping terrorism were very much issues in the Iraq War. --Zer0faults 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Bush lied about terrorists being in Iraq before the invasion. 2. The US didn't want al-Zarqawi, so that was not a reason for going to war. Esaborio 04:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not what is at debate here. Also the fact that the Jordanian government asked Saddam to turn over al-Zarqawi proves terrorists were in fact in Iraq. Please read HJ Res 114 regarding why the US went to war. --Zer0faults 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my "personal opinion", it's a fact. Why would the US want al-Zarqawi for? They only care about themselves... Esaborio 06:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Supporting of terrorists is supporting of terrorists. You cannot say there was a terrorist there, but since the US doesn't want him, it means he wasn't actually there. Also going to war over terrorism is just that, the reason comes before the conflict, noone is trying to justify it or prove they were right, simply state why they did it. --Zer0faults 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The US wasn't looking for him, therefore he was not a reason for the agression against Iraq. Esaborio 05:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The US never said it went their looking for him, it said it was looking for terrorists, which he is ... I am not justifying their actions but you are defying logic. Was he a terrorist? yes, was he in iraq? yes, was the US looknig for him? no. That doesnt change the fact that he was a terrorist in Iraq. Before you even start, yes there are terrorists in many many countries around the globe and yes the US if they wanted to could attack any and say its after the terrorists, but Wikipedia is Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball and we can't say what they will do. We are here to present facts, not judge. --Zer0faults 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And the fact is that Bush lied. He said there were al-Qaeda members in Iraq, which al-Zarqawi wasn't at the time. Esaborio 04:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The above template is very US-centric. It does not, for example, include the Waziristan War, the Second Chechen War, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which are all of very high significance to the "War on Terror" in the global sense of the term. You might as well rename the template to American War on Terror. –Matveims 08:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two ARE included. The template is US-centric because the War on Terrorism was begun as part of the American foreign policy, and the operations continue to be led by the US. Esaborio 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Header

My revert to the header was done for the following. User User:Añoranza on 11 May, 2006 added "US Coined" to the header without a discussion ever being made, from there they then began to remove any edits made to the header to revert it back to its original state. I believe that shows the header is in fact in contention as to what it should be and a concensus is in fact trying to be worked out above, the header however seems to be still hotly debated and reccomend we leave it at its original state while we attempt to work out a resolution. Anyone in favor? comments? --Zer0faults 02:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I count five contenders for the header to this template: War on Terrorism, "War on Terrorism", U.S. coined "War on Terrorism", U.S.-dubbed "War on Terrorism", and The United States's War on Terrorism. Which one came first strikes me as utterly irrelevant. There is no Wikipedia tradition that, in the absence of consensus, the original state of an article or template should be preserved. Personally, I feel that the header (and, ideally, the title) must in some way reflect the fact that it is the United States government who considers this both a "war" and a struggle against "terrorists" and that others do not agree on one or both counts. --Hyperbole 07:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you stating we should instead constantly revert the article back and forth while waiting for a concensus to arrive? Since the the adding of the title is whats in contention would the title be best left in its original state before the contention while a concensus is reached? I am sorry if you felt I was debating the reasons for it being there or not. That is not what this discussion here is, its if the header should constantly be reverted without concensus or left in its original state. Should I take it that you feel the reversions should continue instead of leaving it in its original state? Please reply to clarify your position. Thank you --Zer0faults 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple: War on Terrorism. The caveats, POVs and yeah-buts belong in the main article, not in the template's header. --plauz 01:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Second the above, I think if people have a problem with the term is should be discussed on the page of the term, not everywhere else or the templates header. --Zer0faults 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is the exact danger of propaganda terms, they simply mislead. Añoranza 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anoranza: to label a template with a propaganda term, without at least including some scare quotes, has the possibility of misleading those who read it. --Hyperbole 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, quotation marks and bias

I'm rather tired right now, so I won't do any reverting or editing at all. Añoranza re-added the quotation marks to the term "war on terrorism". However, he did NOT remove the NPOV flag. But the NPOV dispute was just about that term - propaganda and all that. With him adding those dreadful quotation marks, the NPOV dispute should be settled (from his point-of-view). So why didn't he remove the tag? Bias? Or did he just forget? ... Good night (it's 2:42 here.. ;-)), a rather nonplussed Something Wicked 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As you might have seen, others agree with me about the quotation marks. Furthermore, the article was categorized by others as US-centric. I agree with this and would like to know what others think about the NPOV issue before I remove it just because the originally cited reason for it was put into quotation marks. Note that I find the title even with quotation marks inappropriate and have written so. And do not have any doubt that the next one who reverts the quotation marks would care to place the NPOV again. Añoranza 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a way that you will budge to have one or the other? I think if its US centric and recognized as such then quotation marks are not needed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also engaging in a revert war because 1 user has agreed with you is sub par. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is remove the quotation marks, remove the NPOV tag and remove the US-centric tag to this template. Users can click on to the actual article anyway and then make up their own minds from there. This template is meant to present facts in relation to what is called the "War on Terrorism", not to cater to the personal opinions of individuals opposed to the naming of the operations being conducted by the United States and her allies. --Edward Sandstig 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another rename suggestion

This is just thinking out loud, but it would be possible to rename this page to "War on Terror(ism)". It's a big ugly, but terror != terrorism, and both words are used for what is pretty much the same thing. Putting the 'ism' in brackets would at least show that the title is more of a label than it is a description. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that, while I think it may actually be a pretty intelligent idea, I do not think those who want to add "US dubbed", "US Led" will agree. The contention seems more over the fact they want it to be noted/implied that its the US who uses this term. I would like to point out that India, the US, Canada and UK governments all use this term. Would that not signify a majority of countries in which English is the primary language? --Zer0faults 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that War on terrorism had replaced War on terror, but some quick googling proved me wrong. Both terms ar in use. So War on terror(ism)) actually makes sense. It resolves the semantic dispute terror vs terrorism. And regarding US led, US dubbed, US coined, quotes, ... I vote for neither. --plauz 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this vote, War on terror(ism)) seems like a good compromise however I too feel US Led, US Dubbed etc or even quotes should not be used, since the terror(ism) handles concern over misunderstandings. Very nice middleground. --Zer0faults 16:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Terrorism to Terror(ism) in the template. If no one objects, I'll see if I can't move the page? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial objection, "US Dubbed" still appearing and dubbed means "To give a name to facetiously or playfully; nickname." which doesn't seem appropriate in this case. I do however feel the "Terror(ism)" marking is a good decision. sorry forgot to sign this --Zer0faults 22:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As was already explained above, "war on terror" is a propaganda term and cannot be used without quotation marks and comment. Añoranza 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As this seems to be the last comment on the point, this edit summary seems to be wrong. Apparently, Hyperbole and Sfacets agree. [8] [9] Añoranza 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that NATO and their allies are the real terrorists? This is not a propaganda term as much as it is the real thing. People who support and fund terrorizing people and countries is Terror! SFrank85 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anyone to be a terrorist. But the tag "war on terror" is a propaganda term used by the US even in cases where NATO partners disagree, for example Iraq, where acts of terrorism became widespread after the invasion. Añoranza 10:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So Saddam didnt gas the Kurds, didnt use chemical weapons on Iran, didnt attack Isreal with SCUD missles during the first war? His military officials did not have "rape rooms" they didnt terrorize the population of Iraq, there wasn't mass graves? Saddam himself was a terrorist, he even tried to have the US president assassinated. He is on trial for many crimes, most that would affirm he is a terrorist. --Zer0faults 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The US were found guilty of supporting terrorist activities in Nicaragua. Does this justify to start templates "War on US terrorists" at all insurgency articles? Añoranza 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, look at the countries and organisations that are/have been supported by the US! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly your personal political opinion is not fact.--Zer0faults 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately for you, your habit of confusing fact for opinion seems to hinder your grasp of reality. Please, who supported Bin Laden? Who supported the IRA? Who supported FARC? I rest my case. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what your case is, sorry can you please clarify to the community as to what you are stating and how it relates to the discussion. thank you --Zer0faults 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He explained that if Saddam is a terrorist for what he did decades ago, the same standard should be applied to the US that was even found guilty at an international court. Añoranza 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current leaders only?

Do we have a current leaders only policy for this template? If so, should Ibrahim al-Jaafari be removed?

Certainly, this "War on Terror" will continue after many of the key players leave office, so will Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac be removed once they resign next year?

I think current and former leaders should remain on the list. I know it can get pretty large then, but in two years this template wont have Bush on it or Blair then. I would say both --Zer0faults 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think former leaders need to be deleted, but it is confusing if we have a mixture without noting it. Añoranza 01:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a tag and key? (OL) after the name or simply a * and then a notice at bottom of template stating those leaders are original members? --Zer0faults 01:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As it is a hystorical template, I feel all leaders should be kept, not only the current ones. Esaborio 08:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but take into account what two others agreed upon: it needs to be noted if someone is out of office. Añoranza 09:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a tag or asteriks if possible to not they are not in office currently or to note who is in office etc. But I do strongly believe all leaders should be mentioned as the main proponents of this conflict will be gone by 2 years time. --Zer0faults 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears inaccurate to list the UN and Kofi Annan as U.S./NATO allies in the "War on Terror"? Annan's been pretty critical of the whole thing, e.g.: [10] [11]. I also have strong doubts about whether this can be framed as a NATO operation. The template has been cast as "NATO's War on Terror" by those who want to make the point that the U.S. is not the only participant. While I sympathize with that sentiment, I just don't think it's accurate: it is not a NATO-vs-Al Qaeda conflict.

Indeed it is not, but so far political bias has gotten in the way of properly defining what this conflict is. If we were to only recognize the actions taken against Al Qaeda as part of the War on Terror, than it is indeed NATO that is the major player, as NATO declared war using the "An attack on one is an attack on all" clause. But NATO is not in reality the "major" player in the War on Terror as it actually is, as NATO has not participated in other parts of the War on Terror, such as the Iraq War. So its sort of a dead end that we have reached. Either it is solely the war against Al Qaeda, and thus inevitably a NATO affair, or it is indeed a broader conflict that can more properly be defined as being waged by the United States and Allies, against terrorists and state sponsors of terror (thus making Iraq a part of it). Or really, its a matter of what we want to say it is here, as we already know that it is the latter. Rangeley 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think NATO has to be included they are participating in Afghanistan which is undisputed part of War On Terror. The UN was also for Afghanistan. I think there is this trend that people feel just because its criticized means its not happening. Annan can say he doesnt like it but there is already personnel dedicated to the cause, hence they belong in. --Zer0faults 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the UN and Kofi Annan should not be listed, and enphasis should be taken off NATO. Esaborio 04:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Afghanistan UN operation and isnt NATO there currently. I don't see how we can lower a countries emphasis, but we can possibly put them in alphabetical order to be completely fair? --Zer0faults 10:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it initiated by the US, and later on NATO stepped in? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe so, Afghanistan's initial invasion I believe was UN supported and I know France and UK were involved in initial attacks. I will do some research and see what I can find.

From what I found the war was authorized under Un Security Council Res 678 authorizing all members states use force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by Jan. 15th. So it was the UN deciding on the war, you can find the direct link via the UN website under Security Council. --Zer0faults 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But that was the GULF WAR, not the War on Terrorism. Esaborio 06:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Many scholars disagree with that explanation, so I doubt this is sufficient. The current accepted view is that Iraq was invaded without UN approval. As to Afghanistan, I already voiced my doubts. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, simply because they do not support the war doesn't mean they didnt lay the legal foundation the US was able to use to goto war. It should also be noted Res 678 does not end with the customary "remain seized of the matter" --Zer0faults 14:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly our legal experts do not trump that many of the UN member states did in fact invade Afghanistan on the basis of that resolution. As for Iraq it is in fact highly debated if the US could use the UN resolution to goto war. Also considering Annan is currently leading the UN and its forces are in fact in Afghanistan, then Koffi supports Afghanistan so he should remain on the list. This isnt a list of who was first supporting, who later stepped in etc. Its a list of those involved at one point with the War on Terror(ism), whether in office now or then. --Zer0faults 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can name these countries you refer to in "many of the UN member states did in fact invade Afghanistan?" Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the following only China as a permanant member of the Security Council did not participate:

Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Norway, Bahrain, Jordan, Japan, Portugal, Poland, Roamnia

Or you can look here United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan#Nature_of_the_coalition. --Zer0faults 15:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While Kofi Annan and the United Nations may have been critical of the invasion of Iraq, they are supporters of the greater "War on Terror." The invasion of Afghanistan received almost unanimous support from the UN, and NATO invoked Article 5, declaring the 9/11 attacks to be attacks on all NATO states. Therefore, I will be re-adding NATO and the UN.

For those who want more information please see here(PDF) It is the UN resolution authorizing the creation of the International Security Assistance Force which the UN has setup in Afghanistan. This shows the UN supported the actions in Afghanistan, previous resolutions are mentioned in the document. Please can we now stop removing UN from the listing. --Zer0faults 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Where does it say that the UN has started a WOT? Afghanistan was in response to 9-11, but was it designated as WOT? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a point you would like to make then feel free to do the research to prove it and present the facts here for the community to see. --Zer0faults 09:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

NATO

Why does this template state "NATO and allies" as an opposing faction, however the only countries listed are Britain, Canada, United States. The last time I checked France, Spain, Germany etc. were members of NATO yet they are considered "Other important Leaders". Isn't it misleading to state NATO is pursuing this "war". Wouldn't "United States and allied countries", "United States and allies" be a better option? Kyle sb 11:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, but some contributors feel the need to "muddy the waters" by erroneously claiming that NATO is fighting a global WOT. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This if anything only supports that NATO should be listed by itself since Germany, Spain and France all sent troops to Afghanistan. So if anything we should remove the "and allies" part. --Zer0faults 11:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Zer0faults, the NATO contribution to the conflict, especially in Afghanistan, has been undeniable. In addition, Scheffer supported the invasion of Iraq.

That's fine but the NATO leaders placed in "other important leaders" should be removed and placed bellow the United States. It is a violation of POV the first section because 1) it implies that NATO only includes the United States, Canada and Britain. 2) Austrlia is listed under NATO and participants, when Australia isn't even in the North Atlantic. Personally I hate this template and would have it deleted, but that's already been discussed. The template implies this a global war with two defined sides being NATO and Al-Qaeda, it's so much more complicated. Instead it would be better to have NATO as a participant and then bellow it Other allies: such as Australia etc. Iraq confuses the situation more, because although there is general agreement by NATO countries over countering terrorism, only a few nations supported the invasion of Iraq, which was argued over WMD issues more than terrorism. Kyle sb 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

More leaders

If we are considering al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq terrorism, then shouldn't their opposites, meaning the Iraqi government, be included in this template. I suggest adding Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Nouri al-Maliki, and Muqtada al-Sadr.

Also, should participants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be included, such as Olmert, Abbas, and Haniya?

Question - why is Mohammed Omar listed as "not in office," is he not still in control of the the Taleban?

72.136.36.104 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he is no longer a head of state. Esaborio 04:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand the war between the Palestinians and Isreali's has been going on considerably longer, I wouldn't think either of these countries leaders should be present. Are they included in any of the conflicts above? do they have troops in any of the conflicts? Have they provided material or other support for the conflicts? I am not stating they don't just offering a measuring stick. --Zer0faults 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zer0faults. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another subject. Esaborio 04:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If so the organizations recognized (by US?) as terrorist should be involved: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon etc.... Shmuliko 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because the US is not fighting them directly, as it is al-Qaeda. Esaborio 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Change of title for Afghanistan discussion

I changed the title to US war in Afghanistan as that is a neutral term NPOV and correctly depicts the article in question - the "invasion" was the start - the article covers the "War." The reason for reverting does not make any sense. Explain. --Northmeister 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The invasion is the spark that stared the war and subsequent events. It is a term used widely, and the very definition of invasion is when a military force overturns a sovereign nation, which is what happened.

The invasion was a point in time, whereas 'war' implies an ongoing event (which is already described via the entire template). The linked article describes both the invasion and subsequent war.

Sfacets 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure - if it is a timeline you speak of regarding this template, I concur with your point. --Northmeister 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please at least let a consensus be formed before reverting this back. Especially don't use edit summaries such as "rv per discussion", there was no real discussion or consensus on this.--Jersey Devil 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

'Invasion' vs 'War

Invasion is a point in time, a strating point for War, which is a continuation of the invasion over a period of time. Since this is a timeline, I have changed "U.S. war in Afghanistan" to 'U.S. invasion of Afghanistan'. Sfacets 08:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean the "situation" in Afghanistan should be called a war? It is well passed the invasion stages. Its been going on for 4 years now. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said, the invasion is a flag, a marking point in history for the ongoing conflict. Sfacets 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I get that, but are you calling only the invasion part of the War on Terror and not the rest? the articles was renamed which is why I changed it in the template, there is no invasion article, so it will just redirect to the war article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was renamed because the War in Afghanistan is just that a war - the invasion obviously was the first step - but the war continues. I don't see a reason to keep reverting back to invasion, which does not accurately describe what is going on. Would you call World War II - Normandy Invasion or Invasion of France? World War II had many invasions to take back Europe or by the other side to take over countries like Poland. Yet, all those invasions were a part of the larger war - including the Japanese invasion of China and Manuchuria and the attack on Pearl Harbor - yet all are World War II. The War in Afghanistan, which history more than likely will call the Afghanistan War is America's response to September 11th, 2001 and a part of the overall War on Terror that America is presently engaged in. You have further down in the timeline other events described as 'war' - why opposition to this phrase 'War in Afghanistan' which is neutral, historically correct etc.? I brought this up earlier and let it drop since consensus was formed against my change (see above) but I see others concur now. I reverted back to ZerOfaults version and agree with his statements above. --Northmeister 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation APOLLO/Operation Active Endeavour

Should these be included as "Main events"? Esaborio 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be included, but I also do not think they are main events. Then again OAE does show NATO's direct response in the War on Terror. OPOLLO seems to be directly linked to the afghan war, so maybe an astericks can be used and put it under afghan war? I would not object to OAE being moved to other events though. OPOLLO is directly linked to afghan war as its Canada's involvement in it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

I would invite all who are interested to partake in the discussion that is taking place on this page. Rangeley 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since having a seperate page for this debate is silly I started a proper RFC where people can comment and are directed to all previous discussions, contrary to this suggested page where another view and reference to previous consensus is disallowed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalize Tag

Can someone please explain the globalize tag? If you look at the operations taking place, Operation Active Endeavor is NATO, Operation APOLLO is Canada, Warizstan War is not primarily US fighters. Everything in "Other Events" also have nothing to do with the US directly ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to prior discussion on terms judged US-Centric. The tag was added based on this dispute. Sfacets 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide the section heading, I am not seeing it. I will move my post there once its been located where there is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)