Jump to content

Template talk:War on terror

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zer0faults (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 11 August 2006 (→‎The 7/7 London attacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Archive now!

Apologies for top posting. This talk page urgently needs archiving. Can somebody who knows how please do it? Thank you. --Guinnog 14:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. Enjoy. --Bobblehead 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

We should just take a tally of who thinks what events belong and dont. This is getting out of hand and I almost regret asking for it to be unprotected. Feel free to add things you feel needs a vote on, just vote oppose or support them being included please. Comments welcomed as always. Vote support to keep, oppose to remove.

Bybee Memo

  1. Oppose --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support If unlawful combatant gets a link, then Bybee Memo should get a link. --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

  1. Support --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support If only because the Bush Admin says it is. --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Sleeper Cell

  1. Oppose --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Chechen War

  1. Oppose --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Theatre Hostage

  1. Oppose --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Six

  1. Oppose --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Israeli Conflicts

  1. Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Aussie King Pin 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Conflict as a whole not single events (as there are too many) PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support As per PPGMD, only linking the Arab-Israeli Conflict article, not each event. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Are we voting to remove or retain them? --Guinnog 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose to remove, support to keep. Sorry about that, clarified above as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I support the Arab Israeli conflict, I only support 1 link to the whole conflict. I don't support links to every event and every person involved in the conflict. Aussie King Pin 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with that as a compromise. And can we please get rid of all the politicians' names? They are mentioned in the respective articles anyway and having so many just looks like templatecruft to me. As it stands, the template is an eyesore. With about 70-80% deleted, it could serve a useful purpose. --Guinnog 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guinnog, If we got rid of the pollies we could add all things above without worring about space Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be best to add countries, I made a template above but I wanted the content RFC to finish before the template RFC begins regarding layout. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out Esaborio's vote as he has been blocked for being user:Copperchair avoiding his block. Circeus 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

participants list

I have taken the liberty of reediting the list of participants in the War on Terror, since the old list was full of errors: i.e. Chavez as participant??? he rants a lot, but he is not involved actively. I have decided to include all Nations that are or were contributing troops or are part of the coalition of the willing. Further I have included nations that are actively involved in intelligence operations (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have important Anti Terror Bases on their soil (i.e. Tajikistan) and/or fight a national Al-Qaeda affiliate (i.e. India, Indonesia). Also I merged the list of Politicians from the Participants list with the important figures list, since the war on terror is in most nations a state commitment and does not change when the people in power change, albeit sometimes the way how it is fought changes (i.e. Zapatero in Spain). I hope this edits meets with your approval noclador

I'm awfully sorry but I very strongly didn't like it and have reverted for now. Templates should not attempt to be articles in their own right. A simple, clear design is what we are after, not even more clutter. --Guinnog 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is much better! --Guinnog 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WoT is against more than just al Qaeda and the Taliban.. And is the Taliban really valid opponent anymore? They aren't in power in Afghanistan anymore and most of the attacks in Afghanistan are coordinated with the al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan. If we're going to include the Taliban, shouldn't Iraqi insurgency be included? If we don't keep Taliban, maybe something along the lines of "Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist organizations". --Bobblehead 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can we haev the main participants listed by country again and not just "allies" considering there is more then enough room in the column. If noone objects I will get to work on this again. Furthermore Philippines and Pakistan are main participants, there are wars going on in their country or at least large scale insurgent activities. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I will be readding Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf as main participants. This template developed into a very single minded idea it seems. The WOT is not limited to AQ and the Taliban. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me. I edited the template because, when I came upon it, it was full of errors: South American presidents like Néstor Kirchner, Evo Morales, Michelle Bachelet, Vicente Fox, Alan García and Hugo Chávez were included in the list of Primary participants!!! But people like Sarkawi or Nasrallah were missing! In that form the template was a joke and a bad one. None of the above mentioned South American presidents is in any way involved in the War on Terror and therefore I edited them out and inserted all the nations (War on Terror: Allies) that were or are contributing troops to the War on terror and the nations that participate in other ways in this war. Since the template then became way to long I moved all the nations involved to an new article (War on Terror: Allies) and let only those nations on the template that are actively involved on every front in this war and are contributing the majority of the soldiers and intelligence operations worldwide: the UK and US. Also I decided to only put Al- Qaeda on the template, because the war began as a war against Al- Qaeda and all the other Terrorist organizations either were founded later or allied themselves after September 11th with Al- Qaeda. Also I listed only nations on the primary participants list, because war is not a politicians personal thing, but a national cause and therefore doesn’t change when the government changes (as proven by the fact, that in the old template no less than three !! Canadian Prime Ministers were listed as Primary participants.) I moved the list of persons involved to the last column of the template and removed everyone from the list, who has no connection to the war on terror (i.e. Chavez) or does not have any information in his wiki article about the war on terror. If anyone does not agree with my edits- that is ok and I encourage everyone to make useful edits- but please do not edit in deliberate errors as putting Michelle Bachelet President of Chile since 4 months on the template as Primary participant! noclador

I have no problem with conflicting edits, but perhaps you may want to find out who added certain presidents and ask them why, perhaps he made an announcement or offered some sort of assistance etc. Not saying he did, but it may server a better purpose to find out why he was added. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on the discussion page if there are reasons given for the presence of the South American presidents on the template- i checked them all- and there is not a single entry about them! So I concluded that is a form of vandalism and removed them. noclador

Template Layout RFC

I am proposing the following layout, not the content in it as that is being voted on above. I think its more concise and to the point. The template is below, please say if you oppose or support using this template or leave comments on what you feel needs changed, once again its the layout, not the content in it you will be voting on.

War on Terrorism
Theatres of Operations Main events Specific articles Primary participants

2000:

2001:

2002:

2003:

2004:

2005:

Against


Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Places too much emphasis on the military aspects of the WoT. As Bush said, it's a war that will be fought on many fronts, not all of which are military fronts. Keep the Main events, Specific articles, and Primary participants. Shift the Theatres of Operation into Specific articles.--Bobblehead 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I meant the sections etc. Not specifically their order. The order they are in comes from the WW2 template I believe. So other then simply the order you have no issue with the layout? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also how do you feel about Theatres being last then, to list who before listing where. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Meant more removing that column completely. I originally thought there was content in the column worth keeping, but in looking at it closer, the articles are already in the Main Event column. The WoT isn't a WWI style conflict, it's more on par with War on Drugs and as such, the entire globe is its theatre of operation (except antartica, gotta watch out for those penguins, but they aren't terrorists).--Bobblehead 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the arguement is that its like the War on Drugs which has no locations of fighting, this actually does. Hence the need for a Theatres of Operations section. You say its not a WW2 style conflict then state it takes place all over the world, would those not be the same in fact? WW2 took place in Africa, the US, Europe, China, etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you've heard of Colombia, Panama, and Nicaragua? The US is heavily involved in the Columbian government's current war with FARC and their former fighting with the cartels, overthrew Noriega in Operation Just Cause in part because of his drug trafficking ties, and the CIA was nice enough to help the Nicaraguan Contras smuggle cocaine into the US in exchange for them fighting the Sandinistan government. But that's neither here nor there. The WoT is a global operation, there are areas with flare-ups of armed combat, but the operation is definitely not limited there. The US is involved in anti-terrorist operations(sometimes regular military, generally special forces, intelligence, and monetarily) in most Middle Eastern countries, many SE and Central Asian countries, a number of African (not just in the horn), and throughout Europe and North America. Basically any country that has Islamic extremists and is willing to get help from the US. As I said, if you want to use the Theatre of Operation moniker, it's the entire globe, not just where the US and it's allies' militaries are involved in armed conflict. I think you're hung up on the word "War". --Bobblehead 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont understand your point, are you saying since there are lots of theatres of operations we shouldnt list any? or that there is none and they are just "flare-ups"? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.. Excellent question.. It's not that there are too many theatres of operations, because in the most literal sense of the phrase there are only a few (Middle East, Asia (South, Central, Southeast), and Africa), but that the nature of WoT makes the use of the term obselete. ToP has historically been used only in the context of military campaigns with relatively well defined command and control structures established within those ToPs. The decentralized nature of terrorist organizations, the lack of use of the military in many WoT activities (No military actions in N. America and Europe), and no official declaration of ToPs seems to preclude us from using that term. There also isn't a need to include the column as the other columns already cover what would go there as far as content. WWI and WWII templates have linkable articles to ToPs as they were defined by the militaries at the time or historians since, WoT doesn't have these and any content we add will merely be self-imposed division with links already used in other areas of the template. --Bobblehead 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  1. I agree with the format expect for the fact that major events need two columns not one. Aussie King Pin 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be ok with removing Theatres of Operations as per Bobbleheads idea and then expanding main events into 2 columns that way? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's a great idea Aussie King Pin 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that change and I'll flip to Support as far as the format goes. It should also reduce the general size of the template. --Bobblehead 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will make the changes later tonight, are there any content issues people would like to call more votes on in the RfC above? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I witnessed some hours ago the edit war going on about the War on Terrorism template. The majority of you want a World War-like template, instead of a Cold War-like template. I, for one, adhere to what the majority seems to want. After investigating the countries involved in the coalition in the United States war in Afghanistan article, and after watching the format for the templates for both World War I and World War II carefully, I have come up with this proposal:

War on Terrorism
Theatres Main events Specific articles Participants See Also

Prelude:
•September 11, 2001 attacks

Main theatres:
•Afghanistan

Other theatres: •Philippines
•Horn of Africa
•Pakistan

2001:
• United States war in Afghanistan
• Operation Enduring Freedom
• Operation APOLLO
• Operation Active Endeavour

2002:
• Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines
• Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa
• Taliban insurgency

2003:
• Iraq War

2004:
• Waziristan War


•2000 al-Qaeda Summit
•Abu Sayyaf
•Buffalo Six
•Bush Doctrine
•Bybee memo
•Combatant Status Review Tribunal
•Guantanamo Bay detainment camp
•Hambali
•Jemaah Islamiyah
•Khadaffy Janjalani
•NSA electronic surveillance program
•Oplan Bojinka
•Unlawful combatant
•USA PATRIOT Act

NATO members and allies
•  Australia
•  Canada
•  France
•  Germany
•  Italy
•  Japan
•  Jordan
•  Netherlands
•  New Zealand
•  United Kingdom
•  United States
• more...
Al-Qaeda
Taliban
•  Afghanistan

Contemporaneous conflicts:
• Second Chechen War
• Al-Aqsa Intifada


It is far from complete (for example the "See Also" section currently lists only the "Contemporaneous conflicts"), but it is a start. I used the version that was similar to the Cold War template because of the number of countries involved, not because I prefer that version, as I stated at the beginning of this post. Thoughts? SPECTRE 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it however I think the see also section is not needed. Also the theatres should not be split by our interpretation of importance. Some people however have stated they did not like the theatres because its not a traditional war. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we could remove the theatres, but the See Also section is needed for the "Contemporaneous conflicts". SPECTRE 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vote above that is greatly against the inclusion of Second Chechen War being included which only really leaves a section with 1 event, the Al-Aqsa Intifida. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Overhaul

I've changed quite a bit of the template. Please provide feedback.

It looks like this:

WAR ON TERRORISM
THEATRES OF OPERATIONS MAIN EVENTS SPECIFIC ARTICLES PRIMARY PARTCIPANTS

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

States

Terrorist Organizations (U.S.)

State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S.)



--Soviet Canuckistan 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like it. Far too big and unwieldy (a template should not do duty as an article in its own right). Also, as I think I said already, our style here is not to use capitals for headings or emphasis. Sorry for being so negative, but it's better to be honest. --Guinnog 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ill chime in here as well. I think the capitals need to go. The Israeli/Palestinian/Lebanon items need to be removed as well. Most of the Islamphobe related stuff should be removed as well. North Korea and Iran and Syria should be removed as well as Cuba, the whole state sponsor section I guess. From PA groups from terrorist organizations. Remove Islamofascism/wahhabism/clash of civilizations/al-jazeera. i think that is it. PS I already proposed a template and there is a discussion on what items should be on the template above. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the input. Soviet Canuckistan 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple of Templates that are ripe for deletion

TfD nomination of Template:War in Iraq

Template:War in Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bobblehead 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:WoT

Template:WoT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bobblehead 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The 7/7 London attacks

I noticed that the 7/7 London attack is not on the template. This is part of the war on terror. Everything in the template is correct but that and the Madrid attacks are missing.

Amlder20 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is also missing a few other bombings, but if you see anything missing, feel free to add.;) Currently working on a new template above, but no sense in leaving London and madrid off. --Bobblehead 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section above if you want to get peoples feedback before adding anything, kid of a quick poll. As for the layout have we come to any conclusions? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Ok new idea for sake of speed. How about we remove the "important figures" column, and change main participants to be a list of countries and move it over to where important figures are. Then move specific articles over to where main participants was, then finally use the blank column where specific articles was to split main events into basically the terrorist attacks. So we will have each side represented in its own column, cutting down on the length the article will be over time. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:War_on_terror&oldid=69034619"