Template talk:War on terror/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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

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)
2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support If unlawful combatant gets a link, then Bybee Memo should get a link. --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

1. Support --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support If only because the Bush Admin says it is. --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose --TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Detroit Sleeper Cell

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Chechen War

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Sfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Theatre Hostage

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Aussie King Pin 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support--TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Six

1. Oppose --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arab Israeli Conflicts

1. Oppose --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Aussie King Pin 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Esaborio 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Conflict as a whole not single events (as there are too many) PPGMD 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support As per PPGMD, only linking the Arab-Israeli Conflict article, not each event. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support --Bobblehead 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Flymeoutofhere 12:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
8. OpposeSfacets 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose --TheFEARgod 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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

oppose to remove, support to keep. Sorry about that, clarified above as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. --Guinnog 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That is much better! --Guinnog 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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)

   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)

   Yes, I think that's a great idea Aussie King Pin 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Overhaul

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

It looks like this:

WAR ON TERRORISM

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Getting rid of the important figures is definitely a good idea. All in all. I like it. --Bobblehead 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New layout discussion

Since the new layout is out there, might as well start a new section for it's discussion. I'm not sure I like splitting the main events up into 'faction' columns. Maybe something like:

War on Terrorism

--Bobblehead 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I preffered the split because it showed who was doing what, it also allowed a quick comparison to see what may have been in reaction to what. However I do not object to this layout as well. My primary concern was keeping the template in a manner that was not overbearing to articles it was attached to, this accomplishes the same goal I suppose. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One side may have instigated the action, but both sides are doing someting this is especially the case in the US, NATO, & Allies column where within the operations there are terrorist activities (daily bombings in Iraq, ambushes in Afghanistan, etc). In the case of the terrorists column you have police investigations, trials, etc. That's my main reasoning for only one column. So if it's alright, I'll put in the version I suggested above? --Bobblehead 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont get what you are saying really, Operation OPOLLO is a Canadian operation, there are no terrorist activities involved in it. The only one that it really applies to Waziristan War and Iraq War since they are not named by operational codename, which could be changed if that is the only objection. Feel free to put your version up while we discuss, as long as you are willing to continue discussing. I am not really opposed to it, just feel a split colum would be more appropriate to help people distinguish, another idea I had would be to add dates (Dec 2) style to the end of the event to better help people track events that way and see what might have sparked what conflict, that can be applied to either layout. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I have a horrible habit of having half the conversation in my head. But just to avoid the confusion, I'll just let the topic drop since we seem to be in agreement? I like adding the dates, especially to the ones that don't already have dates in the title. --Bobblehead 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So i leave it to you to split the columns or not, I have no objection to the one you did above, especially if the dates are added since it creates a similar effect anyway. If you want to use the single column + dates I will take that as a more then reasonable middleground. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the template and added dates. I'm not sure I like where I put the dates though. It makes the rows look really busy. But I'm leaving for the day so can't make any more updates. If you have any ideas on how to handle the dates, feel free to do so.. Maybe going without the bullets and using the dates instead? --Bobblehead 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the main column larger since participants does not need as much room. I was thinking just starting dates, but at 1280x1024 it looks fine. If you want to cut it down to just starting feel free another time. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of major bombings in Iraq

Since TheFEARgod added Canal Hotel Bombing to the template, thoughts on adding other major Iraq bombings? Unfortunately the volume of the killing in Iraq may preclude us from including them. A thought might be to link toSuicide bombings in Iraq since 2003. But even that doesn't include all of the major bombings.. IMHO might be better to just not include the bombings within Iraq or risk having a huge template again... --Bobblehead 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, they really arent notable in and of themselves, but instead in the context of the war in general, which is linked to. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalize Tag

I have (re)added a Globalize tag addressing the US-centered nature of the article, such as using Codenames given by the US to military incursions. Sfacets 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Codenames are used by all parties ie Israel and Canada. Please review more carefully, I am removing the tag as it seems your reason doesnt make it a need for US globalize. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and those that are inordinately long or include the date in the title, the links in the template are the links of the article name in Wikipedia. If you want to add some links to the template, give it a go and see what happens.;) --Bobblehead 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, the fact that these codenames are used demonstrates bias - would someone in Iraq/Afghanistan use those names? Also re-arranging the main participant section connotes that organisations such as Al-Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, and the Taliban are leading the War on terrorism... which isn't the case. Sfacets 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first point, who is the bias against if everyone has the codename? putting Iraq War may not work either, people in Iraq may call it the American invasion, people in afghanistan may call it the liberation of Afghanistan etc. As for yuor second point, many of these operations were carried out by or are specifically against those groups. so I am not sure what the point is there at all. Are you saying OEF-A wasnt against the Taliban and al-Qaeda or OEF-P wasnt against Abu Sayyaf or Jemaah Islamiyah? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that listing the aforementioned groups ontop of the other participants separated by the word "against" would suggest that they were heading the "war on terrorism". As for codenames, most people do not know which events the codenames correspond to - if "OEF" corresponds to the reaction of the US to the events of 9/11 then it should read "reaction of the US to the events of 9/11" and not 'hide' behinfd a codename that only holds significance to a certain party or population. Sfacets 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This isnt an article its a sumplement to an article, if they want to know what OEF stands for they click the OEF link and it takes them to an article on OEF ... As for against what method of seperation do you reccomend? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates and what they are used for

Zero, you are the one that apparently needs to go look at the other templates because they sure do include more than just 'events'. Just to name a few that are not events. In WWI you have Naval warfare, Air warfare, Cryptography, People, Poison gas, Railways, and Technology. In WWII you have Blitzkrieg, Cryptography, Equipment, Home Front, and Production. In Cold War you have Iron Curtain, Non-Aligned Movement, Containment, and Rollback. The point of a template is to make it easy for people to find related articles that might be of interest to them. Like it or not, but criticisms of WoT is something that is of interest to people. --Bobblehead 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note none of those are criticisms and none of the template contain articles like that. These are templates they are a listing of events related, and items of direct interest, not a chance to go for or against. Again please follow the layout that all of the other templates use, thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Could be because there isn't an article for Criticisms of World War I, World War II, and Cold War. The templates do include links to things that aren't positive for the 'winning' side, such as Allied war crimes on the WWII template. It seems most of your opposition is that it doesn't present a happy clappy view of the WoT. If you read WP:NPOV nowhere does it say that NPOV only applies to articles.--Bobblehead 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, so doesnt this template include things that can make it look bad or make one disagree with it. The difference is that with the other templates the articles linked to tell it like it is, whereas the criticism article, much like an article titled "good things about the WoT," is ostensibly an article that lists arguments used in debates. But I dont oppose including a link to this article necessarilly, because it is still relevant. Not to balance the template or to reach NPOV, though, as there isnt a pro wot article on it to balance with one of criticisms. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why...

Israel-Lebanon conflict and not Chechen war??--TheFEARgod 16:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the war on terrorism is a campaign by the US and its allies. Russia is not an ally of the US and the US doesn't have any part in the Chechen war. The US also hasn't identified the war as being part of the WoT as they did the Israel-Lebanon conflict. --Bobblehead 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as the Chechen War began before the WoT, it obviously could not have been begun under it. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Title is not NPOV

"War on Terrorism" is propaganda. It's not NPOV. Change the title to "US-dubbed 'War on Terror'", or similar. We can't have propaganda terms stated like that on Wikipedia. If the terrorists "won" it would read "The Holocaust", if you see what I mean. The "enemy" don't think they're terrorists. Okay enough political banter, just change that title. --Alfakim-- talk 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I dont agree, would you say The Great Depression needs to be changed cause not all people were depressed? Better yet, do you really think none of these groups think of themselves as terrorist groups? --User:Zer0faults 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Created a strawpoll on Talk:War on Terrorism. Still capturing possible names for the article (the current name is acceptable, just needs to be added), so if you (Alfakim) would like to add a proposed name there with an explanation, that'd be great. --Bobblehead 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do historians refer to the war as the war on terror - more to the point will they do so in twenty years? They'll mention it was CALLED that, and it'll no doubt also be recognised as a propaganda term, which it is. It could have any number of names, they could even be abstract (e.g. the Cold War is a neutral name, rather than War on the Commies or The Strife Against Capitalist Dogs). The War on Terror article needn't change its name because that is a term that refers to something ("The 'War on Terror' refers to...") and so should be in an encyclopedia. But when a pan-article template dubs the entire crisis as the "War on Terror", it's endorsing a political standpoint. We mustn't have that. --Alfakim-- talk 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For about 20 years people called WWI "The Great War." And I am sure many other wars were reffered to by other names either locally or for a period of time. The War on Terror is known in most of the Western World as The War on Terror. The name is NPOV, and is well known. If history changed the name that it's reffered to we can make the changes, but until then Wikipedia isn't used to POV pushing, which your POV is that the War on Terror isn't what some call it. PPGMD 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. "Great War" is an NPOV title. "War Against the Evil Germans" isnt. Likewise, "War on Terror" is NOT NPOV. Thats very simple. Is there a place I can request arbitration on this? If they shut me up, I'll shut up. --Alfakim-- talk 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Great Depression is a POV title because it insinuates americans were depressed. Please stop already, its the name of an event, we cannot change it, there is an article on it, we may not liek the name but its a proper name, it doesnt have to meet NPOV. What are you gonig to name it to, and what is the point of renaming it when a redirect will still exist and the header will still say also known as War on Terror / War on Terrorism and still throught the article have references to WOT as the quotes contain them. This is really beating a dead horse already. --User:Zer0faults 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alfakim, here's the Resolving disputes process. --Bobblehead 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can just give him the links to the last 5 of those undertaken. I am not participating in another, feel free to ask whatever mediator to reference comments from the past ones if they need my input. I am tired of repeating the same thing over and over as we all here have many many times, you can see the archive for many examples. --User:Zer0faults 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and corrected the heading to something a little more NPOV. Ideally we wouldn't have to mention the term War on Terrorism at all, as it is not is popular use (except in an ironic sense) outside of the U.S. 80.192.21.20 12:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed, please see the archives and if you have a different arguement for it from those previously made, then feel free to introduce it. --User:Zer0faults 20:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable, not negotible

This template is against the foundations of wikipedias non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy. Actualy I'll keep this short since there are many many reassons why this template and perhaps linked articles are problematic. --Cat out 21:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, give up. See above. I've tried. Not happening. --Alfakim-- talk 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah

If the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is in Main events, should Hezbollah be in Main participants? --Adam (Talk) 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical sorting?

Wouldn't it make more sense to categorise the participants in the "war" by degree of involvement? Sfacets 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The case of India and Russia

So what does the term The War on Terrorism really mean? Does it mean the war the U.S. is fighting against terrorism or does it have a more general meaning? For example, India and Russia have been fighting against terrorism for a long time now. India has lost more civilians due to terrorist activities than any other country. Groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba are a part of the larger Al-Qaeda network. And then there are the Chechen rebels. These groups have claimed more innocent lives than Al-Qaida but yeah most of those killed weren't Americans. Just because these groups are not involved in terrorist activities against the U.S. doesn't mean they aren't important enough to be mentioned. Just because India and Russia refuse to be a part of the American military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't mean that their own war against terrorism be disregarded. --Incman|वार्ता 20:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

has certainly been fighting what it calls "terrorism" in Chechnya and the various Caucus areas. Several other countries are fighting their own "wars on terrorism" as well. Where is the line being drawn? Publicus 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This isnt about a "war on terrorism" its about The "War on Terrorism", I think even when you read in Russian news and see War on Terrorism in caps, its about the one the US started and other nations assist with. It was argued before over if Russia should be included or not, then idea was no because its a US campaign and Russia and the US have not allied to remove the chechens in an announced action of the WOT. --NuclearZer0 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So then the Beslan hostage crisis and the Moscow theater incident should be removed. Fine by me. Publicus 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Why do the hell you remove russian from the list? Are you serious about it? Do you really think that Russian goverment doesn't participate in War on Terrorism. You must be crazy as that man who declare that russian has "war on terrorism", but not "War On Terrorism"... It is just stupid. Use your [censored] common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.51.5.228 (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Are you crazy? What does the United States have to do with Beslan? Quadpus 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Where i said ANYTHING about Beslan and USA?! I was talking about Russia participating in war on terrorism. It is not war which USA declared! It is war which whole civil world declared. USA is not hub of universe. I move Russia, Beslan, etc back again. It should be common sense that this war started not when planes crashed WTO, but much earlier, and this thing is just one of the evil things they have done in the past. What happened in beslan was terrorism, what happened in Moscow, when houses were bombed is terroris too. Now you declare that USA has "owned" the term "War On Terrorism", it is same as Microsoft will own word "Windows", because they're largest software company. You use god damned common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.245.171.138 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Nobody thinks the USA owns the term "War on Terrorism". This template is about the specific "War on Terrorism" led by the USA. That is all. Quadpus 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Osaboramirez' revert

I just noticed that Osaboramirez (talk · contribs) has reverted a change made by Centrx and a change made by me back to his previous edit. Centrx's changes were to remove the flags, which were sort of redundant. My changes were threefold: make the name of the upper list "Participants in Operations" and change the name of the lower list to "Targets of Operations", which is what War on Terrorism uses, add Saudi Arabia to the list of participants, and remove two extra brackets. He reverted our edits, calling them "vandalism," (I've explained to him how good faith edits are not to be classified as vandalism.) Does anyone have any objections/comments on Centrx and my edits? Picaroon9288 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I object the addition of Saudi Arabia as a participant, because it hasn't sent troops to any theater of operations where the U.S.-led War on Terrorism is being fought, nor to Lebanon. Osaboramirez 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Do you have any objections to Centrx's edit (removal of the flags) or the other part of mine (addition of the list titles used at War on Terrorism)? Picaroon9288 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, and remake the changes. Þicaroon 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do, becauase war templates always have the flags. Why should this one be any different? Osaboramirez 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason why "war templates" should have flags? Perhaps they should be removed from all war templates? —Centrx→talk • 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you link to some examples of war templates? I found only Template:Falklands War, which isn't organized in the same way. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of 2 that have flags for the participants Template:World War I, Template:World War II. --Bobblehead 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The excess of flags on those is even more absurd. —Centrx→talk • 09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why absurd? Sfacets 10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the flags. I've been trying to search down all these pages where Centrx keeps stating there is consensus to remove them, but I'm still having trouble. Luckily I found this one. These flags don't damage the template and make it much easier to spot specific countries. A visual cue is great. I oppose removing the flagicons. If Picaroon9288's edits are made, and the flagicons remain, the template will be in a much better state. With this in mind, I made an attempt at a compromise edit/version. In this edit, the flagicons remain, but Picaroon9288's edits are included as well. [1] AuburnPilot^talk 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to find a compromise, AuburnPilot. Although I think the flags are sorta redundant, and that the template would look better and be less cluttered without them, I think that Centrx's proposal to remove them hasn't been discussed widely enough; there certainly isn't consensus among us on this talkpage to remove them from this template. One place this has been discussed before is Template talk:Flagicon#What is the point? Þicaroon 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps you could actually give a reason why the flags are good, given that most of them are unrecognizable and the names are already listed, rather than wiki stalking? See also [2] and [Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags]. This isn't a children's book. —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of wikistalking Centrx, it's time for a long overdue Wikibreak. After you removed flagicons from another template, you stated there was consensus for your actions. You failed to identify where that consensus was. This is one of only a handfull of places where I could find any discussion. So before you start attacking other users, let's actually discuss the topic. FLAGICONS. AuburnPilot^talk 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"I've been trying to search down all these pages where Centrx". There's nothing wrong with searching another user's contribs, but it doesn't resolve the issue. —Centrx→talk • 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what is the reason for having these on a navigation template again? They don't link to the countries and clutter the listings that do link. —Centrx→talk • 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair sockpuppets

This page is a favorite of Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets. Copperchair was placed on probation and banned from editing certain types of articles by the Arbitration Committee. He was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating his restrictions on editing. He was finally blocked for 366 days on March 12, 2006. At that point he began using sockpuppets to evade his ban. Below is a list of his sockpuppets. If new editors appear on this page with editing patterns that are similar to the sockpuppets below, please let me know on my talk page or by e-mail so that I can investigate fully.

1. Esaborio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Varese Sarabande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. SPECTRE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Tony Camonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. The end is near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Don't fear the Reaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Bad Night (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Ossara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Warrior on Terrorism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Osaboramirez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you. TomTheHand 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

So far the only reasons for not including it have been "the last guy said it wasnt." But he didnt even give a reason, except saying it wasnt. I can say it was, but that in itself is no reason to believe me. Instead, I point you to discussion where points were actually raised: [3]. It was explicitly stated as being a part of the campaign, something that Ethiopia does not to this point even have to my knowledge. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary asked "why was this removed", sorry didn't see the edit preceding yours... I think we should keep the discussion open for the inclusion of Israel-Lebanon, since there hasn't been much discussion or consensus regarding this. For my part I cannot se this as being part of the WOT, even if GWB says it is, since the GWT is considered an international joint effort, (one of the reasons given for not renaming this template "US war on Terrorism", so if no other countries apart from the US and Israel have deemed it so, then it isn't. Sfacets 15:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true, its a US led campaign which enlists the aid of allies. The Lebanon Conflict has both US approval and its ally, Israels approval. It isnt whether the public thinks it is. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Flags

See above, at #Osaboramirez' revert. Please explain why these are appropriate. They unbalance the template, where listed items of equal or greater importance appear less substantial than items that link to generic articles on the country. They are not appropriate for navigating; if someone clicks on the image paired with the item, they find that they go not to the intended article, but to an Image namespace page about a flag totally unrelated to the "War on Terrorism". Why is this good? Why is this necessary? What are the flags for? —Centrx→talk • 01:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The flags are appropriate, as they aid in navigation, this has to do with Semiotics and the interpretation of signs. (not to mention it makes the template look good). I don't see how they unbalance the article, especially if people would just leave the flags for the 'against' entries. I agree however that it is annoying that the image brings the user to an image namespace, perhaps there is a way around this, perhaps using divs? Sfacets 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They impair navigation when the reader clicks on a flag, reasonably expecting to go the article about the country but instead finding he is on a back-end page about the flag. This is a navigation template, and putting extraneous pretty pictures does not aid navigation. The only way around this is to use a feature that adds a barrier to accessibility, such as persons using screen readers. It is unbalanced in that it weights the country links more heavily than all others, when in fact the country articles are the least important to the "War on Terrorism" relative to the articles on September 11 attacks or Axis of Evil, but that does not mean we should put an image of a burning WTC towers and a collage of the flags of the three countries of the Axis of Evil. —Centrx→talk • 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag links like that are common on military conflict pages in Wikipedia. Yes, it is a little disheartening to click on a flag and get taken to information about the image and not about the related subject. However, that is the way Wiki works. The textual link next to it is more often used to bring people to an article more germaine to the topic. Otherwise, concur with those who support their use for aesthetic purposes. --Petercorless 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the flags add anything, and the navigational problems they introduce are non-negligible. I'd say get rid of them. (I've just run across this template; no previous interest :-) --ScottMorrison 07:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Icu removal

I have removed it has there is no link.No one claims them to be terroist.They might be something else but not terrorist as the media reports them.User talk:Yousaf465

Be what it may, they have been included in the war on terror... please see War_on_Terrorism for sources. This is just a template. Sfacets 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any source mentioning it has a terroist group.So pl add it when U.N include it on it's list of terroists.User talk:Yousaf465

You are right, there are currently no sources supporting that ICU is a terrorist organization and part of the WOT. I have also removed Ethiopia untill such sources can be provided. Sfacets 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

US warplanes just blew the crap out of an ICU-held town with an AC-130 allegedly because of the presence of 3 terrorist suspects. The main stated reason for Ethiopia's invasion of ICU held Somalia was because the leadership in the ICU was allegedly al-Qaeda members. I don't know what more you need. --Ingoman 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I suggest people read the pages on the Somali war carefully and not delete the mention of the Islamic Courts Union. It is stated by the US, Ethiopia and the Somali Transitional Federal Government that ICU leadership included members of both al-Itihaad al-Islamiya and Al Qaeda, and many were put under US Executive Order 13224. You might also look to read a few articles about how Al Qaeda recently called for mujahideen to go to Somalia to support the ICU. The US has sent multiple attacks by AC-130 gunships against ICU militia groups suspected of harboring Al Qaeda leaders. See Battle of Ras Kamboni. --Petercorless 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

By just mention that U.S attacked them as a part of it "war on terror" does not mean that they are terrorist.U.S strike any area which she fears as threatning."It is stated by the US, Ethiopia and the Somali Transitional Federal Government..." these are three have their own interest in the region.The U.S fears the rise of power of Islamist so it will not allow anyislamist in any region to gain power.The Ethiopia will be o.k if it troops controll much of the territory this they also would like to Label them as terroist which until now both of these have not done so.About the U.S it was in itself a "violation of Intrnational laws".So now they are party to the conflict their statement as labeling ICu as terroist will be a show of Bias.[4]User talk:Yousaf465

2000 al-Qaeda Summit

I'm not sure why the 2000 al-Qaeda Summit is included in 'specific articles' since 1)It doesn't concern the WOT and 2)It is of unclear importance, contains little information, and no sources. Sfacets 12:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion - should the [[Template:War on Terrorism]] be included in the article? on George W Bush?

Please discuss(link to GWB article discussion) Sfacets 12:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopian war in Somalia

Is this part of the "GWOT"? Nothing is mentionned about it in the main article or (no sources), so I am removing it for now. Sfacets 13:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As a note for the future, do not cite a talk page where no discussion has occurred as if it was a consensus. The United States has extended its support to outright military support, striking at Al Qaeda with planes. Its all over the news [5], and further discussion has occurred here [6] [7]. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't citing it, I was inviting users such as yourself to participate in the discussion. In the links you provided, 1) no concensus was reached and 2)The sources provided showed no mention of the conflict being part of the GWOT. Sfacets 21:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is your definitive source "Pentagon: Somalia Part of War on Terror" ~Rangeley (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that the region has long been a part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa and that it has been verified that one of the conspirators of the 1998 Al Qaeda bombingswas killed by a US military aircraft operating off the coast of Somalia. Bit too much of a coincidence, don't you think. -- Permafrost 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

I was bold and reorganized the template. White space has been minimized, the participant column has been split in two and alphabetized, a variety of minor copyedits have been made to the specific entries, and I removed the Somali insurgency entry as redundant to the ICU entry. Comments? Picaroon 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Targets of operations"

That header seems to me too POV. Those organizations also conduct operations by attacking occupying forces etc,. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to this wording a little while ago because this how the infobox in War on Terrorism styles them. I think your objection is reasonable, and that it should be brought up at the article, because the template is really just a condensed version of the article. Picaroon 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Being that this is a campaign, not a conflict, they are targets as far as this campaign is concerned. They do not launch operations within the WoT, they are merely targets within it. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Order

At the moment the participants in operations are listed alphabetically. Wouldn't it make more sense to re-order the list by degree of involvement? Sfacets 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats sort of a relative judgement though. Obviously the USA would be first, but when it gets past that it starts to get a bit harder. Alphabetical is an easier way of listing them which isnt so relative. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about pre-2001?

USS Cole? Kenya & Tanzaniya embassy bombings? Al-Aqsa Intifada suicide bombings? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Those were before the campaign began. 9-11 is included here because it was the casus belli for the campaigns initiation, but things prior to that wouldnt be included. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why when many people see this as a war that was going on well before 9/11 with the war in somalia and the USS Cole, but only with an attack on the US main land did most americans notice (including guys at the pentagon). That few people noticed or cared about the Kenya & Tanzaniya embassy bombings is part of cultural bias that let this escalate so much. Also starting this war with 9/11 is just plane US-centric, though there is a case for these to be labled pre-911 as it was such a big tipping point in the conflict. Hypnosadist 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

whr is India?

Going to add the name of India in Participants in operations because from the beginging India is fighting with terrorism. Kittu 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But not under the pretext or colation of allies.Nor it's efforts are recognised as such.User talk:Yousaf465

Hezbollah in target

Pl inform the reader the hezbollah is target of operation by which country in the war on terrorism.User talk:Yousaf465

Isreal. Hypnosadist 09:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

MQM

added MQM with reffrence to Muttahida Qaumi Movement.7day 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

We have really got to establish inclusion criteria for this article - we have had everything from random organisation nobody has ever heard of before to the Boston Aqua teen hunger force messup.

The "Foreign terrorist organisations"[8] as established by the U.S. Govt. includes a list

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) 2. Abu Sayyaf Group 3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade 4. Ansar al-Islam 5. Armed Islamic Group (GIA) 6. Asbat al-Ansar 7. Aum Shinrikyo 8. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) 9. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA) 10. Continuity Irish Republican Army 11. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) 12. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) 13. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) 14. Hizballah (Party of God) 15. Islamic Jihad Group 16. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) 17. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed) 18. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI) 19. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) 20. Kahane Chai (Kach) 21. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK) 22. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous) 23. Lashkar i Jhangvi 24. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) 25. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) 26. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM) 27. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) 28. National Liberation Army (ELN) 29. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) 30. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) 31. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF) 32. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC) 33. al-Qa’ida 34. Real IRA 35. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 36. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA) 37. Revolutionary Organization 17 November 38. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) 39. Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) 40. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) 41. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network) 42. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

I suggest any organisation not found on this list should not be included in the template. Furthermore we should only include those groups that have been active after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Including local "terrorist" outfits invloved in other conflicts defeats the purpose of this template. WHat do you think? I'm sure we could establish more criteria as well to insure only valid information gets included. Sfacets 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Kronsteen and myself have began to revert each other on the issue of whether the Iraq War and anti-Coalition combatants should be included in this template. My take is that it is impossible to fully understand US counterterrorism and Middle East policy while assuming that events in Iraq exist in a vacuum outside of other GWOT campaigns. Links with al-Qaeda was one of many claimed justifications by the US government for invading Iraq, and even if it turns out most such links were inconsequential or non-existent, the current situation in Iraq certainly makes it a hotspot for groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose name would seem to be at least of some relevance to the War on Terrorism. Kelvinc 06:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in this template should be whether the item is included in the article, War on Terrorism, since this template is and should remain merely a distillation of that article. Quadpus 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Copperchair sockpuppets

Kronsteen (talk · contribs) and Esteban "Lex" Saborío (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sockpuppets of Copperchair (talk · contribs). See above for my complete post on this topic. If any other editors pop up with similar editing patterns, please contact me and I will look into whether or not they are also sockpuppets. Thanks! TomTheHand 12:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Current section

I think there should be a clear separate Current sections so readers can easily see what conficts are ongoing at the moment. What do the other editors here think? Hypnosadist 09:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Iraq war part of the WOT?

I certainly think it is (shared combatants, use of terrorism etc), what about other editors? Hypnosadist 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The war was certainly started under the pretense of the US WoT and it continues to be framed that way by the US government. The problem most people have with Iraq being part of WoT is that they aren't realizing it's a proper noun and may not be an accurate representation of the events under that banner. Basically, it's the same as the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and Cold War. Obviously you can't declare war on drugs or poverty and the Cold War was hardly a war spanning 50 years.--Bobblehead 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Its more like the first two than the cold war. The cold war was not a governmental campaign, it was an ideological struggle. The thing this article is about is not the ideological struggle between the west and radical islam (which began before October 7th, 2001) but a specific governmental program carried out by the USA with allied aid. The Iraq war is a designated part of this governmental campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant more the usage of a pronoun that may not be descriptive of what happened rather than the actual actions within those campaigns, but good point. Definitely more like the War on Drugs and War on Poverty than the Cold War as far as activities under the pronoun go. --130.76.32.145 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are Revolutionary Struggle part of the WOT?

According to their wikipedia entry they bombed a US Embasy in Greece;

In a statement published in To Pontiki on January 25, Revolutionary Struggle admitted that it had carried out the embassy attack, claiming that the "strike was our answer to the criminal war against 'terrorism' that the US has unleashed over the entire planet with the help of fellow-travelling states"

Again i think they are a new minor combatant in the WOT. Hypnosadist 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Every minor terrorist group can't be included in this template. Only the major ones that the US or its allies are conducting military activities against should be included.--130.76.32.145 22:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

War or police operations?

The template is now named "War on Terrorism". Is this a war in the primary meaning of the word. If so, then the two parties should be treated equally, and not categorized as "Participants" and "Targets". If this about law enforcemen and police operations, then the name, or at least the title in the template should be change to something NPOV. -- Petri Krohn 21:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not up to us to decide what things are called, the name reflects what everyone calls it. The Articles should try to have a NPOV, but the name should reflect the most common used designation, (Madrone 07:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Criteria for event addition in the template

Can you please let me know what the criteria is for addition of events in the template? The reason for my query is that a few attacks in India are covered (Ayodha and Mumbai suburban attacks) while others were left out (Attack on J&K assembly and Indian Parliament). Please let me know. Kalyan 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mecca Masjid Bombing

I don't think every latest event must be added to this template. Only the very notable ones. Hence every car bombing in Iraq cannot be added, and hence I am deleting the Masjid incident --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

India part of WOT??

I think India should be removed from the list of participants... Obviously, it is waging its own war on terror, but, apart from some intelligence sharing (which all organizations do), has not joined up any part of the "Global War On Terror" that we are talking about in this template, which involves only the US and its allies.

Plus, the scope of the GWOT is decided by the US administration, and we should include only those events and parts that relate to those- Iraq, Phillipines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and those attacks claimed by Al Queda and others as a response to the US activities. By that definition, the attacks on the Samjhauta express and others should be removed. I shall be removing them after a week, to give time for responses. These attacks are against India specifically, and not aimed at other nations.

Cheers. Sniperz11 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

7/7 was aimed at Britain specifically as the madrid bombing was aimed at spanish civilians. As for "the scope of the GWOT is decided by the US administration" is wrong both in IRL an on wikipedia. IRL its al queda that decide the scope of the war with were they attack (mostly), and operate out of. On wikipedia it is notable consensus that decides and many commentators include India as one of the fronts of the war on terror as do the indian government. Hypnosadist 01:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point there. However, the Indian government has never joined the US as a member of the GWOT. The Govt. includes india as part of the war on terrorism, not the GWOT. That distinction has been repeatedly made, where Indian officials have stated that they would not join any coalition of any sorts. As for AQ deciding the scope, they have included the whole non-muslim world as a front. That doesn't make those countries a part of the GWOT. I think a distinction must be made here (I fear we are referring to different things). while Terrorism affects different countries in many ways, the so called 'GWOT' is a term created by and most used by the US, as a paradigm for their actions since 9/11. As the creators of the term, I guess its their prerogative to decide its scope. AQ may decide the actions, but whether those acts fall under GWOT is for the US (and a few others) to decide.

As for the 7/7 and Madrid blasts, the AQ accepted responsibility and stated that the blasts were because of those governments involvements in Iraq, A'stan and the US war on terror. In case of Blasts in India, these usually are blamed on the Indian Government's actions in Kashmir, a conflict that is not really a part of the GWOT as defined by the US (even though the actions there might be terrorism, and closely tied to AQ). I'll leave the template as it is then, till there is a consensus. Cheers. Sniperz11 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename "U.S. War on Terrorism"?

What are the thoughts on renaming this? To me, the current title seems a little broad, especially since "war on terrorism" is primarily a US term (possibly also a UK term as well). Publicus 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is basically so-called "war" by the USA. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The term itself, "War on Terror[ism]," is controversial and not truly global. The template discusses primarily U.S. concerns and not those of, we'll say as an example, the Congo.--RDavi404 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the template has now been moved to US War on Terrorism should we not also change the title that appears on the template itself as well? (It still says War on Terrorism, and we could still link a new title "U.S. War on Terrorism" to the War on Terrorism article if that is a concern.)--RDavi404 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dropping "plots" keeping actual attacks

The template seems like it's getting a little unwieldy by tracking all the different plots in addition to actual attacks. As the subtitle of the template suggests, we should really only add "main events" not every single plot that is uncovered. Publicus 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doodoobutter, there's really no need to track all plots on this template. As the template sections suggest, this is strictly for "main events". Listing all the plots that have been uncovered would weaken the overall purpose of the template which is to provide a quick snapshot of the activities, not list everything that could have happened. Publicus 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thusly, there should be a separate section on the template or even a separate article for plots and a link to that article on the template. Also, if you are going to get rid of all the plots, why not remove the '07 London car bomb plot? Doodoobutter 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be a link for all plots and other activities related to the template. In my opinion, the actual War on terrorism article serves that purpose, this template is merely a quickie guide to the major ops. As far as the London car bombs, they were more of a failed attack than just a plot, with actual car bombs built and deployed. And according to the media, it looks like the Glascow attack was related to failed London attacks. Publicus 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatah al-Islam?

Should Fatah al-Islam be placed in the box as a terrorist organisation, and Lebanon as a participant in the operations against terrorists due to the 2007 Lebanon conflict? Fatah al-Islam is closely affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Lebanon, for now, is a strongly Western-backed government. -- Permafrost 09:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lal Masjid Seige

Should an internal matter in which the Pakistani government is keen to distance itself from US support relevant to add?Shehzadashiq 07:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

small restructure

I've split the conflicts and terrorist incidents into two sections, as they are not strictly connected and there is a difference between a war and terror attack. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New format

The Arab-Israeli conflict template has been renovated. It looks much better, and I think it could work here. Opinions? Soviet Canuckistan 23:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Size

If this template gets much larger, it is going to be impractical. It is already too wide. Really, it is trying to cover a varied subject in one template. You need to reorganize it so that it is not so large.--76.221.186.215 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized to reduce width. Hopefully it won't annoy others having the See Also down below... I was tempted to make it a Minor change since I didn't actually change any content. ;) --Goldfndr (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything in 2008??

There appears to be nothing in 2008. Does this mean the war is over?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we rename the template?

"War on Terrorism" reminds a specific campaign, that carried out by the US following 9/11. However I have seen this template in several articles not related to that historical phenomenon. Therefore I got the impression that thiw template has become one on wars on terrorism in general. However if that is the case we should endorse the more objective and formal term "struggle against terrorism". Would the fellow Wİkipedians clarify the situtation? (An alternative is to remove the box from unrelated articles.) Evren Güldoğan (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)