Talk:War on terror/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Reinsertion of text

I've removed some material which isn't part of the WOT. For example, the London bombings are surely not part of a "war on terrorism", unless it is British state terrorism. But an anon has reinserted it. Can he explain why? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the anon. I have recently decided to revive my old Wikipedia login, since I have recently aquired an interest in maintaining this page (it really does needs a lot of work, and I am a GWOT Veteran so I am taking that fact to heart). Maybe you should have tried reaching a consensus before deleting an entire section, or entire sections at that. For example, you deleted the section on the South Thailand Insurgency. Now looking at that page, it states right there in the infobox that it is "Part of the War on Terrorism." Yes, that may be questionable, but certainly your opinion on the matter alone does not warrant a deletion of an entire section from this article. Maybe you should make your argument at the main articles for these sections first. --Wakamusha (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are my two cents. The South Thailand Insurgency should be included; the section on DPRK's support of communist terrorist organizations should not be included, that section maybe more appropriate as a continuation of the Cold War or Korean War. The reason for the latter is because the introduction paragraph of the article says that the War on Terror is a conflict between the United States and her Allies, against Islamic militants, Islamic Terrorist, and what some term "Islamofascist". Whereas the former is the Nation-State of Thailand v a Islamic Theocratic Insurgency, the latter is against Communist and Democratic Nations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There was in fact a grave concern that DPRK would supply Islamic Terrorists with weapons of mass destruction when the WOT first began (think back to the "axis of evil" speach). I agree that many of the campaigns listed on this page are questionable on their relations to the WOT, to include the Iraq War. Cited information stating these objections would definitely be necessary, but the diplomatic campaign against the DPRK was definitely a hightened priority after 9/11, as it still is. --Wakamusha (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point. This article is about the "War on Terrorism". Unless you also consider the US and her allies to be terrorist (and thus the focus of the Islamists' war on terrorism), the emphasis has to be on the war's prosecution rather than its targets. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The philosophy of the war from the start was that there would be no distinction made between Islamic terrorist organizations and the countries that support them. Whether these countries were found to have actually been supporting terrorism in the end is irrelevant, but anywhere where the U.S. has spent time, money, or deployed large numbers of troops in the interest of combating terrorism or eroding state sponsorship is worth mentioning. --Wakamusha (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliably sourced references backing that assertion and include that in the text for the DPRK entry, and I will change my opinion to include thus providing more weight which may lead to consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your civility! --Wakamusha (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't such text be better off as included in an Axis of Evil article rather than here, for the DPRK is not listed as an enemy combatant nation in the infobox? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a diplomatic campaign in Korea, thats why they are not listed as combatants. --Wakamusha (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Wakamusha (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is this article is about the "War on Terrorism", i.e the US-led effort. A section about Islamists bombing London is only appropriate if it can plausibly be contended that it was as a result of the WOT. See also War on Drugs. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well nobody seems to be arguing with you there. And since I have included references that the six-party talks with the DPRK are a focal point of the WOT (to ensure that they do not possess WMD's which may be sold to terrorist organizations) we can be in agreement on at least that section. As far as the South Thailand insurgency, the place to start is not on this page, but at the main page for the insurgency. Its full of claims (sourced and unsourced) that link it to the WOT. I think the last one you deleted was the section on Indonesia. I'm not as sure of that one being related to the WOT, but it at least deserves some discussion first or requests for cited information, or at least a little more than your own POV that it is "not WOT." --Wakamusha (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're not arguing for the inclusion of the London bombings? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned under the "British Objections..." section. It includes citations, and states the general opposition to the relevance of the attacks to the WOT. I have no objection to the London Bombings remaining mentioned in this capacity and see no reason for further expansion of the subject. --Wakamusha (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But the only way you could logically describe the London bombings as part of a "War on Terrorism" is if you consider the British government to be terrorist. Do you? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, as a target of terrorist attacks. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The only places where the London Bombings addressed in the article are in the intro (where 4 citations are given) to support the July 7 attacks as being a "cause" for the WOT, and "British Objections" section, which clearly states that London is NOT a "battlefield" of the War on Terror. I vote to remove the mention of the July 7 attacks in the opening paragraph, as an event in 2005 cannot really be a "cause" for a war that started in 2001. I would also vote do not remove the "British Objections" section, including its mention of the London Bombings. It seems to be used as more of an example of terrorist attacks to paint it as a law enforcement issue rather than a military one. --Wakamusha (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agre with the sugestion. I agree that given the war on terror (and specificaly the invasions of Iraq and Afganistan) were launched well before 7/7, and that no millitary operations were launched in repsonse to it it is hard to justfioy is as a cause. On the other hand as brtish objections are important (espeicaly as britsh forces made up the second largest (non-native) force component in both Iraq and Afgainistant. Thus they are effectly No.2 in the war.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

May I kindly remind everyone that Wikipedia discourages voting, but rather supports consensus building. That being said, I agree that the London Bombings shouldn't be included as a cause of the War on Terrorism, but should be included as part of the war on terrorism as it was a retalitory attack (if you were to listen to the reasons given by the attackers). Furthermore, there is a place for all objections to the usage of the term of War on Terrorism, however it should be well referenced from neutral sources, and be written in a neutral POV style. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WWIV

This page should include a referrence to World War IV, as some government officials have likened the Cold War to World War III and the War on Terrorism to the following WW. Sirius85 (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Provide suitable references to such and you can add it to the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "War on Terrorism" is another great candidate for an oxymoron. But, seriously, even if there is a reliable source of those numberings, I think it should be ignored.....war does not need to become a Super Bowl -- coming soon: World War XLIV. But, really, seriously, I couldn't find any sources of said material so I think it was made up on the spot by Sirius85. --Quilokos (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I have found at least one reference of the War on Terrorism falling under the header WWIV on globalsecurity, which in the past has been used as a reliably sourced third party verifiable reference. Also it's the name of a book written by Norman Podhoretz, ISBN 0385522215. It's usage has also been done on CNN when reported on James Woolsey, former CIA director.

Therefore, it doesn't look made up; furthermore, with these three references it definatly meets the benchmark set forth by the verifiability requirements, as well as all of the sources being neutral in tone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This question is directed at Xnacional. Is there a good reason why a referenced statement with a related section in another article, that itself is well referenced, not allowed to have an appropriate wikilink? Unless an appropriate reason for the removal of the wiki-link is provided, I have to question whether the removal of the wikilink was a helpful edit to the article. Furthermore, please stop reverting my edits, as it appears that you may unknowningly be starting an edit war, which is not a welcomed practice.

In addition, please provide a edit summery in the future. Although it is not a required practice, it helps other editors keep track of what changes are being made to the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

This article really needs to be semi-protected. Can we have some agreement first to help build a case for this? --Wakamusha (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it needs consensus, you should just nominate it. There have been numerous IP editors writing malicious, unreferenced, edits. Actually, I shall do it, if I remember how to. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Does the Arab-Israeli conflict fall in the scope of the war on terror?

I haven't seen the US and its allies (esp. its allies in the Muslim world) consider the state of war between Israelis and Arabs (be it the Palestinians or the Lebanese) as part of the "war on terror".

If this issue has already been discussed before, please point me in the right direction. VR _talk 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In multiple discussions above, the inclusion or exclusion of the conflict between the Nation-State of Israel, the Nation-States with major Arab populations, and the Palestinian people, have already been discussed. Also please take a gander in the the multiple archives. That is not saying a new conversation cannot be held, but if it is, we should link all past conversations, and discuss the merits of their conclusions as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Start Date?

Why is the start date not 9/11? I cound see it being earlier with al queda bombings of embassies and the USS Cole, I just dont see why we have to start the war when America declares it and not when al queda declares war

for WWII most people would consider the start for the USA the Attack on Pearl Harbor, not when congress said on a piece of paper that the war was official —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.84.181 (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

World War III, IV? Really?

It seems to me that to say the Global War on Terrorism is "also referred to as World War III, (and) World War IV" in 2009 is spurious. Who calls it this? Yes, you have a link that says President Bush (once) called it World War III, but who else does? Do any non-Republican, non-Americans call it this, for instance? Do any respectable media organizations or foreign governments regularly say we are in "World War III/IV?" No!

George Bush once also called the same war a "crusade" before walking back that un-PC title ("This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html). Yet by this Wikipedia entry's logic, since he said it, it means the War on Terror is "also referred to" as "A Crusade," right? Nonsense!

Follow this link and you will see the very same George Bush with the quote, "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303097,00.html That was in 2007, so you tell me: has World War III already begun or is it still yet to come, because this is the same George Bush making the same reference to two very different contingencies!

As for "World War IV," again the label gets attributed to one man quoted in one politically-motivated quip which never gained mainstream acceptance outside a small circle of affiliated (G.O.P) party members with an obvious agenda.

Seriously, Wikipedia, can you name people of substance who don't all come from the same political party or have ties to the Bush Administration who regularly refer in 2009 to the War on Terror as "World War III" or "IV?" If not, than that's not what it's "referred to as!" 114.148.198.39 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

May I please refer you to WP:NOTSOAPBOX.

Both terms stated on the article meet the requirement set forth in WP:V, and have their own articles or sections that meet the benchmarks as provided by WP:NN. They are stated in a manor that maintains a neutral point of view, and are not given undue weight in this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor and have removed them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and that is by no means met here. The first one is patently false: Bush referred to the revolt of the hijacking victims as a counterattack in World War III ("World War III", in this context, being terrorism itself). Whether or not one agrees with his definition of WWIII, the passenger revolt predated the global war on terror, so could not itself have been part of it. And, as the global war on terror was an American initiative, the passenger revolt couldn't very well have been a counter-attack. I don't know whether the author deliberately took that out of context or was simply confused, but it's quite obviously incorrect.

The second one just isn't significant enough a source (an ex-CIA director from the early 1990s, by no means a major author of current international policy). The article includes almost no direct quotes, and no quotes in any sort of context. Not even a single complete sentence.

Both statements are quite suspect, and certainly are given undue weight by virtue of their inclusion in the very first sentence. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Both do not fall under WP:REDFLAG. Both verifiable reliable source references are from CNN, considered mainstream media. Therefore, it already beats part one of REDFLAG. Statements are very well specified in those references, therefore, they beat part 2. Need I go on? Furthermore, both statements are well referenced on other articles, see World War III and World War IV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, they're not both from CNN. I suggest you actually look at them before reverting people out of hand. The first is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's website. The second one is from CNN, but doesn't include any direct quotes linking the war on terror to World War IV and, even if it did, James Woolsey isn't significant enough of a character to be naming wars for the rest of the world.

When good-faith editors ask for better sources, you can't just say no. This is now the second time I've explained why these sources are unsatisfactory. Including the anon before me, that makes three; now the burden is on you to provide something better. If it's so well-referenced in other articles, bring the sources over here and let's see 'em. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)The content was backed up, furthermore it states that the conflict is also known as, and for some it is known as those terms. Furthermore, James Woolsey is significant as he is the ex-CIA Director, but if you insist, here it is.

World War IV

• "World War IV [World War 4]". globalsecurity.org. 23 September 2006. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• Charles Feldman and Stan Wilson (3 April 2003). "Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'". CNN.
• "World War IV". Doubleday Books. Random House. Retrieved 7 November 2009.
• ANDREW J. BACEVICH (29 October 2009). "The New Republic: The Limits Of Afghanistan". New Republic. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• Frederick Kempe (23 August 2007). "Turkey Is Central on World War IV's". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• "'We want them to be nervous' (That means you Ali, Bashar and Kim)". telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• R James Woolsey (17 April 2003). "World Views: A long war". Daily Times. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• ELIOT A. COHEN (20 November 2001). "World War IV". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• Tony Corn (January 2006). "World War IV As Fourth-Generation Warfare". Hoover Institution. Stanford University. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• Barbara Lerner (4 August 2006). "We're Losing World War IV". National Review Oline. Retrieved 9 November 2009.

I will post references for World War III later, but by the way the three reversions were not in a 24 hour period, and they were themselves in response to a possible WP:EW started by another editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What three reversions? I didn't accuse you of edit warring. I didn't even mention edit warring. I didn't even look at the article history, just the conversation here on the talk page.

The World War IV one is considerably more common, though whether it refers to the War on Terror or terrorism itself (two very different things) appears to depend on the context and the mood of the author that day. I still say having it in the lead sentence gives it undue weight; it's not actually called World War IV, any more than it's actually called a "failure", a "losing battle", or a "clusterfuck" (plenty of noted sources available for those, too). At any rate, it probably does warrant a mention... but in a later section. The WWIII one, though, considerably less-so. Even the WWIII article only has that one shoddy source, which is really just a throw-away statement from the President. It's not as though he went around calling it that on a regular basis. But, again, if you have a significant number of sources calling it World War III (which directly contradicts the World War IV one... so somebody's wrong) then I don't have a problem with mentioning it in a later section. Having it in the lead sentence is a bit much. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you meant three reversions, as in two relating to the period here and the third, of my reversion of the removal. As for the three people disagreeing with the content being on the page, therefore supposedly building a consensus, after rereading what you had typed I now understand that is what you meant. As for opposition to the conflict, I think that belongs in its own section, which would be similar to a controversy or criticism section, and any statement about the conflict being a "failure", "losing battle", or "clusterfuck" belong there. Furthermore, if it doesn't already exist, that section should be near the end of the article, similar to other controversy or criticism sections of other articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said I would post World War III references later, later is now.

• Jamie Fly (31 October 2009). "Tom Friedman: The Long War is Over". The Blog. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• Nancy Kirsch (16 October 2009). "Intelligence expert: 'World War III is here'". Jewish Voice and Herald. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• referring to THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (13 September 2009). "Foreign Affairs; World War III". New York Times. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• Myriam Marquez (25 October 2001). "Thinking the unthinkable: World War III". The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• Charles R. Stith (16 September 2001). "This is World War III". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• "This War Will Be Fought on Two Fronts". LA Times. 19 September 2009. Retrieved 10 November 2009. ...11 we have been in a world war, World War III.
• "Strikes are one part of a new kind of war". The Austin American-Statesmen. 8 October 2001. Retrieved 10 November 2009. If, in that sense, this conflict qualifies as World War III, it will be as different from World War II as that war was from World War I.
• Jon R. Anderson (17 September 2009). "Experts look at the options for focus of U.S. military campaign". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• Marc Perelman (11 April 2003). "Think Tank Deliberates 'World War III'". Forward. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• "Gingrich Says World War III Has Begun". 16 July 2006. Newsmax.com. Retrieved 10 November 2009.
• "WORLD WAR III STRIKES SPAIN". NYDailyNews.com. 12 March 2004. Retrieved 10 November 2009.

From what I can see World War III was used often, and widely very early on. And as time went by, new terms were used. Perhaps the best thing to do, as a compromise, is to remove the section at the lead all together, and as is done in the Second Indochina War ,or Vietnam War, article a section should be given near the top, briefly describing the terms used for the conflict. I am sure we can do it in a way that is neutral, and balanced, giving all view points equal representation. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Using improved refs, I would support including both WWIII and WWIV in a separate "in the media" section (possibly a subsection of the "Role of the Media" section). The lead sentence should be reserved for official and scholarly terminology, as is typical with all other war articles.

Like the use of WWIV, the use of WWIII seems to alternately describe terrorism or the War on Terrorism. For example, the article about Spain uses WWIII to describe terrorism itself; obviously military forces from the US and UK did not attack Spain. This type of terrorism has been very widely used for decades, whereas the War on Terror (which is all this article is about) started at the end of 2001. They're not the same thing, so it's important to check the context of each article carefully. Also avoid speculative sources ("If this qualifies as WWIII...", etc.) and stick to those that specifically call the War on Terror (not "the war in Iraq", not "the current state of global terrorism", etc.) World War III and I think it should be fine. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a in the media section, lets keep it as generic as possible, as in the Second Indochina War/Vietnam War article, and name it terminology, this was each name used for the conflict can be included, in brief, and well referenced.

World War III was used very early on by the New York Times, a widely recognized verifiable reliable source, therefore IMHO it should be included even if the mention is brief. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the New York Times is a reliable source that it has been called WWIII...by the media. But no matter how many articles come from the New York Times, The LA Times, or the Washington Post, it's not actually called World War III. They're not the ones who get to name it. There are no military documents calling it that. There are no government documents calling it that (whereas "Second Indochina War", for example, is the official name used by several governments to refer to the Vietnam War). But as long as it's in its own section—whatever you want to call the section is fine with me—and not in the lead, I have no objection to it being included in the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason we call it the "War on Terror" is because of 9-11. It has to do with America fighting the War on Terror. It was started after 9-11 because it happened on American soil. If you will, "Were not going to take it anymore". I beleive President Bush did a great job in choosing the name "War on Terror". That says it all. Catmic98 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)catmic98Catmic98 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Dec 8, 2009.

Bears

Bear kills two Hizbul infiltrators in cave What about the addition of bears to the list?Bcs09 (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition

By reading the initial definition (first line of the text) and the Historical Use of the Phrase, one can only conclude that someone has took hold of the term for himself. "War on Terrorism" doesn't refer anymore to what it used to refer; now it refers to what someone has decided it should refer to. An encyclopedic entry should define and describe something as a whole, letting aside personnal views or feelings, just as Wikipedia askes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.48.14 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide an RS that defines the subject of the article as Americas was on terrorSlatersteven (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Bush announced a global War on Terrorism" Bush Doctrine; "The United States responded to the attacks by launching a "War on Terrorism" " September 11 attacks; "The George W. Bush administration defined the following objectives in the War on Terrorism" in this article, US Objectives section; British objections to the phrase "war on terrorism" section in this article; "In March 2009 the Defense Department officially changed the name of operations from "Global War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO)." in the lead section of this article (note the OFFICIALLY, if you don't mind); As seen the article itself states it clearly several times. Should it not be enough, other articles provide lots of statements and references.

What's your point? Is it the fact that by showing their solidarity to the US western countries turned this so called "war on terror" in not being an american war? Or is it that previous "wars on terror" were not "wars on terror" after all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.48.14 (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

May I refer you to the follow:

• WP:SELF
• WP:SOAP
• WP:OR

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to follow that path you should start at least by trying to tell me were my self promotion or my original research are. And aren't there RS enough in this article and in all the others related to it? But when we get to propaganda there we get to the point. Who cares about defining and describing "war on terror" in an encyclopedic way? Who cares if there were other "wars on terror"? What is important is to point out the bad guys of the moment, the mean islamic terrorism and islamic militants, right? This is an old story and you, the pretorian guard of the article, you know it very well. Can't you see that you just show cowardice by not assuming that this is a US business? Not even after your new goverment officially changes the propagandistic name the old one had set up? Or was the change a coalition decision? Was the initial naming a coalition decision, to start with? Can't you see that the only thing you manage with your WP:POV is turning against you even those who are sympathetic with your losses? And, please, don't come up with the worn out talk "this is not a battlefield". You are the ones who don't care for anything but your POV on the subject and fight anybody's neutral tries to improve the article to encyclopedic standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.48.14 (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep I am saying that by sending forces to fight in the war on terror and by haing that war fought (for whatever reason) on the soil of countries that were not targets of the US but of Islamic terrorists it made it a non US war. N ow there is an issue as to whether or not this page should be about the wider global war on terror or just the US war on terror (and wah thappens if and when America losses interest, but terrorism (non Islamic) continue). But as it stands the page is about the wider war against Islamic terror, no9t just the USA's current unpleasentness with them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

By wider "global war on terror” you mean the one which doesn't exist anymore since someone in Wikipedia has redirected it to the softer, narrower “War on terrorism”? Or are you referring to anything else? Funny that the page wants to stand as being about the wider war but doesn't want to be titled "global", don't you think?

Do the following look like coalition things to you?

memo : http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm

The Bush Administration global war on terror : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_War_on_Terrorism

'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html

"Our war is with America", local Taleban leader Maulvi Faqir Muhammed told a rally. "Whenever Pakistan will work for American interests as its ally, we will oppose it." : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7323982.stm 91.123.48.14 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first source reads like a nation trying to define its strategy, it does not say anything about the US being alone, it is an internal US document discussing US efforts. Source 2 is a wiki, so can be edited by anyone. Source three is again about the war the US is fighting, not about it being a solely US war. The second source is better, in that it reflects the idea that some Muslim terrorists are fighting America, not the rest of the world, but that would mean the article should be called ‘The Taleban war against America”, as they are fighting only the USA.

British use (and change from using) of ‘war on terror” http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/dec/10/uk.terrorism in connection with the war against Muslim extremists. As well as http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/06/politics.terrorism, so Britain has a role in the ‘war on terror’. If there is a British role its hardly just an American fight.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So we are supposed now to go for an endless discussion and by that means demonstrate that you are very open minded; and... make sure that nothing in the article is changed against your views. Exemples (RS) of nations “trying to define their strategies” regarding the GWOT we have at hundreds in the net, don't we? Do you mind finding some for me, please? You've stated your opinion about wikis. Anyway, your article is a wiki, or am I wrong? So, for you what's important is the name articles are called. To be honest, I didn't expect anything very different. As the British have showed their solidarity to the US, this is not an US thing anymore, right? With just a little effort we could even make it to be a British thing with the US in support, what do you say?91.123.48.14 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well thats what talk pages are for discusion, And when a consensus has been achived to act upon it. As to other nations trying to define their strategies in the war on terror, what do you mean by RS? for example this tells us that htere are splits over the war[[1]] and this [[2]]. Or this[[3]]. The opinion avbout Wkis is not mine it is wikipedias [[4]] "open wikis...are largely not acceptable" So yes you are wron it is not my opinion it is wikipedias rules. You are right it is not a wholey US thing, they have support from a n umber of coountries that have troops in the field. In much the same way that WW2 was not one countries war.Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Casual T's

I think that we shuld have some sources for the number of millitary dead, it seems to have crept up in the last few edits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording inconsistency in first paragraph

"and [the term] WAS specifically used in reference to operations by the United States, the United Kingdom and its allies SINCE the September 11, 2001 attacks."

WAS implies "in the completed past", SINCE implies "ongoing into the present"

Proposal: Switch to either "has been used + since" or "was used + after". I think that the choice depends on whether the article intends to focus on media and social discourse (which still uses the term, "War on terror") or the policy of the Obama administration (which has officially discontinued usage). NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• To this proposal I support the use of "has been used + since". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to introduction sentence

Another user has been attempting to make a change to the introduction sentence without providing references, and without having a consensus. The other user may be attempt to interject a POV that may or may not be shared by other editors. Perhaps the issue or perspective that the user wants to bring to the article would be better of lower in the article, or have already been addressed.

The initial change was an attempt to say that the war on terrorism is an american term. However, if one does a search for war on terrorism, or any of the other terms used in conjunction with this topic (that are listed in the terminology section), one can see that the term is used in many other countries other than the United States.

The second change was that the term used as the title of the topic is "American-originated". This is not something that I disagree with, as that is a historical fact, that can be easily supported by references. However, it is already covered lower in the article regarding its first usage regarding the series of events relating to this topic, and need not be in the introduction sentence. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"War on Terrorism" - Historical usage of phrase

The following sentence appears here

"The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by European governments, and eventually the US government, to stop attacks by anarchists against leaders and officials. (See, for example, The New York Times, April 2, 1881.)" ^{[vague][citation needed]}

I added the vague and citation needed tags as there seem to be no information on what the The New York Times said 128 years ago. No quote, nothing. I looked at cite #47 and couldnt find a reference to this paper/date. If I've missed something please remove the tags and let me know! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

protect and roll

I think we need to have a roll back on the info box, and we also need to protect the page agaiin.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph

Perhaps, rather than us getting into an edit war, it would be better to discuss the lead section, and come to a consensus if a change is needed, and if so, how the intro paragraph should look like. This is a very volatile article, as in it is not stable, and is a contentious issue and thus makes it difficult, for even the most well intentioned editor, to maintain NPOV.

That being said, I for one believe that there is room for improvement for the introduction sentence. Over the life of the article, it has read differently, and been altered dozens of times, and sometimes not for the best. I don't believe that it is necessary to attempt to portray the conflict as Former President Bush's war, however, it does make sense to state that it has been defined by his administration, and has continued within those definitions since, and beyond his administration and thus in in fact an international conflict (as clearly shown in the infobox). Rather than focusing on what we differ from each other, lets try to find the points that we agree on, and work from there. I think most persons could agree that:

• the conflict began with the September 11 Attacks
• that the two sides of the conflict are a loosely allied number of nation-states and islamist terrorist/militants
• that the definition of the conflict began with that provided by the Bush Administration, and has since evolved both in its scope, the participating nation-states, and term used to describe the conflict

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I do believe this is a highly controversial subject and that a consensus should be met, within this talk page. I do feel though that Leroyinc's edit is blatantly biased and should not be allowed to be reverted back. The current version should remain until we resolve this.

Anyway, I agree with the first point you make. I partially agree with the third point. It may has international implications but it is a term describing a series of operations that were led and mainly fought by the USA forces and secondary the UK. The rest of the nations pretty much just sent troops to guard, after the wars had been fought. I partially agree about the second point too. However, Iraq for instance was not an Islamic terrorist/militant organization but was invaded in the grounds that it supported terrorism. JokerXtreme (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror, as has been stated by others, however, that is my opinion, one of thousands.

Other nations other than the US and UK have been lead nations in certain areas of combat against islamists militants/terrorists. For instance in OEF-P the lead nation is the host nation, with US forces legally bound to the support roll for the most part; in Pakistan, U.S. actions within that nation are limited at best; in India, the U.S. has not conducted any armed combat within that nation. That being said, I do agree that in the active and open areas of combat (whether one includes the Iraq War or not) the U.S. & U.K. are the leading contributors to organized combatant forces. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't believe that the Iraq War has anything to do with counter-terrorism either, but that's not the point. In the very article you reference it says: "That increase comes despite the regular insistence of Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans that the two(war in Iraq and fight against terrorism) are intertwined and should be seen as complementary elements of a strategy to prevent domestic terrorism." The Bush administration saw it that way and since the whole GWOT thing is seen through that glass, that's what matters.JokerXtreme (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of our own opinions, we have to abide by what reliable sources state per WP:V. Of course if there are are reliable sources that state differently, those should be included as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a tagged the article for clean up with the appropriate tag, in order to draw additional individuals to this discussion. As this is a contentious issue, on an article that has a high level of traffic, the more editors that join in the consensus, that i hope arises from this discussion, theoretically the better results that will come of this discussion.

That being stated, I believe that one reason why POV may be seen by editors, and readers, of this article is the fact that the Bush Administration is mentioned in it. As the Bush Administration is contentious itself, regardless of our individual opinions regarding the administration, we should attempt to maintain a NPOV and civility in the following discussion. Therefore, I would like to bring up for discussion whether or not mentioning the Bush Administration in the lead is necessary. One one side it was the Bush Administration, and the follow on Obama Administration, that has taken lead in the conflict, and it was the Bush Administration who had, in a manner, declared the conflict active. On another side, it could be argued that the conflict actually began long before October 2001, when Islamist/Islamic terrorist/militants began its campaign against Western and American interest. Now in bringing up this point of discussion I am not denying that the role the American Government has had in this conflict, but at the same time the article has had outstanding POV issues through out, and due to the contentious issues surrounding the Bush Administration and other editors personal POVs, it does stand to reason that mentioning the Bush Administration in the lead maybe interpreted as interjection a non neutral POV into the lead. Perhaps the mention of the Bush Administration should be stated later; therefore avoiding a possible allegation of the lead mentioning the Bush Administration as having undue weight, in a new section that discusses the history of the conflict, including the events leading up to the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So are we getting anywhere? There was no response lately.

I've also noticed that there are some organizations such as FARC, which is in no way related to any Islamist organization or Islam whatsoever. So we need to change the intro accordingly to address this issue.

--JokerXtreme (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Objections to the established lead

Everybody is demanding that I stop trying to make this article an objective one, so I thought I would explain the reasoning behind my recent edits in hopes of persuading you.

First of all, the lead sentence is written as though this is an article about a term: it is not. Unless the majority of the article centers on the term War on Terrorism (it does not), we have wrongly identified our subject as the label for a war and not as the war itself. My version corrects this error; the old version upholds it.

Now, in regard to the issue of objectivity. The established lead sentence is written from the perspective that Bush’s War on Terror had no reasonable basis and thus must have been either perceived or presented as it was, but not actually as it was. Don’t you see what I’m talking about? Don’t you recognize the bias in the lead sentence? I am not trying to promote a right-wing agenda on Wikipedia; I am trying to produce a well-balanced article and it does not help that condescending editors like “JokerXtreme” tell me that I “need to stop doing this.” Doing what? Trying to improve the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyinc (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 December 2009

Since this is a contentious subject, it is best to discuss major edits, significantly altering the lead, and thus the scope of the article, falls within a major edit, in my humble opinion. So far you have not done that, but I thank you for joining the conversation, and I kindly ask you and others here to stop editing the introduction until we have reached on a consensus on any change, if any, is made. That being said there is room for improvement in the article introduction section, but any improvement should be discussed here first and agreed to before doing it within the article space.

Now, whether or not the Bush Administration had a reasonable basis at the beginning of conflict is not ours to say. Keeping with WP:NEU, the article should attempt to provide information about the subject without taking sides, and maintaining a NPOV. Since you perceive that the lead contains a POV, you are right to bring it up.

As to the point about you trying to produce an article, the nature of Wikipedia is that multiple editors can contribute to the improvement of an article, and no one owns any article. So it's only natural that any edit that you made that someone found objectionable would be reverted, or at the very least contested on the article's talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We simply demand that you stop making the same edit over and over again, which gets reverted every time and discuss it at the talk page first.

About the term thing, check out these pages for instance:

Software bug

Age of Enlightenment

The articles do not talk about the terms. They talk about the software bugs and the Age of Enlightenment, respectively.

Our role, as editors of the article, is not to judge whether the Bush Administration had a reasonable basis, as RightCowLeftCoast pointed out. I think that there can be no consensus on that. So to either suggest that Bush had a reasonable basis or had not is biased. To maintain a neutral stance, we must simply state the indisputable facts. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are other articles that make the same mistake does not prove that it is not an error. Unless the article is centered on the term (and even if it is, it probably should not be), you should not introduce the subject as "a term that is used to refer to so and so." That is poor style. As for the bias I noticed, I was not suggesting that it is our job to determine whether the war is justified: I was saying that the lead sentence implies that it was not. The words "perceived" and "presented," you see, only provide two possible sides of the conflict: it was perceived to be what it was, or it was presented to be what it was, but nowhere is the possibility that this simply IS a war against Islamic terrorism mentioned. The version that I wrote, which nobody has even objected to on the basis of its content yet, removes any such bias and is instead quite neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyinc (talk • contribs)

I thought of the same thing at first, but I now think that the reasoning behind what you are saying is just wrong. The terms are identified with the concepts. Whether you are referring to the term describing a concept or the concept being described by a term, it makes no difference. They are treated as identical. Saying that "the War on Terrorism is a war" is a tautology.

I inserted those two words and I wasn't implying that. Having been perceived by the Bush government as such does not exclude the possibility that it actually is that. But by saying that it actually is, we do pick a side.

--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and bias

Hello everyone, I've noticed that this article has some anti-American bias as well as factual inaccuracies:

• The statement that "there have not been any successful terrorist attacks on US soil since the 9/11 attacks" is outdated -- the Fort Hood massacre was in fact the first such attack.

• In the section "Casualties in the War on Terrorism", terrorist casualties and "civilian" casualties are lumped together for the purpose of obfuscating the distinction between the two categories and thus promoting anti-American and anti-WOT attitudes. In other words, these two categories should be separated AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE -- after all, killing terrorists is a PRIMARY GOAL of the War on Terrorism, whereas killing "civilians" is undesirable and should be avoided. To lump them together creates the misleading impression that they are all "civilians" (which they aren't!!!)

• In general, there's much more space devoted to criticism of the War on Terrorism (there's a whole section for just the criticism, and it's HUGE) than to arguments in favor of it. This is contrary to maintaining a NPOV.

This article should be fixed, and fixed soon. Clear skies to all of you 146.74.230.104 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I have unilaterally fixed the first point (about the Fort Hood massacre). As for the other two points, they will require much more in-depth research, for which I have neither the time nor the energy. Clear skies to all of you 146.74.230.104 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As he has not been tried we cannot say what his motives were, but it seesm that the US army have not made this claim yet.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

An analyst of terror investigations, Carl Tobias, opened that the attack did not fit the profile of terrorism, and was more reminiscent of the Virginia Tech shooting. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_massacre --MarkRunyan (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was the IP's comments edited, as seen here? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears I edited the comments with out relaising I appoligose, and will reinstate the delted section.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us.

As for the allegation of terrorism, insertion of the act being a terrorist act, based on our own opinions would be WP:OR, and there are numerous statements of notable individuals opinions in the response section. Whether better or ill, there is not a consensus on describing the event as a terrorist event from editors, or a consensus in reliable sources either, and thus why the article isn't labelled as such.

Or own opinions on the matter don't count for a hill of beans. Sorry. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no ongoing debate I am removing the POV tag on the page. If debate starts up again, then please readd it. Outback the koala (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it still the "war on terror"?

It appears that as of recently, the US government and Obama, are calling it the "war against al-qaeda", because the Democrats have come to the view that you can't have a war on an abstract noun (no mention of the poor grammar in having the war "on" something, sadly!). Should this page therefore continue for the present day under this new title? Is the "war on terror" over? Wikidea 16:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the case, the intro self-contradicts. There either has been a continuation on the war and "it has since been expanded beyond the Bush administration" or it ended with Obama's administration.--JokerXtreme (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only successful terror attack on the US homeland since the September 11 attacks was the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009.

Does the fort hood massacre really count as a "Terrorist" attack? I don't think it has been labeled such by any new organization or government.24.106.189.162 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, it has been labeled as such by some but I think that it's not the prevailing opinion. You can check the Fort Hood shooting article itself. I guess the difference is only semantic. It may not differ very much from, say, the Columbine shootings, but because the shooter is a Muslim, that makes it a terrorist attack. If the shooter was an extremist Christian, it would be a different case. Anyway, we probably need to find out what the prevalent opinion is and state that there is not consensus on the matter by analysts.

--JokerXtreme (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He shouted Allah Akbar (God is Great) while shooting. That's evidence of terrorism. The Columbine shootings were not committed by Christian extremists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.121.40 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mistakenly confused terrorism with religious zealotry. While there is a connection between the two, one does not necessarily imply the other. Yet, this is not a matter of debate. We just have to mention all the main opinions. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Hasan (the Fort Hood shooter) was a member of the homegrown Islamic terrorist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and took his orders from a Yemeni cleric who was a member of Al-Qaida. Both of these facts are prima facie evidence that Hasan was indeed an Islamic terrorist, no matter what Obama and Napolitano have to say about that whole matter. Clear skies 24.23.197.43 (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The misleading infobox

This whole article seems riddled with problems. We only have to look at the infobox to see the problems.

Firstly, positioning the Iraq War as part of the so-called War on Terror is debatable, even Iraq War cites that the relationship to the war on terror is dubious.

Secondly the infobox presents the belligerents as a group of nations on one side against a rag-bag of groups/nations etc on the other however the vast majority of the belligerents are not in conflict with each other, for instance there is no known conflict between the UK and the Republic of Ichkeria. I think it would be a surprise to the people of Finland to be told they were "at war" with Somali Pirates, or the people of Ireland "at war" with ELN (the National Liberation Army (Colombia))

Thirdly, the commanders listed have nothing to do with most of the countries or the belligerents listed. They are simply a list of the commanders of the coalitions involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly the UK commanders listed have nothing to do with operations against the vast majority of the belligerents listed.

So that is just the infobox. The whole article needs revamping but the problems with the infobox illustrate how badly the article needs revising. Marlarkey (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your first point has already been discussed (and I believe, dismissed). Check the Introduction Paragraph section of this page. I think the other two points you make are valid.--JokerXtreme (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to rewrite article or start new one

The War on Terror was Bush's war. Obama ordered his staff not to use the word. So this article should be like the New Deal. While Social Security continues, the New Deal ended with Truman. Likewise, the fight against al Qaeda continues but the War on Terror has ended. Obama calls his plan the COO.

With the COO, there are two main events. The continued fight against the Taliban and the underpants bomber. Clearly enough to start an article or a new, updated Act II of this theater/play. Act I-Bush, Act II-Obama JB50000 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I guess what we need to do is decide whether to start a new Overseas Contingency Operation page, which would start on January 20, 2009 to present, or whether the current War on Terrorism page would include the Overseas Contingency Operation, in which case the current page should be October 7, 2001 to present, rather than ending at January 20, 2009. I'm not at all the most qualified person to make a decision one way or the other, so I'm going to ask people at other WikiProjects to weigh in here, like WikiProject Terrorism and WikiProject Iraq and the like... (Note: I've left this message at multiple related WikiProjects) — Hunter Kahn 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a 'war' against the underpants bomber ? Marlarkey (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My vote would be on OCO being a sub-section of this article. It seems to me that whatever are the differences between gwot and oco, they're not that great to require a spin-off article. I should be a subsection.--JokerXtreme (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Write new article. I'm tired of the old war. We need a new one. username 1 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it here - this is going to be like the cold war: it just keeps going and going and going and going and...well you get the idea. Obama's decision to rename the war doesn't change the fact that congress - the only authority in the United States with the legal power to end the war - hasn't done so yet. Like it or not, Obama is still fighting the War on Terrorism until congress says otherwise. For him to pretend that its now over speaks very poorly to his ability to comprehend the US constitution, and for that matter his role in it with regards to the war. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it here -- while I agree that the term "War on Terror" is a misnomer ("War on Jihad" would have been a better name), the current war is obviously a continuation of the war that started with the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and therefore the article should be kept intact to reflect this reality. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• It seems fairly clear that there is one single continuous thing, starting in late 2001 and continuing right through to the present day; as such, whichever name we call it by, both the pre- and post- 2009 elements should be grouped together. It then becomes a matter of deciding which is the common name to call the whole thing by, which for the moment - and the forseeable future - is going to remain "War on Terror". In the long run, this may change - and it's probable our children, writing their somewhat resigned histories of the early c21st, will agree to call it something else entirely! Shimgray | talk | 10:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some sources to back up the position to keep it here.[5][6]--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• This should be rewritten in the style of the articles in List of wars on concepts. Actually there is already a section in there on "The War on Terror". War on Terrorism can be kept as an umbrella article which describes the background and usage of the term, how it was used politically, the controversies over disputed usage and definition, but it should reference out to pages on each of the operations that the War on Terror was used to justify. It should also lose military conflict infobox. Marlarkey (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article name needs to change. -- War on Terror is an old term from the previous US administration. What we need is a more general name to cover future rhetorical name changes. How about Islamic extremist conflict or something? Publicus 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move to War against al Qaeda

War on Terrorism → War against al Qaeda — I'm just trying to gauge interest in a possible move. The War on Terrorism moniker is out-dated and no longer appropriate. How about a more direct term, which is still in use and will be for the forseeable future. I think the "War against al-Qaeda" title would be more direct and would cover a variety of otherwise un-related conflicts (various Yemeni conflicts, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, Waziristan, etc). At the same time this term would exclude other conflicts not related to al-Qaeda such as the Iraq war. Thoughts Publicus 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And al Qaeda is not active (as such) in many of the areas of this article.Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what are "sears"? Publicus 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

years? username 1 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NO... that doesn't work in my view.... and article is needed on War on Terrorism but it should be styled as an article about a 'war on a concept' and cover the political usage of the term. It should not attempt to pretend that the "war on terrorism" is a real war. Renaming it "War against Al Qaeda" isnt' any better. First it isn't a war in any conventional or accepted sense and secondly it isn't against Al qaeda. Just look at the list of belligerents - most have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Marlarkey (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly opposed for many of the above mentioned reasons.--JokerXtreme (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a was on al-Qaeda. There are European terrorists as well. Not to mention the Taliban and Somalian Pirates. --71.220.159.157 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Targets

why is the FARC listed as one of the targets? they don't have anything to do with islamic terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.35.157 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

opositive

I am very offended stylization article, which depicted the U.S. as heroes, and all against it as Villains.

Where can I nominate articles for deletion of the brazen manipulation of the public and brainwashing? --77.48.153.172 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read this article and failed to find it "brazen manipulation of the public and brainwashing" as you so crudely put it. Though there are neutrality issues (with articles on such sensitive subjects, that is almost given) it states facts, not opinions. If the U.S. appears to be heroes in this article, that is because either you are intentionally wanting the article to be bias or the facts make it seem so (I find the former far more likely.) And even if the article was biased, it would not be deleted, it would be revised. --71.220.159.157 (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to move on: historical coverage

see also #Proposed Move to War against al Qaeda

Currently the article says:

"The War on Terrorism ... is the common term for what the George W. Bush administration perceived or presented as the ... conflict against Islamic terrorism, .. and was specifically used in reference to operations by the United States, the United Kingdom and its allies since the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has since been expanded beyond the Bush administration, both in its scope and participating nation-states, as well as in the interpretation of the term. The Obama administration has discontinued use of the term "War on Terror" and instead uses the term "Overseas Contingency Operation","

and

"The stated objectives of the war in the US are to protect the citizens of the US and allies,"

As the section above #Proposed Move to War against al Qaeda indicates, this article is neither fish nor foul.

In a section of the article it is stated that the British stopped using the term some time ago, so why does the lead imply that the term is used by the UK? The text of the second quote does not make clear if the stated objectives are those of the Bush and/or the Obama administration and hence whether they are the objectives of the "war on terror" or the "Overseas Contingency Operation". This type of confusion is endemic in the article because editors have not decided what this article is about.

I do not think this article should be renamed. Instead it should be put into aspic and be modified so it is an historical piece covering the period from the first use of the term until it was discontinued by the Obama administration. A new article can cover the conflicts that the Obama administration fights. If in the future, with the benefit of hindsight, they are perceived as one conflict then the two article can either be combined or an overview can be written making the two article subsidiaries of the overview. -- PBS (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Overseas Contingency Operation", is merely a new name given to an old thing. I don't think that it requires a spin-off article at the moment, as there would practically be not much of worth to put in that article. As to the other issues you mention, they should indeed be coped with. --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

This article completely contradicts the attitudes of Wikipedia impartial position. The whole thing stinks manipulating the American public, promoting the military and censorship. Therefore, I demand deletion. --Fredy.00 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some examples please?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

overall tuning article is due to the Omu, the American public is manipulated by the media comparable with promotional materials in Germany or in Japan or communist states --Fredy.00 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What is an OMU?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is well-established article with plenty of footnotes and references. Fredy.00 has an agenda, and doesn't seem to realize how the whole thing works here. Fredy.00, you won't leave it alone, and I assure you your continued behavior will lead to a longer block... Doc9871 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split(s)

As some editor very properly put it "confusion is endemic in the article because editors have not decided what this article is about". So what is this article about anyway?

What I believe this article should be about is the Bush's campaign. Whether the operations have or don't have anything to do with terrorism is irrelevant. The same goes for all the operations listed in the article. It should not matter whether or not their stated goal is counter-terrorism but whether it is connected to the operations led by US and UK under the "war on terrorism" banner.

Therefore, a lot of stuff has to go. War in Afghanistan, war in Iraq and other minor operations is what stays. What do you guys say? --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Bush ever actually declared a "War on Terrorism", but rather a "War on Terror". Don't know how much this helps, but it's a response nonetheless... Doc9871 (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did, as you can see here: Tenth Crusade. He (as well as others in his administration) used those phrases interchangeably. Thanks for the response btw. If what you stated was true, that would be another reason to rewrite this article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the Tenth Crusade WP article is a good source to rely on... Doc9871 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP article is based on other sources. Search for this "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient." in this source:[7]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't cite WP pages as reliable sources; to use a reliable source (as you did) is another issue. Links (or other means of verification such as an ISBN) to reliable sources should be used instead of a WP article for referencing... Doc9871 (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words: if there is a source on a WP page that you wish to use for citation, use the actual source rather than pointing to the WP page as a reference... Doc9871 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes you are right. I was just citing the WP article, so you can have a more complete picture. But, let's get past that now. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay... we're past it. You asked for comments - what exactly are you looking for comments on? Doc9871 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not being defensive, because I didn't mean to be offensive :)

My proposal is to remove or move to new articles content that is not related to the campaign, declared by Bush administration, named "war on terorrism". --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal seems rooted in violation of WP:NPOV, and to attempt to alter the history of the Bush Administration has been tried many times before (as well as the Clinton Administration, the Hoover Administration, ad nauseum). How would your proposed split actually benefit the average WP reader? Doc9871 (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your reasoning. I can accuse you of WP:NPOV, as well. So what?

What is the "War on terrorism"? It is the campaign launched by the George W. Bush administration. As editors, we are to plainly state the facts, as stated by verifiable sources. If we cannot meet these criteria, then we fall in the WP:OR category. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This discussion concerning the "split" should be closed. A split is not warranted by past or present consensus... Doc9871 (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot contribute to this discussion with helpful good faith comments, please refrain from commenting. Your unwillingness to comply, may result in a ban. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments are in good faith, and I hope you find them helpful; but I cannot be held responsible if you do not. You are avoiding the main issue: "How would your proposed split actually benefit the average WP reader?" Doc9871 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How would the average reader benefit? I believe I do not need to explain how would he benefit from reading an article that is improved. So, the actual question is "how will the article be improved by a split?". I believe that in its current form, the article does not represent what it is supposed to, which is Bush's campaign, that goes by the name "war on terrorism" and on that we should work on. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, to make things clear. What should this article contain? Operations that were conducted under the umbrella of the Global War on Terror. That means Operation Enduring Freedom, War in Iraq and whatever else I can't find out right now. What should not be included is operations conducted by other countries, even if their stated goal was counter-terrorism. What should also not be included, is incidents that can be described as terrorist attacks, for the same reason the 9-11 attacks are not included in this article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

_{What is interesting though, is that Conservapedia seems to get at least the leading paragraph right:[8]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)}

JokerXtreme, I must tell you that my call to close this discussion was very premature, and I apologize for that. The article is certainly massive (one of the largest I've seen), and there are certainly a lot of things that don't need to be here. I guess the best thing would be to give your top examples of sections and content that should go, or be split off into other articles... Doc9871 (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding :) I say we start from the things where it is more likely to agree and we move gradually to more ambiguous matters. I assume that the first step should be to find parts of the article that refer to terrorism in several nations and remove them. Take the section about India for instance. What is the point of having such an extend list of attacks when, while it may be related, it is not the subject of the article. There's no detailed description of the 9/11 attacks in this article, and it shouldn't. The same thing should apply for the rest. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been "globalized" extensively, and the India attacks are seemingly there because they were carried out by Islamic extremist groups (most importantly post 9/11)- but don't relate to 9/11 or the U.S. The article, it seems, has been expanded to include too much, and I think the India section is a good example. Considering the size and number of citations (and glaring lack of citations in many key areas), I think we need to hear from more editors (for or against) before massive changes. Anybody out there watching? Doc9871 (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you ask me, only the operations that were led by US under the WoT banner should remain. But whatever the case, detailed description of terrorist attacks is not necessary, even if the India section was to remain. Good thing is that all these sections have an article of their own, so there won't be any need for actual splitting, just removing. Taking a break for a while, until other users reply too... --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

True, and we can't forget WP:BOLD, which means the removals are not discouraged, and it could hopefully spark some response. I think if other editors don't respond by tomorrow, it may be time to get bold... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No replies so far. We need to make a sketch in the meanwhile, about the proposed changes. So first of all we need to find out where did the operations under the Wot umbrella took place. There are some articles that provide such information, although, I'm afraid they were not spared from this "globalization" process either. Anyway, here they are: Theaters_of_operation_for_the_War_on_Terrorism,Timeline_of_the_War_on_Terrorism. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The second article mentioned is a terrible article (nothing against you of course, but remember, we can't cite WP articles, esp. bad ones). I'm more of the Bold, Revert, Discuss way of getting results, so I'm seriously considering starting a broad change by eliminating the India stuff to start. What do you think? - I have no problem making the change myself, and am most eager to trim this article starting somewhere soon... Doc9871 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know I'm just using them as a guideline, not as sources. Sure go ahead. Namely, I'd say that the sections that must go, in a first glance, are Italy, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Korean Peninsula and Colombia. That's debatable though. Anyway, make the start :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, my friend, we should get some sort of response... Doc9871 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere, now. I'm not really keen on the "Historical usage of phrase" section (especially the first few sentences). It's very poorly referenced where it is referenced at all, and the repeated use of "Zionist" seems to violate WP:NPOV. What do you think? Doc9871 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Funny thing is there was no response yet. As for the text you removed, I think it was a justified move. I did a little research both on the references that were removed as well as in Google and I found no use of "WoT" from Reagan, nor the British government of that time. I believe Zionist had a different meaning back then, but I guess that's irrelevant now. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Funnier still is how I dismissed you like a jerk initially, thought about it, and now we are working well together to improve the article (and no one is objecting because it's obvious it is being improved). You've got a thick skin, JokerXtreme, and your edits are accurate and true. We should keep analyzing and "culling" this article, methinks... Doc9871 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Life is strange, isn't it? :)

I think that, later on, we should resort the operations by date, not geographically. But stuff needs to go first. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Convenient break

The ball's in your court now - I went last... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I already removed Thailand. I'm thinking about Colombia next. No actions were officially part of the WoT. Unless, the military aid by US is considered so. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's included in the War on Drugs, not WoT. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut most of Colombia... Doc9871 (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, from what I found, it is indeed part of War on Drugs. Plan Colombia, [9]. Even if the aid was to assist fighting terrorists, it is not officially part of Wot. I guess all of it has to go. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now it really is your turn - slice away ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Next :D --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep checking as you have; I will back you up on this article's particular issue 100%. I'm juggling a few things right now, but you are clearly handling this well... Doc9871 (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I'll take a break for now. This will let other editors keep up with the changes and all. But, you go on, if you see it fit. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, this looks more complicated than I thought. Take this for example: [10]. No official US operations were conducted in Indonesia, but there was at least some minor aid, quoting:"Jakarta has worked with the U.S. State Department to create an élite counterterrorism force called Detachment 88." Also: "After Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was elected Indonesia's President in 2004, he made a public declaration of war on terrorism". So, what is the criterion that we should use to decide what stays? And what is this article about anyway? Is it about US-led operations? Is about any counter-terrorist action in the world since 2001? That's just part of the confusion. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Commanders

Propose revamping the commanders. First to remove the British commanders, Britain has not and does not appoint commanders to the so-called war on terrorism. Individual officers were and are the commanders of British involvement in individual operations but it is incorrect and misleading to imply that British commanders were or are commanders in the umbrella war on terrorism, a term which is not used by Britain. The Chief of the Defence Staff is the overall head of the army, not the commander of individual operations, so it is incorrect and misleading to identify the CoDS as a British commander in the war on terrorism. If British commanders are to be included in this section the only accurate way to do it would be to identify them as the commanders of the individual operations concerned eg Jock Stirrup could be cited as the British commander of Operation Veritas.

But if the British commanders are removed that calls into question what should be done about the other commanders. Presumably similar issues arise about the other named commanders to those that apply to the British ? But I don't know what should be done about the others. Any input would be appreciated. I'll leave this a while before taking any action about the British commanders. Marlarkey (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. So, Britain never actually used the WoT term? Or it was just used by politicians but military operations were not under the Wot umbrella? Were the NATO-led operations conducted under WoT, or is it just a term for US-led missions? Did Britain use another title to bundle all these operations? --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Britain didn't bundle the operations, each was an individual operation as far as Britain was/is concerned, each case treated in its own right. Britain's military have not recognised the WoT term, Britain (in particular its politicians) has followed a fine line, avoiding any use or endorsement of the WoT term whilst at the same trying to avoid criticising its ally, the US, for its use of the term. But since the Bush administration ended Britain's politicians have distanced themselves even further from the term.

Terrorism was never cited by Britain as a justification for action in Iraq at the time of the action. The justification was the presence of WMD, a justification which has subsequently proved false. And the British Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have and continue to obsfucate and dissemble the justification for British involvement in Iraq - as is emerging day-by-day at the The Iraq Inquiry

It should also be noted that a declaration of 'war' by Britain is enacted by the Prime Minister using the Royal Prerogative - this puts into effect various 'war' measure eg the Trading with the Enemy Act. Either this hasn't been done (in which case there is no 'war' as far as Britain is concerned) or it has been done in secret (in which case the declaration is pretty meaningless).

So from a British POV there are individual operations, but the WoT term is a now defunct political slogan and never was a 'war'. Marlarkey (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case feel free to remove the British commanders. It is most likely that, that's not the only thing that must be changed, if UK never accepted the WoT concept in the first place. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I plan to remove the British commanders for exactly those reasons. But if I do then the commanders list will look a bit odd with only two US commanders listed. Plus I wondered whether anyone could shed any light on whether the points I've highlighted about the British so-called "commanders" also apply to the US commanders. Maybe it would be better to remove all the listed commanders ? Marlarkey (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand why you want to remove the US commanders. Aren't they the ones that ran the US-led operations, that were conducted under the WoT banner? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to remove the US commanders. I'm raising the question of whether it is accurate to describe them (in this article) as commanders in the WoT, and hoping that someone can advise. If from a US POV they were "commanders in the WoT" then that's fine. Perhaps I'll just remove the British ones and leave it to someone else to deal with the other commanders. Marlarkey (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, remove British for a start. What we could do is list the various operations separately and place commanders under each operation. This will look a lot less messy. Yet, I insist that we must sort out, what is this article about.--JokerXtreme (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about military commanders in War articles at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 72#Commanders_in_War_articles if anyone cares to comment. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Article still has anti-American bias

There are still at least two issues I had previously pointed out that have not yet been resolved:

• There are figures for "civilian" casualties, but no separate figures for terrorist casualties: this creates a false impression that our forces are killing civilians for no clear reason while not having any effect on terrorists (which is patently false!!!)

• The article includes an extensive section devoted to criticism of the War on Terrorism, but there's no corresponding section devoted to arguments in favor of the WOT: this is an unacceptable anti-military bias and may even be an attempt to mobilize opposition to the WOT. This sort of one-sided criticism has no place in an encyclopedia.

Therefore, I'm adding a POV tag to the article until these two things have been fixed. Clear skies to everyone 24.23.197.43 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

One, not only the Americans are involved, and I for one find it very insulting to imply that they are in this way.

Now to you points

1. The artical clearly says "Military casualties 235,369 dead" Against the terrorist. Its true that the Casualties section does not differentiate between willitary and civilian casualties (other then amoung coalition forces, there appears to be no inclusion of civilian casualties there). That may need lookinig into, are there any sources to indicate how many millitary casualties have been inflicted by thearter?

2: By all means insert a Arguments in favour of U.S. objectives and strategies.Slatersteven (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"The article includes an extensive section devoted to criticism of the War on Terrorism, but there's no corresponding section devoted to arguments in favor of the WOT: this is an unacceptable anti-military bias and may even be an attempt to mobilize opposition to the WOT. This sort of one-sided criticism has no place in an encyclopedia." You do realize that almost all of the wikipedia pages that have "criticism" sections do NOT have "Arguments in favor" sections. Stop being a zealot and accusing the writers of anti-military bias. 76.178.228.63 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cuba is a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

It's what the map alleges. And yet there was no actual proof, ever, that Cuba sponsors terrorism. The US Gov't, under George Bush, may have claimed that Cuba was evil and terrorist, but wouldn't that be better to just leave as a US Gov't. claim, considering that no other sane gov't. supports it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, fix it then. --79.167.179.89 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive vs Preventive

The passage you are editing is about how critics have portrayed the war on terror, not what George Bush has called it (or Sarah Palin). Slatersteven(talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying all along. Bush initially claimed that it was a preemptive war. Critics said it was a preventive war. Bush basically accepted that it was preventive later on. To quote this [11] source:

"As Bush said at West Point: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long." It was, basically, the acceptance of preventive war: war waged not in response to evidence of an imminent attack, but in response to the possibility that a country that was not attacking us now might attack us at some point in the future."

Preventive is more aggressive than preemptive. That's why it makes more sense to have the critics claim it was preventive, which is actually what happened. --79.167.189.239 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Except we use what the critism is that it was a preemptive war. It is not for us to tell the critics what they should all it, but to report what they call it.Slatersteven (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then let's see what reliable sources (basically critical of Bush doctrine) say... [12],[13] and this [14]. The last one actually says that "Preemption is not controversial; legally, morally, or strategically.", so it makes no sense for anyone to criticize Bush for making a preemptive war. What are the sources that show that critics claim it is preemptive? --79.167.189.239 (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fogive me but only one of these appears to be a critisim and its a book review so is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then I plead you to find sources that show that critics claim it's preemptive. --79.167.189.239 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[15] Btw, here's an article by Noam Chomsky, a notable critic of the Bush doctrine. I quote from the article:

"The grand strategy authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg." --79.167.189.239 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So, until (and if) you find out sources that display critics as portraying the war as pre-emptive, I'm gonna change it back. --79.167.190.191 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Post 9/11 events inside the United States

This section in particular could do with a clean-up. For instance, it introduces the Department of Homeland Security twice. Also, I believe that we need sources for verification that the Fort Hood massacre was a real terrorist attack as the media tended to disagree on the matter and debate that a lot at the time (could use some of the citations from the article itself, I suppose). Has it been officially labeled as a terrorist attack by the U.S. government? --85.81.86.44 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think the Fort Hood killings were a terrorist act, but a "spree killing" incident. The motives of the alleged murderer are as material as James Huberty's or Colin Ferguson's (and many other examples). Because he is allegedly an Islamic extremist does not, IMHO, qualify the Fort Hood incident as a "terrorist attack"... Doc9871 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't think that it counts as a terrorist attack either. The War on Terror section right below needs cleanup too. The title of the section is pretty weird too. Not sure what exactly should be done to restructure it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with it. That statement was not even close to supportable... Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice, Doc. One less problem. I came across this Wikipedia:SPLIT#Article_size. This article is 120KB, so we must delete redundant stuff and move some stuff to other articles and keep only some brief summaries here. Not sure what and how, just saying that, so we have it in mind. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know we're both on the same track with this article. You've done a great job so far, and I fully expect you will continue to. If anyone objects to the necessary trimming of this article, they know where to respond. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, you too :) We should at least get this article to meet B-class criteria. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

War on Terrorism → War on Terror — A simple search in Google returns 3.260.000 results for "War on Terrorism" and 10.100.000 results for "War on Terror". It seems to be more broadly used as such. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No replies yet. I propose renaming the article (moving while keeping the history log) and place a redirect in "War on Terrorism". --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I proceed with the renaming. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, JokerXtreme! Doc9871 (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! Maybe all references of "War on Terrorism" on other articles, should be renamed as well. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I just moved the talk page. Some admin should take care of the article itself. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a dumb decision based completely on Google. It is called the "War on Terrorism" not "War on Terror," which is not descriptive enough, this has been discussed ad nasuem. Please move it back where it belongs. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Being descriptive has nothing to do with it. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion and mine as well are irrelevant. Having been discussed in the past is also irrelevant, since consensus changes. This is the title that is used overwhelmingly by most sources. This is not for us to decide. War on Terror, for better or for worse, is far more acknowledgeable as a term. I don't really understand where your objection is based. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Move?

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

The result of the move request was: Moved: Consensus is that "War on Terror" is the term in common usage. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

---

War on Terrorism → War on Terror —

• Disputed move. Please decide which name is wanted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. As per the reasons mentioned in the section "Requested move" above. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Also, take a look at the "references" and the "further reading" sections of the article itself. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - the opinion of one person should not change years of consensus. Leave it at "War on Terrorism" where it belongs. The name is more descriptive and more encyclopedic demonstrated by numerous past discussions. Of course, no one commented higher above, because this issue is settled. You have introduced no additional arguments as to why it should be moved. Please move on. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't feel the issue is settled yet. "War On Terror" is a term I've heard countless times to describe the response to the events of 9/11. "War On Terrorism" should be a separate article in my opinion (albeit probably a huge mess of an article like this one was a few short weeks ago). And one person's opinion certainly can change years of consensus; after all, consensus can change... Doc9871 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I know from experience, what one believes they have heard is not always consistent with reality. If you want a change, you must first address the issue of descriptiveness. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase "global war on terror," a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor." Did I believe I read that? Or does it say "global war on terrorism" was the "signature rhetorical legacy"? "War on Terrorism" is far, far too broad, and is not in the scope of what this article needs to be; the response to the events of 9/11. Not every war on terrorism that ever was, which is what that terminology opens the door to... Doc9871 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue and/or go back and forth if you actually believe that "War on Terror" is less broad than "War on Terrorism." --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source supporting "War on Terror". Where is yours to say it's "War on Terrorism"? Doc9871 (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - William, just because "War on Terrorism" has been the status quo for quite some time, it doesn't mean we should not challenge it. In fact that is irrelevant and what matters is current consensus, as consensus can change.

You ask why we should move it? I ask why the heck has it been like that for so long. Now, to the point... "War on Terror" is a term used far more frequently and I believe that is easy to prove. As for terrorism being more descriptive, should we, in that logic, change all article titles to make them more descriptive, because frankly some titles are really weird. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment - While "War on Terror" certainly seems more broad on the face of it (obviously), this is what the terminology was, and therefore is. Bush declared a "global war on terror", not a "global war on terrorism". It's not for us to decide later, because it happened, and it's very provable. There should be one focused article for the "War on Terror" (or, better yet, the "Global War on Terror") as the Bush administration implemented following 9/11. If WP must have a "War on Terrorism" article also, I think it should be separate from "War on Terror" as defined. Doc9871 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think that a second article is a good idea. A redirect works just as well. Truth is that "War on Terrorism" has been used as well, to refer to the same thing, but not nearly as frequently as "War on Terror". --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why I had an "if" there. I was being a "tinge" sarcastic ;> "Do I know what a rhetorical question is?! Actually, no; what is it?"... Doc9871 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaah, I see. Well, it's hard to tell the difference now, with the internets and all. :P --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that both are used, but "War on Terror" is less descriptive and therefore the more descriptive title must be used. Look at it from a logical standpoint, the fight is not against "fear," it's against "terrorism." At the time, the U.S. Civil War was referred to as: "the war between the states," the the "war of northern aggression," the "war against rebellion." Wikipedia has a complete article on it here. The simple fact is that the terminology "War on Terror" is descriptively incorrect and a rather informal/unencyclopedic name. Terror in this sense is just a shortening of "terrorism." --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right about it being descriptively insufficient, but we cannot just "fix" things and it is not our job to do so. Our job is to pick the most used and most recognizable term for an article. I hardly think there is an English speaking person who hasn't heard of "War on Terror", but is familiar with "War on Terrorism" or that, even in that case, he won't understand what this is about.

So, if we were editing WP in 1916, we would refer to World War I as "The Great War", or "The War that will end all wars", because that is what the press and literature used to refer to it. Now that the intellectuals and the public call it something different, we should as well.

If this was 1919 or so, yes. It was obviously not called World War I until many years later. TJ Spyke 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So, bottom line is, since the press and the authors did not "fix" the title, we sure as hell should not. And if in the near or the distant future some other title becomes more prevalent, we are here to address that issue. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"War on Terrorism" is the common term. Of course "War on Terror" will come up with more results on a google search because it also includes every instance of "War on Terror"ism. So to argue that "War on Terror" is the prevalent term based solely on a google search is a flawed conclusion to draw. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this then:[16] and this [17]. But, still, see the the references and the read further sections of the article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the article that Bush said, "Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there." This is a fact, and this was the "common term" Bush used from September 20 onwards, and the "rhetoric" the Obama Administration backed away from (also in the article). If you feel the term "War on Terror" is "descriptively incorrect", you would have to take that up with the Bush Administration, and with history in general. We don't re-write history here because we feel a factual term is "called something different" by "intellectuals and the public" now, I'm sorry... Doc9871 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In that context, terror is short for terrorism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. It isn't short for "terrors of the night", after all. I'm unsure of the point, really. And did Bush refer to a "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism"? The evidence is clear... Doc9871 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note the official language used here: [18]. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well "terrorism" has been used as well, but "Terror" is predominant, not just in the press and literature, but by US officials as well, primarily by Bush himself. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Check the results:[19]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support "War on Terror" is the most common term for it. For those arguing that "war on terror" is too general, too bad. It doesn't matter whether something is too general or not, it depends on what is most commonly used. TJ Spyke 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive titles. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A greater multitude of reliable sources to "War on Terror" (especially the Bush Administration references) refute the, "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common." claim here, I think... Doc9871 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Note also, it's, "often avoided", not "should be" or "must be" avoided... Doc9871 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from what Doc is saying, which is entirely true, this "Descriptive titles" guideline, seems to be more focused on NPOV than utility. --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The only way that is true is if you believe "war on terror" is a more accurate representation of the operations than "war on terrorism." I believe it is not, because "war on terror" in a literal sense is an operation against fear. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also...when the guideline mentions "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave.", it probably means more common in everyday use, not in the press and literature. --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And, it doesn't constrict us to having a descriptive title, it simply says that "Where articles have descriptive titles, they are (should be) neutrally worded." --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(@ William) Once again, William, we (WP) didn't create the term "War on Terror", and it's not for us to decide on its accuracy: at all. This is quickly becoming a possibly POV-looking argument to me... Doc9871 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"War on terrorism" is a term used by the government (see the link above). This term should be used as opposed to "War on terror" because as well as being a term used officially, it is descriptive of the operations. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note - I have requested that the moving administrator reconsider this move as premature and inconclusive... Doc9871 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "War on Terror" is the overwhelmingly popular name for the subject. What is or is not "more descriptive" is irrelevant as this article does not use a descriptive title; it uses a proper name. "War on Terror" is accepted to be the proper name for the subject by most reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Criticism of U.S. objectives and strategies

I think we should move most of this section to Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terror, or delete what's duplicate and leave only a brief summary of that article in the section. Anyone who needs to find out more can read the complete article. The reason for this is that the article is too large, 115 KB while it should be well under 100. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny. That redirects to Criticism of the War on Terrorism... Doc9871 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Williams changed that back. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I merged the criticism subsections and did a general clean up, removing excess data. Those still exist in the main article, for anyone who wants to read more. I'm not sure if the right parts were included or left out, but overall I think it's an improvement. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Article size is now down to 105KBs. Wikipedia:SPLIT#Article_size --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical usage of phrase

I'm having second thoughts on this one:[20]. I did some research a while ago, when the section was re-added after the merge with the disambiguation page. Info was very hard to find and the sources were too scarce, but maybe we should not dismiss them just yet. There might be some truth to at least one of these three cases. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Second thoughts, ah yes. Was it the "In fact, many leaders from all over the world utilize this term when dealing with perceived terrorist activity..." part that should have been left in? Verifiable sources make an encyclopedia, not the POV "material" I removed... Doc9871 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's definitely weasel. I meant the other parts about anarchists, Palestine and Reagan. I think that at least the Reagan part may have some validity. Although I'm not sure as to how often was it used or how well known was this terminology to the public. We should do a little more research, just to be on the safe side. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, with a quick search I found this:

"'What is the war against terrorism?' and a side question, 'What's terrorism?' The war against terrorism has been described in high places as a struggle against a plague, a cancer, which is spread by barbarians, by "depraved opponents of civilisation itself". That's a feeling that I share. The words I'm quoting, however, happen to be from 20 years ago, [from] President Reagan and his Secretary of State."

I don't know if it's a phrase he just used once, but I think it's enough to look into it more carefully. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Are Doc9871 and JokerXtreme the same person? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like talking to myself. Ask a checkuser clerk to conduct an investigation. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a CU isn't necessary. But, by all means, proceed with one if it will clear your doubts. Just because two editors can agree on one issue (on one article) isn't the best SPI evidence, I must add... Doc9871 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To get back to the subject of this section, what do you think about the points above? --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's referenced with a reliable source, isn't original research or pushing a POV; I can't argue automatically for its exclusion. However, "War Against Terrorism" is yet another term, and that needs to be addressed. I've stated many times that I feel this article should be only about the "War on Terror" starting from 9/11, and to me, the historical usage of that phrase is most important for this article. How it evolved into that phrase is certainly worth checking out... Doc9871 (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's "against" terrorism. I just realized that. Then you're probably right, it's a different term. The concept may be the same, but it certainly is not fitting to a Historical usage of phrase section. Chomsky may quote it by memory, though and the phrase Reagan used might be different. Still, no matter how hard I try it's difficult to find any Reagan's quotes. It is most likely though, that "War on Terror" or even "War on Terrorism" are unique phrases and weren't used in the past. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)