Template talk:War on Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 6. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Alphabetical sorting?

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

[edit] The case of India and Russia

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

I agree, Russia nofal can go suck my ballsItalic text brian is just a drunken mic with nothin to do but jack off to every guy sitting with him at his table. loser, this comment was curstosy of some kid from shallow = )

[edit] Headline text

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

This isnt about a "war on terrorism" its about The "War on Terrorism", I think even when you read in Russian news and see War on Terrorism in caps, its about the one the US started and other nations assist with. It was argued before over if Russia should be included or not, then idea was no because its a US campaign and Russia and the US have not allied to remove the chechens in an announced action of the WOT. --NuclearZer0 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
So then the Beslan hostage crisis and the Moscow theater incident should be removed. Fine by me. Publicus 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
WTF? Why do the hell you remove russian from the list? Are you serious about it? Do you really think that Russian goverment doesn't participate in War on Terrorism. You must be crazy as that man who declare that russian has "war on terrorism", but not "War On Terrorism"... It is just stupid. Use your [censored] common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.51.5.228 (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
Are you crazy? What does the United States have to do with Beslan? Quadpus 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Where i said ANYTHING about Beslan and USA?! I was talking about Russia participating in war on terrorism. It is not war which USA declared! It is war which whole civil world declared. USA is not hub of universe. I move Russia, Beslan, etc back again. It should be common sense that this war started not when planes crashed WTO, but much earlier, and this thing is just one of the evil things they have done in the past. What happened in beslan was terrorism, what happened in Moscow, when houses were bombed is terroris too. Now you declare that USA has "owned" the term "War On Terrorism", it is same as Microsoft will own word "Windows", because they're largest software company. You use god damned common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.245.171.138 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Nobody thinks the USA owns the term "War on Terrorism". This template is about the specific "War on Terrorism" led by the USA. That is all. Quadpus 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osaboramirez' revert

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

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

Alright, fair enough. Do you have any objections to Centrx's edit (removal of the flags) or the other part of mine (addition of the list titles used at War on Terrorism)? Picaroon9288 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no, and remake the changes. Þicaroon 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

What is the reason why "war templates" should have flags? Perhaps they should be removed from all war templates? —Centrx→talk • 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, could you link to some examples of war templates? I found only Template:Falklands War, which isn't organized in the same way. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example of 2 that have flags for the participants Template:World War I, Template:World War II. --Bobblehead 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The excess of flags on those is even more absurd. —Centrx→talk • 09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why absurd? Sfacets 10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I object to the removal of the flags. I've been trying to search down all these pages where Centrx keeps stating there is consensus to remove them, but I'm still having trouble. Luckily I found this one. These flags don't damage the template and make it much easier to spot specific countries. A visual cue is great. I oppose removing the flagicons. If Picaroon9288's edits are made, and the flagicons remain, the template will be in a much better state. With this in mind, I made an attempt at a compromise edit/version. In this edit, the flagicons remain, but Picaroon9288's edits are included as well. [1] AuburnPilottalk 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to find a compromise, AuburnPilot. Although I think the flags are sorta redundant, and that the template would look better and be less cluttered without them, I think that Centrx's proposal to remove them hasn't been discussed widely enough; there certainly isn't consensus among us on this talkpage to remove them from this template. One place this has been discussed before is Template talk:Flagicon#What is the point? Þicaroon 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
So perhaps you could actually give a reason why the flags are good, given that most of them are unrecognizable and the names are already listed, rather than wiki stalking? See also [2] and [Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags]. This isn't a children's book. —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If you are accusing me of wikistalking Centrx, it's time for a long overdue Wikibreak. After you removed flagicons from another template, you stated there was consensus for your actions. You failed to identify where that consensus was. This is one of only a handfull of places where I could find any discussion. So before you start attacking other users, let's actually discuss the topic. FLAGICONS. AuburnPilottalk 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"I've been trying to search down all these pages where Centrx". There's nothing wrong with searching another user's contribs, but it doesn't resolve the issue. —Centrx→talk • 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Copperchair sockpuppets

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

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

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

[edit] Lebanon

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

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

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

[edit] Flags

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

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

They impair navigation when the reader clicks on a flag, reasonably expecting to go the article about the country but instead finding he is on a back-end page about the flag. This is a navigation template, and putting extraneous pretty pictures does not aid navigation. The only way around this is to use a feature that adds a barrier to accessibility, such as persons using screen readers. It is unbalanced in that it weights the country links more heavily than all others, when in fact the country articles are the least important to the "War on Terrorism" relative to the articles on September 11 attacks or Axis of Evil, but that does not mean we should put an image of a burning WTC towers and a collage of the flags of the three countries of the Axis of Evil. —Centrx→talk • 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Flag links like that are common on military conflict pages in Wikipedia. Yes, it is a little disheartening to click on a flag and get taken to information about the image and not about the related subject. However, that is the way Wiki works. The textual link next to it is more often used to bring people to an article more germaine to the topic. Otherwise, concur with those who support their use for aesthetic purposes. --Petercorless 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Icu removal

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

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

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

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

US warplanes just blew the crap out of an ICU-held town with an AC-130 allegedly because of the presence of 3 terrorist suspects. The main stated reason for Ethiopia's invasion of ICU held Somalia was because the leadership in the ICU was allegedly al-Qaeda members. I don't know what more you need. --Ingoman 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I suggest people read the pages on the Somali war carefully and not delete the mention of the Islamic Courts Union. It is stated by the US, Ethiopia and the Somali Transitional Federal Government that ICU leadership included members of both al-Itihaad al-Islamiya and Al Qaeda, and many were put under US Executive Order 13224. You might also look to read a few articles about how Al Qaeda recently called for mujahideen to go to Somalia to support the ICU. The US has sent multiple attacks by AC-130 gunships against ICU militia groups suspected of harboring Al Qaeda leaders. See Battle of Ras Kamboni. --Petercorless 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 2000 al-Qaeda Summit

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

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

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

[edit] Ethiopian war in Somalia

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

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

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

Here is your definitive source "Pentagon: Somalia Part of War on Terror" ~Rangeley (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that the region has long been a part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa and that it has been verified that one of the conspirators of the 1998 Al Qaeda bombingswas killed by a US military aircraft operating off the coast of Somalia. Bit too much of a coincidence, don't you think. -- Permafrost 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

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

[edit] "Targets of operations"

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

I changed it to this wording a little while ago because this how the infobox in War on Terrorism styles them. I think your objection is reasonable, and that it should be brought up at the article, because the template is really just a condensed version of the article. Picaroon 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Being that this is a campaign, not a conflict, they are targets as far as this campaign is concerned. They do not launch operations within the WoT, they are merely targets within it. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order

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

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

[edit] What about pre-2001?

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

Those were before the campaign began. 9-11 is included here because it was the casus belli for the campaigns initiation, but things prior to that wouldnt be included. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why when many people see this as a war that was going on well before 9/11 with the war in somalia and the USS Cole, but only with an attack on the US main land did most americans notice (including guys at the pentagon). That few people noticed or cared about the Kenya & Tanzaniya embassy bombings is part of cultural bias that let this escalate so much. Also starting this war with 9/11 is just plane US-centric, though there is a case for these to be labled pre-911 as it was such a big tipping point in the conflict. Hypnosadist 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whr is India?

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

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

[edit] Hezbollah in target

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

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

[edit] MQM

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

[edit] Inclusion criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Copperchair sockpuppets

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

[edit] Seperate Current section

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

[edit] Is the Iraq war part of the WOT?

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

The war was certainly started under the pretense of the US WoT and it continues to be framed that way by the US government. The problem most people have with Iraq being part of WoT is that they aren't realizing it's a proper noun and may not be an accurate representation of the events under that banner. Basically, it's the same as the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and Cold War. Obviously you can't declare war on drugs or poverty and the Cold War was hardly a war spanning 50 years.--Bobblehead 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Its more like the first two than the cold war. The cold war was not a governmental campaign, it was an ideological struggle. The thing this article is about is not the ideological struggle between the west and radical islam (which began before October 7th, 2001) but a specific governmental program carried out by the USA with allied aid. The Iraq war is a designated part of this governmental campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant more the usage of a pronoun that may not be descriptive of what happened rather than the actual actions within those campaigns, but good point. Definitely more like the War on Drugs and War on Poverty than the Cold War as far as activities under the pronoun go. --130.76.32.145 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Revolutionary Struggle part of the WOT?

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

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

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

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

[edit] War or police operations?

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

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

[edit] Criteria for event addition in the template

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

[edit] Mecca Masjid Bombing

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

[edit] India part of WOT??

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

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

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

7/7 was aimed at Britain specifically as the madrid bombing was aimed at spanish civilians. As for "the scope of the GWOT is decided by the US administration" is wrong both in IRL an on wikipedia. IRL its al queda that decide the scope of the war with were they attack (mostly), and operate out of. On wikipedia it is notable consensus that decides and many commentators include India as one of the fronts of the war on terror as do the indian government. Hypnosadist 01:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You have a point there. However, the Indian government has never joined the US as a member of the GWOT. The Govt. includes india as part of the war on terrorism, not the GWOT. That distinction has been repeatedly made, where Indian officials have stated that they would not join any coalition of any sorts. As for AQ deciding the scope, they have included the whole non-muslim world as a front. That doesn't make those countries a part of the GWOT. I think a distinction must be made here (I fear we are referring to different things). while Terrorism affects different countries in many ways, the so called 'GWOT' is a term created by and most used by the US, as a paradigm for their actions since 9/11. As the creators of the term, I guess its their prerogative to decide its scope. AQ may decide the actions, but whether those acts fall under GWOT is for the US (and a few others) to decide.
As for the 7/7 and Madrid blasts, the AQ accepted responsibility and stated that the blasts were because of those governments involvements in Iraq, A'stan and the US war on terror. In case of Blasts in India, these usually are blamed on the Indian Government's actions in Kashmir, a conflict that is not really a part of the GWOT as defined by the US (even though the actions there might be terrorism, and closely tied to AQ). I'll leave the template as it is then, till there is a consensus. Cheers. Sniperz11 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename "U.S. War on Terrorism"?

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

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

[edit] Dropping "plots" keeping actual attacks

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

Doodoobutter, there's really no need to track all plots on this template. As the template sections suggest, this is strictly for "main events". Listing all the plots that have been uncovered would weaken the overall purpose of the template which is to provide a quick snapshot of the activities, not list everything that could have happened. Publicus 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thusly, there should be a separate section on the template or even a separate article for plots and a link to that article on the template. Also, if you are going to get rid of all the plots, why not remove the '07 London car bomb plot? Doodoobutter 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree there should be a link for all plots and other activities related to the template. In my opinion, the actual War on terrorism article serves that purpose, this template is merely a quickie guide to the major ops. As far as the London car bombs, they were more of a failed attack than just a plot, with actual car bombs built and deployed. And according to the media, it looks like the Glascow attack was related to failed London attacks. Publicus 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatah al-Islam?

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

[edit] Lal Masjid Seige

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

[edit] small restructure

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

[edit] New format

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

[edit] Size

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

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

[edit] Rename "War on Terror"?

I just moved War on Terrorism to War on Terror, per a move request, and the fact that the latter name appears to be more widely used, by supporters and opponents, and by our sources. Should this template move as well, to match the article? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, all related articles should be moved to match the main one. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic terrorism

Any resaon why the inclusion of the article Islamic terrorism was reverted? It is, after all, one of the leading causes of the war on terrorism. Yahel Guhan 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anything in 2008??

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