Talk:War on Terror (game)

Gameplay
Needs more gameplay info -- D ef en d er 9 11  15:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wotboxfront.jpg
Image:Wotboxfront.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Skills Required
Is "flexable morals" really listed within the game? Moberho (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC) I dunno, but it made me laugh. Dogbert Rocks (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Concept
Someone should really re-write the entire section. "Starting with a tiny presence on the map, an empire aim at dominating aka liberating entire continents and to build cities to win the game." I can only assume whoever wrote this had a hatred of grammar that rivals Hitlers' hatred of the Jews. Incidentally, Godwin's Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.247.110 (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never played this game, but from now on I think I'll buy it. And please don't censore this article.
 * "I can only assume whoever wrote this had a hatred of grammar that rivals Hitlers' hatred of the Jews." And who are you, a new Goebbels of the Empire?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.104.201 (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My latest edit
I have removed the statement about the "counter-productive pursuit of the War on Terrorism", because it's blatantly anti-American POV, as well as unsourced and factually inaccurate. Please take the time to actually read the War on Terrorism article, and refrain from making such clearly biased statements unless you can substantiate them. 146.74.230.104 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a source, which is perfectly respectable (Oxford Research Group) and their series of studies make a clear case for the "counter-productive" results of the war on terror. The adjective in question therefore hints at neither an anti-American nor a personal point of view but could quite safely be interpreted as fact. Andrewsheerin (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's one group's opinion on an obviously controversial issue. I don't know how that translates into a settled fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.31.72 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * POV? Sure. Anti-American? Debatable. Listen, I personally agree with the sentiment, but I also feel it has no place in this article. 173.253.185.82 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the type of unnecessary opinion inserted into articles that make people think Wikipedia is biased. Some Think Tank's opinion about the War on Terror itself doesn't have a place in an article about the board game. If you have a quote from the creator of the game on the War on Terror that has actually has some relation to his motivation for creation of the game....then that is fine.  But this random opinion....is just there because someone wanted to get THEIR opinion into the article and the source matched and gave them an excuse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.16.247 (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with links in the 'In the press' section
The first three links are incorrect. "International Herald Tribune"just goes to their home page, "Daily Mail" goes to an different story and "Socialist Unity Network" doesn't work any more. Should they be deleted? SandJ-on-WP (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Having dug about, regarding the Daily Mail, there are two available links:

18th September 2006 "Fury over 'war on terror' board game" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405801/Fury-war-terror-board-game.html

27th September 2006 "The game that pokes fun at suicide bombs" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407230/The-game-pokes-fun-suicide-bombs.html

(Although, to be frank, the Daily Mail is the source of more racist hatred, gnashing of nationalistic teeth and paranoia than any board game ever could be and shouldn't really warrant being cited as a source of information.) SandJ-on-WP (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As the Mail is now regarded as an unreliable source, this should probably be removed or replaced. sheridan (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with TerrorBull Games
Notability isn't inherited from notable board game, and unsourced other game may or may not Widefox ; talk 12:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems TerrorBull produce a significant output, though aren't too good at letting anyone know. They've published 16 games according to their website, one of which has been licenced worldwide, another seems to have been blocked in Russia... plus commissions for major charities and institutions such as Greenpeace, SOAS and so on. Many of these games can be found referenced - sometimes multiple times, as is case with War on Terror and Metakettle - in academic material. They seem to be one of a handful of companies engaging in design, research and furtherance of persuasive/political/art games, especially using tabletop/analogue game type. These would seem to me to be reasonable notable achievements. Updated the page to reflect some of this rather hastily. 31 May 2017