Talk:War on terror/Archive 9

Proposals to improve the article?
Any proposals to improve the article? We should clean up what we can and ask for a peer review. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely removed the "Further reading" section of the article. The entries to that list were either articles in opinion columns, books that were most likely not NPOVed (liberal or conservative), or might even be advertisements. If that section is to re-added, entries must be justified to remain there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone even care? :( --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error on Side Frame under "Commanders" incorrectly lists Gen. John Abizaid's Command responsibility and date. Correct info is "CENTCOM Commander 2003-2007" I cannot seem to edit the side box in question. Please correct the error. Commodore2009 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Active Endeavour
Is Operation Active Endeavour part of War on Terror after all? I can't find any sources connecting the two. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
how do u edit the wot info box.Islamuslim (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Go here:Template:WoT-InfoBox. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Caucasian militants
Adding Caucasian militants in Belligerents other targets section. They have been involved in bombings. AmazingAthiest (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be added. Keep in mind that the War on Terror is something very specific. We should not be adding any terrorist organization and any counter-terrorist action. A thumb of rule to consider if something is to be included is to ask the question: "Is it related to an action taken by the US under the banner of War on Terror?". --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If its specific then title should be US War on Terror only my opinion. AmazingAthiest (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it should, but when it's used US is not added. Pretty much for the same reason we don't say the US CIA or the US FBI; it goes without saying. With War on Terror things are a little more fuzzy because Bush wanted to give it a more global aspect. Nevertheless it never really was. Russia never joined the US operations or never used the War on Terror (or terrorism) phrase.


 * P.S: I think we should revert the US addition you made. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

okAmazingAthiest (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanx :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

i know somebody who was in nato —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.85.154 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * wow cool Swarm Talk

Recommendations to improve the article
Many thanks to Nikkimaria for recommending possible improvements to be done in this article. Everyone is welcome to read Peer_review/War_on_Terror/archive1 and contribute by editing the article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any specific suggestion, unfortunately, but having just read the article it strikes me as polemic, not neutral or encyclopedic. It seems an unremitting attack on the term, to the exclusion of talking about the conflict.

I'm no supporter of Bush's Global War on the English Language, but the article as is besmirches Wikipedia's reputation as a a place to go for the full picture on a topic, instead of a fox-news style version of 'fair and balanced'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.121.23 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

False War and PTSD then Suicide, Hearing coming 9-23-10
My short PTSD suicide thinking. Example, of my VA hospital 3 month stay. http://www.18-va-suicides-per-day.blogspot.com/

1.  President Obama’s speeches on or about Aug. 2, 2010 to disabled Veterans. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.php/whats-new/1843-president-barack-obama

2.  Please have All low income veterans to be able to benefit from the upgraded disability decision-making your committee will be examining. All low income veterans, not just soldiers from a particular time period. All low income Veterans to be able to get education compensation. Example: Free Internet, computers, cell phones with unlimited services. Also all low income Veterans to Free Internet software courses which are already setup by respectable companies like Microsoft and Adobe. Not the rip off schools under resent investigation.

I say All low income Veterans not just those with previous recognize disabilities. I say this because of the changing times and need for jobs and or the ability to at least interact with others not just veterans. Including all low income Veterans even with out a recognizable disabilities would help Vietnam Veterans like me and others like me. I say this because at the age of 60 I was in a mental ward (suicidal) of a VA hospital. I make my requests because my thinking in a positive way helps me because my criticisms and suggestion might be helpful to others. I’m now getting help from a civilian Doctor. My blog below helps to understand why a chose a civilian doctor over a VA hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.72.48 (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the article?
there using dogs now The term "War on terror" has been officially dropped by the US government, while it was never used by the other side (whoever that is). Obama's cabinet has claimed that the United States and its allies are at "War with Al Qaeda and its allies", while the "War on Terror" is over. How about renaming the article "War on Al Qaeda" or "War on Al Qaedism". The term "War on Terror" isn't used anymore by any of the combatants. On the other hands, the two terms I am proposing are closer to the reality of the conflict as well as the current official American position —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The term was used to describe it, and we can't change that fact. I would vote against any other name for this article, were it to come to that... Doc9871 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. There was a discussion about keeping the "War on Terrorism" name, but consensus was to change it to the current. The reasoning was that we can't pick a name, we can only use the prevailing name in the press, literature and public, and that is overwhelmingly in favor of the current name. If for whatever reason that changes, we will follow, but we cannot make a name up. --JokerXtreme (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been stated before, "War on Terror" has been dropped by the U.S. government. So what should the new name be? How about none. We already have names for two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). In other areas where the military is active (like the Philippines and the Horn of Africa), one can use the military name...Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines or Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa. Just because the term "War on Drugs" is no longer used does not mean that the U.S. government is no longer trying to reduce the illegal drug trade. "War on Drugs" is no longer used and neither is "War on Terror". Why are so many people insisting to use this term? Do you still refer to the Civil War as "the War Between the States" too?

US War on Terror is more specific and defines US goals. AmazingAthiest (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? The article itself states that..."By definition this list can never be complete, as it includes any so-called "terrorist" organization - the definition of which will change over time (and already does between different countries). As there is still no internationally accepted definition of what a "terrorist" actually is." Whereas during World War II, everyone was in agreement with what "Japanese Empire" meant. That was specific.

I don't think the article needs to be renamed, but it should not use the term "war on terror" as if there actually was such a thing. The phrase itself is a rhetorical device and WP needs to make its neutrality clear at every mention of the term. Wegesrand (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I believe the lead paragraph needs rewriting, to be in consistence with WP:LEAD. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Currently working on it. Swarm Talk 13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada I think should also be listed as a country, while technically not in iraq, it has military operations all over the world relating to this article i beleive. Anyone else have an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.132.22 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox inaccuracies
I don't know how to edit the info myself but the infobox is incorrect regarding the dates of service of General Abizaid as ISAF commander. cheers, 173.66.178.76 (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus, I can't believe no one has acted on this. Here it is, July, and the problem is still unsolved. Really? No one could have looked at Abizaid's article and see that he retired from the army years before it said he was a commander? I'll get to that right away. Swarm Talk 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

== US Homeland?

Almost no American would use the word 'Homeland' to describe attacks on the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland#Various_connotations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gam3 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Except the Department of Homeland Security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.238.246 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.249.219.52, 14 September 2010
The September 11th attacks have been the most distructive acts of terrorism in modern history.

74.249.219.52 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  07:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose removing India as a non-NATO belligerent
Hi. I propose removing India as a non-NATO belligerent, because it is not participating in the millitary campaign. If this has been discussed previously, would request someone to please direct me to the discussion. While I dont know why exactly India has been included, I offer my reasons below to what I think would have been the most likely reasons.

1. Part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa / Combined Task Force 150

I think this may have been the primary reason for inclusion, since India was previously listed as a belligerent in the OEF-HOA page and the CTF 150 page as a CTF 150 member. Since India was conducting its anti-piracy operations independently (just like several other non-CTF-150 countries including China, Russia, Greece, Saudi Arabia, etc), I had corrected this last month in both of those pages.

2. Has ongoing military activities against terrorists

Yes, India is engaged in military activities against terrorists, but definetly not as part of this campaign. Quoting from the article, while this campaign "was launched in 2001", Indian operations have been on prior to that. As the article currently says, and as is normally understood otherwise also, the term 'War on Terrorism' refers to the campaign led by the US/UK only. There are no Indian troops deployed in any of the theatres where such missions are going on. Apart from sharing of intelligence, I am not aware of any other co-operation between India and US in this area. The Indian government has, in fact, passed a resolution in parliament condemning the invasion of Iraq. Link here: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/exclusive/iraq/resolution1.htm.

So, unless anybody has conflicting thoughts, I would propose to remove India as a non-NATO belligerent. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again.I would also propose either deleting the map (the red and yellow one identifying conflict zones) or removing India from the map and editing the caption to limit it to nations in which military efforts are being made to fight terrorism under the War on Terror campaign. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No objections recieved (yet). Have carried out above described changes. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal to reintroduce India as a non-NATO belligerent. After 26/11 Mumbai Attacks India has been actively involved itself in the War on terror internationally, weather it be Afghanistan or Somalian pirates.

Edit request in paragraph 'Islamic terrorism after 9/11'
Hello,

I think '* 2003 Istanbul bombings and Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing in Turkey' in the section 'Islamic terrorism after 9/11' is supposed to be:

and
 * 2003 Istanbul bombings in Turkey
 * 2007 Karachi bombing of Benazir Bhutto's motorcade and 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing in Pakistan

Bye, Robert

188.98.34.4 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Add "Home front" to War on Terror article
The D.C. Sniper incident after 9-11 was conducted by Islamic extremists. The Fort Hood Shooting was also conducted by a radical (terrorist). These events should be written in the War on Terror article under a "Home Front" section. It is also important to show the total casualties from this war: United States suffered over 8,000 killed (including the 9/11 attacks, the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Military operations in other regions of the world). The casualties of other parties should also be shown in the top box on the right-hand side.
 * Indented line they use dogs with bombs now

I disagree with two points. First: the D.C. Snipers, John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, may have converted to Islam, but that does not make them "Islamic extremists" unless the killings were religiously motivated and I don't believe there is enough evidence to support this. Second: in order to be balanced, a report of the "total casualties" that you call for would include not only American lives lost, but also Coalition casualties, Iraqis and Afghans. And foreign fighters as well. The wide range of reporting on the numbers makes this logistically difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.112.239 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also there are rather more home fronts then just the USA (indead to an Afgan Afganistan is a home front).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Map inconsistencies
The map shown does not correspond to the section "Islamic terrorism after 9/11" - it doesn't show in yellow (countries where there were terrorist bombings/attacks) Russia (with this already in the infobox), India, Israel and maybe others. Alinor (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I had put up the revised map, but yes, I agree - they do not match. I guess we could include countries like Russia, India, Israel and Turkey under the yellow category. But I dont know if this would be exhaustive - I dont claim to have knowledge of all countries where islamic terrorist attacks have happened. We may also want to clarify that most of these countries have their own independent ongoing military operations against terrorists, distinct from the US-led "War on Terror" campaign. Let me know if you agree and if you have more countries to add to the list. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I mentioned above, identifying all countries might be difficult. I will add Turkey in yellow and will re-caption the map as "Red indicates nations in which military efforts are being made to fight terrorism under the War on Terror campaign. Yellow indicates nations involved in the War on Terror campaign where Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred. This excludes countries like Russia and India which have been subject to Islamic terrorist attacks and have independent anti-terror operations". Hope this should be fine. 07:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Horlicks (talk • contribs)

Add the Netherlands to NATO belligerents
I see that the Netherlands are missing from the list of NATO belligerents. The Netherlands operated in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is named several times throughout the article so I think they should be added. Armorad (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding Kingdom of Regano to List of Beligerents
There is a small island in the Pacific that has contributed to the war by sending troops to support NATO actions. Thanks--67.126.87.201 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo

 * Hi, I just wanted to tell you guys that in the caption for the page image, Afghanistan is spelled wrong on one of the lines. It says "Afghanistam" instead.


 * Corrected - see below. It's really a shame it took so long to correct this: it looked extremely unprofessional as it was. Cheers :> Doc   talk  19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for re-write
This article has numerous issues that merit attention. Therefore, it has been tagged with a request for re-write. Some of the deficiencies that motivated this request are as follows:


 * 1) It appears that the article is documenting a phrase as initiated by a United States president, but there do not appear to be any citations connecting phrase to any legal, social, or historic foundation of presidential authority. Consequently, there is nothing to establish this article's use of the phrase as encyclopedic, other than its basis as a well-established U.S. political catch-phrase, similar to "Axis of Evil".
 * 2) It appears that none of the cited references define the terms: "Terrorism" and "Global Terrorism" within the context of this article. This is a serious deficiency, since there is no scholarly, legal, structural, social, textual, ethical or logical basis to distinguish which operations against "Terrorism" by which world governments (or organizations of any size) merit inclusion in this article.
 * 3) It appears that the article does not include any reference to the economic, psychological, political, social and legal categories of operations and structures that can be equally associated with this catch-phrase, and instead focuses narrowly on military deployments of combat troops. On that basis, the article title should at least be re-considered, since it does not even seem to authoritatively address the various elements associated with the political catch-phrase.
 * 4) It appears that no one has offered a citation containing a singular authoritative definition of the term, apart from its existence as a well-known catch-phrase. Absent this, there is no foundation for establishing a Neutral Point of View. An authoritative definition of the concept "War on Terror" is absolutely essential for:
 * 5) 1) evaluating the credibility of the citations offered in support of the broader concept as presented in this article;
 * 6) 2) evaluating the accuracy and internal consistency of the content of the article itself; and
 * 7) 3) establishing the fundamental purpose of the article and its direction, independently of the purposes and motivations of those who may view the undefined catch-phrase as either favorable or unfavorable.

For these reasons and others, this article and its contents may merit review. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, a reminder, maintain a Neutral POV when editing this page. This article is very well cited by reliable sources or linked to articles that maybe considered sub-articles which they themselves are well referenced by reliable source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings RightCowLeftCoast, thanks for publishing that reminder. Do you know of any reliable source that defines "Terrorism" and "Global Terrorism", for the purposes of this article, in order to establish a baseline for what actions by which world organizations of any variety merit inclusion in this article? dr.ef.tymac (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankfully the Terrorism article is relatively well cited, there is an article about terrorist events, Patterns of Global Terrorism; also if you're POV is towards documented alleged state sponsored events which others consider terrorism by the United States, there is an article for that.
 * However, this article based on its defined parameters/scope set forth in the lead and the first section is specific to the current conflict between the United States and her allies (current and previously active) against certain organizations that adhere to a form of militant Islam. Therefore, although it doesn't speak about terrorism itself, or the alleged reasons one side of the conflict has state for why they choose to use a certain tactic, within its scope it is sufficient. Furthermore, there appears to be sub-articles that already exist that address your concern, including the one linked in the criticism section. I hope this helps. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST
in the box underneath the picture on the right, it says "Afganistam" when it should say "Afganistan" which it later says several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.208.85 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Good catch! Doc   talk  18:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Title of page
Currently it says on top of the page "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" : if that is the case, which after reading the entire page - it sure is. Why is the page not titled "American War on Terror" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been a long-standing topic of debate, and a perusal of the archives of this page will show that. This move came during a massive cleanup of the article, as it was really a bloated mess before many changes were made to it. (who unfortunately hasn't worked on it in awhile) helped with this, and I wish he would return :<. The "War on Terror" was a term that President Bush used, and the article should remain focused on that: the reaction following the 9/11 attacks on American soil. I hope further clarification is unneeded, and I truly hope that it doesn't become a quagmire of unrelated conflicts against terrorism like it previously was.  Doc   talk  20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Post 9/11events inside the United States
Per this discussion, it was previously determined that the Muhammad/Malvo DC sniper attacks and the Ford Hood killings were not related to the War on Terror but rather "spree killings" unrelated to either 9/11 or the War on Terror. I am dismayed to see them back here: and I intend to remove them again. The recent shootings in Arizona - should we add them as well? This is the problem that the article faced before the cleanup, and we don't need these things here. Anyone have any input on this issue? It's been decided by consensus before to keep them out of this article, and I have no problem boldly removing them (as well as the picture of the caskets of the victims of the Fort Hood shootings) once again. Thank you. Doc  talk  20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - I have removed the section and per WP:BRD I am perfectly happy to have any editor revert me so long as they come here to discuss it. Doc   talk  04:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks sensible to me Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Somali PIRATES ARE TERRORISTS?
Since when did thieves become part of the war on terror? Somali pirates steal to live a lavish life, they have nothing to do with terrorism. could someone delete it pls? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The war on terror is to reduce threats toward countries against terrorism. I think is to remove anything, that supposedly causes terror by being a threat, regardless whether it is for wealth (pirates) or revenge (insurgents). The pirates creates threats towards transporting ships and makes them a source of terror. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A "source of terror" - yes. Do they belong in this particular article, which is focused on the "War on Terror" stemming from the events of 9/11?  IMO: nope.  Just sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"A source of terror" is not the same thing as being a terrorist. The Somali pirates do not meet the definitions of a terrorist as given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Types_of_Terrorism. They are thieves. They do not use "terror" as a coercive political tool, it is solely based on monetary gain.Jbower47 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If the war against pirates is part of Operation Enduring Freedom, then it is considered part of the War on Terror by the US Gov't, and since the US Gov't coined the War on Terror, and since the War on Terror is US-led, if the US Gov't considers it part of the War on Terror, it should probably be part of the article. Also, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on terrorism says, "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." It doesn't specify political goals. To continue on this, in the section cited by Jbower47, there are actually types of terrorism described that are non-political, such as "Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective,” " which is called Non-Political Terrorism by that article. Finally, according to the U.S. Navy, Combined Task Force 150, an international force created to fight piracy carries out operations which "complement the counterterrorism and security efforts of regional nations," showing that there is an international consensus that piracy is terrorism.Supergeek1694 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why we have articles on Terrorism and Counter-terrorism. This article is supposed to be about the reaction to 9/11, and should not be expanded beyond that; other articles can be created. Pirates hijacking ships off the coast of Somalia to feed their starving families in a basically lawless country ten years after the fact have nothing to do with 9/11. Jus' sayin'... Doc   talk  04:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But it is classified by the United States--the country that basically runs the war on terror--part of said war. Also, just because something can be argued to be not linked to 9/11, that does not mean that it is not part of the war on terror. Many debate how much the war in Iraq is related to 9/11, but it is widely considered to be part of the war on terror.Supergeek1694 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is badly in need of repair and has been for a long time. We simply cannot confuse "War on Terror" with "War on Terrorism" - it's been done and has been corrected. We cannot have every terrorist "event" post-9/11 in this article, and it needs even more "culling". The Shoe Bomber? He was attempting to blow up an airplane over U.S. soil on behalf of al-Qaeda shortly after 9/11: he qualifies for inclusion in this article. Muhammad/Malvo? No chance. Pirates who hijack any ship from any nation in their waters? It's piracy. Rather than expand this article to something it was not intended to be, we need to keep it focused. I'm glad you're talking here, Supergeek1694, as there are 740+ "watchers" of this page besides you and I who don't seem to want to speak up. Anybody out there besides us two? Come on, now... Doc   talk  05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never seen it seriously suggested that the Somali pirates are supporting terrorists, much less that they're terrorists themselves. As such, I agree with excluding them from the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I could possibly hope for a better opinion: administrator, 14 FA's, military expert... and "troutable"! Thank you, sir :> Doc   talk  07:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was reading the article in question and in the military section it does mention the war on terror under its connect to the subject under CTF 150, and is also mentioned in the article Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa. Therefore, the idea that piracy in the waters off Somalia is somehow connected to the War on Terror does not appear to be without merit. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The trappings of success may be new, but piracy has been a problem in Somali waters for at least 10 years - when Somali fishermen began losing their livelihoods." The situation of pirates in Somalia is not terrorism: it is piracy for economic reasons. If they were blowing up boats and people in the name of some "cause" it would be one thing, but they instead are robbing them and holding them hostage for ransom for their own economic gain. Piracy has been around for a very long time, whereas terrorism is a relatively new concept. And its connection to the events of 9/11 that sparked the War on Terror is something I firmly fail to see. Perhaps the articles mentioned should be changed to reflect that as well... Doc   talk  21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That maybe the case; however, given the introduction of the article, which defines the scope of the article, seeing as how a Operation Enduring Freedom mission is ongoing that is directly connected to piracy in the region then it should be included. To maintain a neutral POV both sides of the matter should be included with appropriate references placed in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some powerful pirates want fame and terror, and enjoy being well known and feared throughout nearby societies. There are definitely pirates who deliberately cause terror, and therefor pirates should at least be mentioned. Not all pirates want to cause terror, and neither do most Middle Eastern terrorists; many of them simply want pay from organizations since they're homeless and starving due to war, or want revenge for their friends accidentally killed. Even if not everyone regards pirates as terrorists, they are still related to the war on terror in the sense that measures against them in Somalia has been taken regarding the war on terror. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear NPOV violation
This article was tagged for re-write and neutrality problems, those tags were removed, but it appears that the underlying substantial NPOV issues have not been addressed, rendering this article inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Please resolve the following before removing the NPOV flag.

''Foremost, please note this is not intended as an invitation to political discussion either for or against a particular viewpoint on the subject matter of this article. I love my country and honor those who do the difficult and solemn work of defending her against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This issue is not about my personal views, however, but about Wikipedia policy.''

At issue: What is this article about?
 * 1) ) The catch-phrase initiated and made famous by a United States president
 * 2) ) The literal fight against the concept/tactic of Terror and the international deployment of military assets to combat and eradicate this concept/tactic
 * 3) ) Both of the above

If this article is about 1) only, then clearly the content of the article in its present state is misleading, and incapable of neutrality, since it documents an international military campaign as combating the concept/tactic of terrorism, with no neutral basis for impartially documenting how the military operations factually coincide with the meaning of the catch-phrase. It would be like taking the article Axis of evil and then trying to document how the nations described by that catch-phrase are actually, in fact, evil.

If this article is about 2) only, then clearly the content of the article is irrevocably inconsistent with WP:NPOV, unless and until a reasonable, neutral, and logically-consistent argument can be made for why a politically contentious and U.S.-U.K. centric viewpoint of an international issue merits any more prominence than other viewpoints on this international issue. If it is truly possible to have a neutral Wikipedia article on the use of military force to eradicate the concept/tactic of terrorism, then it should be possible for a disinterested third-party to read the article and honestly say that it does not give favorable bias toward any organization or nation affected by the concept/tactic of terrorism. I do not see how such an article could possibly be neutral, consistent with Wikipedia policy.

If this article is about 3) (both) then clearly the content of the article is beyond repair, because there is no supporting neutral definition of either terrorism or the war on terrorism that can allow a disinterested editor to determine which military operations by which world organizations or groups merit inclusion in this article. More organizations and nations are affected by terror than just the U.K. and U.S. If a neutral definition of this concept is even possible at all, then it would necessarily have to include definitions that may not coincide with the opinions of any given president or leader of any given nation.

For these reasons and others, this article should at least be flagged as an NPOV violation, and remain so until someone can actually address these issues. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the previous consensus, that appears to be changing with time, is that this article was about several things:
 * ) The terminology of the statement made by Former President Bush
 * ) The conflicts that began during the previous administration's term, in part or directly due to the attacks on September 11th 2001, that it had defined under either Operation Enduring Freedom (and its sub-operations) and/or Operation Iraqi Freedom (which is debatable whether it is a separate or connected conflict depending on ones POV). The primary opponent for the operations were those directly connected to, or related to Al Qaeda (usually Islamists).
 * Due to the nature of that previous consensus scope of the article (or at least as I understood it), and the differing opinions/POVs that related with the article's scopes events (irregardless of how NPOV one attempted to have while editing) the article ended up as it is today. By the previous scope the article was going to be centered around an American/Anglo/Western/NATO point of view, as the conflicts that would be included within the consensus would be tagged as such by them.
 * Obviously because of the controversy relating around all parts of the conflict there is significant room to dispute all of it.
 * There is also, or at least was, a similar debate regarding the scope of World War II, some placing the start date with the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War, others with the initiation with open conflict in Europe, and same goes with the end date, with various sources recognizing various end dates (whether it be VJ-Day, the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco, or as recently as the end of the Allied Control Council). However because there has been more time to debate the matter amongst historians, and that certain conflicts are compartmentalized within the general terminology, there is less argument regarding what conflicts fall under the general term. Thus, since this is either an ongoing, or recently concluded conflict (depending on your POV (as we have seen in recent edits that removed the tags and changed the introduction paragraph)), the definition of what is covered under the general term is up for a greater amount of debate, and thus why it is hard to maintain a consensus (as users come and go, active users to the article change, etc.) as to what the scope of this article should be. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Points well taken, perhaps a suitable approach is this: allow the article to remain flagged for neutrality concerns, and take no otherwise adverse action against the content of the article, so that interested parties and the article's principal contributors might have opportunity to step in and give input, and perhaps still obtain some measure of benefit for their work, despite the apparent difficulties. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be best. Personally, I am of the opinion due to the controversies surrounding this article's subject that there may never be a consensus as to what would maintain a neutral POV while keeping all the content (especially the well cited stuff) of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be best. Personally, I am of the opinion due to the controversies surrounding this article's subject that there may never be a consensus as to what would maintain a neutral POV while keeping all the content (especially the well cited stuff) of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Undo
I recently undid this addition, as I don't feel we need the "For more plots click ." It's just not necessary, IMHO. I almost undid the other addition by the same editor, as it seemed to be adding a lot of material at once without discussion. So, let's discuss! I've seen only a handful of editors comment here (thank the Lord for them), and it would be great to get some other opinions from some of the many watchers of this page. Where do we want the article to go? It changes from one main version to another, then changes again. Another "split" proposal? Thank you for your time :> Doc   talk  01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankfurt
Should the recent shootings in Frankfurt be included in this article? If so should it be listed under the casualties section, like how the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings are presently listed? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any secondary sources that describe it as part of the "War on Terror"? IQinn (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although sources generally agree the act was an act of terrorism, the largest support for it being considered as part of the "War on Terror" is its inclusion in the journal Foreign Policy's section on the War on Terror.
 * Also, even though some do not consider Fox News as a reliable source, it has been mentioned by one of its contributors as part of the War on Terror, in some smaller news sources, as well as by an interviewed service member. This expands when you consider "War on Terror" now has been replaced by the present administration's term "Overseas Contingency Operations".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not hearing further objection, does this mean that we have consensus to add this event to this article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope no consensus but i am not going to edit war for that one. :) Feel free to add it. This article is anyway almost ridiculous and there is no "War on terror" under Obama. IQinn (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Add a section on Hamas and Hezbollah
These two groups should be added as Western Allie Israel is fighting against terrorist tacks from both groups.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Britain is fighting agains the real IRA, should they be added too?Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes they should but the fact that two islamic terroor groups responsible for deaths in several countires is a major ommission.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamas fights INSIDE a country that they run themselves. They only shoot on the soldiers coming into Palestine. Hizbollah got support of the government in Lebanon. The Israeli bombings and building of settlements in Gaza, West Bank, South Lebanon, East Jerusalem and all the other places. To shoot on soldiers that comes into their own country, is that terror?! So when the USA invaded Grenada, the Grenadan government shall be called terrorists because they shot against the USA? And when the SSSR invaded Czechoslovakia, the Czechoslovaks should be regarded as terrorists because they shot against the SSSR? I haven't heard that the Gaza War is a part of the War On Terror either. Here Hamas and Hizbollah both stays as "allied with Al-Qaeda and Taliban". None of them got any relations with any of the group. Citation please? (for that Hamas and Hizbollah got positive relations with Al-Qaeda/Taliban?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.91.110 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hamas and Hizbollah are widely considered terrorist organizations. I don't think that this is the place for a political discussion, but there's a difference between firing on Israeli soldiers, and bombing Israeli civilians, which has also been done and is the main reason for their classification as terrorists.Supergeek1694 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, for those of you uncertain, rule of thumbs: INSURGENTS = TERRORISTS. Hamas and Hizbollah are clearly insurgents as they use irregular tactics, and therefore terrorists. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But they've not been involved in the WAR ON TERROR?! 188.113.91.110 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War
Should US/NATO/UN intervention in the Libyan Civil War be included in this category? Gaddafi has historically been an enemy of the U.S., and there has been renewed talk and speculation of Gaddafi renewing his past support for terrorism and restarting his nuclear program if he wins this civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.106.58 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there can be a reference from a reliable sources that Operation Odyssey Dawn falls under Operation Enduring Freedom, or in some way falls under what the present administration has termed Overseas Contingency Operation, then go ahead and add a WP:SUMMARY and a wikilink to this article. Otehrwise, it shouldn't be linked. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I move the Gaddafis be taken off the list of belligerents when he nor Libya are not mentioned anywhere in the article. It just seems someone added it without knowing much about the War on Terror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hawk  (talk • contribs)  20:53, 30 March 2011

Is it over?
http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/01/under-obama-no-more-osama-and-with-him-goes-the-war-on-terrorism/ claims that the War might end. If so, what are the implications for troops, education vs. defense funding, and airline security inspections (www.infowars.com/no-escape-from-the-tsas-sexual-molestation-and-naked-body-porno-scanners/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used e.g.])? 173.8.151.126 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No.  raseaC talk to me 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FUTURE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the war end when Hitler killed himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Japan is not on the list of contributors.
Japan has contributed troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan totaling 1,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have references to support this? Last I checked Japan did contibute non-combat soldiers to OIF, but I was unaware of their presence in OEF-A. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For OIF They are mentioned in the article Multi-National Force – Iraq, and have their own article, Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

article name change
shouldn't it be changed from "War on Terror" to "War on Terrorism" 165.124.212.186 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. This article is about the specific US-led campaign called the "War on Terror", several other countries are engaged in separate military actions against terrorism and those are not covered here. I believe this has also been the subject matter of previous discussions - you may check the archives for this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the same reasons for the proposed merger to War on Islam. The references provided in the lead and terminology section support the present name of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

add this information in here or remove it from the osama bin laden article.
"the War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007."

Osama bin Laden

Those figures don't appear here 190.51.182.32 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

@osama bin laden
S*K*A*K*K 09:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Casulaties
This report should be included. It suggests that around 95% of the war on terror casualties have been Iraqi civilians.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Source appears to fall under WP:SPS, and does not appear to meet WP:RS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely absurd to pretend that modern war history exclude casualty numbers. Since your statement uses twice the word "appear" it appears to fall under WP:POV. The same can be said about several of your eliminations. Critical questioning is always welcome, but Wikipedia is not a US propaganda instrument and cannot undergo censorship to that purpose. Actions like these can only diminish the widespread satisfaction over the capture of Osama. Your changes are therefore counterproductive. --Borsanova (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:AVOIDYOU, and WP:NPA.
 * There is an appropriate section for Casualties, and improvement of that seciton is always welcomed. The sources that is linked in the original post, IMHO does not appear to be a reliable source, IMHO, as the base website does not appear to meet the criteria set forth for what makes up a reliable source. In the casualty section there is a range from tens of thousands upward to a million deaths that are to have been related to actions of the belligerents in the nation-state of Iraq. That is not to say that one side or the other are directly responsible for all of those deaths.
 * In improving the article, due to the highly controversial nature of the subject, it is best to source material from reliable sources, and give those sources due weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden Death
The article states that Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011, but Bin Laden was killed on 1 May 2011. The original article used for the citation does not state the date that Bin Laden died, it may be appropriate to find another article that lays out the date and time of the operation rather than the one currently used. 96.228.177.100 (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 may Pakistani time. Wikipedia is international, not american. Mange01 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Title
The term "War on Terror" is a phrase in broken English which "has been used by" a former US administration plagued by functional illiteracy. It is not in official use, and it is an eyesore. So can the article please be moved away from its now-obsolete title?

Please make sure to note that I am not commenting on the merit of these operations, merely on the article title. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - Just because it has been previously used, and not presently used, doesn't make the term any less valid. Furthermore, although the term may not be in present official use, that doesn't mean that it isn't still used. In the past year it has been used more than 316 million times; in the past year the official term has been used 317 thousand times. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME, the name is still valid, and should be kept.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should remain under the present title. This question has been discussed before, showing that the term is problematic. Therefore I think it's necessary to make clear right from the start that it is and there is no undue weight in stating this. --Borsanova (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Global War of Terror
This new alternate name appears to be a typo, however, seeing as it is referenced, I will not remove it regardless of my personal reservations of its inclusion in the terminology section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OF is a derogatory term used by critics and the actual intended uses of it are all like that. It would violate NPOV to dredge up government typos to make it seem that freudian slips had government agents unintentionally speaking truth from power. Hcobb (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * see WP:TRUTH.
 * If this is indeed criticism title, should this not be better on that sub-article Criticism of the War on Terror?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps under Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terror, but any terminology section is ripe for abuse. Splitting the language from the topic into a list weakens the narrative.  And we mustn't subvert the lamestream narrative. Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it can be "ripe for abuse", doesn't mean that it should be abused. Either way, I am fine as it stands, least those sources change and no longer include the typo. The second source, obviously referring to the award. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So do we list what is said or what is correct? Hcobb (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What we are able to reference via reliable sources, because as has been stated elsewhere, correct is relative to the source POV, especially with such a controversial topic as this. Making a large presumption that the two US sources are typos, that still leaves the Pakistani government source, therefore the content is in fact verifiable. And since verifiability is the base requirement for inclusion, we are left with those consequences. That being said additional sources should be added, and the US sources dropped if/when they correct their typos. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

reliable source?
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSN. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (Using )

The Netherlands not under NATO or other participants
The Netherlands had 2000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, they also have been instrumental in keeping the Horn of Africa save, why aren't they under participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.46.48 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Saddam Hussien under terriost commanders and leaders
The Iraq war was a part of the war on terror and I feel that as the main target in the Iraq war Saddam Hussien should included in the list of commaders and leaders. He was known for supporting terriost organizations and posseing WMDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardini2011 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion due to the controversial POV that the Iraq war was part of the WoT, that at the time Saddam Hussein should not be on the list. There are differing opinions whether or not OIF falls under OEF, or not; to include Saddam Hussein on the list would give the opinion that it is undue weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

lacks pkk
Turkey-PKK_conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.7.95 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.18.39.136, 8 August 2011
The line that reads-

Such thwarted attacks include: The 2001 shoe bomb plot

The shoe bomb plot was not thwarted and should be removed from the list. He got through security, on the plane and in the air. Only because he failed to get it to explode is why he got caught. when you click the link for 2001 Shoe Bomb Plot this is what yo get: The 2001 shoe bomb plot was a failed bombing attempt that occurred on American Airlines Flight 63

98.18.39.136 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you think should be changed? The "thwarted attacks" is a list, and the one for the 2011 Shoe Bomb Plot links to that article. Any improvements to that article would be appreciated, but it's unclear what you're requesting should be changed here. Doc   talk  04:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Attack was "thwarted" as it was not completed/successful in killing the non-Islamists; therefore I don't see the reason for the requested edit. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "stopped by federal agencies using new legal powers and investigative tools, sometimes in cooperation with foreign governments." Marcus   Qwertyus   04:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was stopped, can we agree to that?
 * It was not stopped by the "authorities", can we agree to that? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a failed attacked, can we agree to that? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the list does specifically say that they are attacks that have been "stopped by federal agencies using new legal powers and investigative tools..." and this one clearly does not meet that criteria since it was simply a "failed" attack and not a "thwarted" one, it should probably be removed from the list. Topher385 (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, folks: I would think it more important to focus concern on full "sections" like this than to worry about one word like "thwarted". That section is, IMHO, total garbage and needs to be culled if not entirely eliminated. Doc   talk  03:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking as answered while other editors are discussing this. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

War against Islam
I propose to merge War against Islam into this article. Rationale: 'War against Islam' is nothing more then an interpretation of War on Terror mostly because active warzones of the war on terror are located in predominantly Islamic countries. It should be located in paragraph 9 (criticism). --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - The scope of this article is clearly defined, and although the main antagonist in the conflict (at least from the American POV) are Islamists that does not mean that the conflict is itself against Islam, the faith itself. That would be like saying an article about the criticisms of atheism should be merged into the Cold War because the Communists nations were officially the largest organized effort against religion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The War on Terror is the ongoing military campaign by the US and Allies. The War on Islam is a "perceived campaign to harm, weaken or even annihilate the religion of Islam, using military, economic, social and cultural means". Open to inclusion of a reference under criticism that the War on Terrorism is percieved by some as part of a war against Islam itself. Also think that the opening line of the War on Islam page which refers only to the War on Terror is misleading, as the article itself is highlighting other causes such as: the crusades, western support for Israel, cartoon controversies, incidents in East Timor, actions by Serbia, Russia and India (none of whom are participants in the US-led War on Terror), etc. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per RightCowLeftCoast - huntersquid &lt;°)))&gt;&lt; Calamari Cove 15:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, per Pereant. V7-sport (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose War against Islam and War against Terror, though partially covering certain common subjects, are two articles with different scopes. walk victor falktalk 02:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose-Terrorist dont have any religion, Hence I oppose it.--Tall.kanna (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support- Terrorist do have religion. Carachi (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Terrorist have religion, as do other combatants, but that does not mean that the conflict is against said religion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - The phrase "War against Islam" which happens to be a myth, pre-dates the War on Terror by at least 50 years. DanTD (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support- Terrorist do have religion. 216.58.19.235 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Terrorist have religion, as do other combatants, but that does not mean that is a conflict between the multiple religions of those combatants. Also what of the Combatants that adhere to Islam who fight against the Terrorist? How could it be a "War against Islam", if adherents to Islam are on both sides of the conflict? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Netherlands
NO reason has been given for the removal of the Netherlands from the list of Combatants. OEF-A, is still operated under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The nation of the Netherlands has not withdrawn from NATO. NATO as an organization is a combatant, per Article 5 all nations are considered to have been attacked legally per the treaty, when one nation is attacked and the article is envoked.

The Netherlands may not presently have active combatants in theater, but they have been (at least) a combatant, and should be kept for at least that reason. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS I am notifying interested editors of the fact that I have posted an invitation to comment at the MILHIST talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (PDT)

The editor who made the initial edit has been involved in edit warring in the past, and has been edited in a disruptive manor on the Operation Iraqi Freedom article.? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While this is not really a WP:RS, it states that The Netherlands had 1,800 troops in Afghanistan at the time that the editorial was written. I'm more than sure that they didn't just make that figure up, and that involvement by that country through its NATO duties is easily verifiable. Doc   talk  23:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So then it can be verified that at one point the Netherlands was an active combatant within the War on Terror, at least as it pertains within Afghanistan. Therefore, I don't see how removing the nation from the combatant list makes sense. Furthermore, more is written regarding this in the article regarding the Netherlands Armed Forces. They might be planning on withdrawing, but that does not mean that they are not presently, or were not, an active combatant, or not involved in other operations relating the to the War on Terror, such as they were involved in CTF 150. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No argument from me as I believe you are correct. Doc   talk  23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have warned the editor in question and further edits, as there appears to be a consensus here, will be reported to the appropriate notice board. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the editor has continued to edit war, and has a long history of this, I've just blocked them for an indefinite period. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good block. With a whopping 1.74% of his edits used to actually communicate thus far, perhaps he can become more eloquent with an unblock request and learn to deal with fellow editors like a normal person. Doc   talk  00:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Spokane bombing attempt = "Islamic terrorism"?
The 2011 Spokane Bombing Attempt is listed under Islamic terrorism after 9/11.. except if you read the article page of the bombing itself it appears more to be a racially motivated bombing, and has NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. Just because an act of terrorism is committed, doesn't mean a Muslim's done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.226.60 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-NATO allies
Shouldn't Iraq and Afghanistan be listed there? NO!THEY SHOULDN'T! YOU DUMBY! I would've simply added them myself, but the hidden text there said not to. CuboneKing (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to doing that, as long as the Taliban and some of the major Iraqi insurgent forces were added to the opposition side of the infobox. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Taliban and the Ba'ath party loyalists are already there, so I'll go ahead and add the two. CuboneKing (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ADDITION TO GWOT DEFINITION
From New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/world/americas/26iht-terror.html Washington recasts terror war as 'struggle' By Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker Published: Wednesday, July 27, 2005

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.

"a global struggle against violent extremism" Please add this is addition to the name change attributed to Obama Administration. Neither have gained any wide acceptance as nearly all media still refer to the "Global War on Terror". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.103.213 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For years the media struggled with calling the situation in Vietnam the "Vietnam War" or the "Vietnam Conflict", etc. Why is "struggle" such an important term to you? It is featured in all of your proposed edits, I believe... Doc   talk  05:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

>>> I think when the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld uses the term "global struggle against violent extremism" in "recent speeches and news conferences" back in 2005 as noted in the NYT article that it is important enough to be considered (and listed) as a viable alternate name to "Global War on Terror", if nothing but for completeness. (btw this is my 1st proposed edit - any other reference to "struggle" was not made by me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.103.213 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to remove The Muslim Brotherhood
Why is the Muslim Brotherhood added on the list of the belligerents? The Brotherhood doesn't have an armed military wing and it is not part of any conflict Its also not designated as a terror group by any country in the world including the United States and Britain. --Riuken (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article regarding the group has several mentions of its past involvement in terrorist acts, and the article also states it has been designated by Russia. Now that being said, it can be argued that it can be removed as it is not designated as a terrorist organization by the US, and the scope of this article is the US War on Terror. Either way, there should be a consensus prior to its removal due to it being in the article for a considerable period of time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article mentions disputed terrorist acts during the 1920's that is about a century ago!! Nowhere in the article was it mentioned that is designated by Russia It was probably someone who edited the article but then his edit was removed. How is designated as terror group when the group just had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador last week and is set to meet Russian president Medvedev next month or two. I am not even a supporter of this group but if it is not removed with or without consensus (since its not a fact and why stop there why dont we put every edit to by anyone to consensus?) I will have to report it.--Riuken (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there is material indicating that this group has been one of the targets of the ongiong US-led "war on terror", I agree that it must be removed. The scope of the article as I understand, is limited to the the US-led war on terror and does not encompass terrorism or counter-terrorism operations in general. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please everyone, let us all remain WP:CIVIL. Although I agree that within the scope of this article, it does appear appropriate to remove the group under discussion from the opposing belligerents list; as the edit was done under WP:BOLD, and given the length that the content in question had been in this article, it was my opinion that it should be reverted until a consensus can agree to the removal.
 * That being said the group in question, definitly needs to be mentioned in regards to the subject of Islamist, if it is not already, as the Google Book result shows there are significant notable reliable source works that tie the group in question with this article.
 * As for the need of consensus for changes in articles, it is not necessary if such edits are not contested. However, given the controversial nature of the subject of this article, it has been my observation that edits here receive a greater level of scrutiny. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Background
In the background section, should a mention of the Khobar Towers bombing also be included? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

KIAs for non-christians
Just a simple edit needed - change the crucifix symbol to the abbreviation KIA or deceased. This is in keeping with other such articles and reflects a wider cultural respect. Jls68 (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Minsk?
2011 Minsk Metro bombing has nothing to do with "Islamic terrorism after 9/11". Please remove that entry. I support this. Accoding to BBC News on the topic the suspects are natives and the motives are unclear. Also on the wikipedia article on Minsk Metro bombing no evidence of Islamist links exists. Editors with powers to edit the article, please respond. - Tikru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikru8 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Masonic hoax
9/11 and the War on Terror should be added to List of Masonic hoaxes. It has also produced the construction of 33 intelligence agency complexes in D.C. more devoted to preying on Americans than any engineered threat. {See: "Report: 3,100 firms, agencies involved in war on terror")

The Light Burns (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gotta say 'no' to that one. Maybe you could point me to the place in that source you've given where the word "Masonic" appears.  I've read it twice and I don't see it. SeanNovack (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011
Please add Operation Enduring Freedom to the Status section and put War in Afghanistan under it because Operation Enduring Freedom is a large part of the War on Terror.

Pieetr (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is shown as a link to the War in Afghanistan in the infobox, and Operation Enduring Freedom already has its own section as well as a link to its article. — Bility (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect commander listing
Under the list of commanders, John Abizaid is listed as the ISAF commander from 2009-Present. John Abizaid retired from the military in 2007 from the position of CENTCOM commander, succeeded by William Fallon who is listed correctly. Abizaid was never ISAF commander. The current ISAF commander is John R. Allen, who succeeded David Petraeus in 2011, who, in turn, succeeded Stanley McChrystal in 2010. Someone needs to correct this. Jantill (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I've fixed that. And also updated it. It now lists all CENTCOM commanders since the War of Terror began, as well as all ISAF commanders that were American (there were British ISAF commanders before the American ones, but I haven't added those). They are listed in chronological order, with all CENTCOM commanders first, then all ISAF commanders (with Gen. Petraeus listed in the CENTCOM section as he was both). So someone feel free to add the British ISAF commanders, and also, I forgot to put an edit summary, and don't know how to fix that. So if someone knows how to do that, please feel free to do so. - Ezuvian (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Debatable aspects of Iraq War II as being part of the War on Terro
Shouldn't there be mention in this article that although the Bush administration claimed the invasion of Iraq was part of the War on Terror, that in fact 1) Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with the 911 terrorists 2)  Al Qaeda was not in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power, as he actively kept them out and 3) the other claimed reason that invading Iraq was justified by the War on Terror - that Iraq was developing or holding onto WMDs has been thoroughly debunked?  After Saddam Hussein was removed Al-Qaeda in Iraq did appear, and caused havoc for a time until the Sunni Awakening.  So in fact, if the War on Terror was supposed to be a War on Al Qaeda, invading Iraq had just the opposite effect.   If the purpose of the War on Terror was to fight against militant Islamists, then Saddam surely was our ally in this fight, because he hated and suppressed them.  Something has got to be said in this article that the original reasons given for invading Iraq by Bush have since been shown to be every bit as false as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was for escalating the war in Vietnam. DarthRad (talk)
 * Perhaps a better place for this would be at the Criticism of the War on Terror. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

remove campaignbox
This article is not about a specific military campaign. It is about a political term used to tie a number of campaigns together under an ideological denominator. As such, Wikipedia is guilty of losing its encyclopedic focus if it succumbs to using propaganda terms as if they denoted something real. Note how even Great Patriotic War redirects to Eastern Front (World War II) (in this case, the term refers to an identifiable conflict, it is just less than neutral). As an encyclopedia, we do not call wars by the propaganda terms used by any involved sides. We do not call articles on military conflicts "holy war", "just war", "war against evil", so why should we use "war against terror" as if it was a neutral term?

In this case, I am sure a lot of interesting things can be said on how the apotropaic nature of the term "war on terror" reflects the psychological situation in the US in the years following 9/11. The term is even touching in a way in its baffling, apparently unreflected, naivete. But it doesn't refer to a military conflict. It describes the efforts of a political administration to come up with an ideological framework to group the various military adventures it found itself entangled in after people decided "something had to be done" in reaction to 9/11.

I am not complaining about the state of the article, it is fair enough. It just needs to make clear that "war on terror" is not an identifiable "war", but instead a highly interesting exercise in rationalisation during the early to mid 2000s. So I suggest there should not be a "campaignbox", which suggests that this is about a military conflict. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 'War on Terror' is the most commonly used English-language term for this series of conflicts, including in countries other than the US (here in Australia, for instance). Australians don't normally lump the war in Iraq in with this term though; I'm not sure what the situation is in other English-speaking countries. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Global War for Jobs
Current.tv refers to a "Global War for Jobs." But a visit to Europe or South Korea reveals that this is really a "Global War for American Jobs." How many people have been killed in the Global War for Jobs? Was Jobs killed in the Global War for Jobs? How many Foxconn employees have been killed so far? And if an Obamamutant from Globalistan gives all the jobs to his friends, is it really necessary to win such a war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.2.24 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats nice, but please pass the joint now ... you are clearly high enough already. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar Issue. Paragraph two.
Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (which instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation)

Here the issue is that the President is not an object, he is a person. This is my recommended change. Simply one word:

Although the term is not officially used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (who instead uses the term Overseas Contingency Operation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.71.218  (talk • contribs)  10:33, 13 February 2012‎
 * In the sentence in question the "object" is "The administration of US President Barack Obama" and does not speak about the present individual in the office of The President of the United States, but his admistration. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
It says that Bush came up with 'war on terror', however in the quote he uses 'terrorism'. Later he does say 'war on terror', it was four days later. Is it known who came up with the phrase 'war on terror'? Just as someone came up with Reagan's Berlin speech. Terror and terrorism are different things, it might be that Bush (or the speechwriter) thought of 'terror' as a state of mind. Yet, I wonder, is it known who exactly came up with this wording? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Terror is a tactic (Shock and Awe is related), not a group or a nation. Therefore we are currently in the Global War of Terror. (Or perhaps the Global Reign of Terror to note the French origins of the Arab Spring.) Hcobb (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "war on terror" was just a propaganda slogan concocted by a particular faction to cover their geopolitical agenda. It was usually put in quotes by others, or preceded by "so called". It was not "commonly applied". It should be described as "an expression" or suchlike, as we do with "American way of life", for example. It seems to be disused (judging by a Google News search), now that its proponents have themselves adopted terrorist tactics. Fourtildas (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The scope of this article is clearly defined and referenced. Perhaps you can find what you are looking for in the Criticism of the War on Terror article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The scope section is referenced to a Bush speech and parrots what he says. That is SOAPBOXing. Can you give sources to show that this description of events was "commonly applied" (without "so called" or quotes, etc.) by other than supporters of the agenda, particularly outside of the "West"? Fourtildas (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The scope section is actually the terminology section, and yes it is very heavily defined by reliable sources that have used the statement in the Bush speech as a basis. It is not SOAPBOXing as it is not advocating anything, but only uses multiple reliable sources in order to create the definition of the term and create a scope of the article based off said definition. Furthermore, although the definition has been largely framed by the Bush speech, it has become common usage and remains fairly close to the original framing if you look at the multiple uses in books and news articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now looking back, there have been previous uses of the phrase "War on Terror" prior to the 9-11, however given the weight of reliable source references that refer to the present common usage those previous usage of the term should be included in the Terminology section, with wikilinks to appropriate articles.
 * Per WP:CANVASS I will notify relevant WikiProjects of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism after 9/11
This part tells about Islamic terrorism after 9/11, but it should be removed or changed. Many of these have not much to do with the war on terror because they weren't attacks by al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. Examples are: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011 and other attacks of Palestinians on Israel. and also others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.100.196 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian attacks on isreal should NOT be considered Islamic terrorism. they have long been fighting over occupation of land. There are also Afghanistan bombings listed that are arguably in the same category. there is no evidence in any listed source of who the bombers were. therefore it is incorrect to give them the convenient title of "islamists" Jokerkd (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Saddam Hussien under terriost commanders and leaders
The Iraq war was a part of the war on terror and I feel that as the main target in the Iraq war Saddam Hussien should included in the list of commaders and leaders.

The bias of this article is an underlying feature. it won't be changed. get used to it Jokerkd (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Add saddam. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Title
Should we add the year in front of the title like 2001-2012 war on terror. here are the examples

MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2012 houla massacre
 * 2007–2012 global financial crisis
 * 1992−1994 operation clean-up
 * 2012 lyari operation
 * I think that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis page should be renamed. As to the others, they represent the end dates, this war has not ended.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

About 2007–2012 global financial crisis. 2012 doesn't means it ended but its the latest year only. In 2013 it will be changed to 2007–2013 global financial crisis if the crisis was to continue. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why I said "as to the others".Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dude read what I said above ok I'll explain you in different terms. You agree we live in the present and the currently year is 2012. If so then 2012 will be the last year represented in the title like 2007–2012 global financial crisis but if the crisis continues to 2013 we will have to the move the article to 2007–2013 global financial crisis. Please read it carefully otherwise it will make no sense. Thanks MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Big No. It is due to the perception of the term "War on Terror" throughout the English speaking world to have no defining date.  The background on the "War on Terror" goes back before 2001 and there is no definable date for it to end especially anytime soon.  ViriiK (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thing, do we use years for the American Revolutionary War, World War I, World War II, the Napoleonic Wars, etc? No, we don't.  We know them by their names and normally do not need years to accompany that because no wars are similar at all.  ViriiK (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, adding a year to the end implies that the war is over, which it isn't. The term is also unlikely to be confused with any other 'war on terror'. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's superfluous and in bad form. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased Phrasing
This article currently claims that Iraq was only listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism "after Saddam Hussein fell out of U.S. favor". However, the U.S. vehemently opposed the Ba'athist takeovers of Syria and Iraq in 1966 and 1968, respectively. The U.S. made arms sales to Iraq formally illegal in the seventies. It armed Kurdish rebels in the Second Kurdish Iraqi War. It denounced Iraq repeatedly for its support of terrorism, as many airplanes were hijacked straight to Baghdad in the seventies, and Abu Nidal lived there while he was the most-wanted terrorist in the world. Iraq was designated a State Sponsor of Terrorism on the very first day the list was created, back in 1979. The U.S. sold Iraq 1% of its arms in the war with Iran. To make this possible, President Reagan did take Iraq off the list. Ostensibly, this was because of improvement in the regime’s record, although former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran." As it is, you would think that the allegations against Saddam Hussein were a complete fabrication. If so, then why did British, Israeli, German, and many other intelligence agencies also accuse his regime of ties to terrorism?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to say: "Iraq had been listed as a State sponsor of terrorism by the US since 1990,[61] when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraq was also on the list from 1979 to 1982; it was removed so that the US could provide material support to Iraq in its war with Iran. Hussein's regime proved a continuing problem for the UN and Iraq’s neighbors due to its use of chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds."  I believe this resolves the issue of tone that was noticeable in the previous version.  I also linked Iranians to the "Iranian peoples" Wikipedia page.  Please discuss here if you object.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2012: Costs
The congressional report referred to in this section is critically incomplete. Not only did it omit non-DoD “off budget” items like the State Department, CIA, and USAid as Wikipedia presently notes, but it also omits all domestic spending, the vast bulk of veterans' expenses, and any interest (including that already paid to date.)

As such, I request that this: A 2011 Congressional Research Service report, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," analyzed the financial outlays that have been made for the conflicts during this nearly decade-long period. The report focuses on expenditures related to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The report’s total does not include supplementary economic, food and military aid to Pakistan or assistance to several countries in Africa. The report states that the price tag through fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care will be $1.283 trillion. If the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved, the total global security and conflict-related costs will be $1.415 trillion. If deployed troop levels come down to 45,000 by 2015 and stay there through 2021, the total two-decade cost is estimated to be $1.8 trillion. Be replaced with this: An academic report in 2011 summarized total conflict-related costs over the 2001-2020 period at $4.81-$5.59 trillion.

Counting just expenditures to fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, domestic security, veterans’ care, related social expenses and interest paid, estimates are $3.2-$3.9 trillion. Further direct expenses from 2012 to 2020 were estimated at $453 billion, plus another $1 trillion of interest payments for war debt, and economic opportunity costs of $154 billion. These figures do not account for off-DoD spending beyond 2012, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Costofwar.org does not appear to be a reliable, and neutral, source. The CRS report is such a source. I would not support the change requested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it publisehd by Costofwar.org?Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The offered source is not acceptable but the general point is not without merit. We should all be on the lookout for a source with a more inclusive analysis of the war's total cost. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * “Does not appear to be reliable”? By what standard? Can you provide external documentation to substantiate that? It's an extensive, transparently documented study project by a prestigious political research institute from one of the nation's premiere universities. As for neutrality, the priority is to have thorough, accurate information, noting its possible biases, with balance only required if alternate opinions of similar scope are found. We've always had thousands of citations from thinktanks like Fair, Cato, and Heritage.
 * If you're particularly concerned about directly citing a study rather than a media piece which draws from it, here's pages of links to stories from numerous major news sources which use research from the study, though that seems needlessly circuitous to me.72.235.213.232 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. The link provided is to news articles that mention the organization itself, and not the study. Additionally, articles are to follow WP:NPOV; the study in question may be advocating a certain POV and its use (if used) shouldn't be given undue weight. As I stated before the current CRS report is a reliable source and is also neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no hard and fast requirements relating to the matter at hand. Specifically, though WP:RS does say “Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule” and “Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field” which indicates that unfinished or isolated studies are acceptable, I admit it does also note that “a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.” While this seems superfluous in this particular instance, owing to the lack of any other sufficiently extensive material on the subject, I suppose we can bow to procedure if everyone really feels it necessary.72.235.213.232 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please find the original news stories, then deleted answered=yes at the top of this section. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please find the original news stories, then deleted answered=yes at the top of this section. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well then, I've cited a Reuters news story, please replace the aforementioned section as follows: Reuters reported in June 2011 that total conflict-related US government costs over the 2001-2020 period could be as high as $5.4 trillion.

Note that these figures do not account for off-DoD spending beyond 2012, economic opportunity costs, state and local expenses not reimbursed by the federal government, nor reimbursements made to foreign coalition allies for their expenses. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not necessary to create a list of said individual line items, additionally it does not create a balance of the article that you are choosing to site, that from reuters, and previous content from the CRS report. It is better to provide both information in a summarized version, than to ONLY include one source that maybe biased against the subject thus not keeping with WP:NPOV.
 * If any changes are needed at all it would be better to write it as such:

A March 2011 Congressional Research Service report states that through fiscal year 2011 for such purposes as military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care will be $1.283 trillion; additionally if the fiscal year budget for 2012 is approved, the total global security and conflict-related costs will be $1.415 trillion. Another study by the Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University reached a much higher figure with an estimated total of $3.7 to 4.4 trillion, with an estimate of 224,475 total deaths. Providing both sources provides balance and neither is given undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This generally seems like a more acceptable course of action to me. However, the way you've written it is somewhat redundant, as it renders unclear the fact that much of “Costs of War” is a superset of the congressional report. Aside from areas ignored by the congressional report, its line items were reused largely verbatim, data from past years being corrected for inflation. Also, you've omitted projections beyond 2012, omitted interest payments, and included death figures that would belong better in the article's casualties section.


 * Speaking of the casualties section, it is far larger and more detailed than this one, breaking down figures quite specifically. In that light, how about either of these two versions?


 * One with a table, which in my opinion is clearer, more useful, less wordy, and closer in line with the rest of the article:

A March 2011 Congressional report estimated spending related to the war through fiscal year 2011 at $1.2 trillion, and that spending through 2021 assuming a reduction to 45,000 troops would be $1.8 trillion. A June 2011 academic report covering additional areas of spending related to the war estimated it through 2011 at $2.7 trillion, and long term spending at $5.4 trillion including interest.

{
 * Plus a notes section to be inserted just above the references section:

{{Pre2|

Any way to change the crosses?
I'm still relatively new to editing here on Wikipedia, so I'm just asking for advice from people smarter than me.

Is there any other way to show that certain leaders in the belligerents on the article's sidebar have deceased - without using the cross symbol? I just found it really... ironical to see a cross - a Christian symbol - next to the name of fundamentalist Islam leaders (I'll refrain from judging whether they were terrorists, freedom fighters, or somewhere in the shades of gray between the two) who displayed quite an intolerance towards Christianity. While I'm personally not offended by it, I sense that both some Muslims and some Christians may be.

Tho really, it's just an idea, and I was wondering if there is a way around this?

Nusy (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a "cross", it's a dagger. The cross, or dagger, has had many meanings, both before and after Jesus' crucifixion. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you give a reliable source for "Jesus' crucifixion"? Failing that, and assuming your myth occurred around 33 CE, could you give any a reliable source for using the "dagger" before said date, and several non-trinitarian sources which used it before, say, 1500 CE? --129.125.102.126 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The place for such a discussion, IMHO, is at dagger.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

September 11 vs 11 September
My understanding is that most people call them the September 11th Attacks not the 11 September Attacks. I changed one link, but now am questioning whether or not it was the right move. I notice that throughout the whole article it is referred to as 11 September. Was there already a discussion on this? Can anyone point me towards it so I can read the arguments on both sides. If not, then I think there ought to be. I don't really want to change that particular bit of wording throughout the article until I know I have established consensus. Zell Faze (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OR issue: the link between the mujahideen and al-Qaeda
The US support of the Islamist mujahideen established, the remaining issue now is substantiating, through sources, that the Islamist guerillas laid the foundation for al-Qaeda, a key diplomatic error on the part of the US.
 * What sources were those that you used for this sentence? I certainly don't see them which is why without these sources, it is easily looked at as Original Sources Research.  ViriiK (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The link between the mujahideen and the US is cited in the Soviet War in Afghanistan article, cited in the intro sentence preceding mine and the book link. --Retrospector87 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an entire article devoted to these allegations. Sources such as Peter Bergen, Christopher Andrews, Jason Burke, and the US government claim that al Qaeda had almost nothing to do with the war against the USSR and that the US gave no aid to the "Afghan Arabs"; several other sources disagree.  However, this dispute should not be discussed in detail here, because this article is about the War on Terror (2001-).  Furthermore, attempting to establish and draw attention to "key diplomatic error[s]" and "significant contradictions" in US policy is not a use for which Wikipedia is intended.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Luckily for me, I have a JSTOR account which this book is listed in there and I've downloaded it in the ACSM format which works in Adobe Digital Editions. Unfortunately for you, this sentence or similar variations is not in the introduction.  Perhaps you can link me the exact pages of Cooley's book that you are referring to?  ViriiK (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The dispute becomes relevant when the origins of al-Qaeda is the topic. Although not directly sourced (yet), al-Qaeda didn't come about out of the socialist front made of the USSR and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. And the phrases "key diplomatic error" and "significant contradictions" are seismic yet nonetheless legit uses of Wikipedia. They are extremely strong and value-laden statements which greatly alter the tone of the article, and more importantly complicates the nature of the subject matter. --Retrospector87 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's not sourced? ViriiK (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The link between the Islamist guerillas and bin Laden's al-Qaeda is not directly sourced (remaining OR issue), but the link between the guerillas and the US is. --Retrospector87 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are arguing this because you are basing this on Original Research, am I understanding that correctly? ViriiK (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing my point on the talk pages for now pending I find a DIRECT source establishing the link bet. al-Qaeda and the mujahideen, and once this OR issue is resolved, thus have legitimate reason to one more time point out the link between the US and al-Qaeda's origins in the article itself. No original research is involved.
 * "Strong", "value-laden" statements don't sound compliant with WP:NPOV, and this isn't the al Qaeda article. Also, see WP:SYNTH.  We aren't supposed to combine sources and topics to promote a narrative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My "value-laden" statements nonetheless aren't mere speculation (admittedly to be sourced), and they do look like altogether a narrative, but really isn't. They function to complicate the US's narrative of the War of Terror (obviously not neutral) by pointing out the irony of the US's current, hostile policy towards political Islam, which it previously supported in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. This irony is extremely useful in learning about the subject matter. And yes, this isn't the al-Qaeda article, but it's origins is the topic. Retrospector87 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the ironies of history is not the goal of Wikipedia, sorry.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No I'm sorry, but pointing out ironies lead to new information and analysis, which is what encyclopedias in general are for. Retrospector87 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't provide our own analysis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can with this thing called "Wikipedia." :) Retrospector87 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. WP:VERIFY specifically WP:CIRCULAR ViriiK (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's becoming obvious that you guys don't know what you're saying. You know we all are talking about evidenced based editing and analysis, right? Information is the goal of all this. --Retrospector87 (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you need to start learning more about Wikipedia rules. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I prithee, shut up about the signatures. You do know I'm writing right? And again, it's you guys who don't know the rules. The OR issue remains, and will be resolved. Retrospector87 (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's simple policy here at Wikipedia. You claim to be working on a Ph.D according to your user page.  At your interview, what are you going to say to the question when one of the reviewers finds out that you've been citing yourself?  That is the same case here which we have to follow strictly by the rules.  If you can't follow that, I'm going to have to report you on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE if you want to keep that sentence in there.  Also respect your editors because it is not constructive to tell them to "shut up".  ViriiK (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is indeed simple: The OR issue remains, and will be resolved (read title of section). You have absolutely no basis for reporting me. Retrospector87 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Retrospector87, you've altered my comments on this page numerous times. You're not supposed to do that.  And remember, I've warned you about civility before.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I then appeal to your civility: have the common sense that sometimes people forget signing posts, and don't appreciate being told what to do. Retrospector87 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have demonstrated a pattern of blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy, from telling me to "shut up" and accusing ViriiK of being overly "emotional", to repeatedly failing to sign your comments (even after getting a warning on your talk page), to edit warring to promote OR in this article, to stating that personal analysis is acceptable. Polite reminders are supposed to encourage you to change your behavior.  Alternatively, you can leave.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My "behavior" doesn't constitute any violation of rules, except granted the common courtesy one, with the "shut up" bit. It's also my understanding that commanding people what to do is also violating the rules. Retrospector87 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been here for a month. Please learn how Wikipedia works before accusing others of not understanding the rules.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you want to modify your sentence to include the actual citations, please do consult here before adding to the main page. ViriiK (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're obviously taking this very personally. Understand that we both broke the common courtesy rule. I've been here long enough to know that. I've rectified my minor mistakes, and do admit to breaking the common courtesy rule (will you admit that too?), but bottom line: don't tell me what to do. Retrospector87 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We remind you of the rules because they are the rules. Follow the rules and there wouldn't be issues like there is now.  There are many that we have to follow here at Wikipedia and unfortunately it doesn't please everyone.  ViriiK (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm taking nothing personally. In fact, personally, I like you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhh, what? Retrospector87 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem like a nice guy. Most of your edits to the United States and Cold War articles were sound.  When you leave messages like "we can [provide personal analysis] on this thing called Wikipedia :)", you sound genuinely sincere--even though you're wrong.  I have no reason to dislike you.  You accused ViriiK of being emotionally offended by your edits, after misreading what he wrote.  Now, you act as though my politely reminding you to sign your comments is equivalent to you verbally attacking those with whom you disagree.  Both ViriiK and I have been completely civil and impartial.  Don't make this personal.  I want to get along.  But you have to play by the rules.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)