Talk:War on terror/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This archive is for discussions ending between August 12 and September 30

Anti-Bush Bias

In the article it says "the Taliban government offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral nation". This seems to imply that our President had the opportunity to have bin Laden safely behind bars, therefore preventing any more harm coming to the public which supports him. I find it a very cruel thing to say about an elected official, and a fine example of this site's Liberal bias.

• "Our" President? The sincerity of the Taliban's offer is unknown, after all there was never a chance to find out. I dont think there's anything "cruel" in what is written. It seems very neutral to me. MidgleyDJ 11:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'sincerity' of the Taliban's offer is 'unknown' because it was untested. There was a chance to find out, but it was passed up. All that would have been needed was to say, "okay, hand him over and we won't bomb you". But this did not happen. Why? Because the Taliban never made such an offer. It is a shame against the US President to suggest that he passed the opportunity to have the world's most dangerous villain safely behind bars. Therefore, this article is not only unfair, but cruel to the American voters as well. Very anti-American.

It needs sources to begin with, I have found this which states the Taliban offered to try Osama under Sharia law, but it was rejected as the US government wanted the Taliban to unconditionally hand him over [1]. Seeing as the offer to extradite could not have happened before October 7th, the date of the article and the beginning of OEF, it seems unlikely that it occured as depicted in the article. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rangeley - my understanding was that the offer was made - but the timing in question is out (it was after the strikes started). See BBC. I hope this helps. I dont understand how this is a slight on the US president. The US administration may not have believed the Taleban was sincere and declined for these reasons. But the offer, hollow or not, was made. MidgleyDJ 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say I agree with the original persons point, but instead raised a question about the offer. According the the Taliban Movement article, after the operation began, on October 14th, the Taliban offered to hand him over to a third party if evidence was presented and if the USA stopped the operations, which was obviously rejected. This is pretty irrelevant to this specific article and doesnt need to be included as we are just putting forth quick summaries of the important things. It wasnt a last minute offer, it was a week into it when the Taliban were already being ousted, something that doesnt really strike me as a top fact worthy of mentioning in the summary, whereas it may have been notable enough were it actually to be last minute. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

I have come to determine that the current conflict in lebanon should be considered part of the WoT due to mutual agreement between the Israeli government and the American government on it being part of it [2] [3]. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the USA, and the USA is supporting Israel in this conflict. The conflict from the beginning was said to be a part of it, as opposed to things such as the Chechen war which, while Putin claims is a part, this was after it had been happening for years. What are other peoples thoughts on its inclusion in this campaign? ~Rangeley (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the criteria established for what is in the War on Terrorism and what is not (The Bush administration says it is), then I'm going to have to say that the Lebanon conflict warrants inclusion in the article per the evidence you presented.--Bobblehead 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any reasonable objections to including it that you can think of? ~Rangeley (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from sucking the Arab-Israeli conflict into this already disjointed article, nope. --Bobblehead 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Arab Israeli conflict is still seperate, its not all of a sudden going to be considered one in the same. Its just this specific conflict between Israel and Hezbollah which fits the criteria. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Could be separate to keep them apart and you did ask for objections, perhaps lacking in the reasonable portion though. The Al Aqsa Intifadah portion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been mentioned in connection with WoT and even more specifically the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. US considers all the Palestinian militant groups as terrorist organizations and includes them in most of their WoT documentation and speeches. In the case of the Gaza conflict is treating it much more hands off than they are the Lebanon conflict. But I digress, conflict in Lebanon gets the thumbs up from me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobblehead (talk • contribs)

So should we add it now or wait a bit? ~Rangeley (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it for now. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why include Lebanon and not Chechnya? Mrdthree 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also there needs to be criticism regarding the inclusion of all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict as part of the war on terrorism (I am not disagreeing that this is current policy). Hezbullah lacks an explicit policy of targeting civilians and is primarily a militant group that tolerates violations of the laws of war (e.g. missiles on civilian populations, bombing peacekeepers) than it is a terrorist group. Mrdthree 18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is identified as a terrorist group by the USA though, which is who this campaign is against. The reason we do not include Chechnya is because it began before this campaign was made, and was not began as a part of it. Whereas the Lebanon conflict did begin under this campaign, as stated by both governments. The entire Arab-Israeli conflict is not a part of this though, as thats been going on for much longer. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Bush just definitively ended the question of whether or not Lebanon should be included in this article.[4] --Bobblehead 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative View

Where is the criticism? I can't find it. This article is very pro-American and pro-War as I read it. The fact that the war by its own definition can have no conclusion should be quite prominently pointed out at least. Damburger 10:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article isnt pro anything, it just states the facts, before there was criticism, but totally unsourced. It got to the point where individual people had their own section under criticism. What exactly to you is pro american / pro war? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I dont understand why you say pro-American, as its obvious from the article its not just american troops and operations. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article shows bias in its underlying assumptions. The phrase itself is uttered unchallenged despite a very large number of people considering it semantic nonsense. The template at the top implies a formal alliance between several different organisations labelled as terrorists despite their having different views (Hezbollah has declared it will not use violence against Americans, al Qaeda clearly has no such directive) and sometimes mutually hostilites (there is no love lost between Baathists and radical Islamists such as al Qaeda). Such an alliance is rarely proposed outside US government statements and pro-american editorials.

Just because the previous section was unsourced, does not mean a criticism section is unwritable. It should be a short summary of the criticism article, with plenty of sourcing naturally. I've viewed that article, and it seems fairly well written. Damburger 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You make assumptions that those groups are alligned, yet nothing says they are. Please read the article and try not to assume things it does not say. Furthermore some of your assumptions are wrong, such as Hezbollah not using violence against Americans, do you know why America will not go back to Lebanon? as well as al-Qaeda and the Sunni/Shiite issue, did you see Zarwarhi calling Muslims to fight on Hezbollah's side in Lebanon? Anyway as I stated, dont assume things from the article, just read it for what it is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I am not against a criticism section, as long as its short, 1 paragraph, and well sourced, and does not include the mess of last time. Each famous person who doesnt like something about it should not be highlited. Bill Maher said ... Moore said ... Person X said ... was overblown. You still have yet to see how this article is one sided however. Its just a general list of factual information. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The leader of Hezbollah has issued a statement saying that US civilians are not to be touched, only Israelis. Obviously this didn't apply when US troops were in Lebanon. This is in clear contrast to the objectives and methods of al Qaeda - who intentionally target US citizens in order to get the US to withdraw troops from the middle east.

I don't think I'm being paranoid thinking that an alliance is suggested in this article. All the forces the US calls terrorists (the definition is not shared by all the countries in the 'our side' box - Hezbollah is not officially considered a terrorist organisation in France for instance).

In addition, the Casus Belli is listed as the September 11th attack. As if the attack was a completely unprovoked event which initiated the whole thing - ignoring the decades of history that led up to that attack.

In short, this is an extremely complex topic that seems to have suffered from dumbing down in Wikipedia so that it can resemble some clear-cut US military campaign against a definite alliance of anti-american forces. We can do better than this. Damburger 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think yuor personal opinion is clouding your understanding of the article, comments like "As if the attack was a completely unprovoked event which initiated the whole thing", do notmake sense in the context of the article. It does not state that it was provoked or unprovoked, perhaps you simply have a misunderstanding of what casus belli means, the article does not "take sides". Also not all the forces are anti-american, for instance the information of OEF-P in the Philippines explains who is fighting, Americans are not even being targetted in that situation, nor is the Waziristan War. OEF-A isnt even technically a military engagement against anyone, its a humanitarian and training operation. Please read the article more carefully as it seems you may have just skimmed it by your remarks. Furthermore just to expand on the previous, Jakarta bombings does not even involve the US in any manner. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To expand further again. Bali bombings 2002 and 2005 both were targetting Australian tourists and Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf do not specifically target Americans. The Jakarta bombings targetting an Australian Embassy and the whole situation in Lebanon does not involve the US at all. I still do not see the pro-american slant you are reffering to. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When I say 'pro-American' I include all those American allies involved in this war on terrorism. My main problem is the fact that the war is presented as a single operation, when one of the biggest criticisms of it is that it is being used as a pretext for a series of unrelated military adventures. I am going to start working on a criticism section now, based on the article. Damburger 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The specific operations are listed in the Theatres of Operations section. I am not sure how you have the view that it is one operation when its specifically shown as many operations around the world. OEF-P, OEF-HOA, OEF-A, OIF. As for them being unrelated, I am not sure how you can see that as 3 OEF-P OEF-HOA and OEF-A are all under Operation Enduring Freedom ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge there is more detail further down the article, but the header lends itself very much to the impression of a single, unified war. In any case, I've added in a criticism section, but it may need cleaning up. This has put the article over the recommended size - but I don't think thats a reason for not including an opposing viewpoint. If anything, the list of Free Republic links should go as that is clearly a partisan website. Damburger 14:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to end up removing most of it I believe as World Socialist Website and Indymedia are far cries from WP:RS sources. Furthermore 4 paragraphs is just obsurd. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I ask you cut it down a bit and use reliable sources, if I edit it I can already hear the cries of censorship sure to follow. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The stuff is a direct C+P from "Criticisms of the War on Terrorism", which is why it looks very messy. I deliberately picked out the stuff which had citations in response to your comments about the previous criticisms section. WSW and Indymedia are no less reliable sources the Free Republic, so I don't see any reason to remove them. Damburger 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize that Indymedia itself is not a news source, that its a collection of sub sites? WSW, have you read the about us section? I think it shows exactly why its not a reliable source. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating we should keep sources that fail WP:RS because other sources fail WP:RS is not proper. Help cleanup the article do not further pollute it. If you feel a source is invalid thenr emove it or bring it up here for people to decide. Dont add other WP:RS sources, thats a WP:POINT violation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the critocisms is that it was largely, and is largely critocisms of something the War on Terrorism is not. Some say you cant declare a war on a tactic as a critocism, but the War on Terrorism is not defined as a war on the tactic, but instead a "campaign against those seen as terrorists and terrorist groups." Its not even saying its a war, necessarilly, its a campaign, with elements of military conflict, and domestic initiatives. The only critocisms allowed will be those aimed against what the War on Terrorism actually is, not against what people mistakenly think it is. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting your removal of this, because the criticisms you mention are criticisms of the definition itself, so you can't use the definition to declare them 'irrelevant'. Furthermore, don't you think its up to the reader to decide which criticisms are relevant? It sounds to me like you are editorialising by omission. Damburger 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, how is saying a war against a tactic is impossible a critocism of the War on Terrorism? ~Rangeley (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, you need to learn to spell criticism. That particular criticism is a valid opinion because the enemy is defined by how they attack rather than membership to any state military or a specific organisation (no, the target of the war is not specifically 'al Qaeda' before you start). Besides, you don't get to decide which peoples 'critocisms' are irrelevant on the basis of your own political bias. Damburger 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is not a valid critocism as stated because the war is not against a tactic, but instead groups determined to be using this tactic. There is a difference. You must Assume Good Faith at wikipedia, something you most certainly are not when you allege that I am deciding "which peoples 'critocisms' are irrelevant on the basis of your own political bias." ~Rangeley (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You have just stated your opinion, and your rebuttal of these criticisms. Such things do not belong in a wikipedia article, and you cannot exclude relevant information from such an article because of your opinion. Damburger 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how you can consider it my oppinion that the War on Terrorism is not against a tactic, the definition of it is against identified terrorist groups and state sponsors of them. Just like we would remove a "critocism" of Pizza Hut that states "Critics argue that Pizza Hut does not provide an adequate home to all Pizzas," we will remove critocisms of the War on Terrorism that have a misunderstanding of the definition, and replace them with critocisms that are actually relevant to what it really is. I have already edited [5]the sentence to make it accurate and I do not see what you are still complaining about. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and Unsubstantiated claims

The Iraq portion contains a number of unsubstantiated claims. Others are just plain wrong. I tried to correct these yesterday, providing detailed explanations for each change, but Rangeley reverted almost all my changes. Please provide citations for the following:

(1) After the September 11 attacks, fears that Iraq could use its alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction program to aid terrorist groups began to grow,

NYC: First, since the WMD were only suspected and turned out to be nonexistent, this sentence should be corrected "...the US gov't alleged that Iraq had WMD, and further advanced the idea that Iraq may aid terrorist groups using such WMD. Second, what "fears"? US government fears? Then it should state that. Otherwise, cite polling data for "growing fears." Connecting 9/11 with Iraq WMD is (now thoroughly debunked) US government spin. By repeating this spin here without making that clear we are helping to mislead.

Thats not what happened, its being written in a tense, it feared the WMD's program would be used to aid terrorists. Its also not just US fears as you can see by how many nations were involved with the Coalition of the Willing, we cannot really state "countries A,B,C,D-X feared". While this idea and the idea of WMD's may be debunked now, they were not then, hence why they feared it. If they knew it didnt exist, they wouldnt have feared it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the Downing Street memos also express this fear and so does HJ Res 114 and the speech before the UN that Bush gave. I am not sure if we can source state secret documents, but I will later add the resolution text and a link to the text to satisfy your concerns. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The passive voice "fears" is imprecise. Does it mean US and other gov't fears, as you imply? Then it should say so. The Downing Street memo shows that the intelligence regarding WMD was going to be "fixed" to support the war. This shows that the WMD "fears" were not what was driving the decision to invade. So this "gov't fear" has to be clarified. --NYCJosh 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you read the actual memo's but they show that Bush was actually afraid of terrorists using Iraqi chemical weapons to attack the United States. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you seem to be saying it supports "alleged US gov't fears" or something like that formulation?--NYCJosh 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am saying Bush was afraid of terrorists using Iraqi chemical weapons to attack the United States ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then the article should avoid the passive voice and state that Bush was allegedly afraid... and cite the Downing Street memo if you think that supports this. --NYCJosh 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(2) leading the George W. Bush administration to call for a UNSC resolution.[16][17] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously, which offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or face "serious consequences."

NYC: The Res 1441 also stated the UN Sec Council shall remain "seized of the matter." That's why the US wanted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a second resolution. Without this clarification, it's misleading, because it implies that member states such as the US were authorized by the Res to use force, which clearly they were not.

You are making assumptions as to what its saying instead of reading what its saying. It actually uses direct quotes from the resolution so I am not sure what the problem is. I also went ahead and sourced this as I found a paper arguing the grounds of the serious consequence thing as legitimate preface for the attack. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, NYC, you misunderstand what the UNSC means when they say they will be "seized of the matter." As explained here, [6], this phrase appears in many UNSC resolutions, including the proposed second one that never passed. It means, basically, that the UNSC will keep this issue on the front burner, and for the UNGA to stay out of it. Your idea that this statement was why they pursued a second resolution is entirely without base, and I would be interested in seeing where you got that information due to its blatent inaccuracy. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ranegely, the very source you cite, 5 above states: "A small number of international legal experts also consider the phrase a linguistic maneuver to head off unilateral action. The theory goes that the Security Council is actually hinting to various national governments to hold off on, say, sending tanks across the Euphrates River, since the dispute is still being adjudicated."

I don't know what "small number" means or how he knows how many, but that's where I got my "entirely basesless" notion. Moreover, Res 1441 never authorizes member states (or anyone else) to use force. Thus, the UN Charter's prohibition remained. The reader is given the misimpression that somehow Res 1441 may have authorized the US-led coalition's invasion. Finally, there is no mention of proportionality. Even if force had been authorized to disarm Iraq of WMD, an invasion of the entire country and occupation of it would have been well beyond such a hypothetical authorization of WMD disarming.--NYCJosh 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You claimed it was why they pursued a second resolution, but the second resolution included the same phrase. It is this point that I questioned, your claim that it was because of this phrase that another was sought, that I called entirely baseless. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is the "seized of the matter" is quite relevant, as your source shows.--NYCJosh 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that isnt the point. You made this statement "That's why the US wanted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a second resolution." As it was present in the second resolution as well, as the source shows, it is therefore indeed baseless to say that this phrase is why the US wanted a second resolution, and I again am interested in seeing where you got your information. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your source supports the notion that at least according to some "international legal experts" the "seized of the matter" language further shows that the Res 1441 did not authorize member states to act. That is the issue we are discussing. Please read the short passage that I had pasted from the article at the beginning of this section. The sentence currently in the article quoting the "serious consequence" language misleads the reader into thinking that Res 1441 may have authorized the US or member states to attack. Res. 1441 never authorized use of force by any member states. This is why I think we need to qualify by citing the "seized" language and explaining that Res. 1441 never authorized the use of force by any member states. It made no change in the UN Charter's prohibition on U.N. member states using force against other member states. --NYCJosh 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I will raise this again, the source states that the second resolution contained the same language. They would not have sought a second resolution that included this language, due to the fact that the first had this language. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"They would not have sought a second resolution that included this language, due to the fact that the first had this language" --rather speculative. There were other things also in the second res that never passed that the US/UK may have wanted; "seized" may have been included as a compromise to France, Russia or other P5 states that wanted to continue UN inspections, it would take some research to figure out why it may have been included in the second res that never passed. However we can source the following: "Seized" according at least to some authorities means Sec Council and NOT member states. Thus, "seized" is relevant to the scope of Res 1441 and should be included.--NYCJosh 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are really dodging this. Lets use an analogy. Jimmy wants new shoes. You say Jimmy wants new shoes because his old ones are blue, but the new shoes he wants are also blue. Therefore, it is illogical to allege that it is because his old shoes are blue that he wants new shoes. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not dodging, I am simply not willing to speculate on the text of a proposed res. that was never voted on and how it got to be the way it did. It probably was not the work of one country. The text of the second Res was probably a negotiated compromise or an attempt at reaching compromise with P5 members opposed to US-led invasion. It's not my job to research the REASONS for why the US/UK supposedly supported specific language in resolutions never passed. There is probably a diplomatic record (some of it public some not) about the second res. The US was using all kinds of tactics, including bugging the NY missions of countries of the Sec. Council and threatening to cut off economic cooperation, to get a second res. It's an interesting history and if you want to enlighten me on the specifics, send me an e-mail. As I wrote yesterday, however, we do know the following: "Seized" according at least to some authorities (as confirmed by the source you cite) means the Sec Council and NOT member states. Thus, "seized" is relevant to the scope of Res 1441 and should be included. --NYCJosh 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The source states seized means the security council does not want the general assembly taking action. That is all. Further as I have already debated the US did have a right to defend itself against the perceived threat Iraq posed. There is a second resolution text actually floating around. [7] as you can see seized is also mentioned in this one even though it was suppose to be the one that authorized an attack ... so its obvious seized of this matter is as stated by the source, meaning the security council does not want it falling back to the general council. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the second half of the Slate source cited by Rangeley about "seized" (5 above) before responding. --NYCJosh 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, you have called this speculative, but it isnt. The second resolution included the very same phrase [8] and therefore it makes your claim that they pursued the second resolution because the first had this language automatically untrue. There is nothing speculative about it, and I again point you to my "blue shoe" analogy. When someone goes from old blue shoes to new blue shoes, to claim they bought the new shoes because they didnt like blue is a foolish, obviously innaccurate claim. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your analogy. I don't pretend to know why that language was in the second Res never voted on, who put it in there and who opposed it. If you're curious, you're welcome to try to find out. Let me withdraw my earlier statement that "seized" was THE reason the US wanted a second Res. The US pursued (unsuccessfully) a second Res that would authorize the use of force by member states. But the source you cite is clear about what "seized" means according to some legal experts. That's really the only issue for this part of the article. I don't think we're in actual disagreement about this issue. --NYCJosh 23:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(3) Saddam Hussein subsequently allowed UN inspectors to access some Iraqi sites, while the U.S. government continued to say that Iraq was being obstructionist, due to the fact that there were numerous sites made unavailable for inspection. [6] [7] [8]

NYC: Incorrect. There were no weapons-related sites in Februrary or March 2003 to which the UN inspectors were refused access.

There were indeed sites made unavailable for inspections, and the inspectors in the first two sources state that Saddam did not live up to his promise of "unconditional inspections." ~Rangeley (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please identify such weapons-related sites to which Iraqi refused to allow inspectors. --NYCJosh 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 18 Part II. I did not see your response to this. Here is an excerpt from the first footnote (the Blix stament) for this sentence in the article: "Mr President, in my 27 January update to the council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to Unmovic in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure." I am distressed that this source was alleged by some editor to support the claim that Iraq refused entry to some sites. The source says no such thing. In fact it says the opposite: "prompt access to all sites and assistanc to UNmovic". This is either real carelessness or bad faith. The editor needs to explain (and of cource the claim should be removed). A sentence should be included that according Hanz Blix, in charge of the UN inspectors, Iraq was cooperating with the inspections and hundreds of sites were inspected. --NYCJosh 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.

I appear to have made a mistake, good catch. I will look into the exact nature of the claim of noncompliance. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(4) The use of force against Iraq was authorized by the United States Congress in October 2002 in order to "prosecute the war on terrorism." [18] After failing to overcome opposition from France, Russia, and China against a UNSC resolution that would sanction the use of force against Iraq, the United States instead assembled a Coalition of the Willing composed of nations who pledged support for a war against Iraq.[19]

NYC: Misleading. "Instead assembled" implies that the coalition imparts legitimacy just as the UN Sec COuncil could have done. This is clearly not true, since under the UN Charter (ratified by the US and other coalition members and therefore binding on them) attacking a fellow UN member state is illegal without UN Sec Council authorization (absent a threat of imminent attack).

Again your assumptions, actually one can imply the opposite since it went a different route then prescribed. Legality aside the statement does not assert legal or illegal and you calling it either is pointless. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To follow up "a threat of immenent attack" was actually the reason used for the "preemptive strike". Just so you know the idea was that Iraq would directly attack US interests in the Gulf region much like they did before with Kuwait and Israel, or that they would give the weapons to terrorists to then use to attack the US directly or its interests. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the US did not allege threat of imminent attack. Used terms like "gathering threat." There is no evidence that Iraq EVER attacked or threatened to attack the US or any American interests. That was all US gov't spin. Iraq launched scuds against Israel in 1991 only after being attacked by the US; it invaded Kuwait only after it received what it quite reasonably thought was the green light from Washington (April Glassby transcrip).--NYCJosh 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No evidence according to you, however as I pointed out they had already attacked Israel and Kuwait unprovoked, I am not sure what evidence you need. As for attacking a nation because someone else says its ok, you still attacked them unprovoked, would this all be a non issue if we found out that Saudi Arabia gave us the green light to attack Iraq? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I lost the thread of discussion here. If the issue is whether Iraq under Saddam has a history of posing a threat to the US, then the answer no. Saddam was still a reliable ally of the US in 1990, doing what Saddam quite reasonably believed the US deemed acceptable when he invaded Kuwait (see April Glassby transcript). The US then possibly changed its mind (Kuwait is not just a huge gas station so it doesn't matter if our ally Saddam controls it or is under control of our allies the dictators of Kuwait, as some US policy makers had stated) or the US was setting Saddam up. Sorry for the digression. --NYCJosh 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The resolution says he posed a threat to US interests. Your understanding of secret back door deals does not change the fact that the US did perceive him as a threat and that is also supported by the Downing Street Memo. He also attacked Israel, a us interest, and Kuwati, another US interest. As for Saddam thinking it was ok, thats really not relevant. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how any of what you wrote relates to the senteces of the aricle under discussion. Let's stick to the article. --NYCJosh 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(5) On March 19th, 2003, the invasion of Iraq was launched in what was touted as the "serious consequences" spoken of in UNSC Resolution 1441.

NYC: Misleading. The US touted it, but the sentence doesn't even make that clear. But it would still be misleading, see above comment about "seized of the matter."

I sourced this stating how the UK government at least explored this idea, noone is saying it was legal, again you seem to be assuming somethnig that is not even there. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NYC: Without qualification, without clarifying that it was the UK/US gov't who touted this idea, and it was spin because it was at best a half truth (Res 1441 did not authorize force), the reader is left with the impression that this "touting" is not particularly noteworthy and would have no reason to doubt its cogency. It's misleading. --NYCJosh 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again it does not say that that Res 1441 did authorize force, though that is debated. Furthermore your assumptions of legality off the sentence seem far fetched. It says the invasion went forth and was noted as the "serious consequences" of the UNSC resolution. The resolution was in fact used as a basis for the invasion, see the speech by Bush before the invasion began. Do not take this offensively but it seems you are barely aware of any of the documents leading up to the war, Res 114, 1441, Bush's ultimatum speech or speech to the UN, Downing Street Memo's or the debate before UK authorized their involvement, both sessions. You may want to do more research no the topic or reffer to the Iraq War article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 18 I am glad we seem to be nearing agreement on some this. Since the article refers to Res 1441 and quotes "serious consequences," the article should mention the "seized of the matter" language in 1441 (b/c as dicussed yesterday, it is relevant, at least accoding to some scholars). Also. after quoting the "serious consequences" language, it should clarify that Res 1441 did not authorize any member states' use of force. The Res effected no change in the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of arms by member states to settle disputes. Without this clarification the "serious consequences" language of the article misleads the reader into thinking that Res 1441 authorized the US-led invasion.--NYCJosh 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(6) Saddam Hussein's regime was quickly toppled and on May 1, 2003, George W. Bush stated major combat operations in Iraq had ended. [9] But the war continued on as an insurgency, at first from loyalists and later by radical elements such as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

NYC: This sequence "at first loyalists and later..." is not supported, and I believe is incorrect. Also, it neglects to mention other insurgents who are neither Saddam loyalits nor radical shiites: young Iraqis who want an end to occupation; in other words, a home grown insurgency.

Then if you feel its incorrect swap it, state al-Qaeda in Iraq was the first insurgent group, I do not mind it only proves Zarqawi was indeed a major figure in Iraq being the first to start the major uprising. Either way because the order is wrong doesnt mean you should remove mention of al-Qaeda in IRaq all together. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty common knowledge that the early days of the insurgency consisted of Baath loyalists largely, but it eventually shifted to more Wahhabi-influenced groups as time past. I will look for sources if necessary, and recommend you do the same, NYC, to back up your claim that it originally was Wahhabi-influenced groups but currently consists of mostly Baath party loyalists. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I never made any claim regarding sequence. Why are you putting words into my mouth? --NYCJosh 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"I believe is incorrect" - you didnt simply ask for a source, you stated it as incorrect. I guess that I made an assumption that if one disagrees with the sequence of an "A-B" list, the only other sequence is that it is "B-A." Here is a source from July 2003 [9] which states that the early attacks were done by Baath Loyalists, ie Saddam loyalists. Wahhabi-influenced groups, such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, are the more prominent force now that attack coalition troops. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 18 OK, again, I am glad we're near agreement. The Fox source states that the US discovered Saddam gov't documents laying the plans for some type of resistance after the fall of Saddam. It says nothing about who made up the insurgents or anything about the percentage breakdown. In 2003 was it predominantly (approximately 90% 51% 33% 10%) Saddamists? Local residents fighting against the invasion? Foreign fighters? I recall a report that fewer than 10% were foreign fighters. The article should not make unsupported claims.--NYCJosh 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Arent your comments supporting whats in the article, the article states "Hussein's Baath Party (search) to non-Iraqi fighters from terrorist groups" And now you are stating you know the non-Iraqi's were the minority, so that makes the Baath Party members, ie Saddam loyalists the primary group at the time ... The current wording states Baathist first then al-Qaeda in Iraq, since this article states the Baathists were right after the fall and al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist till later when Zarqawi pledged allegiance to bin Laden, wouldnt that make the order correct? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 18 (Part II) - No, that's not what I am saying. I simply stated, NOT for includion in the article, an unsourced statement about the small number of foreign fighters. There is a basic conceptual error implicit in your argument (which is consistent with the impression one may get from watching too much American broadcast news). In addition to Baathists, and foreign fighters, there exists a huge number (probably the vast majority but I cannot document this) of Iraqi insurgents who are neither of the above; rather, they are homegrown fighters for ending the occupation and occupation-imposed governing structure and/or people fighting for ending Shiite domination. Be that as it may, to sustain the claim about sequence and preponderance of type of fighters (loyalists, etc.) now present in the article, there would have to be some citation. --NYCJosh 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Baathists are home grown fighters ... Anyway we have a source stating early Baathist insurgents so all we have to do then is provide a source stating when al-Qaeda in Iraq was created, showing a date after the other articles mention and this section is factually correct in stating Baathist before al-Qaeda in Iraq. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, it doesnt venture into where they are from. At first, as noted, people who wanted Saddam to be back in power were the ones who continued fighting after May 1. But today, those who make up the insurgency are not out to restore Saddam, they have other goals, and are Wahhabi-influenced groups. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 21 NYC: Rangeley, if you wish it to be included in the article you have to provide a source for your claim that "who wanted Saddam to be back in power were the ones who continued fighting after May 1." Maybe, but maybe many/most are fighting to rid their country of the US-led occupation, the governing structure imposed by the foreign occupiers, and/or the Shiite domination of the country. Also for your claim that "But today, those who make up the insurgency ... are Wahhabi-influenced groups."

Stating insurgents loyal to Saddam wanted Saddam back in power ... seems pretty obvious. As for who makes it up now, I think we can find a source on that most likely. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What source is there that shows that Saddam loyalists made up the lion's share in 2003? It's not obvious to me. --NYCJosh 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it even mention 2003? You were the first person to bring up 2003 in any claims, in the above discussion, and seem to be debating the idea that they had the lions share of 2003. Neither Zero nor I have ever made this claim, and the article does not either. It does however say "at first from loyalists," which is a true statement. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "the war continued on as an insurgency, at first from loyalists and later by radical elements such as Al Qaeda in Iraq" mean if not that the majority or preponderance of the insurgetns were at fist loyalists and later radical elements such as al qaida? --NYCJosh 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It means basically that, at first insurgents were largely loyalists to Saddam but now they are not. What you have been saying is that this means from May 1 - December 31 2003 it was mainly loyalists - a claim that neither of us have ever made. Baath loyalists launched most of the first attacks in the insurgency, this we know, how long it lasted I cannot say and have not attempted to say. Thats why it doesnt specify anything except the order in which things happened. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Baath loyalists launched most of the first attacks in the insurgency, this we know" How do you know this? Please provide a source. Also, provide source for: now mainly radicals like al qaida.--NYCJosh 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Found this from Time Magazine, 2004. [10] "Time reported last fall that the insurgency was being led by members of the former Baathist regime, who were using guerrilla tactics in an effort to drive out foreign occupiers and reclaim power. But a Time investigation of the insurgency today—based on meetings with insurgents, tribal leaders, religious clerics and U.S. intelligence officials—reveals that the militants are turning the resistance into an international jihadist movement." ~Rangeley (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Time source acknoweldges at least in part relying on US military sources for its information. Remember this is the same US gov't that had been selling the WMD story (with much success--2/3 of Americans believed even after the invasion that Iraq had WMD) and was trying to portray the insurgency as largely a continuation of Saddam's evil forces. I will look for a source that provides a different perspective. Sill the sentence as currently written "at first from loyalists" overstates the facts and is not supported by this Time source. The Time source alleges that Baathists were leaders of some of the insurgency. It does not say that the insurgency had been primarily made up of loyalists, which is the clear implication of the sentence as it now reads. Also "later by radical elements such as al qaida" is not supported. The Time source says the Iraqi insurgents were acting more like religious Muslims in their personal habits to fit in better as a Jihadist movement and including foreign fighters in their units. That's quite different from "radical elements." --NYCJosh 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but your lack of confidence in a source does not make it fail WP:RS, both the US Govt and The Times are WP:RS sources and as such satisfy any requirements for a source to be presented. The source also clearly states it was Baathist leading so stating at first from loyalists is correct, stating now its militants show al-Qaeda, I am not sure what the problem really is. Would you prefer a source specifically stating al-Qaeda is a major force in the insurgency? There was an article just the other day I will try to drag up about how the MSC is not running things and its still al-Qaeda in Iraq. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments about how the Time source does not fully support the claims in the article under discussion. MSC? --NYCJosh 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to advance the article along, here is a source on the compostion of the insurgency I have not yet had a chance to read. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr134.html. But one point in the introduction helps explain who some of the different types of people the Sunni Baathists are and what they think they're fighting for. Most of the Baathists are first and foremost Iraqi nationalists or pan-arabists, who are fighting the foreign occupiers and the governing structures they set up. This is just an example, there are other important factions of the insurgency. Our article doen't necessarily have to go into a lengthy analyis, but should give some perspective on the conflict, which would include a sentence or two on the insurgents and their guerilla war aims. --NYCJosh 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(7) Nearly 2,900 soldiers from the coalition have been killed, with an estimated 67,000 Insurgents killed or jailed. [10]

NYC: Please cite a page number in the long Brookings institution report for the 67,000 figure. I could not find it and it seems too high.

Iraq Index", The Brookings Institution, 2006-08-07. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry section titled "Total number of insurgents detained or killed" ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 18 If you're referring to the Chart on p 18, it describes total number killed or detained. How do you know who many got killed? --NYCJosh 20:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. I did not make the source so I do not know their methods in arriving at their numbers. The sentence clearly lumps killed and jailed together for the figure much like the source does. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 18 (Part II). OK, I made a mistake as to that part of the sentence (somehow I did not see "and jailed"). But "detained" (as stated in the Brroking source) is not the same as "jailed." Detained includes captured and held without charge. There are tens of thousands of such in Iraq held indefinetly (unourced factual allegaion on my part). Jail may imply convicted or being held pending trial. If that minor change in wording were made I would agree to that part of the sentence. --NYCJosh 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 21 NYC. I added numbers 1-7 to the passage to make it easier to follow each thread of our discussion. --NYCJosh 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes in the article based our discussion here so far. --NYCJosh 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Request sources be cited

You may wish to read WP:CITE#How to ask for citations. In general, if you would like a source provided for a line and it's not doubtful then use {{fact}}, if the line is doubtful but not too harmful, then mark it with {{tl:verify source}}. In general if the request remains for over a week it is generally acceptable to remove the line in question, but that doesn't mean it won't be reverted back into existence. The only time it is acceptable to outright delete a line without the tags having been there for a period of time or moving them to the talk page for discussion is if the information is very doubtful and very harmful to the subject of the article and/or Wikipedia. If you believe that a line is doubtful rather than outright removal, you may wish to provide a line that counters the existing line while awaiting a citation, just make sure to keep it NPOV and source it. On the patently false and harmful front, it is also preferable to not only remove the line, but to also add a line, with sources, into the article that shows the line deleted to be false. On a side note, I saw in one of the comments above that "it's pretty common knowledge", unfortunately that's generally not an acceptable response to a content dispute, sources are much better and should be fairly easy to find in this case. :) --Bobblehead 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I am not sure why you're addressing me primarily. If you look at the additions I made to the Iraq piece of the article, most were deleted without explanation.--NYCJosh 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, I went ahead and removed my specific addressing from the above comment. I believe my reasoning for making it specifically pointed towards you was because you were the one wondering why Rangley undid your deletions/edits. Didn't intend for it to mean you were the only one the suggestion was aimed at. --Bobblehead 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism / "so-called war on terrorism"

I think it would introduce some balance to acknowledge for non-U.S. readers that there is a cultural divide (sometimes a political one, but imo mostly cultural) with the terminology and what it describes. There is clearly a difference between a war against terrorism and elevating that to a formal description: The War on Terror. Afaik, the latter is only formal U.S. usage. See for example the War on Drugs, usually referred to as the "war on drugs". Similarly this topic is often referred to as "the so-called war on terror" or "George Bush's war on terror" etc. by news outlets around the world.

On first glance it just seems to be the name of U.S. involvement in anti-terrorism, which the world and his wife have historically been engaged in irrespective of calling it anything in particular. The article as it is (particularly with the Military Conflict InfoBox) risks generating a certain cultural dissonance. If it was written by non-U.S. editors it would be entirely different. Maybe some editors would like to reflect that(?) Hakluyt bean 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you just say it would be culturally ok if non-US editors wrote it ... I am not sure what an editors nationality has to do with their ability to write articles. The War on Terrorism, is exactly as the intro describes it, "a campaign by the United States, enlisting the support of NATO members and other allies, with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by preventing those groups said to be terrorist in nature from posing a threat; and by putting an end to state sponsorship of terrorism." It gets a formal name because its reffered to as such, in capitals often and as a campaign, not simply anti-terrorism initiatives. Considering the nations involved with NATO and many of the nations involved with the WOT, I am not sure where such a cultural divide lies. If you look at the list of nations that support at least 1 of the operations, it is quite a largely vast cultural group. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Did you just say it would be culturally ok if non-US editors wrote it". No. I said it would be good if editors reflected cultural difference Hakluyt bean 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with this idea, but the intro does a pretty good job of indicating it is an US operation. However, that doesn't mean I disagree with you on the terminology and it's usage being primarily within the US. One way to go is with how NATO refers to it 'US-led war on terrorism'[11] or 'war against terrorism'[12]. The 'so-called war on terror' seems to introduce a POV and 'George Bush's war on terror' makes it appear that only GWB is engaging in the 'war' when that is demonstratably incorrect. Another issue is that in the muslim countries, WoT is often called War on Islam or something equivalent to that.

However, War on Terrorism (with caps) is generally a US only terminology and the longer the war goes on the more often it is referred to as 'the US-led war on terrorism' or just 'war on terrorism' (without caps).--Bobblehead 19:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok.... :) Quite a response. I think some of the above reveals the divide I was trying to get at. eg " 'George Bush's war on terror' makes it appear that only GWB is engaging in the 'war' ". Well, in a sense that's true. It means that the U.S. sees its approach to terrorism as a 'War', which other nations formally don't. This doesn't of course mean that other nations have a different POV re terrorism. Just that they're not engaged in a co-ordinated rhetorical campaign with for example a formal list of 'combatants' as in the infobox. That's the culturally jarring point. I can see that a U.S. editor might view the 'war on terror' as all of a piece, as the rhetoric invites, but I wish the U.S. editors here would try to see that a non-U.S editor would never write the article this way. They might instead come to this article thinking, "hmm, I'd like to read about this so-called war on terror' and then get a bit of a surprise to find it packaged like a formal conflict, maybe even more of a surprise to find that his/her country is in it :) and maybe a bit of disappointment that there's no mention that what looks like rhetoric from the outside might have a rhetorical component but is instead treated as something concrete, like Korea or Vietnam. It may be that for many readers the position is that there are suspected terrorists here and there and many countries co-operate in going here or there and doing something about it, and in the course of that drift in and out of a U.S. framework "The War on Terror". They themselves don't necessarily call it anything very much. From this viewpoint it's not a U.S.-led War. It's tackling terrorism, it's co-ordinated, the U.S. has a leading military role, and the U.S. has a special name for it's involvement and furthermore everyone else's involvement as well. The Brits eg are engaged in various things, one of them is Operation Herrick (Afghanistan) which is happening as a result of international cooperation, and is acknowledged to be within the framework of "the so-called (by the U.S.) War on Terror" as eg the BBC consistently refers to it. Hakluyt bean 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that people are not supposed to accomodate for misconceptions, even if they are widely held. What is detailed in this article is a concrete campaign, and military operations done under this campaign are therefore linked by this connection and included into the infobox. We arent trying to write articles that people will go to and say "Ah, thats just what I thought it was!" but instead represent it, in all its scope, in an accurate manner. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

George Bush's War on Terrorism is a faulty name because George Bush doesnt decide when the US goes to war. The United States decides when it goes to war by an Act of Congress which is what happened with Afghanistan and Iraq. You keep saying the readers perspective or reffering to it, however we are not attempting to appeal to people we are attempting to present verifiable and factual information. If the person does not know their country is supplying troops, intel, training etc, that does not mean it should not be included, it means that person is reading an article in which they will learn something about their countries involvement in this greater conflict. You say the US has a leading military role, however the first "war" started during this campaign was in Afghanistan, which had major roles by Canada and the UK and now by NATO and a alrger role by Canada. There were numerous nations that provided air space, landing strips, use of coastal routes, inteliigence, soldiers, police forces, equipment etc. You say the US had a leading role, perhaps but that does not mean they were leading these other countries, just that they had a larger troop deployment.

• BBC 2001 - [13]
• BBC 2002 - [14] [15]
• BBC 2005 - "Paksitans War on Terrorism" - [16]
• BBC - [17]
• BBC 2005 - "Islams War on Terrorism" [18]
• BBC - "Belgrade declares war on terrorism" - [19]
• BBC 2003 - [20]
• BBC - "China's changing views of terrorism" - [21] [China's high-stakes war on terror]
• BBC 2003 [22]

So as you can see BBC does not refer to it as US-led, just because you can find a few times does not make it a majority nor mean they always have. Some of these also show its not just the US. Again I direct people to OEF=P, OAE, OEF-A, Waziristan War, etc for more information on operations that do not include wars and some that do not include US at all, and some that do not include US leading. Hence US led is a bad way to attempt to strangle hold the article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to see it from the other side zero faults. I appreciate you posting these links, you're putting a lot into the article and this page and I don't want to rubbish that, but the above is basically what I'm getting at. Your (above) list puts all the expressions of measures against terrorism, many of them journalistic rhetoric, under the formal umbrella "The War on Terror". Bobblehead puts it better with his "woods for the trees" comment below.Hakluyt bean 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My opposition to the "George Bush's war on terror" name was that it's a US government operation, so putting GWB into the name makes it seem like only GWB is fighting the war, while the US military is not, hence why "US-led war on terror" is the more appropriate (with perhaps "American War on Terrorism" being the most appropriate for that aspect). However, that there is different levels of recognition regarding the "war on terror" and that it might be bothersome that the article currently treats it like a Korean or Vietnam-type war are a valid point. The main issue being that it is very difficult to disentangle the "American War on Terror" from the "war on terror" that exists outside the US. Perhaps a better approach would be similar to that of the Cold War article. The article itself doesn't have the infobox depicting the US vs USSR, but rather leaves it to the actual conflicts (like Korean War and Vietnam War) to identify the combatants and only for that specific conflict. That being said, making a redirect for 'so-called war on terror' may be appropriate for the unlikely case that someone might search for that name (rather than the more obvious "war on terror"), but including it in the article is rather POV and likely to cause turmoil among the editors. --Bobblehead 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, US-led would not be appropriate because many operations are not US-led such as Operation Enduring Freedom - Phillipines, Operation Active Endeavour, Waziristan War. As it stands Operation Enduring Freedom is soon to become a Canada-led operation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason the Cold War does not have an infobox is because it is not a campaign, and instead is an overarching struggle of ideologies. It would be comparable to having an article on the cultural conflicts between the west and Islamists, which is also an ideological struggle in this regard. As far as I know, and I could be wrong, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada War etc were not done under one campaign officially, whereas the Iraq War, Afghan War, etc all were done under the same campaign. Were there to have been a campaign named the "War on Communism" under which the different wars were all officially a part, at this "War on Communism" article would have an infobox just like other campaigns. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make different articles, like one on the general idea of a "war on terrorism," an oft used term to describe a variety of military actions, which would be seperate from this specific campaign which is the most well known, and biggest by far. Another idea would be to make an article on the ideological struggle, a la Cold War style, which would describe the conflict of cultures. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is nice of y'all to prove Hakluyt bean's point.;) That the US editors can't see the forest for the trees, while the rest of the world sees the trees and wonders about the forest. The "War on Terror" (with caps) is a construct of the United States and the US is the only country that treats it was a connected conflict. The rest of the world views it as the "war on terror" (no caps) in that it is an overarching struggle of ideologies in the same vein as the Cold War and like the Cold War there are some areas (Afghanistan) where the "war on terror" has flared up into armed conflict. The "war on communism" would have been an equally acceptable name for the Cold War, but historians ended up with Cold War instead, it's an arbitrary name that became the common name when referring to the conflict. The only difference between the two is instead of communism you've got Islamic extremism. In the overarching Cold War, the Korean War and Vietnam War were just campaigns of the overarching campaign to prevent/reverse the spread of communism much like Afghan War, Iraq War, etc. are campaigns to prevent/reverse the spread of Islamic extremism. --Bobblehead 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats really not what I was saying, perhaps I didnt use enough specifics. The Cold War was an ideological struggle that lasted decades, there is a similar ideological struggle going on between the west and Islamist folk. Some say this struggle began with the Iranian revolution, I perhaps agree though I admittedly havent looked into events prior it to a great degree. But for the sake of this, lets say it did. When the USA launched airstrikes against Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, they might be considered part of this overarching struggle of ideologies. But these strikes were not carried out under the campaign "War on Terrorism." This specific campaign has had a number of operations begun under it. Think of it this way, the Marshall Plan was a campaign aimed to aid Europe and remove its reason for turning communist. But not every event in the overarching cold war was carried out under the Marshall Plan.

The thing described in this article is comparable to the Marshall Plan in that it is a campaign in a larger, overaching ideological struggle. There is a difference between a campaign, an effort put forth by one side in a conflict, and the conflict itself. The "War on Terrorism" as defined here is the effort put forth by one side in this "ideological struggle," and therefore its presentation, in the form of a unified campaign, is totally done correctly. My suggestion, which I stated above, is to perhaps make an article on the larger ideological struggle, which this article is not attempting to cover. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point on the ideological struggle going on longer than the currently defined "War on Terrorism" (with caps). However, you are still missing the point. The "War on Terrorism" as a single military campaign covering all the items in this article is solely the construct of the United States and is not shared by the rest of the world. As an example, the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, the US and Israel say it's part of the "War on Terrorism", but the rest of the world do not share this viewpoint. Additionally the participation of a country in one campaign does not mean that it is a participant in the other. An excellent example is Canada. They are heavily involved in Afghanistan, but won't touch Iraq with a 10 foot pole, yet, they are still listed as a participant in the infobox of "War on Terror" and directly across from participants fighting coalition forces in Iraq. It's the equivalent of putting an infobox on Cold War and putting Great Britain under the US column and putting them directly across from the flag for Northern Vietnam. Even though Great Britain didn't participate in the Vietnam War it's proximity to Northern Vietnam would leave that impression.--Bobblehead 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism is a single campaign, as much as any other campaign. The USA began the campaign, and other nations have aided it. While I have already said that the Cold War is not a campaign and therefore would not have an infobox, your idea that every nation on one side of an infobox must participate in conflict with every nation of the other side is unfounded. Take for instance World War One, the USA is an ally but never went into conflict with Bulgaria, a Central Power. Same for WW2 where many nations only were at war with some nations and never with others. Take Japan for instance, never at war with Poland, but its still an Axis Power and Poland is still an Allied Power. Thats what this is an equivalent to, not every nation is involved in every theatre, but they are listed for participating in atleast one on the side of the campaign. Same goes for those on the other side of the infobox, they are participating in atleast one theatre against those waging the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, hopefully there's one thing we can agree on; that there's a lot of stuff on the discussion page. I think it would be nice to reflect that in the article. Not softening the position at all is going to leave anomalies, not just objections from other editors. I've stuck an example under another heading below. Hakluyt bean 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone except the Bushies and their puppet media use the term "War on Terror" (except in quotation marks)? Most people see this conflict as a Crusade for US world domination - you would hardly get a hint of this from this article. Fourtildas 07:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was totally against the invasion of Iraq, a strong critic of US foreign policy and I am most certainly not a supporter of Bush. There is a lot of misleading propaganda used by the neo-conservatives. But there is also a lot of misleading propaganda by critics who sometimes use the ridiculous term ‘crusade’. Critics who use the term ‘crusade’ could be seen as guilty of propaganda as Ann Coulter or Fox News. I don’t agree that “most people (see this as) a Crusade for US world domination”. Most people globally may be critical of Iraq, that does not mean most people do not recognise the threat of extremist terrorism.

I use the term ‘war on terror’, there is a military aspect to the challenge of dealing with extremist groups who want to kill westerners (and fellow muslims). That does not make me a 'Bushite'. Chwyatt 08:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Chwyatt. When you think about it, War on Terror is just silly - might as well be the War on Fear. But War on Terrorists doesn't have the same zing.--Shtove 08:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia?

It was just a target of terrorist attacks. By that logic, we should include Madrid and London in this article. Don't fear the Reaper 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look quite familiar. Your name is even vaguely familiar. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

First of all I realise this may draw comparison with the above heading but from my point of view that's accidental, though maybe it reflects something. Anyway the list of participants shows Lebanon as a campaign (or theatre). Israel is shown as an ally in the War on Terror in that campaign. I completely understand that, but left as it is it's a problem:

CNN - BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Two more people were detained on Friday in connection with a recent failed attempt to bomb two trains in Germany....Lebanese Chief Prosecutor Said Mirza said a Lebanese man was arrested on Friday in north Lebanon....Investigators in Germany and Lebanon are continuing to work on the case. Mirza said Lebanese and German prosecutors met for four hours today and are sharing information in the probe.

So, does this not make Lebanon an ally in the War on Terror and if not why not?

AGI - Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alima repeated today that he doesn't consider Hezbollah merely a terrorist group. "An organisation that has 35 members in parliament and three ministers cannot just be described as a terrorist group", D'Alema declared in an interview with the Israeli newspaper 'Haaretz'. "Hezbollah is not considered to be a terrorist group by the EU, nor in my own opinion"

Italy is an ally in the War on Terror. If Hezbollah is not considered a terrorist group why is Israel an ally in the War on Terror through its campaign in Lebanon?

It seems to depend quite a bit who's writing the story. Some news organisations (including in the U.S.) write "so-called war on terror". Some write "War on Terror". Clearly there is such a thing as a "War on Terror". But it rather looks as though the only thing it undeniably is...is the U.S. headline for its own and everybody else's various "wars on terror". Hakluyt bean 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bush stated Israel was part of the War on Terror, not all action i the world qualifies one as a member of this war on terror. If you feel there are other wars on terrorism going on, feel free to make the articles and compile sources and we will add a disambiguation link on top. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. You seem to accept that taking measures against Islamic terrorism (by Lebanon) in cooperation with other nations (Germany) is not synonymous with membership of the War on Terror. This is the kind of anomaly I was referring to. You also seem happy to expand the principle. So two questions arise; what does qualify a nation as a member of the War on Terror and who decides? You suggest it's George Bush. As U.S. rhetoric and global practice seem to have a measure of difference could this article not therefore be called the U.S. War on Terror, or even George Bush's War on Terror, or at any rate written to reflect that difference.

I've had a bash...

• "The War on Terror" is a term used by the U.S. President and others to refer to international measures against terrorism in which the U.S. has a leading role or special interest. Participants (Allies and Opponents) in the War and also theatres of conflict are inferred by activities of U.S. forces or nations allied to the U.S. and also by public statements by the U.S. President and others.
• It should be noted that not all nations engaged in measures against terrorism are necessarily considered to be part of "The War on Terror". Also not all public officials or news media in countries considered to be members of "The War on Terror" consider themselves explicitly to belong to "The War on Terror" or refer to their activities to combat terrorism under that heading. For example, "The War on Terror" may sometimes be referred to as the "war on terror" (lower case), the "so-called war on terror" or "President Bush's War on Terror".
• It may therefore be considered a debateable point whether the term is an informal rhetorical construct or a concrete description of a formal conflict. (See this article's Discussion Page :). Nonetheless a consensus can be reached on countries involved and theatres of operation..... (body of article)

Hakluyt bean 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You dont seem to understand what this actually is. Its a specific campaign, just like the Marshall Plan was a specific campaign. While the Marshall Plan intended to aid nations in Europe after ww2, not all aid sent to europe since then is a part of the Marshall Plan. Only the aid designated a part of the Marshall plan by the US government would be a part of it. Thats the situation we have here, a specific campaign against those seen as terrorists/terror states. Not all action taken against terrorists or terror states is automatically part of the campaign, only action designated by the USA as part of it is part. Noone is claiming it is a concrete description of a formal conflict, but instead a concrete campaign whose name happens to be the "War on Terrorism." ~Rangeley (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Bias

I have just read thro all of the above and it quite clear that whatever any amount of other people say Rangeley and ZeroFaults will simply over-rule them. Who are these people? Did anyone elect them? Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit' Those edits will not last long if you don't agree with these two Americans. I am cynical and disillusioned with the whole project. SmokeyTheFatCat 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Thank you for your accusations, please take them elsewhere. You should also be more aware that 2 of the people, well 5 if you go through archives that are objecting are actually the same person and his sockpuppets which has been indef banned. But I guess you can just say its an American conspiracy to silence the world ... Are you even reccomending something or just randomly insulting editors? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered my questions. How does one get to be a Wiki editor? How does a contributor get to be 'indef banned'? Who decides these things. Who is this website funded by anyway?SmokeyTheFatCat 20:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Add a {{helpme}} tag to your talk page and under it these questions, they will be answered for you. This is not the appropriate place for the discussion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article seems very confused. The phrase was being used long before the September 2001 attacks, see this article as just one example:

"CLINTON'S DUBIOUS WAR ON TERRORISM" By Edward Zehr Washington Weekly August 31, 1998

http://tinyurl .com/qjv8n

Surely a truly neutral encyclopedic article can only examine this (highly politically charged) phrase in its political sense? The article appears to describe many current and historical military events under the umbrella of this phrase while providing virtually no context about the phrase's politcal and cultural significance.

I do not believe that this phrase can be meaningfully used in historical and factual terms to describe as one "war on terror" a collection of events carried out over a long period, by different states in different parts of the world etc.

Therefore POV tag added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.139.126 (talk • contribs)

This is a about the specific campaign which began after September 11th, not the general term "war on terror" which has been applied to previous things. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned '126 has a valid point. The article needs to add some material on previous Wars on Terror by the U.S. At a minimum, we need to disambiguate by explaining near the top that there have been previous Wars on Terror with dates and some links. In addition, Russia is waging its war so called war on terror in Chechnya (with linked bombings in Moscow and elsewhere) and there may be other examples. Without these explanations, the article is susceptible to the criticism that it suffers from historical amnesia and that WP is US-centric. --NYCJosh 05:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to make an article on the generic term "war on terror" than they are free to, but talking about it here, other than the two paragraphs it already has, really isnt appropriate. This article is on the specific campaign, not all things that have had this name throughout history. ~Rangeley (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree I think a disambiguatio n page would be best, but that article needs to be created first, I willing to contribute some time toward it if someone aquires a healthy ammount to begin it, let me know on my talk page. As for the US centric WOT thing, I have already shown that many operations are not US led, and some have very few US personnel at all, however it seems some people who keep bringing this up have not read the article or the subsequent article pages on the topics. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When I first read through this article, I was suprised at the amount of POV. Most other articles I've read on Wikipedia that cover controversial topics seem to be fairly balanced in terms of presenting both sides of an issue throughout the article. This article seems to present the entire "War on Terror" from a very U.S.-centric POV, without any indication that a large number of people disagree with all or some of the ideology and/or action involved. No, I can't give you a citation for that, but I can tell you that where I live (Canada), a large majority of the people I've talked to, from all kinds of economic, religious, social, political, etc. backgrounds, would find this article very biased, whether or not they agree with the content.

The article uses phrases like "[The September 11 attack] created an immediate demand for a response against those responsible throughout the United States" and "The use of force against Iraq was authorized by the United States Congress in October 2002", among others. The words "United States" appear 27 times in the article, not counting info boxes, captions, citations, or the "Criticism" section. I don't think it can be denied that this article is written with a U.S. POV.

In the "International Support" section, various countries are listed, implying that they support the U.S. War on Terrorism. I can't speak for other countries, but I'm fairly certain that neither the majority of Canada's people nor the Canadian government is in support of the U.S War on Terrorism. We have been involved in the rebuilding of Afghanistan and have intentionally not been involved in the invasion of Iraq. Our presence in Afghanistan has rarely, if ever, been referred to as part of a War on Terrorism. Canada having soldiers in some of the same places as the U.S. War on Terrorism, even working alongside those soldiers, does not make Canada a supporter of this campaign.

My suggestion is that either the name of this article be changed to "U.S. War on Terrorism," to reflect the bias of the article, or that the article be rewritten from a more global perspective, discussing the War on Terrorism as a U.S. concept, and presenting more of the views of other countries as well.

PurpleRain 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are arguing for, do you want more information regarding other countries participation in the WOT campaign mentioned? I hav no problem adding in information regarding Canadas contributions the United Kingdoms, Pakistans etc. The country you are from currently is in the proccess of taking over the responcibilities for much of Afghanistan making their contribution great, however you seem to feel your country does not believe in the WOT. There is a disconect somewhere that perhaps you shoudl explore, perhaps your governemnt is not representing your civilians, or perhaps the people you talk to are just of the same mind. As for having soldiers in the same places and handling one entire aspect, I think that is quite the definition of participating in the WOT, you cannot be against it yet handling large parts of it really. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Operation_APOLLO - This would be good reading as it covers Canada's role in the initial invasion as well, in case you were under the impression it was just the rebuilding. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is what has been said above by others, but discounted -- that the War on Terrorism with capital letters is basically a U.S. concept. Most other countries don't look at it that way. Canada's involvement in what you term the War on Terrorism has been (from a Canadian perspective) a number of distinct involvements in various conflicts around the world. The soldiers are not involved in the War on Terrorism. They are involved in the conflict in Afghanistan. From a Canadian perspective, this has very little connection to the conflict in Iraq or anywhere else. The impression I get from non-U.S. news media and individuals (with the possible exception of the U.K.) is that they share this view. They are not participants in the War on Terrorism -- they are participants in individual conflicts. The War on Terrorism is a U.S view. Thus this article should be title "U.S. War on Terrorism".

PurpleRain 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof showing this view? If you dig through the archives there are quotes from Canadian officials calling it the War on Terrorism that their troops are involved in. I think you are confusing what your country does officially and the views of the civilians in the country. If you have some sources that prove Canadian forces are not involved in the war on terror we can certaintly look over that, however if you proof is simply your personal understanding and people you have talked to, then you need to understand that your personal view and circle of friends is not enough to go on. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your patient responses, since I'm sure you've already had similar arguments several times.

When I do a Google search for "war on terrorism" site:.ca, about half the links in the first 2-3 pages of results put the words "War on Terrorism" in quotation marks, and seem to be critical or at least questioning of this campaign. Similarly with site:.fr, site:.uk, site:.de, site:.it. I'm not saying that there isn't lots of support for or identification with the U.S. stance here, but there is also a lot of dissension, which is not evident on .com, .org, or .gov sites to nearly the same degree. Thus it seems the U.S. view of the War on Terrorism is not shared by the rest of the world to the same degree, but this article reflects the U.S. view very strongly.

PurpleRain 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because not many .ca or .fr sites mention it does not mean they are not part of. Also the idea that many civilians are against it does not unmake it. Canada got involved with Afghanistan as a result of the War on Terrorism, stating that civilians did not or do not like that, does not change the fact that they did do it. You say there is dissention, well they cannot dissent unless the idea exists, the proper channel would be to question why those against Canada's inclusino think they are part of it in the first place. This is all very WP:OR however, the fact of the matter is Canada got involved with Afghanistan and was involved in the initial invasion as part of the War on Terrorism. However unhappy people are today over it has little to do with the past. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was not trying to argue that the concept of the War on Terrorism does not exist. I was only trying to show you that there is a significant number of people who look at it from another point of view. From the U.S. point of view, it certainly exists, and that is why I am suggesting that perhaps this article should be renamed "U.S. War on Terrorism," or even "U.S.-led War on Terrorism." Perhaps you can explain to me why you oppose the changing of the title? The War on Terrorism is definitely a U.S initiative, and is championed and perpetuated mainly by the U.S.

PurpleRain 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From who's view does it not exist? it certaintly does according to Canada who was involved in the initial invasion and is taking over afghanistan responcibilities, as I keep saying, your attempts to argue that candaian civilians are unhappy doe snot change the fact that the country of Canada is participating in the WOT. Its a US/NATO campaign, please at least read the header before commenting on name changes. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Its true, this article is incredible US-centric in its POV. I tried to add a criticism section only to have a cabal of editors gut most of it. I've encountered this at several other wiki pages, a gang of US editors aggressively 'defending' pages against non-American opinions, constantly claiming that 'consensus' is on their side and that anything other than mainstream US media is a non-reliable source (quite ironic really, given how the rest of the western world views the US media).

There must be discussions of other wars on terrorism, e.g. the ones waged previously by America, the one waged by Russia in Chechnya and the one waged by the British Empire in Malaysia. Leaving this information out is, in my view, POV pushing. Pretty much lying by omission.

Also, saying a country 'supports' the war on terrorism falsely implies that both its leadership and population are behind it. This is incorrect in the case of many US allies e.g. the UK and Pakistan. Damburger 09:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are size limits for articles we cannot dedicate half the article to criticism just because you feel the WOT was wrong. As for your accusations of a cabal of editors working against you, perhaps its just other feel that having half the article being a criticism is unneeded when there is already an entire article about that. As for your claims of US media you are wasting time, the sources provided meet WP:RS and WP:V if you a problem with them take it to one of those respective policy pages and argue for the removal of CNN as a WP:RS source. As stated above I would love to help in a disambig page if someone would start one, however the most popular WOT is this one hence we will simpyl add a wikilink to the top for disambiguation. If you feel there is enough content why dont you start those articles?

Saying a country supports it militarily is saying the government does, not the people. You seem to be under the impression that the people in either country you mentioned have a say in who goes to war and who does not. Perhaps you should read up on the Waziristan war and se how its a joint US/Pakistani issue and how the US provides intel and soldiers to assist in capturing al-Qeada figures and how they have captured many before. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant to this discussion whether the government and/or the citizens support the WOT, as long as we acknowledge that the U.S.-centred views in this article are not shared by a large number of people. Even if every government listed in the infobox is 100% in agreement with this article, that doesn't make it a global perspective, if there are large numbers of people worldwide who disagree with its slant. It's not really a question of which/how many countries are allied with the U.S. in the WOT. The point is that most of the rest of the world has a bit of a different view on the WOT.

It's not that everyone but the U.S. thinks this war/campaign/whatever you want to call it is evil or wrong. But the view presented in this article, and the one I see from the U.S. government and news media, is more of a "holy war." They are completely justified in any action to eradicate this evil threat. Don't even question the legitimacy of the WOT, or else you must be a terrorist.

"Whoever is not for us is against us." - George W. Bush

The rest of the world does not think this way. The article should reflect that.

PurpleRain 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, you call it US-centric yet all these countries governments support aspects of the WOT. Therefore its not US centric, considering NATO right now is running one of the operations and a major force in the other, the US only is currently running one operation by majority, that being Iraq. Again please read up on the facts, the truth is its not US centric because these governments are advocating and participating. If most of the world had a different view then wouldnt Canada not be taking over Afghanistan, NATO not be in IRaq and running Operations Active Endeavor, Pakistan not be fighting the Taliban and al-Qeada in the Waziristan region, Philippino army not be fighting Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah with the aid of US training? All these countries are participating, you keep citing your understanding of their civilians, which you have no proof or sources supporting your ideas in the first place, are against the war. But wars are not fought by civilians, nor are they arey agred or denied by them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my point. These countries' governments support aspects of the WOT. They might support the War in Iraq, or the ousting of the Taliban, etc. That's a far cry from supporting the War on Terrorism. Please see my comment below (in "Suggestions for a rewrite" section) about the difference between the ideology of the War on Terrorism and the conflicts that (according to the views of some) are a part of it.

PurpleRain 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "some" that have these views you speak of. I have not seen the head of Canada state he does not support the WOT and only supports afghanistan. That is what you are basically arguing and unless you can prove it with sources, you are attempting to change the article based on your personal opinion, and that is not good enough, it fails WP:OR and WP:V and WP:RS. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I keep saying if you feel the content is there then start an article on the other wars on terror and I will gladly attempt to help when I can and we can put a disambiguation link at the top of this page. However this topic is too large as can be seen by the article size to cover every war on terror and this is specifically about 1 war on terror as the intro implies. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for a rewrite

This is a contraversial issue, and it seems there is substantial disagreement about how the article should go. I'm going to make a couple of suggestions to maybe help resolve the disputes and produce a better article at the same time.

• Firstly, use the correct terminology. "War on Terrorism" can refer to any number of events, all of which deserve at least a mention. We should call the current US policy the "Global War on Terrorism" to differentiate it.

• Secondly, seperate the details of military operations into a new article. I'm sure all that stuff is interesting for military buffs but I feel this article should give more of a general overview.

• Thirdly - with the space cleared by moving the military stuff there is room for extra information that might be relevant. There should be more mentions of continued terrorist actions during the GWOT (The London and Madrid bombings would seem to be highly relevant, given that they were allegedly motivated by the GWOT in the first place). The section on domestic initiatives should be expanded to cover domestic initiatives in other countries. Guantanamo Bay should have more coverage, along with some of the counterterrorism that has been done by Americas less restrained allies.

• Fourthly - sort out the box at the top. As I've said before, it horrifically oversimplifies the alliances that exist in the GWOT. Placing Iraqi Baathists in the same box with Hezbollah and al Qaeda is utter rubbish, as it implies some kind of alliance between them when none is widely considered to exist. This box is designed for use for defined wars between states and is simply not suitable for this article. Would you put it in the War on drugs article, with FARC and the Taliban on the same side because they both profit from the drug trade?

Any suggestions? Damburger 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Other wars on terrorism if you feel they are significant should get their own articles and a disambiguation page link can be made at top. I am not sure why you want to tear this article apart isntead of write seperate articles for what you feel are important portions of history. So I think it should stay as is, and seperate articles should be created for the others, then maybe a 2 paragraph at most general overview of what those articles say.

2) This article again is about the military campaign, moving the military stuff out would change that would it not? Wouldnt that defeat the point then? So I disagree with this obviously.

3) This article is about a military campaign, hence the military stuff is most important. So this should stay as is, however Domestic initiatives should be expanded to include other countries initiatives.

4) Its not specifying there is an alliance between them, to fix this I will write in small, no alliance exists between these forces. Peoples constant comparing of this to the war on drugs shows that the simple idea that is stated in the intro and repeated here quite often is not getting through, this is a military campaign.

Please sign your posts, it makes thnigs easier to follow. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of what you have argued is factually wrong. The GWOT is not an exclusively military operation. There have been numerous domestic policies that have been stated by the US administration as part of the GWOT: So point 2 is wrong.

I'm not trying to 'tear this article apart' I am trying to improve it. The other wars on terrorism should have their own articles but the should also have a presence in this article.

I'm not denying that the military actions in the GWOT are important - but I don't think such detail is required in the main article. I'm guessing you are either a member of the military or take a great deal of interest in it. Most people don't share that perspective and would rather see a general view than the details provided here.

4 I suppose is acceptable for now - but given how important this topic is right now I would suggest not using an off-the-shelf template for it in the long run. Damburger 12:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said exclusively, I said it was a military operation, which is primarily is. WW2 was a military campaign, however if part of that campaign involved a curfew, that would be a domestic initiative, however that does not change the fact that WW2 is a military campaign. IF you want you can create a list of non-military items and I can create a list of military items and we can see which WOT primarily is.

I do not understand why you refuse to write a seperate article on what you find to be important alternate usages of the term war on terror, if you find them to be important, please start a seperate article, this article is about a specific war on terrorism, not the history of the term.

Please do not make assumptions about your fellow editors, I am not in the military nor would I ever join one. I do not have any family nor friends in the military either. I am an Independant, formerly Democrat and I did not vote for Bush. Now that that is all out of the way, please stick to addressing the content and not the editor. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have entirely missed the point of what I said. The GWOT is nothing like WW2, and that is why the article shouldn't be structured like an article on WW2, with a series of military campaigns listed. The GWOT is a wider policy by the US of which only a part is a military action. I am going to go rewrite this article later on (I'm at work right now) to reflect this. Damburger 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you are saying then, you implied that a military campaign was not a military one because it had domestic initiatives, I proved that wrong as both WW2 and WW1 had domestic initiatives. And as the sources show and the articles on the topics its not just a US thing, further by NATO enacting article 5 and by the fact that many of the operations are not led by the US. Again please get your ducks in a row before shooting. You seem to not understand that the US isnt leading all operations, and in some is the minority force. I think you should read the article and the sub articles before requesting this entire article be rewritten to what you seem to think it is, that people are telling you its not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to expand the terrorist attacks are mentioned because that is how terrorists fight back, Bali is linked to al-Qeada which is a direct combatant in OEF-A and Waziristan War. Australian Embassy bombing was commited by Abu Sayyaf a group with strong ties to al-Qeada and Jemaah Islamiyah targets in OEF-P --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Damburger: I applaud your efforts to work on a rewrite of this article. Perhaps you can present the same information with a less one-sided U.S. POV. PurpleRain 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults: To quote you above: "This article again is about the military campaign, moving the military stuff out would change that would it not?"

I think that is exactly the point that Damburger is trying to make. The WOT/GWOT or whatever else you want to call it is so much more than a military campaign that it would make more sense to discuss the general ideology of the War on Terrorism here, and move the military stuff to another article. Yes, it would change that this article is about the military campaign. That's the point. PurpleRain 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. This article is about the campaign War on Terrorism, it makes sense that the article includes all that comes with the campaign. It is largely a military one, there are indeed domestic initiatives which deserve to be talked about in the article though. The premise that the generic term "war on terror" can apply to different things is correct, which is why I have advocated the creation of an article on the general term and different things it has been applied to over time (something the history of the term section touches on.) But this article is not on the general term, it is on this specific campaign which happens to be called the "War on Terrorism." The idea that the infobox somehow implies that everyone on one side fought against everyone on the other side is false, many campaigns include nations on one side who never fought some of the sides on the other. The key is that they work together on the same side of the campaign, which is the case of this.

What I will suggest again is the creation of another article on the general term "war on terror" and talk about the different applications it has had. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, consider these two users both feel that those events are important enough and surely have sources to support it, I am not sure why they would not want to make a new article on that topic. Considering an article on the general term would include numerous wars on terror etc, it seems only appropriate. Yet they keep advocating that this article contain such a wealth of information on that topic ... As I said I am more then willing to assist in that article if either of you start it, but this article is about the WOT campaign as it states in the intro, not about the term in general. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever mentioned other wars on terror. I agree that this War on Terrorism is distinct from other wars on terror and merits its own article. I am all for having separate articles detailing other wars on terror. I don't know much about them, so I'm probably not the person to write them, but it's a great idea.

The distinction I'm trying to make is between "War on Terrorism" the ideology, and "War on Terrorism" the military campaigns. The military campaigns are far-reaching and involve many other countries. For a large part, the rest of the world does not refer to these campaigns as the "War on Terrorism" (there are exceptions, of course). That concept is largely (though not exclusively) as U.S. concept. The ideology of the War on Terrorism was borne out of the U.S., and is embraced primarily by Americans.

The fighting in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or any of the other places mentioned in the article, may or may not be associated with the War on Terrorism, depending who in the world you talk to. Thus it would make sense to discuss the ideology of the War on Terrorism in this article, as a primarily American ideology, and link to the various conflicts around the world which subscribers to this ideology group together into the War on Terrorism.

To define the War on Terrorism as a military campaign is simply erroneous. These different military endeavours are grouped together by those who subscribe to the War on Terrorism ideology. Those who don't subscribe to this ideology look at them as distinct (perhaps related or connected, but still distinct) campaigns. This also explains why the infobox as it stands is inadequate. It assumes acceptance of the ideology by all the participants in the various conflicts.

I can see where you're coming from. To someone who subscribes to the ideology of the War on Terrorism, it seems that all these conflicts are part of the greater whole. But this article does not at all reflect the views of those who don't subscribe to that ideology. It doesn't even acknowledge that it is possible to think of it any other way. Even the "Criticism" section, while questioning the motives/relevancy of the War on Terrorism, doesn't question the concept itself. If that's not POV, then I don't know what is.

PurpleRain 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you should start a new article called WOT (ideology) and we can make a disambiguation page. Again this article is about the military campaign only. YOu keep calling it an american ideology yet show no proof of it not being anyone else's. These countries by participating and by being democracy or countries where the public votes and the elected officials represent those votes is equal to the countries stating they are on board. Unless you have a survey of everyone person in the country, the elected officials is what we have to work with. If you have a problem with the concept, why not add a paragraph from the criticism page dealing with that topic to the criticism section here? That would seem to satisfy what you call POV as its your only complaint. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for having an article for ideology and another for the campaign. In doing so, we need to find a way to distinguish the two. If a country participates in one aspect of the campaign without subscribing to the ideology, should they be listed as participants in the War on Terrorism? Is the War on Terrorism really the campaign, or is it the ideology behind it? Realistically the "campaign" is actually a number of campaigns which only become one unified campaign if you subscribe to the ideology. Fighting the Taliban could be part of a global attempt to eradicate terrorism, or it could be an attempt to liberate citizens from an oppressive government. If one is involved because one believes the latter, does that make one a participant in the War on Terrorism, simply because other participants believe the former?

PurpleRain 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism isnt an ideology. It is a concrete campaign, which does indeed have an ideology behind it, but to confuse the ideology with the campaign itself is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of it. Lets put this in terms of a rather unnotable, smaller example. You and your friends want to help out a local nursing home, so you begin a fundraising campaign. The ideology behind it is ofcourse that giving money to the nursing home is a viable way of helping it out. The campaign, however, is a concrete thing. It would involve selling cookies outside a store, perhaps doing the paper route for a month, maybe volunteer work up town. All of these things are a part of the fundraising campaign that you and your friends are participating in. Maybe Billy, your friend, doesnt beleive in the ideology that you do, that raising money will help out the nursing home. But he does it anyways since he is your friend and wants to help you out. Whether or not all of your friends beleive in the exact ideology behind it does not negate their participation in the campaign itself. Billy still sold cookies outside a store, Janice still cleaned up the park from garbage, and in the end the campaign raises money and it goes to the Nursing home.

If we were to write about this fundraising campaign, we would state what was done under it, perhaps in a section called "activities." We would make sections for each little project under it, the park clean up, selling baked goods, etc. We would have a section detailing the goal - to help the nursing home, as well as note the activities done to acheive this goal. Together, this would form the core ideology upon which the campaign was built around.

Now, lets step it up a notch. Take the Marshall Plan. This was a campaign, sorta like a fundraising campaign, only you started out with all the money to begin with. The campaign involved giving money away in packages to Europe, with the ideological core behind it that by doing this we would help to rebuild Europe, create stability, and lessen the likelihood of communist expansion. The ideology, that this would help, can, and is noted in the article in a more complicated manner than explained by me. But the ideology behind it is not the campaign itself, which is the actual sending of money, which again is detailed in a further degree than I will do here.

Finally, we have the War on Terrorism. It deals with nations targetting terrorism through freezing monetary assets, fighting state sponsors of terror, fighting terrorist groups, and other things talked about in this article. The core ideology behind this is that by doing this, terrorism can be greatly lessened and made into a non-viable way of going about things. But the campaign itself is concrete. Much like the sending of money to Europe, or the raising of money outside a shop, the things done under the campaign is not the same as the ideology itself, they are actions, acitivities, and events that are done under the campaign that has began. Perhaps some of the "friends" of the USA are merely helping out because they are friends, but just like it didnt negate one's participation in the fundraising campaign if a friend merely acted out of friendship and not under the beleif in the ideology, it does not negate one's participation here. They still participated in the campaign, and therefore they would be noted as such. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You said, "...the things done under the campaign is not the same as the ideology itself." That's what I'm trying to get at. This article doesn't reflect that view. From this article, I get the impression that all the countries involved in all the various conflicts subscribe to the ideology. I don't see anything in the article that suggests that there are many people who don't subscribe to the ideology of a "War on Terror", including many of the participants in these conflicts. If we have "Project Help the Nursing Home", it would be inappropriate to say that Billy is a part of "Project Help the Nursing Home" if he doesn't believe that the money he raises will actually help the nursing home. He is still raising the money, and participating in the activities, but he's not subscribing to the ideology. Likewise, if Billy goes to his friend Sue, and says, "Help me sell cookies to raise money for the nursing home," Sue can help him without even being aware of the ideology that this money will help the nursing home. For all she knows, the money is being given to the nursing home so it can fund organized crime. Her reasons for helping are her own, and she is in no way connected to "Project Help the Nursing Home."

Maybe this issue is really one of semantics. We both agree that there is an ideology and there is a campaign. I call "War on Terrorism" the ideology. You call "War on Terrorism" the campaign. Regardless, I think there should be two separate articles, since I don't think it's fair to suggest that all the countries involved in the campaign(s) are subscribers to the ideology.

PurpleRain 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand what you are getting at, but again, the exact reason for ones participation does not negate their participation in the campaign. Say your friend was the one who started a campaign named "Project to save the nursing home," and asked you to help. You dont really think that raising money will be that helpful, but you decide to join in since he is your friend and has helped you in the past. You most certainly are participating in the project. Here is something even less elaborate, a class in school. A class on the environment is offered at your school, under the ideology that by informing kids at a young age they will grow up to be environmentally responsible. You however find out this girl you like is taking the class, so you join it for an entirely different reason. Does this mean the class list will exclude you, as you are not joining it to be informed and grow up to become environmentally responsible? Not at all. If this were a particularly notable class, deserving of an article, the posting of the list of those taking the class does not imply that they beleive in the original ideology of the teacher who made the class. Perhaps, and this is just a perhaps, there could be another article detailing the reasons why each person joined the class.

That gets us back to the War on Terrorism. Your idea that not every nation subscribes to the ideology behind it is a plausible idea, however it would not interefere with their recognition as a participant in the campaign. It could be worthy of another article talking about the reasons that different nations joined in the War on Terror, though things like this tend to be rampant with unverifiable speculation and original research. But this would be the way of going about showing that different nations had different reasons for joining, not by negating their contributions to the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the civility of your arguments, but I think your examples are flawed. What if I'm not joing PSTNH, but I'm simply, like Sue, helping Billy sell cookies? I could do that without even being aware of PSTNH. I'm not saying that countries involved in the conflicts aren't aware of the WOT, but I don't think that by participating in a conflict in, for example, the Phillipines, they are automatically participating in the WOT.

Similarly with the class example. I could sign up to be in the class, which I would see as akin to declaring myself a participant in the WOT. I could also just find out what time the class is and sit in the classroom and stare at the girl. That doesn't necessarily mean I like the course or even listen to anything that's said.

The WOT campaign as a unified campaign can only exist if one subscribes to the WOT ideology. If one simply participates in one of the conflicts, one may be, but is not necessarily, a participant in the global campaign and thus the ideology.

PurpleRain 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are somewhat right. Perhaps you are simply a great guy and just went up town to clean the park, that doesnt mean you are a part of the PSTNH. Likewise, you could be in the back of a classroom, finishing up late work, and listen in on what is being taught and use it to become environmentally responsible, but that doesnt mean you are part of the class. A nation could launch an anti terror op, but that wouldnt mean it was a part of the War on Terror. We both agree on this concept, but the make or break factor is not whether or not you subscribe to a particular ideology, as one can join something for an ulterior motive and they would most definately still be considered a part. The make or break factor is instead whether or not they are a part of the specific thing. You arent a part of a class for showing up in the classroom, but for signing up for it and going to classes. You arent a part of the PSTNH for cleaning up down town, but for joining it and doing things under the project. And you arent a part of the War on Terror for fighting terrorists, but for joining the campaign and carrying out actions under it. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And if I don't join the campaign, but simply participate in an isolated conflict which is declared by those championing the campaign to be a part of the campaign? PurpleRain 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends what the participation is. If you were to clean down town and give your earnings to the PSTNH, you participated in their fundraiser. If you were to clean down town and keep your earnings, assuming you didnt do anything else, you would not be considered a part of the PSTNH. Likewise, if an entity in Afghanistan were to have fought the Taliban with the USA and allies and worked with them to create the new government, they would be considered a part of the effort. But if they fought the Taliban and took over the area they forced them out of, and declared a new nation for which they ruled, they would not be working with the USA and allies and therefore they would not be considered to be a part of the effort. It would probably lead to having a three sided infobox like is done for the Bosnian war. Sharing mutual enemies does not make them a part of the same side, but instead cooperating with each other towards the same end (for whatever reason they may be doing so.) ~Rangeley (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Two countries may be on the same "side" in a conflict, and cooperating with each other, but not necessarily toward the same end. One country may be attempting to "...[end] international terrorism by preventing those groups said to be terrorist in nature from posing a threat, and by putting an end to state sponsorship of terrorism" while another country may be championing human rights, or attempting to depose a corrupt government, or trying to eliminate one specific terrorist threat. That's the difference here. Not everyone listed in this article is necessarily working toward the same end.

PurpleRain 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

By working to the same end I mean in material things, all nations in the coalition of the willing who invaded sought to depose Saddam and establish a new government. Why? Perhaps some did it strictly for humanitarian concerns, perhaps some did it because they were "friends" with the USA. Maybe some just like war. Regardless of why they deposed him and set up a new government, they were all doing these things in coordination, and cooperation with the USA. In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance deposed the Taliban with us and set up a new government. Why? For one they were the old government and wanted to return to power. They had their reason to participate in the fight towards the end game of establishing a government. In World War Two, all allies sought the same end, the defeat of the Axis. The reason that the Soviet Union sought their total defeat was probably different than that of the USA, but regardless of their reasons for participating, they participated on the same side in coordination and cooperation. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming to the realization that this conversation could go on forever without either of us conceding, since we're both convinced we're right. Since the article was written first from the U.S. perspective, it appears destined to stay that way, since no one will accept any changes in the spirit of this discussion without "proof". Too bad it wasn't written from a global perspective to begin with, and then the burden of "proof" would fall upon the U.S. apologists. Realistically, I don't think there's anything to prove either way. It just the perspective from which the article is written.

But I have little faith that continuing this argument will result in any significant changes to the article, so I'm going to leave it here. Maybe sometime in the future I'll try to rewrite the article from a more global perspective and see what you folks think. I just want it to be noted that I still disagree with the one-sided American perspective in this article as it currently stands.

PurpleRain 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Something else to be noted: I haven't looked through the discussion archives, but on this discussion page, at least 4 different people have noted that the article seems to have a U.S bias. (Hakluyt bean, Bobblehead, Damburger, and myself) There are just two people here (Zer0faults, Rangeley) that seem to think it presents a global perspective as-is. Shouldn't that be enough to convince most people that maybe the article needs some reworking?

PurpleRain 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And therein is the crux. :) No one has gotten around to writing the article in a globalized manner. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do more than minor edits. --Bobblehead 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

PurpleRain and Damburger, how about instead of eating up time and space on this discussion page you start a rewrite for this article at /rewrite or something like that. If it is of significant quality and from a more globalized POV than the current article than the current article can be moved to a subarticle that addresses the American War on Terrorism and the rewrite can be placed here in its place. --Bobblehead 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I might do that if I can find the time. PurpleRain 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And I will move it back, until someone can prove that this is the an american only or primarily american in terms of operations, then it is not for us to make that statement. Calling this the american war on terrorism when it involves many nations and many operations not involving the US and many with the US being a smaller contributor then others, it seems some people here need to read the articles here instead of just commenting on their personal opinions. How can it be American WOT when:

• OEF-P = more Philippino troops then american
• Waziristan War = more Pakistan troops, US supplying intel only.
• OEF-HOA = More troops from other nations then the US
• OEF-A = Currently NATO led and Canada in position to take over
• OIF = Only operation with more US troops then other nations
• OCD = No US troops
• OAE = NATO ran operation more EU troops then other nations

Unless someone can show that the US is the only contributor, or even main contributor for a majority of the operations, and do it without violating WP:OR, then its obviously not a US WOT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read some of the above comments. The "American" part is the ideology, not the campaign.PurpleRain 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, the only country that accepts the 'War on Terror' as it is represented in this article is the United States. Are there other countries involved in certain operations under the American construct of the "War on Terror", yes, but this article does not make that distinction. It starts off by saying it's a campaign by the US supported by NATO and other allies and includes them in the infobox, thus giving the impression they support ALL of the WoT, which is simply not the case. Many of the countries listed in the infobox (including NATO) expressly rejected involvement in the Iraq War and were clearly not involved in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, nor did they accepted it as part of the WoT. No one is denying that the US has a War on Terror, the issue is that the article as it is written makes certain implications that are not true. Please see Civil War for what I'm talking about. There are many instances of a war called "Civil War", but they are all attributed to the proper country for which that term applies. What this article does is the equivalent of including the German Empire in the infobox for the Russian Civil War when the only involvement the Germans had in the Russian Civil War was siding with the Finns and Swedes when the Russian Civil War spilled over into Finland and resulted in the Finnish Civil War. What is the harm in leaving the infoboxes on the operations themselves to identify the participants, rather than having an inaccurate roll up infobox on this article in addition to the operation infoboxes? --Bobblehead 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that? Seriously, other then your buddies I would like to see some proof that only the US sees the WOT like this, else the countries governments speak for them. Prove what you say, I am tired of this cricle logic, show lots of sources of leaders of those countries saying they are involved but not as part of the WOT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NATO does have troops in Iraq btw. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, burden of proof falls on the person providing the entry in the article. Unless you can prove that all of the participants in the infobox support all aspects of the War on Terrorism as it is defined by the United States, then it does not belong in this article. --Bobblehead 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But since you probably will continue your own circular logic. BBC article detailing a compromise by NATO to send defenses to Turkey instead of actual troop involvement in the invasion. NPR article detaling a few more of the divisions within NATO regarding the invasion. [Global Research] article detailing a German court ruling that the use of US airbases in Germany and fly-over rights in support of Iraq War violated international law as NATO does not have an agreement to support the Iraq War. Another BBC article where France and Germany reject an increase in NATO involvement and that they have no formal role in the occupation of Iraq. And that was just with a quick bit of searching. What evidence do you have that NATO does more than allow the use of air bases in NATO countries to transit American troops into and out of Iraq. --Bobblehead 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[23] Thank you. I think this point is now closed as I have provided what you asked for, "evidence do you have that NATO does more than allow the use of air bases in NATO countries to transit American troops into and out of Iraq." You can also read [24] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I said this above in response to that point: "The War on Terrorism is a single campaign, as much as any other campaign. The USA began the campaign, and other nations have aided it. While I have already said that the Cold War is not a campaign and therefore would not have an infobox, your idea that every nation on one side of an infobox must participate in conflict with every nation of the other side is unfounded. Take for instance World War One, the USA is an ally but never went into conflict with Bulgaria, a Central Power. Same for WW2 where many nations only were at war with some nations and never with others. Take Japan for instance, never at war with Poland, but its still an Axis Power and Poland is still an Allied Power. Thats what this is an equivalent to, not every nation is involved in every theatre, but they are listed for participating in atleast one on the side of the campaign. Same goes for those on the other side of the infobox, they are participating in atleast one theatre against those waging the campaign." ~Rangeley (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan was an ally of Germany and had formal declarations of war against the countries designated as part of the Allied Powers. That is not the case with NATO aligned countries and all operations within the WoT. It's not just involvement in operations, it's the acceptance of these operations that counts. --Bobblehead 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering Japan was not at war with the USSR when it was declared war on by Germany, this seems unlikely. Also, a number of "puppet nations" set up by Germany and Japan seem unlikely to have declared war on every allied power, but I could be wrong (a source would be useful.) There is no case where a power on the US side that participates in a particular operation has taken sides against the US alligned side in another, despite their not supporting the US alligned side militarilly in that operation. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a gander at Tripartite Pact. As puppet states were added to Germany and Japan's control, those puppet states signed on to the Tripartite Pact. Japan is also included because even if they did not declare war on specific countries, those countries declared war on Japan. USSR was the last allied country to declare war on them and did so in 1944. I'm also not sure what you're getting at with no one joining the side against the US in operations.. I don't think anyone is saying that. What they are saying is that not all of the countries listed on the US side agrees with the US's assertation that the operation is part of the War on Terrorism. Canada is involved in Afghanistan, but flatly refuses any involvement in Iraq as they view the war as illegal... --Bobblehead 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PLease see the template, it does not state that all those forces are allies and that the other side are their enemies. Hence this point is moot thanks to the fix applied earlier that was reccomended. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you would have objected to including the USSR and Japan in the infobox prior to that though, considering they worked for the anti-axis cause in other theatres. As for the Canada not thinking its a part, would this even matter, considering they arent the ones who decide what is and isnt a part? Its like the above fundraiser example, those who start the fundraiser might send people off to clean up a park to raise money, but they might also send some people out to rob a bank as a way of earning money. While there is no debate that this would be illegal, it was ordered under the project, regardless of the oppinion of the person who was out cleaning the park. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley, yet again, you're not seeing the point. The War on Terrorism (with caps) is purely the construct of the US government. However, there is also a war on terrorism (without caps) that is being conducted by other countries. While the two do have overlaps, they are not one in the same. Canada supports the operations in Afghanistan as part of the war on terrorism (no caps), but does not support the War on Terrorism (with caps) as a formal engagement as it is presented by the US government. Perhaps a better name for this article is 'American War on Terrorism' similar to the American War of Independence and American Civil War having American in front of them to disambiguate them from other wars of independence and other civil wars. --Bobblehead 00:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove this or is it just your personal opinion? These multiple wars on terror? If you cannot without violating WP:OR I believe this conversation is over. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Canada's Support for War on Terrorism through actions in Afghanistan:

• Jean Chrétien* - Contributions in Afghanistan and ISAF as part of War on Terrorism - [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
  • Defense Minister David Pratt on OEF-A [30]
  • Defense Minister Art Eggleton on OEF-A [31]
  • Deputy Prime Minister John Manley on OEF-A [32]
    • Paul Martin* - Continued OEF-A
    • Stephen Harper - Continued OEF-A

Since they have declared they are operating in support of the War on Terrorism by action through OEF-A. You would need to show a source stating they no longer support the War on Terrorism and that their participation in Afghanistan is a seperate conflict as some keep eluding too but not proving. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested External Link

Hi, I wish to add the following link (http://www.waronterrortheboardgame.com/) to the external links section of the War on Terror page, but as I am personally involved in this site I'm throwing it open for discussion.

Cons: there's a commercial nature to the website
Pros: it's of cultural value and provides content that is relevant, unique and in addition to the Wiki article

Thoughts/ comments welcome.

Cheers

82.6.104.229 14:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Andrew

I think it shouldnt be added, boardgames are just inappropriate, external links are suppose to contain information that is not presented in the article, commercials websites promoting a porduct I feel does not meet the standards of WP:EL, anyone else have an opinion? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If links to articles in Scientific American are questioned as being commercial spam then this definitely falls under that heading.--Bobblehead 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. This link is advertising, not information. PurpleRain 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the use of quotes around a term "inherently POV"?

The article contains the following (hidden) comment: "Do not put quotations around the bolded name; it is contrary to normal conventions and inherently POV." In my opinion, placing quote symbols around a phrase simply serves to identify a phrase used by people whom the author is quoting. I do not think that placing quotes around a phrase is "inherently POV". On the contrary, not placing quotes around phrases implies an acceptance of the use of a term, and may often be POV (when used with a phrase that implies a particular perspective on a subject), whereas using a phrase in quotes is typically not POV. Is there some generally-agreed policy about whether placing things in quotes is discouraged in Wikipedia? (I previously encountered a similar assertion by someone on another Wikipage, and I would like to know what others think.) —Wookipedian 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Further remarks: WOT/GWOT is a term invented and/or promoted by politicians to deliberately convey the point of view that they want others to accept. Should Wikipedia use all such phrases without quotation marks? I found that the Final Solution page puts its title phrase in quotes, as "Final Solution of the Jewish Question". Should those quotation marks be removed? Would that be more NPOV? —Wookipedian 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Closer to the current topic, at the beginning of the Iraqi Freedom page, the title phrase ("Operation Iraqi Freedom") appears within quotation marks. Should those be removed? Is that use of quoation marks "inherently POV"? In my opinion, when a phrase itself conveys a POV, the phrase should appear in quotes (at least when the phrase is introduced in an article). That applies to WOT/GWOT in particular. —Wookipedian 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify, you keep stating its POV, but not who's or what that POV is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm saying that using quotation marks is not POV. I am suggesting that this is the proper way to interpret the use of quotation marks in general.

If you're asking whose POV is promoted when we use this particular political spin phrase without quotation marks, I would say that would obviously be the POV (or the collective POVs) of those politicians who invented and promote the use of the WOT/GWOT phrase. One problematic issue in particular is the unconventional use of the word "war" (a "war" with no clear location or enemy governments - to some extent a war against ideas or vaguely-identified individuals rather than against a clearly identifiable enemy army). Another is the use of the term "terrorism", which is a term used selectively and in POV ways when applied by governments. —Wookipedian 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So by using quotation marks you are advancing the POV of those who are against the term, correct? Considering your whole section in the quotation marks, it seems you do not believe in its use. I would ask you to step back and approach it simply from an outside perspective free of your personal opinion of the situation. I have to agree after reading your words that it should be left without quotation marks for fear of devaluating it from an actual operation to some conspiracy of politicians as you seem to refer to it as. As for whats problematic, I dont see what the problem is, we are here to represent facts, and the fact is the naem is what it is, however your problems seem to be based around issues you have with that name, not exactly conveying facts, but judging them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. My understanding is that using quotation marks is just an indication of an act of quoting. Such an act has a neutral POV. But not using quotation marks around a political spin term indicates acceptance of the term as appropriate — and thus promotes a particular POV. Specifically, it promotes the POV of those who promote the use of the term. Therefore, political POV phrases such as "WOT"/"GWOT" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "Final Solution" and "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs" properly belong in quotation marks. —Wookipedian 19:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering you keep calling it a political spin term, it sounds to me like this is what the author of the note seemed to warn against. You cant have its inclusion a POV but its removal not be POV. Just an outside comment. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're saying. What do "its inclusion a POV" and "its removal not be POV" refer to? I'm talking about whether or not we put quotation marks around the phrase "War on Terrorism" at the top of the article. Are you talking about the inclusion of quotation marks and the removal of quotation marks? —Wookipedian 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

This country should be included at the combatant forces in the War of Terror.
Please discuss with me if you think this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.239.63 (talk • contribs)

(Spelling corrected in section title - originally "Afganisthan". -Wookipedian 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Confirmation of link: terror alerts + Bush popularity - Why removed?

I provided a link to work by three Columbia University researchers.

Yet, Rangeley has removed this reference, simply saying 'yea, right' in the edit summary. This is inappropriate. I have supplied encyclopedia worthy material with a reference. Rangeley did not discuss on this page his rationale for excising thiss. Dogru144 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, asking for an explanation is a good idea. Could have worded you comment on Rangeley's talk page better though. It's the all important "You get more flies with honey than vinegar". Perhaps try asking Rangeley for an explanation without the personal attack and in a civil manner--Bobblehead 02:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference

This just surfaced http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf and it is ideal for illustration of this: "Iraq had no role in the September 11 attacks and had no known history of a significant working relationship with Al Qaida.". Here is an excerpt: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm. Lovelight 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this merged with Criticism of the War on Terrorism?

Why isn't Criticism of the War on Terrorism an integral part of the War on Terrorism article? Isn't the whole point of having a NPOV to be that you try to capture both support and dissent regarding a controversial topic within the article on that topic? Patiwat 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. There's too much content in the two articles to merge them properly. The criticism article is just too large to merge into this one and as long as the material here is presented in an NPOV manner, then it is acceptable to keep the articles separate. --Bobblehead 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

4 Paragraphs of that article are in this one ... I am not sure how much you think is appropriate, there isnt even a section praising the WOT in the article, if anything its POV slanted the other way. Not a single person is saying anything positive about the WOT in the whole article. --User:Zer0faults 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is also pretty long, making an even large, single sided section like the criticism section large is not going to help. The other information is all relevant factual information, which I have to say after reading over it doesnt present a or take a side. --User:Zer0faults 10:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If facts supporting the WOT are only contained in the WOT article, and facts opposing the WOT are only in the Opposition to the Iraq War article, I'm not sure how that presents a NPOV... Patiwat 17:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts about the event are not facts supporting the event. Facts against the event however are just that. Saying Bob thinks the WOT is bad cause bad people arent so bad = criticism. There is nothing in the article that reads like Jack thinks the WOT is good because bad people should die. The whole rewrite of the article was done to just present the facts of the situation. If after reading the facts, no commentary or analysis by anyone, you come away with feeling its positive, then perhaps it just is. --User:Zer0faults 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Even an article devoted to Criticism of the WOT should not be "single sided", as it should contain not only the criticisms but also rebuttal points. If the discussion of criticism/controvery is too lengthy, then shouldn't we add a {{main|Criticism of the War on Terrorism}} tag and use a summarizing section in this article? If someone writes a "Support for the WOT" article (assuming there isn't one), I suppose we would also link to that. —Wookipedian 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a section of the Criticism section already in the article ... Again since the article contains no support for the WOT, I am not sure where the POV is. --User:Zer0faults 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not immediately obvious to me why having a section devoted to unrebutted criticisms without a corresponding "Support for the WoT" is particularly NPOV. I would suggest either adding such a section, or removing this section entirely.J. Langton 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a section, the article is tilted toward people who are critical of WOT not people in favor of it. Thats the point. People crying NPOV are not actually reading the article. --User:Zer0faults 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If this article is about military campaigns and operations claimed to be under the guise of the WOT then it seems to me that criticisms ought to be limited to the failures of those operations. Criticisms based on the ideology of the WOT are explored in the other article. Pendragon39 16:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

France

I don’t know why someone keeps deleting France in the “international support” section. Soldiers from the 1er Régiment de Parachutistes d'Infanterie de Marine and aircraft from the aircraft carrier FS Charles de Gaulle and Armée de l'Air Mirage 2000 ground-attack aircraft took part in the initial operation in Afghanistan and French forces have participated in offensive and ISAF operations in Afghanistan since.

French forces have also contributed with US forces and others as part of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa. Chwyatt 08:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I removed the npov tag because I object to drive-by anons (198.107.240.50) slapping such tags on articles and then doing nothing to either fix the pov or at least make their case for what's wrong. I haven't been involved with this article, but if you think it should remain, plz state what's currently POV here so we can clean it up. Armon 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Armon, when I read the article it striked me as very POV. The way it is presented, the box with participants... Everything seems oversimplified on certain plans, or too detailled on others (military side). I wont detail more, others wikiuser have done so quite well on the discussion page. The minimum we can do is issue a warning label. This article is "believed to be POV by some users". This is definitely a fact. Pompom2309 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Campaigns and theatres of operations

This seems to have a lot of redundant info which should be in War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation -comments? Armon 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Its actually a bit of a trimmed down version lacking quotes etc to make it just a factual representation. The previous article simply stated where the theatres were but not what happened at them and why etc, making the article ont he WOT really consist of history of name, US domestic stuff and pros and cons, which really doesnt cover the full scope of the WOT. Most people wouldnt know why Pakistan is part of the WOT if they couldnt read about the Waziristan tribal area in a brief section. Considering WOT - Theatres was broken off of this its only right to summarize some of the info from there. Similar to how there is a criticism article and we include a portion of that article in this one. --User:Zer0faults 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Just in case, here's a discussion section to discuss the strawpoll. --Bobblehead 18:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confused, are you stating there is no War on Terrorism? Why would the name of the article change? --User:Zer0faults 19:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stating anything. Just that other editors have inquired about the article needing to be called "So-called War on Terrorism", "American War on Terrorism", "US-led War on Terrorism", etc, etc. Having the article remain named "War on Terrorism" is a perfectly acceptable proposal for the straw poll. --Bobblehead 19:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through the same thing. Can someone please start creating a template that shows people how many operations are even US operations. OAE - NATO, Afghanistan South - Afghan Army/NATO/Canada, OIF - Iraqi Army/US/NATO(training), Waziristan - Pakistan/US(intel only), OEF-P - Phillipine Forces/US(training only), OEF-HOA - US(training)/NATO(training). If the article was renamed to US-led or whatever then much of the content needs to removed such as Afghanistan related information as it soon will not be US led, may not be now actually, OAE, Waziristan, OEF-P, OEF-HOA is debateable, but prolly US led. --User:Zer0faults 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, make a proposal to keep it at War on Terrorism then. :) I purposefully didn't add any of my own. --Bobblehead 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wont make a proposal because I will not perpetuate the idea that this article can be renamed. Changing of the name will just cause someone to make a new article in this ones place with this content. --User:Zer0faults 19:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you won't be involved in the discussion. It's always good to get multiple points of views in order to build consensus. Perhaps you'll reconsider if/when discussions of other names comes up. --Bobblehead 20:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but as I said, if people want to rename this article, then they can make a different article with that name and list only US led operations. I can only imagine the inventive names that will be suggested. Also Bobblehead who are these people that want the article renamed? --User:Zer0faults 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this page and Template talk:War on Terrorism. It comes up every other week or so. --Bobblehead 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have, I see it mentioned once, and far from once every week, seeing as there is like a 4 week old discussion on the page. --User:Zer0faults 20:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This article needn't change its name because "War on Terror" really is a genuine term that refers to a set of conflicts that this article describes. This article is fine. The qualm (which I raised preceding Bobblehead's initiation of this poll) is on the heading of the War on Terrorism template. When a pan-article infobox (which state FACTS) dubs the entire set of wars and conflicts as a "war on terrorism" then Wikipedia is endorsing a political standpoint. This is simply not NPOV. --Alfakim-- talk 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. I misunderstood in that case. The template is based on this article, so naming the Template differently than how the article is named doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't name the template for the Cold War article something other than the article's name. --Bobblehead 02:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No that doesnt follow. "War on Terror" is a real term that needs an article. But perhaps the template shouldnt be based off it. This term is part of the information that the template is about. But the title that Wikipedia gives to the template needs to be NPOV. e.g. If it was a major term to call WW1 "The War Against Evil Germans", we would definitely have an article with that title, but the WW1 template would still be called something totally neutral like "World War 1". "War on Terror" is not neutral. --Alfakim-- talk 14:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of flawed logic, this isnt called WW3 The War on Terrorism, its the WOT. So the template matches the article perfectly. We are discussing military operations not movie titles. I still do not see the problem as WOT fits perfectly with the descriptions, its almost like arguing WW1 should eb renamed cause not all coutnries int he world participated. It is symantics over what is now a common name. --User:Zer0faults 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This brings me back to my assertion (discussed above) that the phrase "War on Terrorism" should be placed in quotes when the term is introduced. As Alfakim echoes, it is not a neutral term. And despite what Zer0faults seems to think, not everyone really calls it that. Some people even question whether there is a single actual "it" to refer to. And some people tend to call it "the so-called 'War on Terrorism'". My impression is that there is really no general (especially world-wide) accepted name for this set of US-led activities. —Wookipedian 09:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me a source that doesnt call it WOT. So some people calling WW2 something other then WW2 would mena we rename WW2? Please this is getting getting repetitive, please see the archives this has all been argued before. Every source calling XYZ instead of WOT also calls it WOT at times, its up the individual editor and their personal bias to use whatever language they feel like. We have gone over the quotes already, its the name of an operations and operations names are not in quotation marks on Wikipedia. --User:Zer0faults 12:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussions in this page show by themselves that the consensus is still a dream here. There are different POVs on the subject and some people are fighting for their POV instead of trying to reach an agreement.

To me “War on Terror” is first of all a slogan. President Bush used it immediately after 9/11, well before there where any so called campaigns or even plans carrying the name. Tt reminds me of the change President Bush was forced to make in the name of one of the operations because it wasn’t simply a name, it was also a slogan carrying a message, which Arab and Muslim countries refused to accept – “Divine Justice”, was it?

The article should show the slogan characteristic of the title from the very beginning, in my opinion, and that could be achieved by the use of quotation marks in the title as suggested. At most both the title and the template could be ‘’War on Islamic Terrorism’’, if it is supposed to illustrate the content. But that’s a difficult one to advocate, right? It’s far from being politically correct...

I suggest ”War on Terrorism” led by the US just to attend to the allegation that somebody else will make an other article under the “War on Terrorism” title. DavidMarciano 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated that this article isnt showing it from the US perspective as many operations arent US led, and some have very little US participation at all. If someone wants to make another article with quotation marks discussing the US propagandistic nature then let them, however this article as its based on an operations, and operations on Wikipedia are not in quotations should stay the same. --User:Zer0faults 20:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked above by User:Zer0faults to cite some sources that do not accept the term "war on terror" (without the quotes around it) as a neutral term, or that put quotes around it. I am glad, after seeing some comments from others above, to see that I am not entirely alone in thinking that the phrase is not universally accepted as the proper neutral term for this set of activites. However, User:Zer0faults is certainly right to ask for sources for things that people think are the case — so I very much support User:Zer0faults's suggestion to provide some evidence. Here are some sources that either use quotes around the phrase or refer to it as the "so-called 'War on terrorism'" or say something about the phrase being non-neutral propaganda or some combination of those things: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Please don't pick too hard at my individual choices of examples - I simply listed some of what popped up in Google's News search service without putting a lot of effort into cherry-picking. I think it should now be clear that there are a number of reliable sources that question the WOT phrase (without quotes) as the proper way to refer to these US-led activities. —Wookipedian 04:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As I hae stated, all your sources that do call it so called or just put quotation marks, have also done it without, the non POV ones at least. Which goes back to the same point, just because you can find a few with quotation marks doesnt mean you cant find some without in the same source. Also quotation marks doesnt symbolize us led, simply that the name is a quote. As also stated already, we do not put quotation marks around operations names. --User:Zer0faults 05:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to agree not to put quotation marks around every occurrence of the phrase - I never meant to imply otherwise and I'm sorry if you got that impression. Using quotation marks once or twice near the beginning should suffice to introduce the phrase without seeming to endorse it. I agree that excessive use of quotation marks would lean toward POV. I also would not suggest inserting "so-called" - that might be excessive. On to another aspect of your remarks, I'm not sure who "we" is in your final sentence - Is there some kind of Wikipedia policy about not using quotes around political phrases? (If so, I think the "War on Poverty" article and the "Final Solution" article are violating it.) —Wookipedian 07:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Around article titles themselves. --User:Zer0faults 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults said: “I have already demonstrated that this article isn't showing it from the US perspective”

Demonstrated? Just take note of some quotations from the introduction of the article itself (so, before the operations sections, which the introduction is supposed to intruce):

In the Lead Section: “... is a campaign by the United States...”; “This campaign was launched by the United States following the September 11, 2001 attacks”...; “In addition to governmental actions in the War on Terrorism, several private organizations have payed a role in gathering intelligence and supporting the effort.”

In the Overview: “… attacks on the US and its allies…” – where is there any refference to how the allies reacted?; “The latter attacks …/… created an immediate demand throughout the United States for a decisive response.”

Next section: “Operative definition in U.S. foreign policy”: “The United states has defined terrorism under…”; “… President Bush has stated that:”; “The United states has based its counterterrorist strategy…”; “Defend U.S. citizens at home and abroad.”

So, the article isn’t showing it from the US perstective, right? DavidMarciano 13:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a campaign by the United States and enlisted NATO and now is bigger then that, it also did begin after 9/11. I am not sure what you think is making it US perpective, can you tell me who has a different perspective of when the WOT began? I have never read a journalist that says the WOT began at some other point then after 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan. The US began it so its the main player in its history and foundation, it was launched with XYZ goals and those goals are spelled out. Then it goes into the operations and who is involved and where they took place. The Domestic Initiatives sectino I never liked to feel free to toss it. Oddly someone argued it would be POV to remove it since it would remove info on Patriot Act etc, but I am all for its removal. Also feel free to remove Guantanamo, that would make it even more POV in favor of the US. --User:Zer0faults 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So when did the WOT start, who started it and where was the first operation? THe facts are based around the US, its like stating the Hiroshima article is from the US perspective, of course it is, the history is all focused on and in the US. --User:Zer0faults 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The American perspective is that this is a war and it is on terrorism. First of all, if one sticks to the term “war” one needs to be very aware of its concept. Nothing is a war just because somebody wants to call it a war, doesn’t matter how important that “somebody” is. It being on terrorism, is also the American perspective, which others followed (in order not to get in a wording “war”, that’s my guess).

Secondly, one thing I know for sure: “war on terrorism” is above all a slogan which suits perfectly a propaganda campaign, not only inside the US, but also in the western countries in general. As I’ve said, I think President Bush used the slogan just after the attacks, before there were any plans or any names chosen.

Making an article around US options, decisions, objectives, etc. and not mentioning any of other participants’ participants options, decisions, objectives, etc. is putting it in an American perspective.

The facts are based around US, Zer0faults say. I recall Bali, London, Madrid, Turkey and that the article doesn’t mention any options, decisions or objectives of the countries directly involved. That’s forgetting others perspectives, thus reinforcing the American ones by omission.

The refusal of France, Germany, and others (afterwards joined by Spain, which withdraw) to participate in the invasion of Iraq because there wasn’t evidence of it being connected to terrorism, shows that to include Iraq in the “war on terrorism” was an American perspective.

Putting the Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah in the list of terrorist organizations, and associating it to the “war on terrorism” and not to the Israel-Arab conflict, disregarding the opinion of the majority of the nations, makes it an American perspective.

So, to me, either there is somebody personally willing to make a point, doesn’t matter at which cost, or there is the intention of conveying a message instead of providing NPOV information. DavidMarciano 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How about editting the article?

As this seems to be a recurring issue on this article (which I'm guilty of as well). How about instead of complaining about this article having a US bias we work on a rewrite? :) Based on the number of commentors above there is more in favor of removing the US bias (perceived or otherwise) than there are of keeping it. If an edit war erupts, Wikipedia has dispute resolution methods that can be undertaken. DavidMarciano what are you suggestions for removing the US bias? --Bobblehead 14:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Its been through this already, please see the archive, an edit war will erupt like it did last time, dispute resolution will follow which happened last time, wont be surprised if three people are banned like they were last time also. Its just creating a mess, especially since the intro was changed to remove NATO again apparently, gee wonder who that was, no not you we have a banned editor that argued that point before being banned. Also bias isnt perspective. --User:Zer0faults 14:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Zer0. Also, NATO seems to be in the intro still. The fear of an edit war shouldn't stop us from improving the article. Just means everything has to be properly sourced and everyone has to be civil and assume good faith. --Bobblehead 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please quote what I said that was not assuming good faith, if you cannot then please remove that from your reply. Thank you. --User:Zer0faults 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Read your comment above mine.[41] You assumed an edit war will erupt if anyone attempts to remove/balance the perceived US bias from the article, then assumed the non-existent removal of NATO from the intro was done by a sockpuppet. Both of which seem to be contrary to assuming most editors are working to improve the project. Edit wars are not inevitable on controversial articles and it takes more than one edit to identify a sockpuppet. --Bobblehead 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure who I am assuming bad faith of. Edit warring doesnt mean people are acting in bad faith, you yourself said we shoudl proceed regardless of the edit warring that will occur, stating you yourself believe one will happen. I would like an apology now. As for the sockpuppet thing, I dont remember declaring anyone as such, the banner editor could have made the change before being banned. Anyway this is starting to be a little off topic as the topic is the article. I am interested in seeing these changes now, someone should make a sandbox and we can all comment on their work. --User:Zer0faults 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say that threatening with an edit war and with some people being banned is exactly assuming good faith.DavidMarciano 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Above I’ve suggested the title to be «”War on Terrorism” led by the US», following previous suggestions.

The template should be deleted. The photo doesn’t exemplify anything and the intervenients and casulaties are already mentioned further down in the article. The remaining information could be moved to the participants table, for example.

I don’t think Lebannon should be included. It goes under the long Israel-Arab conflict, in my opinion.

If this is to be an article on the military operations, the “US domestic initiatives” section should be removed. On the contrary, if this is to be a comprehensive article it should be expanded.

The casualties section should only refer to the theaters mentioned in the article.

Op Active Endeavor is not mentioned. DavidMarciano 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what template you are talking about, if you mean the WOT one at the bottom fo this article then please use the templates talk page for proposing deletion. As for threatening an edit war, can you please show me where I did that? I think you are perhaps a bit paranoid, stating one would most likely happen, as its happened 2x before already is not threatening one, please AGF in your fellow editors. There is a reason Lebanon is included, I believe a source was given where Bush states its part of the WOT. As for Domestic Initiatives, I already stated I agree that it should be removed, would also put article right into size requirements. But as I stated in previous arguements, if there was a curfew during ww2, that would be a domestic initiative during a military operation, so they arent not necessarily different. But I dont mind getting rid of the Patriot Act mention and guantanamo if you want to. Good point Active Endeavor, I will get right on writing soemthnig up, give me a day or two please for that. --User:Zer0faults 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm opposed to your changes, but color me confused then. The article does a pretty decent job of noting that the War on Terrorism is a construct of the United States. Similar to how the War on Drugs article handles it's naming. As such, it is the US that determines what is part of WoT and what is not. That's why the Lebanon conflict is included in this article (although, the section should mention it is also part of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict) and its inclusion is attributed to the US and Israel. OAE not being mentioned is probably an oversight as OAE is flagged as being part of WoT. Inclusion of opposition to specific operations (like the invasion of Iraq) are acceptable as long as they are properly sourced. The article should be about more than military operations as it has more impacts than that.--Bobblehead 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant the table at the right hand top of the article. I see now it’s not a template, it’s just a table. Sorry for the confusion.

I don’t think that forgetting the banning threat and adding the “bit paranoid” could be a smart strategy of defense. Anyway, I don’t make a case on that. I just suggest people to cool a little bit down so that we carry on with a civil discussion here. Everybody agrees it’s nicer and more fruitful, I’m pretty sure.

We have two positions here: Zer0faults on the side of military operations exclusively and Bobblehead on the side of more than military operations. I must say that I see it similarly to Bobblehead. I can accept the curfew example to show that there are domestic initiatives resulting from war. The point, however, is the “war on terror” started with domestic measures which did not result from anything happening in any overseas theatre of operations. The theater of operations was the continental US. Domestic measures were the first measures taken to fight terrorism and had a lot of impact in different areas. That’s were I agree with Bobblehead.

Coming back to my previous suggestion for the title, I think that titles and articles should match as close as possible and this is why I’ve chosen it. After some more thinking, however, I accept that the title “war on terror”, with quotes, and a start with “The so called…” would be a good enough match (“so called…” because it’s mainly propaganda). Besides it would be more appropriate, since it’s what people search for, and would be a good compromise among editors, I believe. To accommodate the way Zer0faults sees this article, anyway, the title should be ‘’The Military Component of the “War on Terrorism”’’. So, either with quotes and comprehensive (my preferred) or “The Military Component…”.

All these “war on…” articles should let clear from the beginning the slogan characteristic the titles have, which is nothing more than propaganda meant to get public support (a lot of times the public is not even aware of what’s going on under a “war on …”). I think an encyclopedia should avoid contributing to the propaganda by spreading the message as someone wants it to be spread. Of course, it shouldn’t be a vehicle of contra-propaganda either. It should just stick to NPOV. That’s why I advocate “with quotes”. Again, Lebanon and others in the “war on terror” is only propaganda in order to get support. I agree that it stays, but I advocate a way of letting the reader understand it is propaganda and why.

As people agree that it’s an American thing, I think the article should reflect the fact not only by stating it but also by not developing itself to an extent that imposes on the reader the idea of a global thing by mass, volume impact. I think the article should be rather small, mentioning how the “war on terror” initially developed and its several areas of impact. I change my suggestion of expanding the non-military part into making (or looking for) different articles for each area of impact (there is already a discussion point which points out redundancies).

This was long. Apologies. DavidMarciano 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC discourages the use of non-alphanumeric characters as the first character of an article name. Whether or not it is a propaganda term or not, War on Terrorism is the most common name for the initiative (even if WoT is preceded by "so called", "US-led", etc). Would you be amendable to the intro reading something along the lines of:

The War on Terrorism or War on Terror (also the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT" ) is the name used by the United States, enlisting the support of NATO members and other allies, for a campaign with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by preventing those groups said to be terrorist in nature from posing a threat, and by putting an end to state sponsorship of terrorism. <etc>

--Bobblehead 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Even if on the title I was just following somebody else’s suggestion and even if a rule is not a law of God, I think that rules are to be followed unless there something which requires an exception, which is not necessarily the case. I can endorse the suggested text since it’s fair enough and a satisfactory compromise. Nevertheless, I find the article should start with “The so called…” and shouldn’t repeat the title endless times or put it in particularly relevant places. If the reader of any of the articles “War on…” doesn’t straightaway get the idea the expression is mainly a slogan, then NPOV has not been reached. I think it being “the most common name” (and, of course, I agree it is) is a lot in line with the slogan issue. DavidMarciano 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the downsides of this conflict is that it has gone by multiple names and WP:MOS#Article titles suggests that when an article could have alternative names they should be listed in bold in the opening sentence. Just be glad there aren't more. Long War, Crusade, "Struggle against Violent Extremism", etc. have all been used at various points to describe the conflict. I'm also not seeing the need to put "so called" in front of the name. Seems redundant to the fact that WoT is what people call the conflict. Kind of like calling Bob Barker "so called Bob Barker". A name is a name. Whether or not the name accurately depicts what it is associated with is ultimately irrelevant. At its time WWI was called "The Great War" or "The War to End All Wars" and while the first may have been true for its time, neither have proven to be true in the end and yet, there they are at the start of the article. --Bobblehead 14:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that I could endorse the text and I leave it as I said. However, I’m afraid I can’t agree with the last grounding. The thing is, neither “The Great War” nor “World War I” have any propaganda intention behind the naming. I don’t think it’s irrelevant a name depicting or not what it’s associated with. On the contrary, a name identifies a person. It is as much like so as when there are two persons with the same name one needs/uses a way of de-conflicting the confusion. Referring to Bob Barker or referring to a so-called Bob Barker is completely different. Besides, there are also nicknames and these are not to be mistaken with names. The same about concepts. Behind a specific word there is a specific concept and a different word means something different. DavidMarciano 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Allies

I swore I would steer clear of controversial articles... still.

This article seems to underplay actions taken by countries which count themselves as allies in the war on terrorism where the USA is not itself involved. These include Russia in Chechnya, Turkey, and India in Kashmir. Clearly they may have their own reasons for signing up to this cause, but that's politics. jimfbleak 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should chime in if you want, Chechnya seems to be under dispute but I had not though of India and Turkey. Feel free to expand if necessary. Are we refering to the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons when we talk about Turkeys role or the ability to use its location for a base etc in the many regional conflicts. --User:Zer0faults 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know Putin has called the wars in Chechnya part of his country's "War on Terrorism", but have India and Turkey referred to their conflicts "War on Terrorism"? Wouldn't want to be slapping labels on something when the countries haven't done so themselves. As for why Chechnya isn't included, this article is really for the WoT led by the US and the US hasn't identified Chechnya as a front in WoT. --Bobblehead 17:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Long War

I see it is now "The Long War". I note also that this describes a 'war' that has not actually been going on too long (by historical standards) ; if rhetoric has no part to play in all of this I'll eat my hat - Washington Post / Guardian

However the new (long War) article is pretty balanced atm. Hakluyt bean 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well, not sure that article will last long as it seems to be a neologism. I've never heard of WoT referred to as 'The Long War'. Is that a common reference outside the US? --Bobblehead 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another bias discussion

Because of the simplicity I am sure this is overlooked and then undoubtly mocked when read. But, wouldn't the best solution to 'war on terror' simply be making peace? Once you have initiated war would you have not already created terror? Or visa versa. Seems "war on terror" is like war on war, which is like dirty on dirt. The idea of it as a subject in the encyclopdia with so much rhetoric leads me to wonder what people expect as victory from this war. In fact, it almost sounds scary. Do people really want to go all the way with this? Sounds like you would have created a hell. Does war have a different meaning or terrorism in the war on terrorism? Maybe this is a bad place to ask such questions but I have often wondered. I get images of everyone being at war with the idea. I wish the article was more to the point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.37.95.27 (talk • contribs) .

In response to your "Does war have a different meaning or terrorism in the war on terrorism?" question. In this case the War on Terrorism is a proper noun, equivalent to someone's name. So the need for the campaign to actually be a war or to be actually against terrorism is irrelevant. As for your wish of the article being more to the point, care to elaborate? Do you have any suggestions on how the article could be improved to make it more to the point? --Bobblehead 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"In this case the War on Terrorism is a proper noun, equivalent to someone's name. So the need for the campaign to actually be a war or to be actually against terrorism is irrelevant." This is the bias. That is the sum of the whole problem. No need to really elaborate. If it were more to the point, we wouldn't already be presented with a "well the name doesn't mean what it says' from the beginning, it would point out that those who are terrorizing terrorism are indeed the terrorists themseleves. The point of the article is not clear because it is batteling a definition which does not quantify. If it is only a proper noun that is meaningless I wonder why there is a picture of a armed man on the page with a caption saying 'two soldiers'. Soldier, terrorist whatever it seems the name does relate but in a way to obscure. Whats next, war on 'the'? Regardless, the point here is obvious to be at war, to argue, to debate not to arrive at a final deduction with knowledge, wisdom and understanding. -jrey

I’ve accepted the text just not to carry on with an endless discussion, but I can only agree with jrey. Any comments on my suggestion of removing the table at the right hand top of the page? (How about editing the article? DavidMarciano 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC) And there’s a lot to be done before the article can reach NPOV DavidMarciano 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article as you see fit.;) The table at the top.. There are a fair number of people opposed to it being there (including me), but getting it off will probably be a contentious topic. You'll want to build consensus about it here before actually getting rid of it. As for other edits, go crazy, just make sure to explain the edits in the edit summary. You may also consider doing it slowly over a period just so the change isn't too shocking. --Bobblehead 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to give an example, in the article (including the War on Terrorism template) there are 94 appearances of terror, terrorism or terrorist (includes 14 “war on terrorism”). In the “Further reading” and subsequent sections there are more 57 appearances (includes 12 more “war on terrorism”). Isn't this a try to, or the result of, getting it into peoples' minds?

Referring to the table, among other things what it refers to as “combatants” (names and flags) is in the template as “Main participants”. So, repeated information (to pass the idea, or because somebody managed the idea to pass, that's what I think).

I’ll try to do something, ok. Meanwhile, I say that I won't change the initial text myself, because I’ve agreed with it when I was asquesd to. But my opinion is known - “The so called…” should be there. Also, I think that it doesn’t present NATO’s support as it really was/is. NATO is engaged in fighting the so-called global terrorism, but I’ve never noticed any adherence to a “War on Terrorism” by NATO. Again, I won't change it myself, at least for the moment DavidMarciano 14:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I said I’d try to do something and I will. Still, as I’m not an expert on the subject, it’ll take me time before I can do something accurate, concise and well sourced. Meanwhile, I call people’s attention to some points. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Overview section

Terrorism didn’t just appear for no reason. There are no reasons that can justify it, but certainly there are reasons behind its appearance. Saying that “Terrorist organizations had carried out attacks on the United States and allies”, insisting in the word ‘terrorist’’, and not making any reference, for slight it could be, to the reasons behind the attacks, is far from a NPOV. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical usage of phrase section

This is irrelevant here. A slogan is a slogan, now or before. What I think is, this is here just to make it known that the slogan wasn’t a President Bush’s invent, which is irrelevant. Moreover, if there were other "wars on terrorism", this article shouldn’t be titled just as “war on terrorism”, for the sake of accuracy. If the previous “Wars on terrorism” are to be referred to merely as an usage of the phrase than that’s what as been a lot discussed for the present one – just an usage of the phrase. But if instead, presently it’s taken as “the” name, than one needs to de-conflict the three wars named “war on terrorism”. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Operative definition in U.S. foreign policy section

The definition by the US would be important if the article were “War on terrorism seen by the US”. It leads back to the discussion on the article’s title. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Europe section

I’m the one to blame for this one. Operation Active Endeavor is mentioned in the International support section and I didn’t recall it when I said it was missing. Anyway, it isn’t in Europe but in the Mediterranean. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War section

The US says it belongs to the WoT, but I don’t think wikipedia’s position is already settled, since a lot of people don’t agree. Again, the discussion is about accepting to show the US position because of the “war on terrorism” being a US “campaign”, but not accepting to title it as “The US war on terrorism”. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon section

See Iraq War DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

U.S. domestic initiatives section

Many of this were among the first measures taken by the Administration following 9/11. It should be closer to the top, in my opinion. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Military decorations section

I don’t see how this can be important for the article, unless I think in terms of passing the message that this is just one more “military war”, for how strange I see the expression. DavidMarciano 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"conflict ongoing"

I find this misleading - it's suggesting that there is an expected ending. If I recall correctly, USA leaders have even stated that they expect (or at least, wish) it to last indefinetly. The Soviet Union is gone and we seemingly need another enemy to fight for decades at least. Peoplesunionpro 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything can potentially have no end, that doesnt keep us from saying its currently ongoing. There are operations being conducted under this umbrella that are currently happening, thus it is currently ongoing. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Iraq worsened Terrorism

Should this important new info be worked into the article?

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document." [42]

NBGPWS 06:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I was looking for it here, and couldn't find it. The amount of information is small, however - too small for it's own article, in my opinion. You might want to check this out too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5382762.stm

I think it should go under Criticisms of the "War on Terror". Kimera757 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

More on this note: Excerpt of declassified terror report and Bush aides defend Iraq terror report moves. There might be enough information to start an article on the US terror report by itself. Kimera757 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Objective and strategies section

This section "Objective and strategies" is a bunch of US propaganda. I'm sure it does belong in the article, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be mispresented as factual. Shouldn't it say, these are the alleged objectives as stated by the US government, and shouldn't it have a citation to back up the claim that the US government actually alleges these objectives? It would be a shame to just remove these uncited allegations, because obviously someone believes in them enough to have typed them up...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.44.102.11 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't read enough of the article -- I see it is heavily progandistic, so it is probably held hostage by a few US propagandists, as these type of wiki propaganda articles usually are. It's usually hopeless to fix them in anyway, and best to abandon them. But, it surely should not be featured in any way...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.44.102.11 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)