Template talk:US War on Terror
|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 6. The result of the discussion was "Keep".|
no archives yet (create)
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved.|
- 1 Size
- 2 Rename "War on Terror"?
- 3 Islamic terrorism
- 4 Anything in 2008??
- 5 Add Mexico and Colombia
- 6 Should we rename the template?
- 7 There will never be consensus on this template
- 8 Obama Administration dropping "War on Terror" phrase
- 9 Use "Navbox with collapsible groups"
- 10 Terrorist attacks
- 11 Mujahidden
- 12 Extrajudicial killing
- 13 Conflicts-Others
If this template gets much larger, it is going to be impractical. It is already too wide. Really, it is trying to cover a varied subject in one template. You need to reorganize it so that it is not so large.--126.96.36.199 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reorganized to reduce width. Hopefully it won't annoy others having the See Also down below... I was tempted to make it a Minor change since I didn't actually change any content. ;) --Goldfndr (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Rename "War on Terror"?
I just moved War on Terrorism to War on Terror, per a move request, and the fact that the latter name appears to be more widely used, by supporters and opponents, and by our sources. Should this template move as well, to match the article? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, all related articles should be moved to match the main one. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no war on Terrorism or War on Terror – you can't fight terror with war. "War on Terror" is a bad name, as bad as "War on Terrorism" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Anything in 2008??
Add Mexico and Colombia
Should we rename the template?
"War on Terrorism" reminds a specific campaign, that carried out by the US following 9/11. However I have seen this template in several articles not related to that historical phenomenon. Therefore I got the impression that thiw template has become one on wars on terrorism in general. However if that is the case we should endorse the more objective and formal term "struggle against terrorism". Would the fellow Wİkipedians clarify the situtation? (An alternative is to remove the box from unrelated articles.) Evren Güldoğan (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There will never be consensus on this template
I see that a revert war is under way. This is inevitable given the topic. As the old adage goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Since there will never be an universally-agreed definition of terrorism, I believe that this template should be titled the U.S. War on Terror [or Terrorism]. The template only really focuses on the U.S. fight against Islamist terrorism. There are other kinds. The 2001 anthrax attacks are not included, and Russia is not listed as a participant even though the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis is. The "See Also" section only contains U.S.-focused terms and legal issues. The template does not include Spain's war on ETA, India's conflicts with the myriad of insurgent groups operating within its borders, Thailand's struggle with insurgents in its southern provinces, the conflict between Sri Lanka and the LTTE, Colombia's war with the FARC, etc. Furthermore, trying to categorize the War on Terrorism as a conventional war like World War II simply will not work.--RDavi404 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, there is no "revert war". Then, if we are only going to make this global phenomenon relevant only to the USA, then the template will need to be removed from most of these articles, as the USA has no relevance to them. Flarkins (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree. No one voiced any disapproval of the move on this discussion page in that two year time frame. I also have never read anywhere that consensus has to be reached within a certain time frame. I think the fact that there are at least three discussions started about renaming the template should be evidence enough that a change needs to be made. Are we headed for arbitration?--RDavi404 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What? When did I say that there was a time limit? Well, the "argument" for renaming the page was mainly based on the opinion, that it may or may not be only used in the US, even though the person who proposed it stated it might be used in the UK too.. So, the fact that it is referred to as 'international' in Brazil, The 'war on terror' is being won by the coalition forces in Iraq' in a UK newspaper. It is also used on an Italian website, And the French Wikipedia has a whole section on other states who have claimed they are fighting in the war on terror, In Yemen, there is an entire page on the affects of the war on terror for Muslims living in Europe, the US has no relevance here, as well as a page talking about Israel's war on terror, and more examples available. This all discredits the opinion that the term is only used in the US, or it is only the US fighting in the war. Flarkins (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm unable to read Portuguese, Italian, French or Hebrew well enough to figure out if those sources support your argument. If you read the Yemen op-ed, you'll see that it is mocking the use of the term "war on terror" and questions whether it is actually a "war on Islam." Israel has had a "war on terror" for decades before 9/11 so if we're going to include them on the template then we should expand it to before 2001.RDavi404 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Israel has had a "war on terror" for decades before 9/11 so if we're going to include them on the template then we should expand it to before 2001" Well yes, the war didn't start at 9/11, even the main article doesn't say this. Flarkins (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- "This all discredits the opinion that the term is only used in the US, or it is only the US fighting in the war." I never said this. It's a US-instigated and -led war, that's why it was moved to show this. Flarkins, I'm not seeing much backing for your controversial page move. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama Administration dropping "War on Terror" phrase
Fox News  and NPR  report that the Obama Administration is choosing to drop the terms "Global War on Terror" from its lexicon. It prefers "Overseas Contingency Operation." How should this affect the template? Should the timeline only exist from 9/11/2001 through the end of the Bush Adminstration? --RDavi404 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of smaller screens, use the "Navbox with collapsible groups" template with the "Participants", "Conflicts", "Islamist attacks" and "See also" sections as the groups.
Something like this:
I've removed terrorist attacks from the template as they are not part of WoT and no reliable sources include them in WoT. Therefore , it is WP:SYNTH. I've placed the removed section below, if someone is interested in making a new template. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should avoid using the T word as much as possible. I plan on making templates that list Islamist attacks by country. See Template:Campaignbox Terrorism in Indonesia for an example. ~Asarlaí 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it. Americophile 14:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Why this infobox don't include First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, War of Dagestan or even Insurgency in the North Caucasus??? Russia's wars are worse, than those conducted by the "West"? Mujahideens in Russia are less terrorists than those in Iraq, Syria ,etc. Although the article appears to be written completely correctly, infobox makes it completely biased! Greetings from Poland --184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)