Contents

Talk:War on terror

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War on terror article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 120 days

War on terror received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 20, 2009, September 20, 2010, September 20, 2013, and September 20, 2016.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States: September 11 / History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). Terrorism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pritzker Military Library Mid‑importance This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Pakistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bush family High‑importance War on terror is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to the Bush family. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Pacific / British / Canadian / Chinese / Dutch / European / French / German / Italian / North America / Spanish / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) North American military history task force Spanish military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Libertarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance). Countering systemic bias: Global perspective High‑importance This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by Global perspective task force.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, War on Terrorism → War on Terror, Moved, 8 September 2007, Discussion RM, War on Terror → War on Terrorism, Moved, 27 October 2007, Discussion RM, War on Terrorism → War against al Qaeda, Not moved, 19 January 2010, Discussion War on Terrorism → War on Terror, Moved, 1 March 2010, "No discussion" RM, War on Terror → War on Terrorism, Moved, 13 March 2010, Discussion RM, War on Terrorism → War on Terror, Moved, 13 March 2010, Discussion RM, War on Terror → Global War on Terrorism, No consensus, 6 December 2014, Discussion RM, War on Terror → War on terror, Moved, 16 November 2019, Discussion

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes Section size for War on terror (62 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 16,521 16,521 Etymology 6,552 22,219 Use of phrase and its development 6,436 6,436 Decline of phrase's usage by U.S. government 2,837 9,231 Abandonment of phrase 6,394 6,394 Background 17 10,961 Precursor to the 11 September attacks 6,852 6,852 11 September attacks 4,092 4,092 U.S. objectives 5,198 5,198 Timeline 63 63 Operation Enduring Freedom 838 29,205 Afghanistan 12,689 15,418 International Security Assistance Force 2,729 2,729 Philippines 6,217 6,217 Trans-Sahara (Northern Africa) 1,361 1,361 Horn of Africa and the Red Sea 5,371 5,371 Iraq War 77 11,787 2002 State of the Union Address 1,681 1,681 Prelude 2,335 2,335 Invasion of Iraq 4,601 4,601 Iraqi Insurgency (2003–11) 2,204 2,204 War in Iraq (2013–2017) 889 889 Pakistan 7,393 7,393 Yemen 3,650 3,650 Other military operations 33 23,909 Operation Inherent Resolve (Syria and Iraq) 3,778 3,778 Islamic State of Lanao and the Battle of Marawi 1,469 1,469 Libyan War 3,497 3,497 American military intervention in Cameroon 935 935 Operation Active Endeavour 562 562 Fighting in Kashmir 5,791 5,791 Anti-terror campaigns by other powers 7,844 7,844 International military support 3,044 3,044 Post–9/11 events inside the United States 9,427 9,427 Transnational actions 28 19,099 "Extraordinary rendition" 7,693 7,693 Rendition to "Black Sites" 3,034 8,140 Criticism of U.S. media's withholding of coverage 4,208 4,208 Prison ships 898 898 Guantanamo Bay detention camp 3,238 3,238 Major terrorist attacks and plots since 9/11 314 10,348 Attacks by Al-Qaeda 1,452 1,452 Islamic State 4,921 4,921 Attacks by other Islamist militant groups and individuals 2,256 2,256 Alleged plots and unsuccessful attacks 1,405 1,405 Casualties 5,344 36,018 Iraq 7,688 7,688 Afghanistan 11,456 11,456 Pakistan 921 921 Somalia 2,473 2,473 Yemen 766 766 Philippines and North Caucasus 2,275 2,275 United States 4,473 4,473 Total civilian estimates 622 622 Costs 6,941 6,941 Criticism 11,095 14,732 Forced Displacement 3,637 3,637 See also 886 886 Notes 49 49 References 30 30 Further reading 2,662 2,662 External links 3,798 3,798 Total 237,940 237,940

Hello @Aocloyalist: Why remove these?Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This was removed:

“On August 3, 2020 the White House attempted to reduce spending on hiring of foreign employees by American defense contractors.^[1]”

I believe it belongs somewhere. Twillisjr (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Twillisjr (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what does this tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I need to note that there is a significant difference between the term "Foreign-born" in the heading of this section and the word "foreign" in the quoted words. They do not mean the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Donald trump to the list of leaders for the American coalition side. 96.243.32.92 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling to decide who should and should not go in the Commanders and leaders field, especially on the American coalition side. Template:Infobox military conflict/doc#Parameters says "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed," but there doesn't seem to be consensus on who are the notable leaders in the War on terror. In the worst case scenario, we could list all the heads of state/government of the involved countries during this period, creating a long list like the one in the Gulf War infobox. Liu1126 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Once a clear consensus has been reached, reactivate the request by changing the "Answered=yes" parameter to "Answered=no" Shadow311 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Biden is to be included, then Trump should also be included. It's not reasonable to include the vice president in such list, therefore if Biden is included, it would be in his capacity as president. Kk.urban (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is no mention of the war on Terror in Africa. This is a major front of the war and it should be present 39.43.167.117 (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do have sections on Afica. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinderboff, SavagePanda845, Goszei, Shadowwarrior8, Gehirnstein, Cinderella157, Skitash. Hi everybody, I think we should start a discussion regarding leaders included in the infobox. I sincerly don't understan why we have John Howard of Australia and not, for example, Tony Blair, who was much more involved in the war. Moreover, I think we should include also Donald Trump, who was in charge when al-Baghdadi was killed. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for summarising key facts from the article, we don't write the article in the infobox and the article should remain complete without the infobox. The commanders field of the infobox is for key or significant commanders/leaders, as supported by the body of the article -ie the body of the article should evidence why they were a key or significant commander. Where Trump was recently added to the infobox, I have reverted the addition with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - the article does not support inclusion of Trump - ie the article does not mention Trump at all, let alone evidence that he was a key or significant commander/leader. Tony Blair is similarly not mentioned in the article at all. John Howard is at least mentioned in the article. Whether this mention is sufficient to support his inclusion as a key or significant commander/leader is a reasonable question. I have no significant issue with his removal by Nick.mon based on this being a single passing mention. As well as Trump, Nick.mon has also added Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Mullah Omar, which are also not supported by the body of the article. P&G tells us that an article should be complete within its self. A link is neither a source nor a substitute for content in the article. A name in the infobox unsupported by the body of the article fails to tell the reader why they are a key or significant leader/commander in the context of the article. It is a disservice to our readers. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear explanation. I understand your point of view, supported by Wikipedia's policy, but I think we should also be a bit more flexible, otherwise we could give a distorted views to readers. I mean, Trump was president during the peak of US fight against ISIL, I don't know why he isn't mentioned at all in the article, but I think he should be. Omar was the leader of Afghanistan during the beginning of the war, while al-Baghdadi was the main leader of ISIL during its peak, I think that if we mention Talibans and ISIL in the infobox, it would be useful to readers to mention also their respective leaders. Regarding Howard I think that listing him in the infobox is a bit confusing. Australia played an important role in the fight against terrorism, but not so different than the one of UK, Italy, France or Germany. Moreover he's mentioned only once ("Howard stated that Australia would invoke the ANZUS Treaty along similar lines."). Is it enough to list him among the main commanders? I fear it's not. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A name in an infobox without any context in the article to evidence why they are considered key or significant commanders/leaders is meaningless. Trump being president at a particular time does not ipso facto make him key or significant in the context of this article. Compare his lack of mention with Bush and Obama, who are clearly key and significant, as evidenced by the article. If those you would add are indeed key and significant, then the course is clear - edit the article such that the how and why they are key and significant are evidenced by the article. Then, their addition to the infobox will actually be meaningful. [W]e don't write the article in the infobox and the article should remain complete without the infobox. As to Howard, I have no issue with his removal (as should be clear from my earlier post). I have only stated that there is at least some justification for his inclusion per the article, as opposed to those for which there is no justification within the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Donald Trump was president of the United States during this period. Yet his predesscor and successor are both on the list of "Commanders" he isn't. Please add him. 207.179.146.234 (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This has been removed recently, see the discussion above. Jamedeus (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure how non EC users are supposed to do this? Is it not right they’re not meant to engage in talk page discussion either? (Rendering it impossible). Or is that relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict only? Yr Enw (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-ECP may engage in discussion when article is ECP protected but conduct on a TP must not be disruptive. The Israel-Palestine conflict is an exception. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See open discussion immediately above. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Its dishonorable to deny the fact he was our Commander in Chief. This needs to be corrected. I dont care what your political affiliation is the military opperated under his command for four years, get over it. 104.151.212.12 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engage in the above discussion then and with the points raised in that Yr Enw (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash, Per MOS:CAPS we do not cap a word of phrase unless this is consistently done in sources. The ngram here indicates this is not the case. We do not give particular weight to official sources. Furthermore, per MOS:EXPABBR we do not capitalise a term when it is used to introduce an initialism - though some styles do. By the evidence of usage we should not be capitalising this term. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we renamed the article Global War on Terrorism (as in, the proper noun referring to the actual US-led operation), whether that would eliminate this problem. Uncapitalised "war on terror" looks really weird, but understand if there is no appetite to dredge this argument up yet again. But I also dont think the ngram is a good indicator of what we should use, as all it really shows is people don’t tend to use capitalisation when they type. Yr Enw (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:CAPS, we avoid unnecessary caps and determine what is necessary by looking at usage - across a wide sample of sources. If people don’t tend to use capitalisation when they type [this], then capitalisation is not necessary. Changing the article title would not change how we should capitalise global war on terror. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to the ngram point again, isn’t our guide reliable sources as opposed to search engine typing habits? Yr Enw (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria given in MOS:CAPS is essentially statistical in nature and the typing habits used in sources. Ngrams draw on a large sample set of sources and is free from observer selection bias. It is often used as a tool to determine appropriate capitalisation on WP. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified at WT:MOSCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add Donald Trump to us part of Commanders and leaders as he was a president during the war 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the other discussions on this page, feel free to participate in them. Tollens (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entries in the infobox need to be supported by the body of the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The article does not support his inclusion. One would also need to decide on which side he should be added. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President Trumps name is mysteriously missing from the list as he was President during the War on Terrorism (2017-2021). Are we just erasing history now? 24.181.99.17 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fourth discussion about this on this talk page. Please engage with the others rather than just posting it as another topic. Yr Enw (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Donald J Trump missing as a commander for the United States. 2601:447:C089:1FD0:4821:DB2F:4D2F:D17A (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This has recently been added and removed multiple times, and there are 5 discussions about it on this page. Jamedeus (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Former President Donald Trump was one of the commanders and chiefs during the Global War on Terror. His name appears to be missing. 71.217.67.124 (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See threads above. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia being biased at its best. And before anybody says that this has been discussed before I know that. It's always regarding trump. It is clear bias on editors parts. Because of this, Wikipedia has lost much credibility in the last 5-9 years. How about instead of being a smart a** and quoting some rule that either doesn't apply here or misguided opinion you all just put Trump in and do the job right!? We get it you hate his guts and want to erase him from history. That is unless it is negative article about him. You are censoring information. And you know you are being biased. And yet you hid behind your hypocrisy and talk down to the editors who are actually trying to do the right job. And this is happening all over Wikipedia. I saw a debate on whether or not to call attempt on Trump's life the Trump rally incident 2024 or the assassination attempt of Donald Trump. People were actually saying that it wasn't a attempt on his life! Like what!? What else was it?! A love tap on his ear?! This has got to stop. And I know you all won't pay this any mind. Probably will delete this without responding. Or take some disciplinary action against me, but I don't care anymore. This site has become a total joke. You know it and I know it. Cowards! You are on the wrong side of history. History is not kind to those who attempt to erase or censor information. Totally Biased. Cj7557 (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when collaborating with other editors. Thank you. House1090 (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no good faith. You are dodging the topic at hand. How about instead of hiding behind the good faith rule we do what is right. Cj7557 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engage with the other discussions instead of starting another topic. This is getting tedious. And remember WP:NOTAFORUM Yr Enw (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is getting tedious! How about we fix the problem. And people won't keep making new discussions. Stop dodging the real problem of bias. Cj7557 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to start a new discussion when the ones above are still open. If you can’t understand the basic conduct expected on WP, perhaps it’s better to refrain from trying to engage with it until you do. Yr Enw (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but it's a bit strange to omit him. Does he not get credit for killing al-Baghdadi? The argument above that we can't mention Trump because he's not in the text is a bit of circular reasoning: We can't mention X because it's not in the text, but X isn't in the text because we didn't put it there. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I sympathise with the argument for including Trump but, apologies if I’m mistaken, wasn’t the previous reasoning given that the sources don’t include him? Isn’t the text referred to the reliable sources? I had interpreted it as meaning, if we can get some sources together than link Trump to the WoT, then there shouldn’t be a problem including him. Yr Enw (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the body need support it. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again .... Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. The article must evidence why a commander/leader is key or significant in the context of the article and therefore, why they have been included in the article. While a reader may see that a person is a key or significant commander/leader because they are listed in the infobox such a listing alone does not inform the reader why they have been listed. We rely on the body of the article to do this - ie having read the article, the reader will then be aware of why a particular commander/leader has been listed. Of course, what we write in the body must be WP:VERIFIABLE. Also, evidencing that they were key or significant is much more than just a passing mention that they were a commander or leader at a particular time but what they did was actually key or significant in the context of the article - ie it is not simply that they are mentioned in passing. Hence, I would support Biden being removed (per my comment in the section below). The OP is clearly unaware of the prevailing WP:P&G and their conclusions are fallacious. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why Trump is omitted from the infobox given the other discussions, but is there a reason that we're including Biden? He's mentioned only once in the article, and that's for presiding over the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he did not initiate. Uhoj (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing Biden from the infobox. While his inclusion is supported (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE because he is mentioned in the body of the article, I am not convinced that the single mention rises to the threshold that he should be included - ie the article does support him as being a commander/leader but does not evidence that he was/is key or significant to the subject of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]