Talk:War on terror

Cats

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

Capitalisation of "global war on terrorism" in prose

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I'm surprised this isn't uppercased more in the NGram. It seems so obviously an artificially chosen name for a US-led government initiative that I would be tempted to not only use uppercase but also to put in quote marks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree and don’t find the above ngram data convincing enough to follow for this, because sooner or later we will end up not capitalising anything, simply coz people tend not to when using search engines Yr Enw (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump not in the info box is ridiculous.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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

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)

Biden in infobox

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)

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)

Addition of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to infobox

Gehirnstein, you would re-add Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the infobox with this edit despite it being contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE because their addition is not supported by the body of the article. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points from the article. Regardless of your opinion, there is nothing in the article to tell the reader why Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi should be in the infobox as a key or significant commander/leader. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your argument but in the long term, he will be mentoined in the article as well as Donald Trump ect. They are way to important figures not to be mentoined, especially Baghdadi. Gehirnstein (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Gehirnstein, the guidance is quite clear. You are crystalballing what the article might look like in the future. Baghdadi died five years ago. You are welcome to edit the article in a way that evidences why Baghdadi would be considered a key or significant commander/leader - and not just a passing mention dropped in and out of context. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand thank you and I might do it in the future if I find the time :) Gehirnstein (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the leader of ISIS clearly is not a major figure in the war on terror. How could anyone think that. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of combatants/agents involved in this campaign on both sides and among them how many leaders? Hundreds, thousands, more? Each group involved has had one or several commander in chiefs who could be on that list. There has to be criteria to keep the list reasonable. Basically, did something notable enough to get a mention in the summary article is that criteria. Sarcastic remarks is not going to change that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)