Template talk:Campaignbox War on Terror
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Contemporaneous wars
If you want to add all the "Contemporaneous Wars" you'd have to add ALL Ongoing conflicts. Not just the ones _you_ consider "war on terror".
Maybe therefore its best to remove the "Contemporaneous Wars" list from the box. And then make a seperate box for Ongoing Conflicts - PietervHuis (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK I agree. Still, the chechen war was a contemporaneous one. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea it is, but so many other wars/conflicts are. The creation of a seperate box for Ongoing conflicts is a pretty good idea , it could be used on other war pages as well. I'll make it myself maybe. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Operation Orchard
The article does not mention terrorists, so I see no reason for its inclusion. Unless someone can give a balanced reason for its inclusion. Chwyatt (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Because North Korean nuclear scientists were killed in the attack and the Sirians were also involved. Both have been placed on the U.S. list of so-called Axis of evil countries which support terrorism and those countries are according to the Americans their enemies in their so-called War on Terrorism. Also the Americans were the ones who delayed and later gave the go-ahead for the operation to the Israelis. Top Gun
- Yet there is still no mention of terrorism or a referenced link to the ‘war on terrorism’ in the article. Unless there is an encyclopaedic and balanced connection, I see no reason for addition to this template. If the US or Israeli governments link this to the ‘war on terrorism’, and that is mentioned in the article, then I see a reason to add it to the template. I would be happy to leave operation orchard in, if there is a referenced link added to the article. Otherwise, anyone could add anything depending on what side of the fence they sit on. Chwyatt (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I must concur here with chwyatt, the discussion must take place in Operation Orchard, and put |partof= the War on Terrorism with a source in the infobox before everything. Another thing, is the strike an actual campaign? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the article gets a proper source I will support It's incusion in Template:War on Terrorism --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Insurgency in Sa'dah
I think the Sa'dah conflict conflict should be added to the campaign box. And I will do that. Read these two references http://www.globalpolitician.com/21614-yemen-arab http://www.globalpolitician.com/22563-yemen before making any changes or reverts.
- It cannot stand here before any mention of the WoT is in the article. This discussion should be moved here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- additionally, I dispute the sources as they say ex-mujahideen fight against the Shia --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] About adding new wars
Please do not add an article if there's no consensus on that article's talk page regarding it being a part of the WoT. Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This is a controversial issue. Whilst we will never get a unanimous decision, we should at least try and get a general agreement. Chwyatt (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lebanon
If there is no problem I would like to add the 2008 unrest in Lebanon to the box. The situation is almost exactly the same like the Hamas takeover of Gaza. We got a U.S.-backed government which also got military aid from the U.S. which is fighting against three different militant groups which are armed by Syria and Iran. The enemies of the U.S. in the WoT. I know what you are going to ask a reference which states that this is part of WoT. Whell for now we don't have one. Like we don't have one for the previous conflict in Lebanon in the palestinian camp last year and the conflict in Gaza but we still linked them with WoT.Top Gun
- As I said before, it would be better to discuss it THERE. I will leave it however until more discussion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote an editor from the article It has been seen by some as an attempt by the United States to neutralize Hezbollah, after failed attempts during the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2007 Lebanon conflict, which journalist Seymour Hersh said to be the work of the U.S and Saudi Arabia, through Bandar bin Sultan. This is directly linked to those two conflicts plus the Gaza conflict.Top Gun
Bush said today "The international community will not allow the Iranian and Syrian regimes, via their proxies, to return Lebanon to foreign domination and control,". He said Washington would help Siniora by strengthening his armed forces. In other words they are again trying to save there investments in Lebanon like they did last year. Top Gun
[edit] Title Off-Center
It looks pretty sloppy to me, but I'm not sure how to correct it. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
