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 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). Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance). 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 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 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Bush family (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family 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 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 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 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by Global perspective task force.

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

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The infobox is hard to edit from the pages it's on. Can we add {{navbar}} or the like please? Hairy Dude (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including those two makes no sense. Iraq had no proven connections to 9/11 or the Taliban, only alleged. Meanwhile, the Taliban signed a Peace Deal with the US under the First Trump Administration to no longer harbor terrorism and has recently expressed desire to work with the Second Trump Administration. Please remove them. 2601:589:517E:1DB0:7DBB:C708:B50A:7FBB (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 is a separate article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't explain why Hussein Era Iraq is included as a belligerent. 2601:589:517E:1DB0:7DBB:C708:B50A:7FBB (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because RS make the link. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait hold on, I checked, and the Afghanistan shown isn't the same entity that's existed sine 2021. It's referring to the older entity that existed in the 90s - 2001. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including Iraq does make sense as it was later invaded by a coalition and had its regime overthrown, but including Taliban led Afghanistan (2021-Present) isn't right as the Taliban have signed a peace deal with the US. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How come in the leaders section, only Bush and Obama are mentioned? It was the First Trump Administration that approved the US-Taliban Agreement and ISIS' territorial defeat along with Al Baghdadi's death. The Biden Administration completed the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and killed Ibrahim. Please add Trump, Biden, Baghdadi, and Ibarahim. 2601:589:517E:1DB0:7DBB:C708:B50A:7FBB (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, Gaddafi and Assad as well. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence states "a global military campaign initiated by the United States", but it appears that the offensives have mostly been performed by the United States. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but many other nations were involved. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it appears upon closer look the lede does not adequately provide a summary of the body for a worldwide view, such as the current insurgency in trans sahara, and many others. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]