Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Having been reverted

Does anyone object to this edit? [1] reverted by passamethod. Given that Al-Qaeda are in fact operating under Salafist jihadism and it is well sourced we have two options, allow the edit to stand (personally I feel it is quite a good edit) or remove the unsourced and POV statement which has been reverted back in. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say that. That paragraph seperates salafism and al qaeda. Al qaeda and salafism are two different things Pass a Method talk 14:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, i have added no "statement" Pass a Method talk 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The source does not separate them at all, and Al Qaeda follow Salafism, which is quite clear in the source. Your revert was pointless. I shall put it back along with a few more sources to keep you happy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats disputable. Either way, i think it is undue weight to add salafi associations to the intro. I would not mind it in the main text Pass a Method talk 15:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can see how having mention of their ideology in the lede would be undue [/sarc] As I said it can go back along with the reference which was just added into the info box. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added an additional source to support Salafist jihadism under Ideolody in the upper right box. In general the lead should summarize the article. Salafist jihadism is clearly important, but it's difficult to get everything important in the lead without making the lead too long. "They ignore holy text etc." may be important to include to make clear that al-Qaida's religion/idelolgy is outside mainstream contemporary Islam, but it's a judgement call, and I'm undecided. It might be best to let things sit for a while and hear what others think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Al qaeda is associated with dozens of other groups besides salafis. If we add all of them the lede would clogg. This is why i rmoved it from the intro. Pass a Method talk 16:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I had hoped after a few days a few others would have commented. It seems to me that for the sake of neutrality we ought make mention of the specific ideology they follow which allows them to ignore holy text which forbids the killing of people (without first giving them a chance to convert) and more importantly to kill fellow Muslims. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would question using a term that was coined 15 years ago and may not have universal acceptance. Sources are more likely to describe al Qaeda as Islamic fundamentalists, and the term Wahhabi is more common that Salafi. TFD (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I managed to find some relatively recent sources [2][3][4] that describe Al'Qaeda as "Salafist" or "Salafi Jihadist". - SudoGhost 08:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The two sources I used are from academic publishers and both describe Al Qaeda as following the Salafist Jihad branch and this is the reason that they can do what they do, I feel it is important that their specific Ideology is mentioned in the lede as it is this which allows them to act against mainstream Islam. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What is mainstream Islam? Or are you just making things up as you go along? Are you saying Salafists follow a heretic sect of Islam? If so, you are mistaken. For example, in Mecca and Medina, several of the mainstream muslim scholars will describe themselves as Salafis. Pass a Method talk 16:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean salifists are an extreme branch, it is the ideology followed by Al Qaeda nd has to be mentioned in the lede, as does the fact that salifists are quite different in they view those who are not salifist as heretics and thus can be killed contrary to the Koran. This is the mainstream view on Al Qaeda you know. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

your ramblings indicate you know absolutely nothing about Salafism. Did you know the current leading imam of Masjid al-Haram is a Salafi? Sunni muslims will consider your statement as blasphemy since Salafis model themselves after the first generation of Muslims (also called Salafis). Stop speaking about issues you are totally unfamiliar with. Your assertiveness on issues you're clueless about are starting to get annoying. Pass a Method talk 17:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"When commentators analyze Salafism, it is crucial to distinguish between mainstream Salafism and the kind of revolutionary Salafism promoted by al-Qaeda."[5] Al-Qaeda's branch of Salafi Jihadism is not the entirety of Salafism, but this does not mean that this is invalid. But perhaps it does need to be clarified that not all of Salafism shares this viewpoint. - SudoGhost 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry my rambling is not clear enough for you :o) Let me try to be clear, Al Qaeda`s ideology is salifist jihadism right? This is an extremist ideology yes? It is what allows them to ignore writings which forbid the killing of civilians and fellow muslims, right? This needs to be refelected in the lede as it is important to point out that this is an extreme form of Islam and that your average salafist is not a salafist jihadist? Is that a little clearer? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not true that all al-Qaeda members are Salafis. For example, one notable Al Qaeda member Anwar Awlaki never addressed Salafis in dozens of video recordings (to my knowledge). He simply addresses fellow Sunni Muslims. Plus i oppose the use of Salafism because its definition is even vague among Muslims themselves, many of whom accuse other Salafis of not being "true" Salafis. I think such controversial statements should be moved to a sub-section of this article. Pass a Method talk 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To say that because someone addressed Sunnis and not "fellow Salafis" means that not all Al'Qaeda members are Salafis is original research which is contradicted by reliable sources saying that Al'Qaeda is Salafi. If you back your statements up with reliable sources, it would carry a lot more weight, but at this point it is your opinion against the weight of reliable sources saying otherwise, per WP:VNT. - SudoGhost 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)Your wrong, this article is about Al Qaeda, the group, not different members of said group. We have no shortage of sources which state unambiguously that the group is salifist jihadist. How is the definition vague? One of the sources I added discusses in in some detail. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never disputed Al Qaeda has Salafi elements. I agree it does. But i say that the sentence proposed by TLAM has not been accepted by all editors, hence should be reowrded, or proposals should be made. TFD and Tom Harrison have expressed doubts. Pass a Method talk 18:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No content on Wikipedia is accepted by all editors, this alone is not a reason to reword something. Reliable sources showing that the content needs to be changed, or some policy issue such as WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV are a valid reasons to reword something, and unless I'm missing it, you have not demonstrated this to be the case. If you want to propose some rewording, do so. - SudoGhost 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom said he was undecided, TFD was wrong in that he thought salifist jihad was not mainstream terminology, which I have let hi know on his talk page. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay i will reword it, tell me what you think Pass a Method talk 18:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, lets get some input from some other editors Pass a Method talk 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not propose a change here and we will discuss it, I am quite sure we can come to an amicable agreement. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Assertions about the size of Al Qaeda then, now?

The lead paragraphs to this article currently asserts that al Qaeda is a growing threat.

I am concerned this is misleading.

Following al Qaeda's attacks on 9-11 all kinds of professional alarmists emerged who will certainly say that. But there are other commentators who will say that the actual number of individuals on al Qaeda's payroll were small in 2001, and have been considerably reduced.

I suggest Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, are separate organizations, with their own leadership -- and their own articles. They have grown. But I consider it misleading to write this article as if those other organizations were part of the original al Qaeda. Note, when Zarqari was alive, at a certain point he decided to rename his organization to "Al Qaeda in Iraq". He swore "bayat" to OBL. But OBL's control over him was extremely weak, confined only to exhortation. Al Qaeda central wanted AQiI to curb the number of civilian casualties, and couldn't get Zarqari to comply. Why? Because they remained separate organizations.

Last weekend a 60 minutes segment included an interview with the USA's senior General in Afghanistan, who said that only 50 or so al Qaeda members remained alive in Afghanistan. The original al Qaeda has lost its leader, and the USA has claimed to have killed off a succession of individuals who were its third in command.

So, it sounds like the actual members of the original al Qaeda is currently about one hundred individuals -- including individuals not much different than Salim Hamdan, who wouldn't pose a real threat to anyone outside of Afghanistan because they couldn't navigate their way through an airport. My impressions is that the actual number of members of the original al Qaeda was that if you only counted those who were on al Qaeda's payroll, or who were cooling their heels in an al Qaeda sponsored safehouse, or who were serving under al Qaeda officers on the Taliban's front lines, there were never more than a couple of hundred members. In the decades preceding 9-11 thousands of trainees may have passed through al Qaeda's training camps, but weren't most of them basically religious tourists, who weren't going to abandon their homes, jobs, families to commit to becoming jihadist fighters? Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A WSJ article in Sept 2011 quotes a pentagon spokesman who says the government's current estimate is 3000-4000 members. The same article claims that "the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000. The next shell, of affiliated fighters or funders, is made up of thousands or tens of thousands. And there could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of adherents, based on polls and online-forum traffic"96.49.243.17 (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

STRATFOR (example here: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110502-bin-ladens-death-and-implications-jihadism) tends to assume that al-Qaeda has three layers. Together, these constitute the "organization" we call al-Qaeda ("organization" is how they themselves call their group even though it has always been loose and goal-oriented rather than having any coherent internal process), and the three layers of al-Qaeda have very few ties except for between key communicators in the al-Qaeda center:

Core Organization: the group of bin Laden associates that now includes al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadahn and probably at best a few hundred other operatives and is in either Pakistan or in the FATA which includes Waziristan. This part is the elite group of trainers with expertise, and they alone executed 9/11.* In some definitions, like used by the contributor above, this group is al-Qaeda and it has been shrinking or blending into the Tehrik-i-Taliban basically (which itself is not shrinking). Much of the War on Terror has been about this layer only.

Regional Franchises: includes al-Qaeda in the Arabian Perninsula (AQAP), Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), possibly al-Qaeda in Somalia and in other locations. They are growing in skill and numbers, and the Christmas 2009 underwear bomber originated with AQAP. Some operations but not many have been done by the US against this layer but it mainly relies on the security forces of the states in question to deal with this layer. I would say that total regional operatives number at 'near' but are not exceeding 10,000.

Grassroots Operatives: Difficult to track, but could include the Fort Hood shooter and the 7/7 cell that bombed London rail and bus targets, and are now seen increasingly as a focus for inspiration by the central organization and a particular interest of Gadahn's due to the center's increased operational isolation. This is basically a concern for domestic security policy in the West and cannot be beaten with military intervention. There is no way of knowing how many grassroots operatives exist as anyone at any time who chooses to act on al-Qaeda inspiration becomes one of them.

• An additional point: just because al-Qaeda has not carried out major attacks recently does not mean they are weaker or less numerous. They may indeed be stronger than ever, but are simply being held back by increased surveillance and security measures in our countries. For instance, hijacking a plane or smuggling dangerous objects aboard is now effectively impossible because air security have measures in place to prevent this. Al-Qaeda could have 10,000 hijackers but it would not do them any good anymore because we have adapted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.150.96 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What about this?

Perfect heading for what i need to ask? What about London 7/7 2005? That was Al Qaeda scum too was it not?English n proud (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzun4ehFjeA Al-Qaeda is not an organization?

UK government says there was no connection to al-Qaeda in 7/7 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/09/july7.uksecurity).

This only means they did not commission the attack. It does not mean that al-Qaeda had no committees of extremists who agitate, e.g. on the Internet or in training camps and in mosques, and that their agitation caused these attacks. Al-Qaeda incited but did not coordinate these acts, unlike 9/11, which had the full management muscle of al-Qaeda behind it in training, appointment and command throughout their mission. Al-Qaeda's management is mainly directed towards running away from bombs flying their way nowadays, so they can only incite homegrown extremists in the West to kill for them rather than doing it themselves.

--81.5.150.96 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AL QAEDA ARE NOT ISLAMIC, THEY ARE RUINING THE IMAGE OF ISLAM SO WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THAT THEY ARE DOING SO, DONT REMOVE WHAT HE SAID, DISCUSS BEFORE REMOVING DUDE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakanqat (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see here for my answer to your similar comment further up the page.

Also, no one on wikipedia is required to discuss a revert with you before performing it; see WP:BRD. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Even Osama Bin Laden credits others

Al Qaeda are not Islamic, they are ruining the image of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakanqat (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Osama Bin Laden founded the original training centre "the base"? He states otherwise in BBC interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.38.92 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

'Qaeda' does not mean The Base. If research was done by the writers of this article, they would have found that in arabic, the supposed terrorist group's language, it means 'the book'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.103.98 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

outdated flag

The flag that is currently displayed on this article is outdated, as mentioned on the discussion on the image page, it was used briefly by Tawhid wal Jihad in Iraq around 2004 - 2005, but it has rarely been used since and wasn't used by Al Qaeda central. Following the citation given for that flag, the source clearly shows a different flag, which is currently displayed on the Black Standard/Black Flag of Jihad page.Pmolloy291 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist?

I don't support Al Qaeda in anyway but labelling them a terrorist group goes against Wikipedia's neutral policy. Although of course in the eyes of many they are a terrorist organization, this does not mean that everyone agrees. For example, many people consider the United States of America a terrorist state, yet on its page it is not referred to as such since that would not be a neutral POV. I therefore suggest the terrorist label should be removed in order to comply with wikipedia's neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.45.112 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The way this word is used in the introduction violates Wikipedia's standards. This article should be edited so that it will conform to proper Wiki standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERRORIST "...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." 65.0.150.133 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

After looking over it again, this can be remedied by removing the first use of the word 'terrorist' ("...is a global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist..." and keeping the second use ("It has been designated a 'terrorist organization' by...) of the word. Requesting proper edit. 65.0.150.133 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of the box above concerning WP:TERRORIST, is there a reason why the lede of the article refers to al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the encyclopedia's voice? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because that is what they are? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No one is disputing whether or not Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The problem is that the first use of the word 'terrorist' is in Wikipedia's voice, which the Manual of Style says not to do. It may not seem like a big deal, but we should be consistent. Nothing will be lost by removing the first use of the word, because a couple of sentences later, conforming to Wiki standards, the article clearly mentions that the group is widely considered a terrorist organization by major/credible sources. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I recommend you get a consensus to change it, I believe this was done to death recently [6] so good luck getting that changed. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel a headache coming on... At any rate, I certainly welcome opposing opinions concerning this issue. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been a few days. Anyone want to defend using 'terrorist' in Wiki's voice? 98.95.118.106 (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do people keep trying to use WP:TERRORIST to remove "terrorist" from this article, when the actual text of WP:TERRORIST states that words such as terrorist "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". The MOS does not explicitly prohibit use of the word terrorist, only discourages it, and even then only if the organisation in question is not widely described as such. I doubt there is another organisation in the world so widely described as terrorist. The word is perfectly acceptable here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Basalisk, you are right, that is exactly what the MOS says. "in which case use in-text attribution". Unfortunately, the first use of 'terrorist' does not follow that standard. Hence, people are pointing it out. No one has disputed whether or not Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. People are simply saying that the lede violates the Manual of Style. It should be corrected. 65.0.148.157 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(out)Then it is high time that particular policy was changed. It is stupid that if every major source in the world says something as fact then we still need attribute it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, as per the WP:Terrorist box above, please debate the merit of this policy at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid to avoid, not here. That would be more appropriate. I'm only pointing out that as the policy stands, this article is not following it. 65.0.148.157 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have begun a debate at the relevant page. I see no need to attribute the fact the this mob are terrorists, whom should we attribute it to? Ought we write "Everyone in the world but some Wikipedia editors call them terrorists" Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We just want it to conform to the standards that have already been laid down. If those standards change, fine. I dunno why people see this as an issue of people disputing who is a terrorist. It's an issue of not using Wiki's voice to say it. You can say it 10,000 times after that with reliable sources and in-text attribution. 65.0.148.157 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

For 99% of articles, I would completely agree that in-text attribution would be required. This is not one of those instances (and is in fact the only exception I can think of). It would be shorter to list reliable sources that don't refer to them as a terrorist organization. To fully show how widespread the use of terrorist is in this instance, while satisfying the "in-text attribution" wording, the lede would have to be reworded to say that it "...is a global broad-based militant Islamist organization that has been labeled as terrorist by the governments of the United States, Austrailia, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, Russia etc., as well as the New York Times, the Washington Post, al Jazeera, etc." I'm not aware of a reliable source that addresses the article's subject that doesn't refer to them as terrorist in some form or fashion.

WP:TERRORIST is meant to address articles which are not globally defined as a terrorist organization, in order to prevent undue POV. It is meant to protect such articles from these labels when the use of those terms is arguable. This is not the case here. From what I'm seeing, nobody is arguing that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organization, and my understanding is that al-Qaeda itself happily agrees with this label. The argument being presented here is not that they aren't a terrorist organization (and I'm not aware of any reliable sources disputing this fact), but only because WP:TERRORIST is not being followed to the letter, nothing more. I'm not seeing any argument that attribution would be beneficial to the article, but only that it would be compliant to a policy. Policies are written to help improve Wikipedia, not to be followed unquestioningly merely because they exist. In this case, I believe the policy WP:IAR should be taken into consideration. - SudoGhost 22:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that policies are not meant to be blindly followed. But I have to disagree with your statement that WP:Terrorist is meant to address articles which are not globally defined as terrorist. The MOS does not say that. It says if RSs exist, use in-text attribution. This would imply that the policy is meant for even those organizations that are widely considered terrorist by reliable sources; otherwise, the part about using in-text attribution would not exist. As well, you don't need to necessarly reword the lede. All it takes is for the first use of the word 'terrorist' to removed; the example you gave is essentially already in the introduction, following the first use of 'terrorist' in the article. So it's not an issue of inconvenience, either. Nothing has to change in this article except a removal of a single word, once. EDIT: To sum up, we don't lose anything by removing this single instance of the word. Nothing is lost, but while it remains, it does not adhere to the MOS. 65.0.148.157 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

cI don't see any reason why the first instance of the word terrorist should be removed, the first sentence is meant to sum up the article as best as possible, and to remove that would hinder this goal. I don't see that as an improvement, nor do I see any reason to do so. That al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization is not being contested by any reliable sources that I've seen. This is the key difference between al-Qaeda, and all other "terrorist" articles (of which WP:TERRORIST would, to the letter, apply). For example, the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and India (among others), but is not considered a terrorist organization by the European Union or Russia. That is why, on that article, distinguishing who considers them a terrorist organization is important, and why in-text attribution is required. This is not the case here, and why removing terrorist from the lede sentence would not improve the article, but would only serve to satisfy a guideline (not policy) that was created for most articles, but doesn't have any benefit to this one. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules, but general ones, which have exceptions. This is one such exception. - SudoGhost 22:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but there are other organizations that are widely considered terrorist orgs, such as Jemaah Islamiyah or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. As far as I know, we've refrained from using 'terrorist' in Wiki's voice. As well, the EU does recognize the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria as a terrorist organization--as far as I know. But this is all irrelevant; no one is giving an opinion of who and who is not a terrorist organization. Guidelines certainly have exceptions, but I haven't heard a good reason for not following this guideline in this article. It seems like the objection is that 'A, B, C, and D designate it as a terrorist organization, therefore, we should use the word terrorist in the lede and in Wiki's voice.' But we easily avoid this with the other information in the introduction, which actually lists who considers it a terrorist organization. This is why I said nothing is lost if that single usage of the word in Wiki's voice was simply removed. You're right that this article appears to be an exception; it's managed to keep 'terrorist' in Wiki's voice a lot longer than other articles. Admittedly, in the West, Al-Qaeda is likely the most infamous terrorist org, but this is not an excuse to IAR. It doesn't fly in similar articles, I don't understand why it flies here. To give an example of a related article, this is the intro to the Bin Laden page: "...was the founder of the militant Islamist organization Al-Qaeda, the jihadist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States and numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian and military targets." Editors didn't label him a terrorist in Wiki's voice, not because there aren't plenty of reliable sources to back that up, not because it's in dispute, but because we should consider it proper to use in-text attribution when using that word, no matter how many people/countries consider a person/organization a terrorist. The Ayman al-Zawahiri article is treated the same way. Nothing is lost in these articles by following the MOS. The only reason I'm hearing over and over as to why this article doesn't conform, is that there is no real dispute about it being a terrorist organization. That's irrelevant to the request of not using 'terrorist' in Wiki's voice. People like David Duke and organizations like the KKK are undoubtedly racist, but we follow MOS and instead use in-text attribution when describing them this way. And it's not because majority sources disagree with them being racist, it's because it pays to use in-text attribution when we use words like that. Instead of offering 'it's terrorist/racist/whatever' in Wikipedia's voice, we are much more credible when we just show who is actually saying that they are terrorist/racist. Anyway, like I said, I'm open to hearing a good reason for keeping the first 'terrorist', but I haven't heard a good reason yet. 98.95.119.80 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason WP:TERRORIST exists is to provide neutrality on articles when the subject is described as terrorist by certain groups. This is because it is important to note who designates the article's subject as "terrorist". al-Qaeda is not one of those instances. That other stuff exists is not an argument to remove something from this article. You said "The only reason I'm hearing over and over as to why this article doesn't conform, is that there is no real dispute about it being a terrorist organization. That's irrelevant to the request..." But that's extremely relevant, because that's the reason WP:TERRORIST exists. This isn't unique to "terrorist", but to any article discussing any controversial subject. In-text attribution is given to controversial wordings to indicate exactly who it is that considers this wording applicable. Designation of al-Qaeda as "terrorist" is not controversial, and is accepted and given by every reliable source I've ever seen address the subject of al-Qaeda, including al-Qaeda itself. Therefore, the WP:TERRORIST guideline is not needed to protect the article's subject, as "terrorist" is not controversial in this instance, and removing it simply to conform to a guideline because other articles exist that do, is not helpful to the article, or Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up other stuff exists: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." The 2nd pillar is NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view says: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'" Read that carefully. This is exactly what we are talking about, and this is exactly why the WP:Words to Avoid guideline exists. Certainly no one is going to argue that genocide is good, but we don't say 'Genocide is evil' unless we use in-text attribution. Likewise, certainly no one here is saying Al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organization; rather, we should use in-text attribution and avoid using Wikipedia's voice, as per the guidelines that are laid out. In fact, even though Al-Qaeda is widely considered a terrorist organization as both you and I agree, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, it is a violation of NPOV to call it terrorist in Wikipedia's voice, rather than using in-text attribution. If the bolded guideline above is not referring to an issue like this, then then guideline is meaningless. I would remind everyone as well that the principles "upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." I'll state for the final time, as I am tired of having to repeat myself, it is irrelevant whether or not Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, or is widely considered a terrorist organization, in regards to how this article should be written. I definitely agree guidelines are not to blindly followed, but I also definitely disagree that WP:Words To Avoid is dealing with who is and who isn't considered terrorist. Please read the box at the top of this page. "Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying." This article would improve significantly with a single edit, and no one has provided a solid reason as to why this edit is not appropriate. Request still stands. 98.95.119.80 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Then please read this entire section again. It has been explained, repeating yourself does not nullify these explanations. - SudoGhost 01:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost what reliable source have you seen that disputed that the IRA was a terrorist organisation? Yet during the recent troubles many American news organisations did not call the IRA terrorists. (have you seen the legal arguments for Quinn v. Robinson, funny how little one hears from Americans--now they are on the receiving end--of the "political offense exception"). Many American news organisations (like CNN) did not say the IRA volunteers were not terrorists, they just used other terms like gunmen, bombers etc. If you go an place the word terrorist in the first sentence of an article on Martin McGuinness, or Nelson Mandela or Menachem Begin, it will be reverted in nothing short, yet all of those men were called terrorists by the British government and the majority of the Western press in their day. However you will have a hard time finding sources that say "Martin McGuinness is no longer a terrorist" (those who think he was/is are unlikely to be so magnanimous, and those who think he was a freedom fighter would of course not say he is no longer a terrorist, because as far as they are concerned he never was, and so by a simple count of those sources that say he was a terrorist will out way those who explicitly say he is not a terrorist). If the term is used widely to label a group as terrorist, then take the most authoritative and attribute the term to that organisation or government in the text of the article (simples). I suggest you read Terrorist#Pejorative use. To see why the term terrorist is never appropriate for the passive narrative voice of Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That was an easy enough search. - SudoGhost 11:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Where in the text that you present does it say that Martin McGuinness is no longer a terrorist? -- PBS (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked me to find a source that disputes that the IRA is not a terrorist organization, trying to make a point about other terrorist groups. I did so. Sources declaring that someone is "no longer a terrorist" is not relevant to this, because it isn't comparable to anything in this article. - SudoGhost 23:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask you to "find a source disputes that the IRA is a terrorist organization" I provided a reliable one for you to read (did you read Quinn v. Robinson?) The one your provided was anything but reliable. --PBS (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide using the passive narrative voice of the article if someone is a terrorist or not. Terrorist carries POV connotations and with POV statements it is part of the NPOV policy that we attribute Points of view. There is no need to place the word terrorist in "...a global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist organization..." unless it is to make the point that Wikipedia considers the group to be terrorist (which is is not a neutral point of view). The sentence "It has been designated a 'terrorist organization' by the United States ..." informs the reader in a balanced way without needing an editorial bias. -- PBS (talk)

BTW the sentence "It has been designated ..." has its own POV problems why are the US and the UK put before international organisations? It implies that the editors of this article rate the opinions of the American and British governments as more important than that of the UN Security Council. -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we know how unreliable newspapers are, what with that pesky editorial oversight and all. Take it to WP:RSN if you disagree, but just saying that it is "unreliable" because you don't like it does not negate it. Your exact words, which are above, were "SudoGhost what reliable source have you seen that disputed that the IRA was a terrorist organisation?" So don't state that you did not. Your reasoning was based on a flawed assumption.

You're correct that terrorist carries a POV connotation for it. That's why we have WP:TERRORIST, a guideline, to keep a neutral point of view. When every reliable source, including al-Qaeda itself, refers to al-Qaeda as terrorist, then WP:TERRORIST is not required to protect the article's subject, because the designation of the term is not disputed, which is generally the case in calling something terrorist (as your requested example above shows). That is why WP:TERRORIST is a guideline, not policy, and not a hard and fast rule. There are exceptions to guidelines, and this is one of them. - SudoGhost 04:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I presume that you did not notice that your source was in the letter section of a Montreal Gazette newspaper from a person called James C. Heaney from something called the "National Council of American Irish" in the USA. A Google search will join the dots for you, but man was definitely not an unbiased reliable source! -- PBS (talk)

"The man" was published in a newspaper, quoting the Department of State bulletin, also not an unreliable source. (if you're interested in the source, DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN Volume:67 Issue:1745 Dated:DECEMBER 4, 1972. - SudoGhost 21:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You write "every reliable source, including al-Qaeda itself, refers to al-Qaeda as terrorist" do you have a source that can confirm that? Because as far as I know Reuters do not call anyone a terrorist instead they follow a policy quite similar to WP:TERRORIST and attribute such words to others. That is my point sources may not say "al-Qaeda are not terrorists", but they may have a policy were they do not state in their editorial voice that "al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation". So unless you have a source that can confirm that "every reliable source..." then you are synthesising a point from a limited selection of articles that you have read and it would seem that does not include Reuters' articles -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning at first was that terrorist applied because, like your IRA example, reliable sources avoided the word terrorist, and your reasoning was that this is why WP:TERRORIST existed, not because no one would actually outright say the IRA was "not terrorists". Thus WP:TERRORIST applied here as well as there, because Reuters has a policy to avoid designation of the word terrorist. This is not the case, as your IRA example demonstrates. WP:TERRORIST does not exist because sources use other words to describe something, but because there are reliable sources (usually governments, such as the United States or the European Union) that contest that "terrorist" applies, as shown in your example. Avoiding the use of a word is not the same as disputing it. - SudoGhost 21:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought this issue up originally and I'm very surprised to see that some Wikipedia moderators are against neutral wording within this article. Sure you may think that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. However, that does NOT make them so, as in the eyes of many they could be considered freedom fighters instead of terrorists. (Please note I do not support them, but I am sure they have plenty of supporters worldwide). It is not up to Wikipedia moderators to decide who is the bad guy or the good guy, you just have to stay neutral. Labelling Al Qaeda a "militant Islamist organization" would be good enough. I suggest that if you argue to keep the current wording of "militant Islamist terrorist organization" then we should apply the word "terrorist" to any organization or nation accused of terrorism, such as the United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.45.112 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I would ask that you please read this discussion, because it addresses everything you've said. - SudoGhost 06:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I did read the discussion. However, I think some moderators don't seem to understand that labelling something as "terrorist" implies a POV, and is not compatible with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Even if a majority of sources, eople, etc. refer to it as such, it does not mean we should label it as that. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a major news network website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.45.112 (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been addressed at length above. You're more than welcome to counterpoint this, but simply saying something that has already been addressed doesn't accomplish much. - SudoGhost 09:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@SudoGhost you write above "WP:TERRORIST does not exist because sources use other words to describe something, but because there are reliable sources (usually governments, such as the United States or the European Union) that contest that "terrorist" applies, as shown in your example. Avoiding the use of a word is not the same as disputing it." Exactly, but avoiding the use of the word without attribution does indicate a neutral point of view. Using the word in the editorial voice of an article condones its use by others and therefore is not neutral. -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to demonstrate this, but just saying that this is not neutral isn't reflected by reliable sources. - SudoGhost 03:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See Terrorism#Pejorative use and the Bruce Hoffman quote that starts "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations ...". Do you have a reliable source that says it is a neutral term? -- PBS (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're arguing for a general scenario, and for the guideline WP:TERRORIST in general. In which case, you'd be correct. I'm not addressing WP:TERRORIST in general, but rather this article. Do you have a reliable source that shows that this designation is disputed in regards to this article's subject? - SudoGhost 06:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would first point you to the Reuters statement on those who carried out the 9/11. But if you want a specific sources how about this one

• Jon Boone (26 April 2011). "Top al-Qaida fighter killed in Afghanistan, Nato reveals". The Gardian.

Boone does not use the word terrorist instead he uses the word insurgent. "Abdul Ghani... The veteran Saudi Arabian militant had been on an Isaf hitlist since at least 2007. He was killed on 13 April along with several other insurgents ..." Nowhere in the article does it mention the word terrorist (But then in the words of a Daily Mail reader "Pinko rag 'they would wouldn't they?'"). However if one compares that with an article by Mathew Cole the American broadcaster ABC

• Mathew Cole (26 April 2011). "Top Al Qaeda Commander Killed In Afghanistan". ABCnews.com.

Cole gives a similar quote "According to the ISAF, numerous other insurgents,' including another Al Qaeda leader named Waqas, were also killed during the attack ..." Now the interesting part he goes on "Al Najdi, a Saudi citizen who also went by the name Abdul Ghani, was a key figure for Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization inside Afghanistan, according to the ISAF, and number two on the coalition's list of Al Qaeda targets." is he summarising the ISAF? Did the ISAF call it a "Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization"? Turns out that he is not paraphrasing the ISAF statement, a much more detailed article of the incident was put out by Reuters:

• Myra MacDonald (26 April 2011). "Al Qaeda leader killed in Kunar, Afghanistan's "safe haven"". Reuters.

and that has a link to the original:

• ISAF Joint Command - Afghanistan (April 26, 2011). "ISAF Confirms Number 2 Insurgent Killed in Coalition Airstrike".

In that original ISAF there is no mention of "Terrorist organization" what ISAF Joint Command - Afghanistan wrote was:

The al-Qaida network and its safe havens remains a top priority for Afghan and coalition forces. In the last month, coalition forces have killed more than 25 al-Qaida leaders and fighters, and the death of Abdul Ghani marks a significant milestone in the disruption of the al-Qaida network.

So there are three sources, including a command that is killing members of al-Qaida that do not describe al-Qaida as a "terrorist organization". Yet the ABC report is misleading on this point -- why? In case you wish to argue that this is "just a news item" here is an academic article, written by the US military, which according to Google Sources has been cited 39 times:

• Morris, Michael F. (2005), Al-Qaeda as Insurgency, US Army War Collage {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Text "web" ignored (help).

and like ISAF it eschews the use of the term terrorist saying

Despite the lack of consensus in academe and government on what constitutes terrorism, conventional wisdom holds that al-Qaeda is a classic transnational terrorist organization. Recently, however, some scholars have challenged that verdict, arguing instead that al-Qaeda denotes the emergence of a global Islamic insurgency. The distinction between terrorism and insurgency is not merely theoretical, as the appropriate state responses to the two phenomena are very different. This project employs Michel Wieviorka’s inversion theory to analyze al-Qaeda; the results of this methodology suggest that Osama bin Laden’s organization represents an incipient insurgency rather than a new strain of terrorism.

Interestingly internal British Army documents released since the end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland tended to do this type of analysis as well. While those released for public consumption by the government during the troubles, were full of propaganda terms like "terrorist" the internal documents of the time, tended to be much more precise with their language (as one would expect with professionals addressing professionals on serious (life and death) matters. I do not see who benefits when Wikipedia in the passive narrative voice of the article uses tired propaganda terms when the US and British military in their own peer to peer documents do not. Perhaps SudouGhost you can now explain to me why, we should do not follow WP:TERRORIST in the lead of this article (as I have given you several sources that do not use the term terrorist and an academic review that states "Recently, however, some scholars have challenged that verdict [that al-Qaeda is a classic transnational terrorist organization]"). Is it for crude propaganda reasons, or because you are familiar with it (as that is what you see in the articles you read)? -- PBS (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What seems to be an earlier version of the paper I have just quoted is available in html format. One of the points argued in the paper is:

This grassroots support indicates an organization still in the social antimovement phase rather than a terrorist group divorced from the population it claims to represent. ... Analysts who conclude that bin Laden is winning the war of ideas between the radical and moderate Islamic religious traditions further reinforce the counterintuitive determination that al Qaeda is not yet a terrorist organization.

In it "footnote 1" lists some other papers (reformatted):

According to this school, much of what Ian Lesser et al. characterize as a new form of terrorism in their study Countering the New Terrorism (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1999) is in fact a new version of insurgency. See, for example:

• Anonymous, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America (Washington, DC: Brassey's, 2002), xvii, 24, 279;
• Paul Rich, "Al Qaeda and the Radical Islamic Challenge to Western Strategy," Small Wars & Insurgencies 14, no. 1 (Spring 2003), 46;
• Thomas R. Mockaitis, "Winning Hearts and Minds in the War on Terrorism," Small Wars & Insurgencies 14, no. 1 (Spring 2003), 21, 37;
• James Risen, "Evolving Nature of Al Qaeda is Misunderstood, Critic Says," The New York Times, November 8, 2004, A18;
• Kimbra L. Fishel, "Challenging the Hegemon: Al Qaeda's Elevation of Asymmetric Insurgent Warfare onto the Global Arena," Low Intensity Conflict & Law Enforcement 11(Winter 2002), 286, 290;
• John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, "Multi-Lateral Counter-Insurgency Networks," Low Intensity Conflict & Law Enforcement 11 (Winter 2002), 353, 364, 366;
• Rohan Gunaratna, "The Genealogy of Al Qaeda," Gaiko Forum 14 (Fall 2004), 16;
• Michael Vlahos, Terror's Mask: Insurgency within Islam (Laurel, MD: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 2002), 1-28.

Only the last of these studies attempts to establish why the threat constitutes insurgency instead of terrorism. The others simply assert that insurgency is the issue and then prescribe various remedies.

Given that list and that a search can then be done on "Al-Qaeda insurgency" and "Al-Qaeda Wieviorka inversion" there are lots of articles returned by Google searches that question the naive usage of the term terrorist to describe Al-Qaeda for example:

• Russell, Richard L. (2007). "3 Saudi Arabia's Conundrum and the Al Qaeda Insurgency". In Herd, Graeme P. (ed.). The ideological war on terror: worldwide strategies for counter-terrorism. pp. 37–41.

Eliot Cohen wryly comments, the concept of a Global War on Terror 'makes as much sense as if America had responded to Pearl Harbor by declaring a golbal war on dive bombers' (Cohen 2004: 16). ... Viewing Al Qaeda as a terrorist organisation implies a small ad hoc network akin to a criminal gang that raises it head to commit acts of violence directed principally at civilian targets. But that does not do our adversary justice. The United States would be wiser to recognise al Qaeda as a global Islamic insurgency armed with a worldview and idealogical support that finds fertile ground throughout the greater Middle East.

Now I do not suggest that we take the words "global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist organization" and replace them with "global broad-based militant Islamist organized insurgency" which would be in line with Russell. But that we simply remove the word terrorist: "global broad-based militant Islamist organization" so that the sentence is in line with WP:TERRORISM and let the rest of the lead explain that "It has been designated a "terrorist organization" by ..." i.e. let the facts speak for themselves. -- PBS (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While I would say that most of the sources you presented do not provide much of a case (as they do not contest the use of the word, but simply supplement it with another), I will say that the information from the US Army War College does directly challenge the designation of al-Qaeda as "terrorist". I admit that I was wrong, not out of any bias towards the article, but because of my conclusions from the information I had available, and I believe the US Army War College information does directly challenge this. In light of this, I believe WP:TERRORIST does indeed apply, and I'll go ahead and remove it from the lede. - SudoGhost 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" (Keynes) -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the revert

Just so there's no confusion about my edit, in response to this, the consensus that exists in the archives is for the word to be used with attribution as per WP:TERRORIST. The edit I made did not remove this nor did it go against any consensus. The usage that was removed was not given an in-line attribution, nor is it supported by any consensus, and in fact, the current consensus suggests quite the opposite. The usage of terrorist with in-line attribution is still present in the article's lede in keeping with WP:TERRORIST and consensus. - SudoGhost 12:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't ^[15] considered attribution? There was consensus that "... a global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist^{[1][2][3]...[100]} was not necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin have you read the above? First of all in-line citations are not in text attribution. Secondly it is no use stacking up sources that say that al-Qaeda are a terrorist organisation when there are reliable sources that do not describe al-Qaeda as such and other that state that al-Qaeda are not a terrorist organisation. -- PBS (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which fail to describe them as Islamist too, but removing the adjective "Islamist" from the lead wouldn't be encyclopaedic either. Whatever WP:TERRORIST states, this is clearly a special case - there is no credible argument that al-Qaeda are not terrorists and so it is appropriate to describe them as such. The only hypothetical party who could argue that al-Qaeda are not terrorists would be someone who agrees with their ideology, making them by definition a fanatic and thus their point of view non-neutral. WP:TERRORIST is designed to prevent the term being used as a weapon against fringe groups and maintain neutrality, but describing al-Qaeda as terrorists is perfectly neutral because they are universally accepted as such. Ultimately, the article is more informative if it describes al-Qaeda as terrorists, and any removal of the term is effectively censorship. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Basalisk you write "The only hypothetical party ...agrees with their ideology, making them by definition a fanatic and thus their point of view non-neutral." A number of academics papers have been presented who argue that terrorist organisation is not the best way to describe al-Qeada, but that does not mean that they agree with the ideology or methods used by al-Qaeda. Also there are plenty of reliable sources that say many Sunnis agree with the organisation's ideology: See page 104 fwd in Imperial hubris: why the West is losing the war on terror by Michael Scheuer "... and it is clear that there are tens of millions of Muslims who regard Bin Laden as a great man who merits all the positive connotations of the adjective 'great'." See also the html Morris source cited before "Moreover such factors as bin Laden's popularity throughout the Muslim world, ..., and the relative lack of condemnation of the group's activities by Islamic clerics suggest that al Qaeda has not severed its connection with significant segments of its social constituency." They may all be fanatics in your view, but numbers mean it is not a fringe view, and just because there are members of other societies who do not hold the same views on al Qaeda as the people in the First World, it does not make then any more fanatic than the average Joe in America who considers al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization. -- PBS (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the section above, there is a reliable source that contests that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The US Army War College most certainly does not agree with their ideology. Furthermore, removal of the term is not censorship, because the term is still in the lede, and it still describes al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization. - SudoGhost 19:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've self-reverted. The last sentence of the first paragraph seems adequate. However, I do not see a reliable source which "contests that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've completed rereading the section. I still don't see a reliable source which "contests that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization", except for one which seems to contest that the concept of a "terrorist organization" exists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the Morris quote that starts "Despite the lack ..." and the Russell quote? -- PBS (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Russell is good. "Despite the lack ..." doesn't assert that it's not terrorist, only that there are (unnamed) sources which say it is isn't terrorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence of that Morris quote says "This project ... suggest that Osama bin Laden’s organization represents an incipient insurgency rather than a new strain of terrorism". However I think it is better to read the whole paper than try to distil what Morris is saying by quoting part of a sentence (The paper includes a footnote for the "(unnamed) sources"). -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• Levine, Adam. "All quiet on al Qaeda's English front." CNN. March 8, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wording of lead: 'broad based"?

I'm not entirely sure what this means. If someone could explain it to me I would be happy to reintroduce this concept back into the lead in a clearer form. Thanks. Vranak (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

According to reference.com, broad-based means "involving participation or support by a broad spectrum of things or people". For what it's worth, the term does have moderate use in the media on a range of topics. - SudoGhost 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda or Al-CIAda?

Al-CIAda should be mentioned as a possible spelling for Al-CIAda. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Azzam was the lead founder of the Al Qaeda, Not Bin Laden

It's a fact that until Azzam's death in 1989, Bin Laden was only his lieutenant and lead financier.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Some sources to support this would be useful. You're trying to introduce this into the article using the sources currently in use, which state the opposite of what you're saying. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

missing attacks from sinai in jordan

in 2005 , 2006 , 2010 , Al-Qaeda was suspect of the rocket attacks on Jordan and Eilat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.6.106 (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

106.78.98.57 (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)i want to contact with you . my e mail id is helptogether8@gmail.com. so please contact me

Hi there. Who is it, exactly, that you would like to contact? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose an amendment to the statement "It has been designated a "terrorist organization" by the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, Nato, and various other countries". The problem with this statement is that there are two actual countries in this statement, and 3 conglomerate entities with no actual authority over any peice of land or territory in the world. 2 countries, 3 organizations of countries that has no true independent authority or jurisdiction. Yet the statement seems to identify them as countries, or to give weight to the statement by adding 3 independent entities to a list of only 2 countries that have designated al queda a 'terrorist organization'. It is a false, or at best poorly worded statement that should not be accepted on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sclemens123 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Re-ordered the list, should fix your concern. Monty₈₄₅ 05:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Kenya bombing 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kenya bombing 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kenya bombing 1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2012

I am sure that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed_after_capture.jpg is a photo of Abdullah Öcalan and not of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Brandkarr (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is him. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

where's the cite

Somebody added the following without citation

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, such as the September 11 attacks

if there is no citation I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.118.34 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Al Qaeda weakened

With the death of OBL, Anwar Al-awalki, and with the consistent failures of bomb plots, many have said that al Qaeda is very weak, compared to what it was in the early 2000s. Shouldn't the article reflect this? 76.180.192.15 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources that can be used to show this? - SudoGhost 19:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What was with the sources was that fables that were told there is islamicawakening.com site with Forums now is that site Al Qaeda? Paulthorne87 (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"World wide caliphate - EDIT REQUEST"

The article suggests that Al-qaeda ideologues want a world wide caliphate, and provides no valid supporting citations. Furthermore it hyperlinks this phrase in paragraph 3, indicating that it has its own Wikipedia page, which it doesn't, it just links through to a pretty unrelated article on world government, where the presence of a small section on the caliphate is pretty dubious, in that it doesn't say anything about the caliphate being global. It would be much fairer if the word caliphate alone were hyperlinked to Wikipedia's excellent article on the caliphate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate or the subsection on that page referring to al-qaeda's views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate#Views_of_al-Qaeda

My understanding of the subject is that one of the stated aims of al-qaeda is to reestablish the caliphate of Abu Bakr in the middle east, but this isn't a global thing, it's regional.

The phrase world wide caliphate appears in the summary bar at the side, this time with citations, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't have its own page, and the page it links to doesn't say anything about the caliphate being global in the small section it has on it. The citations next to that phrase are dubious or unsupportive, [4] is a great article and talks about the caliphate, but suggests it'll be located in the middle east, not worldwide. [5] is a blog entry that in my opinion doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for citations, and also doesn't quote or contain any sources, or mention any interviews.[6] is a tertiary source, a blog quoting another blog, quoting an article in the Telegraph that it doesn't link to or provide a citation for. The information it quotes again refers to a caliphate rather than a global caliphate. [7] conflates global jihad (which there is patent evidence for), with a global caliphate.[8] is an excellent article but provides no support whatsoever to the idea of a world wide caliphate.

My suggestion as a BARE MINIMUM for improval of this article (1) Remove citations [4] and [8] and all reference to them, which, though great articles, simply contain no support for the idea of a world wide caliphate, not even via innuendo. (2) Stamp the reference to a world-wide caliphate in paragraph 3 either with citations 5,6, and 7, or with a [citation needed].

What I think would be fair: (1) Remove the phrase "world wide caliphate" from the box on the right. Replace with caliphate and link to Wikipedia's excellent article on the caliphate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate (2) Remove all associated citations (4,5,6,7,8) in the box on the right, which aren't needed when linking to another article. Alternatively if you think citations are ok there, keep citation 4 (tagged to caliphate instead of world wide caliphate as suggested above). (3) In the introductory text, paragraph 3 specifically, make reference to the caliphate as a regional aspiration, actually linking to Wikipedia's great article on the caliphate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate, or linking to the particular part on the views of al qaeda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate#Views_of_al-Qaeda. Citation 4 could be used for this as it's a great article and fully supportive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.218.112 (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership Size

Isn't it time that the 2001 figure was updated? The organization must have decreased considerably in size since then. Did a bit of digging, not many reliable, up to date figures on the internet, but found:

http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2010/09/16/how-many-al-qaeda-can-you-live-with/

http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/al-qaeda-k-al-qaida-al-qaida/p9126#p8

U.S. State Department's 2008 report on terrorism- http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122599.pdf

In the above report they do not put an estimate on Al-Qaeda as a whole, but do claim that 90% of its membership belongs to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, putting a figure on membership of Al-Qaeda in Iraq at 2,000-4,000.

U.S. 2010 Country Reports on Terrorism: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170264.htm

Again, doesn't put a figure on Al-Qaeda as a whole but splits it into Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Arabian Peninsula, Islamic Maghreb. Numbers are stated as:

Al Qaeda in Iraq: 1000-2000

Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb: under a thousand fighters operating in Algeria with a smaller number in the Sahel.

Al Queda in Arabian Peninsula: estimated to have several hundred members.

In any case the figure needs updating. (KingHiggins (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

Suggest deleting "Plot To Kill United States President"

The sub-sections in attacks should be reserved for large, meaningful operations, or for summaries of al-Qaeda activity over a period of time. Idle chatter in the absence of any demonstrated operational capability does not merit its own section. TiC ^(talk) 09:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I honestly would assume that there is always a "plot" to kill the U.S. President, so agree it doesn't merit its own section under the attacks. There wasn't actually an attack. Seems interesting and well-cited, so a mention elsewhere on the page wouldn't be a terrible thing. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dreambeaver, it warrants a mention in the article, but not it's own section. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Misleading Quote

"This runs counter to the account of Milton Bearden, the CIA Field Officer for Afghanistan from 1985 to 1989, who distinctly recalls the unease he used to feel when meeting the Jihadi fighters: "The only times that I ran into any real trouble in Afghanistan was when I ran into 'these guys' – You know there'd be kind of a 'moment' or two that would look a little bit like the bar scene in Star Wars, ya know. Each group kinda jockeying around and finally somebody has to diffuse [sic] the situation."[278]"

It's been a few years since I watched The Power of Nightmares, but let me ask: Does Bearden's quote really contradict the claim that the CIA never funded bin Laden or his affiliates? I don't recall Bearden mentioning them in particular. Of course, there were plenty of anti-Western extremists fighting the Soviet occupation, but it would be original research to infer from this quote that some of those the CIA aided became al Qaeda. That is, unless in context it's clear that Bearden's quote is about direct CIA assistance to bin Laden's group.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

is ther an Al Qu'ida?

there are 2 men imprisoned in egypt that formed ideas for an 'al queda',but not only have they changed their minds(diffenerent for 'recanting'),there was only one other member of their philosphy group.i have seen that their philosophy has spread sepecially to young muslim men.however,none of this points to a huge armed organised organisation.truth betold,us muslims have trouble even organising a Ramadan dinner,let alone viable plans to take over the world. i will write more on this topic later and of course cite chapter and verse,.(not of the Qu'ran,but of the New Yorker magazine)and give NAMES.also i will show the involviment historically of the british the americans and israelis in using extremist muslims to further their own causes;and how when one doesn't exist,they create one and sometimes successfully lure young men into this heretofor nonexistant group.when they can't even do that,they invent the story entirely.That is something i have first hand experience of.i soppose i should write an article elsewhere so it could be cited here,so as to counteract all the articles written by cia members who are cited... also how can one find and cite info on something that doesnt exist?then one's contribution on this al queda are considered without source and therefore discounted.a bit of logic is in order here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatfatima (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an alternative spelling, rarely used. See Avoiding The Subject: Media, Culture And The Object p195 Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

Although it is entirely correct to put the initial "a" of al-Qaeda in lower case (as it means "the"), it is under no circumstances correct to begin a sentence, such as in the lead paragraph, with a lowercase "a". When al-Qaeda appears at the beginning of a sentence, it is capitalized just like any other word; so, too, anything beginning in "the" would be capitalized. Al-Qaeda at the beginning of a sentence, al-Qaeda within a sentence.

So, too, the page should not use {{lowercase}}, which is not used in a comparable page situation such as "the arts", but only for article names that begin with letters that are permanently lower case, such as iPod or e (mathematical constant). — the Man in Question (in question) 23:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

History section is crap.

Why is all this crap about supposed CIA funding of Hekmatyar doing in the beginning of the history/origins section? Hekmatyer had nothing to do with of Al-Qaeda and did not have any involvement in founding it. The only reason I can guess it's on there is to make the CIA look like it had involvement in creating Al-Qaeda and thus appease the Blame America crowd. Also, the CIA did not allocate funds to a single commander or group at all. It was all done via the ISI, and the article is very misleading about this by implying he received "600 million" directly from the CIA. That section needs to be removed. Also, the information on that paragraph is sourced by one single book and the accusation that there is "some evidence" the CIA backed Hekmaytar's drug trade is based on hearsay from a single interview from a page that does not even freaking exist anymore. That's BS. Typical Wikipedia BS.

And don't even get me started on this hypocritical, wishy washy, moral relativist, reality ignoring PC BS about not calling terrorists terrorists in the name of not "passing judgement." Screw you and your vapid non-judgements, Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP 68.205.57.121. Much of what you say looks valid to me. I am willing to look into the article and try fixing it. However, I hope you appreciate the fact that we are engaged in encyclopedic writing. So, instead of getting outraged, we have to look at things in a completely dispassionate way. Please tone down your language (stop saying "crap", BS etc.). If we are going to get anything done, we can only do it in a collaborative environment? I did not write this article and please appreciate the point that you too are a Wikipedian now, and that other Wikipedians are also just people like you. If you look at things in a dispassionate way, I would be more than happy collaborating with you. Moreover, if you create an account, and make a few edits, you too can edit this article (within 3/4 days). Creating an account is free. You can try fixing the problems on your own too!!!!OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Correcting some errors.

When it says in the beginning about

Al-Qaeda has carried out several attacks on Christian churches,[20] and other targets it considers kafir.[21]

the word kafir should be kuffar because of arabic grammar

since it says churcheS and targetS the plural is kuffar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.40.86 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Jon Stewart Quote

The passage that was originally removed is:

On the Daily Show, host John Stewart characterized the group as "an extremist, terrorist group of homicidal, cave-dwelling dickfaces," followed by, "Look it up on Wikipedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.50.155.140 (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

rv the opinions of a moderately popular comedian are not notable in a summary of global criticism. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 10:44, 22 Dec 2010 (UTC)

I view it as notable, especially for a wp article. Epeefleche (talk) 12:03, 22 Dec 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart quote - doesn't really go with the tone of the article. Looks like dailyshowcruft to me. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with Sophie's edit regarding John Stewart. Popular television commentary is valid criticism. Monkeyjunky (talk) 16:22, 23 Dec 2011 (UTC)

rv dubious removal - I don't know how a source can be any more reliable than being published by the very organization being quoted. Basalisk (talk) 16:17, 27 Dec 2011 (UTC)

Is the Jon Stewart quote in the Criticism section really notable or relevant? It caught my eye because it includes the reference to Wikipedia which certainly isn't and is self-referential WP:SELF but the whole quote seems like it doesn't add much it isn't really a criticism per se. Phil (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really, really tacky. Slordax (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good to at least end on a lighter note. I found it humorous. Maelstromlusby (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a valid criticism, not notable, and not relevant. Humor is fine, but it has to be appropriate for the article first and foremost. Removing the statement. ScienceApe (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi team. So it seems there is mixed support on both sides, and this quote has been variously removed and restored several times over a couple of years. I think the support is mixed enough to warrant inclusion; when in doubt I would rather Wikipedia include more sources than be highly edited.  ??? Monkeyjunky (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You can try to create a majority, but it will never meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Wikipedia's not a democracy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, the quote is still from a primary source (from an entertainment network). That is the first thing that I look at, and it doesn't appear to pass that test. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo with misleading info

Please correct the following, it was November 8, 2001, NOT 1997.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/mir090907.htm

Copy paste this: Hamid Mir secretly interviewing Osama bin Laden in Kabul on November 8, 2001, the day they escaped the city

or

Hamid Mir secretly interviewing Osama bin Laden in Kabul on November 8, 2001, the day they escaped the city.

Thanks,

--Moses Horwitz (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Done.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Leadership

I think that the statement "veracity of the information provided by al-Fadl and the motivation for his cooperation are both disputed" is a gross understatement. Jamal al-Fadl was recruited by Mustafa Shalabi in Brooklyn who was then working for the CIA in Operation Cyclone. He gave the leadership structure and a great deal more detailed information while being examined in court. He claims he knows this information because he was at the al-Qaeda founding meeting in Afghanistan which occurred in 1988 - more than 10 years before he was examined in court. Because of the time between his examination and the supposed founding meeting, the politically motivated trial, and his involvement in a CIA operation, I think his testimony should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.

That being said, I think the aforementioned quote should be reworded and stressed in some manner that further emphasizes the dubious quality of the information.

Torvum (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bin Laden Caption

Just a minor edit request. It currently reads:

Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir interviewing former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, in 1997

To clarify, maybe change that to "... then al-Qaeda leader...". Fedjmike (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Done.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Etymology and Cognates of "Qaeda"

It is worth noting that "Qaeda" is a cognate of "Quds," which also has to do with bases or foundational principles and also happens to be the Arabic name of Jerusalem.

No it's not. Arabic is based on a three letter root stems. Al-Quds, roots qaf-dal-sin. Al-Qaeda, roots qaf-ain-dal. They are totally unrelated words. --129.67.145.161 (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Broader Influence

I nominate the following individual, Martin Lindstedt of the Missouri Militia (currently in prison for child molestation), and the umbrella organization Army of God for this section.

Lindstedt was the one who declared the support of the Missouri Militia for Al-Qaeda as the tower was coming down (CNN had this on their scroll at the bottom of the screen), and later went on to write how the Missouri Militia, and all other domestic Insurrectionist groups should emulate Al-Qaeda.

The notorious Army of God has also stated they admire the structure and tactics of Al-Qaeda, and urge people to emulate that structure.

http://whitenationalist.org/lindstedt/ http://nwhomeland.blogspot.com/2005/05/martin-lindstedt-arrested.html http://whitenationalist.org/lindstedt/swmolb14.html#Combatants etc... many more references, including his rant, specifically praising al-qaida from his prison cell can be found with a five minute search.

As far as Army of God I reference practically their entire website: http://www.armyofgod.com/ 97.127.185.196 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used to write false history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's very sad to see Wikipedia stating that Al Quaeda is a terrorist organization which was behind the events of 9/11. Many millions of people all over the world know this simply isn't true but, because it was widely reported in mainstream media, it is being stated as fact on Wikipedia. This system allows corrupted governments and compromised (or improperly functioning) media networks to very effective write false history. It seems a new system is badly needed. --Garrikal (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not conspiracy theories, no matter how true you believe them to be. Wikipedia is not the place to correct accepted knowledge, its purpose is merely to reflect it. Fortunately, Wikipedia uses a creative commons license; as long as you give proper attribution you are more than welcome to take the content on Wikipedia and place it elsewhere, and modify it there however you'd like with whatever system you feel appropriate. You can easily take the content and make your own "new system" on your own website. - SudoGhost 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost indicates that Wikipedia is not the place to correct "accepted knowledge." If Wikipedia has no interest in truth and fact, then it's purpose may become questionable. If a conspiracy can be shown and proven, is Wikipedia able to accept facts if unable to recognize truth? Accepted knowledge based upon nontruths is not fact. People look for and rely upon reliable sources and based upon Wikipedia's denial of an avenue to accept facts may make it an unreliable source. Governments are admitting to the manufacture of "Al Qaeda" a term not used by the people being labeled, and it appears that Wikipedia may not allow these reliable sources. Why? CIA Truther (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no interest in what any and all random persons on the internet says is truth and fact. Just because you say one thing is "truth" and the other is "nontruth", that just ultimately boils down to the fact that you have an opinion on what the truth is, but that doesn't suddenly make it true. If Wikipedia were to ignore reliable sources whenever someone said they knew "the actual truth" then Wikipedia's purpose would become questionable. Your opinion is based on a fringe viewpoint with no basis in fact of any kind, and Wikipedia is not a means of promoting your opinion. As I said, Wikipedia is not the place to correct accepted knowledge, its purpose is merely to reflect it. As for "Wikipedia may not allow these reliable sources", it would help if you showed what "these reliable sources" were, and WP:RSN would be well suited to explaining why a particular source may or may not be considered reliable. - SudoGhost 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia's dilemma. Its' correct you can't just accept the word of anyone, but the problem also lies with what is deemed a reliable source. Mainstream media is no more reliable than anyone else and is just as open to corruption and propaganda. All mainstream media is, is media controlled by those with the most money, and thus Wikipedia is biased to the opinions of those with the most money. It's obvious beyond all reasonable doubt that the fictitious Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 911 and other events attributed to it, but because the mainstream media won't even touch such research then in turn Wikipedia mirrors this bias abnd simply becomes an extension of the Mainstream media. This is why Wikipedia has little worth on these matters. Msot people I know don't trust Wikipedia. There is no solution to this however. 95.148.228.53 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 23 January 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CORRECTINFORMATIONNOW (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) After reading your description and history of al-Qaeda is very one sided. It does not include an in depth analysis of all information on the web that tells the history of al-Qaeda and where the name came from. The "Alleged CIA involvement" section is one example of pure bias that assumes no connection.

I will site one link on the web: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

There is a massive amount of factual information that counters what is being reported by the creators of this Wikipedia page on al-Qaeda.

Financing for al_Qaeda completely covers up the relationship and funding of Osama bin Laden by the US Government through the CIA. al-Qaeda never existed. Osama was got funding from the CIA and at the time it was known as the Mujahideen.

Also if you search Osama bid-Laden you get that he created the name al-Qaeda this is factually incorrect.

From reading both of these pages al_Qaeda and Osama bid Laden it is clear that its is written by people who are beholding to the official line of the US Government.

Both of these pages need to be opened up for editing so that all the various facts can be sited.

Thanks for your great work at Wikipedia and I hope this allows these pages to have more information included.

Youtube is not a WP:RS for information, please provide sources for your proposals Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree! I could only read a few sentences before I was flabbergasted by the wrongness in this article. Al Qaeda was not created by Osama bin Laden in 1988! Al Qaeda was created by President Carter and his adviser,Zbigniew Brzezinski, in 1979 in a cruel and wicked plot to use Afghans as pawns as they set up a situation to entice the Soviets into the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm certainly not going to try re-write this article but I am going to very much not trust Wikipedia if people are going to be blind sided by American revisionism.

RC Johnsen johnsenrc@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.165.107 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Al-Qaeda as a contemporary term for Jihad

Since Al-Qaeda, many terrorist and other world wide Muslim related activity that was once captioned as Jihad" (holy war) is now attributed to "Al-Qaeda" (an organization). I think it would be good if the article would refer to the topic of attributing activities to Al-Qaeda or activists relating themselves to Al-Qaeda (or is it both?). I think the term is nowadays much broader then the Bin-Laden association term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.202.185 (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

al-Qaeda Worldwide caliphate

why did you revert my edits? they dont want "take over the world" how do you imagine they claim something like that? do you have any evidence istead of all those yellow press nonsense, like their own official view or sholarly reasearch Peterzor (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you for two reasons, the first is your wrong. The second is none of the sources are "yellow press£, I do agree however that a decent academic book would be better, so I recommend the following to you, Terror Threat: International and Homegrown Terrorists and Their Threat to Canada Prophecy and the Fundamentalist Quest and An International History of Terrorism Cheers Darkness Shines (talk)

List article for jailbreaks by al-Qaida affiliates

I've just started an article List of jailbreaks by al-Qaida affiliates trying to list the al-Qaeda jail escapes... it appears to be a much larger project than I thought! My intent in the article is to cast a fairly wide net - I've reached the point now where about 2/3 of the escapes mentioned in articles seem to be already in it. But I haven't found any systematic list or total count of all the al-Qaeda prison breaks and the total number of people released. In any case, I'd love help filling in the holes in the list, especially the earlier jailbreaks which I think may still be underrepresented. Also, if there are errors...

(I haven't made any attempt to update this article to include a link to or summary of that article yet - if someone wants to do so that would also be appreciated) Wnt (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2013

just reading this page and found reference to AQ attacking israel or planning to [along with kashmir]. But no examples cited....

i am not aware that AQ has actually directly attacked israel in any significant way [ ie on the same level as 9/11 etc]. which seems odd given all the material written about its aims and so forth....

So i think the reference should be amended to reflect the lack of action and that whatever AQ may have been reported as saying about its enemies,targets etc, when it comes action, it appears disinterested in attacking israel or anything to do with israeli interests....which is odd given the broad agreement and deep sentiment in the ME that the palestinian dispossession and situation is a long running sore and justice issue demanding action [ which incidentally has led to direct action/resistance against israel by palestinians] considering that jerusalem contains a v holy site [ for muslims being the first qibla/place the first muslims prayed to, if i recall correctly] i would have thought liberation of Al Quds would have been high on their list and certainly if they had selected Israel to target, they would have likely gained broad support from the Arab masses....but this has not materialised....instead there were relatively half hearted attempts at saudi and full on attacks in syria now..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissxxx (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Links to consider

Interesting piece on the war on terrorism on al Qaida. [7](Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)).

Assessing Al-Qaida’s 20-Year Plan; evaluation of AQ's results compared with their long-term strategy, however it makes no distinction between AQ and jihadis. AQ influence in the Arab Spring was next to none, but jihadi elements may have pushed events. TGCP (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Details and comments on AQ strategy. link list AQ Strategy Adaptations . I was looking for the West Point quality rating on AQ strategy, but could not find it. TGCP (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

9/11

The attacks of 9/11 are most commonly known as that, so could User:Jdaloner please explain why he is changing it? BTW, common name going by Google, "September 11 attacks" 38,000,000 results" 9/11 gets a fair few more hits 209,000,000 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Responding point-by-point:

1. Regarding the first reason you cited for reverting my changes (WP:UCN), that policy addresses article titles. The policy states, in part, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." If you are interested in the discussion of what the article regarding the September 11 attacks should be named (i.e., what the most commonly used name for the September 11 attacks is), feel free to read everything at Talk:September 11 attacks, including its 59 archived pages. (Spoiler alert: the consensus is September 11 attacks.) I myself am content with following that decision/consensus without re-examining it.

2. Regarding the Google search results you cite above, guess what! Searching for simple combinations of digits will pretty much always give you more results than searching for terms that include words. Here are a couple more examples: "8/10" produces 183,000,000 results and "10/12" produces 420,000,000 results (more than twice as many as your "9/11" search). To put it simply, the Google searches mean nothing.

3. Regarding your last edit summary, you indicated I was bold and I was reverted. One could consider you (i.e., your first revert) to be even bolder, and you were then reverted yourself. But after being bold and being reverted, rather than proceeding to discussion at that point, you apparently felt it necessary to revert my changes a second time before discussion. Lest you cite WP:BRD, I should point out that WP:BRD-NOT states, in part, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." And if we're being realistic, that's exactly why you reverted my changes.

4a. The first sentence of "WP:RV#When to revert" is "Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration."

4b. The section "WP:ONLYREVERT#Reverting drives away editors" states the following, in full: "Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above."

4c. Only you know whether you used "careful consideration" and "fair and considered thought" when reverting my changes. Regardless, since I am [apparently] less bellicose, you win. Jdaloner (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

al nusra front direct or indirect affiliate

According to [8] the leader of al qaeda says it is a branch of al qaeda, there are no sources disputing that, Sopher99 has two links first about "northern star" but it does not really claim al qaeda is an "indirect" affiliates and the other "now.mmedia" about iraqi al qaeda defying orders to "break up" iraqi al qaeda and al nusra front. its two diffrent organtions which seem to be in a dispute

is al nusra front a direct or indirect affiliate? Ionchari (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The leader of al-Qaeda described the al-Nusra Front as "an independent branch of Al-Qaeda that reports to the general command,”. Furthermore, the leader of al-Nusra Front pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda. Furthermore, the 12,000 in Syria figure which Sopher insists on attaching (indirect) to, includes but is not limited to al-Nusra Front. The purpose of the size section of al-Qaeda is fairly obvious, it is to show the total estimate of al-Qaeda forces in a particular country. It is a total of all direct affiliates of al-Qaeda in Syria. All this can be found in sources, most of which were removed by Sopher and replaced with sources that do not suggest al-Nusra Front is an indirect affiliate. I admit that 'direct' and 'indirect' are vague phrases, but in terms of affiliates, what could possibly be more direct than the leader of al-Qaeda describing it as a 'branch' and 'reporting to general command'? DylanLacey (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a direct affiliate. When one gives "bayah" to Zawahiri, his group becomes a direct AQ affiliate.Kavas (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Alleged CIA involvement - hyperbolic attribution

In section, Alleged CIA involvement, last paragraph, it reads: 'In his widely praised account of al-Qaeda, English journalist Jason Burke wrote:'.

"Widely praised" seems rather exhuberant.

I would also question the whole paragraph's inclusion. If I had read the included content on a non "semi-protected" page I would dismiss it as self-publicising (spam). It does seem odd that from a book, one paragraph is selected, which itself is unsupported by citations.

MikeC, 80.41.223.103 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref. 63 is a dead link

I had to manually search for the article on the site. I hope this link works for everyone. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews[swords]=8fd5893941d69d0be3f378576261ae3e&tx_ttnews[exact_search]=Al-Qaeda%27s%20Strategy%20Until%202020&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=27712&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=8353656d5c495d66e0835308128c48f3#.UseOmFaVt0s

108.217.166.19 (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sharia

Should the link labeled "sharia law" be changed to just "Sharia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpkfolief (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Opponents Russia, as Mr. Osama Bin Laden CIA Operative and Leader of Al-Quaeda fought against Soviet Russia in 1974. Hence Russia is also Opponent and USA should be Nephew of Mr. Osama Bin Laden along with India. Hence remove opponent list USA and include Russia. 14.140.236.133 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added.
Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information can be added to this article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

Under the "Death of Osama bin Laden" section, change "Time Square" to "[[Times Square]]". Sentence in context is "Crowds gathered outside the White House and in New York City's Time Square to celebrate Bin Laden's death."

Also, link the White House.

Thanks, 50.14.142.33 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 23:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 50.14.142.33 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

CIA asset?

Considering that most of Al Qaeda's efforts have been aimed at America's enemies, and having received financial and military assistance from American sources, can Al Qaeda be considered an American military asset? 135.23.81.157 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Turkey as an ally?

Turkey is definitely NOT an ally of Al-Qaeda, alleged or otherwise. Ref. 19 is referring to a group loosely affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Turkey supplied weapons in response to the gas attacks around Damascus.

Tomsonx (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The al-Nusra Front, also known as al-Qaeda in Syria, is a confirmed direct branch of al-Qaeda, acknowledged by the leader of al-Qaeda in many publications. For this reason Turkey is supporting al-Qaeda, unless the source is a lie. DylanLacey (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkey is openly assisting the terrorist organizations in Syria by allowing arms, fighters and supplies to be trafficked through it's territory and into the Aleppo region. So the Erdogan government is very much complicit in Al Qaeda activity in Syria. 135.23.81.157 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The same webpage claims the USA supports Al Qaeda. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921109000516 "Washington’s New Islamic Front: Expanded US Support to Al-Qaeda Rebels in Syria"Kavas (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FARC is an ally of Al-Qaeda?

Are these sources credible? It could be just speculation because Al-Qaeda is an Islamic-extremist group while FARC is Marxist-Leninist. Isn't Karl Marx against religious fundamentalism? Even if these sources are true, does Al-Qaeda really have an alliance with FARC or is it just a business cooperation? 99.167.206.147 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please remove Abdullah Azzam from the "leaders" list?

"leaders = Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (1988-1989) Osama bin Laden (1989-2011) Ayman al-Zawahiri (2011-present)"

Azzam was never the emir of al-Qaeda. He just co-founded the group with Bin Laden. Even a source that person provided says that Bin Laden was the clear emir.

Here's the source for proof.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07272007/alqaeda.html

Former FBI agent Ali Soufan's book The Black Banners says Azzam was actually a rival to lead the group but never became the emir.

http://www.rulit.net/books/the-black-banners-read-249656-135.htm‎

Desperado1946 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not true as I see that - see [this same source here - http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07272007/alqaeda.html] for example - quote: "Using this immense new fund, bin Laden and Azzam created a "Bureau of Services," which helped channel recruits for the jihad into Afghanistan. With Saudi Arabia and the United States pouring in billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebels in Afghanistan, the jihad against the Soviets was constantly gaining momentum.... When the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in early 1989, bin Laden and Azzam decided that their new organization should not dissolve. They established what they called a base (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad.". Also, [here - http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/09/11-riedel]. It seems they were both the founders. Azzam was the teacher and mentor in the first place, though it could have turned upside down somewhere down the road. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That second link doesn't even say he founded the group. He was never the emir. Just a rival to lead the group. Ali Soufan is more reliable than your source. --Desperado1946 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgents are an ally of Al-Qaeda?

This one doesn't even have a source, yet several groups even joined the US in combating Al Qaida in certain operations. Should be removed79.136.64.95 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Qatar an ally of Al Qaeda?

Why the hell is Qatar listed as an ally? The link just took me to something about Qatar being against the Assad regime in Syria. Well, so are many other countries including the USA. That doesn't mean they've thrown in their lot with ISIS. Whoever added Qatar as an ally is clueless, and it should be delisted immediately for the sake of accuracy, if nothing else. 121.211.83.239 (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

ISIS has nothing to do with it; ISIS is at war with al-Qaeda in Syria, see Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflict. The issue is Qatari funding of the al-Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda. The USA is funding secular and moderate Islamist factions. Unless in secret, they are not funding al-Qaeda. Qatar is also funding al-Qaeda in Mali, see Northern Mali conflict. I will add another source regarding that. DylanLacey (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your argument does not make any sense. A friend of my Friend does not make him my Friend. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan and possibly the United States support elements connected to Al-Qaeda, like Al Nusra front. Are all of them allies of the main organization? 97.77.52.62 (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but there is evidence that Qatar is funding al-Qaeda and no evidence that the United States or others are. DylanLacey (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You can repeat something that is wrong a billion times and it will still be wrong. Nobody cares about your feelings either. And you still failed to answer my question. The question is, is the Government of Qatar allies with the main Al Qaeda organization? Has the Royal Government of Qatar coming out and saying that they support Al Qaeda? They have not done that. Just because elements in Qatar support elements in Al Qaeda does not make Qatar a Ally of the Main Organization. If Qatar Supports the Al Nusra Front, they should be put as allies of the Al Nusra Front on their page. This is the page of the Main Al Qaeda organization, until they have come out supporting the main Al Qaeda organization, they should not be listed as allies of this page. Turkey is supporting the Al Nusra front, Venezuela funds FARC, Pakistan assists the Taliban And Qatar helps Al Nusra as well. Does that make them allies of the Main Al Qaeda organization?97.77.52.62 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Being rude doesn't accomplish anything. How is what I am repeating wrong? Qatar is funding al-Qaeda and others aren't. What am I supposed to do other than repeat the truth? If you want to provide reliable sources which contradict this assertion, then so be it. The onus is on YOU to do this, I have already provided multiple sources to back my position. the al-Nusra Front is part of the main organisation. We don't need a royal decree from Qatar to know that they are supporting al-Qaeda. Likewise, we know China sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Vietnam but kept it a secret at the time. The Taliban and FARC are not part of the main al-Qaeda organisation, and the sources that Turkey supports al-Nusra are unreliable. DylanLacey (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"although experts on jihadi movements say the extremist group’s funding comes from al-Qaeda in Iraq and from private donors in the Gulf, not from governments.

"Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, the prime minister, is even more dismissive of allegations of Qatari support for extremists, joking in his Brookings presentation that such rumours are spread by jealous neighbours to tease Qatar."

"Attiyah says Doha has never backed Nusrah, and blames the international community’s inaction on Syria for allowing it to flourish."

"Beneath the quips, however, are signs that Qatar’s influence over military supplies to the rebellion may be waning, as its role in weapons deliveries takes second place to that of Saudi Arabia."

Yes, your source clearly proves that Qatar supports Al Qaeda. Next time you should read your sources before you put them on the page so you don't look like an idiot. I can either provide my own sources or disprove your own. In this case, the latter was easier. "Being Rude dosen't accomplish anything". Oh, im sorry. Let me rephrase what I said. Fuck your feelings.97.77.52.62 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The pages cited do not at all assert that Qatar is allied with Al-Qaeda. They discuss accusations that Qatar has funded groups associated with Al-Qaeda, which is not the same as funding, or being allied with, the group itself. ΩΩ (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wahhabist? And Salafist? Takfirist too?

For one thing the Salaf and Wahhab movements are the same exact thing. And also Sheykh Usama was Anti-Wahhabi as that is the ideology of the Sauds. Also he was not a Takfirist either as he worked with Shi'ite factions in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion Iran even funded him and Hezballah gave instruction to Al-Qeada members about basic tactics i.e. Hijacking,Bomb Vests,Assassinations etc. So this would be extremely contradicting for Al-Qeada to be all those things. Sure they may have cells in Syria fighting Assad but they still do not follow those ideologies. And also The base's ally in Afghanistan next to Mullah Umar was a Sufi and Al-Qeada in Chechnya has many Qadiriyyah members and the Naqshbandi order in Iraq there milita is Allied with Al-Qeada. WarriorofShiism (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between al-Qaeda & Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

It's unclear whether the ISIL should be listed as allies or opponents of al-Qaeda. There are numerous references to the ISIL being allied to al-Qaeda in their own wikipedia page. The fact that they may have disagreements with a splinter group in Syria may just be attributed to internal squabbling within al-Qaeda. But, I'm not sure this is enough to justify that ISIL is an opponent to al-Qaeda. In fact, they have alot in common in terms of ideology and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.147.4 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on the ISIS (formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq) page a recently. It's lasted as "a part of al-Qaeda" however it's separate now. I would think it's an ally, nowhere seen that there's a conflict (besides egos) between the two. No fighting. They are both Sunni groups with similar motives. - Technophant (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ISIL is at war with every other main Syrian rebel group, including al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda's official branch in Syria (al-Nusra Front) is at war with ISIL. See Syrian opposition–Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant conflict DylanLacey (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything in Syrian opposition–Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant conflict#Al Qaeda breaks links with ISIS and al-Nusra Front joins the fight happened in February. ISIS, formerly al-Quada in Iraq, doesn't seem to be a direct opponent of Al Q, more like an orphaned step-child. -Technophant (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, however al-Nusra Front continues to be at war with ISIS, the article and sources mention al-Nusra fighting ISIS throughout the months. Effectively, al-Qaeda chose to support the Syrian rebels rather than ISIS, and this has led to very heavy fighting between the two groups. It is not crucial to list ISIS as an opponent in the infobox, but it is factual. DylanLacey (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ISIS and al-Nusra are now in a truce according to this. (They are still opponents though.) Just because Al-Q supports al-Nusra doesn't mean that are in direct opposition to ISIS. I've removed their flag from the infobox. - Technophant (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)