Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Recent news reports have been claiming that the Internet is full of Web sites in support of Al Qaeda. For example, Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times claims (8/24/6): [1]

Disillusioned Muslim youngsters are increasingly attached to the global Muslim community via the Internet -- and are angry at what they consider the anti-Muslim policies of the local government where they live. The estimated 5,000 pro-al Qaeda Web sites include recipes for mixing nail polish remover and hair bleach and detonating the explosive cocktail with the flash unit from a throwaway camera.

I find myself very skeptical of these claims. For example, typing "nail polish", "hair bleach" and "camera" as search terms in Google gets 1240 results, of which the vast majority appear not to be radical Muslim sites. I have seen too many reports of infringements on the free speech of ordinary American polemicists to believe that Al Qaeda enjoys free reign in Western countries or anywhere else. But then again... that search wouldn't bring up pages in Arabic. What's the truth here?Mike Serfas 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

NB You CAN mix acitone and a Base to make an explosive, but you need MUCH higher concentrations than are avalable to the genral public. You also need lab with cooling equipment and a blast proof vacume cabenet (so not you average school stuff) to get anything near a good reactant leval, and even if you did no sain person would do this by had because it is still very volitial, and you risk killing yourself. This is just scair mongering which all seems to come from one "security expert" on ITV news saying "it might be some sort of new bomb, like a liquid explosive, which we cannot detect" in relation to questions as to why airports were closed after a bomb threat when there is suposed to be bomb detecting equipment in the airports.

There is no such thing as a "binary bomb" where you mix two substances and they blow up. Houshold or otherwise. 62.232.65.170 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There *are* such things as binary explosives; these are explosive compounds which are highly unstable in their final form but (relatively) safe when separated into two precursor compounds. Thus, the safe way to handle them is to keep them separate until the last possible moment; they aren't mixed together to form the actual explosive until just before detonation. --JaceCady 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are binary explosives! Look at

According to the recent White House report, Al Qaeda has been "signifcantly degraded" but the opposition Democrats are claiming something like more than a doubling in it's size since its dispersion from Afghanistan.

Which is it?

A section on the grown or shrinkage of Al Queda might be helpful.

--213.42.21.76 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the gist is that the central command structure is pretty much wrecked, but Al Qaeda has more followers. There's a shift from Al Qaeda-the-organization to "Al Qaedaism." I don't have any sources on this, and I'm not sure how to make it encyclopedic. It's just the gist I'm getting. crazyeddie 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch these two videos. There is no organisation called Al Qaeda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFC8AlCVjE&mode=related&search=

Both from a very good programme on the BBC.

Essentally in pursuing this thing called 'Al Qaeda' the US is chasing shadows, a non-existent phantom enemy.

I would have put this on the main page but it would be deleted.SmokeyTheFatCat 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Um ok. I think that is whats called a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory used to be about someone conspiring to do evil but now it is a convenient way of argumentum ad homenum (sorry if wrong spelling) which is latin for attacking the speaker not the argument. In other words, if any evidence or questions come up that go against the flow, call it a conspiracy theory to discredit the person delivering the message. So if there is no evidence they exist except for many false arrests in US, UK, Oz and Canada these last few years lets dismiss it and tell that person they are a conspiracy theorist. The real conspiracy theory would be that Al Qaeda does exist LOL

In response to the BBC's assertion that Al Quida was a term cooked up by the USA and then later adopted by the group, I would like to see a comment about possible uses of "Al Quida" by detainees before 9/11, specifically by Khalid Sheik Mohammed during his detention *where he was allegedly waterboarded. There seems to be some evidence that he used the term, though his testimony, considering the torture and lack of transparency, is questionable.

Yes, there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda really exists.Everton 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

sure there is loads of evidence that al Qaeda exists, though not necessarily in the form proposed by George Bush. See for instance one of these books:

• Gilles Kepel: Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam
• Jason Burke: Al Qaeda casting a shadow of terror
• Faisal Devji: landscapes of the Jihad

--Vindheim 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the argument is tat al-Quaeda is a concept or ideal followed by lots of seperate groups, rather than a single actual organization. For example, it would be like using the terms "the free world" or "the west" during the cold war.

perfectblue 10:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest adding a section to the article about the existance of al-Qaeda. It is worth commenting on. We have sources which are pro and con. I'm not familiar with all of the ones listed, but I recommend someone who is to atleast flesh out a basic section discussing the evidence and lack thereof. --24.91.40.69 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is already a section - the lead paragraph ends with the words "does not exist". If wiki says it, it must be true. The conspiracy theory is actually the theory that says al-qaeda is a powerful group that runs everything that the US doesn't like. The theory expands into high-tech abilities that verge on the miraculous ( not only the ability to bring down skyscrapers with kerosene, but also the ability to bring down buildings across the street that they didn't even hit ( these guys must be strong ). Al-qaeda is just the latest boggieman for nitwits to believe in - there have been many in the past, there will be others in the future.

Kerosene? Wow, looked like a pair of passenger jets to me. WTC7? You mean the building that was smashed by falling debris from WTC1/2? Come on, don't be so pig-ignorant. Clearly Al-Queada does exist as a political/militant movement with some loose organisational ties, unified in their efforts under a common banner.

This is all too convenient. Making us scared of an invisible enemy, we dont know where they are, we dont know when they will strike, we must remove your liberties, lock you up without evidence for your liberty and security. what a load of bollocks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.94.6.30 (talk • contribs).

This page is not for comments on the subject, or in this case something related to the subject. This is for listing ways to improve the article itself. Please remember this in the future. -- THL 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add one comment. The notion that Al Qaeda is somehow a Sunni organization is a factual mis-statement. It is a loose network of Islamic radicals with similar goals. A more accurate reference would be to

I'm not sure I understand. When you say they are "not Sunni", do you mean to say they are

Shi'a or some other denomination of Islam? Or do you mean they are not true Sunnis, or something along those lines? —Morning star

23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there has been a lot of vandalism recently by unregistered users; does anyone think semi-protection is in order? Trojan traveler 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would second that. —Morning star 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I was surprised to find taht there wasn't any here already. Kc4 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

right now, the list only contains the names of those who participated in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks. surely we know the names of those who attacked the u.s.s. cole, the african embassies, etc. Parsecboy 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

- And, surely we have some shred of empirical evidence linking those people with a structured organization calling itself "Al Qaeda"? Surely we do? Don't we? 74.104.100.186 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to shorten them. They currently look ridiculous. Any suggestions?-Localzuk^(talk) 11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the etymology section should be removed since the only cited source for it's information is Globalresearch.ca, an ideologically and politically biased website that promotes bizarre conspiracy theories involving the supposed New World Order and such. It also features articles penned by people who've written for a neo-Nazi newsletter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Professor28 (talk • contribs)

Do you know which neo-Nazi newsletter?—Morning star 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we please remove these lines (or at least stick them in a revised form later in the document) they lend a very non-POV air to the piece. "Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests and is known for planning and executing the September 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and The Pentagon. In response, the United States launched a war against Afghanistan, whose government was providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda members." When I began reading i got the impression this was more like a bio-article by the washington post on al-Qaeda rather than an encyclopeadiea article. Put the stated events in a section called actions or something. Thanks - --ISpyFace 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Finally, will you people please listen? You're violating your own rules then point the finger when someone tries to rectify it.

Read this page on words to avoid :

Either we should review the policy, or review this article. It's still funny that the example is in contradiction with the first sentence of this article.

Excellent Point - I think we should conform to the Policy as it currently stands.

These guys are terrorists. Anyone who denies that may also be interested in sensory deprivation. Cerebral Warrior 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, I am not interested in sensory deprivation. The fact is that wikipedia's policy clearly states that the term terrorist should not be used as it is in this entry.

Hey, don't knock sensory deprivation! Seriously though, it goes against neutrality unless they have self-identified as terrorists. Simple as that. And yes, I do think al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but I also think it's pov to say that here. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have openly confessed to being anti-American despite being American by birth. You have also insulted your President. That makes you, in my opinion, a traitor. Cerebral Warrior 07:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a traitor. So what? Last I checked, traitors were allowed on wikipedia and had just as much a right to edit as patriotic Americans. Heck, we'd even allow Osama bin Laden to edit if he had a computer and an internet connection. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Although I really don't mind being called a traitor that much, I do know this was meant to be a huge insult in your eyes. Your intent was clearly a violation of that policy, as well as general respect for others. Perhaps consider commenting in a more polite manner. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral Warrior has been given his last warning for repeated personal attacks and addition of biased material to articles. yandman 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the simple solution to this problem be to attribute the claims that they are a terrorist organisation, ie 'According to the US and UK Governments Al-Qaeda are a terrorist organisation'? And provide a citation of course.-Localzuk^(talk) 09:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That exact sentence is in the intro, at the end. I've removed "terrorist" from the beginning. See the OBL article talk page for the general reasons why. yandman 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I had assumed that as people were commenting about its use that it was just being done in the way you have now removed. It is fine as it stands now.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether Al-Qaeda is terrorist or not depends, of course on yuor definition of the term. If terrorist is someone who blows up bombs in public place to scare the government and the public, then Al-Qaeda most certainly fits. --Vindheim 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Calling Al-Qaeda "terrorist" implies that what they're doing is wrong, an opinion that an encyclopaedia can't give. What we can do is say "the governments of here, there and them consider Al-Q a terrorist organisation (cite)... " yandman 12:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, calling them "terrorist" implies (as per the Wikipedia definition) that they use "terror" to acheive their goals. The fact that they attempt to instil "terror" in civilians is a fact, not a POV. Cerebral Warrior 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policies. We can only label a group as something if they themselves have called themselves it or if a third party such as the US Govt. have said it. We must attribute it too. This is done to prevent wikipedia having any opinion (and regardless of what you think, calling a group 'terrorists' is an opinion - as some people believe that they are freedom fighters and the workers of 'god').-Localzuk^(talk) 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as people agree that the local population of an area would be pretty terrorised when planes are crashed into buildings or when bombs go off in trains, organistaions like Al-Qaeda will be called terrorists. This is not about whether their cause is legitimate. It is about whether or not they use terror as a tool to achieve their objectives. Cerebral Warrior 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Hiroshima was not a military objective. Terror has always been a "tool" in war. yandman 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is not a legitimate state, like Japan, and hence does not have the right to declare war against anyone. Thus, the US or any other country is not at war with Al-Qaeda, and their terrorist actions cannot be compared to those of the US during World War 2. Nontheless, go ahead and try convincing the community to term Hiroshima a terrorist incident. Cerebral Warrior 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral Warrior, please realise that this argument is the exact reason we have a policy of not using terms such as 'terrorist'. It is subjective to label an organisation, government or person as being terrorist - for example I think the US government is a terrorist organisation due to their tactics, also the UK government is also a terrorist organisation. However, I do not think that these should be included in any article and are purely my views. It is a common held view that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group but that is not enough. It has to come from an official organisation such as the CIA, MI6 etc... - which is what we have at the moment. -Localzuk^(talk) 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please realize that we routinely refer to Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization on Wikipedia. See

Morton devonshire

18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Morton, do not call my tactics bullying. Thank you. Anyway, it is policy via the

WP:NPOV.-Localzuk^(talk)

18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

al-Qaeda admits to doing everythnig that would fit them under the term "terrorist" according to the majority of the world population, and world governments, as represented by the UN, US, UK, and NATO. They have told their followers to carry out terrorist acts, and people have commited terrorist acts in their name. The issue of if they are terrorist organization being POV is moot, terrorism to you may be a negative implication, but its simply a tactic, and some are proud to be terrorists. If they were not they would attempt to move away from what clasifys them as such, like Hamas and Hazbollah did. Those proud of the title stick to the same tactics such as Abu Sayyaf. --NuclearZer0 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you try to prevent us from calling an organisation that kills innocent women and children terrorists, how can you expect to be treated in a civil manner? I have always believed that people can never truly understand why terrorists need to be destroyed until it is their turn to pick up hastily sewn together pieces of their loved one from a makeshift morgue. Cerebral Warrior 19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we keep the emotional speeches for the politicians, please? And any more personal attacks will be deeply regretted. I was hoping I would be able to convince you without having to pull the rulebook out, but never mind. See

I do not know what personal attacks you are reffering to but calling al-Qaeda a terrorist group isn't one, unless you are stating you are a member and personally offended by the labeling. As per the above link I guess we can simply state:

"Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, Iraq, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Philippines and Egypt regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, this includes world bodies such as NATO and the UN primarily because the use terror as a tactic to effect political and religious change"

Doesn't that seem kind of pointless ... Isn't that almost everyone? --NuclearZer0 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is not pointless. Simply because there are people out there who do not think they are terrorists. Every claim that they are terrorists must be accompanied by a citation to back it up. This is not me thinking Al-Qaeda are in the right or anything like that. It is simply trying to make sure that Wikipedia is of high quality and its content is presented in a

neutral

manner. This is not something we can compromise on, it is one of the fundamental principals that govern this site. Breaking it is not allowed at all. Simple really.

Why can no-one see that blanket calling of any organisation as terrorist is subjective. It is the opinion of whoever claims that and as such requires attribution and citation.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont see the subjectiveness, who says they are not a terrorist organization? so far I named a 5th of the world population, does anyone claim they do not carry out terrorism? --NuclearZer0 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, they themselves have not named themselves as terrorist. Please stop going on about this. I you have any problems with the

dispute resolution. -Localzuk^(talk)

20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy. So far all I see is a guideline, and you have not proven its NPOV, because you have not shown anyone arguing they are not terrorists. --NuclearZer0 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, they themselves more than likely don't see themselves as a terrorist organisation. This is enough to make the term subjective.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but your opinion on what they see themselves is not enough to overrule NATO and the UN collectively. Further since they have never denied it, there really is no arguement here. If you stumble across a policy however please let me know. --NuclearZer0 21:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have told you the policy, it is quite simple. There are many people in Iraq who think that al-qaeda are not a terrorist organisation. This is enough to make the term subjective. It is a word that carries negative connotations. As I said before, asking for attribution and citation is normal and should be done in all cases. Also, NATO and UN do not represent every person on the earth - their view is also an opinion.

I have just had a quick chat on the IRC channel about this and the overwhelming majority there see's the word as being subjective but thinks it should be included with citations and attribution. The other suggestion was to use a different term such as 'Militant Organisation'. Along with the attribution of the word terrorist surely this is acceptable? I am not asking for the word to be removed completely, just that it is used in a NPOV manner.

Also, guidelines aren't just there for the sake of it. They are not policies, but they should be followed. You shouldn't just ignore them.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So you have noone saying they arent terrorists? Do you have a WP:RS WP:V source of those people in Iraq saying that? The problem I have is you think its negative, not that it is. The people who support bin Laden, I believe, would not say he doesnt commit terrorism, just that the terrorism is okay because of who its against. I do not think anyone would say blowing up a car in a market in Iraq is not terrorism, or at least someone who can be taken seriously by Wikipedia. So present some sources of these people who pass WP:RS and WP:V stating they are not terrorists. --NuclearZer0 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

O and please do not attempt to use IRC as proof of anything again, its actually not prefered since there is no proof of it and posting IRC logs are not permitted etc. You should know better then that. --NuclearZer0 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Already done (here and on OBL, PLO etc... ad infinitum). You'll notice that the lead sentence says "armed islamist" and at the end of the intro we have a sentence saying "...is regarded as a terrorist org by ...". This is the standard format for all our militant islamist encyclopaedia. 86.71.62.251 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And that is all I, and others, are wanting.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but thats not how Wikipedia works, using one article for an excuse of another is pointless. One thing is broke so we break them all ... sorry doesnt work. --NuclearZer0 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, as you do not seem to understand our policies and guidelines on this matter, I advise you to take it to somewhere else, such as the

WP:WTA talk page or if you want something more specific, how about an RFC on the matter? I am definitely not going to change my mind on this. My idea is a compromise between not including the word at all and including it in an unsourced form. It follows our policies and guidelines, whereas your suggestion doesn't.-Localzuk^(talk)

22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering your admission to not work toward some middle ground I consider this discussion closed. You have not provided any policy that states it cannot be listed as terrorist group, and further you have not presented a single source that says the group is not a terrorist group or that even certain people feel they are not. Since you are now working against the basic principle of Wikipedia I will simply choose to ignore your comments here unless they provide some evidence as requested. Thank you and good day. --NuclearZer0 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already given several methods of compromise - attribution and citation. You are the one going against the community - ie. by breaking

WP:NPOV. I shall be requesting an RFC on this matter.-Localzuk^(talk)

23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time if you have no proof that they do not see themselves as terrorists or that someone that passes WP:RS and WP:V doesnt see them that way. --NuclearZer0 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have everything backwards - the notion that I have to disprove something absurd. Instead, you have to show that they are seen as a terrorist organisation by everyone in order to claim 'they are terrorists'. Also, you point to

WP:WTA

is also a guideline... Please read the guideline on this word and say why we shouldn't follow it.

Also, are you saying that you would take no notice of an RFC on this matter? -Localzuk^(talk) 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, you can initiate whatever you feel like doing so, I am not your master. I have already added proof that NATO and the UN see them as terrorists, I believe that makes up by membership a majority of the worlds population. So apparently its now on you to refute that the majority of the world see's them as terrorists, which you have not done, nor even attempted to. So please provide some WP:RS WP:V sources. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I think the current version is fine, where we say they've been linked to acts of terrorism and have been described as terrorists by x, y and z. We certainly shouldn't start an article with "X is a terrorist organization," in part because it's POV, in part because it's essentially meaningless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf said: I have already added proof that NATO and the UN see them as terrorists, I believe that makes up by membership a majority of the worlds population. So apparently its now on you to refute that the majority of the world see's them as terrorists

Do you really think that the number of people who work for NATO and the UN even approaches .001% of the world's population much less the majority?

-- That Guy, From That Show! 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to edit this portion of the article out, but I figured I should say something here first. I don't really think the entry about Pierre Henry Bunel belongs in this article; it makes sweeping claims about the al-qaeda organization (going as far as to say that OBL is an "American agent"), and its only source is a left-leaning Canadian website.Trojan traveler 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• The guy is right about what he is sayin. There is no such terrorist organisation called Al-qaeda, its a generic brand name. OBL was indeed an American agent, he was part of a CIA trained list of Mujahideen that operated through the Pakistan ISI. The claims are 100% correct. That is not the only source of this information. This is well documented territory. I think you should leave the editing to those who are fully aware of the background on this.

This is a dispute over the use of the term terrorist/ism in relation to the Al Qaeda organzation.03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Wikipedia's policy clearly states that an organzation should not be labeled as terrorist; instead, it should specify who/what labeles the organzation as such. Doing anything but compromises wikipedia's NPOV stance. See
  Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism
  03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikipedia defines terrorism as the the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear. This debate does not concern whether or not the ideology of a terrorist organistion is justifiale, it concerns the fact that these organisations do use fear as a tool to achieve their political goals. Unless someone can prove to me that Al-Qaeda actions are not 1) Carried out to attain political, ideological goals. and 2) To attain those goals by instilling fear in the population of an area, we shall continue calling terrorists terrorists. Cerebral Warrior 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • By that definition, the US government has engaged in numerous acts of terrorism. Police forces do it everyday. As mentioned above, the bombing of Hiroshima (and by extention Nagasaki) were both acts of terrorism on a large scale. So was the fire-bombing of Dresden. My Lai, the massacre at Wounded Knee, the assassination of Fred Hampton, the bombing of the MOVE complex, need I go on? Can I now go to the page on the US governemnt and say it's a terrorist organization? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• I would say that the above policy does apply here. My mind does boggle a bit at the thought of someone not thinking that Al Qaeda are a bunch of terrorists, but I'm sure there is someone who doesn't. Al Qaeda members themselves, for one. So, go ahead and use the term "terrorist," but back it up with citations. For example "Al-Qaeda is suspected of [...] the 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks in Egypt. [...]The attack was the deadliest terrorist action in the history of Egypt." Just say "according to so-and-so, the attack was the deadliest..." A pain-in-the-ass, but necessary. crazyeddie 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Can those who oppose calling Al-Qaeda terrorists get me a link that shows any state officially stating that they "do not consider Al-Qaeda terrorists"? How can you just assume that there are "people out there" who do not call these guys terrorists? Anyway, isn't there a policy against undue weight being given to unimportant POVs? Cerebral Warrior 04:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why does it need to be a state? Does a government have more legitimacy than others? And I'm guessing that the Taliban (which used to be a state) did not think so. So there you go. And again, unless al-Qaeda has self-identified as terrorists, we have to cite who (and even if they do self-label themselves that, we should still cite it). And there is a policy against undue weight, but we are not saying that we should spend a lot of time trying to say they aren't terrorists, we are saying we should say who calls them terrorists. That does not violate undue weight. No one has tried to say they aren't terrorists from what I can tell, we just want the label attributed to who gives it. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You thinkt he Taliban didnt see them as terrorists, do you have proof they didn't? You keep equating that because they didnt think they were wrong, that they didnt think they were terrorists. People can support them and still think they are terrorists. SO I ask do you have a citation regarding the Taliban? Also I have provided proof that UN and NATO think they are, hence we have now covered over 50% of the worlds population. And yes governments do have more say they represent the population within them. --NuclearZer0 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you have proof that the Taliban did see them as terrorists? And I'm still waiting for your proof that Al Qaeda considered themselves to be terrorists. And while governments do have more say, they do not have absolute say. At best, governments represent the majority. Just because, hypothetically, the US government releases a statement that "Democrats are stupid doodooheads" does not mean that we can call the Democrats stupid doodooheads in their article without attribution. Furthermore, just how many of those countries actually think that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group and how many are just saying what we tell them to? NATO, certianly, but with some of the Muslim majority countries, well, being bombed back to the stone age does tend to offend. crazyeddie 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's POV-based and represents an American bias. That's why the word should be avoided in favor of more neutral terms. --Hemlock Martinis 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you tell me why? your assumptions that terrorists are bad do not cover the entire world. Freedom fighters may be seen just as bad as terrorists, not all freedom fighters use terror to accomplish their goals. Therefore your anology is highly flawed. --NuclearZer0 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. I've been saying this forever it seems like on this and numereous other pages. We can't label groups terrorists, we need to say who has called them that. Terrorist is an inherently pejorative term. I wouldn't go to a page on George W. Bush and say "George W. Bush is a jackass", even though I think it's true. I'd have to cite notable sources that say so. And yes, I do consider al-Qaeda a terrorist group. Still, it's not acceptable to label them as such without giving a source and attributing it to said source. BTW, that page on words to avoid is merely a guideline, not a policy. Still, it makes sense and should be followed for all the reasons outlined above and on the guideline page. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IF you look at the intro and that is with 5 minutes work I have added NATO, UN, Afghanistan and I am sure in a few minutes can find Iraq. That means more then 50% of the worlds governments call them terrorists, doesnt it get to the point where you should be saying only country X and the Taliban beleive they are not terrorists, and there is no proof presented so far that any country on the world believes they are not. --NuclearZer0 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You can add me to the list to. I'm not saying they aren't terrorists, I'm saying it's not our place to make the designation. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Members of al-Qaeda see themselves as the servants of God, and they are willing to use any tactics to carry out their god's will. Labeling them as terrorists is not subjective; it is labeling the tactics that they use to carry out their mission. It says nothing about the mission they are trying to carry out, it simply describes the tactics that they use to try and carry it out. It does not bring right and wrong into the equation, it simply describes the military tactics that they use. It is not a description of purpose, or a description of morality; it is a description of military tactics, period. THL 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

'Terrorist' is a POV term (rightly or wrongly) and as such should always be accompanied by attribution and citation. There are people who think they are not terrorists - we do not have to show sources to prove this as this is not how our verifiability policy works. Instead, we have a simple policy that asks for a citation to show that every person (which is what is technically being claimed by using it as a blanket description) think they are. If people think it should be included without source/attribution please can they provide a good reason why we whould ignore the long standing and stable guideline

Who? Do you have some citations for that, that al-Qaeda think they arent terrorists? You can be a servant of god and still at terrorist. People keep saying that they do not believe they are terrorist, prove it cite a source. --NuclearZer0 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral, your argument is flawed. Following your reasoning, I could insert "George Bush is unintelligent" into his article, and then ask you to give a quote saying he is intelligent before removing it. And as for saying that using terror as a tactic makes you a terrorist, read Ungovernable Force's comments again. The standard procedure is to use "militant islamist": It means the same thing, without being pejorative. yandman 07:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ach, damn the whole "don't disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point." (Or for that matter, the whole NPOV policy.) I would love to put that in George Bush's article... Wait, OMG, does that make me a traitor?!! Oh no! crazyeddie 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is a horrible system to use by saying militant islamist = terrorist and it sets a nasty view on militant islamists. Also I have cited more then 50% of the world population saying al-Qaeda is a terrorists organization, do you have any source of anyone saying the opposite? --NuclearZer0 10:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And that shows that you think that the term 'terrorist' is a negative term! This is your admission that it is a POV violation to call something, without attribution and citation, 'terrorist' is a bad thing. The term militant islamist is not perjorative, it is a simple description - they are islamic and they are militant, whereas, as you have stated just 'terrorist' is a bad thing.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry wrong, equating islamist militant to terrorism is skewing the results, its not a matter of good or bad, in my opinion terrorists are bad, they instill fear on civilians, however that doesnt mean the labeling is POV. Its like stating labelnig a person Jewish is bad because person X thinks jews are evil. Your logic is highly flawed and instead of attempting to make all these straw man arguements before Halloween, you would be better served to present a source countering my point that over 50% of the world population see's AQ as terrorists and they have never denied it even though they have made over 50 statements to the world since they were created. --NuclearZer0 11:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just because most people think something is true doesn't make it so. And most people do view the term terrorist as negative, so by your logic it is pejorative. Ta da, don't you love how I did that? Of course, since most people view it as such, regardless of whether or not it is a bad thing, we need to be careful about how we use it so that we don't violate neutrality. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Localzuk, I'll move this to wp:wta tomorrow, because it seems like I've been having this discussion at least once a week, on different pages, since I joined wikipedia. yandman 07:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, this is the third time (and article) I have had this discussion on too. Each time policy has prevailed though.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that this RfC has degenerated into a shouting contest. I hate to count noses, but what seems to be the consensus? crazyeddie 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What policy? your guideline? still waiting on your source that AQ do not see themselves as terrorists.

--NuclearZer0 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like we're going to be waiting a long time as consensus across the community seems to be already decided on the issue - hence the guideline. That is why I have asked you to provide reasons why we should simply ignore it - but you are failing to respond on that point. Instead you are persisting in requesting a source for something that doesn't need it as is shown by the various examples used above. As Yandman says, using your logic we could easily insert 'George bush is unintelligent' into his article and be able to leave it there unless a citation stating he was intelligent was provided. This would be a violation of

WP:WTA which is a guideline and therefore reflects a consensus decision by the community?-Localzuk^(talk)

10:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The value of ones intelligence can be gauged many ways, however the military tactic someone uses cannot. Your logic is further flawed cause I can simply cite his education to prove that statement wrong, further its a BLP violation, which calling AQ a terrorist organization isnt. Anymore faulty logic? --NuclearZer0 11:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm.... you are conscious of the fact that he didn't get into Yale on the strength of his grades? And the point we've been trying to make is that military tactics always involve a certain degree of "instilling fear into their hearts before they taste our cold steel bla bla bla". All armies do this (as Ungovernable showed us: My Lai massacre). AL-Qaeda does this, as well as making attacks on military targets (warships, for example). Anyway, it's also a matter of style/tone. "terrorist" has certain connotations, so we avoid it. yandman 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep your assumptions to yourself about peoples educations. Further your arguement is flawed because there is also a certain conotation to militant islamist is there not? Maybe we should just call them a not for profit organization? --NuclearZer0 12:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also there is a discussion about those being terrorist attacks, the difference is the state of war, or so people argue. I personally think they were terrorist attacks, bombs were dropped on civilians in one case that deciamted a non military population, in the other case civilians were just butchered. But the majority of the world has not called either of those terrorist attacks on the record, which is the difference, the majority of the world has called AQ a terrorist organization on the record. So at what point do you stop lsiting countries when its over 100? and noone disputes it including them. --NuclearZer0 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's just

wikiality. Most people say X therefore X is true. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?}

08:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At what point do you stop and realize that instead of naming every country that does, you should instead name the ones that do not see them as terrorists. By inclusion of NATO and UN, that brings the total nations to well over 100. Should I really list them all point by point? So the title would instead read Countries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 99 all see al-Qaeda as a terrorist oraganization, a charge they have never disputed nor any other nation has denied. That is just silly, but if its what is preffered I will break down the UN and NATO into the individual countries that have ever called AQ terrorists and create an intro 10 lines long of just the countries to show that noone thinks they are not terrorists. This NPOV issue is silly as noone is saynig they are not terrorists including themselves. The idea that terrorist label is negative is faulty because many people arguing it are not in favor of those tactics, however many people in middle eastern countries are in favor of them and take them to martyrdom etc. You are applying your western idealogy to a non-western culture and military. To simply label AQ as a militant islamist group is to equate them with MILF, LTTE, etc creating a slippery slope of comparison. So is AQ = MILF, AQ = PKK, AQ = Black Panthers (militants)? --NuclearZer0 12:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you still have not provided me with any answer to my question as to why we should ignore the

guideline.-Localzuk^(talk)

13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion above as well as what you are posting under, guidelines are not policy because they are not always the case and are subject to change and do not have concensus ... --NuclearZer0 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you misunderstand what a guideline is. Please visit

WP:WTA

has been in place for over 4 years and is accepted as normal practice.

So, I will repeat my request for a reason why we should go against the consensus decision that is

WP:WTA.-Localzuk^(talk)

13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well as you have said, NATO and the UN cover most of the countries, so why not just list them as the organsations that consider them a terrorist group? You do not seem willing to allow the overwhelming majority (there are now 5 editors who have commented on this case in support of leaving it as a attributed sentence plus the consensus decisions made in the past at

WP:WTA), under what circumstances will you compromise?-Localzuk^(talk)

13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For instance, searching Reuters for 'qaeda' yields 9 results (recent items). Al-Qaeda is described by Reuters as militant, not terrorist.

An insightful quote of Stephen Jukes, head of Reuters Global news defending Reuters wording in articles after 9/11:

Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. We do not characterise the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity or background. As a global news organisation, the world relies on our journalists to provide accurate accounts of events as they occur, wherever they occur, so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.

Also, from the current Reuters Editorial Policy:

Some Reuters coverage, including pictures and video, is of wars or conflicts during which all sides are actively promoting their positions and arguments.

We are committed to reporting the facts and in all situations avoid the use of emotive terms. The only exception is when we are quoting someone directly or in indirect speech. We aim to report objectively actions, identity and background and pay particular attention to all our coverage in extremely sensitive regions.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 14:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt in my mind that Al Qaeda deserves the appellation "terrorist", but I see the point of Wikipedia policy here, so I go for the "designated as terrorist by ..." approach. --Vindheim 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think policy should be followed here and terrorist should not be used unless it is said who believes this. While in this case it may seem clear cut, it opens the gates to others than aren't so certain. If you use terrorist here you must look again at articles on other supposedly terrorist groups - how many people must think of them as terrorists before it can be accepted as fact beyond dispute? So, for the sake of consistency, and to make certain there is no subtle violation of NPOV, I think the 'designated as terrorist by...' approach is better. Trebor 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an extract from the editorial guidelines we are given at the BBC:

Terror

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.

We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like "liberate", "court martial" or "execute" in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent, and "militant". Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.

yandman 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison said: If some reliable sources describe Osama as a gallant freedom fighter, or 911 as an act of noble heroism, let's say what who says that and quote them at enough length to show the context.

As a side-note, that sort of nonsense has been avoided in Osama bin Laden. He is not described as either a terrorist nor as a gallant freedom fighter. Wikipedia shouldn't be involved in that sort of thing.

This is yet another example of why Words To Avoid policy should be followed.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to say that they have widely been designated or described as a terrorist group, so long as that sentence is immediately followed by a reference (a) which makes that same point or (b) several primary sources actually making the charge. An explicit list is not necessary, though one or two might be desireable, given the presumably very large number of designators. The reference satsify

I completely agree with Derex. I think the current list is a good size and accuratly shows the sheer number of nations that label them as a terrorist organization and the lack of anyone including themselves that dispute that label. --NuclearZer0 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a terrorist isn't POV. It is a word that denotes the person or group being described employs terror tactics. Crashing planes into buildings is a terror tactic. It has nothing to do with whether or not the people employing the tactics are fighting for a country, an ideal, or anything else. It has nothing to do with their purpose; it has to do with whether or not the tactics they employ causes terror in the people being attacked. They are not allowed to define whether or not they are terrorists. Terrorist has nothing to do with POV, it describes military tactics and nothing else, nothing. THL 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All military tactics cause terror. That's why we can't call anyone terrorist, because it would mean having to call practically everyone terrorist. Anyway, when we are speaking as the encyclopaedia (and not as "someone said this: bla bla bla"), we have to use only information from reliable secondary sources (not the UN: they're part of the conflict, so are primary) such as the BBC or Reuters (see above). And they never use the term "terrorist". And before you ask, anything from Murdoch doesn't qualify as reliable. yandman 06:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As

September 11, 2001 attacks begins by saying it's a terrorist attack) - it does not necessarily make it a terrorist organisation. I mean, what is a terrorist organisation? One that is only involved with carrying out acts of terror, one that is predominately involved, one that is occasionally involved...? It's fairer and more accurate just to lay out the facts in a balanced way and let the reader make their own decision. Trebor

"What is a terrorist organization" you ask. For the purposes of Wikipedia, that is determined by the preponderance of

do that ourselves. It has become fashionable to label everything one doesn't like "terrorism" — every politician in the world, smoking, crying babies, those damn kids skating on the sidewalk. Fortunately Wikipedia (as it is an encyclopedia rather than a blog) does not need to stoop to that level of pseudo-argumentation. Weregerbil

11:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I worded that wrong. I meant to say that terror tactics are called such because their main purpose is to cause terror. The Twin Towers had no strategic value when it comes to war other than instilling terror in the citizens of America through their destruction, and that is why it was a terror tactic. By extension, because Al Qaeda was the organization that used the tactic, that makes them terrorists. I have sources for th terror 9-11 caused and the main purpose of the attcks being terror, if you would like them, but any chimp could find them. THL 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting the fact that 9-11 was a terrorist attack. But there is a difference between naming a specific action as terrorism and a whole organisation as terrorist. Would you say that any organisation that has ever been involved in an act of terror is a 'terrorist organisation'? Would terrorism have to be their main activity? Would they have to be directly involved in the attack or would peripheral involvement count (funding, supplying equipment, etc.)? Consistency would be hugely difficult over articles and necessarily POV because we'd have to set up a Wikipedia definition of a terrorist organisation. Is it not far simpler and less POV to let other organisations do the defining, and Wikipedia do the citing?Trebor 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you doubt that the majority of Al-Qaeda's attacks are terror attacks? How many reliable sources are there that say Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization? To say that it is not a terrorist organization is to completely disregard their military strategy. That is acceptable under some circumstances, but because Al-Qaeda is a militant organization that one word is a dramatic fact for the article to loose. No, I would not call any group that has been involved in a terror attack terrorist, but terror is Al-Qaeda's biggest strategy and most effective weapon. To not call Al-Qaeda terrorist is to ignore the organization's military side all together. THL 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)\

I don't know enough about Al-Qaeda to say whether the majority of Al-Qaeda attacks are terror attacks. But who's to say that the majority of attacks being of a terrorist nature should be the deciding factor? You say that you wouldn't call any group that has been involved in a terror attack terrorist, so you must be imposing some sort of system for classifying a group as terrorist or not. But I believe that sort of system is necessarily POV - there is not a universal definition of terrorism, let alone of what comprises a terrorist group. The article makes it clear that many countries and organisations view them as a terrorist group - it's not being ignored - but the article should refrain from making a personal judgement for the reasons above. Trebor 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, and we need more information. What percentage of al-Qaeda members have carried out terrorist attacks? This information would be very helpful in the article and any insight into this would be incredibly useful.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is pointless, and all of you probably know it. 99% of the civilised world considers Al-Qaeda a terrorist organisation. What the 1% of Islamofascists think need not be put into this article. Cerebral Warrior 09:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

CW, you do realise that you've just promised us you'd stop trolling, right? And that our patience is starting to wear thin? yandman 09:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. All I'm asking is that can you show me one reputable organisation that states that Al-Qaeda is not terrorist. Cerebral Warrior 11:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When engaging in discussions, it is considered polite to listen to others. The same applies here. You'll notice that both ThatGuy and I have showed that neither the BBC(News) nor Reuters, which are two of the most important news agencies in the world (and I'm not saying that just because I happen to work for one of them), state that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. Remember that we have to use reliable, independent sources when we are making statements. The US is not an independent source here, neither is the UN: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses". Therefore, when speaking in the editorial voice, we do not say Al-Q is a terrorist organisation. yandman 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I can quote literally a dozen news sources that refer to Al-Qaeda as terrorists. Nontheless, for the sake of arguement, could you enlighten me about how the Beeb refers to Al-Qaeda? Cerebral Warrior 15:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In articles, the BBC keeps a very neutral tone (I'm not talking about the op-eds, where you're given a bit more freedom). When referred to in an article, 9/11 is "the 11 September suicide hijackings" (which, IMHO, is the perfect phrasing: it gives the facts without giving an opinion) or the "the 11 September attacks". Al-Qaeda is jut referred to as a " militant islamist organisation". I quoted the specific policy further up in the discussion. yandman 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral Warrior said: This whole discussion is pointless, and all of you probably know it. 99% of the civilised world considers Al-Qaeda a terrorist organisation.

European Union considers these to be terrorist. The EU does not consider al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization. In contrast, they consider Hamas to be one.

Again, using 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter' here on Wikipedia isn't useful and causes more problems than the (zero) problems that it solves.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown of the "Voting"

In case anybody is interested, here's how the breakdown of the above "straw poll" looks:

In favor of abiding by

• Ungovernable Force
• Crazyeddie
• Hemlock Martinis
• Localzuk
• yandman
• That Guy, From That Show!
• Vindheim
• Trebor
• Derex
• Weregerbil

In favor of calling Al Qaeda "terrorist" while in editorial voice:

• Cerebral Warrior
• Nuclearzer0
• THL
• Tom Harrison

That's 10 people in favor of abiding by

Are you guys kidding me? I'm pro-Chechen, but in case of a Chechen terrorism I write "terrorism" and "terrorists". There are even categories, like "Chechen terrorists". And I thought it's okay. But now, this is crazy. Osama is not a terrorist, somehow, but Aslambek Abdulkhadzhiev is? HELLO? --HanzoHattori 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say in his article that Abdulkhadzhiev is a terrorist? yandman 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's sneaky: a terrorist category added to the article. It's (IMO) and end-run around the using the phrase 'terrorist' in the article...adding a terrorist category or infobox is a common tactic to try to fly 'under the radar' regarding Words To Avoid.

NOTE: I removed the category . Also, regarding info-box issues, you may want to see what happened when I tried to fix a infobox that is (IMO) all-too-often used to dodge

WP:BLP. Here is the revert as well as my comment about the infobox issue [2]

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. He's lucky he's an admin... yandman 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucky I'm not :) -- That Guy, From That Show! 10:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

--HanzoHattori 18:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no mention of cults on the page though it has been described as a cult and not as a cult by different sources. Should the article reflect this debate since

So no, this is not a new form of organization for terrorists unless you are a lazy journalist. --66.31.39.76 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see no new information incorporated in this article as yet from the recent Newsnight interview. I added a stub, based on the pseudonym used.

The programme was specifically stated to be his story told from his perspective (therefore not NPOV) although Newsnight stated they were able to verify the key details. Are there any editors with background knowledge of this area that would be able to extract suitable information from this to present in a NPOV? I'm curious about how much of the info in that programme was genuinely new information that was not previously known about Al-Qaeda, or about the assertions that the information on which the USA justified the Iraq war would have been specifically presented to the interrogators acting on behalf of the USA for the purpose of making them go to war. --Stoive 05:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)