Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 8

I agree that though we may not have a precise definition of 'terrorism' it is OK to use it since it is so widely used by RSs from around the world particularly as it pertains to Al-qaeda and its activities. at least in the case of this organization overwhelming majority of sources call it a terrorist organization and OBL a terrorist. that may or may not be the case for other organizations but that is another issue.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's alright. While I think that it is dangerous and that the compromise I listed above is preferable, I'm fine with this change.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't realize how strong the language was in

WP:LABEL

. It appears that the community consensus is that in-text attribution only should be used for contentious labels:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

I think you both formed a compelling argument. However,

common sense should encourage it, that's great.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk

06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you reverted12 my edits. I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Al-Qaeda#The term "terrorist" as factual; please share your thoughts.

On a different note, when you reverted my edits, you discarded changes you didn't dispute in the edit summary (see the bottom of the changes). I assumed you didn't (and don't) dispute those changes. It would have been preferable not to throw out the baby with the bath water and to have pasted the non-disputed changes. A cycle of "bold-revert" prevents improvement of the article and is contrary to consensus.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, there. I posted an update at

WP:LABEL

changed my mind on the issue. WP:LABEL states:

are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution

If you want to challenge the policy, I'd welcome it. (Although I generally support it, I think thinking it through couldn't hurt.) However, the correct place to debate it is

WT:WTA, not on individual articles like Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk

06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dym, I hope you don't mind my stating this baldly, but you are entirely incorrect. There is no policy, no policy at all, against using the word terrorist. In addition to being inordinately silly, such a policy would violate NPOV. WP:WTA is a style guideline, which itself admits of exceptions. Is it something we should take seriously and keep in mind going forward? Not really. It's always been a poorly written hodgepodge, and never been binding in any case. It really just serves to confuse people. Therefore, in terms of overturning consensus, there is no need for me to "go for it." No such consensus exists. Let me be plain: I have an avalanche of reliable sources to support my view, as well as wiki policy, as well as -- oh yes -- common sense. You have your personal interpretation of a non-binding style guideline. Did you have anything else?

IronDuke

22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I mistakenly called it "policy" on your talk page; I am aware that it's a guideline. However, I think the guideline nevertheless reflects broader consensus. There has been involved debate with opinions on both sides at

WT:WTA. At the very least, express your opinion there.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk

06:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: I collected some debate at User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate, so that everyone can see the debate.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 07:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, aside from the fact that WTA is basically meaningless here, can you respond to my other points?

IronDuke

01:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your points to be:

1. There is no consensus

I would say that there is consensus that the term terrorist should be attributed to specific sources, rather than used as factual. If you read the collection I linked, I expect you'll agree that there is consensus on that particular issue.

2.

WP:NPOV

is on your side

I think that the term is inherently non-neutral. As you pointed out, serial killer is also non-neutral. However, serial killer is defined more definitely. A murderer is someone who kills a person with intent, and a serial killer is someone who murders more than three people. Terrorism is no better-defined than freedom fighter is.

3. Common sense is on your side

I don't see how (Mind elaborating?). However, my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia.

4. Reliable sources use the term terrorist

We are making an encyclopedia. Not every word that is commonly used needs to be included. What is essential is that we convey the information, not that we use specific terms the media likes. The compromise I suggested conveys the information neutrally and without extrapolation.

5. I am arguing based on a "personal interpretation of a non-binding style guideline"

No, I'm arguing against the overriding of large-scale, long-term consensus with small, limited non-consensus existing at one particular time.

I believe that the correct place to debate this is

WT:WTA

, not here. Do you have any objection to arguing your point there? Perhaps, in the meantime, we can achieve temporary consensus here:

Describe al-Qaeda's actions as "terrorist" actions. Do not describe al-Qaeda as a "terrorist organization". The first paragraph will begin:

al-Qaeda... is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is widely considered a terrorist organization.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 04:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

R to bull:

1. There is no consensus at the collection you linked to, from my memory of my own participation there, and even if there were, it wouldn't matter: WTA has long said that there are exceptions, which is why we debate the merits of the term in this case here, rather than generally there. Obviously so.
2. Your points are all pretty much off target here. Serial killer is still a vague term, and yet used. As is murderer. And yet we use the terms. And you are particularly wrong about comparing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter." The comparison is frequently made, but no less willfully reductive and obtuse for its ubiquity. There are professors whose sole field of study is terrorism. I know of no reputable professor of "freedom fighting."
3. "my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia." Your common sense would be very wrong then. I don't have enough time to teach you what language is, and I shouldn't have to: you seem literate enough. We have many, many article here about terms that have no "agreed-upon" definition. The mind boggles, really.
4. This is where your argument really falls to the ground, no? I have virtually every reliable source in existence on this subject on my side, you have nothing whatever. There is no more to be said than that.
5. No, you are in fact wiki-lawyering your way around the fact that you have no RS's whatever to support your claim, just a gut feeling and a non-binding style guideline (did I mention how the guideline itself says it is non-binding)?

You seem like a smart enough person, but your position holds no merit at all -- not even a little bit. It's the kind of wiki-navel-gazing that makes some pretty smart people laugh at this encyclopedia, when the "rules" (which as you now know, aren't actually rules) override what virtually every reliable source on the planet says -- media, analysts, government, scholars. How about less bending non-existent rules, and more finding sources?

Please don't accuse me of wikilawyering or using "bull". I don't have a "claim" about Al-Qaeda; I have a claim about what is preferable on the relevant articles. Assuming that I have a hidden agenda is completely unreasonable. I saw your edit and disagreed. I was willing to discuss its merits, and I still am.

I want to address two issues first:

1. "my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia." Your common sense would be very wrong then. I don't have enough time to teach you what language is, and I shouldn't have to: you seem literate enough. We have many, many article here about terms that have no "agreed-upon" definition. The mind boggles, really.

I failed to explain my point well. My issue isn't that the word doesn't have a precise, mathematically definable meaning. It's that the factors used in defining the word are disputed. Is it the method, the goals, or both? Terms like murderer and serial killer don't have precise mathematical definitions, but their use is not significantly contentious.

1. And you are particularly wrong about comparing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter." The comparison is frequently made, but no less willfully reductive and obtuse for its ubiquity.

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on the subject, nor do I pretend to be.

I don't take

WP:RS.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk

18:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion. I reverted my own edit to Osama bin Laden, leaving the term describing group and persons in all but the first sentence.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 19:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies for shortening your name to "bull." People shorten mine to "Duke," and I'm okay with that, so... is there an abbreviation you're okay with, or must one type out the entire thing? Second, apologies if I implied you had a hidden agenda -- it seems quite open to me. Which is fine, I just happen to disagree with it. I'm not sure how useful the analogies you keep bringing up are -- I think it gets us off on a tangent. This is not an article about the KKK, and different factors may be at work there. For the record, I have no problem calling them any of the adjectives you used, though your example is clumsy. Also, when you say things like (ellipses added) "[The term] murderer... is not significantly contentious," you make me feel frankly depressed. I can't even begin to unpack that if you can't see, instantly, why that's very, very wrong (let's just start with the fact that "murder" is defined differently all over the world). I see that you are not an expert on this topic, and there's no shame in that. I invite you, then, to delve more deeply before making more edits on it. You are now using the manual of style (which, as I have shown, does not support your position) to trump RS's, which are the only reason this encyclopedia is any use at all. WP is inherently unreliable, which is why we must use RS's to support important facts. And you can't invoke NPOV when you cannot name a single source which supports your position. Seriously, Wikipedia is, at its best, a work of scholarship. It's okay if you don't want to add to that, but not okay if you want to take away from it , and leave us looking silly into the bargain. I'm happy to have more opinions, but I am going to bring the article back to reality, rather than

IronDuke

20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I also posted more generally below. Just wanted to address what you wrote above; the discussion got ahead of me. In the US, 'bull' is used as an abbreviation for 'bullshit'. I had assumed that's what you meant. Dmyersturnbull, dmt, dmyerst, or anything else I'd recognize is perfectly fine with me :)  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

When you say "NPOV," what RS's disagree that AQ is a terrorist org? (Thanks for weighing in, BTW).

IronDuke

22:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The only RS I can think of off-hand which contests the description of Al Qaeda as terrorist, inasmuch as he disagrees with the use of the term full-stop, would be Robert Fisk. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does he say that? I'm not disagreeing, just curious. And do you think under that scenario, given virtually every RS in the world besides Fisk agrees, that both opinions should be equally weighted?

IronDuke

00:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, he doesn't explicitly say that he doesn't consider Al Qaeda terrorists, but here is a good example of his views on the general matter. I should point out, however, that the 3O process explicitly does *not* create a consensus, is not a tiebreaker, and should not be used as such. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(I have no article editing history with articles of this type that I am aware of.) I agree with the 3rd opinion above. User:dmyersturnbull seems to have shown that consensus supports explicit attribution of the contentious label. BigK HeX (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the third and fourth opinions. IronDuke, perhaps you can agree to this?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to be agreeing to.

IronDuke

00:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Changing 'It is widely considered a terrorist organization' to 'It is considered a terrorist organization by such organisations as X, Y, and X', and removing those designations from the infobox." In other words, follow

WP:WTA and use explicit attribution only.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk

05:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

whyy are we now changing the once biblical names of these citieswhe i was in school we called persia persia, vietnam was called siam, why the change? Was the red sea and the ark found in Iraq, is that is why it makes the muslims so upset because the promised land was the land of the jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.192.199 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because those are the names used by the people living in those countries. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam has never been called Siam, you're thinking of Thailand. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Promised by who? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the land belongs to the people whose ancestors have been living there for the better part of two millenia. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• We do not _know_ when "Al Qaida" was formed. So the correct term would be: It is claimed by _ _ _ (fill in) (add reference) that Al Qaida was formed .... (fill in estimated time period) .
• Furthermore: we do not know for a _fact_ that "Al Qaida" attacked the WTC. Osama Bin Laden is not even charged with complicity in this event by neither the FBI or any other US law enforcement agency.
• Thirdly: Al Qaida is a western term, a name given by western intelligence, more specific: US intelligence services, so the correct term is still Al Qaida / Al Qaeda is the name and term given to what is considered a loosely knit group or group of "cells" that adhere to certain islamic principles (add references) - This would be a linguistically logically coherent way of addressing what we _call_ "Al Qaeda" / "Al Qaida"
  

Furthermore, everyone keeps talking as if there actually _is_ a visible Al Qaeda out there that you can point top and look at and analyze. I have never seen or heard any such credible evidence. And no, I wont bother to accept any right wing republican author's fine newly published written work, or book published recently to cash in on the hunger for new creations on the subject. I think we need actual factual evidence from primary sources. My two cents. Nunamiut (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your points:

1. We do not _know_ when "Al Qaida" was formed... I think the date range is verifiable enough. If you see a way to improve the wording without causing it to sound too weak and uncertain, please do.

2. We do not know for a _fact_ that "Al Qaida" attacked the WT... Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. Physical evidence demonstrates that, and al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility. Osama has been accused of crimes and is wanted by Interpol and the US.

Osama is not wanted for 911 on the FBI's wanted site. The reason he is not cited for 911 is because there is no evidence of his involvement. Vexorg (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He is listed in the

FBI Ten Most Wanted list. Check before posting.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk

04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's right, he's on the FBI's most wanted list. I said that in my post above. And as I've correctly stated above he's is not wanted for 911 on the FBI's wanted site - [here is the link]. You should follow your own advice and 'Check before posting.' Given the level of this discussion you are probably not aware that, the late, Benazir Bhutto publically named Bin Laden's killer on the BBC. Anything else I can help you with regarding 911 and al-Qaeda? Vexorg (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"I said that in my post above." No, you didn't. Instead, you said "Osama is not wanted for 911 on the FBI's wanted site." I see now that you meant he wasn't charged with the 9/11 bombings. That's not (on a literal basis) what you wrote, so it's not how I interpreted it.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Al Qaida is a western term... No, al-Qaeda is a group. Its name is an Arabic name, not an English name. We use a transliteration from the Arabic القاعدة because this is the English Wikipedia. Al-Qaeda calls itself al-Qaeda.

It is written under "Command Structure" that: "Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working." "What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute." I believe these facts are important enough to be right at the top of the article. In general I agree that the scope of sources that this article appears to be derived from represents a much too narrow view and I fully support the points made by Nunamiut. /Carl

4. Furthermore... Al-Qaeda is a distinct group. It is organized and has leaders. Primary sources are cited in the article. If you see a source being used that is not credible, please do fix it.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Im response to your points  dmyersturnbull  . There is no evidence of al-Qaeda carring out 911. Bin laden did not claim responsibility for it. the video, if you care to watch it, of him allegedely claiming responsibility is a fake. You can see that by watching the video. Al-Qaeda is NOT a distinct group, it is a movement fabricated by the FBI to label a bunch of disparate Islamists. Unfortunately Nunamiut the Wikipedia works is not by evidence but by reference to politically biased sources that are deemed credible. This means anyone with enough money to own a mainstream media outlet can print a load of lies and nonsense and this gets into Wikipedia. Someone with little money can print the truth and it won't go into Wikipedia as it's not deemed a credible source. So really wikipedia is just a mirror of politically biased maisntream media. And as such for articles like this it is worthless. This article is dreadful and is a major example of the failings of wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I approve of your promotion of reality (as you discuss on your user page), but you need to do so within the auspices of

fringe theories, you'll need to provide evidence, and if you want Wikipedia to reflect that reality, reliable secondary sources need to cite that evidence.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk

04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh yes Evidence. You said "Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. Physical evidence demonstrates that, and al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility" - There is no evidence Al-Qaeda was resposible for the attacks and they did not claim responsibility. Kalid Sheik Mohammed, an Islamist made a worthelss confession after being tortured hundreds of times by the USA. It's worth remembering that just because a 'source' is a big money corporate it doesn't make it relaiable when it comes to the truth. people with lots of money have political agendas you know. Of course I don't have evidence that Islamists, the West calls Al-Qaeda, did not commit 911 any more than you have evidence they did. Wiipedia should reflect this fact and not present stuff printed with political motivation in mainstream mewspapers as fact as it devalues Wikipedia. Of course you are entitled to believe your theories on 911 like I am mine. Please provide evidence that Al-Qaeda committed 911. I won't hold my breath. Vexorg (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is contrary view of the "mainstream" view on

Loose Change gave up some of its arguments when they couldn't defend them properly in their later editions. The "Evidence" is there in the various YouTube vids that are taken from various news organizations if you're willing to dig for them. Next thing you'll say you are amoung the 10% of people that don't believe that man went to the moon.--Hourick (talk

) 01:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this is about "belief". I think it's about verifiable fact. It is not reasonable to pick your preferred belief and say "Oh, it's my belief. It's true for me." There is overwhelming evidence of Al-Qaeda's guilt. Osama confessed in a video. Do you have a reliable source that argues against its authenticity? The FBI, which you argued does not believe Osama is guilty led an investigation that pointed to al-Qaeda. The investigation used witness testimony, handwriting, passports, and credit cards. The investigation is credible, and the evidence is verifiable. If you choose to reject reliable authorities on the matter in favor of a conspiracy theory, you need to do more digging before others are willing to take you seriously, and simply saying "I have no evidence but believe it regardless" is insufficient. (Sorry for the "distancing quotation marks"; I'm not actually quoting.)  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

we have a dedicated article 9/11 conspiracy theories which is aptly titled 'conspiracy theories' for readers who wish to believe/explore those ideas.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

if any of you have evidence that Al-Qaeda committed 911 then please provide it. You cannot. Osama did not confess in a video. Have you actually seen the video? I have and it's not him. This comment above is telling ... "If you choose to reject reliable authorities on the matter " - how are they reliable? Even the BBC carried a the news story of the staged event of pulling down Saddam's statue. The BBC got caught using pro-Ahmadinejad rally pictures last year and presented them as anti-Ahmadinjad rallies. It also got caught using pro-Georgian PR agencies for the 'news ' coverage of the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia nad the Russian response. The BBC is one of the 'regarded' reliable media outlets. Yet it's been caught lying and selective reporting on numerous occasions. So no, what you say are reliable authorities are in fact not reliable.

FBI investigation into 911 and concluding it was Al-Qaeda? How have you verified this evidence? Unless you actually work for the relevant FBI department you cannot verify this evidence. So it boils down to belief. I would call it folly to simply believe something the FBI, CIA, etc says simply because they say it's so. In fact it's dangerous when so many people are unquestioning of such organisations as it allows the political mandate for those organisations ( which are always politicaly motivated ) to go ahead with whatever agendas they have.

And where Wikipedia has lost a lot of value is because it allows the presentation of material as fact when there's no verifiable evidence of it being fact. A Wikipedia article on 911, for example, should never specifically say Al-Qaeda, or anyone else, committed the attacks because the actual perpetrators are not publically known. The article of course should explore the possible perpetrators, including Al-qaeda, but should be worded to that effect.

i.e The statement "Al-Qaeda committed 911" is unverifiable. The statement "The US authorities claim AL-Qaeda committed 911" is verifiable and should be the preferred method of dealing with the subject

I couldn't care less if people who unquestioningly believe organisations like the FBI don't take me seriosuly. I cannot take them seriously for simply believing the FBI because they say something. Unless you have evidence it's all about belief. Vexorg (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel for you Vexorg. I watched a 20/20 story in the 80's. Diane Sawyer talked to the CIA and members of the US military about a CIA operative named Osama Bin Laden who had 'gone rogue'. She asked them how this would affect the war in Afganistan.

Bin Laden was prime time news in the eighties. Now, wikipedia quotes sources that say the CIA didnt know who he was until 1996.

I dont know what this says about intelligence gathering in the United States, but if the CIA had tuned into 20/20, they would have learned about Bin Laden 8 years earlier. Paradoxically, they would have learned it from themselves. Yourliver (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Al-Quaeda is an extremist terrorist group of homicidal cave-dwelling dickfaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.192.203 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix this sentence "Osama bin Laden is the emir was the Senior Operations Chief of al-Qaeda (although originally this role may have been filled by Abu Ayoub al-Iraqi)." ? It is the second paragraph under "Leadership". It's very jarring to read and makes no real sense.163.151.2.10 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed and changed immediately. The definition is somewhat faulty. Al-Qaeda is not Islamist according to Wikipedia's definition of Islamism. The group either believes it self to be Islamist or is deemed so by those who do not comprehend the the word 'Islamist'.

Secondly, it can not possibly be called a Sunni organization as the Sunni sect goes by the Sharia according to which killing civilians/bystanders is not justified in Jihad. In a way, it can even be called another Muslim sect as it belief's are every different from the general Muslim masses.

The 'is considered terrorist' phrase needs citation as per Wikipedia guidelines and the need for wikipedia to stay neutral, as per the guideline's requirements.

The phrase 'calling for global jihad' need some elaboration as the term 'jihad' has several meanings. It can be holy war, or can be a struggle to stay moral. It can be violent or non-violent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanpisces (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This article should not contain Jon Stewart's purported Wikipedia definition of al-Qaeda as "an extremist terrorist group of homicidal cave-dwelling dick-faces."  Mr JM  00:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite correct. Sometimes they come out of their caves and live in tents. Well spotted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.176.182 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

{{

Straight to the point. Al-Qaeda is not an Islamist organization. I'll provide solid reference for this. Got the the wikipedia page for islamisim. Forms of terrorism and suicide are against Islamic beliefs. You can refer to this is the quran or any Muslim scholar. Which is why it's not islamist. I fixed it once but some one changed it again...

Salmanpisces (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'll provide solid reference for this". Sorry but until you do, the change you are requesting will not be made. sonia♫ 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support this request; "an international terrorist network" or "an international terrorist organization" would be more appropriate. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, not an Islamic anything.

• http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33038.pdf
• http://articles.cnn.com/2002-01-24/us/inv.al.qaeda.documents_1_nuclear-weapons-al-qaeda-weapons-program?_s=PM:US
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-John-Brennan-at-the-Center-for-Strategic-and-International-Studies/
• http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/alqaeda_aka_alqaida_alqaida.html
• http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf
• http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100923/pl_yblog_upshot/white-house-al-qaeda-shifting-focus-to-small-scale-terror-attacks
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10635806
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/france-seeks-talks-with-al-qaeda-linked-kidnappers-in-niger-morin-says.html

Heck, you can even call it a "racist organization"^[5] if you like! ~dee^(talk?) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

According to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA from BBC it seems that Al-Qaeda is fictional —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.110.144 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for something to think about, while we are discussing these semantics (I use that word in the more general, rather than pejorative, sense). I think it may be more precise to all them an " international Islamic terrorist group". Yes, of course, much of mainstream Islam (especially in the US, etc) does not support terrorism, and considers it against Islam. However, like any religion, there are varying interpretations of what is and is not against Islam, just as there are varying sects/denominations/interpretations within Christianity, concerning what is and isn't supported by the bible. Saying something is or is not against the precepts of Islam is a bit hard to make as a statement, when there are differing factions within the religion. It would be akin to saying, Christianity does not support the requirement of a priest as intercessory to God. Some sects do, some don't. In terms of Al Quaeda, they are a group motivated by their specific interpretation of Islam, which some portion of muslims agree with. So calling them an Islamic terrorist organization is defensible, although I would recommend making it clear that some factions within Islam do not hold their actions to be supported by Islam. The flip side of that is whether or not it's necessary. IN that case, I would check out what we call other terrorist organizations like the IRA, ETA, etc. I understand the desire of moderate muslims to distance themselves from that radical branch of Islam, but to say that they are not supported by Islam ignores differing interpretations. Their motivation is Islamic religious/cultural in origin, as opposed to a group like the IRA, being motivated by nationalism, etc. Regardless, we should make a distinction between Islamist and Islamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.219 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we all need to first agree that "militant Islamist group" does not adequately describe Al-Qaeda. I agree with the person above me in that "Islam", in some sense, should be mentioned, since Al-Qaeda openly bases its actions on [their interpretation of] the religion. Perhaps a better alternative would be: "international Islamic terrorist network" or "international Islamic terrorist organization" ~dee^(talk?) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement Please change "ascribed" to "described" 203.99.221.151 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Ascribed is the correct word to use in that sentence; described would not make any grammatical sense. Ascribed in this context means "attributed". Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

not al-qaeda http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/09/july7.uksecurity — Preceding

Al Qaeda was non founded in pakistan it was Afghanistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear where it was founded. Check out information-please's article: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html --

talk

) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

can someone edit the quote to point here: Mos Eisley Cantina AS THE PAGE IS LOCKED I CANNOT DO THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.178.239 (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What quote are you talking about?

talk

) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How does Al-Qaeda have anything to do with Star Wars anyway?--

talk

) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} For a recent update on Al Qaeda in "further readings" ^[6] 69.86.25.59 (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Done -

talk

) 14:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We need sources for the "Strategy" section. Where did you get the information about strategy anyhow?

The description of Qutb's influence is stilted and not very neutral. Having actually read Qutb, most of his actual argument is that Islam is simply natural law and that what is learned about nature is also learned about Islam. This is not a particularly controversial view as it goes right back to the concept of seeking knowledge (ilm) and the continual refinement of religious doctrine (ijtihad).

Qutb certainly did say a lot of political things about his own time and these are cherry-picked (as are the hadith) to justify the current political or ideological objective of the movement. That is not to say that the "caliphate" these movements would create would look anything like Qutb's proposal.

This section should be rewritten. Also the specific actions that al-Qaeda has taken credit for (not just accused of) that have led to its being described as a "terrorist" organization would be a little more solid than saying just that "most of the world considers it to be" such.

The article also needs much more on the way in which al-Qaeda deliberately decentralized itself using the medium of the US attack. There are whole books on this. It was a deliberate strategy all the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.112.92 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that there is a similar word to Mohit garg in the English language : Alcaide ? This is used to specifically to refer to a commander of a Spanish or Portugese fort. This is the word that the Spanish and Portugese use themselves, it is found in Cervantes Don Quixote. yahoo dictionary Its etymology is from from the Arabic al-q'id, the leader : al-, the + q'id, leader, active participle of qda, to lead. It is either a interesting coincidence or perhaps an insight into the groups true thinking, as opposed to stated thought process. The leadership of the group often talk about Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.120.131 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not any coincidence at all, see Semitic root! That's how Arabic works. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to change link in information box, "Ben Laden" to "bin Laden" or "Osama bin Laden".

Brodie1600 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially announced that Ayman AlZawahri is the new leader. He might not be. Leader name needs to remain anonymous for now, I guess? ThanksMoshirah (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• McGirk, Tim. "Al-Qaeda's Big Post–bin Laden Cash Crunch ."
  TIME
  . Tuesday May 3, 2011.

This talks about how AQ's finances have been disrupted WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Both simple pronunciation guides are variations of the (technically incorrect) American pronunciation "al-ky-da". The Arabic word has four syllables (al-qaa-`e-da) and this is reflected in the four-syllable pronunciation that I think at the very least British people unanimously use (al-ky-EE-da), so at least one of the simple pronunciation keys should reflect this. Samplayle87 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I think - somewhat embarrassingly for my countrymen - that this pronunciation came from a quasi-illiterate woman who had spoken with one of the 9/11 plane-jackers and repeated it in that way on a television interview. You can look back at various places on the 'net to get video of it. At the time, I had a strong feeling that this was probably wrong, as she had a problem with her native tongue, and was hardly a good source for Arabic words or any dialect thereof. It seemed to me that after that interview, a great segment of the press stuck with it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Surely a demonstrably false pronounciation cannot be the fault of just the one (unnamed) woman. She must have been very influential!

The History section of this article implied that the resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was motivated by fundamentalist Islam, and that most fighters were fundamentalists. The Wikipedia article,

This image is used as the "flag of Al Qaeda" all over Wikipedia, even as casual and superfluous thumbnail, as if this was about a participating nation in some sports event. Can people please muster some minimal skepticism? The source of this flag is a single, unverifiable report made to

Additionally, will you please take note that the reporting user is identified as "Colonel Emerson Begolly". I don't know if anyone touting this flag in terrorism articles has ever bothered to google the name. A "Colonel Emerson Begolly" is entirely unknown to the internet other than in the context of this very flag. But a person called "Emerson Begolly" (not a Colonel) is very well known to the internet. And Emerson Begolly isn't exactly a very likely or frequent name. Emerson Begolly is a "Nazi buff turned Jihadi" who was arrested by the FBI this past January.

It is as likely as not that this person, clearly an utter nutcase, has made up this flag and the story connected with it, out of thin air back in 2004 and posted it to FOTW. If there is, by some weird coincidence, a bona fide Col. Emerson Begolly somewhere, I will be very surprised, but until we have verified that there is, this flag design clearly shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Thank you. --

I am not going to sift through beheading videos just to research this, but here[3][4][5] is some evidence that whenever al Qaeda members feel they need some sort of wall hanger or logo, they simply use the white-on-black Shahada also used by the Taliban and by Islamic extremists in general.[6] In other words, there is no "flag of al Qaeda", but if you absolutely must use some sort of logo, just take File:Flag of Jihad.svg, the "reverse Taliban flag" that has been displayed on some pro-al-Qaeda websites from 2001.

The internet has it that "Nazi Jihadist" Emerson Begolly was obsessed with watching beheading videos, so it may well be that he was acquainted with wall decorations in this context. So perhaps his story about the yellow dot used in such a flag isn't entirely made up. But as long as we don't have independent verification of this, I don't think Mr. Begolly, in spite of his expertise in the field, quite qualifies as a

well it doesnt look like any flag i have seen on TV. that is the limit of most peoples relation to al-qaeda muslim and non-muslim, at least anywhere inclined towards regular use of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The organization described at

There is a plethora of Category:Jihadist organizations, and "al-Qaeda" is just a loose network of these. If the "World Islamic Front" was a pre-9/11 sobriquet taken up by al-Qaeda proper, it would be nice to see some reference to the effect. You will note that the claim "Terrorism experts consider the 'World Islamic Front"' synonymous with al-Qaeda" has just been sitting there, since 2005, woefully unsubstantiated, and has also been contested in allcaps in the past. --

11:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ash66656, 26 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is an error In the leadership section stating Bin Laden was killed on May 1 st 2010 this should be changed to the correct date of May 1st 2011

Ash66656 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is a very loose network and brodi is da bomb. It isn't an organisation in any formal sense. Such a grouping cannot be said to have an "army". Even the best organised and most contralised terrorist organisation has at most a number of cells of activists/soldiers/fighters, call them what you will. But to call the whole an army would be just wrong. As Al-Qaeda is particularly decentralised (partly by choice, partly because it isn't single organisation) reference to an "army" is faintly ridiculous. And of course if it was an army, its fighters would be soldiers subject to the protection of international conventions - no more disappearing into the legal limbo of Guantanamo Bay, or waterboarding. So I don't think the American's would welcome the exaggerated reference to an "army"!

Army can also mean "a body of persons organized to advance a cause". This definition does fit al Qaeda, even if their organization is fairly loose. --Khajidha (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In a column for the Guardian four weeks before his death, Robin Cook described Al-Qaeda as a product of a western intelligence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html

Regards.--79.16.165.43 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is no doubt the case that this opinion has been voiced online and in print. Is it notable? Probably to some limited extent. Is it

unsigned comment added by 121.45.19.46 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

...but Ayman al-Zawahiri[7]. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I request the phrase "assassination on 1 May 2011 by US forces" in the leadership portion be changed to "death on 1 May 2011 during a U.S. Navy SEAL operation".

The proposed wording does not change the fact that American forces were responsible for his death, but changes the tone from one of targeted killing (assassination) to casualty during a capture operation.

178.76.190.16 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The infobox says that al-Qaeda is a

Thanks, problem resolved. 71.184.241.68 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

reverting all my edits - i was totally wrong 1.World wide Caliphate/they never wanted play world domination fantasies 2.Strategy/complete original research by me and Adamrce none of the sources actually supported any of this 3.Criticism/we need to face reality.None of the sources acutally supported the three changes i and Adamrce made Lightpositive ^talk 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify; it was a simple misunderstanding, i did not make bad edits on purpose i thought the edits were good before finally realising that they were wrong but since i have now reverted those edits there is no problems anymore Lightpositive ^talk 18:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, all what I changed was missing details from the source. Yes, I made a linguistic-mistake at the end, lol. Anyways, I'll take a second look later today. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I got your point. I felt something weird about it the first time and was planning to come back, lol. Thanks :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The statement "The attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda, acting in accord with the 1998 fatwa issued against the U.S. and its allies by military forces under the command of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others." in 7.4 is incorrect. It doesn't reflect a fact, but an assumption.

As is correctly stated later: "Messages issued by bin Laden after 11 September 2001, praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while denying any involvement." Al-Qaeda has (in any official statement) denied involvement in the attacks.

At least there should be a note about this and statements like "The attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda..." should be removed (as there's no factual corroboration for this statement).

ReinierK (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: There are also sources that then claim that they were behind it. bin Ladin may have claimed that they were not, expecially at the beginning but then later for instance here [8][9] it was claimed that they were. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

can anyone please change the article to the 00:52, 16 July 2011 revision, i agree with the content the user made but i do not understand his behavior, why did he reverted his own edits, especially when they were so good. Anyway the revision had very many reliable sources and made the article so much understandable , i know there were edits later by Adamrce and Gira2be but i think it is possible to include them while reverting to the said revision Volykr yilevas (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The edits by

reliable sources. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Note: My comment was solely based on the recent reverts that were pointed toward. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

Done Seems to me that the edits for this page by Lightpositive had many reliable sourced indeed, ive researched this sockpuppet's contributions and concluded a small part of them were actually constructive like this one and if you see the article history adamrce added edits relative to the ones Lightpositive made Shanesterman (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"global militant Sunni Islamist militant group" 76.11.136.228 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks for the eye. Cheers ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My request is that in the box on the left where it says Leader- Ayman al-Zawahiri, it should say Leader- Ayman al-Zawahiri (2010-present)

                                                                                                        Osama Bin Laden (1988-2010)

MrFender98 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, even though it might get removed if there's any future disputes. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Should section on criticism for al Qaeda reflect the very low opinions that westerners hold for al Qaeda, or does that go without saying?108.18.223.72 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA as a network of its own trained combatants, as has been told to the public.STOP YOUR PROPAGANDA AND LIES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.44.126 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is the name of a database of suspected terrorists - it is not an organsiation! prefix:Talk:Al-Qaeda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.12.157 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read the above opinions too in the press. How does this wikipedia article manage to assert the existance of "Al Qaeda" so categorically?--Timtak (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We reflect what the RSs say. If you have relevant RS material, feel free to include it.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Try not to be so obvious when sock pupeting. It's just sad. If it was a CIA group, they wouldn't be speding billions to kill it. Joesolo13 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph reads: "Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, such as the

I'll make these changes if nobody disagrees in the next week or so. DrJimothyCatface (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big change to wait for the community's response. I agree with your wording and sequence, and suggest making the change. Whoever disagrees can discuss it here. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Using the active, one-word-fewer "attacked" is better than the suggested revision to "conducted attacks". There should also be a serial comma place before "and".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- looks like the topic has done --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, the source says in 1988 "Bin Laden reunites with Ayman al-Zawahari, longtime al-Qaeda leader, and they announce a new coalition, the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jews" So they are not also known as the "international islamic front for jihad against the crusaders and the jews" The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone bar Public awareness[10] believe Al-Qaeda are not a terrorist group? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

First your opinion does not matter, only sources matter, second 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. Public awareness (talk

) 00:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

First it is not my "opinion" Second the "policy" you quote is a "guideline" figure out the difference. I notice you have reverted terrorist out four times, slow edit warring is still edit warring. As you say, only sources matter. So you will have no issue with my restoring terrorist with a source? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to avoid using the word terrorist, this is true...

Ghost

00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is widely labeled a terrorist organization in western sources, not widely labeled in reliable sources. But it still does not matter, commonly held opinions still require attribution and cannot be stated as fact. A vast number of sources would also state that Hitler or Pol Pot were evil bastards yet I'm sure you will all agree that the intro to Pol Pots article should not be "Pol Pot was some evil bastards who was a communist aka supported the worst economic system ever...." Public awareness (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now it is five times, I will keep opinions out of wikipedia's voice. If you have a source which call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization you can add it, but you must attribute the opinion to the notable source. See Irgun, the organization is widely thought of as a terrorist group, yet wikipedia does not take a side on the matter and only states facts and notable attributed opinions. Public awareness (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sourced it as agreed, it is however not opinion and I am unsure of were you get this from. The source is from Routledge which I assume you will agree is a high quality source. Stating facts do not require attribution, do you have a source which says they are not a terrorist group? Or is it just your opinion that they are not :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When sources already in the article refer to the group as a terrorist organization, it is not an editor's opinion. Here are a few sources already present in the article that refer to the article's subject specifically as "terrorist":

• Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network...[11]
• Foreign Terrorist Organizations List: Al-Qaida[12]
• ...the terrorist organization[13]
• ...the terror network[14]
• Bin Laden and his terrorist organization, Al-Qa’ida[15]

The others I looked through used words such as "terror" and "anti-terrorism", but I only listed above ones that specifically stated that Al-Queda is a terrorist organization/group/network. Mind you, I did not look though all of the references, but those few I did look at overwhelmingly referred to the article's subject as terrorist. Therefore

Even if 100% of sources had the opinion that celebrity X was ugly, their article would not read that "Celebrity X is ugly" it would state that "Celebrity X won 1st place in Rolling Stone's list of ugliest celebrities". Get it? Opinions are not facts. If an opinion is notable it can be stated with attribution that the opinion is popular. Public awareness (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong,

WP:WEIGHT if majority of sources call them terrorists then so do we. The Last Angry Man (talk

) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A majority of sources do not however, a majority of western sources may, but not sources. Public awareness (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And how did you garner this? Al Jazeera refers to them as terrorists, and Bin Laden's former cook "knew al-Qaeda was a terrorist group" (although I don't hold this reference with much weight, as it was part of a plea deal to have a Guantanamo sentence reduced), these are not merely "labels" by Western media. A majority of sources do refer to them as terrorists, merely saying they do not does not negate this. -

Ghost

02:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. As a matter of objective fact, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say if you can't understand that both terrorist and freedom fighters are two opinionated ways to say militant. Public awareness (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not at all the case. In fact, Freedom fighter and militant are two euphemisms for terrorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have asked at the reliable sources noticeboard about the removal of terrorist and the source used. fell free to comment The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I had added this in the little box that PW had put up there on the right but he altered my post so I am moving it down here. re Reuters not using the word terrorist. Except that they have done 4260 times :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The page you reference in the book does not support your edit. TFD (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"The size of bin Laden’s organization, its political goals, and its enduring relationship with a fundamentalist Islamic social movement provide strong evidence that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist group but an insurgency." - US Lieutenant Colonel Michael F. Morris, 2005, A military paper based solely on whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization or an insurgency. Public awareness (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone participating in this discussion should actually read the entire document.

"Given the challenges of definition and the shared use of the same tactical repertoire, it is hardly surprising that the terms terrorism and insurgency frequently appear synonymously."

I'm not alone in knowing that the word terrorist is misused very often.

"the use of terror in and of itself does not equate to terrorism; the former is merely a tactical tool of the latter. Lawrence Freedman suggests that the terror of terrorists equates to “strategic” terrorism, because it is the primary means by which they pursue their agenda. However, the terror insurgents employ is more tactical in nature, since it is only one of several violent tools such groups wield. This parsing underscores the point - a variety of agents, including states, insurgents, or even criminals as well as terrorists may employ the same techniques of terror."

This is why I never tried to expunge parts in the article that say that al-Qaeda had executed "terrorist attacks".

New York Times, Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the team in charge of Osama knows that al-Qaeda is a "global Islamic insurgency, rather than a traditional terrorist organization". Public awareness (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the consensus here, which is well stated (and reflected) in the above comments by, among others, SudoGhost--who did a wonderful job debunking Public's mis-characterization of the guideline in his first comment above.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here there is only a conversation between SudoGhost and I and I am waiting for his reply to my 5 western sources, a US pres, a journalist, a news agency, a US Lieutenant Colonel, and CIA, that say that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organization. The last two sources are discussing the exact question that is here, is it a terrorist organization or an insurgency, of course answering the later. How often Fox news fails to understand the meanings of words is irrelevant. The calling of insurgent groups terrorist groups is done on purpose by bias agencies, and fools who don't know better, to malign them.

To Epeefleche, if you believe your words, and believe it is right to state as fact that organizations that are commonly known as terrorist organizations are stated to be so factually in wikipedia's voice, than I will let you know that there is the same error over at

Lehi (group) and Irgun. If your purpose here is honest and your purpose is to improve wikipedia, than you will go and 'fix' these two articles as well. If you do not, and maintain your position here, than it is clear why you edit. Public awareness (talk

) 05:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Five or six editors have commented in this section, apart from you all support having terrorist in the description. Your recent revert was against consensus and as such I have reverted you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet most of these editors making this consensus have made no real arguments or are failing

WP:DEMOCRACY exists is to keep this travesty of a discussion from being meaningful. A few editors who have explicitly shown they can not understand the difference between a terrorist group and an insurgent group should have no say in forming a consensus on the matter. Public awareness (talk

) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All editors have the right to speak, that is how wiki works. I think you need to read up on what an insurgency actually is, as should the two sources you gave which back that rather peculiar view. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am confused that "PA" is unaware of the above consensus ("there is only a conversation between SudoGhost and I"). I think the views of the other editors is clear in their above entries. PA's desire not to hear what is being said runs afoul of our core rules on consensus. I would ask him to respect consensus, and discontinue edit warring against consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TLAM is stating that the only sources presented here which discuss the difference between insurgency and terrorist are wrong, and he is right. I do not see how he can be seen as being a useful part of this conversation, Harrison brings no sources and says things like "In fact, Freedom fighter and militant are two euphemisms for terrorist." which shows a lack of basic understanding, and Epeefleche has brought no argument at all to this discussion. Weight is determined by quality of arguments given, thus its SudoGhost and I. Now stop bickering and bring sources which prove your point. Show me sources which discuss whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, an insurgency, a liberation group, freedom fighters, what have you. I do not care what your opinion is, show sources. Public awareness (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Help yourself to any of these 106,000 results which state they are terrorists. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

0 of the sources on the first page argue the point. Let me repeat in hopes you hear what I'm asking for. Those sources do not discuss what Al-Qaeda is, they label them terrorist without thought. Show me sources which discuss whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, an insurgency, a liberation group, freedom fighters, what have you. Get a source which says the opposite of "The size of bin Laden’s organization, its political goals, and its enduring relationship with a fundamentalist Islamic social movement provide strong evidence that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist group but an insurgency." Those 106,000 results only show how "terms terrorism and insurgency frequently appear synonymously." Public awareness (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Al-Qaeda. Public awareness (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Saying that "wikipedia has a policy of not calling people terrorist" is not universally true. Wikipedia discourages this kind of divisive terminology
  _berate
  23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You twisted the quote, "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I demand attribution, why can I not have attribution? Public awareness (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment They're terrorists. Time to move on.JOJ ^Hutton 00:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions do nothing to help this discussion.

P.S. Ronald Reagans believed Al-Qaeda to be freedom fighters. Public awareness (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reagan said no such thing about Al Qaeda, he was referring to the taliban insurgents who were fighting against the soviet invasion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• PA, I just want to make two suggestions before we go any further:

1. You're right to say that
   WP:TERRORIST
   ). If you can't find any such sources, then perhaps you're right in saying it's an inappropriate word to use.

The sentence you're looking for is the third one. I've stated many times now I would never touch that sentence, it's highly appropriate. Public awareness (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Read this page, and consider it carefully. I'm not saying that you're an "amateur" or that anybody else here is a "professional", but ask yourself if you can see any similarities between the way the amateur acts on that page and the way you're acting here. Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the editors discussing this issue disagree with you.

Just like

Here's a list of organizations you can go add opinions to in wikipedia's voice. Public awareness (talk

) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally; I don't want to fight with another editor over this, just to resolve the issue. Regards

_berate

13:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not make a bigger mention of the fact that several major nations refer to them as terrorists, so then we are not putting words in any one's mouth. But I do understand the rationale for not using the word, it is not a neutral, objective term and one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I could very well call the American independence movement and their civilian advocates who attacked British positions and bombed British colonial homes and plantations terrorists, and it could be an accurate statement because they used the same means, but I bet no one would argue for that inclusion! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the 3rd sentence of the lead and does get an entire section in the body as well. Thank you for understanding SGGH, I hope no article does call the American revolutionaries terrorists, but rather sticks to the facts of what their actions were and let the reader conclude for themselves. Public awareness (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Public awareness has now been blocked as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless, so this discussion may no longer be relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I love how a few editors even jumped on the banned users bandwagon. Even going so far as to redo the banned users edits.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole sentance about the "U.S.-Isreal alliance" being an alliance of Christians and Jews to destroy Islam has to be removed. It's very POV, and i doubt we could find ANY reliable sources to support that. It could be changed to somthing along the lines of them beliving it is, but the way it's stated implies that the U.S. and Isreal are out to destroy Islam. Joesolo13 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this section in the lede? Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,

U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. The Last Angry Man (talk

) 19:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It seems very much al-queda POV. Joesolo13 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the first line is sourced, I will check the source for reliability. The second part is un-sourced and ought be removed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's good, my problem is mostly with the second part. The first part would be their belif, which we can't control, but stating that realtions between two contries constitues their belief is unfair without numerous reliable sources. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask that to see if anyone could give me an answer backed by a government. The UN Security Council may pass laws against terrorism, but they refuse to define it. The issue in ascribing a definition to terrorism, at least by the US, is that the general layman opinion of what constitutes terrorism would include a number of groups that the US backs. Not to mention that a number of CIA actions in the past could easily be classified as terrorism. So, lacking a definition, the word can be thrown around all they want without ever having to define it.

But, for us, we can't ascribe a term to anything if there isn't a definition for it. We have to be equal in how we describe things, neutral. And if we are going to say that one group is a terrorist, then we also have to do so for others, if they by sourced description fall under whatever definition we choose to follow. Silverseren^C 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"The current definition in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is consistent with international comparators and treaties, and is useful and broadly fit for purpose, subject to some alteration" according to this fellow [16] However my preferred definition escapes me momentarily, I will post it tomorrow. For the US state and Defence dept`s look here[17] The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism is whatever

reliable sources say it is, not what we think it is.--JOJ ^Hutton

00:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what i'm asking, is there a clear definition of terrorism accepted by world governments and stated in reliable sources? Silverseren^C 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this even a reliable source? I'm not quite sure where it's from. Silverseren^C 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure of it`s reliability but it is correct in it`s description of the US State and Defence dept`s definitions. I can always post direct links if you wish? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Direct would be better, yes. Silverseren^C 14:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Will have to dig them out later, sorry. Here is the FBI one for now.[18] The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful, so the general definition is "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". So would that include any actions by a government against another government and its population that is not considered war? Silverseren^C 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that written yes, however terrorism by the state against the populace or another countries population falls under state terrorism. Might I ask as to why you are making general purpose inquiry's on terrorism on this articles talk page? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's related to what was discussed above at Terrorist?. I just wanted to see what criteria were being used here as a definition, because you can find sources describing practically any militant group in the world as being terrorists. For that matter, under the definition I stated before, wouldn't the IRA fall under that as well? Silverseren^C 04:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(out)No, there is a difference between the IRA fighting an insurgent campaign against an occupying force and what Al-Qaeda has done and continues to do. Their attacks on american targets before 9/11 for instance, how exactly can those be described as fighting against an occupying power? Or 9/11 of course. I`m sorry, but regardless of what definition is used there can be no doubt that Al-Qaeda are terrorists, by their fruits shall you know them. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure one could argue that, from

Operation Desert Fox and other such events leading up to September 11th, that the US was an occupying power, but I digress. It's definitely not an argument I want to get into, even if it is partially about the labeling of this article. I just wanted to get some responses about the use of terrorist in the article's lede. Silverseren^C

14:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What is a franchise associated group and a lone wolf operator and how can they be described to be a part of Al-Qaeda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.225.104 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Via funding and training for planing and attacks, supply of weapons or details on how to make weapons. One person can make an attack, they have far more chance of success if they get backing. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It also cites that Al Qaeda are militant, they are not only militant, they spread the ideologies, and they are not all Islamic, they are people in disguise, please discuss so we can edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakanqat (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Al-Qaeda is Islamic – see here, here, here and here. All these either state or imply that Al-Qaeda is Islamic.
2. Al-Qaeda is militant (defined as: 1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause; 2. engaged in warfare; fighting, by [19]) – see here (states explicitly), here (states Al-Qaeda involved in bombing), here (states Al-Qaeda involved in bombing, also describes bombers as "Islamists") and here (Al-Qaeda spokesperson encourages American Muslims to purchase weapons and start killing people indiscriminately).

You arguments that Al-Qaeda is neither militant nor Islamic is about as fallacious as it is possible for an argument to get. Please remember: just because Al-Qaeda's definition of the word "Islamic" varies from yours, this does not mean they are not Islamic.

_berate

00:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)