Talk:Al-Qaeda

Assertions about the size of Al Qaeda then, now?

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

I am concerned this is misleading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even Osama Bin Laden credits others

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

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

Terrorist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then I recommend you get a consensus to change it, I believe this was done to death recently [1] so good luck getting that changed. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Jon Boone (26 April 2011). "Top al-Qaida fighter killed in Afghanistan, Nato reveals". The Gardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/26/al-qaida-abdul-ghani-killed. 

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

• Mathew Cole (26 April 2011). "Top Al Qaeda Commander Killed In Afghanistan". ABCnews.com. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/top-al-qaeda-commander-killed-afghanistan/story?id=13459489#.T0MHM2Hzgoo. 

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

• Myra MacDonald (26 April 2011). "Al Qaeda leader killed in Kunar, Afghanistan’s “safe haven”". Reuters. http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2011/04/26/al-qaeda-leader-killed-in-kunar-afghanistans-safe-haven/. 

and that has a link to the original:

• ISAF Joint Command - Afghanistan (April 26, 2011). "ISAF Confirms Number 2 Insurgent Killed in Coalition Airstrike". http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-confirms-number-2-insurgent-killed-in-coalition-airstrike.html. 

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

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

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

• Morris, Michael F. (2005), Al-Qaeda as Insurgency, US Army War Collage, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA434874 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

outdated flag

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