Talk:Al-Qaeda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Qaeda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments, or look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing. New topics for discussion are always welcome.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Al-Qaeda. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Al-Qaeda at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Terrorism (Rated B-Class) TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject September 11, 2001 (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) September 11, 2001Wikipedia:WikiProject September 11, 2001Template:WikiProject September 11, 2001September 11, 2001 articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject September 11, 2001; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Islam (Rated B-Class, Low-importance) IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Islam portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Politics (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject PoliticsPolitics articles Politics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Organizations   OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject OrganizationsOrganizations articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 11, 2009.

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. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here.

Contents 1 There is no evidence 2 reference? 3 London 7/7 = 4 Fort Hood shootings 5 American Operations? 6 Measure of legitimacy. 7 Way to Somalia and Yemen section 8 Al-Qaida 9 Compliments 10 Alleged CIA involvement

[edit] There is no evidence

There is no evidence whatsoever that the supposed group 'Al-Qaeda' had anything to do with 9/11, and as such, the reference "the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. " is very much at best speculation. This should be amended or is wikipedia just another source of propoganda, as opposed to an informative logical deliberated encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.211.119 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] reference?

why there are no reference at all for the 2nd paragraph?

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. These actions were followed by the US government launching the War on Terrorism. Between three thousand and four thousand members of the network have been captured, and many thousands more killed on the front in Afghanistan.

I know its obvious that nearly everyone knows that, beside conspiracy theorist, but still, shouldn't there by any reference over there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think it should be replaced with something more ambiguous until a reference can be found. The page Operation Enduring Freedom has no numbers of captured prisoners. It has been my impression that the amount of evidence the americans needing to assume that a person was a member of "al-qaeda" was very low at the time of the invasion. 06:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3M3RY (talk • contribs)

It is unbelievable that this papragraph remains unreferenced, for two glaringly obvious reasons: 1. It makes a precise statistical claim, which of course requires a precise reference to the peer-reviewed research which established the statistics, and 2. There clearly exists no such research - how are dead al-Qaeda members to be identified? Do they carry ID cards. Extremely poor Wiki editing on this page. BenW --87.115.27.99 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to make the same point as BenW, but I have too little knowledge of Al-Qaeda to find reliable sources or to rewrite the paragraph. Something must be done though! Podex (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] London 7/7 =

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

[edit] Fort Hood shootings

Given that the alleged shooter was guided by Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been called an AQ recuiter, and he both endorsed the shooting, provided spiritual guidance to "follow islam" and informed his followers to kill US soldiers, shouldn't there be some mention here?

The WP page: He is currently associated with Iman University in Yemen. The university's students have allegedly been linked to assassinations, and it is headed by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, who appears on US and UN lists as being associated with terrorism and al Quaeda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs)

No, that is what Wikipedia calls original synthesis. You are putting several individual facts together to imply there is some sort of al-Qaeda link to the Fort Hood shooting that has not, and may never be, true or proven. I have removed it, and consensus needs to be to include it, rather than to exclude it. Grsz¹¹ 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell no! "[T]he shooter was guided by Anwar al-Awlaki"? ^{[citation needed]} You'll need a very reliable source that says exactly that. First, the al-Awlaki -to- al-Qaeda is tenuous at best. There is no real evidence that they are formally associated. The stretch is huge. And even the suggestion is a synthesis violation that clearly runs afoul of BLP. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the portion about the interview. First, it strays too far away from any alleged al-Qaeda link and is better suited elsewhere. Even still, the quotes used were dubious and deceptive at worst. Grsz¹¹ 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if it's true that al-Awlaki didn't order or suggest the shootings to Hasan, as he says in the interview, but merely applauds the act after the fact, that would discredit those tin-hats who claim al Qaeda was behind it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The quote about endorsing because it was against the military seemed to imply that he endorsed it while discussing with Hasan, which is false. Grsz¹¹ 04:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] American Operations?

Right now it seems to me that almost this entire section should be removed, or at least be renamed. The whole section on "American operations" deals with al-Awlaki's tenuous link to Al Qaeda, and half of that doesn't even talk about his time in America, which I think would be a prerequisite for inclusion in an "American operations" section. The real and verified Al Qaeda "American operations" are already covered in the "Attacks" section. Anyway, most of the section seems to be a bunch of insinuation about al-Awlaki (a living person and subject to WP:BLP)); can't we dispense with the insinuation and limit this article to actual verified members of Al Qaeda? Or at least move this material to sections on suspected Al Qaeda recruiters or spiritual motivators or something, which presumably would list a lot more people than al-Awlaki. Ketone16 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Measure of legitimacy.

I think the latter part of "Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense," is a ludicrous statement. This text cited as a source speaks only of protection, not of any services provided. See http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/113202.pdf The article taliban also implies that the words taliban, Ministry of Defense, and legitimacy are incongruous. 3M3RY (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Way to Somalia and Yemen section

The whole section is taken word for word from the Pravda article, cited at the end of the section. Despite the citation, the extended verbatim use is not acknowledged. Also, though the Washington Times is mentioned, no reference is given in either the Wikipedia article or the Pravda source. —Peregrinmac (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Qaida

Why isnt there any mention about the fact that the whole "organisation" and its name was dreamed up by the Americans post 9/11, in fact there is no mention of organisation called "Al-Qaida" before that event, anywhere. Actually the thing now only has a name, but there still is no "organisation". Its all make believe, not real. 91.156.204.243 (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Compliments

The article is a solid, unbiased account of the group's presence in the world. All of the liberals and conspiracy theorists may just want to finally come to their senses and admit that some angry muslims crashed a couple of planes into the World Trade Center on the orders of bin Laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.63.137 (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is not if "some angry muslims crashed a couple of planes" or not. The issue is details on those that didn't. 3M3RY (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged CIA involvement

"A variety of sources—CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such as Vincent Cannistraro—deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the foreign mujahideen or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them."

There is well known, easily accessible photographic evidence of Zbigniew Brzeziński meeting with Osama bin Laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaferon (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC) he realy liked cheese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.183.71 (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) wayne rooneys friend ownes a house and he weres shose in his garden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.183.71 (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)