| Revision as of 07:10, 23 October 2006 editThe Ungovernable Force (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,877 edits →Terrorist?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:03, 25 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,063 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 11) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Low|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low|Islam-and-Controversy=y|Salaf=y|Sunni=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|African=y|Middle-Eastern=y|Post-Cold-War=y|South-Asian=y|US=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|911=yes|911-importance=top|USMIL=y|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2009-08-11|oldid1=307414527}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Talk:al-Qaeda|noerror}} |
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism}} |
|
|
|
{{tmbox | text = Misplaced Pages has ]. 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 ], not here.}} |
|
|
{{tmbox | text = Editing note: the definite article "al-" is always lowercase, unless beginning a sentence. Article titles are in ] according to ] and the ].}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 report|Aug 15 2021}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5" |
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
| align=center|'''Archives'''<br>] |
|
|
|
<!-- See Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archiving --> |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| |
|
|
|
| algo=old(154d) |
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
| archive=Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter=11 |
|
|} |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize=75K |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2023 == |
|
==Pro Al-Qaeda Web sites== |
|
|
Recent news reports have been claiming that the Internet is full of Web sites in support of Al Qaeda. For example, Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times claims (8/24/6): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Al-Qaeda|answered=y}} |
|
:Disillusioned Muslim youngsters are increasingly attached to the global Muslim community via the Internet -- and are angry at what they consider the anti-Muslim policies of the local government where they live. The estimated 5,000 pro-al Qaeda Web sites include recipes for mixing nail polish remover and hair bleach and detonating the explosive cocktail with the flash unit from a throwaway camera. |
|
|
|
Change flag to the original and real one ] (]) 00:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> |
|
I find myself very skeptical of these claims. For example, typing "nail polish", "hair bleach" and "camera" as search terms in Google gets 1240 results, of which the vast majority appear not to be radical Muslim sites. I have seen too many reports of infringements on the free speech of ordinary American polemicists to believe that Al Qaeda enjoys free reign in Western countries or anywhere else. But then again... that search wouldn't bring up pages in Arabic. What's the truth here?] 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to specify which is the "original and real" flag, and provide reliable sources to support that change. ] (]) 02:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== al-Qaeda capitalization == |
|
:: NB You CAN mix acitone and a Base to make an explosive, but you need MUCH higher concentrations than are avalable to the genral public. You also need lab with cooling equipment and a blast proof vacume cabenet (so not you average school stuff) to get anything near a good reactant leval, and even if you did no sain person would do this by had because it is still very volitial, and you risk killing yourself. This is just scair mongering which all seems to come from one "security expert" on ITV news saying "it might be some sort of new bomb, like a liquid explosive, which we cannot detect" in relation to questions as to why airports were closed after a bomb threat when there is suposed to be bomb detecting equipment in the airports. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should Al-Qaeda be capitalized? |
|
There is no such thing as a "binary bomb" where you mix two substances and they blow up. Houshold or otherwise. ] 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I believe it normally isn't. ] (]) 06:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:In my opinion, it should only when it is the first letter of a sentence or the first word of a title. (For titles, it would be like how “the” is only capitalised if it is the first word.) |
|
There *are* such things as binary explosives; these are explosive compounds which are highly unstable in their final form but (relatively) safe when separated into two precursor compounds. Thus, the safe way to handle them is to keep them separate until the last possible moment; they aren't mixed together to form the actual explosive until just before detonation. --] 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:In other words, I personally would capitalise the “Al-Qaeda in the title of this article. ] (]) 01:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agree. And the criterion is not Arabic rules of grammar, but how English sources spell it. Also, while many source use a hyphen, it seems to be a minority usage and we might consider changing it. ] (]) 04:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::I just did a search inside Google Chrome, because that gave me counts of matches. "Al-Qaeda" reported 33.8 million matches. "Al Qaeda" reported only 29.4 million. However, "case:yes Al-Qaeda" reported only 3.83 million, while "case: yes Al Qaeda" reported 4.18 million. In sum, "Al-Qaeda" is preferred over "Al Qaeda" UNLESS I restricted the search using "case:yes", which flipped the preference. |
|
== growth or reduction of Al Qaeda? == |
|
|
|
:::AND using "case:yes" showed NO differences between "al-Qaeda" and "Al-Qaeda", etc. |
|
|
:::My tentative conclusion: |
|
|
:::# Leave the title as is. |
|
|
:::# Change "Al-Qaeda" to "al-Qaeda" everywhere in this article except when it begins a sentence or appears in the title of something cited. |
|
|
:::I will make those changes now. Currently, the article is inconsistent. I will make it consistent per this rule. |
|
|
:::Someone else can do something different, if they wish ;-) |
|
|
:::Thanks to all who have brought this article to its current status. ] (]) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2024 == |
|
According to the recent White House report, Al Qaeda has been "signifcantly degraded" but the opposition Democrats are claiming something like more than a doubling in it's size since its dispersion from Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|answered=y}} |
|
Which is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is a typo in the section titled "War on terror". Specifically, please change the text "The West was criticized for not being able to handle '''s'''l-Qaeda despite a decade of the war" to "The West was criticized for not being able to handle '''a'''l-Qaeda despite a decade of the war" ] (]) 04:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
A section on the grown or shrinkage of Al Queda might be helpful. |
|
|
|
:{{done}} ] (]) 04:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== “Sunni Shia Alliance” in the Ideology section == |
|
--] 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of the sources, although quite valid, aren’t concrete and self declared ideological positions that AQ actually aligns with. Perhaps could it be altered to make it clear that it is an alleged ideology or just removed entirely? ] (]) 06:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Al Qaeda doesn't exist! == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== WTC bombing 1993 == |
|
Watch these two videos. There is no organisation called Al Qaeda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Misplaced Pages article about the 1993 bombing of the WTC it is attributed to Al Qaeda. However, in this article about Al Qaeda this is not even mentioned. Actually I cannot remember that the bombings were ever attributed to Al Qaeda. So what is correct? ] (]) 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFC8AlCVjE&mode=related&search= |
|
|
|
|
|
Both from a very good programme on the BBC. |
|
|
|
|
|
Essentally in pursuing this thing called 'Al Qaeda' the US is chasing shadows, a non-existent phantom enemy. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would have put this on the main page but it would be deleted.] 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Um ok. I think that is whats called a conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
A conspiracy theory used to be about someone conspiring to do evil but now it is a convenient way of argumentum ad homenum (sorry if wrong spelling) which is latin for attacking the speaker not the argument. In other words, if any evidence or questions come up that go against the flow, call it a conspiracy theory to discredit the person delivering the message. So if there is no evidence they exist except for many false arrests in US, UK, Oz and Canada these last few years lets dismiss it and tell that person they are a conspiracy theorist. The real conspiracy theory would be that Al Qaeda does exist LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
In response to the BBC's assertion that Al Quida was a term cooked up by the USA and then later adopted by the group, I would like to see a comment about possible uses of "Al Quida" by detainees before 9/11, specifically by Khalid Sheik Mohammed during his detention *where he was allegedly waterboarded. There seems to be some evidence that he used the term, though his testimony, considering the torture and lack of transparency, is questionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda really exists.] 13:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: sure there is loads of evidence that al Qaeda exists, though not necessarily in the form proposed by George Bush. See for instance one of these books: |
|
|
|
|
|
*Gilles Kepel: Jihad . the trail of political islam |
|
|
* Jason Burke: Al Qaeda casting a shadow of terror |
|
|
* Faisal Devji: landscapes of the Jihad |
|
|
|
|
|
::--] 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== General comment on terrorism == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is all too convenient. Making us scared of an invisible enemy, we dont know where they are, we dont know when they will strike, we must remove your liberties, lock you up without evidence for your liberty and security. what a load of bollocks. {{unsigned|129.94.6.30}} |
|
|
|
|
|
-------- |
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to add one comment. The notion that Al Qaeda is somehow a Sunni organization is a factual mis-statement. It is a loose network of Islamic radicals with similar goals. A more accurate reference would be to ]. A review of the major known participants and 9-11 Hijackers shows a number of individuals who are not Sunni associated with Al Qaeda. Labeling this organization as Sunni is erroneous and does a great injustice to Sunni Muslims. {{unsigned|209.242.136.2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not sure I understand. When you say they are "not Sunni", do you mean to say they are ] or some other denomination of Islam? Or do you mean they are not ''true'' Sunnis, or something along those lines? —] 23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Semi-Protection== |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that there has been a lot of vandalism recently by unregistered users; does anyone think semi-protection is in order? ] 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would second that. —] 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Frankly I was surprised to find taht there wasn't any here already. ] 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==more attack participants== |
|
|
|
|
|
right now, the list only contains the names of those who participated in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks. surely we know the names of those who attacked the u.s.s. cole, the african embassies, etc. ] 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
- And, surely we have some shred of empirical evidence linking those people with a structured organization calling itself "Al Qaeda"? Surely we do? Don't we? ] 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Giant section headings == |
|
|
|
|
|
We need to shorten them. They currently look ridiculous. Any suggestions?-]<sup>]</sup> 11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Etymology section == |
|
|
|
|
|
The second paragraph of the etymology section should be removed since the only cited source for it's information is Globalresearch.ca, an ideologically and politically biased website that promotes bizarre conspiracy theories involving the supposed New World Order and such. It also features articles penned by people who've written for a neo-Nazi newsletter. {{unsigned|The Professor28}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you know which neo-Nazi newsletter?—] 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== American Focus == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we please remove these lines (or at least stick them in a revised form later in the document) they lend a very non-POV air to the piece. "Al-Qaeda has been linked to multiple acts of terrorism against U.S. interests and is known for planning and executing the September 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and The Pentagon. In response, the United States launched a war against Afghanistan, whose government was providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda members." When I began reading i got the impression this was more like a bio-article by the washington post on al-Qaeda rather than an encyclopeadiea article. Put the stated events in a section called actions or something. Thanks - --] 13:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Terrorist? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Read this page on words to avoid : |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Either we should review the policy, or review this article. It's still funny that the example is in contradiction with the first sentence of this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Excellent Point - I think we should conform to the Policy as it currently stands. |
|
|
::These guys are terrorists. Anyone who denies that may also be interested in sensory deprivation. ] 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::To begin with, I am not interested in sensory deprivation. The fact is that wikipedia's policy clearly states that the term terrorist should not be used as it is in this entry. |
|
|
::::Hey, don't knock sensory deprivation! Seriously though, it goes against neutrality unless they have self-identified as terrorists. Simple as that. And yes, I do think al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but I also think it's pov to say that here. ]] 07:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:You have openly confessed to being anti-American despite being American by birth. You have also insulted your President. That makes you, in my opinion, a traitor. ] 07:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yep, I'm a traitor. So what? ]] 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
You need to specify which is the "original and real" flag, and provide reliable sources to support that change. Xan747 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I think there is a typo in the section titled "War on terror". Specifically, please change the text "The West was criticized for not being able to handle sl-Qaeda despite a decade of the war" to "The West was criticized for not being able to handle al-Qaeda despite a decade of the war" 98.208.46.5 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Many of the sources, although quite valid, aren’t concrete and self declared ideological positions that AQ actually aligns with. Perhaps could it be altered to make it clear that it is an alleged ideology or just removed entirely? Guardafuuii (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
In the Misplaced Pages article about the 1993 bombing of the WTC it is attributed to Al Qaeda. However, in this article about Al Qaeda this is not even mentioned. Actually I cannot remember that the bombings were ever attributed to Al Qaeda. So what is correct? Tiki (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
Done